Movies - where we can talk about movies

[hippypants]

Isn't Spiderman owned by Sony?

Ok, I see what you're saying, it seems like those deals are all over the place.

[frinspar]

Not the cat, I hope?

It was, but it was the Bill Murray version in the tights, and he shot lasagna out of his wrists.

[Hal...]

How is remaking movies any different than recasting actors for new version of stage plays and musicals, or traveling versions of them?

The primary difference is that a movie can be rewatched. When a play runs its course, it's done. Finito. No one will ever see that version of that play ever again and if it was successful enough, someone somewhere will want to revive it sometime later because they, along with the public, believe the story is worth retelling. However, once you have a successful version of a movie – in the opinion of both critics & audiences – reshooting it becomes needless, imo. The real problem isn't entirely due to the studios but because of a younger audience who would never watch a classic B&W movie or a movie before a certain year.

...New directors, new "exciting" cast to let them each put their personal spin on a character. Cripes, how many times has "Death of a Salesman" been done by prominent actors to make Loman their own?

Lee J Cobb originally played Loman on Broadway but the character has been also played by George C Scott, Dustin Hoffman, and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Who wouldn't have wanted to see Philip Seymour Hoffman play Loman??? That must have been great!

People view films as something precious, things to be revered. They're not, really. They're just entertainment.

Apparently, you've never seen any films by Jean Renoir, Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, François Truffaut, Alain Resnais, or David Lynch. No one would ever accuse them of being entertainers.

But to your statement, I disagree. Yes, most movies are entertainment, because they're just movies. Many, however, rise to the level of "film" in which the craft of making a movie has become an art. Those directors I just mentioned were/are auteurs and many of the young directors from the late '60s & '70s wanted not only to emulate them by making a film but also at the same time make an entertaining movie. IMO, they were mostly unsuccessful. Coppola had a few that were both (The Conversation, Godfather II, Apocalypse Now), Scorcese a couple (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull), but off the top of my head I can't think of any others. And the only directors that immediately pop to mind that were auteurs who also made entertaining films were Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick. Oh, and the Coen Bros.

And so in that regard, films are revered, and rightly so, because they're not just movies. They're art; or, at least, parts of them. Rewatch the shower scene from Psycho. Janet Leigh has just been stabbed and as she reaches out, Hitch cuts to a close up of the shower curtain as her hand reaches for it. The curtain's pulled off as she falls out of the tub. Hitch cuts to a shot of her legs still in the tub and then pans down to the drain, following the blood and water. He then zooms in to an extreme close up of the drain and then dissolves to an extreme close up of Janet Leigh's eye. The camera is on the same plane with her face so that her eye looks normal but as the camera dollies back along the floor it also twists until it is on the same plane as the floor, showing you how her face is angled against it. That is pure avant-garde filmmaking and it is to Hitch's credit that it looks natural. Absolute brilliance.

You could even throw in another category of director whose work didn't usually attain the status of film, exactly, but whose movies were so well made and usually very entertaining: master craftsman. Names that immediately come to mind are John Ford, Frank Capra, Billy Wilder, Michael Curtiz, Howard Hawks, Sidney Lumet, early John Frankenheimer, Mike Nichols, Alan Pakula, Steven Spielberg, all of whom have made movies that have become iconic. In other words, they've each made at least one movie that should be revered and never remade.

Totally agree about Ghostbusters, tho.

There are many magnificent movies, but they can all be remade as many times as possible.

There's a difference between can and should. Gus Van Sant remade Pscyho but he shouldn't have.

It's not like the originals were very original to begin with. Just re-tellings of other stories, re-imagined and updated for their time.

That's not true. Many movies have original screenplays so the story is new. That's why they have a best original screenplay category at the Oscars.

[spellbound]

Spider cat, spider cat
Does whatever a spider cat does - Homer Simpson

[-=RTFR666=-]

Pig.

[selmer]

The primary difference is that a movie can be rewatched. When a play runs its course, it's done. Finito. No one will ever see that version of that play ever again and if it was successful enough, someone somewhere will want to revive it sometime later because they, along with the public, believe the story is worth retelling. However, once you have a successful version of a movie – in the opinion of both critics & audiences – reshooting it becomes needless, imo. The real problem isn't entirely due to the studios but because of a younger audience who would never watch a classic B&W movie or a movie before a certain year.


Lee J Cobb originally played Loman on Broadway but the character has been also played by George C Scott, Dustin Hoffman, and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Who wouldn't have wanted to see Philip Seymour Hoffman play Loman??? That must have been great!


Apparently, you've never seen any films by Jean Renoir, Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, François Truffaut, Alain Resnais, or David Lynch. No one would ever accuse them of being entertainers.

But to your statement, I disagree. Yes, most movies are entertainment, because they're just movies. Many, however, rise to the level of "film" in which the craft of making a movie has become an art. Those directors I just mentioned were/are auteurs and many of the young directors from the late '60s & '70s wanted not only to emulate them by making a film but also at the same time make an entertaining movie. IMO, they were mostly unsuccessful. Coppola had a few that were both (The Conversation, Godfather II, Apocalypse Now), Scorcese a couple (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull), but off the top of my head I can't think of any others. And the only directors that immediately pop to mind that were auteurs who also made entertaining films were Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick. Oh, and the Coen Bros.

And so in that regard, films are revered, and rightly so, because they're not just movies. They're art; or, at least, parts of them. Rewatch the shower scene from Psycho. Janet Leigh has just been stabbed and as she reaches out, Hitch cuts to a close up of the shower curtain as her hand reaches for it. The curtain's pulled off as she falls out of the tub. Hitch cuts to a shot of her legs still in the tub and then pans down to the drain, following the blood and water. He then zooms in to an extreme close up of the drain and then dissolves to an extreme close up of Janet Leigh's eye. The camera is on the same plane with her face so that her eye looks normal but as the camera dollies back along the floor it also twists until it is on the same plane as the floor, showing you how her face is angled against it. That is pure avant-garde filmmaking and it is to Hitch's credit that it looks natural. Absolute brilliance.

You could even throw in another category of director whose work didn't usually attain the status of film, exactly, but whose movies were so well made and usually very entertaining: master craftsman. Names that immediately come to mind are John Ford, Frank Capra, Billy Wilder, Michael Curtiz, Howard Hawks, Sidney Lumet, early John Frankenheimer, Mike Nichols, Alan Pakula, Steven Spielberg, all of whom have made movies that have become iconic. In other words, they've each made at least one movie that should be revered and never remade.

Totally agree about Ghostbusters, tho.


There's a difference between can and should. Gus Van Sant remade Pscyho but he shouldn't have.


That's not true. Many movies have original screenplays so the story is new. That's why they have a best original screenplay category at the Oscars.

On the net (where else could it be nowdays) you'll see lots and lots of those who say that movies are and should be about entertainment. I don't agree with this either because I think they shouldn't be anything. They are what they are.

There are those who say that's it's all about replay value.

I've seen many of Friedkin's masterclasses and he almost always says that the American directors were all influenced by the European cinema which came before the 70's. Those directors which you mention - he says that nobody today makes films like those. On the other hand, he thinks that cinema is constantly changing. As Carpenter says about horror - changing for bad and for good. Btw, Carpenter, Kubrick and many others talk about the importance of the European films before the 70's.

I think the best are those who manage to combine an interesting premise with craft, intellect, thinking, imagination etc. Just saw Alien recently. Some of the stuff they managed to pull off is just pure genius. There are monster/creature films which don't rise above others. This one has a reputation which is well deserved. Together with Carpenter's The Thing there is practically nothing that reaches that level. Both have their artistic merits. It's not ONLY entertainment.

Or The Day Of The Jackal. Not just a thriller like any other. Zinnemann managed to make smth which is more. The version with Willis is just typical 90's popcorn flick.

Nowdays most just strictly put it down in two camps - the mainstream popcorn entertainment or the independent art films without realising that it's possible to make smth which combines elements. There are examples even recently - some of the Fincher films.

I agree with most of what you wrote.

[hippypants]

Last Days Here a doc about the heavy metal band Pentagram. I'd never heard of them and really don't care for that style of music, but the doc is really interesting on so many levels. It deals with the lead singer's drug addiction and living in his parents basement to trying to get the band back together to play.

[Hal...]

I've seen many of Friedkin's masterclasses and he almost always says that the American directors were all influenced by the European cinema which came before the 70's. Those directors which you mention - he says that nobody today makes films like those.

Part of it, I'm sure, has to do with the fact that you can't just sit and mindlessly watch one of their films and expect to be entertained. You have to invest in it and that's something even I'm not always willing to do. Watching some of their films is work! Resnais' Last Year at Marienbad was incomprehensible to me on first viewing. The same goes for Lynch, even tho he's a "modern" filmmaker.

On the other hand, he thinks that cinema is constantly changing. As Carpenter says about horror - changing for bad and for good.

Yep. Mostly for the bad, imo. But there are some newer guys who've obviously studied the past and they're usually really good: Demme, Fincher, Aronofsky, Sam Mendes. I'm sure there are some I'm forgetting.

Btw, Carpenter, Kubrick and many others talk about the importance of the European films before the 70's.

Yeah, Scorcese & Woody Allen are two of the biggest who refer to pre-'70s Europe.

BTW, De Sica is another European auteur from the past I forgot to mention.

Of course, it's also a simple matter of geography. Hollywood is infinitely less likely to give free reign to a director.

Or The Day Of The Jackal. Not just a thriller like any other. Zinnemann managed to make smth which is more.

Yes! Good call. Another master craftsman.

I agree with most of what you wrote.

"Most"?

lol

[SteveSly]

[B]Last Days Here[B] a doc about the heavy metal band Pentagram. I'd never heard of them and really don't care for that style of music, but the doc is really interesting on so many levels. It deals with the lead singer's drug addiction and living in his parents basement to trying to get the band back together to play.

I saw this a while back and really enjoyed it as well. Not a band I am familiar with much at all, but the doc was very interesting.

[mozo-pg]

Shawshank Redemption - watching it for the 2nd time this week (probably 10 plus times overall). I advised the State of Maine (Department of Corrections) on consulting assignments for five years - I've been in those prisons. One of my top ten movies of all time.

[NogbadTheBad]

Wonderful movie

[Scott Bails]

Top three for me.

[SteveSly]

Shawshank Redemption - watching it for the 2nd time this week (probably 10 plus times overall). I advised the State of Maine (Department of Corrections) on consulting assignments for five years - I've been in those prisons. One of my top ten movies of all time.

Agreed, a great one and certainly one of the best Steven King adaptations ever filmed.

[selmer]

Part of it, I'm sure, has to do with the fact that you can't just sit and mindlessly watch one of their films and expect to be entertained. You have to invest in it and that's something even I'm not always willing to do. Watching some of their films is work! Resnais' Last Year at Marienbad was incomprehensible to me on first viewing. The same goes for Lynch, even tho he's a "modern" filmmaker.


Yep. Mostly for the bad, imo. But there are some newer guys who've obviously studied the past and they're usually really good: Demme, Fincher, Aronofsky, Sam Mendes. I'm sure there are some I'm forgetting.


Yeah, Scorcese & Woody Allen are two of the biggest who refer to pre-'70s Europe.

BTW, De Sica is another European auteur from the past I forgot to mention.

Of course, it's also a simple matter of geography. Hollywood is infinitely less likely to give free reign to a director.


Yes! Good call. Another master craftsman.


"Most"?

lol

I said "most" because, for example, I can't judge Ghostbusters. I'm not too fond of the original in the first place so I can't say I'm too bothered by this new one. I guess I'll see it sometime.

On a side note, just remembered the John Mctiernan interview where he called the new Mad Max a business product. It was strange seeing some folks on the net attacking him because he dared to criticize their beloved thing.

Lynch is a strange one. I tried to watch Eraserhead a long time ago and didn't finish it. Loved the first third, then it got too monotonous. I'd definitely want to revisit it. I haven't seen Lost Highway or Mullholland Drive (which many claim is a masterpiece) but my fave of his could be Blue Velvet. Dune was interesting as well although it's considered a mess.

Was it Mendes who made Skyfall? It was the film which changed a bit my thoughts on this new Bond. Could be my favourite Bond film.

Speaking of Fincher, apparently Brad Pitt has approached him to direct the World War Z sequel. Would be an unusual project for him.

I remember De Sica the most from "Il Delitto Matteotti" with Franko Nero and Mario Adorf. But, of course, he's mostly famous as a director.

Speaking about free reign, the makers of Forbidden Planet said that the circumstances allowed them to make the film they wanted because for some reason the studio representatives were not present when they made most of it. Could be one of the reasons why the film is what it is.

I'm curious what's happening in the French and Italian cinema these past decades. They made so many great crime/thriller films in the 60's and 70's.

[selmer]

Besides some concept art for the movie being published and Leto cast in it, found out that the new Blade Runner will be scored by Johansson who worked with Villeneuve on Sicario and his upcoming film Arrival. Haven't heard anything from his work so no idea how this will work out.

[MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER]

Most remakes are utter crap. Then again, some look like they did it just right. Like this:

http://io9.gizmodo.com/watch-the-bat...ler-1785645875

Though can we call it a remake if we've still got three of the main actors? Don't know, don't care. It's just brilliant.

too bad they couldnt have Burgess Meredith and Cesar Romero reprise their roles

[Lou]

The Loved Ones

This is one bizarre and demented Aussie horror/revenge flick. Plain,average gal asks the handsome long haired brooding outcast dude to the
end of school year dance. He respectfully declines saying he already has a date. Upset, she gets psycho Dad to abduct him on dance night
and bring him back to their home for their own little party. Brutal, twisted, and graphic at times, but never boring.

[Jerjo]

For fans of comic movies, this should catch you up on what Thor and Hulk have been up to while the rest of the Marvel kids are fighting each other.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/so-heres-what...war-1785863205

[nycsteve]

too bad they couldnt have Burgess Meredith and Cesar Romero reprise their roles

Is this animated or live action with Adam West?

[Scott Bails]

Is this animated or live action with Adam West?

It appears that it's animated, with voice work from Adam West and Burt Ward.

[Hal...]

On a side note, just remembered the John Mctiernan interview where he called the new Mad Max a business product. It was strange seeing some folks on the net attacking him because he dared to criticize their beloved thing.

He's right, tho.

Lynch is a strange one. I tried to watch Eraserhead a long time ago and didn't finish it. Loved the first third, then it got too monotonous. I'd definitely want to revisit it. I haven't seen Lost Highway or Mullholland Drive (which many claim is a masterpiece) but my fave of his could be Blue Velvet. Dune was interesting as well although it's considered a mess.

Dune was definitely a mess. My fave of his is Lost Highway but The Elephant Man, Blue Velvet, and Straight Story are all excellent. Eraserhead is, too, but like you I didn't finish it the first time around; walked out of the theater with about 10 minutes to go. In my defense, (a) I didn't know what I was in for and (b) I was trippin' balls. Not a good idea. Visually, it's gorgeous. Aurally, it's very impressive. The narrative, however, is surrealistic.

I didn't really like Mulholland Dr. Not sure why, other than the fact that I didn't understand it. Inland Empire may have been the most incomprehensible movie I've ever seen and that's saying something. Laura Dern was superb in it and should have gotten an Oscar nod. Grace Zabriskie was also in it and was excellent. But I would only recommend this film if the viewer likes being confused for three hours.

Was it Mendes who made Skyfall?

Yes. And I actually liked it (not a fan of Bond movies). He also directed Spectre, which I haven't seen. But where he really got my attention was having directed American Beauty, Road to Perdition, and Jarhead, all three excellent movies.

Speaking of Fincher, apparently Brad Pitt has approached him to direct the World War Z sequel. Would be an unusual project for him.

Maybe. I've seen most of his movies and I think he's up to the task.

I remember De Sica the most from "Il Delitto Matteotti" with Franko Nero and Mario Adorf. But, of course, he's mostly famous as a director.

I've never seen him as an actor. As a director, most people says his best film is The Bicycle Thieves but I have a soft spot for Umberto D. Those are the only two of his I've seen, tho. Both are excellent.

Speaking about free reign, the makers of Forbidden Planet said that the circumstances allowed them to make the film they wanted because for some reason the studio representatives were not present when they made most of it. Could be one of the reasons why the film is what it is.

You mean, "good"? lol Yeah, FP is one of the best SF movies.

I'm curious what's happening in the French and Italian cinema these past decades. They made so many great crime/thriller films in the 60's and 70's.

I haven't seen many European films released in the 2000s. One that I thought was excellent was Caché with Juliet Binoche. And Amelie was a very enjoyable, albeit lighthearted movie. Part of my problem is my interest in movies has changed. I minored in film studies (and art history) and after taking courses on documentary film, the avant-garde, the French New Wave, and Ingmar Bergman, I don't want to have to work too hard to watch a movie, anymore. I will watch the occasional foreign movie, if there's a buzz about it, but otherwise I prefer to just be entertained these days. I guess I've gotten lazy. I blame age. lol.

[selmer]

He's right, tho.


Dune was definitely a mess. My fave of his is Lost Highway but The Elephant Man, Blue Velvet, and Straight Story are all excellent. Eraserhead is, too, but like you I didn't finish it the first time around; walked out of the theater with about 10 minutes to go. In my defense, (a) I didn't know what I was in for and (b) I was trippin' balls. Not a good idea. Visually, it's gorgeous. Aurally, it's very impressive. The narrative, however, is surrealistic.

I didn't really like Mulholland Dr. Not sure why, other than the fact that I didn't understand it. Inland Empire may have been the most incomprehensible movie I've ever seen and that's saying something. Laura Dern was superb in it and should have gotten an Oscar nod. Grace Zabriskie was also in it and was excellent. But I would only recommend this film if the viewer likes being confused for three hours.


Yes. And I actually liked it (not a fan of Bond movies). He also directed Spectre, which I haven't seen. But where he really got my attention was having directed American Beauty, Road to Perdition, and Jarhead, all three excellent movies.


Maybe. I've seen most of his movies and I think he's up to the task.


I've never seen him as an actor. As a director, most people says his best film is The Bicycle Thieves but I have a soft spot for Umberto D. Those are the only two of his I've seen, tho. Both are excellent.


You mean, "good"? lol Yeah, FP is one of the best SF movies.


I haven't seen many European films released in the 2000s. One that I thought was excellent was Caché with Juliet Binoche. And Amelie was a very enjoyable, albeit lighthearted movie. Part of my problem is my interest in movies has changed. I minored in film studies (and art history) and after taking courses on documentary film, the avant-garde, the French New Wave, and Ingmar Bergman, I don't want to have to work too hard to watch a movie, anymore. I will watch the occasional foreign movie, if there's a buzz about it, but otherwise I prefer to just be entertained these days. I guess I've gotten lazy. I blame age. lol.

In that same interview Mctiernan also said that the macho men cult is one of the worst things that happend to cinema in the last 50 years. And, of course, there were those who immediately bashed him, pointing out the kind of movies he himself made. If you look at his very first film - Nomads - it's totally different from anything he made after. I was also surprised to find out that he didn't want most of the action scenes to be in Predator, that they were forced upon him and were apparently directed by the second unit. One thing I disagreed with him was about Argo which he praised. I thought it was nothing special.

I'd like to give Eraserhead one more try, also will try to watch the other movies some time. Recently saw another strange one from Cronenberg - Videodrome - for the second time. Such an interesting premise but the film was very uneven to me. Just like Blow Out, To Live and Die In LA and some other thrillers. There is some great stuff in all of them but it's let down by them being a bit boring at times.

I haven't seen Spectre either, but I thought Skyfall was the closest to On Her Majesty's Secret Service. I think it even surpases it because the Lazenby flick drags in places. My impression is that Skyfall is also stronger than Casino Royale.

I'd say Forbidden Planet is the best 50's SF film, surpassing all of the other classics.

I've seen Amelie, the fist time I saw it I thought it was amazing. Later the impressions were not so strong. I like "Les Rivieres Pourpres" where Jean Reno plays a cop who goes to a small town to investigate a series of murders. He's joined by Vincent Cassel and they make a great pair. Decent giallo style crime thriller.

This is the movie with De Sica playing an older judge/investigator. He appears for the first time at 39.20:



You mention Umberto D. The Criterion lets some filmmakers in their library to talk about the films in their collection which they like. Umberto D. was one of Friekdin's choices:



And here (after the Killer Joe trailer) he speaks about his favourite films and gives his views on the history of cinema and its current state:

[johnniewalk]

Recently i just watched wrong turn 1st part movie, it is an horrible movie which conduct an adult oriented scenes..

[Vic2012]

I'm watching an Elvis movie. Fun In Acapolco. His Spanish sounds like Chinese......

[Klonk]

The Loved Ones

This is one bizarre and demented Aussie horror/revenge flick. Plain,average gal asks the handsome long haired brooding outcast dude to the
end of school year dance. He respectfully declines saying he already has a date. Upset, she gets psycho Dad to abduct him on dance night
and bring him back to their home for their own little party. Brutal, twisted, and graphic at times, but never boring.

Thanks for the reminder! I heard this was pretty decent.