Random Film Thoughts: If anyone's gonna piss on him, it's gonna be me!

[haqyunus]

The trailer for Zero Dark Thirty gives me chills just thinking about it. Brilliant work.

True. The music build-up and how it ends, specially the scenes like burqa clad gunmen rounding up the guy on the stairs and at the very end, very hushed night-vision shots. So dramatic yet stylish and powerful. Chills indeed.

[McTeague]

The Pornographers (Immura, 1966).

I need to see more imamura ASAp.

More later. Maybe.

[Aaron Leggo]

Lost Highway **** 1/2 / *****
Now that I've seen this, Dune is the only David Lynch feature film I haven't seen. It was great to see Lost Highway for the first time on a big screen with an audience of Lynch fans (and having Bill Pullman in sight in the theater while the movie plays). Watching the film, it's certainly a crazy film, the typical Lynch film that starts out kind of normal for the first act then goes insane about 20 minutes in. It's a very interesting film, extremely well made, I particularly like the sets and editing techniques. It was fun having Bill Pullman and Patricia Arquette open the film, they made a good couple. I was lucky enough to have Pullman, Arquette, Balthazar Getty, and the producer/editor there for a Q&A, they provided many interesting and funny stories and theories about the film. While it's not my favorite Lynch film, it's still excellent, a true definition of a Lynch film, and a very good and thought provoking film And I believe Bill Pullman's interpretation of the film is the exact nature of the film.

I love this movie, too, and also without putting it at the top of his filmography for me. That’s just how awesomely stacked Lynch’s catalog of movies is. I’d certainly put Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, Mulholland Dr., and probably Inland Empire above Lost Highway, but they’re all brilliant. My initial introduction to this move was during a screenwriting class where the teacher compared the movie to a Möbius strip. He gave his explanation/interpretation of what’s going on (that Pullman’s character unwittingly makes a deal with the devil so that he is able to survive an impossibly inescapable situation by being reborn as someone else for the latter half of the movie) and it made for a wildly engaging viewing of the movie.

But… no mention of Robert Blake?! His performance in Lost Highway is one of the most terrifying things I’ve ever seen. He crawls deep under my skin and picks at those deep recesses of nightmares. When he talks to Pullman at that party and tells him that he’s actually in Pullman’s house as they speak, then has a phone call confirm it… holy shit, that’s one of the freakiest things imaginable. I can’t think of this movie without thinking of that character. Like Eraserhead, it’ll likely be a long time before I can ever revisit the movie because I find it all so incredibly unnerving.

The Exorcist III *** 1/2 / *****
I watched The Exorcist II for the first time a couple months ago and apart from the great score, man it really sucked. So of course I had to watch the third film. It's actually a pretty decent film, it has some creepy moments and a nice atmosphere. Brad Douriff/Jason Miller have a good supportin role and George C Scott makes a nice lead. I liked the dark and empty moments in the hospital, particularly a scene later in the film involving a nurse walking down the halls. Of course it's not as good as the original but it's much better than the second one.

Glad you enjoyed this! I love it and even prefer the overall picture to both of its predecessors. Yeah, The Exorcist II sucks horribly, at least in a funny, never scary way, so that’s an easy one to top. But while the first Exorcist has some really creepy moments and I love the first half, I always find it becomes more of a demented gorefest than a genuinely terrifying horror tale when it comes time for all the pea soup vomiting. It’s still hugely influential and impressive for its time, but it feels like two halves that don’t quite gel. On the other hand, The Exorcist III feels complete, whole, entirely connected throughout and it sustains the horror until the end. It’s oddly funny, too, at least at times, and George C. Scott rules as always. And then there’s Brad Dourif, who is absolutely towering in this completely crazy role where he’s spewing monologues and dominating the screen. His performance is a stunner. Jason Miller is also great as Dourif’s counterpart.

Also, have you seen either of the Exorcist prequels? They’re both horrible and of course share similar scripts and even some of the same footage, but they still manage to suck in their own individual ways. Both make The Exorcist II look pretty phenomenal in comparison.

Oh, and yay for more Holy Motors love!

[Aurelius]

When he talks to Pullman at that party and tells him that he’s actually in Pullman’s house as they speak, then has a phone call confirm it… holy shit, that’s one of the freakiest things imaginable.

One of my all-time favorite scenes.

[cdmc]

The Pornographers (Immura, 1966).

I need to see more imamura ASAp.

More later. Maybe.

Up next should be Profound Desire of the Gods (or The Insect Woman).

[McTeague]

Up next should be Profound Desire of the Gods (or The Insect Woman).

BUt is this the top, or am I in for even better things???!!!! OMG, this was staggering. A revelation.

[cdmc]

The Pornographers is definitely top-tier Imamura, but I give the edge to Profound Desire of the Gods.

I am actually surprised at how much I adore him considering the fact that he is the anti-Ozu.

[hurricanesmith]

Oh my God! I watched it too and I'm surprised at how crappy it was, I didn't even appreciate the visuals! I really hope it gets snubbed and the only reasons that keeps me predicting it in a #5 spot is the fact that it's the only Dreamworks contender this year.

It's crap, for sure, but I liked the designs (particularly of the yetis), and I liked some of the side details. It was a movie where more thought went into the world than the story or characters, and it really showed. I mean, that thing where Jack has to "find his center" comes up once, then gets dropped for an hour, then is inexplicably a huge part of the climax. It's so dumb!

Also, it really reminded me why I like Pixar so much more than Dreamworks, even if I can prefer individual Dreamworks projects to Pixar projects. Even when Pixar is making shitty movies, it's obvious that a ton of thought went into them, and they just made decisions that didn't work. Plus, they don't rely on celebrity voices. I mean, Jack would have been SO MUCH MORE ENGAGING with anyone but Chris Pine voicing him, and I like Chris Pine.

HS

[Jeff Beachnau]

I love this movie, too, and also without putting it at the top of his filmography for me. That’s just how awesomely stacked Lynch’s catalog of movies is. I’d certainly put Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, Mulholland Dr., and probably Inland Empire above Lost Highway, but they’re all brilliant. My initial introduction to this move was during a screenwriting class where the teacher compared the movie to a Möbius strip. He gave his explanation/interpretation of what’s going on (that Pullman’s character unwittingly makes a deal with the devil so that he is able to survive an impossibly inescapable situation by being reborn as someone else for the latter half of the movie) and it made for a wildly engaging viewing of the movie.

But… no mention of Robert Blake?! His performance in Lost Highway is one of the most terrifying things I’ve ever seen. He crawls deep under my skin and picks at those deep recesses of nightmares. When he talks to Pullman at that party and tells him that he’s actually in Pullman’s house as they speak, then has a phone call confirm it… holy shit, that’s one of the freakiest things imaginable. I can’t think of this movie without thinking of that character. Like Eraserhead, it’ll likely be a long time before I can ever revisit the movie because I find it all so incredibly unnerving.



Glad you enjoyed this! I love it and even prefer the overall picture to both of its predecessors. Yeah, The Exorcist II sucks horribly, at least in a funny, never scary way, so that’s an easy one to top. But while the first Exorcist has some really creepy moments and I love the first half, I always find it becomes more of a demented gorefest than a genuinely terrifying horror tale when it comes time for all the pea soup vomiting. It’s still hugely influential and impressive for its time, but it feels like two halves that don’t quite gel. On the other hand, The Exorcist III feels complete, whole, entirely connected throughout and it sustains the horror until the end. It’s oddly funny, too, at least at times, and George C. Scott rules as always. And then there’s Brad Dourif, who is absolutely towering in this completely crazy role where he’s spewing monologues and dominating the screen. His performance is a stunner. Jason Miller is also great as Dourif’s counterpart.

Also, have you seen either of the Exorcist prequels? They’re both horrible and of course share similar scripts and even some of the same footage, but they still manage to suck in their own individual ways. Both make The Exorcist II look pretty phenomenal in comparison.

Oh, and yay for more Holy Motors love!

Of course, Robert Blake was beyond creepy. And apparently his look was all Blake's idea.

Pullman's basic interpretation of the film is that his character was a underground musician in the heart of LA who lives in a fancy, clean house. After his wife dies, he believes so much that he didn't do it, when Getty shows up in the cell, he's the complete opposite of Pullman's character, a young mechanic living a rundown house in the Valley who constantly gets it on with a bunch of women, of course the police had to let him go, he couldn't possibly have commited the murder. But gradually Pullman's character emerges from Getty's. Pullman can't escape from who he is so in the end he tries transforming into another new person. That was a quick summary of what Pullman said and I think it makes sense.

And I have seen Exorcist: The Beginning, but I think the last time I saw it was in the theater, I didn't see the other one.

[Cricket]

Has anyone seen Marco Berger's Ausente (Absent)? I just saw it, and was quite pleasantly surprised. I didn't really care for Berger's first feature, Plan B, a super low-budget film that played in competition at the Rome Film Festival a while back. But Ausente, which won the Teddy Award at Berlin last year, is a big step forward. It tells the somewhat familiar story of a high school student's inappropriate attraction to his swimming coach. But it's really a moody examination of desire, repression and guilt. Berger employs a bunch of formal tricks here that lay on the tension and ambiguity, like a unique sound design and fragmented editing that increasingly puts the viewer off-balance and left to wonder about the chronology of events and, indeed, what events actually happened.

I was even reminded of Lucrecia Martel at times, whose unsettling, formally intricate works seemed to be an influence here. There currently appears to be an emergence of young filmmakers from Argentina, like Berger and Matías Piñeiro, that could possibly be regarded as the next wave of the "New Argentine Cinema".

[lazarus]

Pullman's basic interpretation of the film is that his character was a underground musician in the heart of LA who lives in a fancy, clean house. After his wife dies, he believes so much that he didn't do it, when Getty shows up in the cell, he's the complete opposite of Pullman's character, a young mechanic living a rundown house in the Valley who constantly gets it on with a bunch of women, of course the police had to let him go, he couldn't possibly have commited the murder. But gradually Pullman's character emerges from Getty's. Pullman can't escape from who he is so in the end he tries transforming into another new person. That was a quick summary of what Pullman said and I think it makes sense.

Everyone has a theory of what this giant wank of a film means. Lynch himself probably doesn't even know, or care. Which is fine, but it's funny watching his obsessed fans attempt to attach meaning to it.

It has a good number of great scenes, but it adds up to nothing. Pullman isn't a very good actor either and doesn't really add much to the film. Nor does Arquette. This seems like a cut-rate cast compared to his previous and subsequent works, even if Watts, Harring, and Theroux were lucky finds.

Mulholland Dr is on a much, much higher level. It also contains a lot of WTF moments that likely came from Lynch's subconscious (as well as his unacknowledged lifts from Céline And Julie Go Boating), but the difference is that the emotion, and the observations/themes about Hollywood carry a lot more weight.

[cdmc]

Has anyone seen Marco Berger's Ausente (Absent)? I just saw it, and was quite pleasantly surprised. I didn't really care for Berger's first feature, Plan B, a super low-budget film that played in competition at the Rome Film Festival a while back. But Ausente, which won the Teddy Award at Berlin last year, is a big step forward. It tells the somewhat familiar story of a high school student's inappropriate attraction to his swimming coach. But it's really a moody examination of desire, repression and guilt. Berger employs a bunch of formal tricks here that lay on the tension and ambiguity, like a unique sound design and fragmented editing that increasingly puts the viewer off-balance and left to wonder about the chronology of events and, indeed, what events actually happened.

I was even reminded of Lucrecia Martel at times, whose unsettling, formally intricate works seemed to be an influence here. There currently appears to be an emergence of young filmmakers from Argentina, like Berger and Matías Piñeiro, that could possibly be regarded as the next wave of the "New Argentine Cinema".

I... I did not really like it.

Matías Piñeiro, on the other hand, is the real deal. A true master of cinematic rhythm.

[McTeague]

Everyone has a theory of what this giant wank of a film means. Lynch himself probably doesn't even know, or care. Which is fine, but it's funny watching his obsessed fans attempt to attach meaning to it.

It has a good number of great scenes, but it adds up to nothing.

LOL, it's MUCH easier to make sense of LH than it is of MD (let alone Inland Empire). You're sounding like Rex Reed when he insisted that MD made no sense and all those theories were wanking. Exactly like that. Rewatch the film now that you're an adult or else stop making RexReedesque remarks about something you clearly didn't get.

[Ben7]

I wasn't sure if this called for a new thread in the film news forum, but Rolling Stone is reporting that Lenny Kravitz has signed on to play Marvin Gaye in a biopic:

Lenny Kravitz has signed on to play Marvin Gaye in the upcoming Julien Temple-directed biopic of the R&B great, a rep for Kravitz confirms to Rolling Stone.

The film is set to start filming next year and will focus on Gaye's time in Europe in the early 1980s when the singer was trying to curb his addictions and restart his career with the help of British promoter Freddy Cousaert. While there have been previous attempts at Gaye biopics, insiders report that this one has secured music rights.

The role will mark Kravitz's first leading turn, though he's previously played supporting parts in The Hunger Games and Lee Daniels' Precious. Kravitz is also set to appear in the The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, as well as The Butler, a new White House drama from Daniels.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/ne...#ixzz2DX39Q57e

[BBKing44]

I'm not really sure what to think of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. I've never seen anything quite like it. The film just goes there... and it goes there a lot- becoming a little episodic and overwhelming (which might have been the point). I liked Depp even though he seemed to be overdoing it (Which, again, might have been intentional). I don't know. I think I get what it's saying, what with the whole "the american dream has been shot to hell" thing (The American flag might as well be another character in the movie, it pops up so much!) but the presentation is uneven and just as confused as its subjects.
This may be one to see again, as I think it might reveal something new on another viewing, but at the moment, there are so many question marks, pros and cons that I can't condemn or praise it. I guess you could say that I'm very mixed on Fear and Loathing.

I'd love to hear others' thoughts on this.

[Blasty]

I think it was one, ludicrous mess. I'm not sure I quite formulated an opinion on it the first time either. A movie to see drunk or stoned, I guess? As I was neither, I was rather disappointed in it. In the end, the whole enterprise was disappointing for me. I saw it years ago - there was some amusement but I recall losing my patience with it more often than not.

[ladylurks]

I've always liked J. Hoberman's take on Fear and Loathing.

Given that the sixties remain the most maligned and oversold decade of the American century, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is clearly not for everyone. (“If you got it then, you’ll get it now” is how Newsday critic John Anderson began his review.) At once prestigious literary adaptation and slapstick buddy flick, this is something like Fellini Cheech and Chong—this is a lowbrow art film, an egghead monster movie, a gross-out trip to the lost continent of Mu, a hilarious paean to reckless indulgence, and perhaps the most widely released midnight movie ever made.

http://www.criterion.com/current/pos...-reels-of-film

[BBKing44]

I've always liked J. Hoberman's take on Fear and Loathing.



http://www.criterion.com/current/pos...-reels-of-film

Thanks for the article. That quote sums it up very well.

[Ceilidh-ann]

Fear & Loathing has an amazing soundtrack but that's about it. Then again, I find Hunter S Thompson to be so overrated.

[BTN]

Owen Gliberman had a memorable phrase when he put Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas on his worst of 98 list - "like dropping acid in a garbage can" LOL.