The Bad Sleep Well *** 1/2
(First Viewing)

A Prairie Home Companion ***
(First Viewing)

25th Hour
***.5/4

Edmond **
(First Viewing)

Somebody should edit the "Discussion" out of the subject.

The most important thing is that there is the possibility to discuss. It's optional, not obliged.

I think you're right, Mick. This has (sadly) become another Games thread spinoff..... the only thing left to do is combine "What I ate while watching a movie". :rolleyes:

The idea of this is to DISCUSS film. What you liked about it (or didn't like).... what the movie is about.... your recommendation for others to see it, etc.

Too many of the threads that get replies end up being lists, not discussions. Thats sad. I hate to see someone post a response without giving any "why" the member wrote what he did. Come on people, if you have something to say, say it!!

Well discuss, eh?

How about if I take a Cleveland Steamer on poor HOLLYWOODLAND, an average if expensive HBO-like movie that somehow escaped the tube and went to theaters. HOWEVER, it says something that Ben Affleck is the best thing going for HOLLYWOODLAND, and this coming from a guy that hated that fuck hack's guts. But yeah, He does good, and I wouldn't be surprised, nor angry, if he got a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination. Besides, Matt Damon has to stop paying for his pal's electric bills, right?

But BLACK DAHLIA...ohh, that deserves a major review...it leaves one with a smile! :p

Hollywoodland does sound interesting. As a kid I watched Superman and remember his death/suicide was such a shock. However, I thought it was concluded that it was suicide and although I've heard the rumors that it was murder, I don't know the circumstances that make some think it was murder.

I admit however, I don't really know anything about Reeves personal life at all. I probably will end up renting it at some point.


TIS

The movie itself, despite the melodramatic and conspiracy subplots, does leave this impression that Superman did blow his brains out all over his Fortress of Solitude. I have to agree with that assessment as well.

Interestingly, I remember reading a piece once written by Mark Hamill. Yes, Luke Skywalker, but a major comics nerd he still, and as a kid, like many of the 1950s, he loved that SUPERMAN series. He wrote of how Reeves' suicide was like the first "close" person to have died that he cared about. Real riveting stuff.

Assigning star ratings without further elaboration is an insult to a work of art. It's reductive, scientific and without logic, since, without an opinion to say why, it creates an inconsistent list of films you've seen and "judged".

Cinema is Dead around here.

How is it an insult? I agree with Enzo, it's optional and if anyone wishes to know more about a movie they need only to ask. I post reviews when I'm in the mood or when I feel a movie deserves it.

We haven't seen you, ronnie (a little bit), DVC, Don Andrew, Vercetti, etc. posting here lately

Jet Li's Fearless - ****/4

I went to this movie just for the martial arts action, but it actually had a very good story. Too bad that Jet Li suposedly won't have any more martial arts movies.

I saw Hollywoodland and the Black Dahlia, and personaly I thought that Hollywoodland was much better than Dahlia.

Hollywoodland - ***.5/4

The Black Dahlia - **.5/4

I think this is very hypocritical of you, someone who in his proviews never bothers to say what he likes or dislikes about a film, but delivers a rather dull and impersonal 2-3 sentences simply stating what the film contains. If anything, reducing cinema to words is the insult to art.

Any reaction to a film is personal, surely. Because I refrain from the first person doesn't mean I'm speaking for anybody else but myself. Whether or not my résumés are dull is up to whomever reads them, I suppose, but they're not merely synopses. Are they?

My last five Proviews were as follows:

Irréversible (four stars out of four)
What begins as a brutally, disturbingly violent film turns out to be a calmly, gently uplifting one - but for the fact the narrative order is reversed (or is it?). Noé films in long-takes, with a swirling camera constantly, and frustratingly, always moving; the pivotal moment is the rape scene, for which the camera finally settles on one axis, and shows us the shocking incident with an unflinching gaze, the one time we'd prefer to move elsewhere. The use of sound is fantastic.

Top Gun (one star)
Cruise has developed drastically as an actor, but here he plays the familiar role of his early career: the arrogant rebel destined for success, with his biggest adversity being his own ego. Formulaic stuff, not to mention one of the cheesiest films ever made, but there are some impressive shots of distant planes against sunsets. It probably boasts the most dangerous level of testosterone ever produced in a man's action film (the oily flesh on show in the volleyball scene being a notable example), and the line which comes from an angry higher-up at one point, "I want some butts!" rings alarming bells.

The Shining (one star)
Popular horror film; many call it the best. Its most effective element are the long, screeching drones, at their most atmospheric when Kubrick cuts between silent screaming faces and the best shot of the film: an elevator hallway filling up with blood.

Pride and Prejudice (2005) (two stars)
Often brilliant to look at - some of the early establishing shots are very impressive, and Darcy's final emergence through the fog is irresistible. The dance scenes are a treat, with the camera tracking over several separate conversations at once, interweaving as the participants move around. As a contemporary adaptation of a classic novel already famous as a BBC TV series, its aesthetic comes as a pleasant surprise.

Pulp Fiction (three stars)
Responsible, so far, for an endless list of imitations, though this clever, verbose and thoroughly self-indulgent piece remains incomparable. It is a confident mix of written wit and complimentary visuals; first viewings offer laughs and pleasure in the script, but it's Tarantino's camera, perhaps overlooked at first, which cranks up the aesthetic.

I try, wherever possible, to make the critique exclusive to the film. I read many film reviews (even ones I've written in the past) and what is written could have applied to any film. I'm against adjectives, negative or positive, without elaboration, the same way that I'm against star ratings without further elaboration (and aren't star ratings merely just another adjective?).

If anything, I'm trying to use words (which are inadequate enough) to enhance my own understanding of a film. I don't mean understanding its narrative or story, but valuing its cinematic aspects. And that's why in my Proviews you find that "impersonality" (that is, they're precisely personal to the individual film).

I love Duck Soup, and I love Tarkovsky's Stalker. But "Fantastic, I love it" would be a pretty reductive response to either if I was to place the two reviews together for comparison, no?

If any of you want my impressions about any of these movies in a little more detail than I already provided, let me know:
Illusionist, Black Dahlia, Hollywoodland, The Descent.

I too prefer more discussion about movies here.

Then why specifically make a thread titled Discussion? Why not just call it "Rate the last movie you just watched [out of four stars or whatever]"?

Words are an inadequate substitute for emotions, but it's even worse to be lazy about it. My signature on the film board reads: "Just as the best way of responding to someone when they say hello to you is to say hello back, the most valid reponse to Cinema is to make a film." Which is the main problem I have against so-called academics such as Ebert or whomever. They're like war journalists who've never been to the front.

I love Cinema. I absolutely love it. I'd die for it. And I'm not kidding. But I don't see any passion coming from anybody else.

IMO shining is a masterpiece. The atmosphere Kubrick creates is just amazing. Probably if one were to watch it alone on a cold night, it might have a better effect. Jack Nicholson's transformation from a normal guy to a 'possessed' man is brilliant. I also think that it was a clever idea to make the hotel as one of the characters. If any of you hasn't watched it, do watch it. I like it more than "A clockwork Orange" and "Full Metal Jacket", the only other movies of Kubrick that I have watched.

Oh Ryan Taylor, why oh why is HOLLYWOODLAND better than the filthy enjoyable pulp thriller BLACK DAHLIA? You know, elaborate yourself because, your James Dean avatar doesn't cut it.

I gotta disagree with Capo, a guy I do respect, on one review.

THE SHINING (1980) - *****

What makes Kubrick's horror masterpiece a hallmark of the horror genre of American cinema is that it accomplished something that few, if any, have actually acheived.

THE SHINING, a superior dramatic treatment of the same plot and storyline based on Stephen King's alcoholic, feel-good ending morality tale(where can even argue that the book's optimistic ending for the protagonist is partly based on King's own struggles with alcoholism), is truely a Gothic literary film.

No, not the goths like those fat girls that like to dress in black over at the local mall, or those depressed Emos that should just get it over with, and kill themselves. I mean Gothic Literature of the 19th century, and continued in intervening revival periods in the 20th century.

As wikipedia describes Gothic Fiction?: "Prominent features of gothic fiction include terror (both psychological and physical), mystery, the supernatural, ghosts, haunted houses and Gothic architecture, castles, darkness, death, decay, doubles, madness (especially mad women), secrets, hereditary curses, persecuted maidens and so on."

Certainly alot of details, including the Overlook Hotel(which looks like a castle fortress in the mountains with its own gothic-inspired architecture) does make my point credible.

Hell, THE SHINING was the last movie that Ebert put in his GREAT MOVIES list before he got sick. At least somebody is in my corner.

You talk about the films as if they were affecting someone other than yourself.

"Popular horror film; many call it the best."

"Noé films in long-takes, with a swirling camera constantly, and frustratingly, always moving; the pivotal moment is the rape scene, for which the camera finally settles on one axis, and shows us the shocking incident with an unflinching gaze, the one time we'd prefer to move elsewhere."

I do enjoy reading people's comments on films more when they talk in first person. Cinema, when stripped down, is really an interaction between director and viewer. It's a form of communication. The reason we watch films is due to an infatuation of some sort; we want to experience something life-changing, or at least something that will affect the way we think or feel, or even leave an imprint on our minds. I don't feel you project that in your proviews for some of your favorite films.

I'm not implying that you should not talk about the actual film at all, and simply type things like, "omg i luvd it" and "dis movee iz mu lief," I just feel the way you express your love for certain films comes off as a bit dull and anti-climactic.

To me, Mista Mista writes the perfect proviews. He manages to provide insight into the positive and/or negative qualities of the film, while still expressing raw emotion and personal bias. Keep it up Mista.

I dunno DVC, what about MY reviews?

Dude. Thanks.

I always found your reviews to seemingly be discarding the film as a movie so to speak, discarding the ideas of characters and the world within the world and whatnot. I seem to find myself always reading about the actors or the historical context of the film in your reviews. I mean I'd have to sit and study one to pinpoint my feelings on your work, but overall they're different, good but different.

***OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT***

This thread has officially been renamed "Rate the last movie you just watched!" (Personal opinions and or reflections on the work are optional)

I know, laziness is one of my few flaws :p

You know, I sort of now remember why I actually wrote real reviews, for money, most of the time anyway now.

Oh Hagen, if you continue this thought process evolution of yours, you'll end up like Capo: Lots of great words, but little if any that actually connect logic to review-readers themselves.

Besides, when I'm done with my BLACK DAHLIA review, I'll show why it fucks HOLLYWOODLAND up its melodramatic ass.

Sorry if you interpreted my comments in a negative way Ronnie. Wasn't meant that way.

My film "reviews", however brief, assume that the reader is in fact myself. It's the only way I can assign star ratings with confidence, and the only way I can feel comfortable in saying what is good and what is bad.

But I guess that I'm not primarily interested in loving or hating a film. I can enjoy anything, given the right context; what you're reading is, I suppose, a very concise textual analysis, wherever possible. I'm interested in how cinematic a film is. Which is why I am frustrated and disappointed by people who love films "because it had a great story". What the hell is cinematic about a story?

I don't use first-person because I don't have to. It's a given (or should be) that what I am saying is coming from me, from my mind, from my personal reaction to what I've just witnessed.

What is the purpose of writing these "Proviews", anyway? To recommend, or dissuade, to other film lovers. But I don't believe in "taste", good or bad. I could never say with full confidence, for instance, whether or not you'll absolutely love a film. I never hype films like that up. And likewise, I would never say, "Never see this film; avoid it at all costs". I believe my way of reviewing is more effective, at least to me,as regards recommendation: you can read my response to a film and say whether or not it sounds like something you might be interested in. But at the same time, if it happens to be something you might consider watching yourself, you're not going to go into it with too high or too low an expectation.

What's the point in saying, "I love the film" when it's clear that I do, giving it four stars? My words should compliment the star rating, not repeat it.

A very fair point Capo.

Thing is, and sadly Hagen along with many other reviewers, seem stuck on the process of DEDUCATION, instead of INDUCTION.

Deducting reviews is where you take a film, and you strip the movie apart, and automatic subtraction occurs, to which then the film is criticized for "it could have been great, if only BLAH and BLAH". Thus, people "deduct" points, say 100 being MASTERPIECE, until the reviewer is done with their deduction, onto the final score.

As I see it, along with others who follow the Induction process, we actually GIVE points to films for cool shit. A point there, a point there. Perhaps the cinematography is beautiful. Maybe the editing kicks ass the lord. Thing is, we add up all the things we liked about the movie, and then see our score.

Let's consider these two schools of criticism compared to a movie I recently reviewed: Michael Cimino's YEAR OF THE DRAGON (1985).

The New York Times review, which you can dig up over at the NYT website, really blasted the film as a "great film imploded within" and some pretentious ramblings I still don't compute. Either way, its a decent example of a deductive matter of reviewing.

Check MY review of it in the BB.Net archives, and notice how that I gave points to Rourke's acting work, Cimino's nice detail for really a genre-fluffer material piece, and so on, and so on. I didn't subtract points or star-ratings for my problems with the picture that I noticed in my review.

P.S. - Hagen, dude you didn't hurt my feelings. I mean, why should I be pissed when basically, you said that you liked my reviews?

I only wrote that bit of constructive criticism towards you because, well honestly, I didn't understand your post. "Err What sonny?!?"

It happens, don't let it bother you.

Ronnie, a short point on my star ratings:

No stars - Ordinary or worse.
One star - Good; recommended.
Two stars - Great; highly recommended.
Three stars - Excellent; essential viewing.
Four stars is an extension on three stars, and marks a film of evolving 'depth' over several viewings.

Anyway, I think The Shining is good. I love the tracking shots of the kid on his bike and the difference in sound as he goes over different surfaces.

But after reading your response of the film, I must ask a question: Is it a great film or merely a lesson in how to adapt a gothic novel?