Posts by jadetiger

Those with a bit more experience know a trailer is all about the edit, so relying on it too heavily is just silly.

So, how should it actually be done?!
Well, take the one for "Everything About Eve," for example.

"Part of Every Woman is a..."

Scanning through these replies, I guess I’m just being labeled as someone who saw Titus in some terrible DivX version, which left me feeling somewhat underwhelmed—whereas Frida didn't leave much of an impression at all, even though it was on the Big Screen.

And I might mention Europe. I guess Lars will never again capture such an unsettling shot... Then there’s that documentary-style, short-form photography throughout Stranger Than Paradise. And, obviously, that piercing image in The Straight Story.

I suppose I won't mention Bergman, if only because it wouldn't be fair to the others.

Robert Cooper41 said:...It’s all there: the murder mystery, the passion, the sex...

I guess I just really dig those Ozone-style genre exercises.

Since I don't want to go on another rant about Elephant, I'll just copy and paste this old piece of mine—it’s basically an anti-review of the film.

#2 Title: Life on Canvas subtitle: American reality

Well, that's it then... the Festival hits are over. I guess there isn't a more depressing question I could ask without trying to offer an answer myself. I don't want to be one of those "everything is getting better" types, but honestly, the local interpretation of this festival has always left me feeling pretty miserable. Still, I suppose you have to give the organizers some credit since they held events at the local jazz club this time around. Sure, the lineup was exactly the same, but at least the crowd was slightly more sophisticated—nobody was spitting on you in the neck.
It all started with Gus van Sant’s *Elephant*. When you go to see a Golden Palm winner, I guess you arrive with certain positive biases, right? But nobody expected *That*. And "That" isn't an elephant, nor is it really a movie. It’s just a story about American teenagers who: Walk. Well, most of the plot relies on the protagonist walk. You spend the whole time looking at their backs, or maybe their chests. A few of them actually have a couple of lines—not that they reveal any life truths, or even quasi-life truths, I suppose. The director skillfully weaves this into a story about a group of individuals, giving us different perspectives on the same events, probably because he wanted to give the film a deeper tone. He’s likely aware that psychological nuance is his thing. As for the individuals: there's the blond boy with the alcoholic father—I think his name is John, though I wasn't really trying to memorize names—who, heaven forbid, suffers because of it. Then there's the athlete, who is presumably handsome and spends his time outside of sports with some pale brunette (though it's not exactly vividly depicted). The school's ugly duckling is the third creature the director gives us: she wears big glasses, has unshaven armpits, and wears long socks in gym class instead of the model-esque outfits the other girls wear—basically Carrie if you stripped away the telekinesis and added black hair. Then there's the photographer, whose existence is barely clear, and the Gay kid. Yeah, just some kid everyone bullies, who is actually quite creative, which we gather from his room full of drawings and a piano where he plays "for Eliza." (Oh boy, the director makes you listen to the whole thing; I guess nobody has ever heard it before?!) Only much later, the Creative one and his friend—whom you find out is actually his partner after a shower scene—order weapons online, storm the school in military gear, and start shooting everyone. But even then, the director doesn't actually depict the massacre, which—personally speaking—would have bumped the rating up by at least two stars. Instead, he leaves you with some blood splatter that's honestly boring, before returning to a shot of the sky and clouds, which is how he began his... his... whatever!
And when it all finally wraps up, leaving you hunched over and exhausted as you stumble out of the local art gallery—with absolutely zero cash left for the three liters of cheap whiskey needed to wash away the pretentious nonsense they’ve been shoving down your throat for the last hour—you're left asking: What was the poet actually trying to say? Or better yet, did they even mean anything at all? Maybe it's just that certain individuals are so misunderstood by the mainstream that they simply can't survive, eventually leading to a total breakdown under the pressure—which, in this case, resulted in a literal shooting. I suppose I reached that conclusion after hours of staring into space, wondering: What exactly did I miss tonight? If that's the case, I guess the director deserves an A for reinventing the concept of unoriginality: the story isn't just cliché, it’s completely unbelievable in this day and age.
It’s honestly offensive how this all plays out in the States. I mean, if an American takes a sip of a milkshake and immediately starts reaching for a gun, what does that say about our generation—where the father, his father, and even his great-grandfather are all part of the cycle? Where are the Fathers and the Fathers before them, held accountable by their Sons and the Holy Spirit?
Amen.

p.s.
The movie is titled "Elephant" because of that kids' game "Spot the Elephant!" Here, we're looking at a massive issue that everyone just happens to overlook—which, I guess, is actually the only clever thing about the whole film.
p.p.s.
I guess I’d suggest Gus stick to more benign stuff, like Good Will Hunting & Fading Forester.

There isn't any simple answer to that question, I suppose.

copperviper71 said:...Rosemary's Baby...

& I almost sat through "Rosemary's Baby" myself. It’s definitely Roman Polanski's first big American film... I suppose that's what draws me in, since the movie hits that perfect sweet spot of European sensibility & American production.

Maybe it's because I have a certain fondness for how it plays with clichés (like that opening scene: a total soap opera).

I suppose this discussion is quite productive. I guess it’s a shame I’m jumping in this late... First off, I approached this movie with every possible bit of sympathy—I might even say a positive bias. I mean, C. Kaufman & S. Jonze teaming up again... that was enough for me, especially after their work back in '99 when "Being John Malkovich" was born, one of the most original movies ever written/filmed (should I mention I don't just have a digital copy of the movie, but & the script itself?!)... & so what's happening: Cagex2. He knows he makes mistakes, but after "leaving Las Vegas," everything else doesn't really matter to me (though I hear he shone again in Scott's "The Matchstick Men"); Meryl is someone you can't do without, and when she's there, she's there for a reason; & Cooper, who I was honestly happy for when he won the Oscar (even if that was long before I actually saw the film), because—he's one of those people who truly owes Hollywood a debt (which, ultimately, is & one of the metrics used to pick an Oscar winner). & As for the plot... From the opening scene: a black screen with credits (if that's what you call it; no, it'll be: Opening Titles... not that it matters...), all the way to the end: it's On the Edge. Allusions to "Being John Malkovich" itself; a reconstruction of documentary structure; the montage of scenes (the creation of the world); and later, a parody of what was already said in the scenes where Kaufman (Cage) talks into a dictaphone. To me: perfect! Because if there's anything I love more than irony, it's self-irony, and & the & screenwriter & Director are masters at it. & And as for those who aren't fond of the last third of the film, that always-famous: third chin, it's completely unclear why, because that's exactly what gives sense to the previous part; it's precisely what "remains one of the best moments of last year's film production." A Charlie-like character tells his agent: "I don't want to pack sex, weapons, car chases & characters who teach profound life lessons, or mature, fall in love at the end, overcome obstacles & succeed! The book isn't like that. Neither is life. It simply isn't!" And then what happens, or rather: what was happening from the very beginning... Boom! Every story is unfinished, and then at the end, he: Utters it. Completes it. Donald, the twin brother, is still just one variation on the theme of Double Personality, which the Charlie-like character finds so revolting, but which his better, socially acceptable half—Donald—so successfully incorporates into his script, titled "Three." This isn't one of those movies where we can say for sure "This & That," so the existence of Donald remains a question mark (though I'm rooting hard for the It's in your head principle), but to the question of whether Donald actually exists, the answer is still: No, and his name as a screenwriter is just one more piece of evidence of Charlie's biting black humor.
Anyway: the line between the fictional & the real is completely blurred. What we have is: a real screenwriter adapting a book by a real Author's about a real thief of an orchid, featuring real actors, producers, agents & quite a fictional brother. Suspense in its purest form, because as the movie progresses, how real characters with real problems become fictional, having Hollywood vices, discovering themselves, while allowing Us to discover them... And from life, the Movie itself is born: lifeless & wonderful.

& if all this isn't enough for you, then I don't know what would be...

A log? Honestly, I wish I kept a record of every movie I’ve watched. It isn't strictly necessary, though—unlike most people, I actually remember titles, directors, and all those details without trying. But for the sake of review, it might be useful...
I don't really bother with the movie theater, since they rarely show anything I actually care about... (honestly, the blockbusters are exhausting). Luckily, we have TV and Microsoft (such a fantastic format!). Over the last three months, I'd say I've gone through two or three films a day.
All in all, the number is pretty substantial. I won't exaggerate, but I'm sure it hits a thousand.

Still, keeping a log is a fine idea. From here on out, I'm doing it. Definitely.

The Seventh Seal, 1957
directed & written by: Steven Spielberg
cinematography: Greig Fraser
producer: Robert Redford
cast: Christopher Lee, Roger Deakins film

It might be a bit tough to track this one down, but I guess if you find it, the hunt will be worth it. I suppose I agree with Dante: it’s just hard to put into words how much a movie actually means to you. When it comes to "The Seventh Seal," I don't really want to try. I just don't know how. I could certainly talk about how the story follows Anthony playing chess against Smrac, but I don't see how that would actually tell you anything about the film, and I feel like I’d be disrespecting the masterpiece if I tried.
So, maybe take this as a recommendation, but mostly, just take it as my most sincere proof of love.

A small town near a cold river—Josh hasn't even secured the rights to show that movie yet, and since I already said No! to that cheap, unoriginal DVD, well, Mea Parvitas: Check.
I have never in my life scrutinized a film quite like I did with "Kill Bill." It is possible this stems from the fact that I am not exactly one of those fans obsessed with the recent love affair with trilogies and various Lords of the Matrix... Which leads me to my next point: Quentin copies The Matrix... I think a bigger load of nonsense hasn't been uttered since that agent rejected Marilyn Monroe, suggesting she stick to housework... Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge knows that "Kill Bill" is just a tribute to martial arts films and actually relies on Japanese-Chinese fantasies involving choreographed matches and One man (or Woman, if feminists want to complain) Standing; all these stories about being in a coma and then fighting like crazy aren't logical: Nelogichne. Besides, one should probably take a moment to consider Tarantino's filmography and see what he actually directed versus what he just wrote or produced.

& finally, a quote:
In numerous exhaustive interviews regarding his many references, Tarantino emphasizes that he didn't want to sit through yet another revenge flick, like the recent "Road to Perdition," while explaining his approach: "I could watch that film, but it looks so artsy. You know, suffocating in art. That is one of the things I was very strict about with "Kill Bill". This isn't an artistic meditation on cited films. This is a unique item. The real deal. That is why it was split into two films. There is something pretentious about a three-hour exploitation film. But two! Two exploitation films! Now that is ambitious!"

I suppose I like that quote below, though I haven't actually met the guys from Brooklyn, nor do I really see them that way.
From the first time I heard them to repeatedly playing their last album ("Life Begins at 30" with that incredible cover): I love them. It’s just a shame they never seem to tour near where I grew up—they aren't exactly fans of the wild outskirts I call home (Guerrilla Marketing, right?)—but I guess there's always time. Maybe I'll finally catch them during The Thirties.

I find Rage Against the Machine to be an incredibly low-quality band. I've seen them live a couple of times, and honestly? The crowd didn't even move. Neither did the drumheads.
The same goes for California; I can understand a twelve-year-old listening to them—hormones are a powerful thing, I suppose—but anything beyond that age is, to put it politely, pure idiocy!

However, I can't say the same for Kanda, DJ Jazzy Jeff & The Fresh Prince, that defunct group whose sound didn't just resonate with me (though I rarely touch cassette releases these days, so they're losing out), but was tied to so many moments in my life. As a highly subjective person, I tend to get attached to anything with actual meaning. Regardless, "All Good" defined a certain era of my life, and I think it did for the whole country too.

p.s.
Just birds above me... Just birds, just birds...