icecreamdisco presents: THE YEAR IN FILM (1 Viewer)

[walrusbear]

how did you see it this early?!

wish i had broadband

 

[Benny_]

Yeah my good friend emule This is actually the first David Cronenberg movie I've ever seen, I'm quite impressed.

 

[walrusbear]

i've only seen two of his
and one of terrible (existenz)
naked lunch can only really be described as 'naked lunch' - it's something else

 

[Benny_]

Mm.. I think I might have mentioned this another time, but anyway.. I started reading Naked Lunch once. Gave up after maybe 20 pages. Frankly Ulyssess wasn't much more challenging.

I just found that Tony Takitani (that Murakami adaptation I made a thread about sometime ago) was a 2005 US release, it replaces Nobody Knows in my top 10. Highly recommended. The good movies really need to be better spaced out over the year. My top 10 is barely recognisable from what it was when I first posted it now and I haven't even seen Brokeback Mountain or Syriana yet. Damn Oscars.. late Australian release dates too.

 

[nwatts]

Munich (2005) (haven't seen)
War of the Worlds (2005)
The Terminal (2004)
Catch Me If You Can (2002)
Minority Report (2002)
Artificial Intelligence: AI (2001)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Amistad (1997)
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)
Schindler's List (1993)
Jurassic Park (1993)
Hook (1991)
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
Empire of the Sun (1987)
The Color Purple (1985) (haven't seen)
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Jaws (1975)
maybe i'm just not as smart as you when it comes to films, but i thought most of these were pretty damn good

It's not a matter of being smart, it's just that I think the films i've highlighted are decidedly poor. (Some still contain magic, but on a whole, are too flawed to be considered decent - eg, Schindler = brilliant acting, cinematography, flawed and inconsistent direction; War of the worlds = killed itself in the final act, a few scenes of very bloated shit that marred what was a very solid film, etc.)

 

[spiny norman]

How can you not like ET!?!?!?

 

[Lundy]

Nwatts, can I ask why you think the direction in Schindler's List is flawed?

 

[walrusbear]

It's not a matter of being smart, it's just that I think the films i've highlighted are decidedly poor. (Some still contain magic, but on a whole, are too flawed to be considered decent - eg, Schindler = brilliant acting, cinematography, flawed and inconsistent direction; War of the worlds = killed itself in the final act, a few scenes of very bloated shit that marred what was a very solid film, etc.)

in reference to Temple of Doom I think you've got it the wrong way around
it's definitely a 'decent' film and its flaws are what makes it an interesting movie

 

[nwatts]

Nwatts, can I ask why you think the direction in Schindler's List is flawed?

Spielberg couldn't figure out whether he was directing a mockumetary or a drama. Too many pointless and eventually tedious scenes of Jews being oppressed in gritty b/w film. His bloated agenda, to present the most sympathetic portrayal of the Jews the screen could handle, and to develop this character of Schindler that changes from nasty nazi to become god+1, flipped on itself because it was so blatant - i lost all sense of empathy with Schindler, and I just got sick of being told that the Jews were oppressed. The final "oh I could have saved more" scene was totally unnecessary and incredibly bloated it left such a foul taste at the film's conclusion that I couldn't think back and consider it a good piece from Spielberg.

The text "schindler's arc" which I read after I saw the film is incredibly powerful, and presents this story of oskar schindler sans all the bloated emotion and misplaced john williams score. The raw characters and narrative is powerful, and Spielberg injected his directorial flair into the material and ruined it. If a sensitive director took this material - like Polanski who I read was the original choice for the director's seat - I think we'd have a much better, if less accessible film, on our hands.

 

[Lundy]

Admittedly I love Schindler's List, although I can see what you're saying. My main problem with it would also be that its pathos is a bit too calculated.

I'm glad Polanksi didn't direct it because he mightn't have gone on to make The Pianist (IMHO the superior film).

 

[nwatts]

Just watched The Pianist today (got it on DVD) and yeah, it's a great film. Although it's difficult to compare the two.

One other niggle I have with Schindler's list is that it's all in english. At least the pianist had the language of german soliders/others in german, leaving the poles and jews to speak english (which I assume some of them would have). It ruins that sense of authenticity. It'd be like the french remaking dances with wolves in french. Doesn't work.

 

[spiny norman]

It'd be like the french remaking dances with wolves in french. Doesn't work.

Or an Italian version of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

 

[nwatts]

Or an Italian version of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

No. The spaghetti western is (or was) an established field of filmmaking. It was accepted that the likes of Leone make American westerns in Italian and then redubbed them into English for English speaking audiences. As well as that, you'll find most of these westerns were dubbed in the editing room anyway, rather than taking dialogue from the actors on-set.

I'm objecting to an American director setting a story within an historical period of another country, yet retaining his natural language. Especially in a film like Schindler's List that obviously aimed to be very "real" and authentic through the use of a lot of hand-held camera work, b/w film and the sets that were modelled from their original counterparts.

 

[walrusbear]

Or an Italian version of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

bahahahahaha

 

[Lundy]

Yeah. Although I was fairly indifferent to Passion of the Christ, I have to give Gibson kudos for not taking the easy route and filming in english.

 

[Benny_]

I just watched Match Point.. and fuck me if it's not the best Woody Allen I remember ever seeing. Pushes Capote off my top 10 by probably going straight to number one for 2005. Forget 'Woody's best since Crimes and Misdemeanours', I'd have to go as far back as Manhattan to find a Woody movie of comparable quality. If there were any justice in this world, Woody would get a nod for best director and a win for best original screenplay. Johansson, devastatingly sexy and vulnerable as Nola surely deserves a look in for best supporting actress as well.

 

[nwatts]

Wow.

That's some praise.

Must be good.

 

[walrusbear]

still more good word
i'm looking forward to the next month or so
some good cinema releases - i can finally see capote, match point, history of violence, brokeback mountain etc.

 

[spiny norman]

No. The spaghetti western is (or was) an established field of filmmaking.

And the Hollywood historical epic isn't?

It was accepted that the likes of Leone make American westerns in Italian and then redubbed them into English for English speaking audiences.

American films are almost always dubbed for their releases in foreign countries. Was Schindler's List an exception to this, with Spielberg demanding it be shown in English?

I'm objecting to an American director setting a story within an historical period of another country, yet retaining his natural language.

But that's how most American films are done, with Passion of the Christ being one of the few examples of it being otherwise. Do you begrudge Paths of Glory, Amadeus, The Pianist, All Quiet on the Western Front, Gandhi, Papillon, Ben-Hur, Spartacus or Doctor Zhivago for the same reason?

Isn't it just a part of the style of American film making?

 

[icecreamdisco]

how'd you see match point, benny? d/l, i assume?

i've been hearing increasingly mixed things about it recently (mainly from stuffy brits who object to it's depiction of a 'fantasy london'), but the opinions i trust seem to love it.