Just got back from seeing Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon a second time.

I'd like to announce that it's official: wumpus has absolutely zero credibility. How someone can tune out the rest of that movie just to fixate on the fact that the actors are on wires is beyond me.

I think Steve singled out Zhang Ziyi's performance, but Michelle Yeoh was the real stand out for me. What a powerful and noble emotional anchor. It *almost* makes me want to go back and watch that wretched James Bond movie she was in.

Watching it this time, I also had Ron's comment in mind drawing a parallel to the musical sequences in Singing in the Rain. It really was amazing how the fight scenes were all the action movie analog to dance numbers: each one was choreographed and shot to further some sort of emotional subtext or dramatic conflict.

Anyway, it's all the richer seeing it a second time and I look forward to owning the DVD.

-Tom

"I'd like to announce that it's official: wumpus has absolutely zero credibility. How someone can tune out the rest of that movie just to fixate on the fact that the actors are on wires is beyond me."

That's a nice sentiment, but it isn't the thrust of my argument. It's the cheesy wire effects PLUS the cliched, sentimental storyline and plot that I really object to. This has been discussed ad nauseam times infinity to the googleplex power in the other threads, so go there if you want the minority report.

Again, not that there aren't things that CTHD did right. It's a good movie at its core...

... but not as good as CROUCHING PENCIL, HIDDEN STICKFIGURE! ;)

http://12.1.228.185/video/crouching_pencil_hidden_stickfigure.avi (1.4mb)

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Watching it this time, I also had Ron's comment in mind drawing a parallel to the musical sequences in Singing in the Rain."

Credit where credit is due: The dance/action sequence corollary was originally made by John Woo in some interview or article I read many years ago.

"Michelle Yeoh was the real stand out for me."

One of the things I liked best about Crouching Tiger was that her emotionally gravity seemed right for the character. In other films (Heroic Trio, Tai Chi Master, the mostly-bad Supercop 2), the fact that she always looks so damn sad and serious seems out of place in what is otherwise light fare. She's great in all of them, nonetheless.

I've never seen Stunt Woman, but supposedly it's a very sad, relatively autobiographical film in which she plays the titular fall gal. I would imagine that being such a badass would have its drawbacks in the HK cinema.

It's ironic that Chow Yun-Fat and Michelle Yeoh would have some crossover success with a Chinese film after having tried unsuccessfully to breakthrough in American films. Maybe Jet Li will take note and go back to what he does best.

(Does anyone know if it's true that Jet Li's voice is almost always dubbed? After hearing him speak in Romeo Must Die, it wouldn't surprise me.)

>>I think Steve singled out Zhang Ziyi's performance, but Michelle Yeoh was the real stand out for me. What a powerful and noble emotional anchor. It *almost* makes me want to go back and watch that wretched James Bond movie she was in.

Well, yeah... the look on her face throughout was heartbreaking. She was fantastic, and I really do with the Academy would have considered her or Ziyi in the supporting actress category. There really wasn't a true lead in the movie... probably Ziyi was the closest. It was a true ensemble piece.

"Anyway, it's all the richer seeing it a second time and I look forward to owning the DVD."

I was thinking that same thing tonight at work. My mind was wandering over the territory of the film; I'm just so taken with it. Those of you who have seen it, please see it a second time. It more than holds up, it reveals itself more. It left me breathless.

In thinking about the DVD I started thinking about extra material. The TITUS dvd--actually a great two disc set--has some wonderful extra material, including footage of the cast first assembling and doing early readthroughs. I'd love to see something similar with Crouching Tiger...to see them discussing and working out the fight choreography would be fascinating.

Amanpour

"It more than holds up, it reveals itself more."

The second time I saw it, it was on an Imax screen. The sound was unbelievable - the seats were shaking.

I was afraid the film wouldn't hold up to a second viewing but, like you, I found it even better. I was able to just enjoy the pacing, and not get antsy for the next fight scene.

And I wasn't thinking "This is a really long flashback" - something I was strangely aware of during my first viewing.

Minor spoilers ahead.

What was most strange, though, was that I was still very involved in the end, despite knowing the outcome. I remember reading an interview with some director (I can't remember who), and he was saying that one of the reasons Romeo and Juliet remains so powerful is that, despite knowing the ending, you still hope that she will wake up earlier every time you see/read it.

I felt like the ending of Crouching Tiger had the same effect - that sequence is edited beautifully. And Cho Yun-Fat's little speech killed me again. Oh, man.

>>And Cho Yun-Fat's little speech killed me again. Oh, man.

He had me at, "Urrrghhh."

"And I wasn't thinking "This is a really long flashback" - something I was strangely aware of during my first viewing."

Same thing here.

"What was most strange, though, was that I was still very involved in the end, despite knowing the outcome."

Agree here too. I was more on my toes for the ending this time. I think I was looking harder for a clearer sense of what the ending might mean. So many people asked me in the interim between my two viewings for an interpretation of what Jen's final action means, that I was on the edge of my seat watching it.

Amanpour

theres the foreshadowing in the movie that isnt evident til you know the story that especially makes every scene in the movie work well with 2nd viewing. it feels like a tragic romance ala Romeo and Juliet. Especially with the ending when you know whats going to happen, i was paying more attention to the words and music. . . it felt tragic (though some have interpreted the ending optimistically), but somehow uplifting in a weird way. . . i cant explain it. not many movies have this feeling at the end. . . at least for me.

also, theres the eastern feel thats foregin to most western movies. . . there a predestined feel to the lives of the characters, as if they know there outcome. . . and accepting it, even at the beginning of the movie.

etc

I've just seen CTHD for the first time yesterday, and I must say that Wumpus is, without a doubt, insane. The movie definitely deserved it's Academy nomination.

"I've just seen CTHD for the first time yesterday, and I must say that Wumpus is, without a doubt, insane."

Are you kidding me? I'm the last sane one left! Hell is other people, after all.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

>>Hell is other people, after all.

I heard Hell was for children. At least that's what Pat Benatar said.

wumpus, if you don't accept CTHD as MOTY, I'm going to rescind my nomination of CS as GOTY.

"wumpus, if you don't accept CTHD as MOTY, I'm going to rescind my nomination of CS as GOTY."

Well YCCOM was also VG, perhaps MOTY. As was RFAD according to TC although IHNSIY, MTMS. If we think of MOTY as similar to AA or the O, then it's hard to see a MOTY from TY that would be as good as a MOTY from LY IMHO, anyway. Just compare TTL's from LY and TY! BMIJHRLYMOFAP.

I'm sure some would say so, anyway.

Amanpour

"wumpus, if you don't accept CTHD as MOTY, I'm going to rescind my nomination of CS as GOTY."

It's definitely the foreign film of the year. But I enjoyed Traffic so much more. Did CTHD have white teenage girls having sex with black drug dealers? I think not.

"I'm sure some would say so, anyway."

Sometimes you're a little too precious for your own good. IMNSHO.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Did CTHD have white teenage girls having sex with black drug dealers? I think not."

You know, that was one of my big problems with Traffic. That scene was so racially manipulative - whether unintentionally or not, it was definitely edited to emphasize race. As if this girl couldn't sink any lower than to have sex with a black man!

Interesting aside: I was talking to friend of mine from Brazil, and she hated Traffic. When I asked her why, she said it was the most stupidly pro-America film she'd ever seen. Something to think about...

yeah Traffic is the overrated movie of y2k imo. . . all the loaded (imo inherently racist scenes) stereotypes of stupid rich white teenagers, the evil black ghetto, harmless rich white drug dealers, slanty eyed Mexicans. . . big deal. . . surprising this was the movie made by the guy who made Erin Bronkovich (nice feel-good movie).

what troubled me about Traffic was that it plays on the stereotypes. . . and makes them all appear as fact. . . what with all the grainy and diluted camera stock and "realistic" drug scenes . . . nothing plays better on America's xenophobia than this movie does.

almost as low as Spielberg bullying the public to cry in every scene of Saving Private Ryan (or ANY of his recent movies for that matter). . . though SPR is technically a great movie!

etc

TRAFFIC SPOILER

also the end of Traffic gives me chuckles, with Michael Douglas stepping down from the job, with the daughter in rehab and the family back together again. . . happy and adjusted.

Even MTV's Real World is more REAL then that!

the movie should have just stuck with the law enforcement perspective. . . i didn't give a rats ass about Douglas and Zeta-Jones, call me cold but there characters were DUMB.

etc

"Interesting aside: I was talking to friend of mine from Brazil, and she hated Traffic. When I asked her why, she said it was the most stupidly pro-America film she'd ever seen. Something to think about... "

That's okay, because Brazil is pretty damn stupid, too. It's all about the Sergio Mendes.

Maybe she's referring to the relationship we have with Mexico as documented in the movie. South Americans don't think too fondly of "El Norte" anyway, historically speaking.

"That scene was so racially manipulative - whether unintentionally or not, it was definitely edited to emphasize race. As if this girl couldn't sink any lower than to have sex with a black man!"

I think that's your american background talking. We notice race more than most do. Besides, it didn't matter what race the guy was, the important thing was that he had _drugs_, and she had her body. It was played for shock only in the sense that it's shocking to fuck for drugs, period.

"what troubled me about Traffic was that it plays on the stereotypes. . . and makes them all appear as fact. . . "

Yeah, but stereotypes exist for a reason. They are generally true. Are drugs more prevalent in poor areas? yes. Are black people more prevalent in poor areas? yes. So in that sense, they are facts-- statistically speaking. Besides, it's just a movie, not a documentary.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"wumpus, if you don't accept CTHD as MOTY, I'm going to rescind my nomination of CS as GOTY."

MOTY was absolutely, without a doubt, Requiem for a Dream. I saw both CTHD and that, and it's not even close.

"I think that's your american background talking."

Given that it was an American movie made for American audiences, approaching it from an American perspective seems perfectly reasonable. Expected, even.

"It's definitely the foreign film of the year."

I liked East, West better.

"MOTY was absolutely, without a doubt, Requiem for a Dream. I saw both CTHD and that, and it's not even close. "

I need to see that, since Tom waxes poetic about it as well.. my wife said it's still in theaters here. Guess I'll have to wait for the video release.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Given that it was an American movie made for American audiences, approaching it from an American perspective seems perfectly reasonable. Expected, even."

Regardless, the way Traffic handled that scene was far more subtle than.. say.. a Spike Lee movie. It wasn't really about race, just the reality of having no money and being a junkie. That's what happens.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

There was an article about Crouching Tiger in today's NYT (front page of Living Arts), the thrust of which was that while it's on track to be the most successful foreign language film ever (expected to top $100 million in gross revenues), it's doing poorly in Hong Kong. There are some funny quotes, including one guy who says "there's not enough action in it," and another who comments, "Seeing people run across roofs and trees might be novel for Americans, but we've seen it all before."

"Seeing people run across roofs and trees might be novel for Americans, but we've seen it all before."

Bah, it's another Blair Witch. Totally overhyped.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

p.s. Go buy a copy of Undying. I haven't had this much fun with a B-grade FPS since Requiem.

Yes, this is to be filed under the "Flogging a Dead Horse" header, but I had to revisit this thread.

A few months ago I was working in an area high school observing a couple English classes. I tend to take notes on just about everything that happens, and so when the teacher asked his students for their opinions of the various films that were in theatres, I wrote down what they said. The other day I had to dig out my observation sheets and I found the notes.

The teacher asked about CTHD. This was the response:

"That movie sucked...you had to read the lyrics for two hours...and people don't really fight like that, flying around."

So there you have it. We now know where Wumpus spends his days.

Oh, and here's a bonus quote that has nothing to do with movies. Somehow the discussion meandered over to prank phone calling (I think the teacher asked what the kids had done over the weekend, besides make prank phone calls):

"With Star 69 prank calling is like a lost art. You call somebody and they like call you back a second later."

Amanpour

Priceless, Amanpour. Simply priceless!

CTHD and Traffic were my two recent favourite films. The difference between the two is that I still think about CTHD even now and not Traffic.

Who cares about the subtitles ? I just wish I could speak Mandarin and understand all the subtle nuances of their speech that do not translate well in the English subtitles.

But I would never want to see this film dubbed - it would destroy it.

I finally saw CTHD tonight (day of VHS/DVD release). I now count myself as one of its fans, and look forward to seeing it again. It was particularly refreshing since the two previous movies I saw were The Patriot (urk!) and Gladiator (gag!). I'm skipping Pearl Harbor because I fear it joining with the others and forming some sort of unholy trinity of shit movies in my brain. I'd also be happy to restart the thread about how Gladiator is one of the worst movies of 2000, and far from God-damned Best Picture!

Since I have three daughters, I'm putting this CTHD quote on my refrigerator: "You know what poison is? It is an eight-year-old girl, full of deceit. That's poison!" Damn straight, Jade Fox.

Welcome to the club! I just bought the DVD today, along with the Special Edition of Platoon and Requiem for a Dream. I was going to pick up O Brother Where Art Thou, but it doesn't come out until the 12th. It was my first DVD buying spree in a long time. BTW, I also picked up Crazy Taxi 2 just to annoy wumpus and his Crazy Taxi-hating ass.

I'm looking forward to watching Crouching Tiger again, particularly with the director's commentary. Ice Storm would make my "Top 10 of All Time" list and I'm curious to hear more about who Ang Lee is and what he has to say.

-Tom

Oh, one thing about the commnetary on the CTHD dvd, that James Schamus guy is kind of annoying... I could see Ang Lee wanting to Karate Chop his ass with some of his snide comments on the DVD! otherwise its a pretty good DVD! The Requiem for a Dream DVD, its plain ole juice...

Join Us In Creating Excellence!

JUICE JUICE JUICE.

and I keep hearing Ang Lee is doing an Incredeible Hulk film (or wants to) ...thats weird.

etc

"I'm looking forward to watching Crouching Tiger again, particularly with the director's commentary."

You should watch it next time with _my_ commentary. I guarantee a fun time would be had by all. Note, when I use the word "all" in this context, I mean "me".

CTHD isn't bad. I just think it's criminally overrated. It has an amazing score on http://www.rottentomatoes.com , 97% positive reviews.

"I'd also be happy to restart the thread about how Gladiator is one of the worst movies of 2000, and far from God-damned Best Picture!"

I don't think Gladiatior is pure movie gold or anything, but it puts shlock like Pearl Harbor and Patriot into perspective. Eg, how to create an entertaining blockbuster that doesn't insult the audience. But worst movie of 2000? Now you're talking crazy talk, mister man.

"BTW, I also picked up Crazy Taxi 2 just to annoy wumpus and his Crazy Taxi-hating ass."

You want a cheap copy of PS2 Crazy Taxi? I'll even throw in low resolution jaggy graphics, for free.

wumpus

---

Quote:

You want a cheap copy of PS2 Crazy Taxi? I'll even throw in low resolution jaggy graphics, for free.

---

I also bought CTHD yesterday. But, I can't afford the dues for any more of Tom Chick's clubs. Pricey!

Oddly, I spent my time looking for a DVD version of Planet of the Apes, on a whim. C'mon, there has to be one! Of course, I probably couldn't find it because I was at Target.

They also didn't have Radiohead's Amnesiac.

I never get to go to any cool stores anymore.

Also, Atwood said something I agree with. CTHD is not a 97% by any means. Great film, better than he thinks it is, but it does have some problems.

Anyone else shudder involuntarily when they saw "English Dubbed" on the cover of the DVD? Then breathe a sigh of profound relief when they also saw, in smaller print, "subtitled version" below it?

-Andrew
PS: I'm reviewing Crazy Taxi Dreamcast, hopefully it's better than I'm hearing re: the PS2 version.

"CTHD is not a 97% by any means. Great film, better than he thinks it is, but it does have some problems."

That not a grade in the traditional sense (like PCG's rating system). Rotten tomatoes indicates the percentage of positive reviews, so it means that 97 out of every 100 critics gave the movie a good review. Hardly surprising considering that even most people who didn't think it was great thought it was at least good.

That I can 100% agree with.

Man, what was I thinking? I've had "Life is Beautiful" on DVD since the day it came out but I never watched it. Something always came up and I wanted an unspoiled experience and then, well, life happens you know?

Just watched it. What an amazingly brave movie. Mixing silent film comedy, 30's & 40's film charm and romance and... the Holocaust.

I'm floored.
-Andrew

Man, I hated Life is Beautiful. Not dislike-- hate. I was appalled.

Did anyone else expect to see Colonel Klink make a cameo appearance in that movie?

"C'mon, there has to be one! Of course, I probably couldn't find it because I was at Target."

Dude, there's a Planet of the Apes DVD box set.

I am really looking forward to the new movie. Damn Dirty Humans!

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Man, I hated Life is Beautiful. Not dislike-- hate. I was appalled."

Atwood has no soul.

"Dude, there's a Planet of the Apes DVD box set."

At Target? Nope.

"I am really looking forward to the new movie. Damn Dirty Humans!"

I'm not. Tim Burton has no soul either. He's a hell of a cinematographer though, but can't direct. (Save Ed Wood, which probably apalled Ol' Wumpus here.)

-Andrew

WRT Life is Beautiful,

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/reviews/1998/10/30reviewa.html

I grant you there are a few very funny scenes in the movie, but it just didn't work for me. I found the first half tedious, the second half unbelievable, and the whole thing far too precious and smarmy for its own good.

"At Target? Nope."

Hey, you shop for DVDs at Tar-jhey, that's not my problem.

"I'm not. Tim Burton has no soul either. He's a hell of a cinematographer though, but can't direct. (Save Ed Wood, which probably apalled Ol' Wumpus here.)"

I hate to break this to you, but the original POTA wasn't exactly a directing tour-de-force. That's not why people enjoy it. I'm interested to see the movie, probably more so than any other summer release I can think of. I'm not saying it won't suck-- but I hope it doesn't.

wumpus

Here's another Life is Beautiful critique for you to ponder, Bizub:

http://www.ew.com/ew/review/archive/0,1683,359,00.html

Tom Chick loves it when I do this. He really does.

"Get ready for more of this kind of thing folks. Cross-platform with consoles usually means one good version and two or three mediocre to bad ports. Though even a bad port of Crazy Taxi to PS2 has to be better than 95% of what's already on that system."

Actually the port is identical, at least from the reviews I've read-- I assume the reviewers have played both the DC and PS2. There's no difference in gameplay, framerate, features, etcetera. Actually, I think the PS2 version might have a small new city or game mode, or something.

But that still doesn't change the fact that a bowl of soup has more gameplay depth than Crazy Taxi. I suppose it's like 18 wheeler pro trucker (or whatever it's called) in this regard. Works great in the arcade when you're pumping in quarters; but not so hot at home, where you spend a couple hours with a game, minimum.

wumpus

Life is Beautiful was a great brave movie. I would have loved to have seen it without knowing that it was about the Holocaust. Can you imagine the impact if you're not expecting the twist half way through?

There's a scene when the concentration camp guard briefs the prisoners when they first arrive and Roberto Benigni translates. I rate that as one of the finest film moments in the last ten years.

My only reservation about the movie -- and it is slight -- is that I'm curious what an actor with more depth than Benigni would have done with the role. He does an excellent job setting up the first half of the movie, but I wish I could have seen more personal anguish as he deals with trying to save his child.

-Tom

So, what, am I supposed to now link to the legion of positive "Life is Beautiful" reviews? Is that how this game is played?

Please. You are far more effective against Chick when you use HIS comments against him (particularly when you use them out of context).

USING, not quoting, links from Charles Taylor and Owen Gleiberman to support your arguments isn't going to sway me at all. (Besides, Gleiberman is easily my least favorite film reviewer, read his reviews of "Fargo" and "Oh, Brother Where Art Thou" to learn why.)

Though I'm glad you've got that whole "right-click copy, right-click paste" thing down, that's surely a crucial tool in argument. ;)

Now, I do disagree with both reviews because I didn't laugh once during the second hour. What he was doing, I'd argue, was saving his own sanity and saving his son. It was deadly serious business and portrayed as such. Was it 100% realistic? No. Too many coincidences... but it also wasn't farce. It wasn't Hogan's Heroes. I found it respectful and appropriately bitter. The perfect offset to the sweet, romantic and totally charming first hour comedy, which only added to the film's power to disarm.

There. See? That was all me!

----
Ok, I'll grant you that "Planet of the Apes" isn't a directorial tour de force, but it does feature a coherant story. Something "Sleepy Hollow" and "Mars Attacks" did not. Burton has made good films, before, but he's far more visual and impact oriented than he is a storyteller.

Still, I'm glad he isn't remaking the original and I'm hoping it's one of Burton's better films because I will very probably see it.

-Andrew
PS: Yes, I was in Target. Family men rarely get to go where they whilst. Sigh. But it doesn't matter... no way am I picking up anything that also contains "

Beneath the Planet of the Apes" - sorry, forgot to finish that thought.

Watch it, some potential minor "Life is Beautiful" spoilers below:

Sorry, one more.
I especially dislike Taylor's review
(the first one Wumpus linked)

"...any treatment of the camps that attempts to dodge the singular and irreducible fact of them hasn't reckoned with its subject. The enormity and inexplicability of what happened there cannot even be acknowledged within a winsome comic fable."

Look, I did 2 years of Holocaust Studies. First with Dr. Richard Prystowski at UCI and then with Dr. Jacob Needleman at SFSU. (It's really the only significantly intellectual thing I've ever done with my life.) I've studied Elie Weisel, I've read "By Bread Alone", I've witnessed real survivor testimony.

There was humor in the camps. There was humanity. It was cold, meager and awful humor but it existed because not even the Nazi's could destroy it completely. That's why I recommend Art Spiegelman's "Maus" and Weisel's "Night" as primers for people interested in the subject. "Maus" is a comic book. "Night" is 100 pages. Both are real, intimate and personal accounts ("Maus" is a generation removed) and both brim with humanity and immediacy and, most importantly, move away from the documentary style.

"Life is Beautiful" doesn't disrespect the camps or the horrors. It intensifies them. At no time are the suffering, exhausted victims taken lightly. They populate the background as a reminder that the "winsome comic fable" is happening ONLY in the foreground. When Benigni mocks the guard's rules (a scene Tom mentioned just now) it is amusing to view his audacity and the child's enjoyment and it is also horrific to see the innmates shock and surprise. Taylor ignores the latter and he also ignores Benigni telling the inmate who does know German to remember to tell everyone the rules later.

Also, I don't know about the rest of you but I found the idea of a father telling his son these lies to be, well, disturbing and slightly abhorrant. Not funny. I couldn't have done it. But it was in keeping with the character and the way that character dealt with reality. The abhorance I felt at the deception made it feel all the more real... to be honest it's also the only thing that keeps his son alive...

While I think Chick's on to something with his comment about Benigni's depth as an actor (playing a father in a camp) but you can't fault him as a director (or comedian) here. Above all the movie is extremely respectful and doesn't cop out at the end. Unlike Taylor I think a lighter treatment of the Holocaust is a risk worth taking - because the payoff is healing. But I agree with him that it's not one taken lightly... which I was happy to see Benigni didn't.

I apologize in advance if I went a little overzealous there. End Book.
-Andrew

"There's a scene when the concentration camp guard briefs the prisoners when they first arrive and Roberto Benigni translates. I rate that as one of the finest film moments in the last ten years."

Yes, I agree. That was, no doubt, the highlight of the movie. It's a brilliant scene. Unfortunately, it can't carry the rest of the movie.

Life is Beautiful just didn't work for me at all (ref, the two reviews I linked). It's way too treacly and-- this is the worst-- sentimental. That is a cardinal sin in my book.

Maus is far superior. It's honest and unflinching; Life is Beautiful is not.

"Family men rarely get to go where they whilst."

You can't type http://www.amazon.com in your browser? Maybe I can teach you my ninja cut and paste skills for better DVD purchasing experiences.

"USING, not quoting, links from Charles Taylor and Owen Gleiberman to support your arguments isn't going to sway me at all."

I just wanted to point out that I'm not the only person who thought Johnny Stecchino Goes To Concentr-- er, I mean, Life is Beautiful-- wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

To elaborate on my 'sentimental' complaint: In Life is Beautiful, the kid should have died. That's what I mean by honest and unflinching-- in Maus, almost all the children did die. Having him live and win "his tank" at the end (GROOOOAN) is nothing more than a bunch of sentimental, Disney Holocaust(tm) claptrap. I just wasn't buying it.

wumpus

"(Besides, Gleiberman is easily my least favorite film reviewer, read his reviews of "Fargo" and "Oh, Brother Where Art Thou" to learn why.)"

A google search on Glieberman and Fargo returns nothing. You sure he reviewed the movie? on EW's site, Lisa Schwarzbaum did the review in '96.

I did find the Brother review which I already read in a print EW. Yeah, he hated it. I haven't seen the movie so I can't really comment, but I know it tended to be a love/hate thing with most critics.

Based on their previous stuff, I adored Fargo, Miller's Crossing, Hudsucker Proxy, Big Lebowski (which I recently quoted in a thread here) and Raising Arizona-- but I found Barton Fink impenetrable and pretentious. Who knows, maybe Brother is more Fink than Fargo? It could happen.

I asked Tom what he thought about Brother in another thread, but he never replied.

wumpus

"In Life is Beautiful, the kid should have died. That's what I mean by honest and unflinching-- in Maus, almost all the children did die. Having him live and win "his tank" at the end (GROOOOAN) is nothing more than a bunch of sentimental, Disney Holocaust(tm) claptrap. I just wasn't buying it."

Having him die would be just as contrived.

"Gleiberman is easily my least favorite film reviewer, read his reviews of "Fargo" and "Oh, Brother Where Art Thou" to learn why"

Gleiberman didn't just not like O Brother, he picked it as the *worst* movie of the year.

http://www.ew.com/ew/features/001222/bestof2000/worstmovies.html

Heh. Everywhere I go, someone's a comedian.

http://ter.air0day.com/lifeisbeautiful.html

I need to see Brother. Hey! Release date June 12 for the DVD! There's also some kind of screening here at the NC museum of art on June 23, with live music from musical artists "The Whites" who performed on the soundtrack.

My cup runneth over and shit.

"I just wanted to point out that I'm not the only person who thought Johnny Stecchino Goes To Concentr-- er, I mean, Life is Beautiful-- wasn't all it was cracked up to be."

Ok. Now I know the rules of this game. Let's see, I'd win! For one thing Mr. Tom Chick agrees with me (that's one) and add up the other favorable reviews on the net and otherwise and lookee here! I win your little: "I'm not the only person who thought..." movie review game. Yay me!

"Heh. Everywhere I go, someone's a comedian."

Only they aren't laughing WITH you Jeff. ;)

"You can't type http://www.amazon.com in your browser? Maybe I can teach you my ninja cut and paste skills for better DVD purchasing experiences."

Do a search for "Planet of the Apes" under DVD at Amazon Wumpus. Do you see a boxed set? Do you see one in stock? Also, do I want a boxed set? Or do I just want the original film? I will not buy anything that contains the words "Beneath" and "Planet of the Apes" in it so, that's that. Gonna have to wait until August or steal it out of someone else's boxed set. You got one?

Besides, my post made it fairly clear I was at Target on "other business" -diapers for my daughter and an inflatable pool if you must know.

Trials and tribulations.

-Andrew

Tom loved O Brother Where Art Thou. I believe we had a thread in which people chose their Top Ten Movies of 2000. O Brother was in mine.

I love clever use of ancient source material. I love affectionate looks at distant underrepresented times. I loved the music. I loved Clooney's performance (cf. Jennifer Jason Leigh in Hudsucker Proxy?). I loved the deus ex machina at the end.

-Tom

"I loved Clooney's performance (cf. Jennifer Jason Leigh in Hudsucker Proxy?)."

By this "to compare" you mean Jennifer Jason Leigh was, well, rather unbearable in Hudsucker Proxy... right? I haven't yet seen "Oh Brother..." so, no spoilers please. I hope the ghost in the machine reference you just made wasn't a spoiler.

Anyway, "unbearable" is how I found her. Overcooked accent, admittedly intentionally so but... as a fan of 40s newspaper dramas, I just found her homage grating. Maybe a personal preference. Leigh always looks like she's trying ever-so-hard to me. I did really enjoy Newman though and I always like Tim Robbins. (Anyone know offhand if "Bob Roberts" is good? I remember it being great but that was a long time ago and I was more politically naive (and considerably more stoned) then.)

Anyway,
"Sure, sure."

Raising Arizona is genius.

-Andrew

"Ok. Now I know the rules of this game. Let's see, I'd win! For one thing Mr. Tom Chick agrees with me (that's one) and add up the other favorable reviews on the net and otherwise and lookee here! I win your little: "I'm not the only person who thought..." movie review game. Yay me!"

Well, you're the guy who acted like it was a crime against humanity not to like Life Is Beautiful, when in reality lots of people didn't like it-- including me. I won't begrudge you your enjoyment of the movie. I'm sure the greeting card section of your local drugstore moves you to tears, too.

I think I'll wait for the DVD of Brother. I'm going to be moving on the weekend of the 23rd so that kinda rules out the NC Museum of Art screening.

wumpus

p.s. It's not a contest, Bizub. But if it was, I would win.

"Well, you're the guy who acted like it was a crime against humanity not to like Life Is Beautiful, when in reality lots of people didn't like it-- including me."

Not at all. How very melodramatic of you. It wasn't Colonel Klink however, and, sadly, you still haven't come forth with an original opinion on the subject.

"I won't begrudge you your enjoyment of the movie."

You are a true gentleman.

"I'm sure the greeting card section of your local drugstore moves you to tears, too."

Only cards featuring brave serio-comedic Holocaust themes with inspiration and affinity drawn from classic silent movie physical comedy... but I find that sort of thing rarer in the Hallmark store than I do even at the cineplex.

You sir are an unsophisticated and unimaginative philistine Mr. "Wumpus" Atwood and the worst thing is, you're also immensely and willfully proud of it. There's nothing wrong with disliking an art film. They are difficult by nature, but disliking one because you've summarily dismissed it based on other people's opinions ... and then bragging about that is, well, kind of sad.

You have no soul.

With love,
-Andrew

"You sir are an unsophisticated and unimaginative philistine Mr. "Wumpus" Atwood and the worst thing is, you're also immensely and willfully proud of it. There's nothing wrong with disliking an art film. They are difficult by nature, but disliking one because you've summarily dismissed it based on other people's opinions ... and then bragging about that is, well, kind of sad."

Pfft. I've summarily dismissed it based on my own opinion after I watched it. Other people happen to have the same opinion, and I referred you to them for background.

I'm not enough of a solipsist to believe that my opinions are completely original or that they somehow originated in a vacuum. Perhaps you are. I'm happy to run with the pack if I happen to agree with the pack. I'm just as happy to be the minority report if I disagree.

Also, "difficult" art film? It's more like the feel-good holocaust movie of the decade. There's nothing particularly difficult or artsy about it. Which is exactly what's wrong with it in the first place..

I too didn't really like Life is Beautiful (was ok)...it really is one of the few "foreign" films that suprisingly feels too Hollywood in its optimism (not bad, but not real). But thats supposedly what its about, a cross between an old Chaplin-esque movie about the holocaust. Not my cup of tea... but i can see why people loved it.

You want to see a reviewer with weird taste (but with alot of sense), read Chicago Readers Jonathan Rosenbaum. Hes the guy who picked Small Soldiers over Saving Private Ryan!

http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/1998/0798/07248.html

etc

Dear Bub/Andrew:

God bless you, you're still trying to make points to wumpus. It's fruitless. You're more optimistic about the human condition than most other people; give up! Wumpus will disagree because that is what he does, in his daily dozens of repetitive, cliche-speckled posts. That's all he is: a contrarian. Your time is too valuable to spend arguing with him -- something I think Tom Chick has discovered.

"That's all he is: a contrarian"

Not true! (drum roll, cymbal hit)

There are plenty of things that I agree with people on. I agree with mtkafka and the reviews I linked, for starters.

Time is too short to spend arguing with anyone about anything. But people do it anyway. I learn more from people I disagree with than those I agree with. YMMV.

Furthermore, my soul is _this_ close to kicking Bub's ass.

Heh. It's so funny when you guys get wrapped up in stupid things like this. You're so worked up, Wumpus! Relax, man! You guys are taking each other far too seriously!

Yeah, well, until there is an "Ignore Wumpus" checkbox at the bottom of every QT3 screen, emotions will run high.

Personally I think Wumpus has ruined the message boards here for Tom Chick. Our loss.

An "Ignore Wumpus" button? Hm.

I am curious, and may regret this, but Wumpus, what do you do for a living? And why are you so hot about so many things?

Hey, i may be part of the peanut gallery, but i like Wumpus posts! he adds "interesting" comments on any messageboard threads... id pretty much say everybody at Qt3 has some intersesting comments. generally most posters here are "mature" enough to argue without the flames getting hold.

although i dont agree with his dislike for CTHD, i still think he made his points pretty clear.

etc

I think I can concur with that. If there were an "ignore Wumpus" button, I wouldn't use it anyway.

No offense to anyone, but I would be more likely to use an "ignore anonymous" button. At least Wumpus uses his name. Why anyone would not use his name -- especially considering the numbers of us who haven't met each other anyway -- I just haven't been able to figure out!

Wumpus said: "I learn more from people I disagree with than those I agree with. YMMV."

Wumpy, that's not surprising at all. You don't get much interaction with people that agree with you. :)

"You don't get much interaction with people that agree with you."

Well, what fun is it when everyone agrees with each other? What would that be like? I'm reminded of that Talking Heads song -- "Heaven is the place where nothing ever happens." It is possible for people to have different viewpoints without things degenerating into a shouting contest.

How have I "ruined" the boards for Tom, Anonymous? With my "daily dozens" of "cliche-speckled, repetitive" posts? If that's what Tom thinks then let him show up here and address it, or e-mail me directly.

wumpus

I could care less about all of this---but I wish anonymous would stop being such a fucking coward. It's annoying.

Well, Anonymous is probably more than one person (except for the one that pretended to be Wumpus - and the one with the unimpeachable credibility (who I think was Erik Wolpaw)) but the others are innocent people who haven't emailed Asher for a login and password.

I still think they should sign the post.

-Andrew

Life is Beautiful is hardly a difficult film. And the idea that it's a poor film due to the fact that it's ridiculously sentimental is fairly widespread -- it's also the same criticism that Claude Lanzmann leveled at Schindler's List. J. Hoberman of the Village Voice wrote a good piece for Sight & Sound a couple years ago that addressed this well. I agree with both assessments -- to borrow Lanzmann's words (describing the Spielberg film), they're both "sentimental escapism."

While on the subject of Schindler's List, I find it amusing that Spielberg has no problem juxtaposing terrifically realistic sequences (the invasion scene in SPR and the roundup scene in the Ghetto in SL) with outlandishly sentimental plot development, and that far from alienating audiences, it makes the films seem more serious. It's as though people use the realism as an excuse to validate incredibly inauthentic emotions, rather than being jarred by the inappropriateness of this juxtaposition. If Pearl Harbor had had a gruesomely realistic depiction of the carnage resulting from the attack as a centerpiece, but kept the rest of the film intact, my guess is that it would have received generally good reviews. I guess all you need is "affinity drawn from classic silent movie physical comedy" and you have a good film.

Bruce is like Confuscious in painting, "The Vinegar Tasters". For him, life is sorrow and bitter and therefore art must reflect that for it to be "serious".

Yes, I got that from the Tao of Pooh, so fucking sue me!

-Andrew
PS: Blinking smiley face emoticon goes here.

"It's as though people use the realism as an excuse to validate incredibly inauthentic emotions..."

Well put, Geryk. That encapsulates my feelings about SPR beautifully.

As for wumpus running me off the boards, allow me to reassure Anonymous that I've endured far worse than Mr. Atwood. I only wish I had as interesting a detractor as Mr. Bauman had in Cleve Blakemore.

-Tom

"While on the subject of Schindler's List, I find it amusing that Spielberg has no problem juxtaposing terrifically realistic sequences (the invasion scene in SPR and the roundup scene in the Ghetto in SL) with outlandishly sentimental plot development, and that far from alienating audiences, it makes the films seem more serious."

I can understand that criticism of SPR, but Schindler's List? Other than the very last scene, I'm hard pressed to think of anything in that movie that I would describe as "sentimental." Most certainly not the plot development. Of course, it should be noted that in Schindler's List, the entire "plot" was a true story (I have no idea how faithful Spielberg was to the details of the real Schindler's story), whereas SPR was fiction set against an historical backdrop.

Schindler's List was most definitely an emotional film. But that is NOT the same as cheap sentiment. A strictly cerebral film about the subject matter of Schindler's List would have been as dishonest as the overblown heroics in Pearl Harbor.

Schindler's List is pretty faithful to the book actually. Any sentimentality in this case (and I certainly don't remember it being cloying) weren't exactly from Spielberg.

Now, the red shirt and the orange candle flames (and the postscript), were all his. But I think that one film is Spielberg really not being Spielberg, but, I honestly haven't seen it since it was in theaters.

I think SPR getting praise in reviews, as opposed to Pearl Harbor, were because SPR had a vivid historical recreation coupled with a bearable if banal story.

Pearl Harbor's story is awful, from what I've heard. Reviewers would have still panned the film but praised the Hollywood "serious" recreation of the battle and aftermath, in Bruce's example.

-Andrew

I think the sentiment in Schindler's List and from SPR come from the fact, at least for me, that events similar to the ones depicted did happen. The people at the end of Schindler's list were real people and seeing them drives home the events seen in the film. Plus, I lived in Germany as a military brat and visited Dachau once. It is hard to describe what you feel there, an overwhelming sense of despair and gloom. The movie brought all that back in spots and was effective in moving me.
SPR was similar in that I kept thinking of my father's combat experiences in Vietnam, and realizing that he was in the middle of hell at times. It's one thing to hear about a firefight, but unless you have been in one you don't realize how the actual sounds, the concussion waves of the explosions and the sights of the gunfire all combine to envelop you. That more than anything brought out what some may call sentiment. All I know was that I was all at once filled with genuine emotion for my dad and all the other soldiers who endured combat. Yes, I was manipulated, and it's hard for me to watch those movies, I don't think I'll ever see Schindler's List again. I personally didn't like SPR due to the contrivances in the story, but I appreciate what it showed me. That might make sense only to me perhaps.

Chris

I agree with you, Chris, but, at least as far SPR goes, I can understand the criticism that the manipulation went too far in terms of sentimentality, especially the "surprise switch" at the end.

In Schindler's List, on the other hand, I didn't think that elements like the red dress or the orange flames expressed "incredibly inauthentic emotions." The only scene in the movie that I thought was overly-manipulative was the Auschwitz shower scence. That struck me as the "Jaws" Spielberg playing with the audience's sense of fear and dread. The other emotions expressed by the film I thought were quite honest. An if the flim's coda was, indeed, sentimental, I found it entirely appropriate and fitting for the subject matter.

I'm not sure what the fact that SL was based on a true story, or whether the movie was faithful to the book, has to do with anything. Surely you understand the idea of a "story" and the difference between the reality of an event that occurred in the past and any attempt to communicate those events after the fact, in whatever form. Tadeusz Borowski wrote an incredible collection of stories based on his experiences in Auschwitz. They were all "true stories," but "This Way To The Gas, Ladies And Gentlemen" is fiction.

I suppose the issue may be my use of the word "plot development" since it would superficially seem that in the case of SL (as opposed to SPR) that the "plot" is fixed and can't be sentimental because it really happened so there. Even so, because of the aforementioned difference between actual events and any attempt to recount them, the simple decision of what to include and exclude, and the portrayal of that which is included, can be sentimental or not. Otherwise there would be one history book and all the things that happened would be in there and to make a movie you would just go to page 257.

I've been to all the camps in Poland (Auschwitz multiple times -- before 1989 (and maybe even now, although I would hope not) they would show a Soviet propaganda film in the movie theater there, which I found horribly insulting). Our apartment building in Warsaw had what people said were "shell marks" from the war (although to me it just looked like chipped stone, who knows) and the war seemed almost physically real to many people, even thirty years after the fact. All of this has some personal significance or meaning to me, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a film is a good film, or whether it is sentimental, or whether it's marked by bad direction, because many things that are personally important to me are not important for aesthetic reasons, and thus don't bear on an aesthetic evaluation. If you thought the ridiculous ending scene where Liam Neeson is ripping off his watch and saying, "this watch could have saved five more Jews!" is in any way authentic, then I am simply unable to respond and would prefer to leave it at that. Note that just because it may have happened doesn't mean that what Spielberg portrayed in that scene was in any way "real." Spielberg is a manipulative director who makes audience-friendly blockbusters because that's what he knows how to do and is very good at. And people who don't like difficult art films like Life is Beautiful go see them. Which is fine. But don't tell me they're emotionally authentic.

Oh, and I have no idea what a "strictly cerebral" film is. Maybe if he ever has more than fifteen minutes for a beer, Jason can explain it to me.

I don't know if the Neeson watch scene was potrayed "authentically" or not. I know that it doesn't take much of an imaginative leap for me to believe that Schindler might have been emotionally overwrought at that moment. Portraying him that way doesn't strike me as either false or cheaply sentimental.

A "strictly cerebral" film would simply be one where the director eschews (or attempts to eschew) all emotional involvement with the subject matter. Of course that's impossible, but, if you want an example, I suppose Barry Lyndon comes close.

At any rate, it neither suprises me nor impresses me very much that Claude Lanzmann was critical of Schindler's List. Don't get wrong, Shoah was a monumental work, the most thorough and important documentary of the Holocaust that we are likely to get. But Lanzmann also seemed to think that Shoah was definitive and that there wasn't room for any film on the subject that focused on less than the entire story. Historical recreation was also an anathema to Lanzmann, even though, in spite of himself, he veered awfully close to it at a few points in Shoah. So it's hardly surprising that he would have little good to say about a film that focused on one small portion of the Holocaust in the form of a popular entertainment. However, the fact that SL is done in the form of a popular enterainment does not make the emotions it portrays inauthentic.

As for beer and explanations, beyond 15 minutes my explanations tend to get a bit more loquacious, but comprehensibility is strictly up to the listener.

Here's something from one of Roger Ebert's Cannes reports:


The poolside buffet of the Hotel Majestic always has a line of people eager to sample its delights. After waiting a long time the other day, I finally found myself with a plate in my hand and the buffet before me. Then a man pushed in front of me--so roughly, he actually jostled me.

"There is a queue," I said.

"I do not use the queue!" he barked.

"It is not for you?" I asked.

"It is not for me. I pay no attention to it."

He began to pile his plate with cold shrimp. As an American, I believe the Declaration of Independence when it says that everyone in a buffet queue has been created equal. I was not willing to let this jerk off the hook.

"But all of these people have been waiting," I said.

"So what?" he said.

"You are more important than them?"

"Yes. Now get out of my way."

I was not in his way. He was in my way.

I stared at him, making my eyes narrow and mean. He stared at me. His eyes were already narrow and mean. I thought for a moment he might hurl his shrimp at me. Finally he snapped:

"Leave me alone! Leave me alone!"

We filled our plates in a tense silence. I went back to my table.

"I have just met the rudest man in the world," I said.

"Don't tell me, let me guess," said a fellow film critic, whose name is available on request. "Is it that man over there in the white shirt?"

"Yes!" I said. "How did you know?"

"It had to be him. Do you know who that is?"

"No."

"Claude Lanzmann, the director of `Shoah.' "

"You're kidding! The nine-hour documentary about the Holocaust?"

"At the New York screening," my friend said, "I introduced him to my mother, who is a Holocaust survivor. He brushed right past her. Didn't have a moment to spare for her."

This story has an encouraging moral. You don't have to be a nice man to make a good film.


I realize that this has absolutely no bearing on the current argument.

---

Quote:

"There is a queue," I said.

"I do not use the queue!" he barked.

---

But it made for excellent reading.

Whenever I think of "Shoah", I think of "The Sorrow and the Pity", which then makes me think of Annie Hall, which makes me think about lobsters and how funny they are...

-Andrew

"Of course that's impossible."

Hence my comment.


"I suppose Barry Lyndon comes close.

I don't really listen to PIL much, anymore.


"the fact that SL is done in the form of a popular enterainment does not make the emotions it portrays inauthentic."

No, the fact that the emotions are inauthentic makes them inauthentic.

And the fact that they are inauthentic is precisely what makes them good popular entertainment. When people want to be entertained, they don't want to have to actually confront real emotions, because that may lead to some kind of analysis or evaluation of those emotions. So you throw the fakey-fakey stuff in, instead.

You can portray someone as being overwrought without being sentimental or melodramatic. I got kind of pissed off by the scene I mentioned, but the people I was seeing the film with actually started laughing. It was so overdone and ill-staged as to be completely ridiculous.

I have to go because now I'm just avoiding work. If you happen to post some proof that the emotions in Schindler's List have in fact been authenticated by a governmental authority, please to not construe my silence as consent.

Btw, Claude Lanzmann is virulently anti-Polish. I realize this absolutely no bearing on the current argument, either.

"I got kind of pissed off by the scene I mentioned, but the people I was seeing the film with actually started laughing."

Good Lord, who'd you see it with? The editors of the Journal of Historical Review?

"Spielberg is a manipulative director"

Yes. I don't know why that's so hard for some people to accept.

I've been away from the boards for awhile, so you'll have to excuse me when I ask this, but when did wumpus grow a real name? What the heck?

So Wumpus is really that comedian who did the whole "redneck" schtick and had a sitcom on CBS or ABC or something? Wow.

Amanpour

P.S. Whenever I hear "queue" I think of Netflix.

Some anonymous person was posting under Wumpus' name, and it motivated him to get a real login.

It was pretty funny, really, but I think that Mark had to kill part of the thread, because someone used some HTML script as a username (the Wumpus impersonator, I believe) and it screwed the font, and then someone tried to fix it, and it screwed more things up, and so Mark blasted it.

You really missed a heck of a lot of fun, though!

Welcome back, Amanpour. Murph's right about the wumpus mitosis. It was ten times funnier than anything that happens in Ivan Reitman's summer comedy [sic], Evolution.

Speaking of summer movies, it occured to me that Pearl Harbor gave me hope that Jurassic Park III can't possibly be the worst movie of the summer.

Can it?

-Tom

"Speaking of summer movies, it occured to me that Pearl Harbor gave me hope that Jurassic Park III can't possibly be the worst movie of the summer."

It's just like Jaws. The studios couldn't resist doing the third one and killing the franchise. The second one wasn't as good as the first, but the third one really took the series downhill.

I'm tired of the raptors too. Can't they come up with some other evil dinosaur? Ooh, they're smart! If they were so smart, how come they're extinct?

Someone should make an Alien vs. Predator movie. That would be cool. Put Jean Claude Van Damme in it and have him get drunk and have an alien kill him. He could try to do some karate shit on it but the alien would just rip his head off. That would rock!

"Put Jean Claude Van Damme in it and have him get drunk and have an alien kill him."

Damn, I'd pay good money to see that! You need to move out here to LA, Asher, and write scripts.

Anyone see the MST3K aired on the SciFi channel last weekend, Future War? A Jean Claude Van Damme look-a-like fighting raptor bounty hunters from the future and a pudgy Terminator who looked like Mike Schank from American Movie. It was fucking beautiful!

-Tom

"Good Lord, who'd you see it with? The editors of the Journal of Historical Review?"

I should probably drop this and let the thread go to the summer movie theme, but this kind of implication of anti-Semitism is beneath you. I saw the film with my then-girlfriend and my parents, and my parents were the ones laughing, especially my mother who told me that the earlier "roundup scene" was fantastically accurate and really impressive -- just as she remembered it happening. Her mother was killed by the Germans. Yet she was able to recognize cloying sentimentality when she saw it.

I hate when people trot out this kind of "survivor validation" on me so I'll just say that I didn't use it as an example in the earlier message because it seemed (and really is) irrelevant. But "Journal of Historical Review?" Please.

"I don't know why [the fact that Spielberg is a manipulative director] is so hard for some people to accept."

I have no problem whatsoever accepting it. I don't enjoy films that substitute manipulation for insight and thus don't like Spielberg's direction, and will bring that point up when someone asserts that he's somehow portraying authentic emotions, but as I said, he's good at manipulation and his films make a lot of money. That's fine. Just don't pretend otherwise.

Good night. Jurassic Park III sounds terrible. I'm sure it will make a lot of money.

"Anyone see the MST3K aired on the SciFi channel last weekend, Future War? A Jean Claude Van Damme look-a-like fighting raptor bounty hunters from the future and a pudgy Terminator who looked like Mike Schank from American Movie. It was fucking beautiful!"

Christ. I did see that. I particularly liked the hand puppet they used for close-ups and the fisticuffs with the "clown-white Terminator" (to quote Crow T. Robot) was killer. Must've hurt something fierce to get pounded on by empty. corrugated. cardboard. boxes.

My god.

-Andrew

The closest Spielberg came to authentic was in the seventies with Close Encounters and Jaws... his two best movies imo. Not because of UFO's or sharks, but because the characters in those two movies were very American and not fake (imo).

Spielberg knows he's being manipulative, and what i don't like about this in his movies is that they come off sometimes as condescending and above the audiences... as if the audience is too stupid to recognize horror or tragedy. In fact too many American directors do this, even Oliver Stone, (though he is on the oposite end of Spielbergs Amercan optimism). They don't have to preach so much as just show us a story, I guess. Though, if i see a Spielberg movie without any senitmentality and John Williams tear jerker moments id be mightily surprised... that's his bread and butter now.

etc

"I should probably drop this and let the thread go to the summer movie theme, but
this kind of implication of anti-Semitism is beneath you. I saw the film with my
then-girlfriend and my parents, and my parents were the ones laughing, especially
my mother who told me that the earlier "roundup scene" was fantastically accurate
and really impressive -- just as she remembered it happening. Her mother was killed
by the Germans. Yet she was able to recognize cloying sentimentality when she
saw it."

My apologies Bruce. That was intended to be a joke, not a serious accusation. I've heard varying opinions on SL, but never anyone actually laughing while watching it. However, if a survivor of the Nazis finds it laughable, I capitulate. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

"Spielberg knows he's being manipulative, and what i don't like about this in his movies is that they come off sometimes as condescending and above the audiences... as if the audience is too stupid to recognize horror or tragedy."

Excellent point. The problem with accusations of being "manipulative" is that it's a slippery slope. To a degree, all artists are "manipulative" in that they're trying to get you to see the story, view the picture, hear the music, in a certain way or from a certain point of view. Aronofsky was trying to get you see the despair of addiction as much as Soderbergh was trying to get you to see the futility of the war on drugs. But Soderbergh's movie is clearly more "manipulative." Why? I'd say it's because Aronofsky trusts the intelligence of his audience more than Soderbergh does. Maybe that's as good a definition of "manipulative" as any.

Still, Hitchcock was manipulative as hell, and I have rarely minded it. Maybe that's because Hitchcock, unlike Bey, managed to manipulate my emotions without insulting my intelligence. Is that what made him a great director?

>it occured to me that Pearl Harbor gave me hope that Jurassic Park III can't possibly be the worst movie of the summer.

I think Jurassic Park 3 is actually going to be surprisingly good, much better than the horrible dreck that was Lost World. Darker, more serious, and a director that's less inclined to insert misplaced sentitmentality.

In terms of the worst movie of the summer contest, Pearl Harbour is already out of the running, having been stampeded aside by Mummy Returns, Evolution, The Animal, What's the Worst that Could Happen and (especially) Tomb Raider.

Stefan

"Still, Hitchcock was manipulative as hell, and I have rarely minded it. Maybe that's because Hitchcock, unlike Bey, managed to manipulate my emotions without insulting my intelligence. Is that what made him a great director?"

I freaking love David Lynch... I guess sometimes manipulation is fun. For some reason the "watch speech" didn't bother me during the film. I confess to mocking it occasionally for a couple years after.

"This watch! This watch could have bought us more beer! This shoe! This shoe could...."

I liked Schindler's List a lot though, I'm looking forward to the DVD.
-Andrew

---

Quote:

In terms of the worst movie of the summer contest, Pearl Harbour is already out of the running, having been stampeded aside by Mummy Returns, Evolution, The Animal, What's the Worst that Could Happen and (especially) Tomb Raider.

---

Above, dang it! I'd rate Tomb Raider above Pearl Harbor!

How come you never see the typos until just after you've hit the "Post Message" button...

JP3 looks pretty decent in previews, but then most movies do. The director did Jumanji, so it's really hard to say where this film will end up on the Qt3 scale.

Tomb Raider might surprise people. I enjoyed The General's Daughter, as much as you can enjoy a film that brutal anyway. I also really liked Con Air. Sure, the villians are kind of cartoony, but isn't that what we want from a guy like Malkovich when he plays that role? Anyway, where I'm going with this is that I think Simon West is a pretty decent director and he seems to have a clue with Tomb Raider.

--Dave

>>don't know why [the fact that Spielberg is a manipulative director] is so hard for some people to accept."
>I have no problem whatsoever accepting it. I don't enjoy films that substitute manipulation for insight and thus don't like Spielberg's direction, and will bring that point up when someone asserts that he's somehow portraying authentic emotions, but as I said, he's good at manipulation and his films make a lot of money. That's fine. Just don't pretend otherwise.

Exactly. Well said.

Spielberg is undeniably capable of producing phenomenal scenes in movies, but I never find his movies completely satisfying (to be generous) because of his two "Spielberg-isms" - inserting sappy, insincere sentimentality and substituting genuine insight with manipulative "money" scenes.

His two best films are clearly SL and Jaws, and even in those films he demonstrates those annoying tendencies (and the best scene in Jaws is Robert Shaw's ad-libbed speech). His early films, like Jaws, are generally better, probably because he didn't have the absolute creative freedom he now possesses. Just a few loser Spielberg moments:

- inserting Schindler's insincere mewing at the end of the film, even though Schlinder (a genuine hero) actually just took off with a bag of diamonds and showed no remorse, whatsoever. He hit up members of the "list" for cash for years afterwards. He was an incredible hero, and a complex "gray" character - why dilute that?

- the Tyrannosaur popping out of nowhere at the end of Jurassic Park to save the day. As opposed to the fighter/bomber popping out of nowhere at the end of SPR to save the day.

- changing the ending of Jaws to end with a big bang.

- the transparent use of the displaced writer in SPR and his "moral" dilemma with the German prisoner of war. Shocking when that cat came back.

- The Lost World, in its entirety, other than parts of the trailer attack. Insipid. One of the worst films ever.

Hell, on that note, I can't even bother to go on to 1941, Hook, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom or Amistad. Blech.

>[Murph]I think Tomb Raider will be much better than Pearl Harbor and Jurassic Park 3. Maybe JP3 will surprise me, but I'd still rate TR about PH.

Having seen TR, I strongly doubt anyone will think it is better than anything. On JP3, it's more of an informed hunch - I think it's actually going to be very good, in a Deep Blue Sea kinda way. I certainly don't think it'll be anything like Lost World or Jaws 3/4, all of which are so terrible that they're not even unintentionally fun(ny).

[Dave] I think Simon West is a pretty decent director .

I strongly disagree. I think he's a Joel Schumacher-eque hack, with a dab of Chris Columbus.

Stefan

"- inserting Schindler's insincere mewing at the end of the film, even though Schlinder (a genuine hero) actually just took off with a bag of diamonds and showed no remorse, whatsoever. He hit up members of the "list" for cash for years afterwards. He was an incredible hero, and a complex "gray" character - why dilute that?"

yes

"- the Tyrannosaur popping out of nowhere at the end of Jurassic Park to save the day. As opposed to the fighter/bomber popping out of nowhere at the end of SPR to save the day."

Yes (you've mentioned this elsewhere. Absolutely brilliant correlation!)

- changing the ending of Jaws to end with a big bang.

Sort of. The book isn't very good actually. Speilberg improved Benchley by leaps and bounds.
"We need a bigger boat" was brilliant as was the nails on the chalkboard scene.

"- the transparent use of the displaced writer in SPR and his "moral" dilemma with the German prisoner of war. Shocking when that cat came back."

I hated that! I almost threw something at the screen when it was THAT GUY who shot "our hero" AAAAARGH! WHY? WHY!?

"- The Lost World, in its entirety, other than parts of the trailer attack. Insipid. One of the worst films ever."

Agreed. Though I enjoyed the Raptors in the field scene.

"Hell, on that note, I can't even bother to go on to 1941"

yes

"Hook"

Hack...Kaff! yes!

"Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom"

Good God YES!

"or Amistad."

didn't see it

What about ET? Great film but it's one HUGE Spielberg moment. Maybe we were kids or we weren't sick of that sap yet.

I just saw Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind... that's got lots of schmaltz too, but an infectious energy Speilberg lacks today I think.
AI looks interesting...

-Andrew

Stefan, I didn't realize you'd seen Tomb Raider, or I would have been less likely to doubt you. I still expect that I will enjoy it though, and can't imagine rating anything as worse than the Lost World, and Pearl Harbor just looks too stupid for words. I daresay that I, even if I'm the only one in the world, will rate Tomb Raider over both of those movies.

"I just saw Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind... that's got lots of schmaltz too, but an infectious energy Speilberg lacks today I think.
AI looks interesting..."

I think Close Encounters was also John Williams best score; better than the one he won the Oscar for that year, and better than either of the two he won Oscars for with Spielberg. Not many movies have a score as well integrated into the substance of the movie as Close Encounters, and I thought his variations on "When You Wish Upon a Star" were brilliant.

OTOH, every time my kids drag out the video (which is a lot), I hate the ET score more and more. Talk about shmaltz. And it just overpowers the final scene. Yuck.

Pray for me... I'm off to see Pearl Harbor now.
Why? I like bad movies. I like WWII fighter planes. I have 3 hours to kill and there's nothing else out there I remotely want to see at the moment.

If I don't come back... someone post something about games being mainstream.

-Andrew

Good luck, Andrew. And may the Force be with you.

Jesus, Bub emails me to ask whether he should go see Momento and before hearing back from me, he up and gets a ticket to Pearl Harbor?

There's no hope for you, Bub. Turn in your Common Sense Card now. We'll all be here to say 'I told you so' when you get back.

-Tom

>can't imagine rating anything as worse than the Lost World,

Heh, there's very few movies I would rate lower either (Batman and Robin, Avengers, being two that come to mind). Tomb Raider has the same flaws that so many "event" movies do these days (shallow characters, "empty" action -- it just seems pointless), combined with all of the traditional flaws of computer/video game movie adaptations (always camp, as if the film-makers are embarrassed for making a movie based upon a game).

I'll be interested in hearing what you think. There'll be lots of opinions in a couple of hours, when the NDAs expire. Regardless of whether or not you end up liking it, I suspect this will be one of the most critically panned movies ever.

Stefan

"Jesus, Bub emails me to ask whether he should go see Momento and before hearing back from me, he up and gets a ticket to Pearl Harbor?
There's no hope for you, Bub. Turn in your Common Sense Card now. We'll all be here to say 'I told you so' when you get back."

Haha! No, sadly I learned it's no longer playing here. I'll have to catch it on video. I could choose: The Animal, Mummy Returns, that Red Windmill Movie, That thing with DeVito and Big Mama, A Knights Tale and Shrek (which I have plans to see that with my wife next tuesday - a date!)

I chose Pearl Harbor.

-Andrew

For my first post to this thread: Memento is better than the average film, but it's still an overrated nihilistic piece of dreck.

Am I the only person that thought the last half of the movie was entirely unnecessary? What was the point of continuing the story on an entirely predictable path once you've laid out what's going to happen? I left the theater feeling disgusted - I'd just watched a great first half of a movie, followed by a pointless plot in the second half and an incredibly unbelievable, out of character choice at the end of the film by the protagonist. Feh.

Desslock - perfect description of what's wrong with Spielberg.

McCullough: "What was the point of continuing the story on an entirely predictable path once you've laid out what's going to happen?"

This is the strangest criticism I've heard yet of Memento, and I'm curious as to how you found it predictable. I've yet to meet many people who actually agree on what happens at the end, so not only does that seem to rule out "predictable," but also "comprehensible" to a large degree. My interpretation of the end would overrule your comment about his choice being "out of character." At least I think it would.

Have there been any discussions of Amores Peros on this board? I finally saw that last night and was glad I did.

Jason: "Am I the only person that thought the last half of the movie was entirely unnecessary?"

Yes. Except, perhaps, for wumpus, who I'm guessing hated Memento and ran around his apartment after he saw it, amsuing his wife by pretending to forget things.

I've come to the conclusion that as a piece of narrative, Memento is intricate, meticulous, and airtight. I can't imagine how anyone would consider it predictable. At what point was everything laid out? The truth of the events doesn't emerge until Teddy's revelation at the very end.

Ron, I wasn't that crazy about Amores Perres, which has been widely (and legitimately, IMO) tagged as a Tarantino homage/rip-off. It looked great (in as much as the squalor of Mexico City can look great) and I liked some of the performances, but I wasn't really impressed with how the disparate stories unfolded and then hung together.

When it comes to stories about interwoven stories, I thought Amores Perres couldn't hold a candle to the movies that it was modeled after: Pulp Fiction, Lone Star, Magnolia, or Short Cuts.

-Tom

Ugh, never speek kindly of Short Cuts until you've read a lot of Raymond Carver and seen how Altman totally botched his interpretation of his stories. Setting it in L.A.... talk about missing the point right out of the gate.

>I've come to the conclusion that as a piece of narrative, Memento is intricate, meticulous, and airtight. I can't imagine how anyone would consider it predictable. At what point was everything laid out? The truth of the events doesn't emerge until Teddy's revelation at the very end.

I have to agree with Tom -- until Teddy's final speech (and you have to assume everything he says is true in that speech in order for the movie to work), there's still lots of uncertainty. I liked Memento a lot better than any other movie I've seen this year (and have not yet seen Amores Perres).

"Ugh, never speek kindly of Short Cuts until you've read a lot of Raymond Carver and seen how Altman totally botched his interpretation of his stories. Setting it in L.A.... talk about missing the point right out of the gate."

Speaking of that, I watched The Talented Mr. Ripley last night after reading a bunch of glowing reviews of it, and hated it. By downplaying Ripley's abilities as a mimic (or rather introducing the idea and then abandoning it) and changing his homosexuality from latent to blatant, Minghella really altered the tenor of Highsmith's novel. Minghella portrays Ripley as a kind of pathetic homocidal schlub - especially evident in the way that the Dickie Greenleaf murder is depicted as almost an act of physical self-defense.

I suppose some movies are enjoyable only if you haven't read the source material. Another good case for not reading.

"homocidal"="homicidal" - though homocidal works too in this case.

>>Speaking of that, I watched The Talented Mr. Ripley last night after reading a bunch of glowing reviews of it, and hated it.

I liked the movie but have never read the source, so I guess I shouldn't or something.

And homocidal is a great Freudian slip. I think this means you're gay.

Dear lord, don't compare me to Wumpus. ;0 I really liked the movie, but the point of the ending really confused the hell out of me.

Seriously, I remember thinking "Teddy wasn't the guy who killed his wife" once it was revealed that Natalie turned on him - there was no direct evidence, I just guessed based on the betrayal, I think.

As far as the ending - I don't remember seeing anything in the movie that would point to why the main character would just up and decide to fool himself into killing Teddy. It seemed to directly contradict his entire point for living, which was "finding the guy who killed his wife."

Maybe he's angry Teddy revealed he killed him a long time ago? Why would that make him want to off Teddy for trying to make him happy again? Manipulation? Why would he believe Teddy anyway?

One bit I caught I haven't seen mentioned anywhere - near the end, when Teddy trying to convince the protagonist that he was Sammy Jenkins, you see Sammy sitting in the public area of a home. A doctor walks in front of him and then, after he walks by, there's like a quarter-second shot of Leonard sitting there instead of Sammy. What the hell was that about?

To dredge up Schindler's List again:

Jason Levine - "I don't know if the Neeson watch scene was potrayed "authentically" or not. I know that it doesn't take much of an imaginative leap for me to believe that Schindler might have been emotionally overwrought at that moment. Portraying him that way doesn't strike me as either false or cheaply sentimental."

It should strike you as entirely silly, false, and cheap, as the real Schindler was a womanizing con man who saved a lot of Jews from execution half by accident and half to increase his profits. He wasn't evil, but he wasn't all good either, and to reduce him to a simpering, one-dimensional "good guy" in the closing frames of the film so people can comfortably settle him ("Yep, that there Schindler, he was on the good side") and recommend it to all their friends is artistic malpractice.

That scene is the definition of how the movie industry fucks up good films, in my opinion. Hollywood doesn't like "complicated" characters, and the average yokel can't figure them out, which hurts profits. I think.

"It should strike you as entirely silly, false, and cheap, as the real Schindler was a womanizing con man who saved a lot of Jews from execution half by accident and half to increase his profits. He wasn't evil, but he wasn't all good either, and to reduce him to a simpering, one-dimensional "good guy" in the closing frames of the film so people can comfortably settle him ("Yep, that there Schindler, he was on the good side") and recommend it to all their friends is artistic malpractice."

You're right. Stefan point out yesterday that the real Schindler walked off with his diamonds without a second thought and, in later years, hit up the survivors for money. That alters my perception of the scene from being simply overripe to the kind of emotional dishonesty that was discussed earlier. It's especially disappointing because Spielberg didn't shy away from Schindler's flaws early in the film. But he couldn't resist turning him into an unvarnished hero. Too bad. An ending showing this aspect of Schindler's character would have been a lot more interesting.

One of the things I liked about Memento was how carefully they set the audience up to be totally confused (or misdirected). I don't think you have to believe Eddy's final speech to "buy" the whole movie. Its totally possible that it was just another bogus lie to control Leonard, which is exactly what dawns on Leonard, and why Leonard chooses to set Teddy up for the big fall. But whether Eddy tells the truth, a version of the truth, or an all out lie, isn't clear. There is a ton of doubt mixed into the whole movie. For more evidence (police reports, photos, psychiatric ward reports, handwritten notes) go to the official website: www.otnemem.com. Very well done site, and definitely full of things not in the movie.

-Rob

"And homocidal is a great Freudian slip."

Yes! Textbook and hilarious slip there Erik. Reminds me of a line from "Cheers".

Woody: "What's a Freudian Slip Mr. Clavin?"
Cliff: "Well Wood. It's when you say one thing when you're thinking of a mother."

-Andrew

"Yes. Except, perhaps, for wumpus, who I'm guessing hated Memento and ran around his apartment after he saw it, amsuing his wife by pretending to forget things."

Tom, you're killin' me over here. LOL! Actually, that is fairly close to how it works.

This reminds me of something. My wife and I recently went to Michael's, which is a craft supply store. They had these creepy little "hiding kids" dolls there-- you know, with their backs to you, with their hands over their 'eyes'. Anyway, I found them vaguely disturbing because they looked remarkably realistic from a distance of about 15 feet or so. So, of course I insisted we grab one and carry it with us around the store as we shopped. While my wife was doing something on another aisle, I realized that propping this doll up in front of my body, where it came up to about my belly button, made it look a lot like.. well, I think you can connect the dots there. My wife came around the corner, and "caught" me and the doll in flagrante delicto, if you will. She laughed so hard she was literally crying. For hours after that, just mentioning it was enough to send us both into fits of uncontrollable laughter. It was so wrong.. yet it felt so right.

Anyway. I did like Memento for what it was-- a clever, original B movie. And I think it's rather churlish to pick apart the plot of the movie for inconsistencies.

Speaking of which. I have Memento on two VCD CD-ROMs. These work in DVD players or computers, and provide roughly VHS-quality sound and video. If, like me, you were forced to go to these kinds of lengths to see the movie because it's not in your area, e-mail me. I can send you the two CD-ROMs and you can check out the movie.

Also, I really liked The Talented Mr. Ripley! The "in the closet" scene at the end was priceless. I didn't think it was about assuming people's identities so much as just straight-up repressed sexuality.

wumpus

A few comments on movies mentioned above:

I can understand the comparisons between Amores Peros and Pulp Fiction, but they seem rather unfair to me. Sure, the structure owes a good deal to Pulp Fiction, but so does almost every film released these days. Even Memento, if only because the reverse structure is just a more elaborate version of Nolan's first film, Following, which was very Pulp Fiction-y.

Beyond structure, I don't see many similarites between Amores Peros and Pulp Fiction. I was amazed by how subtly it drove home its message - for a movie with both a broad/complex theme and a definite moral, it was entertaining. It could have lost 20 minutes, but I liked it.

I'm with Steve on Short Cuts. That film successfully won the triple crown of making me hate Robert Altman films (even Nashville, which I liked previously), making me hate Robert Altman-esque films (like Magnolia, which is probably unlikeable anyway what with its "repressed emotions cause cosmic retribution" message ripped straight from the pages of Dianetics), and making me hate reading Raymond Carver. The latter is the real crime, because I can't read "Tell the Women We're Going" without thinking of that horrible last scene, or "Neighbors" without thinking of Mr. Robert Downey Jr.

The problem with Short Cuts has not only to do with the shift in location, but with the fact that Altman totally missed (or ignored) what makes Carver's stories so great. All of his stories are about people's relationships, and about how small events become huge issues in relationships among somewhat-to-incredibly deperate people. Even in stories that have big "events" ("Tell the Women..." or "So Much Water So Close to Home") the big events are just background for stories about fucked up and/or sad relationships.

Short Cuts, on the other hand, undermined this, because something BIGGER always happens. The best example of this is the Tom Waits/Lily Tomlin story. In the original (I think it's called "They're Not Your Husband"), it's about a couple arguing about men looking at her ass. It's sad and funny. In the film, the argument seems trivial because she has just hit a little boy with her car. Even in the last story, the murder was upstaged by an Earthquake.

Short Cuts may be a good film on its own merits, but it's impossible for me to judge.

I didn't like The Talented Mr. Ripley as a film, but then again I didn't really like it as a book either. What's interesting to me is that Patricia Highsmith was a lesbian, but I read somewhere (I wish I could find the source) that she often denied the homosexual subtext in the book. Which is a bit like denying the homosexual subtext of Honcho magazine.

On that subject: Has anyone seen Purple Noon, the original film version of the book? I've been curious, but I've heard mixed reviews.

Re: Memento

(WARNING! don't read this if you haven't seen the movie - explicit discussion of the end to follow).


The end is great. Throughout the whole film you suspect someone is setting him up to kill Teddy, who is presumably the wrong guy. The fact that he has set himself up to kill the wrong guy is ingenious. It's a plot twist that would have made Borges proud (or Gene Wolfe, who is just a Jorge-come-lately anyway). And: He killed Teddy because he knew he knew he would think it was the right person, but also so that Teddy wouldn't keep taking advantage of his condition. I liked the line: "Everyone needs a John G, so you'll be mine." I think you're supposed to believe Teddy's story at the end (which, I admit, may be the film's biggest flaw), because if it's untrue, the film's otherwise tight narrative falls apart.


/WARNING!

Apologies for the long post.

-Ron

Ron, on Memento - "I think you're supposed to believe Teddy's story at the end (which, I admit, may be the film's biggest flaw), because if it's untrue, the film's otherwise tight narrative falls apart."

Ah, that explains it. I just couldn't figure out why the hell he'd suddenly believe Teddy and use that as a justification to off him.

"Beyond structure, I don't see many similarites between Amores Peros and Pulp Fiction."

It's not just structure. I got in an argument with the person I saw it with and she looked up how many reviews compared AP to Tarantino. A lot of them did. The director himself was dismayed at the widespread comparisons.

The whole tone of AP was very Tarantino. Mundane day to day life punctuated by violence. Even some of the characters played like people Tarantino would write about. The tough guy with a heart of gold just trying to get by in the city's amoral underbelly. The apathetic gangster moll. The clash of small time hoods with the respectable middle class.

Not that this is unique to Tarantino, but he sort of codified it all in Reservoir Dogs/Pulp Fiction.

Of course, what clinched it for me was the scene where they're talking about what they call Big Macs in Tegucigalpa... (j/k)

-Tom

"Jesus, Bub emails me to ask whether he should go see Momento and before hearing back from me, he up and gets a ticket to Pearl Harbor?"

Just a bit of random Memento good news. I've been talking up Memento to my father for a few months now, but he lives in Gloucester Point, Virginia, which is not exactly a "select city" in Hollywood's eyes. Needless to say, he misses a lot of great stuff.

Well, I was just in his neck of the woods this week and saw that Memento was playing within striking distance of his home. I guess being in the top ten money makers for the past few weeks has paid off. I'm hoping Dad will go to see it now. And I'm hoping a lot of other people will too.

I am totally spoiled living near Los Angeles. I have the opportunity to see so many films. Even if my chosen career didn't dictate that I live here, I don't know that I could leave for the simple reason that I would hate losing this luxury. Of course, DVD has made this somewhat easier---and Netflix does its bit too---because it brings the home viewing experience to a higher level. But I just love going to the movies. I love it.

I have a friend who lived in a small town in Virginia called Staunton. He called the local theatre---there was only one, folks---to find out what was playing. The recording said, "And on Screen 2, The Island of Doctor Monroe." Monroe should have [sic] after it. Funny, but sad. I call him so excited about a film like Memento and he just sighs.

Anyway, just random thoughts. To pay token respect to the topic at hand, I just found out that a friend ordered the CTHD DVD for me. Can't wait to get it.

Also can't wait to get Requiem For A Dream, but I'll have to get it for myself. That film has been haunting me. Have to watch it again to find out if this is because of the film, or because of Jennifer Connolly.

Okay enough of this.

Amanpour

P.S. On another topic, did Wumpus Foxworthy admit to liking The Talented Mr. Ripley in this thread? Oof.

Did anybody here see YiYi? i just saw it on reccomendation from a friend of mine... a very good movie... possibly the best I've seen since Decalogue (the style in the movie resembles a lot of Bergman, Altman and Kieslowski...but still being original). Its a family drama from Taiwan directed by Edward Yang. Watching this movie makes me want to check out foreign films again (I feel like im missing alot)... and I feel like I have lived another life watching this movie (a line taken from the movie). also, its close to a three hour movie that still felt too short! I really wanted to see more of this family.

Also, one of the supporting roles in the movie is a Japanese game designer that the father in the movie wants to hire (it seems the general economic millieu of the movie is in a tech recession, sorta like the one were experiencing now!)... kinda cool that the movie relates a bit with gaming!

etc

"and I keep hearing Ang Lee is doing an Incredeible Hulk film (or wants to) ...thats weird."

He worked an Incredible Hulk band-aid rather prominently into his BMW film.