Very interesting question; I'm not sure. People's expectations going into a film and their opinions walking out of a film are never isolated, they're not floating on some asteroid thousands of miles from anything else. They might talk to somebody else about and decide they like it or decide they don't, they might read reviews, watch trailers, compare it without having seen it to other films.

Films relate to one another; it's a self-reflexive, intertextual medium, in itself and in our appreciation of it. There was a Swedish director, I forget who, who once claimed he had never ever seen a film. I found that hilarious and fascinating, and would, for the sole purposes of myth, like to believe it was true.

Herzog says, "Cinema is not the art of scholars, but of illiterates", which I take to mean several things, but here am going to use it to argue that the more educated we are outside of Cinema or cinematic practices, the less valid our appreciation of it is. Or perhaps it might even include education as regards film studies too - indeed, many people who actually study film study around it, skirting over issues such as social or economic representations of the time and culture in which it was made.

My dad isn't very educated. Not academically. He neverwent to university, and dropped out of high school as soon as he could. He hates his job, reads very little, but loves some of the films I suggest to him. As an example, we watched Tarkovsky's Stalker (1979) on the big screen together; it was my first time, his first time, and we both came out thinking it was fantastic. I connected with its existentialism and the cinematic shaping of that philosophy, whereas he openly admitted, "I don't have a clue what they're talking about, but it was fantastic." He liked the scenery, the depressing setting, the generally slow pace and consistent rhythm of the film.

I've been considering lately whether the most valid (or raw) response to a film might be from somebody such as Herzog's mysterious hero Kaspar Hauser, who, in The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser (1974) is locked away in a tower all of his life, and then released into society with absolutely no education as to what he is, or what the world is. He's old enough to move, eat, and his five senses are intact and sharp, but he hasn't communicated to anybody in his whole life. He has never seen beyond the stone walls of his cage.

I haven't seen the film, but I will hazard a guess and say that Tarkovsky might have had both the factors in his mind while filming it, i.e. existentialism as the theme and the cinematographic aspects. Because of your academic background you picked up the existentialism philosophy and because of the non-academic background, your father picked up the ambiance part. Maybe the appeal for that particular setting has something to do with his current state of mind? Do you think that is likely or do you feel that his good response to that setting is purely based on the director's work?



No, I disagree. Since that person has not had any social interaction, he will miss out entirely on several themes that a director wants to explore through a film. That is like asking a small kid to appreciate a complex film like Godfather, for example. Your hero is identical to a very young (and crudely put, unprogrammed) kid.

Or like showing something like, say, Tellytubbies to Roger Ebert? The "complexity" works both ways, surely.

Imagine if somebody had never seen anything before, and they watched a Norman McLaren short experimental film. I don't the name, but I remember one where it was just a pink frame with yellow lines that he'd drawn onto the celluloid directly, and these lines moved and complimented the soundtrack, which was a succession of electronic sounds.

Completely abstract stuff, the meaning and appreciation of it entirely self-contained. It's the kind of stuff people call "artsy fartsy", because they cannot even begin to comprehend something whose meaning does not speak out, but draws in. In fact, it doesn't even draw in; it's just within its own self-contained existence.

I saw 120 films in January.

Here's a link.

Conan the Barbarian ***
(First Viewing)

A village is attacked by the evil ruler of the Snake Cult, Thulsa Doom and his evil warriors, when Thulsa Doom and his warriors kills his parents, a young boy named Conan is enslaved. Years later, Conan grows up and becomes a mighty warrior and is trained as a fighter. After years as a slave and as a gladiator, Conan is set free. Conan sets out on a quest as he vows to avenge his parents and solve the riddle of steel. Joined by a archer named Subotai, a beautiful thief who falls in love with Conan, Valeria and a Chinese wizard, Conan and his companions sets out to rescue Princess Yasmina, daughter of King Osric, from the Snake Cult, and get his revenge on Thulsa Doom and avenge his parents.

I was really surprised they got James Earl Jones to do this movie. However, it was great and I'm glad it wasn't really cheesy or dated. Some beautiful shots, particularly at Thulsa's "home" or temple. My favorite shot was probably at night with Thulsa at the top of the temple with the extras at the base with torches (just very beautifully shot). My favorite scene was probably when Conan stole his gem back and killed that giant snake, or when he punched that camel

Conan the Destroyer **
(First Viewing)

Princess Jehnna has been captured by a sorcerer, so the evil queen Taramis (who wants to sacrifice Jehnna and take the throne for ever) asks from Conan to find her and bring her back to the castle. Conan accepts, because Taramis has magical powers and thus she is the only person who can bring his dead love back in life.

I REALLY cannot believe they cast Wilt Chamberlain in this movie. Not that he did a bad job acting but this was his ONLY acting part in a movie I believe. This movie seemed more slower paced than the original and just wasn't as captivating. However, it was great to see Ursa from Superman II, Sarah Douglas, in another movie outside of the Man of Steel.

What the hell?!?!?!?! I pull my head out of my ass, and God blinks.

First, Irish raped REPO MAN. Then, he urinated over the great THE THING. BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA gets defecated upon.

Yet for once, he gets the opinion right on a great 80's movie.

Donner's SUPERMAN and Nolan's BATMAN BEGINS start off as great myths that end up abandoning the mythic storytelling for finales full only of action sequences. I really love those movies, but you know I'm right.

CONAN THE BARBARIAN is maybe the only comic book "mythology" movie from Hollywood that begins and concludes as an outright satisfying myth of adventure and in storytelling.

Maybe its because of writer/director John Milius. He's more known as the right-wing gun nut who happened to be a scriptwriter of APOCALYPSE NOW, helmed the infamous RED DAWN, and the basis for John Goodman's character in THE BIG LEBOWSKI. Yet politics aside, Milius is a very philosophical writer with brains, and also not wanting to be a pussy in terms of action.

I mean Irish, you would agree that there is two thing about CONAN THE BARBARIAN that you won't ever see in Hollywood with such "comic book fare." One, the R-rating. When people get slashed, they get SLICED. People get rammed hard. There is nothing kiddie about this material.

Second, the finale. Any other comic book action movie, it would be yet another boring-ass finale fight between the hero and the villain. Instead, Milius rehashes the ending of APOCALYPSE NOW, and it actually works better for CONAN than it did for AN.

As for CONAN THE DESTROYER, its pathetic. Basically Dino DeLaurentiis got pissed that Milius told him to fuck off, so Milius was canned, and the movie's approach went from a hard-R to a PG-rating. The idea was that the sequel would earn more than BARBARIAN did, with the bigger tent theory.

The problem? the sequel grossed LESS than BARBARIAN. Besides, DESTROYER was mediocre, Wilt the Stilt not withstanding.

If anything, there are only two movies where Arnold Schwarzenegger actually acted, and acted WELL. That would be THE TERMINATOR, and CONAN. With his own hand, Arnold made himself King of Hollywood for a few years...but that is another story.

CONAN THE BARBARIAN (1982) - ****1/2
CONAN THE DESTROYER (1984) - **

Glad we agree on Conan the Barbarian. I was watching this with 2 friends and before hand, I asked them which one they like best and no one was willing to say anything (I think it was because they were Destroyer fans and that movie sucked). But as I said in my review, Barbarian surprised me and was a great movie. And I agree with everything you said about it being the only comic book "mythology" movie from Hollywood that begins and concludes as an outright satisfying myth of adventure and in storytelling. And yes, the finale was great as well (beautifully shot).

The Covenant * 1/2
(First Viewing)

Four young men who belong to a supernatural legacy are forced to battle a fifth power long thought to have died out. Another great force they must contend with is the jealousy and suspicion that threatens to tear them apart.

The first half of the movie was pretty decent, but once the fifth "brother" was discovered, it just went down hill from there. The man wasn't a very good villain and the final scene between him and the main star was awful. Definitely an overuse of bubble "fireballs" that made it feel as if I was watching Mortal Kombat or something along those lines. Again, it started off fine but just ran outta steam halfway through.

Irish, what you expect from the infamous Renny Harlin?

Apparently not a whole lot. I didn't research him before, but now looking at his previous work: Die Hard 2, Cliffhanger, Cutthroat Island, Driven and Exorcist: The Beginning, it's no wonder. I thought this movie would be pure sh*t going into it and the only reason I watched it is because I borrowed the DVD from a friend.

The U.S. vs. John Lennon ** 1/2
(First Viewing)

A documentary on the life of John Lennon, with a focus on the time in his life when he transformed from a musician into an antiwar activist.

A very informative documentary that was put together very nicely. I didn't realize John Lennon was such a threat to the establishment and all of his obstacles with the U.S. Government.

Red Sonja ** 1/2
(First Viewing)

The tyrant Gedren seeks the total power in a world of barbarism. She raids the city Hablac and kills the keeper of a talisman that gives her great power. Red Sonja, sister of the keeper, sets out with her magic sword to overthrow Gedren. The talisman's master Kalidor follows to protect her.

I'm really surprised that I enjoyed this movie and the Conan's as much as I did. I thought Brigitte Nielsen and Arnold Schwarzenegger worked very well together. Visually, they were well paired on screen as they favor each other in height. It would have looked awkward to have someone a foot smaller than him. My only real beef with the film was annoying 13-year-old Ernie Reyes Jr. who plays Prince Tarn. I wish Arnold would have just been her companion throughout the movie and they could have cut out Ernie Reyes Jr. and his sidekick.

Bridgette Nelson. From RED SONJA, to pairing up with Flavor Flav.

Fuck her.

Anyway, SONJA is a very average and forgettable adventure movie, yet its the crazy stuff behind the scenes that is more interesting. Ahhhnuld gets top billing, but try to count how many minutes he is in the movie. Under 10 minutes sounds about right. Yet Ahhhnuld made the movie basically to get out of the bitch hell that is a Dino DeLaurentiis contract.

Besides, the movie is known in some syndication prints and foreign territories as CONAN THE WARRIOR, despite -Zero- mention or appearance of the King of the Ancient World. But that is another story....

DRESSED TO KILL (1980) - ***1/2

Superbly-controversial box-office hit from (underrated) filmmaker Brian DePalma that was derided as a misgynostic sex-ploitation flick full of poor DePalma trying to ape Hitchcock as much as possible.

Pfft, whatever.

DePalma gets trashed by the film geek chorus for wanting to make Hitchcock-inspired movies, yet when Quentin Tarantino makes a blaxploitation(JACKIE BROWN) or outright B-action fare (KILL BILL), what does the same chorus do? They applaud QT. What's the difference?

DRESSED TO KILL script-wise feels like an utterly R-rating envelope pushing(or perhaps a tear here and there) package wrapping of an otherwise very commercial-friendly story of a present.

Yet for such pleasing thriller material, DePalma directs with such flair, style, and such great soft-touch cinematography that he pushes his own screenplay into a rather nice thriller.

Epic Movie **
(First Viewing)

The twisted minds of two of the six writers of "Scary Movie" tackle the biggest mega-blockbusters of all time in "Epic Movie." The story centers on four not-so-young orphans: one raised by a curator at the Louvre (where an albino assassin lurks), another a refugee from Mexican "libre" wrestling, the third a recent victim of snakes on her plane, and the fourth a "normal" resident of a mutant "X"-community. The hapless quartet visits a chocolate factory, where they stumble into an enchanted wardrobe that transports them to the land of Gnarnia (with a "G"). There they meet a flamboyant pirate captain and earnest students of wizardry - and join forces with, among others, a wise-but-horny lion to defeat the evil White Bitch of Gnarnia.

Not as bad as I originally thought it'd be and definitely better than Date Movie. At least they're getting better. I had heard maybe a year or so ago about a movie like this was supposed to be attached to the Scary Movie franchise (I think it was going to be Scary Movie 5). I guess this was the result of it. Yes ronnie, your predication came true, I enjoyed Epic Movie!

Agreed.

I suspect critics that give QT a pass do so because they do not have an attachment to blaxploitation, B-movie, grindhouse, Shaw Brothers, Argento, and other stuff that QT homages or lifts. With DePalma however, he's touching a giant of cinema.

The fact that Pauline Kael championed DePalma might have something to do with the polarization.

Sadly, reevaluation of DePalma's artistry might come much later via revisionists - some detractors will become supporters. Hitchcock wasn't taken seriously for a bit there.

Hollywoodland ** 1/2
(First Viewing)

Hollywoodland is a uniquely compelling exploration of fame and identity, inspired by one of Hollywood's most infamous real-life mysteries. The film is the feature directorial debut for Allen Coulter (Emmy and DGA Award nominee for his work on The Sopranos and Sex and the City). June 16, 1959. The glamour of Tinseltown permanently fades for actor George Reeves, the heroic Man of Steel on TV's Adventures of Superman, as the actor dies in his Hollywood Hills home. Felled by a single gunshot wound, Reeves (portrayed in Hollywoodland by Academy Award winner Ben Affleck) leaves behind a fiancée - aspiring starlet Leonore Lemmon (Robin Tunney) - and millions of fans who are shocked by his death. But it is his grieving mother, Helen Bessolo (Lois Smith), who will not let the questionable circumstances surrounding his demise go unaddressed. Helen seeks justice, or at least answers. The Los Angeles Police Department closes the case, but Helen hires - for $50 a day - private detective Louis Simo (Academy Award winner Adrien Brody). Simo soon ascertains that the torrid affair Reeves had with Toni Mannix (Academy Award nominee Diane Lane), the wife of MGM studio executive Eddie Mannix (Academy Award nominee Bob Hoskins), might hold the key to the truth. But truth and justice are not so easily found in Hollywood. Simo pursues dangerous and elusive leads in both high and low places and, in trying to turn up the heat, risks getting burned. The detective also uncovers unexpected connections to his own life as the case turns more personal and he learns more about Reeves himself. Behind the icon was a complex man who gave his life to Hollywood in more ways than one.

I've never really been a fan of Adrien Brody, but he turned my head in King Kong and he did so again with Hollywoodland. I really enjoyed his performance as a private investigator who's a total dick just to "turn a buck." Diane Lane was great as usual and Ben Affleck was great as George Reeves. I'm glad Robin Tunney and Kathleen Robertson were cast as sister's because I don't get to see enough of them onscreen.

Hercules In New York **
(First Viewing)

The divine Hercules is bored by his life on mount Olympus and asks father Zeus for a vacation on Earth. His request is denied, but by an accident with one of Zeus' lightning bolts he's thrown into New York. His inexperience with civilization and his arrogance lead into problems - until a college professor's daughter helps him to acclimatize. He starts to like living on earth and wants to stay for longer, even when father Zeus sends Nemesis to punish him.

How did this classic ever slip through the cracks of time? It's a good thing my friend is an avid Schwarzenegger fan at our other location or else I would have never even known of this movies existence. Put simply, it was enjoyable as a C-movie. Arnold Stang was great as the squirrely 'Pretzie' character who's really Hercules only friend on Earth. The film was poorly shot and editted (especially in one scene that's suppose to be Mount Olympus while car horns are still audible in the background).

The Wicker Man (1973) **
(First Viewing)

Sergeant Neil Howie arrives on a Scottish island looking for a missing teenager girl, Rowan Morrison. The place belongs to Lord Summerisle and is famous because of their plantation of apples and other fruits and their harvest. Sgt. Howie realizes that the locals are pagans, practicing old rituals, and Rowan is probably alive and being prepared to be sacrificed. The end of the story is a tragic surprise.

I really don't know which version of the film I like more, the 1973 or 2006 version. There are some elements of the old version that I like more, but then again there's some elements of the new version that I prefer. Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee did a great job with their respectful, butting heads characters. I like one main aspect of the film that I found superior in the 2006 version was the island was predominately female. I think it added more because Nicholas Cage intrudes onto their island (which is offensive enough to them), but the fact that he's a man I think adds a little more salt to the wound. Whereas the 1973 version, it was a prediminately male island which I didn't think worked as well.

Man who knew too much *
My third Hitchcock movie. Full of suspense, but what an anti climax. The movie is full of great sounds and excellent photography. I wish the ending was a little more satisfying

I was hoping he would get an oscar nomination for this role. So did I hope for DiCaprio for Departed. I was wrong on both

Which version was it?

I agree.

I also think its because trashing QT is so "not" cool. He's groovy. Nobody wants to look like a dick in trashing or attacking any part of his movies.

DePalma? Shit, I've seen Slavic whores treated better than DePalma. Save for SCARFACE and its rapper fanboy legion(that miss the point of the 3rd act), beating up DePalma for his "Hitchcock-fetish" is fair game. Its accepted.

Remember, most people have the mentality of following the pack. Right Irish?

The 1956 remade version in color.

The Maltese falcon *
I don't know what to expect from 40's movie, but I didn't quite enjoy it. All that smooth talking and style and getting away with all the dangers is stretching it a bit too far. Totally unconvincing stuff. And everyone with strange mannerisms and what not, looks amateurish and annoying. Anyway, I'll be careful venturing into the critically acclaimed zone from that era.

I agree and as I've said before, I think that's why I don't "love" some movies as much as others. Some recent examples include Casino Royale, Borat, Napoleon Dynamite, etc. But I agree that De Palma gets raped (I still feel his Untouchables is an underrated crime/gangster film).

I didn't think Ben deserved an Oscar nomination, but I'm with you on Leo (he deserved one).

Legend * 1/2
(First Viewing)

A magical adventure which features elves, demons and other mythical creatures. Darkness, the personification of evil, plans to disperse eternal night in the land where this story takes place, by killing every unicorn in the world. Although he looks unbeatable, Jack and his friends are disposed to do everything to save the world and princess Lili (who Darkness intends to make his wife) from the hands of this evil monster.

The costume and makeup done for Tim Curry was amazing. He and Mia Sara did great jobs with their respectful roles, but ultimately, I found this movie to be very dull and boring (except for when Tim Curry was on screen of course).

The Quiet ** 1/2
(First Viewing)

Dot (Belle), a young deaf and mute woman, is sent to live with her godparents (Falco and Donovan) and their daughter (Cuthbert). The new addition to the household realizes that everything is not copacetic in the home, and the family's dark come to light.

Camilla Belle and Elisha Cuthbert really do a great job in this movie and really expand their range as actresses. Some beautiful use of Beethoven music played throughout the film. The lighting and directing were enjoyable as well.