| Author |
Message |
|
| Marilyn |
 Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 6:17 pm |
 |
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8210
Location: Skokie (not a bad movie, btw)
|
| You're both right. Nosferatu is shown in a theatre somewhere in Chicago about once a year. It's a crowd-pleaser, I guess, though I've seen it so many times it's not very pleasing to me anymore. It's not really scary. I'd love it if they programmed Herzog's Nosferatu which is both a great tribute to the original and a vast improvement on it in terms of sheer fright. Of course, it's not a silent. And Joe's right--there are so many films that should have a larger audience. The festival has gotten safer and safer. I doubt anyone would suggest The Vanishing American these days. |
_________________
http://ferdyonfilms.com |
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 6:24 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
| Actually, I think Max Schreck is the most terrifying vampire, ever. Or, maybe I should say I did. Hard to have the same response after seeing the movie fifty some-odd times. But the shot of him swinging up from his coffin like he's on a hinge, or moving towards Hutter's room in the castle really got to me. And Knock, the Renfield character, might be the most disturbing of person in the movie. Surely this person was recruited for the role from an asylum. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marilyn |
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 6:27 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8210
Location: Skokie (not a bad movie, btw)
|
I think Klaus Kinski is scarier, especially Klaus Kinski really was a lunatic.
You know, I'd love to moderate a Director's Forum on Werner Herzog. That would be such an adventure in excess. |
_________________
http://ferdyonfilms.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 6:30 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
LOL
I saw the remake once, when I was 14 or something. It was okay. Good, dreamlike, dark fairytale atmosphere. Kinski is as right for the role as anyone at the time could be, but he's too removed, to inprisoned in his own sorrow to scare me. Scheck was agressive, Kinski passive.
I really should watch that remake again.
And I'd participate in a Herzog forum. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marilyn |
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 6:34 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8210
Location: Skokie (not a bad movie, btw)
|
| I still haven't seen Aguirre: The Wrath of God. It would be a good excuse to check it out. |
_________________
http://ferdyonfilms.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| ehle64 |
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 6:52 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 7149
Location: NYC; US&A
|
| pokra, you don't need an excuse to check out A:WoG, just do it! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Joe Vitus |
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 7:01 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 14498
Location: Houston
|
Marilyn,
I feel the same way you do. Danny Peary has a good essay on in in Cult Movies. At one point in the filming, either Herzog or Kinski pulled a gun on the other. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| McBain |
| Posted: Fri Jun 04, 2004 11:34 pm |
|
|
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 1987
Location: Boston
|
Just got back from Harry Potter. This one is by far the best of the series and the best movie of 2004 outside of Eternal Sunshine...
I haven't had so much fun since Kill Bill vol 1. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| McBain |
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2004 1:35 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 1987
Location: Boston
|
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
I had high hopes for the next film of the Harry Potter series as Alfonso Cuarón, the director of the fabulous Y Tu Mama Tambien and visually stunning Great Expectations, was set to take over from Chris Columbus whom I can pretty much take or leave. Even with Columbus, I enjoyed the first two films as clever and thoughtfully written children's stories. Rowling fills her books with cunning jokes, authentic childhood emotions, and surprising villains and they translated quite well to the screen. So I was stunned today when the third film surpassed my highest expectations as the best movie of 2004 that I've seen outside of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
For starters, the whole film is more tight, more cohesive than either of the others. This was mostly because there was little need for all the exposition of the first and, to a lesser extent, second film. It assumes that you understand what quidditch, muggles, and "you know who" are. This really lets the movie exist within its own fantasy without constantly pointing out how novel everything is. I had a real feeling of escaping into the realm of Hogwart's and having an adventure.
The cast they found for the series has always been good, and they don't fail the film here. The kids are solid actors, and fast becoming young adults before our very eyes. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are now all old friends and close to family. The seeds are planted in this film for an obviously intimate relationship between two of them. These moments are skillfully handled, funny, and cute without being obnoxious. There are nice moments when we see the trio goofing off together, and we see their loyalty to each other. This isn't new to the third film, only more artfully done. Alfonso Cuarón isn't holding up big signs to point out each relationship. The storytelling is just more organic than that. And Alan Rickman returns again as Snape. Rickman is fun to watch anytime he's on film.
Each film has had sort of "guest stars", actors who appear as professors or other characters important to that installment. John Hurt appeared in the first as the wand maker. Kenneth Branagh appears in the second as the faker Gilderoy Lockhart. While Gary Oldman is on hand to play the titular prisoner of Azkaban, it turns out to be a minor role. The surprise of the film is David Thewlis in the all important role of Professor Lupin. (SPOILERS FROM HERE ON) Thewlis turns out a great performance as Harry's mentor throughout the adventure. He has a secret, it turns out he's a werewolf and it is played in the end as if he is an AIDS patient outed at a prestigious private school in another time. Thewlis breathes life into his old school master, compared to Branagh's silliness in admittedly a very different role.
Emma Thompson also makes an appearance, and has a few good gags but offers nothing special. The big casting disappointment has to unfortunately be Sir Richard Harris' replacement as Dumbledore, Michael Gambon. While he is the spitting image of King Arthur, he is terribly missing the late Harris' most wonderful asset: his voice.
On to the action, where the film wastes little time. After the obligatory embarrassment of Harry's muggle relatives, he's quickly off to Hogwart's. There are lots of fun special effects, of course. But then finally they exist to move the story along. There are scary looking Dementors, grim reaper wannabe's looking for the dangerous Sirius Black (Oldman), the escaped prisoner. They float around, freezing everything around them while hunting their prey and anything that gets in their way. The quidditch match leads to a moment of mystery rather than existing as an insular chariot race. Then there is the most ingenious wizard device in the film, an old dull parchment that with the right spell acts as a sort of GPS radar for everyone in Hogwart's. Very useful for sneaking around and great for showing end credits on.
There are really too many fun sequences for me to go into. And I don't want to give away all the plot, but every plot element is weaved into the final, most exciting sequence of the film, where a little time travel is involved and lots of "Aha!" is exclaimed by the audience. It was a joy to watch and I'm sad that Cuarón will not be directing the next installment, as I will remember this one as not just a great kid's movie, but a great film. (And it made that Shrek 2 movie look like the callow, facile, baloney that it is.)[/b] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marc |
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2004 3:48 am |
|
|
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 8424
|
I have never seen a Harry Potter movie. Alfonso Cuarón will pull me into the theater to see this new one.
Cuarón's GREAT EXPECTATIONS is looney tunes. I dig it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| jeremy |
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:37 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6794
Location: Derby, England and Hamilton, New Zealand (yes they are about 12,000 miles apart)
|
Having read The Prisoner of Azkhaban (with my daughter he hastens to add) I had no qualms about doing a trawl of the reviews to see if Alfonso had delivered on my high hopes for injecting some cinematic flair into, what has been to-date, a workmanlike franchise. In contrast to Chris safe-pair-of-hands Columbus, Waner Brothers decision to entrust the care of their billion dollar baby to Cuarón was a bold one: he had never handled a film of this size; conceivably, he would have little feel for the vein of English suburban and (public) schoolboy type of literature that Rowling draws on; and his previous film featured two adolescent boys getting it on with the help of an older woman. But, given the restrictions he would have faced, and judging by the reviews and Mcbain’s comments, he has pulled it off.
It appears, he has created a real film rather than a faithful adaptation. In this, he has benefited from directing the third film in the series and not having to waste time on exposition. His proven ability to get his young actors to portray deeper, subtler emotions and inner character (as opposed to the type provided by the firmament of British troopers on hand) has seemingly been a benefit. Similarly, being a foreigner, who would focus on the universal rather than the esoteric, may have allowed him to produce a cleaner, more coherent film…perhaps I should see it (on Sunday) before saying too much more.
It seems a shame that the next Director, Mike Newel, seems another likely to concentrate on following the story (however skilfully) rather than magic and emotion. Surely and eight hundred page book can’t be brought to film in a shoot-by-numbers way. Why not Terry Gilliam or Tim Burton? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| jeremy |
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2004 6:31 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 6794
Location: Derby, England and Hamilton, New Zealand (yes they are about 12,000 miles apart)
|
| On the subject of reviews, Roger Ebert's was poor. I've noticed that when he is not inspired by a film or can't find an angle, his review can often descend into a clumsy recounting of the plot. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Marilyn |
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2004 9:39 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 8210
Location: Skokie (not a bad movie, btw)
|
Ehle - You're right. Alas, so many movies, so little time. I'm like you with Netflix--I keep pushing it down on the list.
Jeremy - Ebert does get sloppy. I think with the volume of movies he has to review, even when he likes a film, he doesn't always do it justice. He gave Coffee and Cigarettes three stars and then barely said anything about it at all that a moviegoer could rely upon to make a viewing decision. The star rating is just plain meaningless without the words to back it up.
I'm hoping to see the new Harry Potter this weekend, and maybe Saved! Has anyone seen the latter flick? I'm a little suspicious of Ebert's rave of it. |
_________________
http://ferdyonfilms.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
| marantzo |
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2004 10:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
jeremy an accurate description of Chris Columbus' directing style. I was very glad that they got someone else to do the latest one, though I'm not familiar with his stuff. It seems from the reviews that it was a good decision.
I think Columbus did as well as he is capable of in the first two. I was expecting to be disappointed, but he made a couple of good movies. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| shannon |
| Posted: Sat Jun 05, 2004 11:34 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 1628
Location: NC
|
| You know I'm anxious to see Saved!, but it's still in "select cities" and none of those selected cities are in NC. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
