The Prestige's Prestigious films to immerse you

  • Thread starter Thread starter mark f
  • Start date Start date
Hey Prestige, I like the hulk too. A close friend of mine tells me i'm a ****in pussy sellout for liking that lame "abusive-father comic book movie" and it's not kirbyfied enuf, but, whatever. Comic books are lame, comic-book movies are lame. Why should we care if it's cliched, at least it doesn't have those awful captions in every shot. Plus, re-split screen: I remember being impressed by the swirly colored-sand transition/hallucination fx, which, maybe were just a retroactive hallucination on my part but they were pretty narly and I definitely DON'T remember De Palma ever doing that. Radioactive-ooze-green is a good color for the Hulk. The whole palette was very comic-booky (- the halftone-dot effect.. maybe that's what my friend was on about the movie b-ing untrue to the comic, don't think so though since he's not much of an aesthete probably just didn't like the fact that it was kind of like a lifetime-original in a way, which I guess I can't deny and makes me a hype-o-crat for hating lifetime). Also Ang Lee is the hulk (meaning, he was the motion-capture model). Look it up on IMDB trivia. Does that make this his most personal picture? Eh, definitely not his best, but a good movie making the other movies in your list happy that it joins their ranks I guess....



That's the only soundtrack I've ever heard for Sherlock, Jr. (it's the one on the kino dvd I have). It's really good. Actually, these days when I re-watch the movie, unless I'm intorducing it to someone who's never seen it befoe, I usually just keep the sound off/put some other music on. Something not too distracting or just something random. B-cause while the movie doesn't get old, the music does after about the n-th time.

If you have no way of understanding, I guess that gets me off the hook of trying to explain, eh, no big deal I'll just move on and won't bother with any more riffs on your sentimentalism.

as to Prospero's Books and



Actually, it makes me feel pretty frippin' cool. After I'm done congratulating myself on my good taste I just go back to enjoying the movie.

About the movie specifically, and why it exists the way it does -- I'm not gonna pretend to have an interpretation for all the ways the movie references itself and all art, why it matters that Greenaway decided to conflate Shakepeare/Gielgud/Prospero in all the ways he did throughout the film (I'm sure we could come up with a bunch of plausible reasons, I'm not really thinking about that at this very moment, maybe in a minute or two), I'm just going to go off of what you say about relating to films. You say that "interpreting them "emotionally" can sometimes breed better results, depending on the film." (Italics mine). 2 things:

1. your use of "emotionally" seems somehow linked to your notion that "most people" want something to relate to/to be related to.
2. You say "sometimes", so I'm guessing there are exceptions, even for you? Why wouldn't Prospero's Books be one of those exceptions?

Seems to me, if you're making a movie about the world of an esoteric polymath that would be one case where you might get stuck in a self-contradiction if your goal is to make something everyone will immediately relate to. You want people to relate to it but if you dumb it down too much they're relating to some bleached and flattened xerox/not the real deal at all. How is that cool?

Sure, everyone has an emotional life, even geniuses, but that's not what makes them geniuses. If you want Prospero to just be an avg. Joe everyone can relate to, go watch Mazursky. And anyway I do get mixed up in the emotional life of the character in that movie even in spite of what I just said. Much more so than I do the Mazursky Tempest (just for an example). I cry when he drowns his books at the end. He loved those books and his magic. He throws it all away and relinquishes (at least symbolically) the world that he's learned to control to his child and his servants. To me that's a more poignant expression of mortality (something everyone can relate to), and the way it's expressed and the way it braids w/ Real lives (this bing the culmination of Gielgud's career, this bing Shakespeare's last play) than Casavettes' midlife crisis in the other movie.

Not accusing you of championing the Mazursky Tempest, it's just a convenient example of an adaptation of the same play that I think is pretty obviously an attempt at accessible -- and perhaps appears more successful at it to casual observers -- and less an intellectual wankfest. And is a lesser movie for it. It has nothing to do with me being a badass because I (pretentiously) only appreciate intellectual movies and sneer at simp expressions of emotion. Maybe it does but I would argue it doesn't. Prospero's Books is smarter, prettier (than most things in the world), and makes me cry more than other movies. So nya.
 
Oh yeah Though i've spent the last 5 days off my **** in a field, which i feel is a valid excuse.
 
Good to see your list continuing after that homo-derailment.

Shame about the first two choices though. Although they're both, as you point out, superior in terms of filmmaking to the films they're directors were influenced by, I can honestly say that I've never been more disapointed after seeing a horror film than I was with these two.

I'll admit that my expectations were through the roof for both films because of the buzz there was around the world at the various horror-fests, so I was really expecting a lot more than I got from either of them.

Switchblade Romance (Haute Tension) was ok, it certainly had it moments and there were moments of tension, but that ending. Jesus. What a let down. I don't want to spoil it for anyone so I'll leave it there. Those that have seen the film will know what I mean whether they agree or not.

Wolf Creek, I don't really remember much about it. Other than it did nothing for me and took the title from Haute Tension for The Most Disapointing Horror Film Experience of My Life... Ever.

Scarface though. Top man.
 
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogWFzkJO7lQ&feature=related[/youtube]

That basically sums up my entire reason for not liking it.
 
My main beef with the man in blue and red stems from the fact that the character is nearly perfect in his morality, physicality and looks. Theres no complexity to him and he really isn't in any serious danger to his situations, no intensity whatsoever.

Also add that the interpretations of Superman have been exactly the same tonally. Nobody really knows how to reinterpret him, but that's probably because of the character's limitations.I like much darker characters and that character just doesn't challenge me at all.

I have to say that I get this extreme pro american vibe from Superman. Now, before anybody starts, i'm NOT saying that that's a bad thing and i'm not turning this into an anti-american post at all. But I do feel that the presence of patriotism is incredibly prevalent in the Superman character to a point where it may make youngster deluded.

I think Michael Caine said it best: 'Superman is about how America sees itself. Batman is about how the world sees America'.
 
I wanted to see Dead Man's Shoes for the longest time. I didn't read any reviews about it or anything. However, when I saw it I was expecting more of a traditional revenge film and what I saw just knocked me sideways. It's a film that I really want to see again, now that I know what I'm going to get but, conversely, now I know what I'm going to get, I know that I really have to be in the right mood to watch it. On a lighter note, I loved the drug scene that you refered to though. Without wishing to appear jingoistic, I remember it as a scene that could've only come from Britain.
 
Well there's; Another country, Maurice, If..., Beautiful thing, Bent, Sunday bloody Sunday, The crying game, Caravaggio, Edward II, Sebastiane and other Jarman films, A taste of honey, Victim etc...
AfterElton has a really good list of about 40 groundbreaking gay films.

I'm not sure who thinks gay films are only those by filmmakers belonging to this particular film "movement" (if you can call it that). From what I understand, it's a term designed to refer to a string of American independent gay films that started to emerge in the late 80's and early 90's that features an unapologetic and aggressive take on queer subculture. As I've previously pointed out, gay films have been made and continue to be made outside of this "movement". I mean the very title indicates this, New Queer cinema. And in any case, to make any sort of argument you'd have to be familiar with at least some of the films that are categorized as such, which neither of you (apparently) are. What would you deem a constructive conversation on this topic, for me to agree with what you're saying? For me to say yes, Brokeback mountain is NOT a gay film? Seriously now...it's not my problem that the bloke can't find any valid reason for denying either of these films their "gay" prefix. When he was asked to elaborate his views further, he stopped discussing it. :\ See above.
 
Good point. As for getting a pro-American vibe from Superman, well, you know he does claim to fight for truth, justice and the American way.

This makes me think they should make a movie of the alternate-reality novel where Superman actually lands somewhere in Russia and becomes a Soviet legend. Then again, the character would probably stay the same. Oh, well.
 
I see what you're saying. I do think think that Blade Runner is one of those films that reward on repeated viewings. How many times have seen it btw?

I think you might also be missin' the pont of Blade Runner, too. If the film seems cold it's because it's meant to be that way, I feel. Characters are meant to appear stoic and devoid of humanity, even Deckard. The cinematography is meant to reflect that too, specially considering it's noirish value. Watch it again and see what you think of it this time.

I love Blade Runner and feel theres enough substance to write several essays on it.
 
Better than Red River, Bringing Up Baby, His Girl Friday, Scarface, The Big Sleep, To Have and Have Not, Sergeant York, Ball of Fire, etc.?
 
Must apologise about the delay. I felt I had to completely rethink my next 70 films because i'm trying to make this list as definitive as possible. I've also been **** busy at work. We've got the Rock 'n Rolla premiere tomorrow and all kinds of shite.

Anyways, I shall get on with it right about..
 
Yeah. If I was making a sequel, I'd say that the '"foes' opinions are well-documented but who knows what will happen when the 'bell tolls?'".
 
NOW.

69. Collateral (Michael Mann, 2004)



Michael Mann's second best film really doesn't get the praise it so rightly deserves. A lot of that has to do with it's leading man, one of the most successful actors in Hollywood history. Despite all the Cruise bashing i've endured over the last few years, I have always found him to be a rather decent actor.

He's no Paddy Considine, sure. But the man is charismatic. In typical Mann fashion, Cruise is casted against type as the VILLAIN of the piece. And he makes a fine villain too imo. He's emotionless and violent hitman is one of the more memorable villains in a straight forward thriller in recent memory. Foxx is good, but I felt Cruise was overlooked because, well, he's Tom Cruise. And Mann's use of innovative Digital camcordering helps make the film grittier than the average studio flick.

68. Die Hard (John McTiernan, 1988)



Forget Die Hard 2: Dyer Harder or the atrocious 4th installment, THIS is the original action thriller. Bruce Willis made his name with this film. Much like Michael Keaton in Batman, Willis went from being known as a comedic actor to a take no prisoners tough guy with edgy wit and the perseverance of a great white shark.

And all of the references to westerns isn't a coincidence, either. John McClane is indeed a cowboy. A John Wayne for the new generatiion. The action was intense and the overall journey leaves people exhausted by the end. We feel for McClane because, despite being a cop, he's one of us. You relate to him, you feel the deep cut wounds on his feet when he's running bare footed on glass. And we love him for it. Watch it just to give out a big F U to Len Wiseman.


67. Layer Cake (Matthew Vaughn, 2004)



Matthew Vaughn is an interesting fella. Married to Claudia Schiffer, producer of the vastly overrated Lock Stock and Snatch. Well, since the release of this gem and Stardust , he can add 'pretty darn good' film director to that list. Vaughn shows his mate Guy Ritchie how it's done with superior camera work and fine storytelling techniques in this comedy thriller.

The completely plot orientated may take one or more swerves towards the end, but it's still a lot of fun. A pre Bond Daniel Craig gets to use his swagger to full effect as a nameless gangster for hire. You have to imagine that the producers of Bond had seen this film before they even considered Craig. The bursts of ultra violence mixed with humour are just some of the ingredients that gives the film flavour. A damn good debut.
 
To be honest, if you're considering If... a gay film, then you're attending a pretty broard church.
 
I agree (as opposed to Brokeback Mountain ), only, you'd think that if he didn't give a damn about man on man love, he wouldn't have included it in the film.

Incidentally, I really would like to hear your definition of a "gay film"...
I am an attention whore, but why am I..."hetrophobic"?
I'm sure a few cineastes did.
 
Shocking how the film even manages to exceed expectations, innit?

We can be as jingoistic as we want mate, because with Dead Man's Shoes, it's a case of Meadows takin' on our American cousins and playing them at their own game. That drug scene is one of the most realistic depictions of a group of people 'being under the influence'. I had never seen anything like that before on screen. Richard really did send them to space.

Oi, check out this gif




Once you understand the context of the scene it's very disturbing.
 
"I'm not going to bring that to his attention", said mark f to sarah.

I lied!

Actually, it's the first 51/100, but I get your point.
 
I interpreted it as, the director wasn't fussed or repulsed my homosexuality he saw it as normal for certain people, which of course it is
 
I wonder if we'll see The Dark Knight, Memento, and The Prestige in your top 10.
 
Back
Top