I've been thinking about it ever since I watched it and I'm not sure the movie makes any sense (there are some major plot holes, or at least many things which seem to completely defy explanation to me) but I also don't care because it was amazing.

I think the totem is used to tell if you are dreaming at all but if your architecht finds out your totems quirk its possible that they will dream it like in the real world and you wont be able to tell. I still think it can be used to tell if you are in your dream because why else would mal have put hers away when they were in their limbo?

Fanboy Interruption (j/k):

Watched Dreyer's Vampyr last night on Watch It Now.

It's free you goofs! Go watch it.

1932 was an awesome year for films (Freaks, White Zombie, Horsefeathers). This seems to have gotten lost somehow.

Dreyer creates the creepiest setting, and, ultimately, infinitely more realistic (and therefore more frightening) film than others of the genre.

I'll let you decide. Go watch it.

Ah, that's a shame. But I think the last movie went so far into silliness that the franchise will have lost some of its steam anyway.

I saw Ip Man 2 yesterday, and it left me sorry at the decline of what could be an epic franchise. From the first one's fighting to the death in wartime to the second's fighting in a boxing match? Not exactly a killer idea.

I got a bit tired of his wife, gorgeous as she is, always looking constipated, too. I did love the tiny Bruce Lee bit at the end. The kid looks remarkably like Bruce's kid pics and seemed to have the arrogant attitude down pat. Perhaps Yen will come back when the kid truly has grown up. If he did, he would be at the right age for the Ip Man part at last.

I do kind of wish that some of the real glory of what makes Wing Chun so special had been conveyed in either movie. Its extremely logical principles have been conveyed in other movies before, including one that Sammo Hung was in. And the real-life stories of the people around the Wing Chun clan are pretty tremendous. Wong Shun Leung established the fighting reputation of Wing Chun in Hong Kong and is easily worth a story on his own, and so are Lee's Seattle days with Jesse Glover, James Demille, and others.

BTW, Barnes and Noble is selling Criterion DVDs at 50% off, and certain DVDs are worth it. Vampyr includes the Sheridan Le Fanu Story "Camilla" on which the film is based. Roeg's The Man Who Fell to Earth includes the complete novel by Walter Tevis.

I was quite disappointed by Vampyr. I often like silent movies, and adored Nosferatu, so I was quite surprised that Vampyr was extremely hit and miss with me, and overall something I would recommend to nearly no one.

Oh well.

Now that surprises me, really.

I thought the fact that there was so little supernatural to it, that it was this idea that...this sort of thing is hidden all over, in plain sight, coupled with the obvious aesthetic of such a film, I found it really seductive.

Here's a seemingly-unrelated, yet related question fro you:

What did you think of Lynch's Lost Highway?

I ask because it has some of the same themes I think, and there are a lot of scenes where the interiors themselves are the most important aesthetic happening.

I have always thought it was very underrated.

Haven't seen that one. I don't think I've seen a Lynch film since Blue Velvet, though I loved that one. That sort of theme is strong in Blue Velvet too.

I'd really like to see the creepy bunny ones sometime. I hear they come and go on youtube occasionally.

1931 and 1933 were also pretty good years.

watched Creation the other day. It's about Charles Darwin and his wacky theory of gravit-...err...evolution. There were two major themes that were explored, the first being his struggle to reconcile his new evolution idea with his faith (spoiler: he lost his faith obv), along with the implication it has w.r.t. society in general (one of his colleagues remarks: "You have killed God!").

The second theme involved his grief over the death of his daughter, for which he felt responsible by taking her places he shouldn't have taken her "in the name of science".

While both were interesting topics that were pretty thoroughly fleshed out, I couldn't help but get the feeling that the movie was making Darwin appear unnecessarily insane by constantly seeing and yelling at his dead daughter's ghost. I felt that that whole portion of the movie was just a bit over-the-top for me, and I think the movie lost a bit of whatever impact it may have had because of it. I'd give it a 6.5/10, but I'll also give a warning that it can be quite tedious at times.

there's a thread in OOT, move them there if you like?

Sounds like what they call in other forums...a level.

Kamikaze Girls



In a small rice growing community in Japan two very different girls form an unlikely friendship. Momoko is a very girly girl who dresses in the lolita style and dreams of Rocco France and a life of decadence and luxury.
Ichigo is a "Yunki" a sort of hard faced street kid part of an all girl moter cycle gang. Both seventeen and soon to graduate they learn something from one another and become better prepared to deal with their approaching adult lives.

The story wasn't anything special but it was very inventively told with a kind of manic energy that kept it pretty fresh.
The camera work was sometimes desperate to impress in a Guy Richie way but it went way past that with the use of different film stocks, animated scenes and characters braking the fourth wall. It was a little too long and the resolution was week but it was interesting to see a different view of Japan.

oops

Rome, Open City - Life is brutal and miserable, or is it? Director of this movie, Roberto Rossellini, spends the entire 100 minutes mediating on this subject in war torn Italy. For a good chunk of the movie, it reminded me of some other movies I’ve seen by Rossellini; most of the focus is on demonstrating the conditions which people find themselves in, rather than creating a friendly storyline too hook in the viewer and keep him interested in whats going on. However, after you settle in, you realize that there is actually a lot of purpose and force behind what is being told. Out of nowhere a lot of strong drama emerges and the pace of the story escalate, and you do find yourself hooked. The storyline is very strong, characters are very well developed and very well connected with their environment. A lot of bleakness in their daily lives, some moments of peace and joy, but they are few and far in between. Made right after World War 2, it is filled with a lot of excellent detail, showing how the characters survived, while the war raged on the front. For example, women had to resort to systematically storming bakeries to avoid starvation. The movie is full of poor, tired people living in fear, but unable to give up .
Surprisingly there is a lot of warmth in this movie: people forming relationships, creating strong bonds, somehow finding love, having small chit chat is all is very human and touching to watch. I think Fellini helped on the script and it is pretty smooth going. From start to finish there is a lot of really strong and low key drama in this movie, coupled with fantastic realism, director creates a very potent atmosphere. Brutality of Germans is very well demonstrated. The drunken German soldier giving a speech about Germans being a master race, is just absolutely powerful. A lot of directors tried hard to demonize Germans, Rossellini shows that pity might be more appropriate. Just a great movie, that features all kinds of human emotions and everything from partisans fighting, children playing, love, hunger, torture and treachery. A


Sátántangó- I was somewhat unimpressed with the first Bella Tarr movie that I’ve seen: Damnation. It was described as a modern noir, and for noir, very few things happened, so i was confused and stayed away from this director. Someone recommended me Sátántangó, and after hearing a lot if good things about this director, coupled with an interesting DVD cover I decided to bump this movie up in my netflix queue and seek it out. Right of the bat, I noticed the directors style: very few scenes, very long uninterrupted shots, very little action and very little on what to gauge the characters on. Director sort of expects you to study them, while they sit motionless for minutes after completing some small task and absolutely nothing else is going on on the screen. You get a lot of time to think about what you are seeing, and probably about other things, if after a while you begin to find images of people slowly coming, then walking away, or sitting and doing nothing repetitive and lacking insight. The gritty Hungarian countryside surroundings: horses, cows, barns, dirt roads, poverty, desolation and degradation, which director chooses to showcase do make for very interesting visuals and do help to keep your interest in the movie, while nothing else seems to be going on.

After a while I tried to see where this was all going, but was just dumbfounded, as the story seemed to be nonexistent and there was absolutely nothing to learn about the characters. This confusion created a lot of frustration for me and is probably why i decided to stick with entire 450 minutes of this very long movie to see where it was going, a lot of cool visuals probably helped too. Unfortunately most of the time, the movie just felt like the life was sucked out of it, devoid of anything interesting and after it was all over, I was still unsure what it was all about. There are some people living a country side, some cows run around, some money gets divided, some guy goes to get alcohol and not much more happens. I’ve seen some long and slow movies in my life. I understand why Gance needed 273 minutes to tell La roue, I understand why Akerman needed 201 minutes to tell the story of Jeanne Dielman, why Coppola needed so much time for his Godfather Saga, or why Tarkovsky needed 3 hours to mediate in his movie Solyaris. This time, I am just completely perplexed as to why the director would feel the need to tell this odd, barely existent story in 450 minutes. The complete disregard for the story and the viewer sort of reminded me of what little I saw of Dogville, but i turned that off after 60 minutes. I wish i would have done the same here and not invested full 450 minutes for this. D+


Inception - Pretty solid thriller by Nolan, but not that special. It is filled with a ton of small cool things from start to finish: from paradoxical architecture, to gravity and physics being manipulated. A lot of this is very nicely shown and makes for some really cool visuals. Unfortunately the story is not that strong. Nolan has way too much mumbo-jumbo inserted in the story and tries hard to build up on its own intricacies. After a while, you sort of stop caring for all explanations behind things that occur and just wish that it would go along and more cool things would happen. Nolan also tries hard to make this movie about some really deep problems that one of the characters experiences, but doesn't really do that good of a job building it up. IMO it could have been a much better movie if maybe it focused solely on that problem and didn't try to explain all the mumbo-jumbo in detail, or maybe the other way around, as it is sort of gets stuck in between. A lot of cool action scenes, but some do get stale and repetitive. Some characters really feel like they are just there to serve the story and nothing more. The oriental guy doing not much more than bleeding and coughing for hours, sort of exemplifies that. The whole story of trying to convince someone to destroy something that they are going to inherit, was kinda silly as well. B+


Freaks - Surprisingly dark and surprisingly touching movie. Probably the darkest "carny" movie that I've seen and they can be pretty dark (Nightmare Alley). Todd Browning feels at home in the circus. Making the most of small environments and unusual characters. The seediness of the movie, its veracity, simplicity and evilness of the villains caught me by surprise. Would not be surprised to learn that this movie ruffled a few feathers, when it was released in 1932 . Bachlanova plays a very, very bad person and does a good job showing her vile contempt towards her surroundings. All the unusual people are depicted with frankness, that at times make you feel uneasy looking at them. The movie uses this uneasy feeling to generate some tension for the viewer and give him something to think about. For one hour movie, this is sure packed with a lot. A--

Ooo...is there a list somewhere of all the Criterion DVDs that BN is offering at half price? Which would be the top 5/top 10 to get in your opinion?

Nevermind...there's so many...

re: dreyer and vampyr
I am not a big of Vampyr either. I thought it was a bit stale, but i do remember it being pretty unsettling. I am not a big fan of silent horror, but maybe i missed what Dreyer was going for and need to revisit it, as Dreyer is pretty awesome.

John Cole recently commented on seeing Ordet and that is easily my favorite movie ever. IMO that movie is so good, that it makes Dreyer's other gems: Day of Wrath and Gertrud somewhat unappreciated. If they were directed by some other director, they would probably be much more highly regarded.

here is an interesting photo form the end of Munk's play Ordet staged in 1932, which Dreyer based the movie on.
http://www.mastersofcinema.org/dreye...eatre_1932.jpg (don't click if u didn't see the movie)

Pretty interesting to see how true Dreyer stayed to the play, while removing a lot of dialogue.

Sightless,

After only two viewings, I would say it's in my top twenty or so, and may be near the top. I'd like to write more about it, but I find it a bit difficult, probably because I'm so much like the doctor in the film. I loved the scene near the end when Johannes and his neice are talking and the camera slowly describes an arc round them. The opening, with the repeated shots of each character going to look for Johannes, framed by the clothes drying on the line at the top of the screen, tells you you're about to see a great work. BTW, did Dreyer do the play?

Rome, Open City has long been one of my favorite films since first seeing it in 1975. I watched it again just recently. I also recommend Germany Year Zero, which is part of the same box set that includes Rome, Open City.

I think Vampyr is pretty great actually.

I watched 2012. Woody Harrelson was the only thing that was partially good in this abortion of a movie. The special effects were so "oh-we-almost-died-it's-amazing" that you can't help but LOL. I really think this movie was TIC joking.

Great reviews Sightless (including the first little bit of negativity I've seen about Inception. Haven't really been keeping up though) especially of Sátántangó... After reading that I almost want to test myself against it....

Posted this in the wrong thread at first but some thoughts on a random movie I happened to catch today:

Anthony Zimmer



A French crime romance thriller that was pretty entertaining featuring plenty of twists and turns, perhaps even the kind that makes you want to see the movie one more time.

The basic story though has been told a million times before. An ordinary guy just happens to meet femme fatale and then it all goes from there and him getting involved in all kinds of dangerous and exciting stuff.

If you like reasonable intelligent fast paced thrillers or just North by Northwest which this movie has more than a few touches of, then I'd definitely recommend.

The only thing stopping me, apart from it not really being what I would call a great movie or anything, is that after watching I learned that there is actually an interesting remake on its way. One I wouldn't be shocked if would better the original. Which you could say is original in itself almost coming from Hollywood!
The ingredients at least certainly seems to be there. It will be the director of the wonderful Life of the Others, Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck first movie since that, and it stars Johnny Depp who I could see bring all kinds of chameleonic awesome to the lead character, and Angelina Jolie who should be right in her element (one perhaps she should stick to) as the femme fatale.

6/10

Next I have The White Ribbon which I've had lying around for a few weeks, saving it as a special treat I want to be in just the right mood for.

hope they cast Sophie Marceau in the American version, I love her

I liked Roma: Open City when I saw it 20 years ago or so too.

-------------------------------------

Saw Shutter Island. Not bad. From the reviews, I expected it to be so oversold to me that it could never live up to its rep, and thus to be disappointed. Plus, a good horror type flick is rare to find, and I still find Leo strikes me as a giant baby in adult clothing. But I liked the flick. It seemed pretty slight overall, since it was in and out of the whole point of itself in the last few minutes of the flick, and the only part that really meant much was in the last two lines and then yer outta there. They were a pretty strong two lines, though. But their depth, and the depth of the concept itself, would probably be suited to a half-hour or hour-long TV show. Not bad, but not terribly nourishing. A review on I think the boxcover said something about it being a movie that "demands to be seen again!" Nah. I see no reason to.

----------------------------------

Saw Ip Man 2 and talked about it a bit a few posts back. Good but not as good as the first. Bruce's appearance was the best part of the movie and it was only a few moments. The first one played out on a much broader canvas, and that made this one seem quite narrow and a bit of a let down.

------------------------

Saw [REC]. It's the Spanish horror flick that was the basis of the American remake "Quarantine," about a TV magazine reporter trapped with her cameraman in an apartment building she drove to with firemen as they went out on a call while she was putting together a story on them. The apartment dwellers start coming down with a zombie-like disease, and almost immediately the government locks up the building as a biological hazard, trapping the tenants inside to meet their gruesome fates at each others' hands.

From the reviews I've read, it was supposed to be vastly superior to Quarantine and flat out fab. I was disappointed that it didn't seem any better, more interesting, or more scary than the original. I was happy that the now default Hollywood shaky cam was used more sparingly than in Quarantine, where it actually had me laughing out loud at how stupidly excessive the shaky cam was. I liked Quarantine quite a bit, and I guess I consider [REC] pretty much its equivalent. See whichever one you haven't seen yet and skip the other IMO.

The Godfather

So many films do not care to and are not able to take their time. Godfather was a great surprise in both respects. I remember trying to watch it years ago when my brother bought me the DVD trilogy collection. I turned it off barely half an hour into it, and I didn't pay much attention to those bits. But now that I'm older and as interested in the setup as I am the payoff, Godfather had me glued. I love the opening scene that sets up the subtle but monstrous power of the Corleone family and the rules they play by. When it comes to business, they refuse to be brutes. But in the name of friends and family they will act as monsters equal to their power.

The story spends a fair amount of time setting up what any regular thriller might put up front: the assassination (attempt) of Don Corleone, the Godfather. Business deals are brokered and broken for over half an hour before the attempt is made, and much of the rest of the film is spent dealing with the ramifications of a stupid group of people's decision to try to kill one of the most powerful men in the world. The problem is not just that someone betrayed the family. Though the Corleone's are willing to forgive and move on, these idiots won't. They continue to attempt to push the Corleone's out of power. In the film's climax, the Corleone's finally decide something must be done.

Godfather is a mystery in its own way, offering hints of who is responsible for the assassination attempt, and who continues to give trouble to the Corleone family. By the time we find out who is responsible, it doesn't really matter. We are in awe and absent of empathy as we watch what happens when a beast is betrayed.

It was also fascinating to watch Pacino in his younger years. For the first hour I expected him to do his usual schtick, screaming every line with the subtlety of a baboon. But later I came to accept that Pacino once drew on a vast resource of ability we no longer know him for.

I'm ready to watch Part II and enter the debate on whether or not it is better than, or at least equal to, Part I.

man, to watch those films for the first time...