[Melanie68]

AFGNCAAP and OAV: The minute I heard about this movie, I myself had zero desire to see it. It does certainly sound like they were very faithful to the retelling of the events but honestly if I want to see that, I'll watch an actual documentary (of which there have been plenty even sooner after the event). Why do movies have to be a factual retelling of events? Like I said, that's what documentaries are for. Maybe a movie should transcend that.

And for some people, it will always be too soon.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Melanie68

AFGNCAAP and OAV: The minute I heard about this movie, I myself had zero desire to see it. It does certainly sound like they were very faithful to the retelling of the events but honestly if I want to see that, I'll watch an actual documentary (of which there have been plenty even sooner after the event). Why do movies have to be a factual retelling of events? Like I said, that's what documentaries are for. Maybe a movie should transcend that.

I mostly share this opinion. This was my main gripe with Good Night, and Good Luck, not to look far.

Still, I'd argue a feature film can take you to places documentary will never be able to. (For one, non-fiction shouldn't fill in blank spaces when there are no witnesses or scholars who may make an educated guess) And, sometimes, "just" recreating the facts in a very thoughtful, humane or artistic manner may be enough for a film to transcend to something else. I won't comment on United 93 prior to seeing it, but Elephant, another film dealing with a deeply tragic event (Columbine shooting), took similar approach, and I think what became of it was a really powerful piece of art.

And for some people, it will always be too soon.

Believe me, I do sympathize. But to me the fact that to some it will always be too soon only strengthens the argument for making this movie now. Nobody ever consulted the families of millions of victims of WWII before assimilating it as a part of our mythology.

That said, United 93 is a kind of movie nobody should be talked into watching if they don't want to. Those are sensitive matters, to be sure.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Melanie68

AFGNCAAP and OAV: The minute I heard about this movie, I myself had zero desire to see it. It does certainly sound like they were very faithful to the retelling of the events but honestly if I want to see that, I'll watch an actual documentary (of which there have been plenty even sooner after the event). Why do movies have to be a factual retelling of events? Like I said, that's what documentaries are for. Maybe a movie should transcend that.

And for some people, it will always be too soon.

Melanie I totally understand. My own mother has always refused to watch Schindler's List, and my family isn't even Jewish. The pain of the Holocaust is just too much for her to bear, even in a film with a message equally against that dark event. I'm not saying Thomas Moore is wrong for not seeing the film, I'm simply upset that he goes off about what the movie should be when he hasn't even seen what the movie is.

By the way, the film does manage to transcend what a documentary could do, emotionally. I'll tell you what helps immeasurably: a cast of unknown faces and the handheld cameras that make one feel as if they're there. When these people get onto that plane, all for various reasons just like any regular day, and the door closes and seals as the last passenger comes aboard with a smile on his face...the friend sitting next to me in the theater gave out a sigh. There's definitely something about seeing these everyday people (even though they are actors, it's not a Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt, we can lose ourselves in the realism of this) go from being just like you or me, and suddenly being forced to deal with something no one should have to deal with. The ways they deal with it too...wow.

Now, the film isn't perfect. Anyone looking for character development or a story beyond this particular day, look elsewhere. In the film itself, we only discover what the characters discover. No one knows anything yet about the attackers or Bin Laden or any such thing.

Also, I must add, the last 10 minutes are quite perfect. Very powerful. I can't explain what you see, I think it would be better for people to view it themselves if they wish. But it was masterfully done, and more effective than a documentary in terms of what you feel.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Flux

Wow, talk about coincidence, I just yesterday saw the Dune movie. And it was completely laughable. I never saw Patrick Stewart in a more misplaced role. Gurney Halleck is supposed to be this ugly troubadour, not a royal soldier carrying a banjo. Anyway, the movie was completely ridiculous. I'll admit that Sting in a metal diaper did have some merit, but the rest of it... Especially the scene where the old duke spits out the poisonous gas and it's this enormous green whirlwind, haha =D

Frankly, the only reason the movie was palatable at all was because Kyle MacLachlan is as ever enigmatic, charismatic and mesmerizingly aloof in everything he does.

I was going to hate you, but the last sentence saves everything.

[lumi]

Seven Samurai - it was good.

[NcroManiac]

The good the bad and the ugly again for the zillionth time.
Best. Western. Ever.

[Sage]

Oo-we-oo-we-oo...WAH-wah-wah...
Maybe not the best western ever, but certainly the best western movie theme song ever.

[Spiwak]

What Western could top it? Wild Bunch maybe or maybe even Once Upon a Time in the West. But they're close.

I saw Bunuel's Belle de Jour late last night or early this morning. Why can't I ever just walk away from a Bunuel movie feelingg warm and fuzzy?

[Sage]

Originally Posted by Spiwak

What Western could top it? Wild Bunch maybe or maybe even Once Upon a Time in the West. But they're close.

I must confess straight away that I'm not a fan of Westerns as a genre. I find most of the stories to be oversimplified and sensationalized like the "penny dreadful" pulp novels that originally inspired them, but in fairness there has been a trend away from this style of Western in recent years.
If I watch a Western, I want to see The West...the American West. Not Southern Italy, not Spain, and most definitely not Montreal. For me watching a Western is all about the visuals, and the story is incidental. John Ford Westerns are awesome in this respect. I have no idea if Stanley Kubrick ever filmed a Western, but if not, he should have; His signature long shots incorporating lots of space and sparse background elements would show the American West to great effect.
In fact, the overall tightness of the shots was one of my biggest problems with "Brokeback Mountain". I was sitting dead-center in the theatre when I watched it, yet I often felt I was a little too close to the screen. It was almost as if that movie had been filmed for a television-sized screen, and was released theatrically as an afterthought. And yet it was nominated for an Academy Award for cinematography! The benefit to this is that "Brokeback Mountain" should look great in DVD format when viewed at home.
But I digress. I've seen a fair number of Westerns, but I can't remember the names of most of them. John Wayne Westerns tend to be rather silly, but they often feature stunning visuals, so I've seen more of them than any others...usually with sound turned down. Ooh...pretty pictures!
Edit- I must admit I'm interested to see what OAV's response to this post will be. I figure he'll either rip me a new one, or agree with me...or maybe both. Either way, I suspect it'll be a post worth reading!

[Spiwak]

The Terminal by Steven Spielberg.

Spoiler:

I was a little let down by the fact Victor (sp?) and Amelia didn't end up together at the end. I was really expecting and hoping for it.

[[toj.cc]Phantom]

Millions

[Talas]

Originally Posted by Spiwak

I saw Bunuel's Belle de Jour late last night or early this morning. Why can't I ever just walk away from a Bunuel movie feelingg warm and fuzzy?

Because your brain is still processing all the stuff you saw in the movie. Buñuel is great for that, I love his movies.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by Thrift Store Scott

I must confess straight away that I'm not a fan of Westerns as a genre. I find most of the stories to be oversimplified and sensationalized like the "penny dreadful" pulp novels that originally inspired them, but in fairness there has been a trend away from this style of Western in recent years.
If I watch a Western, I want to see The West...the American West. Not Southern Italy, not Spain, and most definitely not Montreal. For me watching a Western is all about the visuals, and the story is incidental. John Ford Westerns are awesome in this respect. I have no idea if Stanley Kubrick ever filmed a Western, but if not, he should have; His signature long shots incorporating lots of space and sparse background elements would show the American West to great effect.
In fact, the overall tightness of the shots was one of my biggest problems with "Brokeback Mountain". I was sitting dead-center in the theatre when I watched it, yet I often felt I was a little too close to the screen. It was almost as if that movie had been filmed for a television-sized screen, and was released theatrically as an afterthought. And yet it was nominated for an Academy Award for cinematography! The benefit to this is that "Brokeback Mountain" should look great in DVD format when viewed at home.
But I digress. I've seen a fair number of Westerns, but I can't remember the names of most of them. John Wayne Westerns tend to be rather silly, but they often feature stunning visuals, so I've seen more of them than any others...usually with sound turned down. Ooh...pretty pictures!
Edit- I must admit I'm interested to see what OAV's response to this post will be. I figure he'll either rip me a new one, or agree with me...or maybe both. Either way, I suspect it'll be a post worth reading!

Heh, I respect your opinion too much to rip you a new one Scott! I mean, I can see where you're coming from. The vast majority of Westerns probably are best described as being "oversimplified and sensationalized like the "penny dreadful" pulp novels that originally inspired them..." However, some really do go beyond that and stand out as great films I think. I personally don't watch any film for visuals or scenery alone, and I truly hope that you've seen at least a few Westerns that grabbed your attention in other ways. I'll recommend some, if that's ok...


UNFORGIVEN - I mention this one first simply because it knows the unflattering Western reputation you speak of and intentionally sets out to challenge that. There is actually a character in this film, W.W. Beauchamp, who writes those little Western dime novels. He is caught up in the romantic view of the West where the heroes are larger than life, and good and bad exist with no gray area in between. He soon discovers that while that stuff may sell well, it's not the truth.

This movie is about the real West. It's dirty, "good" men are corrupt, "bad" men can try to change, etc. When Beauchamp actually gets to hold a gun in his hand, and is told, "Now all you gotta do is pull the trigger mister," he discovers that pointing a gun at someone and pulling that trigger is a very hard thing to do. And it certainly doesn't feel heroic or romantic.

It's quite humorous at times too, especially for such a dark film. One of Beauchamp's dime novels, based on a man known as English Bob, is called "The Duke of Death". Gene Hackman's character, Little Bill Daggett, reads sequences in the novel that are almost completely fabricated. He can't help but laugh, and refer to English Bob as "The Duck of Death", completely demystifying him. When he gives the true account of the very same incidents (as he turns out to be a witness), it's one of the funniest sequences in the film. And I love how it begins -

Little Bill Daggett: First off, Corky Corcoran never carried two guns. Though he should have.

W.W. Beauchamp: But... no, no, he was called "Two-Gun Corcoran."

Little Bill Daggett: Well, a lot of people did call him "Two-Gun" but it wasn't on account of him sporting two pistols. It was because he had a dick that was so big it was longer than the barrel of that Walker Colt he carried.

THE WILD BUNCH - In my view, this is the best Western ever made, and Sam Peckinpah's best film. Terrific in every aspect. Characters, story, acting, cinematography, music, direction, and action sequences are all just...top notch.

ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST - You may not like Westerns that are shot in Europe (some of it was shot in the U.S.), but I had to recommend this anyway. I think it's quite good.

STAGECOACH - You already mentioned that you like John Ford's Westerns for the scenery, so you may have seen this. It's one of his best. Now, the story isn't absolutely amazing by any means (a stagecoach with many passengers must travel through hostile territory), but the characters are the strength of the picture. There are things that don't make sense, like why the hell don't the Indians shoot the horses with their arrows to stop the coach instead of firing at the coach itself... Still, this is a wonderful Western.

HIGH NOON - This one was quite controversial when released because the hero showed fear and doubt when faced with the odds against him. Great stuff, with a story told almost in real time.

RED RIVER - Wonderful movie, arguably Howard Hawks best film. Tough call.

LONESOME DOVE - One of the most depressing movies ever made in my opinion. I was miserable for days afterward. Robert Duvall is just brilliant. This is his best performance I think.

THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE - You've probably seen it as it's another Ford. Still, I had to try.


There are many others, but that's a start. Heh.

[Spiwak]

The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants by Ken Kwapis.

Cute.

[lumi]

La Belle et la Bete by Jean Cocteau - definitely better than the Disney version. Not really my favorite story though. Sometimes I felt like it was more a showpiece for special effects back in the day, because it seemed to stick to major points in the story only, and didn't really delve into anything. Maybe it expected the viewer to already be familiar with it.

Reservoir Dogs - a good movie, but not as good as Pulp Fiction.

The Butterfly Effect - one of the worst movies I've seen. I give it a 0 out of anything.

[kuze]

Originally Posted by Spider Crusoe

The Butterfly Effect - one of the worst movies I've seen. I give it a 0 out of anything.

100 percent agreed. This movie was definitely overhyped. Bad actors, reused plot, cheap movie overall.

[insane_cobra]

Overhyped? What, somebody actually said that movie was good?

[kuze]

Aye, lots of somebodies, and they all recommended the movie to me. It was pretty popular around here.

[Lucien21]

Mission Impossible III

Really enjoyed this.

Better than no 2.

Kinda reminded me of True Lies a few times.

[Once A Villain]

My goodness Scott, I completely forgot to mention that there are two filmmakers I would prefer to shoot a Western (that never did) over Stanley Kubrick. David Lean (Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai, Doctor Zhivago) is #1 on the list. Can you imagine the scope of that Western? The other would be Akira Kurosawa. Granted, Kurosawa's samurai pictures were very much like "Eastern Westerns", but for him to shoot a true Western, cowboy hats and six shooters and such...wow...