| Author |
Message |
|
| billyweeds |
 Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 6:27 pm |
 |
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| Really interested in Renee's latest, My One and Only, which sounds good. So does Robin Williams's World's Greatest Dad. Two indies I'm keeping in my personal loop. Maybe not for theatrical consumption, but definitely as rentals. |
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 7:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Public Enemies, opened here today. Thank goodness. I saw it this afternoon. Michael Mann is not a favourite of mine, but he delivers the goods in this effort. Depp is his usual excellence in portrayal. How many actors in history can play so many different parts and excel in all? Maybe a spoiler but I don't think so: As the movie moves on and I was relishing every minute of it, Mann puts in a scene where Dillinger wanders around the office of a police detective unit created for the purpose of catching Dillinger. A wonderful dream like scene and funny, as he even asks the detectives, watching a Yankee game with an injured Babe Ruth, what the score is. They tell him, never realizing who he is. Complete fiction of course, but a brilliant and telling scene about the type of guy he is, or is mythologized as being.
The final scene, also definitely fiction, was mucho powerful. When a very good movie ends with a stunning scene, that's more than enough for me.
One complaint I had was when the movie went black, the screen told what happened to Melvin Pervis and then that was that, No credits or anything. I was looking forward to sitting through the credits and whatever form they were in and was very disappointed. Was the showing in North American minus the final credits also. There weren't any opening credits of course. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| inlareviewer |
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:33 pm |
|
|
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 1949
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
| Oh, double-foot. Yet again neglected to see Public Enemies, and now it's at like, 2 theaters throughout the Southland. Thanks, marantzo, for the notice. |
_________________
"And take extra care with strangers/Even flowers have their dangers/And though scary is exciting/Nice is different than good." --Stephen Sondheim |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Befade |
| Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:16 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 3784
Location: AZ
|
| Gary.......was it in Spanish.......or with Spanish sub-titles? |
_________________
Lost in my own private I dunno. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Befade |
| Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:20 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 3784
Location: AZ
|
| Inla........You've got the cuteness! Agree on Uncle Kenneth and (500) DOS. |
_________________
Lost in my own private I dunno. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:29 am |
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
PUBLIC ENEMIES had credits at the end.
Saw INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS tonight. As many critics noted, there is a lot talk in BASTERDS. Fortunately, its some of Tarantino's better writing. I'll be surprised if it's a big commercial hit. Much of the dialogue is subtitled and the movie requires that you know a fair amount about European cinema, from Italian exploitation to the mountain films of Riefenstahl, in order to fully appreciate the films subtexts. I thought it was losing the audience (a sold out crowd of Tarantino enthusiasts), but it did get a good round of applause at the end. Most of the scenes consist of people sitting around talking as tension builds to an inevitable burst of violence. Some scenes work better than others. Just as tedium starts to set in, Tarantino does something outrageous to re-engage the viewer. The film is divided into five chapters with the last chapter being the best. I have to give Tarantino credit for pulling off quite a stunt. He's luring crowds in based on the promise of an action film when in fact BASTERDS is an art film. As I watched it, I detected homages to Michael Powell (particularly The Red Shoes), De Palma (360 degree camera moves and sweeping crane shots), Sergio Leone (extreme closeups of scowling men and Morricone-like score), Sam Fuller (the b&w movie within the movie), Renoir (Grand Illusion)....I could go on. Film fanatics will have a field day dissecting BASTERDS. Go see it and we'll talk.
As far as the acting goes, Brad Pitt and Christoph Waltz and terrific. And in Melanie Laurent Tarantino has found his Catherine Deneuve.
With a projected $35 million box office ($15 million Friday) for the weekend, this will be Tarantino's biggest opening. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| inlareviewer |
| Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:37 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 1949
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Befade wrote: Inla........You've got the cuteness! Agree on Uncle Kenneth and (500) DOS.  and you've got the niceness, thanky. Turan is easy to take for granted, and seldom gets the national/advert attention that many a peer and less-than-a-peer enjoys like clockwork. And (500) Days caught me off-guard in exactly the way I'd hoped from the trailer. It just felt so true, both in its construct and certainly in its central pair. I kind of want to see them do Konstantin and Nina in The Seagull now.
Marc wrote: PUBLIC ENEMIES had credits at the end.
Now I'm really kicking myself for letting it slip through my fluctuating window of cineastic opportunity. Triple-foot.
Marc wrote:
Saw INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS tonight. As many critics noted, there is a lot talk in BASTERDS. Fortunately, its some of Tarantino's better writing. I'll be surprised if it's a big commercial hit. Much of the dialogue is subtitled and the movie requires that you know a fair amount about European cinema, from Italian exploitation to the mountain films of Riefenstahl, in order to fully appreciate the films subtexts. I thought it was losing the audience (a sold out crowd of Tarantino enthusiasts), but it did get a good round of applause at the end. Most of the scenes consist of people sitting around talking as tension builds to an inevitable burst of violence. Some scenes work better than others. Just as tedium starts to set in, Tarantino does something outrageous to re-engage the viewer. The film is divided into five chapters with the last chapter being the best. I have to give Tarantino credit for pulling off quite a stunt. He's luring crowds in based on the promise of an action film when in fact BASTERDS is an art film. As I watched it, I detected homages to Michael Powell (particularly The Red Shoes), De Palma (360 degree camera moves and sweeping crane shots), Sergio Leone (extreme closeups of scowling men and Morricone-like score), Sam Fuller (the b&w movie within the movie), Renoir (Grand Illusion)....I could go on. Film fanatics will have a field day dissecting BASTERDS. Go see it and we'll talk.
As far as the acting goes, Brad Pitt and Christoph Waltz and terrific. And in Melanie Laurent Tarantino has found his Catherine Deneuve.
With a projected $35 million box office ($15 million Friday) for the weekend, this will be Tarantino's biggest opening.
Well, when you put it like that, oh, well, what the hey.
Will bump it back into the Go See Sooner Rather Than Later list.
But if I come back here wearing a metal plate in my head and acting all twitch-ified and enervatious, it will all be Quentin's fault. |
_________________
"And take extra care with strangers/Even flowers have their dangers/And though scary is exciting/Nice is different than good." --Stephen Sondheim |
|
| Back to top |
|
| McBain |
| Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 3:07 am |
|
|
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 1987
Location: Boston
|
I thought Inglourious Basterds was terrific. The entire "bar" scene was masterful, and the King Kong joke was the biggest laugh of the movie. (To convey such impeccable timing in German with subtitles was awesome!)
I've never seen any of Eli Roth's movies, but man, he was fantastic as an actor in this flick. |
_________________
A life, Jimmy. You know what that is? It's the shit that happens while you're waiting for moments that never come. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| McBain |
| Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 4:00 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 1987
Location: Boston
|
I can't imagine a more wrongheaded review of the movie than this one.
"Perhaps, but fantasies are even more misleading. To indulge them at the expense of the truth of history would be the most inglorious bastardization of all."
Wow. Talk about missing the boat. |
_________________
A life, Jimmy. You know what that is? It's the shit that happens while you're waiting for moments that never come. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:46 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| I read the whole Newsweek review and I think it made the movie sound even more intriguing than ever. Perhaps, having seen the movie, you can argue with the points he makes, but his argument sounds reasonable considering what the plot (which I have assimilated) puts forward. It sounds like a revenge fantasy where the Jews turn the tables on the Nazis. The critic (probably Jewish) questions the propriety of that stance. Should the Jews be turned into Dirty Harry in the name of post-modern entertainment? Sounds like an eminently reasonable question to me. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 9:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Public Enemies was subtitled in Spanish. Most of the English language movies here are sub-titled. It seems like movies that cater to a younger audience have a mix of sub-titled and dubbed versions showing at different times. We always phone to find out if a movie is dubbed or sub-titled.
I did have fun asking for a ticket to Enemigos Públicos though. My Spanish is very limited. Something that you might not be aware of: The people speak extremely fast here, and according to Marta, even faster in Bogota, so if you aren't fluent in the language, it very difficult to pick up what they are saying. I first nitices this in Winnipeg when I would here Marta talking on the phone to her friends and relatives. It's like a verbal machine gun. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| McBain |
| Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 9:53 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 1987
Location: Boston
|
billyweeds wrote: I read the whole Newsweek review and I think it made the movie sound even more intriguing than ever. Perhaps, having seen the movie, you can argue with the points he makes, but his argument sounds reasonable considering what the plot (which I have assimilated) puts forward. It sounds like a revenge fantasy where the Jews turn the tables on the Nazis. The critic (probably Jewish) questions the propriety of that stance. Should the Jews be turned into Dirty Harry in the name of post-modern entertainment? Sounds like an eminently reasonable question to me.
And he's arguing "No" in the most unconvincing ways. As if movies can't exist as silly fantasy that we obviously don't take seriously, but revel in none the less. The tone of the movie is much too uproarious, silly, fun, and good natured for that. The movie itself is about the power of filmmaking, about how it can be used for both good and evil, humor and sorrow, and ultimately insanity, dark fantasy, revenge.
Without giving too much away, I mean, the film ends in a movie theater and is overwrought with Quentin Tarantino screaming "Isn't it great? Only in the movies!"
Nazis have always been the ultimate movie villains. Tarantino isn't so much ignoring the true history of Nazi Germany and the holocaust, so much has he's chosen to make a film about a completely different topic. He's more interested in the movie mythology that has existed for the last 70 years that is the direct product of that horror and grief. I think what the Newsweek review is akin to saying "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is dishonoring Jews by making Nazis goofy serial villains in the name of Christian triumphalism. Please. "Raiders" is good clean movie fun. Tarantino is just taking it to a next logical extreme (inspired by different genre tropes than Senor Speilbergo used) and poking fun at it simultaneously. |
_________________
A life, Jimmy. You know what that is? It's the shit that happens while you're waiting for moments that never come. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| McBain |
| Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:05 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 1987
Location: Boston
|
| The Newsweek review also conveniently ignores some real history where Jews have made themselves into Dirty Harry. Spielberg made a movie about Mossad agents going around murdering terror suspects that was based on real events, did he not? Is extrajudicial execution during peace time okay if its tastefully done? I think "Munich" was trying to point out that the reality of revenge is much more soul destroying than we'd hope, and its better left to the silver screen trip fantastic. |
_________________
A life, Jimmy. You know what that is? It's the shit that happens while you're waiting for moments that never come. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| McBain |
| Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 10:10 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 1987
Location: Boston
|
| I also suspect that the climactic movie theater scene is somewhat inspired by "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (among many other films). |
_________________
A life, Jimmy. You know what that is? It's the shit that happens while you're waiting for moments that never come. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Sat Aug 22, 2009 1:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I wouldn't compare Tarantino's latest with Munich. Quentin's opus is a complete fiction and obvious in its fantasy. Spielberg's Munich is a true story which the actual participants portrayed in the movie. What Tarantino does is not dishonest. What Spielberg did was. He changed the story to reflect his, actually his writer's, Kushner (I think his name was), political stance. The last part of the film was a complete fiction.
If you want to see an accurate, though fictional representation of a Mossad assassin's burn out, see Walk On Water. A far better picture and a far more honest one. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
