I find it interesting, John, that you frame so much of your movie watching in moral terms. A lot of the stuff you talked about didn't even occur to me when I was watching the remake yesterday afternoon. It may be that the original is so fresh in my mind that all I could do was compare and contrast between the two. Nevertheless, it's a perspective, so you all might find it interesting anyway.
Right off the bat, I was distracted by how different the two Matties were. I really enjoyed Kim Darby's performance, and Steinfeld's was so different it was really unsettling for at least the first half of the film. I liked how Darby's bravado barely masked her uncertainty and lack of experience, whereas Steinfeld's Mattie was much more reserved and less emotionally expressive. There were times when you could see a hint of the child in her eyes or her trembling lip, but it was a little too understated for me. I'm sure many would disagree with me, but we live in an age in film where the wisecracking, sharp-witted child is not an anomaly. We expect children in films to act and think older than they are. Darby's Mattie was in between being an adult and a child, just like a real 14-year-old. Don't get me wrong; I thought Steinfeld did a fine job, and I think I'll appreciate her interpretation better when I have a little more distance from the original.
The other performances were unique in their own rights, and really comparable to each other. Both characterizations of Rooster were entertaining and distinct. I couldn't say which La Boef I liked better. I preferred Damon's character personally, but, again, I thought both performances were solid.
As far as it being humorous, John, I wasn't surprised. The original was more so, and in that classic movie way. I think I've mentioned how older films seem to be able to span genres better than newer, more serious ones, and the original Grit is no exception. I think I was relieved that the remake kept some of the humorous elements of the original, as it was a part of what gave it that little extra zing (there's a better word than that, but it eludes me).
The dialogue was remarkably similar in both films, and if certain lines of the remake weren't verbatim from the original, they were very close. I also was distracted by the righteous commitment to refraining from contractions in both films, but more so in the remake (maybe because I gave the original that "old movie" leeway). Is that how they talked in the Old West? I'm not up on my grammar history. It's charming and unusual at first, but after two films of it, it does get to be a little obvious. Again, I think that some distance between the films will ease some of that.
I'll definitely watch either again; I really couldn't tell you which is my favorite. They are both excellent films. I'll leave the moralizing to John for now, and chime in with my thoughts of interpretation when some other have had their say.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
The Originals
Brandon, I find it remarkable that you haven't seen Before Sunrise. Ben's right that a part of what's so wonderful about Before Sunset is that we'd been waiting for so many years, not knowing what had happened to the two would-be lovers. It's one of the few "arty" films I'd seen close to when it came out (I watched it on HBO back in the day), and the fact that all they did was talk (mostly, anyway--heh) and it was still entertaining made an impression on me. Before Sunset has the advantage of all those years of subliminal longing--the fans of the first are ripe for picking. So I find it interesting and encouraging that you enjoyed the sequel without the benefit of the first, because it says something about how well the film stands on its own. But, really, man, watch the first one. You wouldn't let it stand if one of us had seen Aliens but not Alien, would you? Get on it, man.
I watched True Grit last night. Not the Coen brothers' version. That's today or tomorrow, I hope. Adrienne actually *answered* the question I'd posed to all of you about whether or not to see the original first. I really liked it. I will probably be scolded for it, but it was my first John Wayne film, so it was a treat to see what all the fuss is about. Some comments in the special features mentioned that his performance in True Grit is a special one, that he put a little more of himself into the part. He really did a fine job. But I have to tell you that I don't think it would be the same movie--and I'd even go so far as to say he might not have gotten that Oscar--were it not for Kim Darby's really unique performance as Mattie. The chemistry between those two was fantastic. That Mattie's propriety contrasted Rooster's impropriety in addition to their chemistry created an emotional dynamo of sorts--an alternator that provided near continuous energy to the film. It was a classic straight man-funny man dynamic, except that they took turns with the roles. I was surprised to see that Dennis Hopper was in the film; I really enjoyed his performance as Moon. The scene involving him and Quincy was shockingly violent for a rated G film. Let's not forget two instances of "bastard" one "son of a bitch" and several hells and damns. Even more evidence that the ratings system is a load of crap (have any of you seen This Film is Not Yet Rated?). I mean, I wasn't bothered by it necessarily, just really surprised. Of course, it was pre-Temple of Doom, which is a distinction we make at the house now since I told my son that Temple of Doom was one of the films that prompted the created of the PG-13 rating in the first place.
On a side note, what is it with westerns and theme songs that sing about the plot? So far I've seen three: High Noon, Gunfight at the OK Corral, and now True Grit. It's amazing that the music can be so incredibly cheesy in some of these old westerns.
P.S. I loved your story about watching movies with your dad. I'm envious of your film education, I must say, though it is something to be discovering some of these classics as an adult, when I have the ability to appreciate them more. I hope Ethan feels as nostalgic about me showing him Seven Samurai and High Noon as you do about your own father's film influence. Is your brother into film like you are?
I watched True Grit last night. Not the Coen brothers' version. That's today or tomorrow, I hope. Adrienne actually *answered* the question I'd posed to all of you about whether or not to see the original first. I really liked it. I will probably be scolded for it, but it was my first John Wayne film, so it was a treat to see what all the fuss is about. Some comments in the special features mentioned that his performance in True Grit is a special one, that he put a little more of himself into the part. He really did a fine job. But I have to tell you that I don't think it would be the same movie--and I'd even go so far as to say he might not have gotten that Oscar--were it not for Kim Darby's really unique performance as Mattie. The chemistry between those two was fantastic. That Mattie's propriety contrasted Rooster's impropriety in addition to their chemistry created an emotional dynamo of sorts--an alternator that provided near continuous energy to the film. It was a classic straight man-funny man dynamic, except that they took turns with the roles. I was surprised to see that Dennis Hopper was in the film; I really enjoyed his performance as Moon. The scene involving him and Quincy was shockingly violent for a rated G film. Let's not forget two instances of "bastard" one "son of a bitch" and several hells and damns. Even more evidence that the ratings system is a load of crap (have any of you seen This Film is Not Yet Rated?). I mean, I wasn't bothered by it necessarily, just really surprised. Of course, it was pre-Temple of Doom, which is a distinction we make at the house now since I told my son that Temple of Doom was one of the films that prompted the created of the PG-13 rating in the first place.
On a side note, what is it with westerns and theme songs that sing about the plot? So far I've seen three: High Noon, Gunfight at the OK Corral, and now True Grit. It's amazing that the music can be so incredibly cheesy in some of these old westerns.
P.S. I loved your story about watching movies with your dad. I'm envious of your film education, I must say, though it is something to be discovering some of these classics as an adult, when I have the ability to appreciate them more. I hope Ethan feels as nostalgic about me showing him Seven Samurai and High Noon as you do about your own father's film influence. Is your brother into film like you are?
Friday, January 7, 2011
Staying Together For the Kids
We touched a little on your topic, Ben, in a little discussion about film critics John and Brandon and I had a little while ago. I am not well-versed in that subject and have been impressed/daunted by what John and Brandon have exposed themselves to. I am a skeptic when it comes to a lot of art criticism, really, because I feel that the enjoyment of art is so personal and visceral that when you try to be objectively critical, you're removing a crucial variable upon which art appreciation depends.
It is true that there are different levels of skill involved in any art form, and if we were comparing home movies to Scorsese's films, you could certainly make a judgment based upon objective elements. But in the professional film-making business, there are a lot of folks who have spent a lot of time studying their craft, and are good at what they do. So it comes down to taste, ultimately. I'll watch a ridiculous movie like Disaster Movie, and be dismissive of it until I watch the special features and see how much skill goes into even a throwaway film like that. I'll still think it's crap, maybe, but more respectable crap that is aware of its purpose--and is not without its fans.
I love reading Roger Ebert's reviews because it's obvious that he likes movies. He'll admit to his not liking a film being simply a matter of taste. I respect that. I think subjective discussions of film are much more enjoyable and fruitful, as opposed to trying to determine whether a film is "good" or "bad." I would have never referred to myself as a cinephile before John called me one, and it's because I associated cinephilia with elitism and criticism. But I'm learning that's not necessarily the case. I love movies. I don't know what's good, but I know what I like. I am a cinephile.
It is true that there are different levels of skill involved in any art form, and if we were comparing home movies to Scorsese's films, you could certainly make a judgment based upon objective elements. But in the professional film-making business, there are a lot of folks who have spent a lot of time studying their craft, and are good at what they do. So it comes down to taste, ultimately. I'll watch a ridiculous movie like Disaster Movie, and be dismissive of it until I watch the special features and see how much skill goes into even a throwaway film like that. I'll still think it's crap, maybe, but more respectable crap that is aware of its purpose--and is not without its fans.
I love reading Roger Ebert's reviews because it's obvious that he likes movies. He'll admit to his not liking a film being simply a matter of taste. I respect that. I think subjective discussions of film are much more enjoyable and fruitful, as opposed to trying to determine whether a film is "good" or "bad." I would have never referred to myself as a cinephile before John called me one, and it's because I associated cinephilia with elitism and criticism. But I'm learning that's not necessarily the case. I love movies. I don't know what's good, but I know what I like. I am a cinephile.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Drum Roll, Please (part 2)
Okay, let's travel back in time about two months and see what I was watching then, and if I still remember any of it well enough to comment. Of course, there are comments on my Facebook Flixster account, which you are all welcome to check out. I just don't feel like doing all that cutting and pasting.
You do realize, that without Flixster, I would have been keeping track of all these movies I've been watching on several scraps of paper, all lost by now. It's not that I think it's so great, John, but it's a good placeholder. And it has all the basic information I need (year, major actors, director) to speak somewhat intelligently about it here.
Transylvania 6-5000 (1985): I loved this movie as a kid. Watched it several times on HBO when it first came out. It's still good for some laugh-out-loud moments. Pre-public-racism Michael Richards is really inspired in an early role. I listened to some of the commentary and was interested to learn how creative the director had to be with a really limited budget. I had a lot more respect for the film after that. The script apparently called for most of the scenes to be filmed at night, but they just couldn't afford it. I think it makes it a little more unique as such, a comedy horror film shot almost entirely in daylight. The director (Rudy De Luca) wrote for Mel Brooks and his influence really shows here.
Pierrot le Fou (1969): Godard take two wasn't so bad. I didn't love it, but I didn't hate it either. It held my interest and was much more visually interesting than Breathless. I watched some commentary and had a bit of an epiphany about modern film. Ready? Just like modern art can be concerned with form at the expense of (or outright exclusion of) representational elements, perhaps film can do the same and still be fun to watch. The big difference is that I can enjoy an abstract painting for as long or short a time as I like, whereas an abstract film will keep me captive for hours sometimes, depending on a director's vision/obsession/delusions of grandeur. But while I tend to prefer modern art over classical, I'm still a sucker for a good story. I'll stick to experimental short films and leave the more dense stuff to the experts. Not that I'm not up for more Godard; I actually wanted to watch more of the special features (commentary does help with films like this, I've found--you're right, John and Brandon) but it was a library item and was on hold for someone else so I had to return it before I was ready. The moment has passed so I probably won't come back to it for a while. If you have't seen it, it's about a guy who leaves his wife and daughter for the babysitter or something. Except that it's not really about that, and it eventually descends into typical Godard inanity/insanity until, similar to the protagonist of Breathless, the main character dies in dramatic fashion. Ah, the French. Sartre was no good for them.
Taking Woodstock (2009): I kept falling asleep, this was so boring. And long. I'm not usually derisive of films; on some level every major studio release is professionally and expertly done. But why watch this film, which took great pains to resemble the famous documentary about Woodstock, when you could just watch the famous documentary about Woodstock? I understand they wanted to focus on an individual experience, but the weren't really consistent there either. Demetri Martin is funny, but he wasn't here.
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000): I watched this for the second time with my family, and it was a big hit. I just LOVE LOVE LOVE this film. Snappy dialogue, fantasy elements, clever storytelling, and groundbreaking CGI (I didn't realize how groundbreaking until I watched some of the special features) make this an all-time classic and one of the best films the Coen brothers have put out. So what if it's got a solid mainstream sensibility? So what, I say! And don't forget the killer KILLER soundtrack.
Late Spring (1949): This is a great movie, everyone agrees. Without watching it several more times, I don't know that I can add much to the discussion. It's a bit slow-moving, but really substantial stuff goes on. It's meaty. But this good movie becomes great by the end when you realize what the father did for his daughter consciously, deliberately, and at his own expense. It gives me chills thinking about it now and I saw the movie 53 days ago. I've got two Ozu films under my belt now, so I'm only just beginning to appreciate how the world is a more beautiful place because of his work.
Teeth (2007): Brandon, are you still with me? This one's for you. If you haven't seen this, you will LOVE it. A teenage girl, spokesperson for her high school abstinence group, finds out she has teeth down there when her boyfriend forces himself on her, with utterly disturbing (but hilarious) results. Director Lichtenstein doesn't hold back with the visuals, either. It's not a lot of gore, but what there is will make you instinctively check yourself, if you know what I mean. But, you see, it's not just about unintentionally detachable penises; there's a message in here about empowerment. The fact that this girl starts out intending to be a virgin until marriage is significant to the story. It's interesting to watch how she handles her loss of innocence and makes the transition from being a victim of her unusual physiology to taking matters into her own hands. It's not a perfect film, and not subtle at all. But I can honestly say I've seen nothing like it before or since. You'd classify it as horror, but it's really more like a fairy tale. I'd really be interested in what you think.
Jennifer's Body (2009): I watched this and the previous films in close proximity to each other. It might have even been the same night; I don't remember exactly. It was interesting to see the similarity in themes (a woman taken advantage of gets her revenge) and to contrast it with the completely different responses and attitudes of the main characters of the two films. Jennifer's Body kind of got trashed, bit I think it's a perfectly good B movie. Megan Fox does just fine; I think she's actually a good choice for the role and plays off Seyfried well. Fox is gorgeous and it's not fair that you're not allowed to be that gorgeous and a good actor too. It's like we don't want anyone to be too talented. I'm not saying she's Meryl Streep, but lay off people, really. It's also a shame the Juno connection was so overplayed; this is not a Juno-fan movie. But I bet a lot of them went to see it anyway. I think Cody has a lot of potential as a writer. She's got good ideas and an unconventional approach to them. She's still learning the tricks of the trade. Give her time.
Due Date (2010): I really enjoyed this film and really laughed a lot. I like how Brandon trusts his gut more than his intellect when it comes to comedy. I'm like that, too. The whole point is to make the audience laugh, and if you can do it with a typical plot and plot devices but two really funny actors, then more power to ya. I never thought I'd find a masturbating dog so funny, but, dear Lord, I almost wet my pants. Galifianakis and RJD had great chemistry.
Well, I'm tired of writing and I'm still a month and a half behind. Steady as she goes. I guess I had more to say about each than I thought I would.
Right now The Phoenix Foundation's "St. Kevin" is on, and it's really amazing.
You do realize, that without Flixster, I would have been keeping track of all these movies I've been watching on several scraps of paper, all lost by now. It's not that I think it's so great, John, but it's a good placeholder. And it has all the basic information I need (year, major actors, director) to speak somewhat intelligently about it here.
Transylvania 6-5000 (1985): I loved this movie as a kid. Watched it several times on HBO when it first came out. It's still good for some laugh-out-loud moments. Pre-public-racism Michael Richards is really inspired in an early role. I listened to some of the commentary and was interested to learn how creative the director had to be with a really limited budget. I had a lot more respect for the film after that. The script apparently called for most of the scenes to be filmed at night, but they just couldn't afford it. I think it makes it a little more unique as such, a comedy horror film shot almost entirely in daylight. The director (Rudy De Luca) wrote for Mel Brooks and his influence really shows here.
Pierrot le Fou (1969): Godard take two wasn't so bad. I didn't love it, but I didn't hate it either. It held my interest and was much more visually interesting than Breathless. I watched some commentary and had a bit of an epiphany about modern film. Ready? Just like modern art can be concerned with form at the expense of (or outright exclusion of) representational elements, perhaps film can do the same and still be fun to watch. The big difference is that I can enjoy an abstract painting for as long or short a time as I like, whereas an abstract film will keep me captive for hours sometimes, depending on a director's vision/obsession/delusions of grandeur. But while I tend to prefer modern art over classical, I'm still a sucker for a good story. I'll stick to experimental short films and leave the more dense stuff to the experts. Not that I'm not up for more Godard; I actually wanted to watch more of the special features (commentary does help with films like this, I've found--you're right, John and Brandon) but it was a library item and was on hold for someone else so I had to return it before I was ready. The moment has passed so I probably won't come back to it for a while. If you have't seen it, it's about a guy who leaves his wife and daughter for the babysitter or something. Except that it's not really about that, and it eventually descends into typical Godard inanity/insanity until, similar to the protagonist of Breathless, the main character dies in dramatic fashion. Ah, the French. Sartre was no good for them.
Taking Woodstock (2009): I kept falling asleep, this was so boring. And long. I'm not usually derisive of films; on some level every major studio release is professionally and expertly done. But why watch this film, which took great pains to resemble the famous documentary about Woodstock, when you could just watch the famous documentary about Woodstock? I understand they wanted to focus on an individual experience, but the weren't really consistent there either. Demetri Martin is funny, but he wasn't here.
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000): I watched this for the second time with my family, and it was a big hit. I just LOVE LOVE LOVE this film. Snappy dialogue, fantasy elements, clever storytelling, and groundbreaking CGI (I didn't realize how groundbreaking until I watched some of the special features) make this an all-time classic and one of the best films the Coen brothers have put out. So what if it's got a solid mainstream sensibility? So what, I say! And don't forget the killer KILLER soundtrack.
Late Spring (1949): This is a great movie, everyone agrees. Without watching it several more times, I don't know that I can add much to the discussion. It's a bit slow-moving, but really substantial stuff goes on. It's meaty. But this good movie becomes great by the end when you realize what the father did for his daughter consciously, deliberately, and at his own expense. It gives me chills thinking about it now and I saw the movie 53 days ago. I've got two Ozu films under my belt now, so I'm only just beginning to appreciate how the world is a more beautiful place because of his work.
Teeth (2007): Brandon, are you still with me? This one's for you. If you haven't seen this, you will LOVE it. A teenage girl, spokesperson for her high school abstinence group, finds out she has teeth down there when her boyfriend forces himself on her, with utterly disturbing (but hilarious) results. Director Lichtenstein doesn't hold back with the visuals, either. It's not a lot of gore, but what there is will make you instinctively check yourself, if you know what I mean. But, you see, it's not just about unintentionally detachable penises; there's a message in here about empowerment. The fact that this girl starts out intending to be a virgin until marriage is significant to the story. It's interesting to watch how she handles her loss of innocence and makes the transition from being a victim of her unusual physiology to taking matters into her own hands. It's not a perfect film, and not subtle at all. But I can honestly say I've seen nothing like it before or since. You'd classify it as horror, but it's really more like a fairy tale. I'd really be interested in what you think.
Jennifer's Body (2009): I watched this and the previous films in close proximity to each other. It might have even been the same night; I don't remember exactly. It was interesting to see the similarity in themes (a woman taken advantage of gets her revenge) and to contrast it with the completely different responses and attitudes of the main characters of the two films. Jennifer's Body kind of got trashed, bit I think it's a perfectly good B movie. Megan Fox does just fine; I think she's actually a good choice for the role and plays off Seyfried well. Fox is gorgeous and it's not fair that you're not allowed to be that gorgeous and a good actor too. It's like we don't want anyone to be too talented. I'm not saying she's Meryl Streep, but lay off people, really. It's also a shame the Juno connection was so overplayed; this is not a Juno-fan movie. But I bet a lot of them went to see it anyway. I think Cody has a lot of potential as a writer. She's got good ideas and an unconventional approach to them. She's still learning the tricks of the trade. Give her time.
Due Date (2010): I really enjoyed this film and really laughed a lot. I like how Brandon trusts his gut more than his intellect when it comes to comedy. I'm like that, too. The whole point is to make the audience laugh, and if you can do it with a typical plot and plot devices but two really funny actors, then more power to ya. I never thought I'd find a masturbating dog so funny, but, dear Lord, I almost wet my pants. Galifianakis and RJD had great chemistry.
Well, I'm tired of writing and I'm still a month and a half behind. Steady as she goes. I guess I had more to say about each than I thought I would.
Right now The Phoenix Foundation's "St. Kevin" is on, and it's really amazing.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
A Month's Worth of Commentary
Yes, I'm going way back here. I told you I was behind...
Kevin Smith: I would still call myself a fan, but I think he's a funnier person than he is a good filmmaker. Chasing Amy is a cut above most of his films. Dogma is funny and clever. But the rest are really kind of mediocre. Even Clerks has flaws, making its mark primarily because no other film dared put so much weight on dialogue alone to carry a plot. It is ingenious in that regard, but next to, say, The Seventh Seal, it's just another Evening with Kevin Smith.
John, are you a Tori Amos fan? Or was that a college phase? I have to know before I reveal the true extent of my fanhood.
Ben, I thought Waking Life was boring. I wanted to like it, but I couldn't stay focused on the dialogue. A Scanner Darkly was slightly better, but it still didn't grab me. If either of those films had not been animated, I doubt they'd be as well known as they are. On the other hand, Before Sunrise and Before Sunset are two of my favorite romantic dramas. The former especially blew me away when I saw it for the first time. Linklater's definitely got range.
I LOVED The Straight Story. I used to think I liked David Lynch--back when I was concerned about having film cred, and thought that liking David Lynch was a requirement--but most of his stuff is really inaccessible to me. I tried watching Inland Empire and kept falling asleep. I'll try again someday. Probably. Maybe.
I think it was Brandon who put out the first Disney live action best-of list. What a great list! Swiss Family Robinson captivated me a kid. The Black Hole is terribly underrated. Flight of the Navigator captured my fancy as well.
Ben, I watched the Community Christmas special and liked it even though I'm not familiar with the characters. I've seen one other complete episode--the zombie one--and thought it was really clever. But it's on a bit too early on Thursdays. My family watches The Office together, and sometimes 30 Rock, and I got hooked on The Apprentice (should I admit that?)--one more show seemed like too much. Too bad it wasn't on after The Office instead of the dreadful Outsourced, which I found myself watching more often than not while waiting for The Apprentice to come on.
Criterion films: I feel like a putz, I've seen so few of these. As I've mentioned before, I tend to watch movies late, so I watch stuff that won't put me to sleep, like horror or comedy or action. But I LOVE foreign and arthouse films. I wish I could figure out how to set aside more time for them. Oh, well--back to Hot Tub Time Machine!
John, you might appreciate that I've been buying Fantagraphic's great Seegar Popeye collections for the kids' comics section at the library. In fact, I bet if you came to my library and saw my kids' comics collection, you might actually be tempted to put your own degree to use. You should all come up sometime. I'll keep inviting you... You missed out on a great double feature at the Dryden on New Year's Eve: The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth. We unfortunately only had time to watch the former, but oh how wonderful it was on the big screen!
I hope it doesn't get me kicked out of the club, but I've not ever really been a fan of making top ten lists. Reading them, yes, but making them stresses me out so. I always leave something out or can't decide what order to put them into. I prefer to make lists like "Here is a list of some stuff I liked in no particular order and I'm not committing to it, really, so don't hold me to it."
Ben, I've been wanting to see Primer for a long time now. I love time travel movies (see my entry on Timecrimes) and read some good things about it. I even picked up a used copy at a gas station. Of course, now that I own it, it goes to the bottom of the list after all the stuff I have checked out at the library and all the stuff on my NWI queue that's expiring, etc., etc. I'll check out your link for sure after I've seen it.
John, THANK YOU for the lovely care package. I LOVED the drawings you included and the bonus films. I will try to watch JDB soon and let you know what I think. I've been soft on Korine the two other times I've seen his stuff, so the odds are good that you'll finally have someone to share your appreciation for the film. A note from you would have been nice as well, but of course I wasn't surprised at its omission.
Paul Chadwick's art and writing is unique and unparalleled. Kudos to you, John, for spreading the word.
Brandon, I actually spoke with Bryan Lee O'Malley at NY ComicCon this year and he told me that originally the screenplay to Scott Pilgrim called for Scott and Knives to end up together, but it was rewritten at the last minute. That likely accounts for how awkward it seems. The ending is quite different from the comics, and I was really disappointed in it. Right up until the final battle, though, I'm with you all the way. It's a shame it didn't do so well at the box office because it's really the first of its kind.
Kevin Smith: I would still call myself a fan, but I think he's a funnier person than he is a good filmmaker. Chasing Amy is a cut above most of his films. Dogma is funny and clever. But the rest are really kind of mediocre. Even Clerks has flaws, making its mark primarily because no other film dared put so much weight on dialogue alone to carry a plot. It is ingenious in that regard, but next to, say, The Seventh Seal, it's just another Evening with Kevin Smith.
John, are you a Tori Amos fan? Or was that a college phase? I have to know before I reveal the true extent of my fanhood.
Ben, I thought Waking Life was boring. I wanted to like it, but I couldn't stay focused on the dialogue. A Scanner Darkly was slightly better, but it still didn't grab me. If either of those films had not been animated, I doubt they'd be as well known as they are. On the other hand, Before Sunrise and Before Sunset are two of my favorite romantic dramas. The former especially blew me away when I saw it for the first time. Linklater's definitely got range.
I LOVED The Straight Story. I used to think I liked David Lynch--back when I was concerned about having film cred, and thought that liking David Lynch was a requirement--but most of his stuff is really inaccessible to me. I tried watching Inland Empire and kept falling asleep. I'll try again someday. Probably. Maybe.
I think it was Brandon who put out the first Disney live action best-of list. What a great list! Swiss Family Robinson captivated me a kid. The Black Hole is terribly underrated. Flight of the Navigator captured my fancy as well.
Ben, I watched the Community Christmas special and liked it even though I'm not familiar with the characters. I've seen one other complete episode--the zombie one--and thought it was really clever. But it's on a bit too early on Thursdays. My family watches The Office together, and sometimes 30 Rock, and I got hooked on The Apprentice (should I admit that?)--one more show seemed like too much. Too bad it wasn't on after The Office instead of the dreadful Outsourced, which I found myself watching more often than not while waiting for The Apprentice to come on.
Criterion films: I feel like a putz, I've seen so few of these. As I've mentioned before, I tend to watch movies late, so I watch stuff that won't put me to sleep, like horror or comedy or action. But I LOVE foreign and arthouse films. I wish I could figure out how to set aside more time for them. Oh, well--back to Hot Tub Time Machine!
John, you might appreciate that I've been buying Fantagraphic's great Seegar Popeye collections for the kids' comics section at the library. In fact, I bet if you came to my library and saw my kids' comics collection, you might actually be tempted to put your own degree to use. You should all come up sometime. I'll keep inviting you... You missed out on a great double feature at the Dryden on New Year's Eve: The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth. We unfortunately only had time to watch the former, but oh how wonderful it was on the big screen!
I hope it doesn't get me kicked out of the club, but I've not ever really been a fan of making top ten lists. Reading them, yes, but making them stresses me out so. I always leave something out or can't decide what order to put them into. I prefer to make lists like "Here is a list of some stuff I liked in no particular order and I'm not committing to it, really, so don't hold me to it."
Ben, I've been wanting to see Primer for a long time now. I love time travel movies (see my entry on Timecrimes) and read some good things about it. I even picked up a used copy at a gas station. Of course, now that I own it, it goes to the bottom of the list after all the stuff I have checked out at the library and all the stuff on my NWI queue that's expiring, etc., etc. I'll check out your link for sure after I've seen it.
John, THANK YOU for the lovely care package. I LOVED the drawings you included and the bonus films. I will try to watch JDB soon and let you know what I think. I've been soft on Korine the two other times I've seen his stuff, so the odds are good that you'll finally have someone to share your appreciation for the film. A note from you would have been nice as well, but of course I wasn't surprised at its omission.
Paul Chadwick's art and writing is unique and unparalleled. Kudos to you, John, for spreading the word.
Brandon, I actually spoke with Bryan Lee O'Malley at NY ComicCon this year and he told me that originally the screenplay to Scott Pilgrim called for Scott and Knives to end up together, but it was rewritten at the last minute. That likely accounts for how awkward it seems. The ending is quite different from the comics, and I was really disappointed in it. Right up until the final battle, though, I'm with you all the way. It's a shame it didn't do so well at the box office because it's really the first of its kind.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Holiday Vortex
That's where I've been the past month or so. Trying to keep up was a little overwhelming, so I let the ball drop. But I've caught up with all of your previous posts (and took extensive notes) and will soon post my summary reply to the last month's activity as well as (hopefully) the continued list of what I've been watching (which I'm way behind on now).
I hope you haven't given up on me. I get overwhelmed easily. I am a man of many interests and in attempting to juggle them all, I often drop everything for a while.
Seeing Black Swan and True Grit are at the top of my list. My wife wants to see them both with me, so scheduling dates is more tricky. A question: should I watch the original True Grit first, or doesn't it relate much to the remake?
Briefly, if any of you are British sketch comedy fans, PLEASE check out Little Britain on NWI. The first and second series are available. Also check out That Mitchell and Webb Look, which may possibly be funnier. The wit is a tad sharper at least. References to both shows have been thrown around by all three members of the family for the past month or so, ans we've shown episodes to friends and watched our favorite skits numerous times over.
Not available on NWI, but also a very funny British sketch comedy show, is Big Train--featuring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost of Shaun of the Dead fame, as well as a number of other funny people.
Big Train:
Little Britain:
That Mitchell and Webb Look:
I hope you haven't given up on me. I get overwhelmed easily. I am a man of many interests and in attempting to juggle them all, I often drop everything for a while.
Seeing Black Swan and True Grit are at the top of my list. My wife wants to see them both with me, so scheduling dates is more tricky. A question: should I watch the original True Grit first, or doesn't it relate much to the remake?
Briefly, if any of you are British sketch comedy fans, PLEASE check out Little Britain on NWI. The first and second series are available. Also check out That Mitchell and Webb Look, which may possibly be funnier. The wit is a tad sharper at least. References to both shows have been thrown around by all three members of the family for the past month or so, ans we've shown episodes to friends and watched our favorite skits numerous times over.
Not available on NWI, but also a very funny British sketch comedy show, is Big Train--featuring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost of Shaun of the Dead fame, as well as a number of other funny people.
Big Train:
Little Britain:
That Mitchell and Webb Look:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)