Films 4

[TT]

A new thread, while awaiting for the Oscars. I've watched a lot of films
in past couple weeks or so, ticked boxes on mainly three genres:

-Oscar nominees & new films
-Cult horror
-Jean Seberg films

-

PAWN SACRIFICE (2014)

Tobey Maguire as Bobby Fischer, Liev Schreiber as Boris Spassky. Solid,
rather historically accurate depiction of events on Fischer-Spassky
world championship match and how it became reality. I don't think
Spiderman did very good acting job here, didn't quite capture Fischer's
madness. Granted he does look a bit like Fischer. There's hardly
anything new to people who have seen BOBBY FISCHER AGAINST THE WORLD
(2011), which is rather good documentary but I would have hoped a bit
more analysis on chess moves themselves. After watching these films I
felt that Fischer lacked guts to compete, and that too much chess isn't
helpful for mental imbalance. Both films at least mentioned Paul Morphy
whom I think was at least as great a talent as Fischer was.

Pawn Sacrifice 6/10
Bobby Fischer Against the World 7/10

-

STEVE JOBS (2015)

"It's not binary - you can be decent and gifted at the same time"
Rather unflattering depiction of Jobs' persona, yet manages to make him
likeable in the end. The film doesn't overlook flaws in Jobs' character,
management, knowhow, nor Wozniak's importance or flaws with the product.
Pretty good film and great performance from Fassbender as Jobs, Kate
Winslett doing nothing much imo. Jobs actually made lots of horrible
decisions and I think his reputation on some sort of marketing genius is
totally manufactured from need for heroes for corporate America. I would
rather say that Apple became successful despite Jobs' flawed decision
making. What he basically did was sabotage Apple's success and in the
end managed to jump in the boat at the right time. So the film is rather
honest, although focused a bit too much on Job's family relations and in
the end perhaps contributes to the cult of Jobs' importance and so
called genius.

7/10

-

JOY (2105)

Housewife heroics. I can't believe how fluff this film's topic is...
about inventor of a self wringing mop and miracles of marketing these
products on shopping channel. Deep. The importance and weight of it all
makes me dizzy... what would we do without shopping channel and this new
improved mop?! Jennifer Lawrence does a fine performance, an extension
to her "Hunger Games" independent smart young woman typecast... while
Robert De Niro should have quit acting in 1991 or so, after the remake
of Cape Fear.

4/10

-

ROOM (2015)

Sort of interesting and "important" new topic for people who have not
seen likes of Oldeboi/Oldboy and Kaspar Hauser. About a girl (and her
child) being held as sexual slave in a shed. First third of the film is
fairly interesting but then it becomes basically a made for TV quality
drama. Whatever critics see in this I don't, and that's including Brie
Larson's performance which I don't see worthy of all the accolade.

5/10

-

DAWN OF THE DEAD (1978)

Zombies. Cool. Sort of good film in parts but I found it rather tedious
and silly... especially the zombie makeup(s) which looked simply
amateurish, in colour. My biggest problem with this film is probably how
slow the zombies were, walking around 500 m/h pace and the living were
able to run circles around them... the film lacked all suspense because
of that and came off as comedy - which I think wasn't the intent. The
critics seem to praise "social commentary" in this film (attention
Courtsie - I'm finally watching films with social commentary!) which
means that it is satire on consumerism. So it's deep. Very very deep.

5/10

-

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968)

Romero's first zombie film, a classic in b/w (why?). This is a bit more
suspenseful - at least there's ONE zombie which moves fast and the
closed space and characters are ok. The makeup looks also better in b/w.
The cinematography is sometimes good/creepy and the ending is nice. So
there is some suspense. Still I think Romero's "Monkey Shines is far,
far more suspenseful as his cult zombie flicks. Also, there are better
films in zombie genre, imo.

6/10

-

CARNIVAL OF SOULS (1962)

Horror. Starring Candace Hillgoss and directed by Herk Harvey. Who?
Exactly. A film made by pretty much amateurs and it shows in editing.
Yet the film is rather suspenseful, picking some influences from the
likes of Psycho etc. The story itself is sort of like a Twilight Zone
episode and the leading lady does fine job. But the film is all about
unusually good and moody, even masterful b/w photography. Recommended.

http://www.saunalahti.fi/~thetjt/stuff/films/carnivalofsouls.jpg

7/10

-

VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED (1960)

Great supernatural classic horror/thriller with menacing kids. The
story, children and Barbara Shelley are good, George Sanders not so much.

8/10

-

HOUSE OF USHER (1960)

Vincent Price in first of Corman's films based on Edgar Allan Poe's
stories, and imo the best. The less that is said the better, imo IMDB's
synopsis/plot gives away too much even... just watch it without reading
anything about it. I fully enjoyed and found it suspenseful all the way
through, the pacing was good, more so than "Pit and the Pendulum", imo.

8/10

-

PIT AND THE PENDULUM (1961)

Corman, Poe, Price and wonderful Barbara Steele. A classic. Maybe I
remembered it too well but I thought this isn't as suspenseful as a
whole as the previous one. The ending though is much superior, a classic
cinema moment.

7/10

-

TALES OF TERROR (1962)

Corman, Poe, Price and Peter Lorre. Horror anthology consisting of 3
short horror stories, around half an hour each. I liked the middle one
the best where Lorre acts as a drunk, unemployed and cuckolded husband.
(I decided to skip Corman's "The Raven 1963" and save it for later, seen
it anyway, although remember "fuck all" about it)

6/10

-

BLACK SUNDAY (1960)

Directed by Italian Mario Bava and starring again the wonderful Barbara
Steele. Great atmospheric cinematography. I came to conclusion that b/w
cinematography is actually better for horror than colour (The Innocents,
Psycho anyone?). One of the horror classics without a doubt and very
good at that.

http://www.saunalahti.fi/~thetjt/stuff/films/BlackSunday.png
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~thetjt/stuff/films/BlackSunda2.png
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~thetjt/stuff/films/BlackSunda3.png

7/10

-

BLOOD AND BLACK LACE (1964)

Another Bava classic. So so thriller with nice colourfully moody images.

http://www.saunalahti.fi/~thetjt/stuff/films/bava1.png
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~thetjt/stuff/films/bava2.png
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~thetjt/stuff/films/bava3.png
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~thetjt/stuff/films/bava4.png
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~thetjt/stuff/films/bava5.png
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~thetjt/stuff/films/bava6.png

6/10

-

DEEP RED (1975)

Dario Argento's praised horror classic. It's the Citizen Kane of slasher
films. :) ...No, really. As far as the visuals and directing goes it is
an absolute masterpiece imo. That adds to atmosphere. The problem though
with Argento's films is the storytelling, he's just so immersed in
visuals that the story becomes secondary. Despite the cinematic
brilliance of this film I think it's still not quite as good as
"Suspiria" or "Phenomena", latter being still my favourite Argento film.
I don't think Courtsie will like any of his films.

6/10

-

AUDREY ROSE (1977)

Robert Wise's (The Haunting) horror story about Anthony Hopkins'
character claiming a daughter of a family as his reincarnated dead
daughter. Very repetitive and actually takes reincarnation seriously.
Tedious bollocks with really annoying child actress. No wonder this is
forgotten.

4/10

-

MANIAC (1980)

LOL! Somewhat entertaining and creepy 80s slasher film.

http://www.saunalahti.fi/~thetjt/stuff/films/Maniac_1980.JPG

-

THE BABADOOK (2014)

Surprisingly creepy. Keeps the suspense nicely, better than average film
of this genre. Having said that, the story was rather repetitive and the
screaming child was even more annoying than in "Audrey Rose". There were
some classic horror elements, such as Babadook itself looking a mix of
Dr Caligari and Nosferatu. The ending (spoiler) was a bit lame,
apparently all you have to do is get really angry.

Ba ba ba ba dook dook dook! :)

6/10

-

PURPLE NOON (1960)

Alain Delon in original film on "Talented Mr Ripley" (or rather the
novel). Little more straightforward and less complex story than in
Damon's "Ripley", while Delon's character doesn't feel remorse and the
homoerotic innuendos are not there either. Beautiful
cinematography/scenery and overall slightly better than the remake imo,
although I liked both. The ending in this one was better.

7/10

-

MISSISSIPPI MERMAID (1969)

Truffaut's drama about betrayal, crime and obsession, starring Jean-Paul
Belmondo and Catherine Deneuve. Pretty good, although not entirely
implausible... then again I think that is what makes this film
interesting. The obsessed love despite everything. Deneuve in peak of
her powers and some very French film making.

7/10

-


SAINT JOAN (1957)

Young Jean Seberg starring in name role as Preminger's Joan of Arc. She
was unknown at the time and was chosen from 18 000 contestants/auditions
for the role! This film was not a critical success but I think it's
rather good although a bit uneven story-wise. It is character and
dialogue driven film focused on Maid of Orleans and her motivations
while there are no battle scenes whatsoever. The stage settings/scenery
was rather underwhelming. I liked the dialogue of Seberg's character and
her acting a lot while Widmark wasn't convincing.
Too bad that there's only a DVD version available and even that is not
the best of transfers, unlike the following two publicity photos which I
edited a bit...

http://www.saunalahti.fi/~thetjt/stuff/films/Jean%20Seberg%20Saint%20Joan%20(2).jpg

http://www.saunalahti.fi/~thetjt/stuff/films/Jean%20Seberg%20Saint%20Joan.jpg


7/10

-

BONJOUR TRISTESSE (1958)
("Hello Sadness")

Jean Seberg in her second film, again with Preminger. A fluff story
about an easy going father (David Niven) and daughter (Seberg) in French
Riviera with great looking locations, photography and clothes. Then the
seriousness comes to picture in form of Deborah Kerr. So a great cast
and visuals, apart from David Niven whose attraction at the time I can't
comprehend... or his credibility as a "playboy father"...

The film is photographed in great colour and also partially in b/w,
which is nicely done and actually adds to the story. After seeing Seberg
in "Lilith" I thought she might be top 10 most beautiful women in cinema
ever. After seeing this one I think she might top 1...

http://www.saunalahti.fi/~thetjt/stuff/tennis/JS_avatar.gif

7/10

-

THE MOUSE THAT ROARED (1959)

Jean Seberg in unfortunately unfunny Peter Sellers comedic vehicle. I
never found him funny, apart from the film "Being There", which imo had
a great script. Thus is a film about a small nation claiming war on USA.
Provided some chuckles but not enough. Peter Sellers went all Alec
Guinness in "Kind Hearts and Coronets" - made a decade earlier - while
playing multiple characters. "Coronets" had dry intelligent British
humour with "social commentary", while "Mouse" just came off silly and
childish. Jean Seberg in shower scene, showing her shoulders.

4/10

-


BREATHLESS (1960)

Godard's classic about a car thief and an American girl in Paris, the
film that started the French New Wave. Starring beauty and the beast:
Seberg and Belmondo. Belmondo must be one of the ugliest actors ever,
and played a chain smoking crook which fit the bill petty well.
Performances from both actors are good, and Belmondo's character is
somewhat iconic and influential to later films.

At first when I started watching it I wondered about the editing, it
seemed horribly bad... I realized it must be intentional. Indeed, Godard
used "jump cuts" aka leaving much of the film on cutting table without
bothering about continuity of the shots. The result was sharply paced
storytelling which added to the Noir feel of the film greatly... a touch
of genius against norms of conventional film making of the time. And it
still feels new and innovative over 50 years later, which is a testimony
to this film. It's all about the style, and the substance (story) is
served in entertaining fashion and pace. Refreshing.

9/10

-

LILITH (1964)

Jean Seberg shines as manipulative mental patient while Warren Beatty's
therapist forms a relationship with her. Surprisingly good performance
from normally wooden Beautty and probably best performance of Seberg's
career. Also Peter Fonda is quite good as intellectual but uncertain
mental patient... while Gene Hackman also makes a short but good cameo.
His accent sounds completely different than normally here.

The direction and cinematography is great... from Robert Rossen who also
directed unarguably the best film ever made; "The Hustler". What
especially caught my attention was the extensive use of dissolving
images on top of each other, to great effect:

http://www.saunalahti.fi/~thetjt/stuff/films/Lilith1.png
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~thetjt/stuff/films/Lilith2.png
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~thetjt/stuff/films/Lilith3.png.png
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~thetjt/stuff/films/Lilith4.png

The lovemaking scene especially was done with great taste. The story did
touch on several taboos of the time and was told with deliberate pace.
What makes the film in the end though is Seberg's performance and
exquisite beauty.

9/10

-

DEAD OF SUMMER (1970)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDT9_cTdtME

Seberg plays an architect's (who is travelling) lonely wife in this sort
of surreal, artistic and obscure film from lesser known Italian
director. Quite slow yet sort of captivating and rather sensual. Seberg
shows some skin here, and looks a lot like Tippi Hedren/Kim Novak. Must
be the hair and clothes.
I might have liked it more if I understood even half of what was said,
as the clip was on youtube and in Italian. Then again, there wasn't much
dialogue so...
Good performance, the film is mostly about the wife being alone in her
apartment. But yes, there were lots of this type of films at the time
from Italy and Spain. She did this after always amusing "Paint Your
Wagon" and "Airport (1970)", latter of which I have not yet rated and is
probably next on my list...

6/10

[Gracchus]

On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 2:31:09 PM UTC-8, TT wrote:

> CARNIVAL OF SOULS (1962)

> Horror. Starring Candace Hillgoss and directed by Herk Harvey. Who?
> Exactly. A film made by pretty much amateurs and it shows in editing.
> Yet the film is rather suspenseful, picking some influences from the
> likes of Psycho etc. The story itself is sort of like a Twilight Zone
> episode and the leading lady does fine job. But the film is all about
> unusually good and moody, even masterful b/w photography. Recommended.

Court 1 and I discussed this one a while ago. There actually was a similar Twilight Zone episode called "The Hitchhiker" that predates "Carnival of Souls" by two years. Sheer coincidence seems unlikely. And in turn, the movie was a definite influence on "Jacob's Ladder."

Here's a good article about COS.
http://offscreen.com/view/carnival_of_souls

> VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED (1960)

> Great supernatural classic horror/thriller with menacing kids. The
> story, children and Barbara Shelley are good, George Sanders not so much.

Yes, a very effectively creepy film. The remake of course sucked.

> THE BABADOOK (2014)

> Surprisingly creepy. Keeps the suspense nicely, better than average film
> of this genre. Having said that, the story was rather repetitive and the
> screaming child was even more annoying than in "Audrey Rose". There were
> some classic horror elements, such as Babadook itself looking a mix of
> Dr Caligari and Nosferatu. The ending (spoiler) was a bit lame,
> apparently all you have to do is get really angry.

> Ba ba ba ba dook dook dook! :)

> 6/10

Didn't you see this last year? I recall Court 1 and I both liking it a lot more than you did. I've no problem with the ending. IMO it's consistent with the rest of the film as straddling supernatural & psychological horror. True about the kid being annoying, but he was supposed to be.

> PURPLE NOON (1960)

> Alain Delon in original film on "Talented Mr Ripley" (or rather the
> novel). Little more straightforward and less complex story than in
> Damon's "Ripley", while Delon's character doesn't feel remorse and the
> homoerotic innuendos are not there either. Beautiful
> cinematography/scenery and overall slightly better than the remake imo,
> although I liked both. The ending in this one was better.

I recall one reviewer saying that ALL films based on Patricia Highsmith stories are at least a little bit gay. Quite true. Are you saying you think "Purple Noon" lacked homoerotic innuendos? If it did, the overtones certainly seemed strong enough. Also, the "Purple Noon" ending was not in Highsmith's story and the police don't catch up with Ripley. Considering that this isn't an American film, it's surprising that the filmmakers caved in on this aspect, which is something that disappointed Highsmith.

> LILITH (1964)

> The direction and cinematography is great... from Robert Rossen who also
> directed unarguably the best film ever made; "The Hustler". What
> especially caught my attention was the extensive use of dissolving
> images on top of each other, to great effect:

I saw "Lilith" a long time ago and have been meaning to watch it again. I don't know why this film has fallen into obscurity. I remember it as being quite good too. Maybe not a masterpiece like "The Hustler," but few films are.

[TT]

8.2.2016, 1:06, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 2:31:09 PM UTC-8, TT wrote:
>
>> CARNIVAL OF SOULS (1962)
>
>> Horror. Starring Candace Hillgoss and directed by Herk Harvey. Who?
>> Exactly. A film made by pretty much amateurs and it shows in editing.
>> Yet the film is rather suspenseful, picking some influences from the
>> likes of Psycho etc. The story itself is sort of like a Twilight Zone
>> episode and the leading lady does fine job. But the film is all about
>> unusually good and moody, even masterful b/w photography. Recommended.
>
> Court 1 and I discussed this one a while ago. There actually was a similar Twilight Zone episode called "The Hitchhiker" that predates "Carnival of Souls" by two years. Sheer coincidence seems unlikely. And in turn, the movie was a definite influence on "Jacob's Ladder."
>
> Here's a good article about COS.
> http://offscreen.com/view/carnival_of_souls
>

Yes, rather complete article on background. Probably was influenced by
that Twilight Zone episode "The Hitchhiker" (which sounds familiar)...
AND also Psycho... I had the feeling that the Hillgoss driving scene
looked a lot like similar scene from Psycho with Janet Leigh...

And yes, that actor John Linden really was bad. :)

>
> Didn't you see this last year? I recall Court 1 and I both liking it a lot more than you did. I've no problem with the ending. IMO it's consistent with the rest of the film as straddling supernatural & psychological horror. True about the kid being annoying, but he was supposed to be.
>

Nope, saw bababadookdook first time a few days ago. We discussed this a
while ago and you said I might not like it. I sort of disagree on the
kid "supposed to be" irritating. I thought after seeing it that it was
an important part where the film failed - imo the viewer is supposed to
root for the kid, not wish him dead... :)

>> PURPLE NOON (1960)
>
>> Alain Delon in original film on "Talented Mr Ripley" (or rather the
>> novel). Little more straightforward and less complex story than in
>> Damon's "Ripley", while Delon's character doesn't feel remorse and the
>> homoerotic innuendos are not there either. Beautiful
>> cinematography/scenery and overall slightly better than the remake imo,
>> although I liked both. The ending in this one was better.
>
> I recall one reviewer saying that ALL films based on Patricia Highsmith stories are at least a little bit gay. Quite true. Are you saying you think "Purple Noon" lacked homoerotic innuendos? If it did, the overtones certainly seemed strong enough. Also, the "Purple Noon" ending was not in Highsmith's story and the police don't catch up with Ripley. Considering that this isn't an American film, it's surprising that the filmmakers caved in on this aspect, which is something that disappointed Highsmith.
>

I'm not sure if it had some innuendo but certainly not as clear cut as
in remake. I did like the ending in Purple Noon a lot more than the
remake, despite it not being faithful to the source. I think it's a
really memorable ending and not a cliff hanger. After seeing the film I
had to think for a while before I remembered how the remake ended.

I think Purple Noon looked and felt more realistic, the cinematography
was great to watch. And no smirking Gwynnie...

Although Ripley was more complex which is good in another way.

>> LILITH (1964)
>
>> The direction and cinematography is great... from Robert Rossen who also
>> directed unarguably the best film ever made; "The Hustler". What
>> especially caught my attention was the extensive use of dissolving
>> images on top of each other, to great effect:
>
> I saw "Lilith" a long time ago and have been meaning to watch it again. I don't know why this film has fallen into obscurity. I remember it as being quite good too. Maybe not a masterpiece like "The Hustler," but few films are.
>

There's a nice, alive, HD torrent sized 5,46 GB around...
Lilith.1964.720p.BluRay.x264-PSYCHD [PublicHD]

That should give Seberg's beauty the respect it deserves.

[Gracchus]

On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 3:50:49 PM UTC-8, TT wrote:
> 8.2.2016, 1:06, Gracchus kirjoitti:

> > Didn't you see this last year? I recall Court 1 and I both liking it a lot more than you did. I've no problem with the ending. IMO it's consistent with the rest of the film as straddling supernatural & psychological horror. True about the kid being annoying, but he was supposed to be.

> Nope, saw bababadookdook first time a few days ago. We discussed this a
> while ago and you said I might not like it. I sort of disagree on the
> kid "supposed to be" irritating. I thought after seeing it that it was
> an important part where the film failed - imo the viewer is supposed to
> root for the kid, not wish him dead... :)

Wow, that's a complete false memory I generated then. I'm not even sure why I would have thought you wouldn't like it. :)

**POSSIBLE SPOILERS for the un-Babadook initiated**

I don't mean to suggest that we're supposed to want the kid dead, but we are supposed to understand how the mother can simultaneously love him and resent his presence in her life. She can't help associating him with her husband's death...he's inextricably tied to it. And she further resents that he prevents her from moving forward in her life because his weirdness alienates others. They are the most important beings in each others' lives, but they have strongly contradictory emotions toward each other. This is something you can't change through sheer will. Bringing it to the light of day is better than denying it, because that way it's something you can deal with directly, yet still never eliminate completely. Thus, "you can't get rid of the Babadook." That's my interpretation anyway.

[Court_1]

On Sunday, February 7, 2016 at 5:31:09 PM UTC-5, TT wrote:


> -Cult horror

Now we're talking!


> PAWN SACRIFICE (2014)

>
> I don't think
> Spiderman did very good acting job here, didn't quite capture Fischer's
> madness.

I disagree. I think the acting performances and particularly by Maguire were the strongest part of the film. The film chose to focus on the chess relationship between Fischer and Spassky but didn't delve deeply enough into Fischer's mental illness and the factors which helped form that mental illness. The film would have had more of an emotional impact if that was examined in more detail IMO.


> STEVE JOBS (2015)

>
>
> Pretty good film and great performance from Fassbender

Fassbender was very good. You believed him as Steve Jobs.

>Kate Winslett doing nothing much imo.

She was annoying as can be in this film and her Polish accent was all over the place. I have no idea how she was nominated for a Best Actress Oscar. She won't win though which is good.

> Jobs actually made lots of horrible
> decisions and I think his reputation on some sort of marketing genius is
> totally manufactured from need for heroes for corporate America.

No, his reputation as a marketing genius stemmed from the fact that he WAS a marketing genius. He was flawed as can be, could be a mean manipulative asshole and he didn't always make sound decisions. He also wasn't a tech genius but he most certainly was a marketing genius and visionary. You can't take that away from him and it's ridiculous to try. It smacks of envy if do.

> I would
> rather say that Apple became successful despite Jobs' flawed decision
> making. What he basically did was sabotage Apple's success and in the
> end managed to jump in the boat at the right time.

He was shrewd and knew what he was doing. He engineered his whole re-entry into Apple. He designed the computer to entice Apple to reinstate him. He knew the cube computer he created with NEXT would not do well. He just wanted to create something unique looking so Apple would take notice and reinstate him.

> So the film is rather
> honest, although focused a bit too much on Job's family relations

That was one of the best parts of the film--i.e. examining the relationship between Jobs and his abandonment issues as an adopted child and how that fear of abandonment carried over to his own screwed up relationship with his first daughter, a daughter he wouldn't acknowledge as his own and treated abysmally for some time.

>
> JOY (2105)
>
> Housewife heroics. I can't believe how fluff this film's topic is...
> about inventor of a self wringing mop and miracles of marketing these
> products on shopping channel. Deep. The importance and weight of it all
> makes me dizzy... what would we do without shopping channel and this new
> improved mop?! Jennifer Lawrence does a fine performance, an extension
> to her "Hunger Games" independent smart young woman typecast... while
> Robert De Niro should have quit acting in 1991 or so, after the remake
> of Cape Fear.

It's not meant to be taken seriously and it IS a fluff movie. It's meant to be an inspirational story about a woman who had a dream and stuck to her beliefs and became successful. It's a fun movie and never aspired to be anything deep.

Lawrence's performance was nothing more than adequate. I don't think she deserves an Oscar nomination for this performance. De Niro was fine in this movie(better than many of the shit roles he undertakes) as was Isabella Rossellini. Lawrence and Brad Cooper have a good working chemistry.

> CARNIVAL OF SOULS (1962)
>
> Horror. Starring Candace Hillgoss and directed by Herk Harvey. Who?
> Exactly. A film made by pretty much amateurs and it shows in editing.
> Yet the film is rather suspenseful, picking some influences from the
> likes of Psycho etc. The story itself is sort of like a Twilight Zone
> episode and the leading lady does fine job. But the film is all about
> unusually good and moody, even masterful b/w photography. Recommended.

Yes, this was a good atmospheric creeper and the theme is very much like Jacob's Ladder.

> VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED (1960)
>
> Great supernatural classic horror/thriller with menacing kids. The
> story, children and Barbara Shelley are good, George Sanders not so much.

I need to see this version. The remake with Christopher Reeve which I did see was pretty bad.

>
> PIT AND THE PENDULUM (1961)
>
> Corman, Poe, Price and wonderful Barbara Steele. A classic. Maybe I
> remembered it too well but I thought this isn't as suspenseful as a
> whole as the previous one. The ending though is much superior, a classic
> cinema moment.

I love this movie and love Roger Corman as a cult horror director. It's everything you want from a creepy, gothic horror B film.

> TALES OF TERROR (1962)
>
> Corman, Poe, Price and Peter Lorre. Horror anthology consisting of 3
> short horror stories, around half an hour each. I liked the middle one
> the best where Lorre acts as a drunk, unemployed and cuckolded husband.
> (I decided to skip Corman's "The Raven 1963" and save it for later, seen
> it anyway, although remember "fuck all" about it)

I can't remember if I saw "Tales of Terror" one or not? I don't think so. But I did see "The Comedy of Terrors" with Vincent Price, Petter Lorre, Boris Karloff and Basil Rathbone and it was hysterical. It is about a mortuary owner and his sidekick who go out and try and create their own business when their own mortuary business is lacking for customers. It's not a Roger Corman film but it's a good comedy horror cult classic.

> BLACK SUNDAY (1960)
>
> Directed by Italian Mario Bava

Have you seen "i Vampiri" which Bava was originally the cinematographer on but when the director quit, Bava completed the film. "i Vampiri" is referred to as the first Italian horror film about a scientist who captures and drains the blood of women in order to keep an ancient evil duchess alive.

> DEEP RED (1975)
>
> Dario Argento's praised horror classic. It's the Citizen Kane of slasher
> films. :) ...No, really. As far as the visuals and directing goes it is
> an absolute masterpiece imo. That adds to atmosphere. The problem though
> with Argento's films is the storytelling, he's just so immersed in
> visuals that the story becomes secondary. Despite the cinematic
> brilliance of this film I think it's still not quite as good as
> "Suspiria" or "Phenomena", latter being still my favourite Argento film.
> I don't think Courtsie will like any of his films.

"Phenomena" is a piece of crap. I have yet to see an Argento film I like. He is the trailer trash of horror film directors.

> THE BABADOOK (2014)
>
> Surprisingly creepy. Keeps the suspense nicely, better than average film
> of this genre. Having said that, the story was rather repetitive and the
> screaming child was even more annoying than in "Audrey Rose". There were
> some classic horror elements, such as Babadook itself looking a mix of
> Dr Caligari and Nosferatu. The ending (spoiler) was a bit lame,
> apparently all you have to do is get really angry.
>
> Ba ba ba ba dook dook dook! :)

The ending was the best part IMO.

[Gracchus]

Well now I've got "Ba-ba dooook...doooook....dooook" stuck in my mind again as I await the sequel: "Babadook Unchained!" They say it will never happen. I don't believe them.

[soccerfan777]

Baba Duk not baba Dook

[grif]

On 07/02/2016 22:31, TT wrote:

> -
>
> ROOM (2015)
>
> Sort of interesting and "important" new topic for people who have not seen likes of Oldeboi/Oldboy and Kaspar Hauser. About a girl (and her child) being held as sexual slave in a shed. First third of the film is fairly interesting but then it becomes basically a made for TV quality drama. Whatever critics see in this I don't, and that's including Brie Larson's performance which I don't see worthy of all the accolade.
>
> 5/10
>
> -

"Oldboy" is on my watchlist, "Room" maybe not.

>
> -
>
> VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED (1960)
>
> Great supernatural classic horror/thriller with menacing kids. The story, children and Barbara Shelley are good, George Sanders not so much.
>
> 8/10
>

I've seen it (and the remake), but can't remember much except that I read the "The Midwich Cuckoos" at school.


Saw a couple of chess-themed films that I liked

"The Dark Horse", a bit like "Once Were Warriors" with chess
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3YopiaQ3k8

and the quietly uplifting "Queen to Play"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RcBGcMJY7Y

This one's a documentary on how to create a genius, even if they are female!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wzs33wvr9E4

A chess puzzle that will stretch you to the limit
http://imgur.com/5f9zm6s

[TT]

8.2.2016, 16:37, grif kirjoitti:
>
> A chess puzzle that will stretch you to the limit
> http://imgur.com/5f9zm6s
>

Not quite... mate in one, mate.

[TT]

8.2.2016, 3:53, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> He was shrewd and knew what he was doing. He engineered his whole re-entry into Apple. He designed the computer to entice Apple to reinstate him. He knew the cube computer he created with NEXT would not do well. He just wanted to create something unique looking so Apple would take notice and reinstate him.
>

That's the only thing he did right... used inside information to find
out that apple needed an operating system.

Other than that his career is full of stupid decisions that lacked
vision. Hardly a mark of genius.

> It's not meant to be taken seriously and it IS a fluff movie. It's meant to be an inspirational story about a woman
>
>

I get that. Guess I'm just not inspired by mops and shopping channels.

>> >BLACK SUNDAY (1960)
>> >
>> >Directed by Italian Mario Bava
> Have you seen "i Vampiri" which Bava was originally the cinematographer on but when the director quit, Bava completed the film. "i Vampiri" is referred to as the first Italian horror film about a scientist who captures and drains the blood of women in order to keep an ancient evil duchess alive.
>
>

I don't recall seeing it.

>> >DEEP RED (1975)
>> >
>> >Dario Argento's praised horror classic. It's the Citizen Kane of slasher
>> >films.:) ...No, really. As far as the visuals and directing goes it is
>> >an absolute masterpiece imo. That adds to atmosphere. The problem though
>> >with Argento's films is the storytelling, he's just so immersed in
>> >visuals that the story becomes secondary. Despite the cinematic
>> >brilliance of this film I think it's still not quite as good as
>> >"Suspiria" or "Phenomena", latter being still my favourite Argento film.
>> >I don't think Courtsie will like any of his films.
>
> "Phenomena" is a piece of crap. I have yet to see an Argento film I like. He is the trailer trash of horror film directors.
>

I'm sure this absolute certainty of yours is based on one film, which
you saw once...

Whether you like his films doesn't change the fact that his films are
audiovisual treat. I would describe "Deep Red" as B-film AND a visual
masterpiece. It's sort of mixed bag; his films are trash AND art at the
same time.

I don't expect you to understand them though. You clearly don't like so
called B-films and appreciating art films is sort of acquired taste.
Italian Giallo is probably not for you.

[TT]

8.2.2016, 2:36, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>
> **POSSIBLE SPOILERS for the un-Babadook initiated**
>
> I don't mean to suggest that we're supposed to want the kid dead, but we are supposed to understand how the mother can simultaneously love him and resent his presence in her life. She can't help associating him with her husband's death...he's inextricably tied to it. And she further resents that he prevents her from moving forward in her life because his weirdness alienates others. They are the most important beings in each others' lives, but they have strongly contradictory emotions toward each other. This is something you can't change through sheer will. Bringing it to the light of day is better than denying it, because that way it's something you can deal with directly, yet still never eliminate completely. Thus, "you can't get rid of the Babadook." That's my interpretation anyway.
>

I think you're right. And I STILL wanted the damn noisy kid dead.

[soccerfan777]

That's just mean. Why would want a kid to die! Don't you know that almost all kids are noisy.

[Court_1]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 9:37:19 AM UTC-5, grif wrote:

> and the quietly uplifting "Queen to Play"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RcBGcMJY7Y

This is a very good character study movie with Kevin Kline about a woman who finds her passion/spark for life through her love of and mastery of chess. I think I have mentioned on this ng how much I enjoyed this movie.

[grif]

I had never heard of it before, but saw it on a list. Seeing Kline in a foreign movie and speaking French throughout was kinda unusual. The actress, Sandrine Bonnaire, was really good.

[Court_1]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 10:07:12 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:

>
> That's the only thing he did right... used inside information to find
> out that apple needed an operating system.

But apparently there were a lot of facts that were stretched and inaccuracies in "Steve Jobs" and the timing of Jobs' creation of NeXT and his return to Apple was one of them:

"Was Steve Jobs really using NeXT to get back into Apple?

Sorkin strongly insinuates that NeXT was a forward-thinking gambit by Jobs. Apple did indeed buy NeXT's operating system but not until 1995, nearly a full decade after it debuted. Even for Jobs, that's a heck of a long con."

http://www.cnet.com/news/19-questions-you-might-be-asking-after-seeing-steve-jobs/

> Other than that his career is full of stupid decisions that lacked
> vision. Hardly a mark of genius.

That is a ridiculously inaccurate statement. He had the ability to see what people wanted and needed and drove the creation of several revolutionary products so I have no idea what you are talking about. There are different types of talents in the world. You try doing what he did.

> > It's not meant to be taken seriously and it IS a fluff movie. It's meant to be an inspirational story about a woman
> >
> >
>
> I get that. Guess I'm just not inspired by mops and shopping channels.

You don't have to be to enjoy the simple premise of the film "Joy." It could have been about any business invention and way of marketing that product. The shopping channels which exist as a means to sell products have turned into a multi-billion dollar industry. It's nothing to sneeze at. Also Joy Mangano's company started with that mop but branched out from there and she's created many products. She's worth about $50 million.

> > "Phenomena" is a piece of crap. I have yet to see an Argento film I like. He is the trailer trash of horror film directors.
> >
>
> I'm sure this absolute certainty of yours is based on one film, which
> you saw once...

We've discussed this topic and I've told you I have seen the following Argento films:

-Phenomena
-Tenebre
-The Bird with the Crystal Plumage
-and I tried to watch a bit of Opera but couldn't get through it.

I disliked every one.

> I don't expect you to understand them though. You clearly don't like so
> called B-films and appreciating art films is sort of acquired taste.
> Italian Giallo is probably not for you.

Don't say something isn't for me because I tell you I haven't been impressed with ONE director in the genre.

I like plenty of B films! I also like some of the Giallo films. I've seen many over the years and thought many were decent including some of Bava's films such as "i vampiri", "Hatchet for the Honeymoon", etc.

[grif]

Forgot to mention that Morphy and Capablanca were among the players that Fischer admired
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/fischer4.html

[Court_1]

It was weird to see Kline speak French in that film. He is an actor who can do a bit of everything, i.e. comedy, drama, etc.

[Gracchus]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 9:59:44 AM UTC-8, Court_1 wrote:

> It was weird to see Kline speak French in that film. He is an actor who can do a bit of everything, i.e. comedy, drama, etc.

Yes. He can do a bit of everything not well enough.

[Court_1]

Quiet you! It's only because you didn't like him in AFCW. :)

I think he is great in comedy, drama, whatever. I like him. He's no Cary Grant(nobody is for me), but he's good. :)

[Gracchus]

Aside from the wretched film you referred to, I've seen him in "Sophie's Choice," "In and Out," and "Soapdish" among other things. IMO he overacts in everything. I liked "Consenting Adults," but most of the fun was watching Kevin Spacey's character torment Kline.

[soccerfan777]

I like both the Kevin's very much. But it is Spacey who frequently overacts, not Kline. Kline can be accused for underacting ;-)

[Gracchus]

I think Spacey shines in roles like he had in "Consenting Adults," "The Usual Suspects," "L.A. Confidential," or "American Beauty." OTOH, totally wrong for "The Shipping News" or that Bobby Darin thing.

> Kline can be accused for underacting ;-)

Maybe if it ever actually happens. I doubt if Kline could overact even after embalming.

[Gracchus]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 11:35:27 AM UTC-8, Gracchus wrote:

> Maybe if it ever actually happens. I doubt if Kline could overact even after embalming.

Oops, I meant "UNDERact." He could OVERact even while sleeping.

[Court_1]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 2:07:54 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> Aside from the wretched film you referred to

I can't get beyond this statement as I can't understand how anybody could possibly find AFCW unfunny. I know we've discussed it.

Certain movies should be a litmus test for compatibility between people. On my list if a person doesn't find these movies witty/funny it may be a red flag:

-Bringing Up Baby
-His Girl Friday
-AFCW


There are more but I can't think right now. Those three are a good start. :)

[Gracchus]

I haven't seen the first two yet. You may regret bringing it up, because once I watch "Bringing Up Baby," the onus will be on you to complete your side of the deal. :)

Anyway, it sounds like you're saying that if someone doesn't like these movies, then the "red flag" says that they aren't like you. Oh, the horror!

There are many reasons that I dislike AFCW. I think we've been through this before, but I'll recap just a few anyway (1) I don't think seeing the same character get injured over and over in different ways is funny. Some of the "Pink Panther" films used this device too, and I didn't think it worked then either (2) I don't think speech impediments are particularly funny. I thought the lisping Pontius Pilate in "The Life of Brian" was one of the weakest parts of that film. It's just as lame in AFCW (3) A character getting French fries [or "chips"] shoved up his nose is funny? Sorry, I don't think so. (4) hurting/killing someone's prized pet[s] is funny? Well not in this case at least.

For me it's not a matter of poor taste. That's something I find quite forgivable if the writing and execution are actually clever. There are many Monty Python skits for example that pull this off marvelously. But AFCW proves that even those same Python actors can be extremely unfunny when delivering forced material.

Looking at the story in dramatic terms, I've pointed out before that Cleese's character is a numbnuts for following around the very drab Curtis like a puppy dog and wanting to run away with her even though she's as much of a sociopath as Kline's character in her own way. As I recall, you just loved that, which doesn't surprise me since your utopia is filled with gender-neutral males of the Andy Murray variety.

I really have to wonder about the "litmus tests" you've chosen. In fact, your choice of litmus tests may be my litmus test. But more about that after "Bringing Up Baby."

[TT]

8.2.2016, 22:13, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> I really have to wonder about the "litmus tests" you've chosen. In fact, your choice of litmus tests may be my litmus test.

Indeed.

If you don't like these silly comedies you must be a nincompoop.

[TT]

8.2.2016, 22:13, Gracchus kirjoitti:

> There are many reasons that I dislike AFCW.

You should be...

https://acrossthepondtv.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/fish-called-wanda-3.jpg?w=1200

[Court_1]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 3:13:41 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> I haven't seen the first two yet. You may regret bringing it up, because once I watch "Bringing Up Baby," the onus will be on you to complete your side of the deal. :)

Oh boy, I forgot about that! :)

> Anyway, it sounds like you're saying that if someone doesn't like these movies, then the "red flag" says that they aren't like you. Oh, the horror!

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Bringing up Baby and His Girl Friday are two of best comedy films I can think of and if a person doesn't like those movies there may be a disconnect in sense of humour between myself and that person. Bringing up Baby is the gold standard zany screwball comedy (most screwball comedies aren't that funny but this one is a rare exception.) His Girl Friday is brilliant for its witty fast talking repartee between a man and a woman in the journalism business in the 1940s. They are an equal match and both can dish it out with each other as well as they can take it. Watch both Bringing up Baby and His Girl Friday and then we can talk. Both are directed by Howard Hawks and he has to be one of the best and possibly one of the most underrated directors of all time for his body of work.

Well, Hawks is on these greatest director of all time lists and he should be:

http://www.ew.com/article/1996/04/19/50-greatest-directors-and-their-100-best-movies/2

http://www.amc.com/movie-guide/the-50-greatest-directors-of-all-time

http://www.filmsite.org/directors.html

> There are many reasons that I dislike AFCW. I think we've been through this before, but I'll recap just a few anyway (1) I don't think seeing the same character get injured over and over in different ways is funny. Some of the "Pink Panther" films used this device too, and I didn't think it worked then either

It doesn't work in many films but I think it did in AFCW.

> (2) I don't think speech impediments are particularly funny. I thought the lisping Pontius Pilate in "The Life of Brian" was one of the weakest parts of that film. It's just as lame in AFCW

I agree with you about that part but that was a minor thing in the movie.

(3) A character getting French fries [or "chips"] shoved up his nose is funny? Sorry, I don't think so.

I didn't find that funny either.

> (4) hurting/killing someone's prized pet[s] is funny? Well not in this case at least.

That part was funny within the context of the film imo.

> For me it's not a matter of poor taste. That's something I find quite forgivable if the writing and execution are actually clever.

But I found that the overall writing and execution did overcome those problems you mentioned above.

> Looking at the story in dramatic terms, I've pointed out before that Cleese's character is a numbnuts for following around the very drab Curtis like a puppy dog and wanting to run away with her even though she's as much of a sociopath as Kline's character in her own way. As I recall, you just loved that, which doesn't surprise me since your utopia is filled with gender-neutral males of the Andy Murray variety.

LOL.

> I really have to wonder about the "litmus tests" you've chosen. In fact, your choice of litmus tests may be my litmus test. But more about that after "Bringing Up Baby."

Again, watch both Bringing Up Baby and His Girl Friday. I'm really surprised you haven't seen these two classics. They are probably on every best movie of all time list out there.

[Court_1]

Oh quiet!

Bringing up Baby and His Girl Friday are on pretty much every greatest movies of all time list for a reason. I can understand if a person doesn't love those movies but to say he/she can't appreciate them as classics is quite another thing. You don't even find intelligence and humour in ANY Woody Allen movies. How can I have a reasonable conversation with you on this topic? Go watch "Phenomena" by that genius Dario Argento. *eye-roll* That seems to be more your speed.

Even Grif who likes a lot of those current silly "shoot em up/special effects" for the masses movies appreciated Bringing up Baby and The Philadelphia Story.

[soccerfan777]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 2:13:41 PM UTC-6, Gracchus wrote:
> On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 11:42:54 AM UTC-8, Court_1 wrote:
> > On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 2:07:54 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> >
> > > Aside from the wretched film you referred to
>
> > I can't get beyond this statement as I can't understand how anybody could possibly find AFCW unfunny. I know we've discussed it.
>
> > Certain movies should be a litmus test for compatibility between people. On my list if a person doesn't find these movies witty/funny it may be a red flag:
>
> > -Bringing Up Baby
> > -His Girl Friday
> > -AFCW
>
> > There are more but I can't think right now. Those three are a good start. :)
>
> I haven't seen the first two yet. You may regret bringing it up, because once I watch "Bringing Up Baby," the onus will be on you to complete your side of the deal. :)
>
> Anyway, it sounds like you're saying that if someone doesn't like these movies, then the "red flag" says that they aren't like you. Oh, the horror!
>
> There are many reasons that I dislike AFCW. I think we've been through this before, but I'll recap just a few anyway (1) I don't think seeing the same character get injured over and over in different ways is funny. Some of the "Pink Panther" films used this device too, and I didn't think it worked then either (2) I don't think speech impediments are particularly funny. I thought the lisping Pontius Pilate in "The Life of Brian" was one of the weakest parts of that film. It's just as lame in AFCW (3) A character getting French fries [or "chips"] shoved up his nose is funny?

I did not find it funny. But it revealed what a sadist Otto was. And it made us root against him in the end. If he wasn't such a douche, you would feel sorry for him in the end since he does love Jaimie Lee Curtis' character.

>Sorry, I don't think so. (4) hurting/killing someone's prized pet[s] is funny? Well not in this case at least.

It was funny in a sadistic way.

[soccerfan777]

You haven't seen movies like Silverado, Dave, The Ice Storm, The Big Chill. He underacts in all of them.

He overacts in role which call for it like A Fish Call Wanda, French Kiss etc.

I don't think Spacey can do anything except overacting. I still like him a lot.

[TT]

8.2.2016, 23:16, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> Well, Hawks is on these greatest director of all time lists and he should be:

Actually Bringing Up Baby was a flop at the time and was later on hailed
as a great film.

"Frank S. Nugent of the New York Times disliked the film, considering it
derivative and cliché-ridden, a rehash of dozens of other screwball
comedies of the period. He labeled Hepburn's performance "breathless,
senseless, and terribly, terribly fatiguing", and added, "If you've
never been to the movies, Bringing Up Baby will be new to you – a
zany-ridden product of the goofy-farce school. But who hasn't been to
the movies?"

Nailed it. As for your list, well there's Tim Burton, while Altman made
"Popeye" so...

[Court_1]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 4:49:45 PM UTC-5, TT wrote:
> 8.2.2016, 23:16, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> > Well, Hawks is on these greatest director of all time lists and he should be:
>
> Actually Bringing Up Baby was a flop at the time and was later on hailed
> as a great film.
>
> "Frank S. Nugent of the New York Times disliked the film, considering it
> derivative and cliché-ridden, a rehash of dozens of other screwball
> comedies of the period. He labeled Hepburn's performance "breathless,
> senseless, and terribly, terribly fatiguing", and added, "If you've

> never been to the movies, Bringing Up Baby will be new to you - a

> zany-ridden product of the goofy-farce school. But who hasn't been to
> the movies?"

Many great movies were commercial flops at the box office when they first came out. That means nothing. Most of the reviews by critics were positive and the important thing is that it is considered a classic today. And like I said, I can understand if you aren't in love with it but you have to appreciate it as a classic.


Howard Hawks directed many good movies and was very versatile. He could go from screwball comedies, to musicals, to crime movies, to westerns with ease.

[Court_1]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 4:49:45 PM UTC-5, TT wrote:

>

> "Frank S. Nugent of the New York Times disliked the film, considering it
> derivative and cliché-ridden, a rehash of dozens of other screwball
> comedies of the period. He labeled Hepburn's performance "breathless,
> senseless, and terribly, terribly fatiguing", and added, "If you've

> never been to the movies, Bringing Up Baby will be new to you - a

> zany-ridden product of the goofy-farce school. But who hasn't been to
> the movies?"

Bringing up Baby was nothing like most screwball comedies before it and after it. It's very hard to make the perfect screwball comedy and Bringing up Baby is the gold standard for sure. So is His Girl Friday but for different reasons.

[Gracchus]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 1:48:44 PM UTC-8, soccerfan777 wrote:

> You haven't seen movies like Silverado, Dave, The Ice Storm, The Big Chill. He underacts in all of them.

I did see "Silverado" and "The Big Chill." Not impressed. You seem to think underacting is the same thing as refraining to overact, which is not the case. Underacting is really a skill in itself that an actor like Gene Hackman for example is known for. If Kline didn't overact in "Silverado" it's probably because the director chastised him for hamming it up.

[TT]

8.2.2016, 19:53, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 10:07:12 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:
>
>>
>> That's the only thing he did right... used inside information to find
>> out that apple needed an operating system.
>
> But apparently there were a lot of facts that were stretched and inaccuracies in "Steve Jobs" and the timing of Jobs' creation of NeXT and his return to Apple was one of them:
>
> "Was Steve Jobs really using NeXT to get back into Apple?
>
> Sorkin strongly insinuates that NeXT was a forward-thinking gambit by Jobs. Apple did indeed buy NeXT's operating system but not until 1995, nearly a full decade after it debuted. Even for Jobs, that's a heck of a long con."
>
> http://www.cnet.com/news/19-questions-you-might-be-asking-after-seeing-steve-jobs/
>
>

Ok. But that just means that Jobs didn't have foresight on that front
either. He simply got a good deal on unsuccessful product. What the film
probably did though, was mixing up the timelines a bit to get more
interesting story and to make Jobs look smart at least on one occasion.

"Apple Computer announced an intention to acquire NeXT on December 20,
1996.[2] Apple paid $429 million in cash, which went to the initial
investors and 1.5 million Apple shares, which went to Steve Jobs, who
was deliberately not given cash for his part in the deal.[2][53] The
main purpose of the acquisition was to use NeXTSTEP as a foundation to
replace the dated Mac OS, instead of BeOS or the in-development
Copland.[54] The deal was finalized on February 7, 1997,[55] bringing
Jobs back to Apple as a consultant, who was later appointed as interim
CEO.[56] In 2000 Jobs took the CEO position as a permanent assignment."

>> Other than that his career is full of stupid decisions that lacked
>> vision. Hardly a mark of genius.
>
> That is a ridiculously inaccurate statement. He had the ability to see what people wanted and needed and drove the creation of several revolutionary products so I have no idea what you are talking about.
>

His intention to ditch the money making product and willingness to stick
with a system with too few expansion slots and too pricey.

>>> It's not meant to be taken seriously and it IS a fluff movie. It's meant to be an inspirational story about a woman
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I get that. Guess I'm just not inspired by mops and shopping channels.
>
> You don't have to be to enjoy the simple premise of the film "Joy." It could have been about any business invention and way of marketing that product. The shopping channels which exist as a means to sell products have turned into a multi-billion dollar industry. It's nothing to sneeze at. Also Joy Mangano's company started with that mop but branched out from there and she's created many products. She's worth about $50 million.
>

The problem is that I feel they are selling products nobody needs and
have zero respect on their "inventions". Shopping channel is all about
creating needs that are not there.

Juts because a charlatan is successful doesn't make him/her less of a
charlatan. Now a film about Alan Turing - that makes sense. A film about
inventing a new kind of mop doesn't... unless you live in America where
people admire anybody who makes lots of money no matter how. They call
it "American dream". Thus I think the films is as empty as it gets.

>
> We've discussed this topic and I've told you I have seen the following Argento films:
>
> -Phenomena
> -Tenebre
> -The Bird with the Crystal Plumage
> -and I tried to watch a bit of Opera but couldn't get through it.
>

I've seen:

Phenomena - 7
Profondo Rosso - 6
Suspiria - 7
Bird with the crystal plumage - 6

I think all of them lacked in interesting storytelling, while all were
also visually good to brilliant. All had also very good sounds.

"Bird" was probably visually least impressive of the four, while "Deep
Red" was by far the best in that respect. Suspiria was great visually as
well, and is perhaps a film you might like, if you get past the first
hour. I can't be truly objective about Phenomena since I adored young
Connelly and the music was great, but liking those of course contributes
to enjoyment of the film. I think Phenomena had some visually impressive
scenes, great soundtrack and so-so story.

I just actually finished watching "Bird", and found it as rather average
slasher film with some impressive visuals and Morricone's track creating
suspense.

All the slasher scenes were very good and suspenseful (rest of the film
not so much), I took some snapshots of some interesting images:

http://www.saunalahti.fi/~thetjt/stuff/films/Bird/

Most of which coincidentally are displayed first if you google the
film... I'm getting good at this.


> I disliked every one.
>

Argento in general treats women as objects, which probably turns you
off. For example in "Bird" there was a scene where the damsel in
distress is just paralysed with horror, doing nothing while the killer
is trying to hack his way through the door. It was a very effective
scene for the rest of us.

There is something erotic about it...

"I like women, especially beautiful ones. If they have a good face and
figure, I would much prefer to watch them being murdered than an ugly
girl or man. I certainly don't have to justify myself to anyone about
this. I don't care what anyone thinks or reads into it. I have often had
journalists walk out of interviews when I say what I feel about this
subject" - Argento

>> I don't expect you to understand them though. You clearly don't like so
>> called B-films and appreciating art films is sort of acquired taste.
>> Italian Giallo is probably not for you.
>
> Don't say something isn't for me because I tell you I haven't been impressed with ONE director in the genre.
>
> I like plenty of B films! I also like some of the Giallo films. I've seen many over the years and thought many were decent including some of Bava's films such as "i vampiri", "Hatchet for the Honeymoon", etc.
>

http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2014/15-essential-films-for-an-introduction-to-italian-giallo-movies/

(I don't think the first one was that special really, "reviewed" it on
first post of this thread)

[TT]

8.2.2016, 23:28, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> Even Grif who likes a lot of those current silly "shoot em up/special effects" for the masses movies appreciated Bringing up Baby and The Philadelphia Story.

So your argument is that a person who loves bad movies (no offence Grif)
likes also screwball comedies. I see...

[grif]

Star Wars wasn't that bad!

[TT]

9.2.2016, 0:00, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 4:49:45 PM UTC-5, TT wrote:
>> 8.2.2016, 23:16, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>> Well, Hawks is on these greatest director of all time lists and he should be:
>>
>> Actually Bringing Up Baby was a flop at the time and was later on hailed
>> as a great film.
>>
>> "Frank S. Nugent of the New York Times disliked the film, considering it
>> derivative and cliché-ridden, a rehash of dozens of other screwball
>> comedies of the period. He labeled Hepburn's performance "breathless,
>> senseless, and terribly, terribly fatiguing", and added, "If you've
>> never been to the movies, Bringing Up Baby will be new to you - a
>> zany-ridden product of the goofy-farce school. But who hasn't been to
>> the movies?"
>
>
> Many great movies were commercial flops at the box office when they first came out. That means nothing. Most of the reviews by critics were positive and the important thing is that it is considered a classic today. And like I said, I can understand if you aren't in love with it but you have to appreciate it as a classic.
>
>

I have to agree with Nugent here... I think "Baby" is a dime in a dozen.

> Howard Hawks directed many good movies and was very versatile. He could go from screwball comedies, to musicals, to crime movies, to westerns with ease.
>

Well I have Rio Bravo at 10/10...

He did direct some good films, but I don't think Baby is one of them...
not visually, story wise, acting wise or any-wise. So you find the
dialogue funny, good for you. With comedies it's always a sort of
personal thing... people find different things funny.

[TT]

9.2.2016, 0:06, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> Bringing up Baby was nothing like most screwball comedies before it and after it. It's very hard to make the perfect screwball comedy and Bringing up Baby is the gold standard for sure. So is His Girl Friday but for different reasons.

His Girl Friday may be. The again gold standard in screwball comedies is
like gold standard in Finnish zombie films.

[TT]

Silverado - 5
Big Chill - 5
Dave - 7

I do think Kline's most memorable roles are Wanda and Dave.

[soccerfan777]

I like The Big Chill a lot. I would give it a 8

[TT]

9.2.2016, 3:16, soccerfan777 kirjoitti:
> I like The Big Chill a lot. I would give it a 8
>

Nice, well it certainly has a great cast. I don't remember much about
it, other than perhaps that I felt that it was one of those "nothing
much happens" films...

[soccerfan777]

You need to rewatch it then. It is very much just the characters talking to each other and there is not much action going on. But the story and the dialogues are still riveting and the exploration of each of the characters is done very well.

It is one of the most different movies I have seen. The director Lawrence Kasdan also directed few of my other favorite movies like Body Heat, Silverado and French Kiss. He is apparently the writer of few Star Wars movies and one Indiana Jones movie. He seems to have casted Kevin Kline, Kevin Costner and William Hurt in many of his movies. Good choices I say all three are great actors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kasdan
"He has cast Kevin Kline in six of his films, William Hurt in four, Kevin Costner and James Gammon in three."

[Guypers]

Yes, all good movies!

[Gracchus]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 9:20:49 AM UTC-8, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 5:27:38 AM UTC-6, TT wrote:
> > 9.2.2016, 3:16, soccerfan777 kirjoitti:
> > > I like The Big Chill a lot. I would give it a 8

> > Nice, well it certainly has a great cast. I don't remember much about
> > it, other than perhaps that I felt that it was one of those "nothing
> > much happens" films...

> You need to rewatch it then. It is very much just the characters talking to each other and there is not much action going on. But the story and the dialogues are still riveting and the exploration of each of the characters is done very well.

It was a movie of its time that got attention with a different approach. But it hasn't aged well and is mostly a bore because it's style over substance.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kasdan
> "He has cast Kevin Kline in six of his films, William Hurt in four, Kevin Costner and James Gammon in three."

Is that supposed to be a plus for Kasdan? William Hurt, the guy who once called himself "a character actor in a leading man's body" *gag*

And Kevin Costner, for God's sake...

[soccerfan777]

William Hurt is a great actor. If you cant see that, I cannot help you. And did eventually become a character actor as he got old :-)

>
> And Kevin Costner, for God's sake...

Costner has acted in a lot of crap movies in the 90s. I haven't watched his baseball movies, primarily because I don't like baseball. I think I saw Field of Dreams... didn't like it much. But he has acted in some great movies like JFK, The Untouchables, Silverado etc. And he was really good in all of them.

[soccerfan777]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6, Gracchus wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 9:20:49 AM UTC-8, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 5:27:38 AM UTC-6, TT wrote:
> > > 9.2.2016, 3:16, soccerfan777 kirjoitti:
> > > > I like The Big Chill a lot. I would give it a 8
>
> > > Nice, well it certainly has a great cast. I don't remember much about
> > > it, other than perhaps that I felt that it was one of those "nothing
> > > much happens" films...
>
> > You need to rewatch it then. It is very much just the characters talking to each other and there is not much action going on. But the story and the dialogues are still riveting and the exploration of each of the characters is done very well.
>
> It was a movie of its time that got attention with a different approach. But it hasn't aged well and is mostly a bore because it's style over substance.

Don't agree. I didn't find it boring at all. It is one of the few "non art" movies which had substance. If you say Die Hard was of its time and was more style than substance, I would have agreed. I still love it, anyway.

[TT]

9.2.2016, 20:32, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> Is that supposed to be a plus for Kasdan? William Hurt, the guy who once called himself "a character actor in a leading man's body"*gag*

What does that mean? That he thinks he's good actor AND good looking?

First I was thinking you were talking about John Hurt and wondered
what's wrong with his acting. Well, at least William has been the lead
in some good films, such as Body Heat, Broadcast News and Altered
States. He can act.

And of course he was in infamous Gorky Park (1983), a thriller taking
place in Moscow but was mainly filmed in Helsinki because the filmmakers
weren't let in Soviet Union, capitalist bastards. Ah, the good old cold
war...

[TT]

http://blog.real-heroes-wear.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/star-wars-force-awakens-memes-09.jpg

http://filmschoolrejects.com/images/star-wars-force-awakens-memes-19.gif

https://i.imgflip.com/y1y77.jpg

[TT]

Watched another giallo...

Black Belly of the Tarantula (1971)

Surprisingly underwhelming considering that the film has several Bond
girls and has some sort of classic status...

http://ist3-2.filesor.com/pimpandhost.com/1/4/4/4/144471/3/0/X/6/30X6g/THE%20BLACK%20BELLY%20OF%20TARANTULA-cover.jpg

http://www.rarecultcinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/black-belly.jpg

(Isn't above just about the coolest promo poster ever)
Any case it was rather tedious and I gave it 4/10.

I think I'm now done with "giallo" films - they're basically just
slasher trash... and the only director really worth watching is Argento
and for the most part on artistic reasons only. I think the best giallo
I've seen was Suspiria and my favourite one being Phenomena, those are
the only two I'd recommend and even that with some reservations. I'll
rather watch spaghetti westerns instead, a genre which has lots of width
and depth. Back to better films...

[Gracchus]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 12:28:52 PM UTC-8, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6, Gracchus wrote:

> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kasdan
> > > "He has cast Kevin Kline in six of his films, William Hurt in four, Kevin Costner and James Gammon in three."

> > Is that supposed to be a plus for Kasdan? William Hurt, the guy who once called himself "a character actor in a leading man's body" *gag*

> William Hurt is a great actor. If you cant see that, I cannot help you.

You wouldn't know a great actor if one bit your on your flabby buttocks. So forget about helping me until you learn to help your clueless self.

> And did eventually become a character actor as he got old :-)

He was never a great actor back in the day. He was fine in a few things like "Altered States" or "Body Heat." More often he was way over the top. I hated him in "Kiss of the Spider Woman," "Children of a Lesser God," "The Accidental Tourist," etc. But he's much better in his more recent incarnation. I didn't even recognize him in "A History of Violence" or the TV series "Humans." So maybe he really has become a character actor.

> > And Kevin Costner, for God's sake...

> Costner has acted in a lot of crap movies in the 90s. I haven't watched his baseball movies, primarily because I don't like baseball. I think I saw Field of Dreams... didn't like it much. But he has acted in some great movies like JFK, The Untouchables, Silverado etc. And he was really good in all of them.

He's always the same. The only question is whether his one monotone acting style fits the movie or not. It did in "The Untouchables," for example, because he was playing straight arrow Elliott Ness. But Costner has no versatility at all.

[Gracchus]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 1:51:00 PM UTC-8, TT wrote:
> 9.2.2016, 20:32, Gracchus kirjoitti:

> > Is that supposed to be a plus for Kasdan? William Hurt, the guy who once called himself "a character actor in a leading man's body"*gag*

> What does that mean? That he thinks he's good actor AND good looking?

I believe it means the he thinks (or thought back then) that he was a gifted character actor "cursed" with good looks that limited him to leading man roles. If only he'd been born short and ugly like Dustin Hoffman, people would take him seriously. Life can be so cruel.

> First I was thinking you were talking about John Hurt and wondered
> what's wrong with his acting. Well, at least William has been the lead
> in some good films, such as Body Heat, Broadcast News and Altered
> States. He can act.

As I said in the other post, he was ok in some things, but sucked in others when he overextended himself. In "Trial By Jury," for example, he put on a ridiculous "working class accent," which sounded really foolish. Some actors can do that, some can't. But to be fair, even some otherwise good actors can't do accents.

[TT]

10.2.2016, 0:30, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> The Accidental Tourist

Is that any good? ...if you set aside your dislike of Hurt (and I my
dislike of Geena). I tend to like films with Kathleen Turner...

[Gracchus]

Have you seen it? It's been ages since I have, but I clearly remember not liking it much and being particularly annoyed by Hurt.

[TT]

I don't think I have, that's why I asked...

[grif]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CXhbF56UsAAAIa4.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/B4Df8Wk.jpg

[Court_1]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 5:48:49 PM UTC-5, TT wrote:


> The problem is that I feel they are selling products nobody needs and
> have zero respect on their "inventions". Shopping channel is all about
> creating needs that are not there.

Obviously she's not selling products nobody needs if she's selling millions of dollars worth of a product. Duh.

The Shopping Channels are not about creating needs that are not there at all. The Shopping Channels are another way to reach the population and sell product, no different than internet shopping. Both allow you to buy products from the privacy of your own home rather than go do a crowded mall to do so. The Shopping Channels are not less respectable shopping choices and do not sell inferior products. They sell exactly the same products as you can buy at a brick and mortar store or online. The Shopping Channels in the US and Canada are huge and are a fantastic business idea.

> Juts because a charlatan is successful doesn't make him/her less of a
> charlatan. Now a film about Alan Turing - that makes sense. A film about
> inventing a new kind of mop doesn't... unless you live in America where
> people admire anybody who makes lots of money no matter how. They call
> it "American dream". Thus I think the films is as empty as it gets.

That's a silly comparison--apples and oranges. The movie "Joy" is an average movie but the story about a woman who invented a mop and then a business dynasty is no less worthy than the story about Alan Turing. Two totally different things. Also, just because the subject matter may be more enticing and you may prefer to watch a movie about Alan Turing doesn't mean the movie will be good.

> I've seen:
>
> Phenomena - 7
> Profondo Rosso - 6
> Suspiria - 7
> Bird with the crystal plumage - 6
>
> I think all of them lacked in interesting storytelling, while all were
> also visually good to brilliant. All had also very good sounds.

There is nothing brilliant about those movies visually or otherwise. He uses a lot of vivid color and vivid images in films. So what.

> I can't be truly objective about Phenomena since I adored young
> Connelly

That's a stupid reason to love a movie. You keep on liking movies only because a favorite actor/actress is in it. What does that have to do with anything. Favorite actors/actresses can make great movies and crap movies and if they make a crap movie, it doesn't save the movie.

> Argento in general treats women as objects, which probably turns you
> off. For example in "Bird" there was a scene where the damsel in
> distress is just paralysed with horror, doing nothing while the killer
> is trying to hack his way through the door. It was a very effective
> scene for the rest of us.

"The rest of us?" You are speaking for everybody in the world now? I don't remember much about "Bird" but I find all of Argento's movies schlocky and silly. And yes, he does tend to treat women as objects now that I think about it but even if he didn't, his movies would still be trash. In other words, that isn't the main reason I dislike his films.

I find Argento's films very similar in style to Brian De Palma's films and I don't like the style of either filmmaker much. I find they both produce a lot of trailer trash films with silly stories and there are very few positive things to take away from them.

> "I like women, especially beautiful ones. If they have a good face and
> figure, I would much prefer to watch them being murdered than an ugly
> girl or man. I certainly don't have to justify myself to anyone about
> this. I don't care what anyone thinks or reads into it. I have often had
> journalists walk out of interviews when I say what I feel about this
> subject" - Argento

Sounds like somebody to look up to. *eye-roll*

> http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2014/15-essential-films-for-an-introduction-to-italian-giallo-movies/
>
> (I don't think the first one was that special really, "reviewed" it on
> first post of this thread)

The Bava films I've seen were better than the Argento films I've seen although that's not saying much. Giallo films are what they are. They aren't exactly high art.

[Court_1]

I'm saying that Grif, who tends to like a lot of silly commercial things that I wouldn't watch in a million years these days(i.e. superhero type movies) seems to also be able to appreciate all different kinds of genres and has a decent eye for quality. I think he probably has a much more discerning eye than you do for quality films. You seem to get sidetracked by odd things and find weird things to like or dislike about a movie at times. Your sense of humour also tends to be "different." Maybe it's a cultural difference?

Grif said he doesn't normally like screwball comedies (I think?) and yet he was able to like and appreciate Bringing Up Baby and see it as the gold standard in farce. He also enjoyed The Philadelphia Story which wasn't a screwball comedy at all(it was more of a romantic comedy/drama.) Those two films are two quality films and stand the test of time. They are both so much better than 99% of the crap that is produced.

[Court_1]

On Monday, February 8, 2016 at 6:04:24 PM UTC-5, TT wrote:

> I have to agree with Nugent here... I think "Baby" is a dime in a dozen.

It MOST DEFINITELY IS NOT! It stands apart from most of the silly movies in that genre. It's a lot wittier and funnier.

> He did direct some good films, but I don't think Baby is one of them...
> not visually, story wise, acting wise or any-wise. So you find the
> dialogue funny, good for you. With comedies it's always a sort of
> personal thing... people find different things funny.

I think the acting in "Baby" is fantastic. That movie is Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn at their very best IMO. I watched "African Queen" (as we discussed already) and "Woman of the Year" recently. Both featured Hepburn and I think she did a better acting job in "Baby" than she did in "African Queen" and "Woman of the Year."

[Court_1]

NO! The Accidental Tourist was nothing special and was rather bland from what I remember.

[Court_1]

I can't stand William Hurt. He's an abuser of women and apparently a drunk. He's a self-important dickhead. He went downhill fast and self-destructed after Body Heat which was a great flick.

[number_six]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 2:21:01 PM UTC-8, TT wrote:
> snip <

>
> I think I'm now done with "giallo" films - they're basically just
> slasher trash... and the only director really worth watching is Argento
> and for the most part on artistic reasons only. I think the best giallo
> I've seen was Suspiria and my favourite one being Phenomena, those are
> the only two I'd recommend and even that with some reservations. I'll
> rather watch spaghetti westerns instead, a genre which has lots of width
> and depth. Back to better films...

I can easily go the rest of my days without Argento. But the Goblin Suspiria theme -- now that is a fine piece of film music.

[number_six]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 1:51:00 PM UTC-8, TT wrote:

Those ferrets sure got while the getting was good.

[Gracchus]

That sounds like a very accurate description of the guy. A total knob and no great actor. Raja's endorsement confirms this. ;)

[bob]

On Mon, 8 Feb 2016 00:31:07 +0200, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>A new thread, while awaiting for the Oscars. I've watched a lot of films
>in past couple weeks or so, ticked boxes on mainly three genres:
>
>-Oscar nominees & new films
>-Cult horror
>-Jean Seberg films
>

>STEVE JOBS (2015)
>
>"It's not binary - you can be decent and gifted at the same time"
>Rather unflattering depiction of Jobs' persona, yet manages to make him
>likeable in the end. The film doesn't overlook flaws in Jobs' character,
>management, knowhow, nor Wozniak's importance or flaws with the product.
>Pretty good film and great performance from Fassbender as Jobs, Kate
>Winslett doing nothing much imo. Jobs actually made lots of horrible
>decisions and I think his reputation on some sort of marketing genius is
>totally manufactured from need for heroes for corporate America. I would
>rather say that Apple became successful despite Jobs' flawed decision
>making. What he basically did was sabotage Apple's success and in the
>end managed to jump in the boat at the right time. So the film is rather
>honest, although focused a bit too much on Job's family relations and in
>the end perhaps contributes to the cult of Jobs' importance and so
>called genius.
>
>7/10

i can only say that i really really don't care to see anymore steve
jobs movies. and if they ever make a 'tim cook' movie i'm just gonna
go and throw tomatoes.

bob

[soccerfan777]

He might be a knob. I don't know much about his off screen life. But that does not mean he is not a great actor.

McEnroe was a knob too. But a great tennis player.

I am not endorsing him. I like him as an actor. I havent even seen many of his movies. The movies I have seen however, he has acted well.

PS: Are you accusing me of abusing women. That is low and uncalled for.

[soccerfan777]

Has fuck all to do with how well he can act.

[soccerfan777]

On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 4:30:39 PM UTC-6, Gracchus wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 12:28:52 PM UTC-8, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 12:32:36 PM UTC-6, Gracchus wrote:
>
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kasdan
> > > > "He has cast Kevin Kline in six of his films, William Hurt in four, Kevin Costner and James Gammon in three."
>
> > > Is that supposed to be a plus for Kasdan? William Hurt, the guy who once called himself "a character actor in a leading man's body" *gag*
>
> > William Hurt is a great actor. If you cant see that, I cannot help you.
>
> You wouldn't know a great actor if one bit your on your flabby buttocks.

Flabby buttocks??? Women seem to think otherwise. You think that Ingrid Bergman was not a good actress. I rest my case.

> So forget about helping me until you learn to help your clueless self.
>

Clueless, Clueless
Clueless, the Clueless is you
What you gonna do with your Cluelessness
The Clueless is you
Clueless

> > And did eventually become a character actor as he got old :-)
>
> He was never a great actor back in the day. He was fine in a few things like "Altered States" or "Body Heat." More often he was way over the top. I hated him in "Kiss of the Spider Woman," "Children of a Lesser God," "The Accidental Tourist," etc. But he's much better in his more recent incarnation. I didn't even recognize him in "A History of Violence" or the TV series "Humans." So maybe he really has become a character actor.
>
> > > And Kevin Costner, for God's sake...
>
> > Costner has acted in a lot of crap movies in the 90s. I haven't watched his baseball movies, primarily because I don't like baseball. I think I saw Field of Dreams... didn't like it much. But he has acted in some great movies like JFK, The Untouchables, Silverado etc. And he was really good in all of them.
>
> He's always the same. The only question is whether his one monotone acting style fits the movie or not.

Whats wrong with monotonousness! Most actors get typecast. Not their fault. Even Humphrey Bogart was monotonous.

>It did in "The Untouchables," for example, because he was playing straight arrow Elliott Ness. But Costner has no versatility at all.

Same can be said of Al Pacino, Robert De Nero, Kevin Spacey and many other great actors. Many actors lack versatility. That's because they get typecast.

[Gracchus]

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 7:18:26 AM UTC-8, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 11:07:53 PM UTC-6, Gracchus wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 6:04:37 PM UTC-8, Court_1 wrote:

> > > I can't stand William Hurt. He's an abuser of women and apparently a drunk. He's a self-important dickhead. He went downhill fast and self-destructed after Body Heat which was a great flick.

> > That sounds like a very accurate description of the guy. A total knob and no great actor. Raja's endorsement confirms this. ;)

> He might be a knob. I don't know much about his off screen life. But that does not mean he is not a great actor.

No, it doesn't mean that. But he isn't.

> McEnroe was a knob too. But a great tennis player.

Yes, Mac was a knob and a great tennis player. W. Hurt is a knob but not a great actor. So there's no apparent cause-effect relationship or even correlation between knobhood and greatness.

> I am not endorsing him. I like him as an actor. I havent even seen many of his movies. The movies I have seen however, he has acted well.

> PS: Are you accusing me of abusing women. That is low and uncalled for.

What led you to that notion? I have no idea how you treat women. It's not something I even care to think about.

[TT]

10.2.2016, 3:24, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> There is nothing brilliant about those movies visually or otherwise. He uses a lot of vivid color and vivid images in films. So what.
>

Argento uses sight and sound to add to atmosphere. That makes the film
more exciting. He is great at that, but the problem lies more with the
script...

>> >I can't be truly objective about Phenomena since I adored young
>> >Connelly
> That's a stupid reason to love a movie. You keep on liking movies only because a favorite actor/actress is in it. What does that have to do with anything. Favorite actors/actresses can make great movies and crap movies and if they make a crap movie, it doesn't save the movie.
>
>

I suspect many/all rate films with their favourite actors a bit higher.

I checked if I do...

I rate films on average 0,32 lower than IMDB rating.

How about for some of my favourite (hot) actresses: Seberg, Connelly,
Kidman, Pfeiffer, Lopez, Bellucci, Kelly, Wood, Sarandon, Beckinsale,
Lane, Weaver?

I rate their films on average 0,18 lower than IMDB rating.

...That means that I overrate films with above actresses by 0,14 per
film only! I'm sure that's much smaller overrating than yours would be
for Fiennes, Grant etc...

[TT]

10.2.2016, 3:51, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>> I have to agree with Nugent here... I think "Baby" is a dime in a dozen.
> It MOST DEFINITELY IS NOT! It stands apart from most of the silly movies in that genre.

No it doesn't. Sorry.

[Gracchus]

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 7:26:35 AM UTC-8, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 4:30:39 PM UTC-6, Gracchus wrote:

> > You wouldn't know a great actor if one bit your on your flabby buttocks.

> Flabby buttocks??? Women seem to think otherwise.

Oh, so you're like Whisper...packs of lusty young women chase you into coffee shops to grab your irresistible butt? LOL.

> You think that Ingrid Bergman was not a good actress. I rest my case.

I dislike Ingmar Bergman, but I don't recall expressing any strong opinion on Ingrid Bergman one way or the other. I've seen her in very few movies.

> > So forget about helping me until you learn to help your clueless self.

> Clueless, Clueless
> Clueless, the Clueless is you
> What you gonna do with your Cluelessness
> The Clueless is you
> Clueless

Is that supposed to be Raja rap? Don't quit the day job.

> > He's always the same. The only question is whether his one monotone acting style fits the movie or not.

> Whats wrong with monotonousness! Most actors get typecast. Not their fault. Even Humphrey Bogart was monotonous.

> >It did in "The Untouchables," for example, because he was playing straight arrow Elliott Ness. But Costner has no versatility at all.

> Same can be said of Al Pacino, Robert De Nero, Kevin Spacey and many other great actors. Many actors lack versatility. That's because they get typecast.

No, if they lack versatility, it's because they never learned to be versatile. That's why there are so many more good British actors than American ones. Actors like Pacino and Deniro do have their limits, but are still much better within their range than Costner is. Trying to make a case for him being a fine actor is a steep uphill battle.

[TT]

Yes, Suspiria theme is great and adds to suspense. It was almost
overused in the film.

How about Phenomena's theme then...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL7V9w_WVpQ

That's damn awesome, and rest of the film soundtrack isn't far behind
either...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhbgsTbm8gI

[TT]

10.2.2016, 17:26, soccerfan777 kirjoitti:
> Clueless, Clueless
> Clueless, the Clueless is you
> What you gonna do with your Cluelessness
> The Clueless is you
> Clueless

This should've been addressed to Courtsie, her favourite film is
"Clueless" - which is as great a cinematic masterpiece as "Bringing Up
Baby".

[soccerfan777]

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 11:49:52 AM UTC-6, Gracchus wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 7:26:35 AM UTC-8, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 9, 2016 at 4:30:39 PM UTC-6, Gracchus wrote:
>
> > > You wouldn't know a great actor if one bit your on your flabby buttocks.
>
> > Flabby buttocks??? Women seem to think otherwise.
>
> Oh, so you're like Whisper...packs of lusty young women chase you into coffee shops to grab your irresistible butt? LOL.

No. I have heard some nice comments for nice looking ladies ;-)

>
> > You think that Ingrid Bergman was not a good actress. I rest my case.
>
> I dislike Ingmar Bergman, but I don't recall expressing any strong opinion on Ingrid Bergman one way or the other. I've seen her in very few movies.
>
> > > So forget about helping me until you learn to help your clueless self.
>
> > Clueless, Clueless
> > Clueless, the Clueless is you
> > What you gonna do with your Cluelessness
> > The Clueless is you
> > Clueless
>
> Is that supposed to be Raja rap? Don't quit the day job.

No it is a Sex Pistols (Replace Clueless with the word Problem)
>

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/sexpistols/problems.html

> > > He's always the same. The only question is whether his one monotone acting style fits the movie or not.
>
> > Whats wrong with monotonousness! Most actors get typecast. Not their fault. Even Humphrey Bogart was monotonous.
>
> > >It did in "The Untouchables," for example, because he was playing straight arrow Elliott Ness. But Costner has no versatility at all.
>
> > Same can be said of Al Pacino, Robert De Nero, Kevin Spacey and many other great actors. Many actors lack versatility. That's because they get typecast.
>
> No, if they lack versatility, it's because they never learned to be versatile. That's why there are so many more good British actors than American ones. Actors like Pacino and Deniro do have their limits, but are still much better within their range than Costner is. Trying to make a case for him being a fine actor is a steep uphill battle.

I would say Kevin Costner is like AC/DC. AC/DC has 0 versatility but they still made one of the best hard rock albums ever - Back In Black

[soccerfan777]

LOL... I thought the movie Clueless was pretty bad. Courtsie has lame taste.

[Gracchus]

But AC/DC at least is loaded with energy. Costner isn't. Compare Kurt Russell's portrayal of Wyatt Earp to Costner's for example. Costner's version is like meringue topped with meringue. He takes the balls off one of the ballsiest characters of the Old West.

Though there have been actors whose personal charisma let them get away with playing versions of themselves throughout a career, Costner isn't one of them. Oh, wait, I forgot! I'm talking to a someone who thinks the beige Swede Mats Wilander is a charisma-packed dynamo of variety and personal charm. Never mind.

[TT]

Costner did get nominated for Oscar and won Golden Globe and Emmy....
but obviously his scale is nowhere near the genius of Michael Keaton,
Cate Blanchett, Alicia Silverstone, Cary Grant or William Hurt.

Not to mention De Niro who reinvents himself each role.

[Gracchus]

:))

I think De Niro gave some really good performances back in the day...though it is true that he often fell back on the same mannerisms. But no matter what he did then, he's been seriously degrading his "brand" since about 1994 by doing increasingly crappy material and giving embarrassingly hammy performances even in better films. Obviously he doesn't need the money, so the legacy he's chosen to leave is just sad.

And Costner, well the worst of it is that they gave him a Best Director Oscar for the massively overrated gloss-schlock "Dances With Wolves."

[soccerfan777]

lol... good post.

[soccerfan777]

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 1:46:28 PM UTC-6, Gracchus wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 10:45:12 AM UTC-8, soccerfan777 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 11:49:52 AM UTC-6, Gracchus wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 7:26:35 AM UTC-8, soccerfan777 wrote:
>
> > > > Same can be said of Al Pacino, Robert De Nero, Kevin Spacey and many other great actors. Many actors lack versatility. That's because they get typecast.
>
> > > No, if they lack versatility, it's because they never learned to be versatile. That's why there are so many more good British actors than American ones. Actors like Pacino and Deniro do have their limits, but are still much better within their range than Costner is. Trying to make a case for him being a fine actor is a steep uphill battle.
>
> > I would say Kevin Costner is like AC/DC. AC/DC has 0 versatility but they still made one of the best hard rock albums ever - Back In Black
>
> But AC/DC at least is loaded with energy. Costner isn't.

What kind of analogy was that... wtf... Its like saying Costner is at least romantic in movies... AC/DC are not romantic at all.

> Compare Kurt Russell's portrayal of Wyatt Earp to Costner's for example.

>Sorry haven't seen it.

Costner's version is like meringue topped with meringue. He takes the balls off one of the ballsiest characters of the Old West.
>

He was fine in Silverado as a brave but dumb gunslinger. You should watch it.

> Though there have been actors whose personal charisma let them get away with playing versions of themselves throughout a career, Costner isn't one of them. Oh, wait, I forgot! I'm talking to a someone who thinks the beige Swede Mats Wilander is a charisma-packed dynamo of variety and personal charm. Never mind.

Here we go again.... charisma... you have a weird definition of it. If you don't like someone they have no charismma.

[soccerfan777]

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 2:11:49 PM UTC-6, TT wrote:

Costner acted well in the recent Superman movie. He was in fact more impressive than Russell Crowe who acted as Superman's real father.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_Steel_(film)

So I guess Costner is becoming a character actor. He is just a character actor in the body of a leading man... haha

[Gracchus]

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 1:40:42 PM UTC-8, soccerfan777 wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 1:46:28 PM UTC-6, Gracchus wrote:

> > > I would say Kevin Costner is like AC/DC. AC/DC has 0 versatility but they still made one of the best hard rock albums ever - Back In Black

> > But AC/DC at least is loaded with energy. Costner isn't.

> What kind of analogy was that... wtf... Its like saying Costner is at least romantic in movies... AC/DC are not romantic at all.

Well you proposed the poor analogy in the first place. Choose a better one if you're trying to make a point.

> > Compare Kurt Russell's portrayal of Wyatt Earp to Costner's for example.

> >Sorry haven't seen it.

"Tombstone" vs. "Wyatt Earp," made within a year of each other. It's fun to watch both to compare the storytelling, acting, and historical accuracy. Also Val Kilmer's Doc Holliday vs. Dennis Quaid's. IMO "Tombstone" is better in most ways.

> He was fine in Silverado as a brave but dumb gunslinger. You should watch it.

I saw it when it came out. It's a mediocre western and Costner didn't help it any in doing what he usually does.

> > Though there have been actors whose personal charisma let them get away with playing versions of themselves throughout a career, Costner isn't one of them. Oh, wait, I forgot! I'm talking to a someone who thinks the beige Swede Mats Wilander is a charisma-packed dynamo of variety and personal charm. Never mind.

> Here we go again.... charisma... you have a weird definition of it. If you don't like someone they have no charismma.

No, there are some people with charisma that I don't like too, and vice-versa. I think my definition of it is pretty standard. But maybe someone here agrees with you. If anyone here finds Kevin Costner charismatic, by all means, chime in.

[jdeluise]

Gracchus <grac...@gmail.com> writes:


> No, there are some people with charisma that I don't like too, and vice-versa. I think my definition of it is pretty standard. But maybe someone here agrees with you. If anyone here finds Kevin Costner charismatic, by all means, chime in.

<<crickets>>

[Court_1]

His acting is nothing special. And Costner's "acting" is as one-note as it gets.

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 12:44:26 PM UTC-5, TT wrote:

> ...That means that I overrate films with above actresses by 0,14 per
> film only! I'm sure that's much smaller overrating than yours would be
> for Fiennes, Grant etc...

Not true. I've seen most of Grant's films and like every actor who has been around a long time, he had his share of clunkers or mediocre films. If a film is bad it's bad.

As for Fiennes, he did Main in Manhattan with Jennifer Lopez. You couldn't get me to watch that movie, not for all the tea in China.

[Court_1]

Really? That's why it's on every greatest movies of all time list I guess then?

Perhaps, just perhaps, you are way off about this one?

You don't seem to appreciate witty humour. The fact that you hate every single Woody Allen movie tells me your sense of humour is different.

[Court_1]

Clueless is not even close to being my favorite movie! It's a fun movie just like you think Ferris Bueller's Day off is a fun movie. It's in that same category. I think Clueless is fun because it's a satire of the novel Emma.

Bringing Up Baby is a classic and is in a whole different league. It's not my fault if you are too "clueless" to appreciate it. ;)

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 3:11:49 PM UTC-5, TT wrote:

> Costner did get nominated for Oscar and won Golden Globe and Emmy....
> but obviously his scale is nowhere near the genius of Michael Keaton,
> Cate Blanchett, Alicia Silverstone, Cary Grant or William Hurt.

Out of all those actors, Cate Blanchett is the most versatile. Cary Grant was the best at playing Cary Grant which means he was the best at playing great looking guys with physical comedy talent in his earlier days and then playing distinguished elegant Bond-like characters in the second half of his career. He knew what he was good at and stuck with it pretty much. There has been no actor since Grant who has been able to replicate successfully what Grant did--i.e the sophistication and comedic talents combined.

Costner, Silverstone and Hurt are NOT good actors.

Keaton is competent in most roles and that's all. The only thing I've ever really liked his acting in was Birdman.

> Not to mention De Niro who reinvents himself each role.

De Niro has the ability to be a very good actor and he is able to do it all--i.e. comedy, drama, etc. His problem is he will seemingly take any role offered to him and has been badly overexposed. He doesn't seem to care though.

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 3:30:40 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> Obviously he doesn't need the money

Maybe he does? He has six kids and maybe he leads an exorbitant lifestyle or maybe he has gambling issues, or a drug dependency problem, or keeps a stable of women on the side? Or maybe he's simply a workaholic and likes to keep busy. You never know.

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 6:57:34 PM UTC-5, Court_1 wrote:

> Main in Manhattan

*Maid* in Manhattan.

[Gracchus]

I read a De Niro biography, and if I recall correctly, he has in excess of two-hundred million. But it's true that some people spend as much as they make, no matter their income. On the other hand, I'd expect a workaholic to care more about the quality of his output. Although earlier in his career De Niro was renowned for meticulous preparation, now he merely goes through the motions as shamelessly as older Brando did.

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 7:46:21 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> But it's true that some people spend as much as they make, no matter their income.

Right. And we don't know what his expenses are, what his habits are, etc. You never know about a person based on what his on paper worth is and you never know what individuals get themselves into. The wealthier they are the more options/temptations they have.

> On the other hand, I'd expect a workaholic to care more about the quality of his output.

Not necessarily. He could just be a workaholic who isn't very bright and has no ability to choose which parts work or not, or he doesn't care much what he's doing as long as he's out there and working. Maybe he can't say no to various producers/directors he admires.

[acebh...@gmail.com]

TT , what are your favorite Courtroom movies? Or trail movies or whatever they are called.

Please post a list

[Gracchus]

Possibility #1 wouldn't make much sense when you consider the first 20-25 years of his career, when he chose many parts which did work for him, establishing his reputation in the first place. Blind luck or some hidden Svengali? I doubt it. Nor do I think he's so much of a weenie for it to be #3. Most likely is #2. He no longer cares much about his legacy or current rep, and grabs the easy money where it's offered. In a nutshell, self-challenging method actor turned whore.

[TT]

11.2.2016, 2:01, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> Really? That's why it's on every greatest movies of all time list I guess then?
>
> Perhaps, just perhaps, you are way off about this one?
>

Or perhaps I am not. I can understand if someone does find it funny, and
nothing wrong with that. but pretending it to be very witty/intelligent,
or great cinema, is rather misguided imo...

What happened was Truffaut & friends deciding that Hawks is an "auteur"
- which raised all the mediocre rubbish he made such as "Baby" to some
sort of example of visionary film making. This is not that, I assure
you, having seen all the comedies from that time at one point or another.

Besides, there are plenty of good arguments against auteur theory...
For example the director does not make the film alone. Also, if we look
at any director, all of them have stinkers. The idea here being that
"Baby" became a classic retroactively not because it was so good, but
because of the director who made it.

> You don't seem to appreciate witty humour. The fact that you hate every single Woody Allen movie tells me your sense of humour is different.

Well, Allen is far from witty. His humour is self serving and
narcissistic. Good humour should entertain the audience instead of
writer's ego.

The best example of that would be the ridiculously overrated Annie Hall
- a film which lacks emotional impact, engaging narrative and likeable
characters. It is basically a compilation of unfunny, pretentious and
self serving jokes.. most of which are borrowed anyway. Same can be
achieved with stand up comedy and is probably a better media for such
entertainment - as it doesn't pretend to be anything else.

What I find rather interesting, though, is how wannabe intellectuals
have in unison decided that Allen's "comedies" are smart - and liking
them apparently makes them smart as well and vice versa. I beg to differ
- and claim that it is exactly the opposite. Name dropping Kafka and
Freud does not one intellectual make, unless we add the prefix "pseudo"
to the word.

Groucho had hundred times the wit and humour... no wonder Allen has to
borrow his jokes. Also one has to note that Allen and Diane Keaton are
even MORE unlikeable in real life than in Annie Hall, which is quite an
achievement.

-

Oh, and I don't "hate every single Woody Allen movie" - that's your
strawman, woman. I just think they are vastly overrated, especially
Annie Hall. In general I think they are rather average...

7 Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)
7 Play It Again, Sam (1972)
6 Blue Jasmine (2013)
6 Manhattan (1979)
5 Annie Hall (1977)
4 Hollywood Ending (2002)
4 The Curse of the Jade Scorpion (2001)

[TT]

11.2.2016, 2:08, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> I think Clueless is fun because it's a satire of the novel Emma.

lol

That must be an example of Allenesque witty humour - or alternatively
life imitating art and you being clueless.

[Gracchus]

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016 at 9:51:17 PM UTC-8, TT wrote:

> Groucho had hundred times the wit and humour... no wonder Allen has to
> borrow his jokes. Also one has to note that Allen and Diane Keaton are
> even MORE unlikeable in real life than in Annie Hall, which is quite an
> achievement.

Yesterday I was reading an article about "The Stepford Wives" (original version). It seems Diane Keaton was offered the main role but turned it down because....her analyst didn't like the script. :)

> Oh, and I don't "hate every single Woody Allen movie" - that's your
> strawman, woman. I just think they are vastly overrated, especially
> Annie Hall. In general I think they are rather average...

> 7 Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)
> 7 Play It Again, Sam (1972)
> 6 Blue Jasmine (2013)
> 6 Manhattan (1979)
> 5 Annie Hall (1977)
> 4 Hollywood Ending (2002)
> 4 The Curse of the Jade Scorpion (2001)

I liked Woody's early ones best, when he wasn't taking himself so seriously: "Sleeper," "Love and Death,"etc. The later, "Hannah & Her Sisters" and "Crimes & Misdemeanors" struck a good balance between comedy and drama. IMO his worst films were the imitations of Ingmar Bergman in films like "Interiors." I hate the original Bergman enough, so why would I want to endure a bad copy?

I disagree about his wit, though it's true that many of his films are extremely self-indulgent, with the use of improvisation being particularly obnoxious. Instead of feeling spontaneous, I'm left with the feeling of "Just learn your damn lines before filming."

His films since 1990 have been very uneven. There aren't many of these that I've liked a lot. "Midnight in Paris" and "Blue Jasmine" were decent.

[Court_1]

On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 12:51:17 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:

> I can understand if someone does find it funny, and
> nothing wrong with that. but pretending it to be very witty/intelligent,
> or great cinema, is rather misguided imo...

I am not pretending anything. It IS witty and intelligent which is rare for a comedy film. Bringing Up Baby gets it right in every respect, i.e. great script, great direction and great performances.

> What happened was Truffaut & friends deciding that Hawks is an "auteur"
> - which raised all the mediocre rubbish he made such as "Baby" to some
> sort of example of visionary film making. This is not that, I assure
> you, having seen all the comedies from that time at one point or another.

I assure you it is and I have seen many comedies from that time as well. Bringing Up Baby and His Girl Friday, both by Hawks are timeless and brilliant films IMO and your opinion is the minority opinion here. Just give it up. You have your own opinion and that's fine but don't try and downgrade those two films into mediocre films when we all know they are seen as classics by most people who matter in the film industry. Even that moron Quentin Tarantino names those two films on his favorite films list.

> Besides, there are plenty of good arguments against auteur theory...
> For example the director does not make the film alone. Also, if we look
> at any director, all of them have stinkers. The idea here being that
> "Baby" became a classic retroactively not because it was so good, but
> because of the director who made it.

It became a classic retroactively because it is that good. Simple. Just like Vertigo, It's a Wonderful Life, The Wizard of Oz and The Night of the Hunter became classics retroactively and deservedly so. Bringing up Baby was a hit from the critics' standpoint early on but as always the masses are often slow to catch on for various reasons.

You are missing so many other very good Allen films. I still haven't seen Blue Jasmine. I must check it out.