One of the Worst Years for Movies...
Finocchio568
My pick for this years best film (to date) is REQUIEM FOR A DREAM...I didnt
like the way the film made me feel (devastated, hopeless, etc) but the film
stands as one of the most gorgeous, brilliant, challenging cinematic
experiences I've ever had. The best performance so far goes to Bjork who
captures the soul of every scene in DANCER IN THE DARK. Ellen Burstyn gets the
best supporting performance...The other films that I like are DANCER IN THE
DARK and believe it or not, THE VIRGIN SUICIDES. Is there any other2000 films
that I may be missing? Is there an upcoming film to watch up?
And I'm also curious about one more thing - what films do you think will be
nominated for the Oscars Best Picture 2000? Erin Brockovich? Gladiators? The
Patriot? The films that I picked (listed above) are certainly too dark, raw,
"independent" for Hollywood...What do you think?
Peter Tonguette
>Is there any other2000 films
>that I may be missing?
My own thoughts on the best of the year thus far, for what it's worth:
Almost Famous (Crowe)
Dr. T and the Women (Altman)
Waking the Dead (Gordon)
and several others - Polanski's "The Ninth Gate," for example - which I
enjoyed.
Peter
Michael LaRosa
makes you feel the opposite of Requiem but its just as brilliant.... Almost Famous.
And what about High Fidelity and American Psycho? I havent seen Croupier so i cant
say about that.
Benjamin Johnson
Peter Tonguette <delt3...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001209152744...@ng-cf1.aol.com...
> Finocchio568 wrote:
>
> >Is there any other2000 films
> >that I may be missing?
>
> My own thoughts on the best of the year thus far, for what it's worth:
>
> Almost Famous (Crowe)
> Dr. T and the Women (Altman)
> Waking the Dead (Gordon)
>
Oh, I agree about Waking the Dead. Gut-wrenching film. I know you aren't
supposed to be able to, but I think I solved the mystery of the film.... I
don't want to post spoilers so I won't go into it with a warning in the
header, but it was so ... enlightening about my own personality when I
realized there could be only one answer.
By the way, where's Keith Gordon lately? Keith, you still lurking out
there? What are your comments on your movie? Is it in your own top list of
the year?
-Benjamin
boaz...@my-deja.com
finocc...@aol.com (Finocchio568) wrote:
> 2000 has to be one of the worst years for movies...(unlike last year).
>
> My pick for this years best film (to date) is REQUIEM FOR A DREAM...I
didnt
> like the way the film made me feel (devastated, hopeless, etc) but
the film
> stands as one of the most gorgeous, brilliant, challenging cinematic
> experiences I've ever had. The best performance so far goes to Bjork
who
> captures the soul of every scene in DANCER IN THE DARK. Ellen
Burstyn gets the
> best supporting performance...The other films that I like are DANCER
IN THE
> DARK and believe it or not, THE VIRGIN SUICIDES. Is there any
other2000 films
> that I may be missing? Is there an upcoming film to watch up?
Did you happen to catch "Jesus' Son?" It was out around June or so
this year. It was sort of along the lines of "Drugstore Cowboys," and
it had a great performance by Billy Crudup.
Another good one probably no one saw was "Jerome," a very low budget
piece involving a guy who quits his job suddenly and makes off with his
boss' car (because his wouldn't start) and takes up with a mysterious
woman along the way while driving to Jerome, Arizona. There was sort
of a Coen Brothers quirkiness to it.
Another good one was Istvan Szabo's "Sunshine."
Hey, I even liked "Chicken Run." Great use of three dimensional
animation.
Boaz
("Don't touch it. It's a very important work of art.")
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mgene...@my-deja.com
Looks like "Pollack" with Ed Harris might be good. Finally a good
film biography about an artist...
I really want to see "Sunshine."
Genevieve
*************
mgene...@my-deja.com
Here's a review from today's New York Times, if anyone is
interested:
December 10, 2000
FILM
'Pollock': Frame by Frame, an Action Film Dripping With Art
By MICHAEL KIMMELMAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demmie Todd/ Sony Pictures Classics
Ed Harris playing the painter Jackson Pollock at work in his studio
in "Pollock." Mr. Harris also produced and directed.
ED HARRIS'S "Pollock," opening in New York on Friday, sits atop
the category of biopic that includes Charlton Heston as the
tormented Michelangelo, Jose Ferrer as the tormented
Toulouse-Lautrec and Kirk Douglas as the tormented Vincent van
Gogh. Now Mr. Harris, as the tormented Jackson Pollock, does his
part for the tradition, upending tables, urinating into a fireplace
and, at his drunkest, becoming a fluorescent shade of orange that
makes him look even more like a pumpkin than Al Gore did during
the first presidential debate.
What would you expect? An artist like Chardin may be the greatest
still-life painter ever, but no one would want to see a movie about a
contented Frenchman who spent decade after decade serenely
painting the same bunch of brown pots and pans.
Movies are movies and paintings are paintings. Each has its
priorities. Paintings hang on a wall immobile, but films, including
films about paintings, demand a little action — and it doesn't hurt if
they've got a little Action Painting, too. Pollock, Action Painter and
manly brute, is the ideal artist for a movie, if there is such a thing.
And who cares whether it's strictly accurate except pedants?
"Pollock" happens to stick pretty close to the facts. Pollock could
be a nasty alcoholic and depressive. No other movie about an
artist has been more respectful or respectable in pure art terms,
treating Pollock as the serious artist he was and also as a
volcanic character. It's gripping drama. Mr. Harris and Marcia Gay
Harden, as Pollock's wife, the gifted painter Lee Krasner, are both
mesmerizing actors. Ms. Harden's Krasner, a tough, long-suffering
woman who subordinates her career to supervise her husband's,
only to be ditched by him for someone half her age, sadly seems
historically right, too.
But a film about an artist doesn't have to be artistically instructive or
true to history. True to itself, yes. That's something else. People
who know about Pollock can enjoy Mr. Harris's movie as good
melodrama, but they won't exactly learn much from it in terms of art
history, and neither will people who don't know Pollock's work,
because a movie about the famous years of a famous artist can
only do certain things well.
It can evoke a period. Mr. Harris goes to incredible lengths to do
that. The camera lingers over old paint cans from the 1940's and
cereal boxes from the 50's. To imitate Pollock, Mr. Harris switched
his cigarette brand to unfiltered Camels and built a studio in his
backyard in Malibu, where he practiced painting like Pollock,
mimicking how Pollock looks and moves in the famous Hans
Namuth photographs and films.
No actor has come vaguely as close to simulating a real painter
painting as does Mr. Harris (a former art student, by the way). The
scenes of him pouring looping swirls, conjuring magic out of thin
air, are beautiful, and they match how Pollock evidently made
certain famous drip pictures. Likewise, some of the earlier scenes
are true virtuosity when he puts brush to canvas, instinctively,
fluently.
Only if you know the pictures of the photographer and filmmaker
Namuth (played by Norbert Weisser), however, will you recognize
the special quality of Mr. Harris's simulation. In fact, it's possible, if
you go in skeptical or ignorant, to come away even from this
earnest film thinking Pollock, the greatest American painter of the
second half of the 20th century, was an interesting man but
artistically a fraud: Jack the Dripper, an abusive, taciturn
egomaniac supported by a coterie of hothouse esthetes, a
reckless fatalist who, at 44, drank and drove into a tree, killing
himself and a young woman, when he came to believe along with
his numerous detractors that he was a phony.
That's because "Pollock" is, first of all, a movie about two people in
New York in a mixed-up relationship who happen to be artists. It's
secondarily, if at all, a movie about modern art.
Fine. The only thing more deadly on screen than a lingering,
adorational shot of a painting is somebody describing a painting
in the usual art-speak. Occasionally the flow of Mr. Harris's
dramatic narrative comes to a sudden halt when Krasner or
another character pontificates about the pictures or, worse, reads
reviews of them. Real reviews. The movie tries but fails in this way
to tell you what makes Pollock's work great in historical terms. You
have to see the work in a museum to grasp that.
What movies about art haven't done well until this movie, on the
other hand, is to evoke the creative process realistically.
Compared with almost everyone else who has tried to translate to
the screen this slow, cerebral, mostly invisible phenomenon, Mr.
Harris, as a first-time director as well as a producer and actor,
manages far better than most to suggest the doubt, fear, time and
sheer boredom involved. There are Hollywood-style eureka
moments that aren't believable, but the movie also has stretches
of valuable, poetic, communicative silence.
In between the flip-outs and benders, we see Pollock gradually
inspired in a plausible sense to invent a new way of painting, not
just in the usual melodramatic Hollywood sense that an artist is
inspired.
He is inspired by his intelligence, beneath the brutish exterior; by
his physical absorption in the act of painting, which looks cathartic;
and by his intense competition with other artists and his desire to
please his mother, although these relationships are just hinted at.
Also by insecurity and an appetite for fame: normal motivations.
"Pollock" shows that artists, even great artists, are driven not just
by madness and genius.
A friend of mine, another art critic, also found the movie well acted
and memorable but not surprising, knowing Pollock's story during
the 40's and 50's, and he wondered what it would have been like
to see a movie about Pollock that wasn't dedicated to familiar
material but dealt with his early days, when Pollock was a
bottled-up boy from a dysfunctional, big Western family, living in
California, who then moved East with nothing much going for him
except ambition and deeply buried talent.
That might have made for a more unconventional film about an
even more complicated subject.
But American moviegoers want their artists to be big, famous,
misunderstood, troubled Romantics, preferably suicidal. In other
words, remote from them. Exotic. Entertaining.
Titanic.
"Pollock" should exceed their expectations.
Copyright 2000 The New York Times Company
Thomas Coleman
Peter Tonguette
>Looks like "Pollack" with Ed Harris might be good. Finally a good
>film biography about an artist...
In terms of film biographies of artists, Altman's "Vincent and Theo" - with Tim
Roth as van Gogh - is outstanding and unfortunately only scarcely available on
tape. It's really as good as anything Altman did in the '90s, save "Short
Cuts."
I'm also looking forward to seeing "Pollock," btw.
Peter
Michael LaRosa
mgene...@my-deja.com
ptong...@aol.com (Peter Tonguette) wrote:
> mgene...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Looks like "Pollack" with Ed Harris might be good. Finally a
good
> >film biography about an artist...
>
> In terms of film biographies of artists, Altman's "Vincent and
Theo" - with Tim
> Roth as van Gogh - is outstanding and unfortunately only
scarcely available on
> tape. It's really as good as anything Altman did in the '90s, save
"Short
> Cuts."
Too bad the Altman version is not widely available.
I dislike the Kirk Douglas version, sorry to say...
> I'm also looking forward to seeing "Pollock," btw.
>
> Peter
Me too. I hope it will be a break out role for Ed Harris who has
played enough astronauts and NASA officials...
I saw a clip of "Pollock" on Ebert's show yesterday. Ebert was
more enthusiastic than the NYTimes reviewer. I liked the scenes
of Pollock painting. It looked realistic enough.
Genevieve
**************
stalepie
there was a vincent van gogh movie that i saw about a year ago, i rented
it from this local video store that recently closed. I cannot remember
what it was called! What it was was like a cheap kind of home video
filming of countrysides, lots of landscapes, around where van gogh
may've travelled.... and it consisted of nothing but those images with a
voice over done by john hurt (i think!!?!) reading letters he's writing
to his brother, and i don't believe the brother's responses are ever
read... so you only get his out-in-the-wilderness lonely stuck with his
paintings point of view. AND I THOUGHT IT WAS COMPELTELY PERFECT. it was
so low budget. maybe it was made for some pbs show and only released in
really limited quantities. i cannot find it (for sure) on imdb.com or
amazon.com etc.
if anyone has any idea what this movie's called or where i could find
it, that'd be terrific
thanks
matt
Winston Castro
>Another good one probably no one saw was "Jerome," a very low budget
>piece involving a guy who quits his job suddenly and makes off with his
>boss' car (because his wouldn't start) and takes up with a mysterious
>woman along the way while driving to Jerome, Arizona. There was sort
>of a Coen Brothers quirkiness to it.
>
I've seen it, very good film. Also had a noir element to it-
Man meets mysterious woman-> woman proceeds to turn man's life into
hell.
boaz...@my-deja.com
> > Looks like "Pollack" with Ed Harris might be good. Finally a good
> > film biography about an artist...
> > I really want to see "Sunshine."
> >
> > Genevieve
> > *************
> Oops, I meant "Pollock." Shame!
Sorry to cut your review, Genevieve. Anyone interested can just jump
back and read it properly on your post. "Pollock" opens this Friday in
a limited engagement in L.A. I may wait until the holiday craziness is
over before I see it (I'm going out of town for the holidays). I
recall reading about how much this was a labor of love on the part of
Harris, who is one of my favorite actors. Yes, he did a lot of
astronaut and government official characters, but much of the money
earned from those roles went into financing this project, from what I
understand. Yes, I guess Harris went the way of Welles, Cassavetes and
even Robert Duvall in funding a film out of his earnings as an actor
when he couldn't find the backing otherwise.
Another favorite Harris role is his mercenary character in "Under
Fire," photographed, by the way, by Kubrick alum John Alcott.
And thank you for posting that review, Genevieve.
Boaz
("Our source was The New York Times.")
Peter Tonguette
>Too bad the Altman version is not widely available.
>I dislike the Kirk Douglas version, sorry to say...
The Douglas version is really bad, although it's reputation would suggest that
it's worse than many Hollywood screen biographies of that era - which it isn't.
Altman's film, on the other hand, is utterly unique - and, wisely,
concentrates on the human dynamic of the story as opposed to van Gogh the
painter.
>> I'm also looking forward to seeing "Pollock," btw.
>>
>> Peter
>
>Me too. I hope it will be a break out role for Ed Harris who has
>played enough astronauts and NASA officials...
>I saw a clip of "Pollock" on Ebert's show yesterday. Ebert was
>more enthusiastic than the NYTimes reviewer. I liked the scenes
>of Pollock painting. It looked realistic enough.
It's one of the few films coming up that I'm actually interested in seeing. As
I've said elsewhere, with the exception of literally a handful of quality
films, it's not been a great year for movies...
Peter
Wordsmith
For sure. Let's hope 2001 will be half as good as 1999. Am I being
too optimistic?
Wordsmith : )
PS Thanx for turning Matt on to my album, guy. I have no means for a
Madison Avenue-style advertising blitz, so, if good word of mouth
doesn't sell *NBS*, nothing will.
mgene...@my-deja.com
boaz...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > Looks like "Pollack" with Ed Harris might be good. Finally a
good
> > > film biography about an artist...
> > > I really want to see "Sunshine."
> > >
> > > Genevieve
> > > *************
> > Oops, I meant "Pollock." Shame!
>
> Sorry to cut your review, Genevieve. Anyone interested can just
jump
> back and read it properly on your post. "Pollock" opens this
Friday in
> a limited engagement in L.A.
"Limited engagement?" Not an expected money maker, I guess.
I may wait until the holiday craziness is
> over before I see it (I'm going out of town for the holidays). I
> recall reading about how much this was a labor of love on the
part of
> Harris, who is one of my favorite actors.
Same here.
Yes, he did a lot of
> astronaut and government official characters, but much of the
money
> earned from those roles went into financing this project, from
what I
> understand. Yes, I guess Harris went the way of Welles,
Cassavetes and
> even Robert Duvall in funding a film out of his earnings as an
actor
> when he couldn't find the backing otherwise.
This is understandable. Why Duvall would have to finance his own
films is beyond me.
> Another favorite Harris role is his mercenary character in "Under
> Fire," photographed, by the way, by Kubrick alum John Alcott.
Never saw this one.
> And thank you for posting that review, Genevieve.
> Boaz
> ("Our source was The New York Times.")
Oh, you are welcome. I thought the review was a bit tepid, but you
know how I feel about the NYTImes.
BTW, an "on-topic" question since people are lamenting about this
terrible year of films.
Do you think Spielberg "sped-up" the shooting schedule of AI due
to the possibilty of an Actor's Strike next spring? I keep reading that
most directors and stars (not to mention agents, producters, etc.)
are working 17 hours days to finish up every conceivable project
and production...
Next year sounds like it could be a very strange year.
Best,
Genevieve
**************
boaz...@my-deja.com
mgene...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <910oa0$qvk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> boaz...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Looks like "Pollack" with Ed Harris might be good. Finally a
> good
> > > > film biography about an artist...
> > > > I really want to see "Sunshine."
> > > >
> > > > Genevieve
> > > > *************
> > > Oops, I meant "Pollock." Shame!
> >
> > Sorry to cut your review, Genevieve. Anyone interested can just
> jump
> > back and read it properly on your post. "Pollock" opens this
> Friday in
> > a limited engagement in L.A.
>
> "Limited engagement?" Not an expected money maker, I guess.
It opens in so many theaters, then, depending upon how business goes,
it will be shown on more screens. It costs money to make prints, and
the distributor doesn't want to spend more than they need to if
business slacks off.
>
> I may wait until the holiday craziness is
> > over before I see it (I'm going out of town for the holidays). I
> > recall reading about how much this was a labor of love on the
> part of
> > Harris, who is one of my favorite actors.
>
> Same here.
>
> Yes, he did a lot of
> > astronaut and government official characters, but much of the
> money
> > earned from those roles went into financing this project, from
> what I
> > understand. Yes, I guess Harris went the way of Welles,
> Cassavetes and
> > even Robert Duvall in funding a film out of his earnings as an
> actor
> > when he couldn't find the backing otherwise.
>
> This is understandable. Why Duvall would have to finance his own
> films is beyond me.
You didn't know Duvall had to finance "The Apostle" out of his own
pocket when no one else would? After thirteen years he gave up and
used his own money. He got it back and then some when October films
bought the distribution rights and the film did fairly well at theaters
and later had a nice cable deal with HBO.
>
> > Another favorite Harris role is his mercenary character in "Under
> > Fire," photographed, by the way, by Kubrick alum John Alcott.
>
> Never saw this one.
Good movie. I recommend it. It takes place in Nicaraugua.
>
> > And thank you for posting that review, Genevieve.
>
> > Boaz
> > ("Our source was The New York Times.")
>
> Oh, you are welcome. I thought the review was a bit tepid, but you
> know how I feel about the NYTImes.
> BTW, an "on-topic" question since people are lamenting about this
> terrible year of films.
> Do you think Spielberg "sped-up" the shooting schedule of AI due
> to the possibilty of an Actor's Strike next spring? I keep reading
that
> most directors and stars (not to mention agents, producters, etc.)
> are working 17 hours days to finish up every conceivable project
> and production...
> Next year sounds like it could be a very strange year.
>
> Best,
> Genevieve
> **************
Well, 17 hour days is not unusual for a feature production. Twelve to
sixteen is about the average, with six day weeks sometimes, though
that's usually just for location shoots. It's possible Spielberg sped
up the schedule in order to free up the actors so they could go on to
other contractual obligations before this strike happens. The thing
is, this is beginning to sound like a self-fulfilling prophecy, with
the studios almost expecting it to happen. It won't if the studios and
networks agree to the demands by the guilds when their contracts expire
next spring. But it is never that easy. I don't even want to think
about the damage the strike will cause. The ripple effect will be felt
by practically every business in this town. I remember how the Writers
strike of '89 really crippled businesses. I saw so many houses go up
for sale and many writers who lived in apartments were moving out of my
neighborhood. If this one happens, everything will practically come to
a standstill as far as production goes. Even TV shows will stop
shooting. We won't see the effect in theaters until sometime late in
2001 or early 2002.
The real sad part is that the rich and powerful will still be able to
survive this strike. People in the middle and at the bottom of the
food chain will suffer the most. And they're the ones this strike is
meant to benefit. Strange year indeed.
Boaz
("Don't touch it. It's a very important work of art.")
Andrew Foley
stalepie wrote in message <910lor$p2a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>there was a vincent van gogh movie that i saw about a year ago, i rented
>it from this local video store that recently closed. I cannot remember
>what it was called! What it was was like a cheap kind of home video
>filming of countrysides, lots of landscapes, around where van gogh
>may've travelled.... and it consisted of nothing but those images with a
>voice over done by john hurt (i think!!?!) reading letters he's writing
>to his brother, and i don't believe the brother's responses are ever
>read... so you only get his out-in-the-wilderness lonely stuck with his
>paintings point of view. AND I THOUGHT IT WAS COMPELTELY PERFECT. it was
>so low budget. maybe it was made for some pbs show and only released in
>really limited quantities. i cannot find it (for sure) on imdb.com or
>amazon.com etc.
>
>if anyone has any idea what this movie's called or where i could find
>it, that'd be terrific
That's _Vincent_ (aka _Vincent -- the Life and Death of Vincent Van Gogh_)
directed by the Dutchman who lives (and makes movies) in Australia, Paul
Cox. The voice-over was indeed by John Hurt. It's about twelve years since
I saw that one theatrically.
Brendan Patrick Crilly
> 2000 has to be one of the worst years for movies...(unlike last year).
Very true, particularly in the mainstream. I'm still
holding out hope that 2000 will go out with a bang, but
we're running out of time.
> My pick for this years best film (to date) is REQUIEM FOR A DREAM...I didnt
> like the way the film made me feel (devastated, hopeless, etc) but the film
> stands as one of the most gorgeous, brilliant, challenging cinematic
> experiences I've ever had. The best performance so far goes to Bjork who
> captures the soul of every scene in DANCER IN THE DARK. Ellen Burstyn gets the
> best supporting performance...The other films that I like are DANCER IN THE
> DARK and believe it or not, THE VIRGIN SUICIDES. Is there any other2000 films
> that I may be missing?
Well we certainly agree with the cream of the crop.
Here are my favorites so far this year:
1 - Dancer In The Dark (Lars von Trier)
2 - Requiem For A Dream (Darren Aronofsky)
3 - The Virgin Suicides (Sofia Coppola)
4 - Bamboozled (Spike Lee)
5 - Not One Less / Yi Ge Dou Bu Neng Shao (Yimou Zhang)
6 - Ghost Dog: The Way Of The Samurai (Jim Jarmusch)
7 - Wonder Boys (Curtis Hanson)
8 - Almost Famous (Cameron Crowe)
Best of the Rest:
Butterfly / La Lengua De Las Mariposas (Jose Luis Cuerda)
The Color Of Paradise / Rang-e Khoda (Majid Majidi)
The Big Kahuna (John Swanbeck)
Long Night's Journey Into Day (Hoffmann/Reid)
Chicken Run (Peter Lord/Nick Park)
Meet The Parents (Jay Roach)
Winter Sleepers / Winterschlafer (Tom Tykwer)
Kikujiro / Kikujiro No Natsu (Takeshi Kitano)
> Is there an upcoming film to watch up?
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (Ang Lee)
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (Cohen Brothers)
State and Main (David Mamet)
And Several Others that may surprise....
> And I'm also curious about one more thing - what films do you think will be
> nominated for the Oscars Best Picture 2000? Erin Brockovich? Gladiators? The
> Patriot? The films that I picked (listed above) are certainly too dark, raw,
> "independent" for Hollywood...What do you think?
Too early to say. I fear Hollywood tripe such as "The
Patriot" or "Pay It Forward" will be celebrated. Then
there is "Cast Away," the new Hanks/Zemeckis vehicle
absolutely certain to at least garner a Best Actor
Nominee. After all, Hanks reportedly grew an actual
beard for the part!!
At least films such as "Wonder Boys," "Almost Famous"
and "Erin Brockovich" should help maintain some notion
that these awards are being handed out for something
other than box-office appeal and back-room politicking.
Brendan
Andrew Foley
Peter Tonguette wrote in message
<20001209152744...@ng-cf1.aol.com>...
<snip>
>Finocchio568 wrote:
>
>>Is there any other2000 films
>>that I may be missing?
>
>My own thoughts on the best of the year thus far, for what it's worth:
>
>Almost Famous (Crowe)
>Dr. T and the Women (Altman)
>Waking the Dead (Gordon)
Of your picks, Peter, you've managed to select two which it looks like
aren't going to get a British distribution. Cameron Crowe's film will
probably turn up eventually, but the Altman film quite possibly won't. And
Keith Gordon's film is looking increasingly like a no-show; and since there
was a BBC miniseries a few months ago with the same title, if it does turn
up it might come under a different name.
They'll probably turn up on video, but that's no use to me, because I insist
on seeing theatrical films theatrically.
BTW, I just saw John Waters' film _Cecil B Demented_, barmy and outrageously
funny, and a thorough lampooning of much that is bad in Hollywood cinema.
I'm surprised it's never got a mention here before now; are US distributors
reluctant to show something which relentlessly attacks most of their
product?
Brendan Crilly
> funny, and a thorough lampooning of much that is bad in Hollywood cinema.
> I'm surprised it's never got a mention here before now; are US distributors
> reluctant to show something which relentlessly attacks most of their
> product?
I found this film to be hilarious and deliciously cathartic. There are
times when I wanted to reach out and hug this film. Anyone feeling
frustrated and alienated by the seemingly never ending flow of stupefying
gunk coming out of Hollywood should see this film. It's better and
cheaper than therapy.
I'd guess that US distributors were reluctant because they understand that
most people who go to the movies appear to be blindly pleased with the
product and therefore wouldn't get a vast majority of the savage-style satire.
Brendan
"Patch Adams: The Director's Cut" ;-)
Peter Tonguette
>Peter Tonguette wrote in message
><20001209152744...@ng-cf1.aol.com>...
>
>>My own thoughts on the best of the year thus far, for what it's worth:
>>
>>Almost Famous (Crowe)
>>Dr. T and the Women (Altman)
>>Waking the Dead (Gordon)
>
>Of your picks, Peter, you've managed to select two which it looks like
>aren't going to get a British distribution. Cameron Crowe's film will
>probably turn up eventually, but the Altman film quite possibly won't.
>And
>Keith Gordon's film is looking increasingly like a no-show; and since there
>was a BBC miniseries a few months ago with the same title, if it does turn
>up it might come under a different name.
That's really too bad, becasue I can't think of three other films I've been
more impressed with all year. Not that there's been stiff competition, but I
still think that these three would look awfully good any year. Unfortunately,
even here in the States, I was only able to see two of the aforementioned three
theatrically - Keith's film never made it out my way and, sadly, I could only
catch it on DVD.
As far as Altman's film goes, given how so many of his films are more akin to
environmental experiences as opposed to linear narratives and, as such, are
very reliant on both the screen size and quality sound afforded by a theatrical
presentation, I really can't imagine how it will look and sound on video. This
is, as I say, true of many of Altman's films - but, in the case of a movie that
is basically about chaos and confusion, it seems particularly important to
really be able to see and hear all of that chaos and confusion. I wouldn't
want to know how all that great Altman overlapping dialogue sounds on tape...
>They'll probably turn up on video, but that's no use to me, because I insist
>on seeing theatrical films theatrically.
I think many people underestimate just how much is lost in even the best video
transfers. There is simply no substitute for the theatrical experience - and,
I would argue, with some filmmakers - Kubrick, Bresson, Malick, to name a
handful - it is absolutely crucial to how the films should be ideally viewed.
Which isn't to say that _all_ films don't lose something in video, of course...
>BTW, I just saw John Waters' film _Cecil B Demented_, barmy and outrageously
>funny, and a thorough lampooning of much that is bad in Hollywood cinema.
>I'm surprised it's never got a mention here before now; are US distributors
>reluctant to show something which relentlessly attacks most of their
>product?
"Cecil B" was released here, but only sporadically and opened to inexplicably
scathing reviews. I've yet to see it, although hopefully it will be an
improvement over Waters' last few outings.
Peter
Peter Tonguette
>For sure. Let's hope 2001 will be half as good as 1999. Am I being
>too optimistic?
Hopefully not - although I think that 1999 would be hard to top. I can think
of a half dozen films from that year just off the top of my head - EWS,
"Topsy-Turvy," "The Limey," "The Straight Story," "Besieged," and interesting
minor work like "Being John Malkovich" or "Magnolia" - that are as good as or
better than anything we've seen this year.
>PS Thanx for turning Matt on to my album, guy. I have no means for a
>Madison Avenue-style advertising blitz, so, if good word of mouth
>doesn't sell *NBS*, nothing will.
My pleasure, Wordsmith. It's a great album and I've recommended it to anyone
who'll listen!
Peter
Corey3rd
did hit Sundance (the festival - not the pay channel) Emilio Estevez's "Rated
X." Emilio botches the legendary story of Artie and Jim Mitchell (makers of
Behind the Green Door).
Is it just me or is Quills and Chocolat the same film except one is about porn
and the other sweets?
only film I liked in the theater was Almost Famous - and even then I still want
to see the DVD cut. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon hasn't opened around here.