T
The Prestige
Guest
Lol, nice try mate, but I was one step ahead of you that time . I saw the Nolan jokes coming a mile off.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
N
nebbit
Guest
The first time I saw Unforgiven I went with my Father inlaw, he feel asleep
T
The Prestige
Guest
Surprised I got this far. I will be doing a bit of a summary once i've finished my Top 100. A Top 100 list says a lot about that person, as far as i'm concerned. It says a lot about their values when it comes to film and their favourite actors, genre, etc.
Anyways, i'm going to crank out another set so bare with me.
35. Three Colours: Blue, White, Red (Krzysztof Kieslowski, 1993 - 1994)
Ok, i've included this audacious trilogy as one film. Reason being is because they were all filmed back to back and all the main protagonists end up at the same conclusion in the final installment. I think of the trilogy as one film but with different segments. Sort of like Pulp Fiction, only twenty times more earnest.
First let me start by saying that I did not appreciate these films when I first saw them back in early 2007. My ex girlfriend, who's Polish/English, was a huge fan of the films and she had the boxset and lent me it. I watched half of Blue and felt that, while beautiful in cinematography, it was beyond depressing and seemed a bit self indulgent. I watched White with my ex girlfriend and found it a bit more accessible, but still had a sense of 'so what?' Red tried my patience a bit, but again, loved the photography.
A year later, after breaking up with my girlfriend, I wanted to revisit the box set. I still have the most profound feelings possible for her so I wanted to revisit the set and get an understanding as to why she was so proud of the trilogy. For the first time, I took time out and watched these films back to back...and I now I Believe In Kieslowski.
This trilogy is a paradigm of ambitious and near flawless filmmaking. It's almost as if Kieslowski said, '**** it, I could die any minute now, i'm going to give them my masterpiece'. And he did. I almost feel embarrassed at not appreciating this work of art the first time I saw it. It's truly visionary stuff.
For those who don't know, the Three Colours Trilogy are series of three films, each representing a colour of the French flag and the French Revolutionary ideals. The first in the trilogy, Blue, deals with the French Revolutionary ideal of liberty; the notion that we are all individuals who should have the unlimited ability to act without being intercepted by someone or something.
This first part stars the Juliette Binoche, an actress who I have also only just begun to appreciate. She plays widowed woman who's cuts herself off from any interaction from the rest of the society when
Now, the story itself sounds pretty depressing, but it's the political allegory that's used in the narrative that makes it that much more compelling. Not just in this film but all the Three Colours. You're aware that Kieslowski is trying to speak to you. He takes liberty and he turns it on it's head - yet at the same time, he seems to value and abide by it. At least that's what the conclusion of the story would suggest. So in that sense it's somewhat contradictory. But at the same time, it's always engaging and elegant.
Visually, this is my favourite of the three, mainly because I find blue to be such a beautiful colour. The steel coldness of the colour is always striking to me. Each of the films are lensed with the dominant colour that they represent. In Blue's case, we get a filted blue, and strong blue lighting in various scenes. This gives the film it's own personality and distinction, which is that of a harded and cold young woman trying to come to terms with absolute freedom. That's another thing that I loved about this one. It's allegory raises questions about freedom. Is freedom misguided? Are we ever TRULY free? These are questions where Kieslowski gives no easy answer...and for that I applaud him.
Juliette Binoche's performance should be shown to people looking to take up Drama classes at school or university, because it's brilliant to say the least. It also resonates with the film's themes. Her performance is suitably stoic, and maybe a bit disturbing in that she really does seem devoid of any emotion after the tradegy. She's completely gone. Definitely one of my favourite performances by an actress.
White is just my favourite of the three. It's the funniest one and it's the most charming. As you can tell by it's title, this one deals with the ideals of equality. It stars Zbigniew Zamachowski as the main protagonist Karol, a Polish immigrant who's kicked out of France following a a very bad and legal break up with his girlfriend, played by Julie Deply. He ends up making friends with another Polish man and ends up rising as a fairly powerful capitalist towards the end of the picture.
This film is easily the most comedic of the three films. But do NOT let that fool you. I personally consider this to be the most tragic out of them aswell. It's very deceptive and has a very unpredictable resolution. The character development of Karol is genuinely unpleasant as he starts off as the short of bubbling, unlucky in love hero who you root for - which is why it's a little bit disturbing when he . He becomes really cold and malicious, and you feel somewhat betrayed by that. It's deceptive yet very compelling. Tragic stuff.
Another reason I prefer this one is because it's got the better supporting characters out of all of them. They're more engaging and you get to know them more so than you do with the ones in Blue and Red. The character of Mikolaj was always interesting because he starts of as the exact opposite of Karol: He's successful, married and has children - yet he's suicidal. As the film progresses, he becomes almost like a subordinate to Karol. Also, I really like the way in which Kieslowski turns Julie Deply's Dominic from a bitchy and seemingly heartless cow - to a generally sympathetic and wrong woman. What's amazing is how he does so in a way that doesn't seem contrived or forced. It's a very slow development and leaves a strong lasting impression.
The colouring scheme for this film is, you guessed it, white. A lot of strong whites in this film. From the snowy mountains to objects and such. Although still photographically attractive, I find that the cinematography is the weakest out of all the films. I don't think that white is a distinctive enough colour to dominate an entire film, but it's still quite pretty, specially when you consider the political overtones associated with it.
Judging from the DVD extras, Kieslowski doesn't seem to pertain to a particular political ideology. He's seems to be neither a socialist or capitalist, which makes these pieces of art even more complex. Just because he made a film about the French Revolutionary, doesn't mean he believes in them.
White may appear to be liberal propaganda on paper, what with the whole lowly man becomes a rich capitalist but loses his soul in the process scenario, but Kieslowski seemingly has as much disdain for the liberals as he does for the bourgeoise.
Red is my least favourite of the trilogy, but I still think it's a great film and a work of art. The others are just that much better, that's all. The red colour of the flag illustrates the concept of brotherhood. This is shown between the characters of Valentine and Fern. Valentine is a student/model and Fern a lonely judge with nothing better to do than listen in on people's private lives via a radio. They couldn't be more opposite if they even tried.
Theres a touch of voyeourism in this one. More so than the others. The camera lingers on Irene Jacob more than it did with Delpy and Binoche. Red's an obvious symbolism to sex and voyeorism and Fern's creepy listening in on his neighbours does draw parallels with Hitchcock's Rear Window. Whether or not Kieslowski did this on purpose is anybody's guess. But as a result, this one does does seem to stray a tiny winy bit thematically compared to the others. That said, it's till head and shoulders above most films.
The relationship between Fern and Valentine ably represents the ideal. We never really choose who we bond with. Sometimes people are bounded together through the most unlikely of circumstances. And this film suggests that in more than one way.
For example, the trilogy concludes with all three (four?) main protagonists from the first two films ending up a potential fatale situation.The trilogy did that a lot. It made references to the other films, and that's always good. To see the characters we grow to like individually interact with each other is rewarding.
But yeah, I love this trilogy and I think I may change my post on the 'Your Favourite Trilogy' thread because I have definitely come to the conclusion that this film is THE definitive trilogy. What's incredible is how pretentious and arty farty this all could have been. But it's not. Not at all. It's brave and ULTRA ambitious filmmaking from an auteur who had a vision and conveyed the notion of what it means to have an ideology - and what happens when that ideology is turned up on it's head. He conveyed it through the best medium known to man. And he did so with a vengeance. Brilliant stuff.
Guys, please keep an eye out for this one as it may get a higher ranking in the near future.
Anyways, i'm going to crank out another set so bare with me.
35. Three Colours: Blue, White, Red (Krzysztof Kieslowski, 1993 - 1994)
Ok, i've included this audacious trilogy as one film. Reason being is because they were all filmed back to back and all the main protagonists end up at the same conclusion in the final installment. I think of the trilogy as one film but with different segments. Sort of like Pulp Fiction, only twenty times more earnest.
First let me start by saying that I did not appreciate these films when I first saw them back in early 2007. My ex girlfriend, who's Polish/English, was a huge fan of the films and she had the boxset and lent me it. I watched half of Blue and felt that, while beautiful in cinematography, it was beyond depressing and seemed a bit self indulgent. I watched White with my ex girlfriend and found it a bit more accessible, but still had a sense of 'so what?' Red tried my patience a bit, but again, loved the photography.
A year later, after breaking up with my girlfriend, I wanted to revisit the box set. I still have the most profound feelings possible for her so I wanted to revisit the set and get an understanding as to why she was so proud of the trilogy. For the first time, I took time out and watched these films back to back...and I now I Believe In Kieslowski.
This trilogy is a paradigm of ambitious and near flawless filmmaking. It's almost as if Kieslowski said, '**** it, I could die any minute now, i'm going to give them my masterpiece'. And he did. I almost feel embarrassed at not appreciating this work of art the first time I saw it. It's truly visionary stuff.
For those who don't know, the Three Colours Trilogy are series of three films, each representing a colour of the French flag and the French Revolutionary ideals. The first in the trilogy, Blue, deals with the French Revolutionary ideal of liberty; the notion that we are all individuals who should have the unlimited ability to act without being intercepted by someone or something.
This first part stars the Juliette Binoche, an actress who I have also only just begun to appreciate. She plays widowed woman who's cuts herself off from any interaction from the rest of the society when
Now, the story itself sounds pretty depressing, but it's the political allegory that's used in the narrative that makes it that much more compelling. Not just in this film but all the Three Colours. You're aware that Kieslowski is trying to speak to you. He takes liberty and he turns it on it's head - yet at the same time, he seems to value and abide by it. At least that's what the conclusion of the story would suggest. So in that sense it's somewhat contradictory. But at the same time, it's always engaging and elegant.
Visually, this is my favourite of the three, mainly because I find blue to be such a beautiful colour. The steel coldness of the colour is always striking to me. Each of the films are lensed with the dominant colour that they represent. In Blue's case, we get a filted blue, and strong blue lighting in various scenes. This gives the film it's own personality and distinction, which is that of a harded and cold young woman trying to come to terms with absolute freedom. That's another thing that I loved about this one. It's allegory raises questions about freedom. Is freedom misguided? Are we ever TRULY free? These are questions where Kieslowski gives no easy answer...and for that I applaud him.
Juliette Binoche's performance should be shown to people looking to take up Drama classes at school or university, because it's brilliant to say the least. It also resonates with the film's themes. Her performance is suitably stoic, and maybe a bit disturbing in that she really does seem devoid of any emotion after the tradegy. She's completely gone. Definitely one of my favourite performances by an actress.
White is just my favourite of the three. It's the funniest one and it's the most charming. As you can tell by it's title, this one deals with the ideals of equality. It stars Zbigniew Zamachowski as the main protagonist Karol, a Polish immigrant who's kicked out of France following a a very bad and legal break up with his girlfriend, played by Julie Deply. He ends up making friends with another Polish man and ends up rising as a fairly powerful capitalist towards the end of the picture.
This film is easily the most comedic of the three films. But do NOT let that fool you. I personally consider this to be the most tragic out of them aswell. It's very deceptive and has a very unpredictable resolution. The character development of Karol is genuinely unpleasant as he starts off as the short of bubbling, unlucky in love hero who you root for - which is why it's a little bit disturbing when he . He becomes really cold and malicious, and you feel somewhat betrayed by that. It's deceptive yet very compelling. Tragic stuff.
Another reason I prefer this one is because it's got the better supporting characters out of all of them. They're more engaging and you get to know them more so than you do with the ones in Blue and Red. The character of Mikolaj was always interesting because he starts of as the exact opposite of Karol: He's successful, married and has children - yet he's suicidal. As the film progresses, he becomes almost like a subordinate to Karol. Also, I really like the way in which Kieslowski turns Julie Deply's Dominic from a bitchy and seemingly heartless cow - to a generally sympathetic and wrong woman. What's amazing is how he does so in a way that doesn't seem contrived or forced. It's a very slow development and leaves a strong lasting impression.
The colouring scheme for this film is, you guessed it, white. A lot of strong whites in this film. From the snowy mountains to objects and such. Although still photographically attractive, I find that the cinematography is the weakest out of all the films. I don't think that white is a distinctive enough colour to dominate an entire film, but it's still quite pretty, specially when you consider the political overtones associated with it.
Judging from the DVD extras, Kieslowski doesn't seem to pertain to a particular political ideology. He's seems to be neither a socialist or capitalist, which makes these pieces of art even more complex. Just because he made a film about the French Revolutionary, doesn't mean he believes in them.
White may appear to be liberal propaganda on paper, what with the whole lowly man becomes a rich capitalist but loses his soul in the process scenario, but Kieslowski seemingly has as much disdain for the liberals as he does for the bourgeoise.
Red is my least favourite of the trilogy, but I still think it's a great film and a work of art. The others are just that much better, that's all. The red colour of the flag illustrates the concept of brotherhood. This is shown between the characters of Valentine and Fern. Valentine is a student/model and Fern a lonely judge with nothing better to do than listen in on people's private lives via a radio. They couldn't be more opposite if they even tried.
Theres a touch of voyeourism in this one. More so than the others. The camera lingers on Irene Jacob more than it did with Delpy and Binoche. Red's an obvious symbolism to sex and voyeorism and Fern's creepy listening in on his neighbours does draw parallels with Hitchcock's Rear Window. Whether or not Kieslowski did this on purpose is anybody's guess. But as a result, this one does does seem to stray a tiny winy bit thematically compared to the others. That said, it's till head and shoulders above most films.
The relationship between Fern and Valentine ably represents the ideal. We never really choose who we bond with. Sometimes people are bounded together through the most unlikely of circumstances. And this film suggests that in more than one way.
For example, the trilogy concludes with all three (four?) main protagonists from the first two films ending up a potential fatale situation.The trilogy did that a lot. It made references to the other films, and that's always good. To see the characters we grow to like individually interact with each other is rewarding.
But yeah, I love this trilogy and I think I may change my post on the 'Your Favourite Trilogy' thread because I have definitely come to the conclusion that this film is THE definitive trilogy. What's incredible is how pretentious and arty farty this all could have been. But it's not. Not at all. It's brave and ULTRA ambitious filmmaking from an auteur who had a vision and conveyed the notion of what it means to have an ideology - and what happens when that ideology is turned up on it's head. He conveyed it through the best medium known to man. And he did so with a vengeance. Brilliant stuff.
Guys, please keep an eye out for this one as it may get a higher ranking in the near future.
I
Iroquois
Guest
^ I don't get it.
M
mark f
Guest
I'm liking your list, and I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I thought I'd comment on something concerning Ang Lee. I think a person could pretty well write up a specific thesis on how Lee sees the hopelessness of love in all its forms.
Ang Lee has a tendency to make films about "forbidden love". He already made the Academy Award-nominated The Wedding Banquet which is also about homosexuality. If anything, the thing which separates Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon from most "kung fu" movies is that it's about forbidden love. Maybe all the love in the film isn't forbidden but the true love story in the film, the one between Michelle Yeoh and Chow Yun Fat is completely unfulfilled, at least physically. The younger couple ARE able to comsummate their love, but it's for such a fleeting time that it should help to persuade one that Lee has a hard time in believing that love can last. Therefore, his using gay lovers in Brokeback Mountain makes total sense. I won't tell you that he did it for some "metaphorical" reason though because if you're dealing with gay love in the U.S. amongst "macho men" during a certain time period, you don't really need any metaphors. It's all right out in the open, based on historical context, how it's pretty well-doomed.
Ang Lee has a tendency to make films about "forbidden love". He already made the Academy Award-nominated The Wedding Banquet which is also about homosexuality. If anything, the thing which separates Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon from most "kung fu" movies is that it's about forbidden love. Maybe all the love in the film isn't forbidden but the true love story in the film, the one between Michelle Yeoh and Chow Yun Fat is completely unfulfilled, at least physically. The younger couple ARE able to comsummate their love, but it's for such a fleeting time that it should help to persuade one that Lee has a hard time in believing that love can last. Therefore, his using gay lovers in Brokeback Mountain makes total sense. I won't tell you that he did it for some "metaphorical" reason though because if you're dealing with gay love in the U.S. amongst "macho men" during a certain time period, you don't really need any metaphors. It's all right out in the open, based on historical context, how it's pretty well-doomed.
F
Firstmotoy
Guest
[No message]
P
Pyro Tramp
Guest
Heh, i just watched Scarface last night, except for a few dated bits of editing (some of it almost seemed straight from a grindhouse flick) thought it belonged higher on my list. Though, if it was might have got the hate on it you're getting
Have to say Wolf Creek is under-rated, in as much as it's better than most the trashy MTV-stylised remakes about. But that said i didn't think it was particularly good. Easy Rider meets Texas Chain Saw Massacre good idea but does it work..... nahh. I bumped out a review when i first saw it here though have been planning on seeing it again.
Sure you know my thoughts on Switchblade Romance, blown away by it all but the ending is still a let down. Thinking about it, i feel like watching it again, might get the place on my list it's been teetering on.
Have to say Wolf Creek is under-rated, in as much as it's better than most the trashy MTV-stylised remakes about. But that said i didn't think it was particularly good. Easy Rider meets Texas Chain Saw Massacre good idea but does it work..... nahh. I bumped out a review when i first saw it here though have been planning on seeing it again.
Sure you know my thoughts on Switchblade Romance, blown away by it all but the ending is still a let down. Thinking about it, i feel like watching it again, might get the place on my list it's been teetering on.
T
The Prestige
Guest
Very happy to hear that you're going to give it another go. Boyle's pedigree certainly warrants it. Put your feet up, have a can of Stella and enjoy Boyle's excellent work.
T
The Prestige
Guest
Lol, I must admit, I was looking at some of my older coursework for some of the films to help me discuss some of the more important themes of certain films. I did Don't Look Now in my first year for the Questions Of Visual Pleasure module. I don't have any coursework from myfirst year saved to disc, though . It's fine, i'll do it by heart like i've done for most of the films listed. And yeah, sorry about only doing 3 films. I was shattered yesterday.
How comes Don't Look Now underwhelmes you?
How comes Don't Look Now underwhelmes you?
I
Iroquois
Guest
Good start - and yet another reason I need to get around to seeing Scum.
Wondering one thing - if you rate The Faculty and Sin City as Rodriguez's best movies, I'm curious to see what you think of the rest of his filmography.
Wondering one thing - if you rate The Faculty and Sin City as Rodriguez's best movies, I'm curious to see what you think of the rest of his filmography.
P
Pyro Tramp
Guest
Wow, look what i dug up from PMs.
Edit: as has just been pointed out, PM is private message, which kinda neglected so got rid off what had but kinda feel obliged to keep this bit:
Edit: as has just been pointed out, PM is private message, which kinda neglected so got rid off what had but kinda feel obliged to keep this bit:
T
The Prestige
Guest
I'll continue.
74. Gladiator (Ridley Scott, 2000)
Whatever you think of Ridley Scott, you can't dispute that the man has an eye for detail. And this film is astronomical in it's detailing of Rome. I really like this film for the sheer detail alone. It looks fantastic.
It sounds brilliant and Russell Crowe gave the performance of his life, but that Pheonix geezer stole the show. It was nice to see a villain that wasn't idolised or overly hammy but very nasty and spiteful. Great historical epic.
73. Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Irvin Kershner, 1980)
The original Star Wars trilogy was everything you could want in a science fiction film and more. This installment is appropriately the highest rated of the series. It's just grand in terms of the scale of production design, story, effects. Theres just so much going on. So much ambition. But the bravest thing about this film is it's darker themes. It's very adult orientated. I still don't know how it got rated U over here?!?
But yeah, despite some dodgy plot problems, this is still the definitive Star Wars film. And the first to introduce us to the brilliant creation that is Yoda!
72. Adulthood (Noel Clarke, 2008)
This follow up to the slightly dodge Kidulthood is a rare example of a sequel being a LOT better than it's weak original. Made and released in an appropriate time where London's notorious knife crimes amongst youths have been escalating, Adulthood is a strong, urgent drama that will never get the attention it deserves.
Like the title suggests, it's a far more maturer piece of work than it's predecessor. Noel Clarke (pictured above as both star AND director) doesn't feel the need to rely heavily on MTV style editing. There's a bit of energetic camera work, but it's only done to serve the story and not show off.
For those that don't know, the film is set in West London and the events take place in 24 hours in which Sam, newly released from prison, has to deal with the repercussions of his violent actions in the last film. It's very well acted with a fine performance from Clarke himself. Hope to see more of him behind the camera. Essential British urban drama.
71: The Departed (Martin Scorsese, 2006)
Make no mistake - This is Dicaprio's film. How the guy manages to steal scenes from the likes of Jack Nicholson and Martin Sheen, I don't know. But he does and he does it in style.
As you all should know, this is an American version of Infernal Affairs. However, this film is more plot oriented, which is a good thing considering the type of film it is. The usual Scorsese signtures are all in there, but Dicaprio, I dare say, adds a star to the film with his first arrestingly adult role.
Every bit of emotion, every sense of tense, relief and panic is conveyed brilliantly. I have definitely changed my mind about him as an actor in the past two years. Oh and the dialogue is pretty sharp too.
70. The Last Seduction (John Dahl, 1994)
Saw this at a film studies screening. Linda Fiorentino delivers what's probably one of the sexiest, alluring and funniest female performances i've ever seen on screen. Her Bridget Gregory is a post modernist, post feminist femme fatale.
The film rests heavily on her and she's in almost every scene, but boy does Fiorentino deliver the goods. It's really hard to imagine anybody playing this role. The film itself is full of gleeful plotting in which Bridget's actions become more and more ruthless.
These sequences are a joy to watch and are helped with quick and snappy dialogue.
In fact, i'm thinking that i'm underrating this film by putting it in this position. I'm going to leave it hear for now, but after i've had a long think about it, I may move it up to a higher position.
74. Gladiator (Ridley Scott, 2000)
Whatever you think of Ridley Scott, you can't dispute that the man has an eye for detail. And this film is astronomical in it's detailing of Rome. I really like this film for the sheer detail alone. It looks fantastic.
It sounds brilliant and Russell Crowe gave the performance of his life, but that Pheonix geezer stole the show. It was nice to see a villain that wasn't idolised or overly hammy but very nasty and spiteful. Great historical epic.
73. Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back (Irvin Kershner, 1980)
The original Star Wars trilogy was everything you could want in a science fiction film and more. This installment is appropriately the highest rated of the series. It's just grand in terms of the scale of production design, story, effects. Theres just so much going on. So much ambition. But the bravest thing about this film is it's darker themes. It's very adult orientated. I still don't know how it got rated U over here?!?
But yeah, despite some dodgy plot problems, this is still the definitive Star Wars film. And the first to introduce us to the brilliant creation that is Yoda!
72. Adulthood (Noel Clarke, 2008)
This follow up to the slightly dodge Kidulthood is a rare example of a sequel being a LOT better than it's weak original. Made and released in an appropriate time where London's notorious knife crimes amongst youths have been escalating, Adulthood is a strong, urgent drama that will never get the attention it deserves.
Like the title suggests, it's a far more maturer piece of work than it's predecessor. Noel Clarke (pictured above as both star AND director) doesn't feel the need to rely heavily on MTV style editing. There's a bit of energetic camera work, but it's only done to serve the story and not show off.
For those that don't know, the film is set in West London and the events take place in 24 hours in which Sam, newly released from prison, has to deal with the repercussions of his violent actions in the last film. It's very well acted with a fine performance from Clarke himself. Hope to see more of him behind the camera. Essential British urban drama.
71: The Departed (Martin Scorsese, 2006)
Make no mistake - This is Dicaprio's film. How the guy manages to steal scenes from the likes of Jack Nicholson and Martin Sheen, I don't know. But he does and he does it in style.
As you all should know, this is an American version of Infernal Affairs. However, this film is more plot oriented, which is a good thing considering the type of film it is. The usual Scorsese signtures are all in there, but Dicaprio, I dare say, adds a star to the film with his first arrestingly adult role.
Every bit of emotion, every sense of tense, relief and panic is conveyed brilliantly. I have definitely changed my mind about him as an actor in the past two years. Oh and the dialogue is pretty sharp too.
70. The Last Seduction (John Dahl, 1994)
Saw this at a film studies screening. Linda Fiorentino delivers what's probably one of the sexiest, alluring and funniest female performances i've ever seen on screen. Her Bridget Gregory is a post modernist, post feminist femme fatale.
The film rests heavily on her and she's in almost every scene, but boy does Fiorentino deliver the goods. It's really hard to imagine anybody playing this role. The film itself is full of gleeful plotting in which Bridget's actions become more and more ruthless.
These sequences are a joy to watch and are helped with quick and snappy dialogue.
In fact, i'm thinking that i'm underrating this film by putting it in this position. I'm going to leave it hear for now, but after i've had a long think about it, I may move it up to a higher position.
T
Thursday Next
Guest
Yeah, The Crying Game, Maurice and Victim would have made up the rest of my top 5 of gay British films, along with The Leather Boys. I'd forgotten about Bent. I wouldn't have categorised If... as a gay film particularly, but then whether or not to categorise something as a gay film seems to be the whole debate at the moment (which is very interesting, at least to me, although I can see why The Prestige might be fed up of it hijacking his top 100 thread, perhaps it deserves its own thread...). For the record, I thought Beautiful Thing was mediocre and I haven't seen the others on your list but will add them to my to-be-seen list...
T
The Prestige
Guest
Glad you liked it too, mate. I'm not even a big fan of Tarantino but it's impossible to dislike the guy. The only other film that beats Death Proof would be Pulp Fiction, in my opinion. It's his signature film and is the best written. Excellent script, iconic performances and a killer soundtrack. He will never better that.
I also like Reservoir Dogs fine. But I think the reason people are turning away from it is because it's become overshadowed by his latter works. Also, beneath the swagger and cool dialogue, it's got a really thin plot. Not much seems to be going on and the dialogue alone can't really eclipse that. Still a good film though.
I agree with the Kubrickian tone of Blade Runner and yes, it is a HUGE compliment as far as i'm concerned. Kubrick was a fascinating artists and hugely influenced some of today's best auteurs.His AI would not have been too disimilar from Ridley Scott's sci fi masterpiece. However...I will admit that most of Kubrick's films, while technically sound, were not without their faults. I mean, his earlier films were downright boring, and his style became less centred around the flow of human emotions as he got older.
I also like Reservoir Dogs fine. But I think the reason people are turning away from it is because it's become overshadowed by his latter works. Also, beneath the swagger and cool dialogue, it's got a really thin plot. Not much seems to be going on and the dialogue alone can't really eclipse that. Still a good film though.
I agree with the Kubrickian tone of Blade Runner and yes, it is a HUGE compliment as far as i'm concerned. Kubrick was a fascinating artists and hugely influenced some of today's best auteurs.His AI would not have been too disimilar from Ridley Scott's sci fi masterpiece. However...I will admit that most of Kubrick's films, while technically sound, were not without their faults. I mean, his earlier films were downright boring, and his style became less centred around the flow of human emotions as he got older.
7
7thson
Guest
Very nice start.....not one I dislike thus far.
T
The Prestige
Guest
"He is just a human being"
12. The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford (Andrew Dominik, 2007)
I know, I know. Dodge title and everything. The title tells you the what, which may seem spoilerish at first glance. But it doesn't tell you the why or the how. Those are two questions that do not go unexplored in Andrew Dominik's epic, moving and beautiful modern western. It's a film that isn't exactly to everybody's taste. It's incredibly slow, poetic and meandering. Even Dominik admitted that his own film has no actual plot. But in the hands Dominik, none of that really matters because of the substantial amount of themes he manages to incorporate into the narrative, and with a strict undertones, too.
For most of the film's near 3 hour duration, this slow burning portrait of betrayal and self hatred plausibly unfolds as an ongoing struggle for prestige and celebrity, the latter of which most critics say Jesse James is actually all about. I think it's a theme, but I can't help but feel it runs a little deeper than that. I think it's more to do with the depiction of using fame as a means to gain a sense of power, respect and self-worth. Dominik so much concerned with a celebrity's rise to power as with one's abuse of it and the lengths of which they will go to gain it.
The joy in seeing this masterpiece of cinema multiple times is the growing appreciation of it's leisury pace. Like I said before, the film is very slow and doesn't bother with any short cuts and refuses to throw in the obligatory action scene to 'shock' it's audience. There is just the one tense actiony sequence in the beginning of the film, but that's it. Dominik is too stubborn and far too trusting to add such scenes for the sake of it (though the studio did bust their bollocks in trying to get him to make the film more 'audience friendly' before the film was released).
Dominik spent 2 years of his life getting the film made the way he wanted it to and all that tenacity paid off because in the end we have an arthouse film, devoid of pretentiousness yet rich with authorship and a filmmakers pride. This isn't a remake of 3:10 to Yuma (although I enjoyed that film too for entirely different reasons), but more a film about life and it's uncomfortable truths. We are watching real people here rather than stereotypes of male bravado. In that sense it's a western that's not unlike the one just behind it on my list. The characters in these films respond to believable situations rather than excitingly contrived set ups.
Roger Deakin's photography is, in a word (or two) spellbindingly gorgeous, recalling the elegant works of Mallick and Leone. This is a film that relishes in it's picturesque cinematography and super fixed poetic images. It's not just a case of cutting between shots. No shot feels random, and you get the sense that extrodanairy care went into storyboard key scenes.
ALL of the acting in Jesse James is abnormally exceptional. There is such a broad spectrem of talent and acting style at work here. I know a lot of people don't like Brad Pitt's acting and may feel that he may seem a little too glamorous for a role in what is pretty much an arthouse film, but HIS celebrity and the ease at which he is able to slip into passive aggressive mode makes him a good fit for the notorious Jesse James and his unpredictable side. The much praised Casey Affleck as Robert Ford deserved his Oscar nom in a portrayal that consists of him being scarily convincing in being weak, creepy, deceptive, lonely and just downright pathetic. It's a hell of a performance and one that's somewhat unexpected of the younger and less commercial looking Affleck. However, the performance that really got to me more than anybody elses was Sam Rockwell as the elder and more simple of the Ford brothers, a fascinating actor who shifts between states of unbearable tension and goofy statements, occasionally diving into remorse and self loathing. It's an incredibly underrated performance.
Like I said, this film is a matter of meticulousness and extroadanairy care. Dominik is fiercely determined to get every character and relationship right and to give them depth. And watching it for the first time can seem like a bit of a chore. But you are rewarded handsomely for it and I can almost guarantee that the more time people see this, the more they'll like it.
All in all, Dominik should be more than praised for making some tough choices and not taking any easy way out. All in all he did it HIS way. And his way ended up being the perfect way. Not sure about the ten word title though. That's a bitch to type.
12. The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford (Andrew Dominik, 2007)
I know, I know. Dodge title and everything. The title tells you the what, which may seem spoilerish at first glance. But it doesn't tell you the why or the how. Those are two questions that do not go unexplored in Andrew Dominik's epic, moving and beautiful modern western. It's a film that isn't exactly to everybody's taste. It's incredibly slow, poetic and meandering. Even Dominik admitted that his own film has no actual plot. But in the hands Dominik, none of that really matters because of the substantial amount of themes he manages to incorporate into the narrative, and with a strict undertones, too.
For most of the film's near 3 hour duration, this slow burning portrait of betrayal and self hatred plausibly unfolds as an ongoing struggle for prestige and celebrity, the latter of which most critics say Jesse James is actually all about. I think it's a theme, but I can't help but feel it runs a little deeper than that. I think it's more to do with the depiction of using fame as a means to gain a sense of power, respect and self-worth. Dominik so much concerned with a celebrity's rise to power as with one's abuse of it and the lengths of which they will go to gain it.
The joy in seeing this masterpiece of cinema multiple times is the growing appreciation of it's leisury pace. Like I said before, the film is very slow and doesn't bother with any short cuts and refuses to throw in the obligatory action scene to 'shock' it's audience. There is just the one tense actiony sequence in the beginning of the film, but that's it. Dominik is too stubborn and far too trusting to add such scenes for the sake of it (though the studio did bust their bollocks in trying to get him to make the film more 'audience friendly' before the film was released).
Dominik spent 2 years of his life getting the film made the way he wanted it to and all that tenacity paid off because in the end we have an arthouse film, devoid of pretentiousness yet rich with authorship and a filmmakers pride. This isn't a remake of 3:10 to Yuma (although I enjoyed that film too for entirely different reasons), but more a film about life and it's uncomfortable truths. We are watching real people here rather than stereotypes of male bravado. In that sense it's a western that's not unlike the one just behind it on my list. The characters in these films respond to believable situations rather than excitingly contrived set ups.
Roger Deakin's photography is, in a word (or two) spellbindingly gorgeous, recalling the elegant works of Mallick and Leone. This is a film that relishes in it's picturesque cinematography and super fixed poetic images. It's not just a case of cutting between shots. No shot feels random, and you get the sense that extrodanairy care went into storyboard key scenes.
ALL of the acting in Jesse James is abnormally exceptional. There is such a broad spectrem of talent and acting style at work here. I know a lot of people don't like Brad Pitt's acting and may feel that he may seem a little too glamorous for a role in what is pretty much an arthouse film, but HIS celebrity and the ease at which he is able to slip into passive aggressive mode makes him a good fit for the notorious Jesse James and his unpredictable side. The much praised Casey Affleck as Robert Ford deserved his Oscar nom in a portrayal that consists of him being scarily convincing in being weak, creepy, deceptive, lonely and just downright pathetic. It's a hell of a performance and one that's somewhat unexpected of the younger and less commercial looking Affleck. However, the performance that really got to me more than anybody elses was Sam Rockwell as the elder and more simple of the Ford brothers, a fascinating actor who shifts between states of unbearable tension and goofy statements, occasionally diving into remorse and self loathing. It's an incredibly underrated performance.
Like I said, this film is a matter of meticulousness and extroadanairy care. Dominik is fiercely determined to get every character and relationship right and to give them depth. And watching it for the first time can seem like a bit of a chore. But you are rewarded handsomely for it and I can almost guarantee that the more time people see this, the more they'll like it.
All in all, Dominik should be more than praised for making some tough choices and not taking any easy way out. All in all he did it HIS way. And his way ended up being the perfect way. Not sure about the ten word title though. That's a bitch to type.
T
The Prestige
Guest
You feel idiotic for having a discussion about homosexuality in films with a bunch of hetrosexual blokes? Well stone me.
You're the one who can't see past the surface of the film. Everybody else has at least developed their argument into something more than just bashing other peoples opinions, son.
I don't see the film as a simple gay love story and you do. What else is there to point out? Some people agree with you and others with me. What are you trying to gain by throwing a hissy fit about all of this? Or can you not take the fact that there are straight men out there who see this film as something more than it's premise suggests?
You're way out of line with Pyro as well. I've read a majority of his posts and I have NEVER seen any evidence of homophobia within his texts. It sounds like he said something you got oversensitive about. Much like I did.
Now do yourself a favour and stop trying to play the self-righteous gay man routine. It's getting tired and ridiculous. Nobody said homosexuality was 'unnatural', you joker.
You're the one who can't see past the surface of the film. Everybody else has at least developed their argument into something more than just bashing other peoples opinions, son.
I don't see the film as a simple gay love story and you do. What else is there to point out? Some people agree with you and others with me. What are you trying to gain by throwing a hissy fit about all of this? Or can you not take the fact that there are straight men out there who see this film as something more than it's premise suggests?
You're way out of line with Pyro as well. I've read a majority of his posts and I have NEVER seen any evidence of homophobia within his texts. It sounds like he said something you got oversensitive about. Much like I did.
Now do yourself a favour and stop trying to play the self-righteous gay man routine. It's getting tired and ridiculous. Nobody said homosexuality was 'unnatural', you joker.
T
The Prestige
Guest
I completely forgot that I had seen Mysterious Skin. Strange as it sounds, I have seen it but couldn't remember it at all. Might have been drunk or something. Yeah, i remember it being quite disturbing.
P
Pyro Tramp
Guest
Eh, David Bowie. Let you off on that one
Actually did like your summary of the 'trick' theme. Might have to give it another go
Actually did like your summary of the 'trick' theme. Might have to give it another go
M
mark f
Guest
The bunghole is that opening in the bottom of a barrel of booze where you put the tap so you can get the booze out and into your body so that it can go into your brain and turn you into a blithering idiot. A tap is a synonym for spigot. I wish I could find the photo I took on my honeymoon of a liquor store in Beverly, Massachusetts (very close to Salem) which was called The Bunghole.