Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on September 19, 2006, 08:01:40 PM
Post by: IceCold on September 19, 2006, 08:09:01 PM
Post by: Svevan on September 19, 2006, 08:13:32 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on September 19, 2006, 08:59:35 PM
Post by: UncleBob on September 20, 2006, 03:09:21 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on September 20, 2006, 06:02:47 AM
Post by: Pryopizm on September 20, 2006, 07:43:02 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on September 20, 2006, 09:47:40 AM
My book was a rip-off of Final Fantasy IV with lots of other pieces mixed in.
Post by: Pryopizm on September 20, 2006, 01:08:18 PM
Post by: Svevan on September 20, 2006, 04:17:42 PM
Post by: vudu on September 21, 2006, 08:43:16 AM
Technical issues aside, you two just don't seem to have the same charisma/chemistry that Evan and Obi have. However, I did enjoy the subject matter, which I found refreshing because it's not something I'd necessarily expect to hear from a podcast. So I applaud you for that. If you could work on your presence, I might be willing to give you a second chance. (Also, don't worry; I'm sure if I did a podcast it would suck far worse.)
Also, Evan uses big words a lot more than you guys do. He makes me feel smart. (Even if he has bad taste in movies.)
EDIT: I just found out there's (at least) a second one. I guess I'll give you guys another shot.
Post by: couchmonkey on September 21, 2006, 10:53:45 AM
Post by: Ceric on September 21, 2006, 01:05:09 PM
chuckles
Post by: ShyGuy on September 21, 2006, 01:45:23 PM
Vudu, what can you tell us about a little movie called Chinatown? How about that ending?
Post by: Pryopizm on September 21, 2006, 07:58:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
Think of all the Under 18 people who comes to these boards and website.
chuckles
This was actually a concern of mine. I wasn't too hot on selling it here for fear of (OMG CUSSING!), so I left the decision to Karl (since he has greater PGC seniority).
As far as chemistry goes, Karl and I are much better than those two yahoos Vudu mentioned. I can't even remember their names. I think one is Bevan? or is it Bethany? Guido?
Post by: vudu on September 22, 2006, 03:05:37 AM
QuoteThe ending to Chinatown sucked. It's not that I disagree with the events that occured, I just didn't like the way they were presented. It felt hurried. This is Chinatown. What kind of lame excuse is that? None of the people involved (cops, bad guys, good guys) have anything to do with Chinatown except they happened to be there that particular minute. As soon as they leave, Chinatown isn't going to protect them. It was lame. It's most likely because the ending was written by Polanski, not the writer. He's a great director, but I've had to come to the conclusion that the guy can't write worth a crap.
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Vudu, what can you tell us about a little movie called Chinatown? How about that ending?
Also, you think my opinions on Chinatown are bad? When asked about his favorite directors, Evan mentioned Soderbergh, but didn't even think to name Scorsese. Evan likes bad movies.
Post by: wandering on September 22, 2006, 01:02:54 PM
Quote
Evan mentioned Soderbergh, but didn't even think to name Scorsese.
Well, on the one hand, Scorsese kind of sucks now. But on the other hand, Full Frontal. Also, Ocean's 12.
Post by: vudu on September 22, 2006, 02:12:08 PM
The Aviator and Gangs of New York are among Scorsese's best (Bringing Out The Dead ... not so much). No Direction Home was also amazing (but I'm a big Bob Dylan fan; I'm not sure you'd enjoy it as much if you didn't like him).
Post by: wandering on September 22, 2006, 03:01:18 PM
Post by: Svevan on September 22, 2006, 04:49:16 PM
Can we for a minute back off of The Aviator? Great entertainment, zero substance. Gangs of New York has an excellent, absolutely excellent set up and a good ending, but the race-riot climax was a serious pace-halting misstep. Bringing out the Dead, as anyone who has seen it can tell you, is a masterpiece and among Scorsese's best three films. Other good Scorsese: Casino, Taxi Driver, Last Temptation of Christ. None of these films are perfection, but they are great cinema. Above average Scorsese: King of Comedy, Kundun, Goodfellas, and Raging Bull (yeah, some people love it but it has awful improvisation by Joe Pesci that ruins the film for me). Should we really applaud a director who made personal rough-edged cinema in the 70s, some good, interesting movies in the 80s-90s, and fluff in the modern era?
Soderbergh on the other hand has conquered cinema with only a handful of great films. Traffic alone is among the best films ever made, and Solaris is its equal in sheer power. His other films are either great or have a lot of substance (including Full Frontal, excepting Ocean's 12). He understands movies in and out - he can make an emotional film like Erin Brockovich but switch gears for the highly intellectual meta-comedy Full Frontal. Out of Sight is a 70s crime flick through and through, and Schizopolis is cinematic free-association. How can we not respect this man?
Chinatown is based on the era of film noir, films that were often nihilistic and dark. See Double Indemnity, Sunset Boulevard, The Big Sleep, The Killing, Touch of Evil, all had dark endings, most of them featured the anti-hero being destroyed or evil going unpunished. Chinatown is the logical extension of that, and other neo-noirs recreate it as well: The Man Who Wasn't There, for instance. Disrespecting the ending is misunderstanding the ending. Chinatown as a "city" represented the dark underbelly of humanity, an evil that cannot be destroyed and lives in all of us. Chinatown was a metaphor and as such didn't need to have correlation to the plot.
Post by: wandering on September 22, 2006, 06:15:02 PM
Quote
Gangs of New York has an excellent, absolutely excellent set up and a good ending
I remember loving the very beginning, but then hating how the fight was shot. Instead of capturing what it would've been like to take part in the fight, or what it would've been like for the kid who was watching it, we just got shot after shot of one person hacking into another.
Don't really remember the rest of the film.
Quote
highly intellectual meta-comedy Full Frontal.
read: Unwatchable mess created by a smart, creative, yet obviously bored filmmaker.
I need to watch Traffic again, I don't really remember much about it. I tend to dislike movies, though, where the main character is an issue instead of a person.
Liked Solaris.
If you want to talk about a great director, though, how about that Peter Weir?
Post by: vudu on September 23, 2006, 04:54:17 AM
The only Peter Weir movies I've seen are Truman Show and Master & Commander. TS was good, but far from the ranks of truly great directors. M&C, while technically shot very well, went bloody nowhere. But I suppose that's the fault of the script writer and not the director. Also, I hate Russell Crowe. (While we're not on the subject, Gladiator sucked.)
And I can't believe Evan isn't backing me up on The Aviator. It was an excellent film. I think Scorsese should have won for best director over Clint Eastwood that year (although I agree with the academy that Million Dollar Baby was a better film overall).
Evan, in what order would you rank the ten films nominated for best picture of the year for the past two years? I'm assuming you've seen them all. Aviator, Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Cinderella Man, Crash, Finding Neverland, Good Night and Good Luck, Million Dollar Baby, Munich, Sideways, Syriana. (Note, I replaced Ray with Syriana because we all know it's a much better film. Also, I threw on Cinderella Man just for the Hell of it; so it's actually eleven films.)
Post by: Pryopizm on September 23, 2006, 05:34:06 AM
Soderbergh was good until he started smoking crack. And Scorcese makes boring movies. And yes, I include Taxi Driver. End of conversation.
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on September 23, 2006, 05:35:30 AM
Post by: Pryopizm on September 23, 2006, 05:42:41 AM
Post by: Svevan on September 23, 2006, 12:35:26 PM
Good Night and Good Luck
Million Dollar Baby
Syriana
Good, with Flaws:
Capote
Munich
Aviator
Note: Munich is actually a BAD film, but it has some excellent things worth seeing. The theme of the movie is retarded: "Anti-terrorism, what?" as though such a question existed. Relating the actions of the state of Israel 30 years ago to that of the United States today is pointless. Spielberg should have just made a movie about anti-terrorism today and made some real points, rather than use a fully justified moment in history to criticize a modern one. Not to mention the violent orgasm-climax is one of the most tasteless things I have ever seen, and this is from the King of Class!
Trash:
Sideways
Finding Neverland
Crash
Note: Crash, like Munich, only barely deserves this category. Unlike Munich, Crash is better than the other two films listed, but still pedestrian and simple. Deliberately manipulating every scene in the movie to mention race is a FAKE way to talk about race.
Haven't Seen:
Brokeback Mountain
Cinderella Man
Note: I hate Ron Howard (minus Apollo 13).
Best Picture according to Evan:
2004: Bourne Supremacy
2005: Cache
Post by: vudu on September 23, 2006, 02:08:22 PM
I agree with your placement for the most part except I would move Good Night down to Good and Capote up to Great. I'd also move Crash up to Good. Finding Neverland was a huge disappointment and deserves to stay where it is. Cinderella Man is good, but not great.
Have you not seen Brokeback Mountain because you just haven't had the opportunity yet or because you're a scared little boy afraid of his sexuality?
Post by: Svevan on September 24, 2006, 09:54:42 AM
I posted a blog about The Bourne Supremacy (not because of this conversation, it was long overdue) on My MySpace. I think The Bourne Supremacy outpaces every film on your above list, and I don't think that needs the justification I have given in my blog.
Post by: ShyGuy on September 24, 2006, 11:45:56 AM
Post by: wandering on September 24, 2006, 12:32:26 PM
Form should always be in the service of function. The shower scene is a great scene because it captures the sensation of being stabbed in the shower so well. Arty directors who miss this distinction make showy, masturbatory films that aren't very good.
That's not to necessarily say that the Bourne Supremecy is one of those films. I haven't seen it, but I enjoyed the original. The sequel may very well have been the best film of 2004. I just have to cringe a little bit when you go on and on about the jumpy editing and whoosing camera. What purpose do they serve? Here's a good quote on the matter, from Orson Scott Card :
Quote
My only complaint is that the director, Paul Greengrass, had way too many cool ideas about how to make himself the star of the movie. Far too often, the camera jumps around so much that you can't tell what's going on.
Maybe the director's theory was that during real crises, things become blurry. Unfortunately, that's not actually true. Your memory of events afterward might be blurry, but during the crisis itself, adrenalin makes you hyperaware of everything that's going on. That's why people talk about how time slowed down or held still.
Post by: KnowsNothing on September 24, 2006, 12:56:23 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on September 24, 2006, 01:33:33 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KnowsNothing
Syriana sucked. It sucked HARD.
My character is 40 lbs of fat and a beard. That's much easier than acting.
Post by: Athrun Zala on September 24, 2006, 10:05:39 PM
in any case, I loved Crash, and though that Traffic was interesting, seemed a bit flawed but the editing was awesome. 2001 was a nice and deep but boring and overwhelming experiment (The Shining is Kubrick's finest IMHO). Gangs of New York was a complete snoozefest to me, and didn't like it; and Syriana was great, I watched it twice in a row. I haven't seen Solaris (either version....nor some of the movies mentioned) yet, it's on my "to watch" list though. Bourne Supremacy? bleh... the best movie of 2004 was Whisky
Post by: Svevan on September 25, 2006, 03:37:25 PM
You're right, movies can't be viewed objectively. But that doesn't mean your subjective response is therefore "correct." Subjectivity must be tempered, which is why whether I liked a movie or not is inconsequential to how good it actually was (something that cannot be ascertained in full, only in part).
Post by: Pryopizm on September 25, 2006, 07:07:00 PM
Subjectivity cannot be correct or incorrect so long as it is educated. It's merely opinion.
Post by: Svevan on September 25, 2006, 08:05:24 PM
Post by: couchmonkey on September 26, 2006, 06:33:59 AM
Except I don't love Terminator. I love Mixed Nuts and Ghostbusters. And anything animated from Disney.
I did see Gangs of New York, and it was pretty good. I also saw Little Miss Sunshine lately, which was equally good or possibly better. I liked it more because I didn't have to get queasy from the violence.
Post by: IceCold on September 26, 2006, 08:42:57 AM
Post by: vudu on September 26, 2006, 08:47:38 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on September 26, 2006, 09:51:37 AM
Post by: Smoke39 on September 26, 2006, 11:37:21 AM
Post by: wandering on March 28, 2007, 08:16:29 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: vuduQuoteThe ending to Chinatown sucked. It's not that I disagree with the events that occured, I just didn't like the way they were presented. It felt hurried. This is Chinatown. What kind of lame excuse is that? None of the people involved (cops, bad guys, good guys) have anything to do with Chinatown except they happened to be there that particular minute. As soon as they leave, Chinatown isn't going to protect them. It was lame. It's most likely because the ending was written by Polanski, not the writer. He's a great director, but I've had to come to the conclusion that the guy can't write worth a crap.
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Vudu, what can you tell us about a little movie called Chinatown? How about that ending?
I just saw Chinatown. You had me worried that the film was going to end on the wrong note, like Minority Report. Instead, the ending was perfect. I'm not sure what more you wanted out of it. I don't understand the final line, either, but that's a small complaint. The ending wasn't "hurried". There was nothing more to say or show. It was obvious the bad guy got away with it. He owned the police. He was going to raise his daughter and bring about the future of Los Angeles, and no one was going to stop him.
