Yeah. History repeats itself and they realized- "Hey, THE HOBBIT is actually loaded with stuff. So let's split it into two films instead of stuffing the book into one film and then doing a lame Sequel/Prequel thing."

Eva Yojimbo wrote:Though, that said, I've often found Brando's appearance and performance slightly anti-climactic and even a bit monotonous. I've often wondered if it was on purpose.

Watch Hearts of Darkness. Brando was a bit of a... difficult person to deal with.

Watched Paprika again last night. On Blu-Ray! Oh man, what amazing picture quality. The mixture of hand-drawn and computer generated animation is spectacular, perfectly serving the film's narrative. Might be the most dreamlike film ever made. Along with Kon's Perfect Blue and Millennium Actress, one of my favorite animated films.

Bomby von Bombsville wrote:Watch Hearts of Darkness. Brando was a bit of a... difficult person to deal with.

THAT'S what I was going to do tonight! Thanks for reminding me.

And you mentioned Fredo's death. For me, the more emotionally powerful part was were Connie begs Micheal to forgive him, then Micheal proceeds to hug him, but give the goon a signal. It was a sort of crescendo that toppled off. I was convinced for a moment, that Micheal would forgive, then that was quickly dashed. When his actual death came, it seemed to be a forgone conclusion. Ah well, such is tragedy

I think the most powerful scene in the whole film is, "You broke my heart Fredo, you broke my heart." Classic moment in cinema.

Might be the most dreamlike film ever made

It's nothing compared to "Inland Empire" and "Eraserhead."

Jackie Brown - I don't get why all the nonconformist Tarantino fans say it's his best work

Neither do I. It's a damn good film, but nothing outstanding, and definitely not a masterpiece. It's too long winded, and way too many long takes of Pam Grier...........walking. She's gorgeous, but I'm not a fanboy like Tarantino.

I'm more aware of how flawed, uneven and incredibly self-indulgent it is

Wrong on all three accounts. :)

Evangelion217 wrote:

Might be the most dreamlike film ever made

It's nothing compared to "Inland Empire" and "Eraserhead."

Waltz with Bashir and The Fall are up there too, along with the latter containing not so obviously pointed out Jungian references.

Waltz with Bashir is hardly as dreamlike as Eraserhead or Inland Empire. It just happens to use a bit hazy narrative because it's a documentary, and the animation is the only thing making it a bit surreal, but my point is that it doesnt compare to Eraserhead's peculiarness on any level.

Sat through three James Bond flicks during the marathon on the Sy-fy channel, two of which I'd seen before (You Only Live Twice & Goldeneye), and Casino Royale which I'd never gotten around to. Holy shit though, that movie was awesome! Parts of it felt like the pacing could use a tweak, and there were times where the script lost touch with itself & the atmosphere, but goddamn, there was so much action that the strangeness of the slow parts could be excused! Quantum of Solace suddenly had my interest, if only to see Daniel Craig go completely bonkers and beat the shit out of the whole world!!

I'd intended to watch Talking Head today too, but I never got around to it. :( Maybe tomorrow.

^I should warn you that Quantum of Solace is not quite as perfect as Casino Royale, and you would appreciate it best if you see it right after you watch Casino Royale for maximum enjoyment and understanding of how Quantum develops

Quantum has gotten a bad rap for most part though that is undeserved IMO in an eerily similar way that Timothy Dalton's Bond films were received

I won't give away anything, though I will say that some sequences in Quantum are more Jason Bourne that James Bond if you catch my drift, you will not find much of that pacing issue

even still, I liked the fact that Casino Royale had those "slow" moments, at times I thought I was watching an old film on Turner Classic Movies, or some epic film, with the big wide shots and that warm color and rich lighting that's reminiscent of the cinematography of Lawrence of Arabia, that old fashioned movie magic of Hollywood that's been rendered to niche status since the beginning of the Lucas-Spielberg blockbuster era

THE Hal E. Burton 9000 wrote:^I should warn you that Quantum of Solace is not quite as perfect as Casino Royale, and you would appreciate it best if you see it right after you watch Casino Royale for maximum enjoyment and understanding of how Quantum develops

After catching Casino on TV I now plan on picking 'em both up on DVD at some point, so that'll be when I watch Quantum anyhow. :)

even still, I liked the fact that Casino Royale had those "slow" moments, at times I thought I was watching an old film on Turner Classic Movies, or some epic film, with the big wide shots and that warm color and rich lighting that's reminiscent of the cinematography of Lawrence of Arabia, that old fashioned movie magic of Hollywood that's been rendered to niche status since the beginning of the Lucas-Spielberg blockbuster era

It isn't that I disliked the slower sequences--in fact, without them, the movie would have been severely unbalanced (as others have stated above regarding Terminator & such). It's just that I felt that the slower sequences had some faulty script-writing and felt a little forced, especially in regards to the "chemistry" between Bond & the bond girl (whose name escapes me ). Anytime the villain dude was on screen it was A-OK as far as I'm concerned, but it felt like the writers sorta bumbled through the "romance" aspects of the film, even moreso than is typically expected out of a Bond flick (lol romance? who needs romance when you have tits & massage?!). Though I think these "critiques" are more because the film as a whole was just better executed than many of the previous installments, so where the romance angle was on par with, say, You Only Live Twice, the action choreography, build-up of tension, and general development of the bad guy were all pretty far above & beyond that.

The cinematography was great for a ‘hollywood blockbuster’, though in many ways I kept comparing it to The Dark Knight (which, IMHO, was fuckin’ KICKASS INCREDIBLE). But I really shouldn’t do that, since Casino Royale came out a full two years before TDK. I get what you’re saying in regards to that old-film TCM feel, though. If it weren’t for the “Abramsian” shake-o-vision that popped up (and was surprisingly restrained for a blockbuster of the “Abramsian era” lol), I’d probably agree with you more. On one hand it’s nice that the crew restrained from overusing that hand-held camera technique (something which only worked to Star Trek’s detriment—FOR CHRISSAKES JUST KEEP THE CAMERA STILL ALREADY GAHHHHHHHH—but I was somehow able to see through that), but on the other hand, it’s a sad statement on contemporary film technique when stationary shots are the exception. I'd like to see more action-hyped blockbusters with this kind of approach to cinematography, but I guess it isn't quite the "IN" thing to do quite yet...

Anyway, can't wait to catch Quantum of Solace! Might pick it up next week if I get the chance. :)

Just got back from Ninja Assassin.

Seriously, within the first five minutes, it was one of the bloodiest movies I have ever seen. The story was terrible, as were the parts without ninjas killing everything in sight, but it was worth sitting through just for the fights. A damn good popcorn flick if you're looking for one.

@ Merridian

the "chemistry" issue is there because Eva Green, the actress who played the main Bond girl Vesper Lynd, was casted rather late after production had already started

originally, producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli as well as casting director Debbie McWilliams did everything they could to get either Angelina Jolie or Charlize Theron

Jolie had long wanted to be a Bond villian of some kind for some time and would have done it but she had to turn it down because she was pregnant at the time and was beginning to settle into semi-retirement from acting and Hollywood because of family life with Brad Pitt and her humanitarian concerns

Theron turned it down because Brosnan was a friend of hers and had previously requested for her to be a Bond girl, having wanting her to play the roles that went to Halle Berry in Die Another Day and Denise Richards in The World is Not Enough, but when he left the franchise she did not feel any obligation and did not want to be invovled

a few other actresses were considered, Audrey Tautou of Amélie fame who could not be involved because of her prior commitment to The Da Vinci Code, and an actress from Belgium named Cécile de France but was considered to have terribly weak "English" English speaking skills for the role

Eva Green was actually the third actress in mind for the role after Jolie and Theron, but initially showed no interest because she thought the role would typecast her, and then she read the script and liked it enough to audition

Green did not even personally meet Craig until her audition, bearing in mind that the film was already in production at this point, both of which explain the lack of chemistry in the final product

Captain_Morgan wrote:Just got back from Ninja Assassin.

Seriously, within the first five minutes, it was one of the bloodiest movies I have ever seen.

I don't believe it could be even bloodier than Ichi the Killer.

HERP DERP!

I hope it doesnt irritate you that I'm splitting your post into a bunch of quotes.

Captain_Morgan wrote:You assume I've seen ItK.

Actually, no. That's something you assumed from my message.

Where does the rest of this rant come from?

Captain_Morgan wrote:While I enjoy movies, I don't go out of the way to watch something because it's foreign or considered "art."

I think it's weird to make a notable difference between "foreign" and domestic films. And in the end, every single feature film release is a work of art so if someone states "film A is more artistic than film B" (or that's what I assume you are referring to here), it is purely pretentious. I guess that's why you used the quotation marks.

Captain_Morgan wrote:However, i think it's stupid to watch something just because it's from some director or any of the previous reasons I mentioned.

How come? Just because it's the opposite of what you do, I find it rather uncalled for to say it's stupid. If I see a wonderful film, I'm automatically interested in seeing more of the director's work because it is possible that I like the other films too. The director has the biggest influence on films after all, and if his film suits your cinematic taste, you cant really make a mistake by watching his other films. Although it is possible that the director has made awful films as well, but there are also auteurs whose entire filmography is awesome.

Captain_Morgan wrote:I once decided I wanted to watch all of Kubrick's movies, and while I absolutely loved Fullmetal Jacket and Dr. Strangelove, I hated Spartacus and found Clockwork Orange and The Shining to be way too long (though I did enjoy them much more than Spartacus). I stopped my pursuit of Kubrick's work. The only movie of his I've seen recently was Lolita, and I only watched it because there was nothing else on. Of course, it was still a good movie, and it left me disturbed in much the same way Kubrick's other movies left me, but I doubt I will ever watch it again.

So this is your example of why you shouldnt go after one director's whole filmography? Just because one director disappointed you, you believe it's the worst thing to do, or do I understand your post incorrectly? I'm not going to touch on what you said about Kubrick's films (I'm a big fan of his), but I fail to understand why you included this section.

I admit that I'm a cinephile to some degree, but that doesnt mean I'm strictly against opinions other than mine. Besides, I wasnt "attacking" you initially, but I simply pointed out a thing I thought was worth pondering on. I dont know if you intended your message to be so, but it feels like you are trying to prove my opinions of cinema wrong or something. So I'm a little confused about your response.

Captain_Morgan wrote:I once decided I wanted to watch all of Kubrick's movies, and while I absolutely loved Fullmetal Jacket and Dr. Strangelove, I hated Spartacus and found Clockwork Orange and The Shining to be way too long (though I did enjoy them much more than Spartacus). I stopped my pursuit of Kubrick's work. The only movie of his I've seen recently was Lolita, and I only watched it because there was nothing else on. Of course, it was still a good movie, and it left me disturbed in much the same way Kubrick's other movies left me, but I doubt I will ever watch it again.

I'm a big Kubrick fan, but he might not have the best filmography to casually sample. He went out of his way to create films in as many different genre's as possible, and while his films all have similar themes, the moods and circumstances they're portrait in are very different. For example, he made two war films, Paths of Glory and Fullmetal Jacket, but you'd never be able to tell they're the same director. 'Paths' is driven by an idealistic protagonist willing to do anything for the greater good, while 'Jacket' has a far more ironic and apathetic narrator who can only poke fun at the total lack of ideals or a greater good.

Admittedly, those films might not be the best examples because when Kubrick did 'Jacket' he was much older and far more cynical. However2001: A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange are both science-fiction films set to classical music, and the set design for both is marvelous, but the two moods are nothing alike. And these were two films that were made in a relatively closer time span than the two above. '2001' largely subverts characterization to show man's obsolescence in the face of his own technology, instead opting for a wondrous, allegorical quality deep in the emptiness of the cosmos. 'Clockwork' on the other hand, is more obviously dystopic, and puts greater emphasis on it's main character. But the ethereal wonder of space is absent, replaced with the crash brutality of a civilization that can no longer control itself.

I could go on all day, I really can. The truth is, few very directors are as unusual as Kubrick. Most filmmakers actually do make films very similar to one another, if not in mood, then in subject matter. Some even do it the point of obsession. But while Kubrick did tackle different subject matter, there's a lot of telling signs you're watching one of his films (elaborate sets, classical music, cynical rusing on human nature, wide shots of slopping walls, characters looking up at the camera while their heads are pointed down, etc). Of course, you'd need to be an obsessive nerd like me to catch most of these.

Captain_Morgan wrote:You assume I've seen ItK. While I enjoy movies, I don't go out of the way to watch something because it's foreign or considered "art." If I hear something's good, and decide it sounds like something I would enjoy, I'll be up for it. However, i think it's stupid to watch something just because it's from some director or any of the previous reasons I mentioned.

I really wouldn't consider Ichi the Killer to be on the artistic side of the scale, it's more "action-oriented mind-blowingly over the top awesome" than severely introspective or thoughtful--which isn't to say it lacks it's depth. On some level it could be interpreted as a deconstruction of how the media plays with violence, or it could be interpreted as a comment on the underlying sado-masochistic tendencies found in audiences that submit themselves to the wanton cruelty so prevalent in our entertainment, but none of that really matters TBH. In the end, it's an over-the-top, adrenaline-surging yakuza crime-flick with a disproportionate (and oftentimes unrealistic) amount of blood, mostly played for the laughs.

Foreign =/= artistic. Hell, I've got tons of foreign flicks on my shelf that suck ass.

@ Hal: Really interesting stuff there, thanks! I had no idea there had been so much trouble with casting the Bond girl, but I do see now why the chemistry is so forced throughout the film. And I'm not the biggest Jolie fan, but I wouldn't mind seeing her play a Bond villain at some point...

Oz wrote:Where does the rest of this rant come from?

From the drunk mind of someone who just needed to go to bed.

Oz wrote:I think it's weird to make a notable difference between "foreign" and domestic films. And in the end, every single feature film release is a work of art so if someone states "film A is more artistic than film B" (or that's what I assume you are referring to here), it is purely pretentious. I guess that's why you used the quotation marks.

I don't know you, so I didn't know how you viewed such things. The bit of my rant on foreign films and what's considered to be art is based on how I think it is pretentious and silly to prefer something just because they are from another country or because someone calls it art. As you said, every film is a work of art.

Oz wrote:How come? Just because it's the opposite of what you do, I find it rather uncalled for to say it's stupid.

I was stupid to put that in there. As for the rest of my post, I think I was trying (and failing) to communicate that I just dislike the whole "Director X is a master f his craft and can do no wrong" attitude some people have. By all means, Kubrick was a great director, but I just don't like some of his work, some of which I feel completely sucked (this being my opinion of course, so it's as valid as your own...IMO).

Oz wrote:Besides, I wasnt "attacking" you initially, but I simply pointed out a thing I thought was worth pondering on.

Yeah...I don't think I thought you were attacking me...but I might be wrong. I think in my state of mind, I interpreted your post as being somewhat snooty, with me assuming that you thought I had seen ItK. And of course, I was wrong about that. Really, that whole pointless rant probably stemmed from me thinking that you had the mindset of "anyone who enjoys film has certainly seen X and just loved the shit out of it" that a lot of people seem to have. I see I am wrong on this, like many other things.

Oz wrote:I dont know if you intended your message to be so, but it feels like you are trying to prove my opinions of cinema wrong or something. So I'm a little confused about your response.

It would be best if we just put it off as the pointless drunken rant that it was. I'm pretty confused by it as well. I think I was trying to prove an opinion, you don't have, wrong...so...yeah.