![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Excerpt from an interview with filmmaker John Waters, 1982:
Me: When I was a child, my parents wouldn't allow me to see films.
JW: Were they religious?
Me: No.
JW: Then they were art snobs.
Waters didn't phrase it as a question: he KNEW. It surprised me because we hadn't met before and he knew nothing about me. But he understood human nature.
Of course, I'd been in cinemas as a kid, and while my parents may have been art snobs, they were knowledgeable (my father ran an art gallery and repped a stable of obscure artists who, it's been said, are important) and entitled to their opinion. And while I love telling people I'm a film snob, that's not entirely accurate.
But i prefer my audio-visual arts in discrete chunks that retain the right to Bust Da Rules, and while television series may be well written and beautifully directed, their formats dictate certain conventions. It's part of the bargain between creator and audience. The audience knows about 20-25% of the content will be filler, providing them with bathroom breaks, time for a quick phone call or brief argument with spouse or pizza-delivery guy.
Films offer different guarantees. Sometimes, precious little is guaranteed, which makes trustworthy filmmakers an asset. Film directors can and do treat their audiences as thinking human beings who can follow visual cues or clues, and use deductive reasoning. Films can pick you up and shake you like a grizzly shakes a salmon. Pizzas will not be delivered to your cinema seat, and if you're sitting next to me, stop yakking to your date and turn off your god, damned, mobile, phone. You're not in your living room.
The potential for a mystery-ride is one reason I like films. I usually prefer to know only essential parameters about a film before watching it from beginning to end (although if I'm looking for entertainment, I'll check a sequel although almost all sequels are inferior to the first-in-the-series). I do like to know the running times: films which may deserve 90 minutes of my time may not deserve 140 minutes, for example. As I have restrictions on my film-viewing, some (likely a majority) are ruled out entirely. I have no opinion on them, because I don't see them.
For example, I have never seen Steven Spielberg's E.T. (1982). Why would I? This really upset people back in the early 80s, when some claimed, with a straight face, that it was the "best movie ever made." I have no idea what E.T.'s running time is, because I have no intention of seeing it. It may be the greatest flick ever, but I wouldn't know, because I'm not interested in watching it.
Always add a foto...it's 1996 and I'm on the set of Hong Kong film FIRST OPTION, a prequel to Gordon Chan's FINAL OPTION (1994). That's not a real policewoman, it's an actress getting into character.
I love a dame in a uniform. That's Gigi Leung at left, investigating snack options.
After you write a film book (I've written two), the social stakes are raised. People have expectations of any book, and as they naturally have their own opinions on films, can get feisty. When the first English-language book on Hong Kong movies came out (co-written by myself and Mike Wilkins) was published, the "fanboys" ripped into it on the alt.asian-movies newsgroup—and if you remember that one, you qualify as old-school!
The reason was simple: they knew the subject and what THEY would like to see in a book. And as their "book-of-the-mind" was perfect, as long as there was no actual book out there, the universe was in harmony. Publication ripped a hole in that delusion—the tome itself could not possibly satisfy everyone's individual vision. But it did get overwhelmingly positive reviews, from mainstream media as well as fanboys and fangirls.
I was and am a fanboy as well as a film snob. Filmmakers like Peter Greenaway, who complain that the technology has not advanced far enough to display their brilliance, drive me batso. The feature film as an art form has been codified since at least 1920, when DW Griffith made INTOLERANCE (in Martin Scorcese's excellent "A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies" (1995), he credits Griffith with codifying the essential language of filmmaking...watch the DVD, he describes it far better than I ever could).
A shot of the "cinema" near the water, where I often watch films on my laptop.
I'm opinionated, and while I trust my instincts, I have been wrong many times and have admitted it when it's become clear me that I analyzed something incorrectly, missed something, or had an epiphany, or whatever. My main personal guides to film and other creative arts deserve mention here: Jim Morton (co-author, with Boyd Rice, of the seminal "Incredibly Strange Films" (1986), which belongs on every film scholar's bookshelf), Mike Wilkins (who immediately took to Hong Kong films, sussed his favorite genres and would meet me in San Francisco's Chinatown for bags of succulent dumplings and head-tossin'-witch-flicks at a moment's notice), KA Tarapata (the original dashboard-pounder), Dr Adam Knee (who wrote his PhD thesis on Hollywood sci-fi flicks of the 1950s and have I set a record for parenthetical remarks in a sentence yet, Doctor Knee?), Tim Youngs here in Hong Kong, and Tim Hallinan. There are others, like David Chute (who was more advanced on the Hong Kong spectrum than any Stateside gwailo fan in the 80s), the marvelous Andy Klein, the transcendent Wade Major, Mick Lasalle of the San Francisco Chronicle. And I meet new people all the time: my wonderful cousins in Montreal, and Ross Chen of www.lovehkfilm.com, to name a few.
Just to boil the pot further, let me list some of my self-made proscriptions which I feel have prevented me from useless cinematic distraction:
- No Adam Sandler. This should be self-explanatory, along with its obvious corollaries (like avoiding all Pauly Shore films). There's often a Sandler film out there, and not one reason to watch a single one.
- Don't watch too many Chang Cheh films in a row.
- Never watch a film with a single frame of Richard Gere's dopey face. During the handover-hoohah of 1997 (remember that?), there was speculation that Beijing would enforce censorship in Hong Kong. Those of us living here then were hoping those Krazy Kommies would simply ban all films with Richard Gere in a leading, major or minor role.
- No feature-length animated films.
- Avoid Michael Bay-directed movies like the plague. I recognize that he has value in lesser production-roles, but while Kate Beckinsale in a 40s nurse-uniform is a Damn Good Idea, there was little other excuse for PEARL HARBOR (2001), and kudos to the Washington Post critic who titled his review of that bomb "Snora, Snora, Snora."
- Chuck Norris is the punchline. Skip the joke.
- Most Korean movies are mediocre. I know I'll get flak for this, but while I've seen a few terrific Korean films, note the word FEW. Koreans are great people, and the business dynamic of their film industry is laudable (did you know that there's a law mandating that a certain percentage of Korea's box-office annually derive from local productions? This gives investors a built-in advantage, and is a unique form of laissez-faire subsidy).
But in general, I find most of the Korean films I've seen suffer from an unpleasant mixture of immature character-development—sometimes bordering on the juvenile—and sappy sentimentality. If you're rising out of your chair and yelling "what about [INSERT KOREAN FILM NAME HERE], you clabberhead?!?", consider this a numbers-game: watch ten Shaw Brothers films from the late 70s/early 80s, or ten Nikkatsu films from the late 60s, and you'll turn up several aces. Watch any Chu Yuan or Seijun Suzuki flick from those studios and you can't lose. That's what attracted me about Hong Kong films in the late 70s/early 80s: the "hit rate" was just so high. Not true of Korean films from any period, as far as I can tell.
- I won't watch short films, although I recognize that they have value. I'm not dissing shorts, I just don't watch. The exception here is BIRCH STREET GYM (1991) by Mike Wilkins and Stephen Kessler—I was fortunate to be invited to the San Francisco premiere and it's a great flick. It deserved its Academy Award nomination, and probably deserved to win (I didn't see whatever else was in contention and now I don't need to explain why).
Most of my other proscriptions are gut-feelings. Films like THE DA VINCI CODE or NATIONAL TREASURE won't cross my eyeballs. Why bother?
Of course I watch films all the time. What dismays me is the ones that should be lauded but are passed over in favor of tosh like some of what's mentioned above. Did you see Neil Marshall's THE DESCENT (2005) or Alfonso Cuaron's CHILDREN OF MEN (2006)? What about Takashi Miike's AUDITION (1999) or DEAD OR ALIVE (2002, *not* the more recent Corey Yuen video-game-chickfighting flick)? Did you catch the delirious CRANK (2007), starring Jason Statham and directed by a pair of young punks who rip around on rollerblades shooting digi-vid? Derek Yee's ONE NITE IN MONGKOK (2004)? Wayne Kramer's THE COOLER (2003) or RUNNING SCARED (2006)? I've watched the latter at least eight times, and every time, The Sequence with Vera Farmiga sinks the hooks in. After you see the film, you'll immediately know what I mean by The Sequence.
David Mamet's HOUSE OF GAMES (1987), THE SPANISH PRISONER (1997) or HOMICIDE (1991)? How often do you hear Mamet's name come up in film-discussions (America's greatest playwright, he also wrote the screenplays for GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS (1992) and WAG THE DOG (1997)? Have you been stunned by Ellen Page's performance in the two-person agonizer HARD CANDY (2005), and wondered why Page didn't get an Oscar nom...oh that's right, Canadians seem mysteriously pre-disqualified for Oscar contention, just ask David Cronenberg. And speaking of Cronenberg, what about the brace of films he's made starring Viggo Mortensen: A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (2006), where DC channels the noir beauty OUT OF THE PAST (1947), and EASTERN PROMISES (2007), with Naomi Watts as straight gal to Mortensen's Russian gangsta, so hard-boiled he puts cigarettes out on his tongue.
Did you even hear about any of these films? If you hang around me, yeah, because I yap about stuff I like all the time. If I taught Media 101, the first "texts" I'd give my students would be Billy Wilder's ACE IN THE HOLE (1951), Sidney Lumet and Paddy Chayefsky's NETWORK (1975) and the aforementioned WAG THE DOG. You'll learn more about mass media from those three films than from any number of "informed-insider" documentaries.
But of course I'd say that. I'm a film snob.
Here's some more fotos from Montréal:
My genial hosts, Jose and Ada, strike a pose.
Old and new architecture downtown: one reflects, the other doesn't.
You just learned a French word.
Fabulous stone buildings like this bring filmmakers' lenses to Montréal.
And here's that shot of my father at his art gallery, explaining something to some woman...quality's dodgy as it's scanned from a news clipping, but this shot could BE me in my mid-30s, uncanny...
Me: When I was a child, my parents wouldn't allow me to see films.
JW: Were they religious?
Me: No.
JW: Then they were art snobs.
Waters didn't phrase it as a question: he KNEW. It surprised me because we hadn't met before and he knew nothing about me. But he understood human nature.
Of course, I'd been in cinemas as a kid, and while my parents may have been art snobs, they were knowledgeable (my father ran an art gallery and repped a stable of obscure artists who, it's been said, are important) and entitled to their opinion. And while I love telling people I'm a film snob, that's not entirely accurate.
But i prefer my audio-visual arts in discrete chunks that retain the right to Bust Da Rules, and while television series may be well written and beautifully directed, their formats dictate certain conventions. It's part of the bargain between creator and audience. The audience knows about 20-25% of the content will be filler, providing them with bathroom breaks, time for a quick phone call or brief argument with spouse or pizza-delivery guy.
Films offer different guarantees. Sometimes, precious little is guaranteed, which makes trustworthy filmmakers an asset. Film directors can and do treat their audiences as thinking human beings who can follow visual cues or clues, and use deductive reasoning. Films can pick you up and shake you like a grizzly shakes a salmon. Pizzas will not be delivered to your cinema seat, and if you're sitting next to me, stop yakking to your date and turn off your god, damned, mobile, phone. You're not in your living room.
The potential for a mystery-ride is one reason I like films. I usually prefer to know only essential parameters about a film before watching it from beginning to end (although if I'm looking for entertainment, I'll check a sequel although almost all sequels are inferior to the first-in-the-series). I do like to know the running times: films which may deserve 90 minutes of my time may not deserve 140 minutes, for example. As I have restrictions on my film-viewing, some (likely a majority) are ruled out entirely. I have no opinion on them, because I don't see them.
For example, I have never seen Steven Spielberg's E.T. (1982). Why would I? This really upset people back in the early 80s, when some claimed, with a straight face, that it was the "best movie ever made." I have no idea what E.T.'s running time is, because I have no intention of seeing it. It may be the greatest flick ever, but I wouldn't know, because I'm not interested in watching it.
Always add a foto...it's 1996 and I'm on the set of Hong Kong film FIRST OPTION, a prequel to Gordon Chan's FINAL OPTION (1994). That's not a real policewoman, it's an actress getting into character.
I love a dame in a uniform. That's Gigi Leung at left, investigating snack options.
After you write a film book (I've written two), the social stakes are raised. People have expectations of any book, and as they naturally have their own opinions on films, can get feisty. When the first English-language book on Hong Kong movies came out (co-written by myself and Mike Wilkins) was published, the "fanboys" ripped into it on the alt.asian-movies newsgroup—and if you remember that one, you qualify as old-school!
The reason was simple: they knew the subject and what THEY would like to see in a book. And as their "book-of-the-mind" was perfect, as long as there was no actual book out there, the universe was in harmony. Publication ripped a hole in that delusion—the tome itself could not possibly satisfy everyone's individual vision. But it did get overwhelmingly positive reviews, from mainstream media as well as fanboys and fangirls.
I was and am a fanboy as well as a film snob. Filmmakers like Peter Greenaway, who complain that the technology has not advanced far enough to display their brilliance, drive me batso. The feature film as an art form has been codified since at least 1920, when DW Griffith made INTOLERANCE (in Martin Scorcese's excellent "A Personal Journey with Martin Scorsese Through American Movies" (1995), he credits Griffith with codifying the essential language of filmmaking...watch the DVD, he describes it far better than I ever could).
A shot of the "cinema" near the water, where I often watch films on my laptop.
I'm opinionated, and while I trust my instincts, I have been wrong many times and have admitted it when it's become clear me that I analyzed something incorrectly, missed something, or had an epiphany, or whatever. My main personal guides to film and other creative arts deserve mention here: Jim Morton (co-author, with Boyd Rice, of the seminal "Incredibly Strange Films" (1986), which belongs on every film scholar's bookshelf), Mike Wilkins (who immediately took to Hong Kong films, sussed his favorite genres and would meet me in San Francisco's Chinatown for bags of succulent dumplings and head-tossin'-witch-flicks at a moment's notice), KA Tarapata (the original dashboard-pounder), Dr Adam Knee (who wrote his PhD thesis on Hollywood sci-fi flicks of the 1950s and have I set a record for parenthetical remarks in a sentence yet, Doctor Knee?), Tim Youngs here in Hong Kong, and Tim Hallinan. There are others, like David Chute (who was more advanced on the Hong Kong spectrum than any Stateside gwailo fan in the 80s), the marvelous Andy Klein, the transcendent Wade Major, Mick Lasalle of the San Francisco Chronicle. And I meet new people all the time: my wonderful cousins in Montreal, and Ross Chen of www.lovehkfilm.com, to name a few.
Just to boil the pot further, let me list some of my self-made proscriptions which I feel have prevented me from useless cinematic distraction:
- No Adam Sandler. This should be self-explanatory, along with its obvious corollaries (like avoiding all Pauly Shore films). There's often a Sandler film out there, and not one reason to watch a single one.
- Don't watch too many Chang Cheh films in a row.
- Never watch a film with a single frame of Richard Gere's dopey face. During the handover-hoohah of 1997 (remember that?), there was speculation that Beijing would enforce censorship in Hong Kong. Those of us living here then were hoping those Krazy Kommies would simply ban all films with Richard Gere in a leading, major or minor role.
- No feature-length animated films.
- Avoid Michael Bay-directed movies like the plague. I recognize that he has value in lesser production-roles, but while Kate Beckinsale in a 40s nurse-uniform is a Damn Good Idea, there was little other excuse for PEARL HARBOR (2001), and kudos to the Washington Post critic who titled his review of that bomb "Snora, Snora, Snora."
- Chuck Norris is the punchline. Skip the joke.
- Most Korean movies are mediocre. I know I'll get flak for this, but while I've seen a few terrific Korean films, note the word FEW. Koreans are great people, and the business dynamic of their film industry is laudable (did you know that there's a law mandating that a certain percentage of Korea's box-office annually derive from local productions? This gives investors a built-in advantage, and is a unique form of laissez-faire subsidy).
But in general, I find most of the Korean films I've seen suffer from an unpleasant mixture of immature character-development—sometimes bordering on the juvenile—and sappy sentimentality. If you're rising out of your chair and yelling "what about [INSERT KOREAN FILM NAME HERE], you clabberhead?!?", consider this a numbers-game: watch ten Shaw Brothers films from the late 70s/early 80s, or ten Nikkatsu films from the late 60s, and you'll turn up several aces. Watch any Chu Yuan or Seijun Suzuki flick from those studios and you can't lose. That's what attracted me about Hong Kong films in the late 70s/early 80s: the "hit rate" was just so high. Not true of Korean films from any period, as far as I can tell.
- I won't watch short films, although I recognize that they have value. I'm not dissing shorts, I just don't watch. The exception here is BIRCH STREET GYM (1991) by Mike Wilkins and Stephen Kessler—I was fortunate to be invited to the San Francisco premiere and it's a great flick. It deserved its Academy Award nomination, and probably deserved to win (I didn't see whatever else was in contention and now I don't need to explain why).
Most of my other proscriptions are gut-feelings. Films like THE DA VINCI CODE or NATIONAL TREASURE won't cross my eyeballs. Why bother?
Of course I watch films all the time. What dismays me is the ones that should be lauded but are passed over in favor of tosh like some of what's mentioned above. Did you see Neil Marshall's THE DESCENT (2005) or Alfonso Cuaron's CHILDREN OF MEN (2006)? What about Takashi Miike's AUDITION (1999) or DEAD OR ALIVE (2002, *not* the more recent Corey Yuen video-game-chickfighting flick)? Did you catch the delirious CRANK (2007), starring Jason Statham and directed by a pair of young punks who rip around on rollerblades shooting digi-vid? Derek Yee's ONE NITE IN MONGKOK (2004)? Wayne Kramer's THE COOLER (2003) or RUNNING SCARED (2006)? I've watched the latter at least eight times, and every time, The Sequence with Vera Farmiga sinks the hooks in. After you see the film, you'll immediately know what I mean by The Sequence.
David Mamet's HOUSE OF GAMES (1987), THE SPANISH PRISONER (1997) or HOMICIDE (1991)? How often do you hear Mamet's name come up in film-discussions (America's greatest playwright, he also wrote the screenplays for GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS (1992) and WAG THE DOG (1997)? Have you been stunned by Ellen Page's performance in the two-person agonizer HARD CANDY (2005), and wondered why Page didn't get an Oscar nom...oh that's right, Canadians seem mysteriously pre-disqualified for Oscar contention, just ask David Cronenberg. And speaking of Cronenberg, what about the brace of films he's made starring Viggo Mortensen: A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (2006), where DC channels the noir beauty OUT OF THE PAST (1947), and EASTERN PROMISES (2007), with Naomi Watts as straight gal to Mortensen's Russian gangsta, so hard-boiled he puts cigarettes out on his tongue.
Did you even hear about any of these films? If you hang around me, yeah, because I yap about stuff I like all the time. If I taught Media 101, the first "texts" I'd give my students would be Billy Wilder's ACE IN THE HOLE (1951), Sidney Lumet and Paddy Chayefsky's NETWORK (1975) and the aforementioned WAG THE DOG. You'll learn more about mass media from those three films than from any number of "informed-insider" documentaries.
But of course I'd say that. I'm a film snob.
Here's some more fotos from Montréal:
My genial hosts, Jose and Ada, strike a pose.
Old and new architecture downtown: one reflects, the other doesn't.
You just learned a French word.
Fabulous stone buildings like this bring filmmakers' lenses to Montréal.
And here's that shot of my father at his art gallery, explaining something to some woman...quality's dodgy as it's scanned from a news clipping, but this shot could BE me in my mid-30s, uncanny...
commerce vs art
i like what you said korean movies -- i tried a few, didn't know what the fuss was about.
thanks for the advice, hope to turn to you again soon before i am discovered for the film fraud that i am.
john
I AM???
On the other hand, there's techno music, which you love, and country music, which you hate, and my positions are the opposite of yours in those areas. Although I have to admit that I'm not talking about big-hat country or (turn your head and cough, please) Shania Twain, which I probably hate more than you do. But Emmylou Harris, Mary Gauthier, the singing of Willie Nelson or Ray Price, the late, lamented Gram Parsons, chunks of Patty Griffin, Vince Gill's guitar playing -- oh, well, I could go on for pages.
I'm not actually so sure you're a film snob at all. Seems to me, you're just someone with a highly defined aesthetic and the self-confidence to proclaim it. I'd disagree with you in a few areas. Miyazaki's animated features have given me a lot of pleasure; I'm not as crazy about Mamet as you are; if I want to see an Alfonso Cuaron movie, it'll be "A Little Princess"; and there are some Korean movies ("Il Mare," for one) that I like a lot. I think in general I have more capacity for sentimentality than you do (country music, anyone?) and less patience with artists whose view of the world is unremittingly bleak, especially if it's also fashionably bleak. Actually, I'm sort of sick of bleak.
Gee, maybe I do know what I like.
Well, I have rattled on, haven't I? That's either the sign of a great post on your part or too much coffee on mine. Or both.
Tim
Great films for different reasons.
Rules are like pie crusts
Jim M.
Smell
-ST
replies
good rant. good to see someone brave enough to fly his snob flag high.
...like what you said korean movies -- i tried a few, didn't know what the fuss was about.
@john: thanks buddy. there ARE some good K-films out there, but i stand by what i wrote above.
+++++++++++++++++++
@Tim:
>> . . . one of your personal creative guides? Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek. I mean, I'm honored to be singled out, but I hardly know what I like myself. My own tastes seem to me to be almost completely unformed, except that I know what I absolutely hate, and ET and Peter Greenaway are at opposite ends of the spectrum of my film hates, so we're entirely in accord on that one.
heh heh, kind of boot-jacked u here...to me you're more muse and inspiration than guide-to-movies, but i did single you out because you do inspire, and you also comment. and you have the guts to start immediately talking about music, which the post certainly wasn't about. indicating that whatever might be unformed, your innate sense of blogosphere-anarchy is sharp as a straight-razor.
>> On the other hand, there's techno music, which you love
no. techno is much like everything else: at least 90% of it is crap. arpeggiated synths, mindless sampling and thoughtless song-selection are just some of my peeves. my tastes in this area are not random
>> and country music, which you hate
there are things ABOUT country music which i like, but if i had to list entire genres of music which "i hate" i wouldn't argue that country would be just about number one.
>> Although I have to admit that I'm not talking about big-hat country or (turn your head and cough, please) Shania Twain, which I probably hate more than you do.
almost certainly. Twain is a product, manufactured and packaged like a plastic bottle of Mountain Dew. both are disgusting and neither should be consumed.
>> But Emmylou Harris, Mary Gauthier, the singing of Willie Nelson or Ray Price, the late, lamented Gram Parsons, chunks of Patty Griffin, Vince Gill's guitar playing -- oh, well, I could go on for pages.
please do: you've got a blog, and it's an excellent one. i appreciate almost all these artists, believe it or not, and i too am sorry that Parsons departed way too early. that said, i don't spend time listening to them.
however, the list shows that you not only appreciate, but listen, and you've informed yourself, and all this is good. then again, you're one of two people i know with more than a cluster of brain cells who actually listens to country music. i'm sure there are more than two, but if i know any, they're not talking...
>> I'm not actually so sure you're a film snob at all. Seems to me, you're just someone with a highly defined aesthetic and the self-confidence to proclaim it.
thanks! on that u agree with John above, and were the three of us to hang out, we'd have some stellar discussions.
>> I'd disagree with you in a few areas.
good!
> Miyazaki's animated features have given me a lot of pleasure
great!! people should watch what they enjoy, something the film-festival-hairshirt crowd doesn't seem to get.
>> I'm not as crazy about Mamet as you are
sorry, his dialogue is killer, and while it's damn hard to find copies of THE SPANISH PRISONER and HOMICIDE, they are magnificent constructions. he's essentially a playwright. like me, he's fascinated by the Long Con, the motivations of crime, and a Chicagoan.
>> if I want to see an Alfonso Cuaron movie, it'll be "A Little Princess"
if you haven't seen the egregiously underrated CHILDREN OF MEN, i recommend it. if you have, and prefer ALP, great.
>> and there are some Korean movies ("Il Mare," for one) that I like a lot.
me too. i just didn't name them. i've been burned too many times to sample Korean flicks at random. it's a curious vibe: i loved CHRISTMAS IN AUGUST, but i couldn't explain why.
>> I think in general I have more capacity for sentimentality than you do (country music, anyone?) and less patience with artists whose view of the world is unremittingly bleak...
i LOVE this paradigm. and that's why i stuck yr name on that list: yr unedited thoughts i find not only enjoyable, but helpful. thanks.
PART TWO OF REPLY BELOW...
Replies 2: The Sequel
>> How about The Machinist
hi Cordelia! THE MACHINIST wasn't bad, but it was (get this, Tim) just too bleak for me. plus i'm not a fan of actors modifying themselves...just too much novelty-factor. Roger Ebert wrote that the emaciated Christian Bale is just too distracting in that film, and i concur.
The Lookout
>> i think Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a fabulous young talent. catch him in BRICK (2006). i cued up THE LOOKOUT, which i did like, to watch again soon--thanks for the reminder.
>> Pi?
Darren Aronofsky not only made an excellent low-budget film with PI (Tim Youngs told me about that one years ago, i've seen it twice), but kickstarted his career with it. i prefer PI to his later, more expensive films.
if u like PI, definitely catch PRIMER (2004).
>> Brazil?
liked that one a lot, the backstory is told in a 3-DVD set, along with Terry Gilliam's original cut. i might catch up with that one again.
>> The Grifters?
you've got good taste, Cordelia. THE GRIFTERS (1990) is an excellent crime film at a time when crime weren't fashionable, i've seen it three times.
>> 12 Angry Men?
amazingly, i only saw that one recently. Jack Lemmon pushed that project through, and it shows the power of dialogue and characters. if my list was longer, it would have been on there...
...even so, there are films ahead of it. as you've made a solid list (and thanks again), i'll have to mention Orson Welles's TOUCH OF EVIL (1958), PSYCHO (1960), ALL ABOUT EVE (1950), THE ASPHALT JUNGLE (1950), and a bunch of others. but as i said, i could yap about this stuff all day..
+++++++++++++++++++
@ Jim: always good to read your comments!
>> Rules are like pie crusts
My only hard and fast rule is to not have any hard and fast rules.
yeah, but you lack that fascist gene. straighten that tie, soldier!
>> Avoiding Richard Gere is a pretty good rule of thumb
never fails!
>> Adam Sandler ... Steve Gutenberg
more idiots to avoid.
>> Michael Bay is batting a perfect zero so far. No film yet worth watching; wotta guy!
as my pal Rico Flan said after watching TRANSFORMERS, "i want those two hours of my life back."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
@ 1minutefilmreview.blogspot.com
thanks, whoever you are. this isn't really a film-review blog, but i reserve the right to spew on about whatever i want.
comments thread remains open for more lists, observations, disagreements and chitchat. meanwhile, i'm bloggin' about sump'n else.
Re: Smell
for more titles, check my response to Cordelia below, her suggestions are great and i throw in some more.
s
What about