criterionforum.org

It's so much better.

Well I never explicitly said it's better. I said Tarantino thinks the '83 is better and you agreed, I said I prefer the Godard. There's no way to prove something is better. I guess you could point out the flaws of one and trumpet the strengths of the other. In which case been too long for me to be any more specific than I don't like Richard Gere in much of anything.

Not even American Gigolo? I'll never know why people dislike him nor Bill Pullman.

knives wrote:Not even American Gigolo? I'll never know why people dislike him nor Bill Pullman.

Steve Coogan ought to be able to clear that up.

I wish I could understand anything beyond Joshua in that clip.

The only reason I see QT liking The Three Musketeers is because Christoph Waltz is in it. Unfortunately, I had to see the film with some friends and it's as bad as any of the Resident Evil films which feature the same husband and wife tandem of Milla and Paul W.S. and almost as bad as Sucker Punch. I still wonder how the hell are those two still given money every year to make crap. Are their movies such a big hit in the home media department that they allow Paul W.S.to be employed?

dx23 wrote:Are their movies such a big hit in the home media department that they allow Paul W.S.to be employed?

Well, that helps, but the real story is that his films clean up big time overseas, so he can always get funding. I think most US studios distributing his films are just that-- paying distributors, not financiers

domino harvey wrote:

dx23 wrote:Are their movies such a big hit in the home media department that they allow Paul W.S.to be employed?

Well, that helps, but the real story is that his films clean up big time overseas, so he can always get funding. I think most US studios distributing his films are just that-- paying distributors, not financiers

Yes Constantin Film have backed most of Anderson's films since Resident Evil, and I think they are often mostly filmed in the studios there too, or at least the first Resident Evil was. (Death Race is the exception, filmed mostly in the other co-production country, Canada. And Alien Vs Predator was mostly Prague but was a 20th Century Fox/Germany/Czech co-production).

I think the only full funded 'studio film' Anderson has done is Soldier for Warner Brothers, and by all accounts that was a troubled production.


I have my issues with Paul W.S. Anderson's films but mostly I find them infuriating because there is often a great premise, scene or even moment within the films he has directed that more often than not is not capitalised upon. It prevents a film like Event Horizon (which, for all of its jump scares and over-caffeinated editing, is a guilty pleasure of mine just for the committed actors and the gorgeous, if impractical, set design) or even Resident Evil (which has a neat structure of ever-expanding action and locations and pulls a great performance from Jovovich) from reaching their full potential, instead keeping them as enjoyable but unmemorable pure entertainments.

A film I would particularly point to would be the remake of Death Race - the original is wonderfully, if bluntly, satirical while the remake jettisons any kind of societal comment for a hackneyed wrong man/prison breakout plot. It zips along nicely and is a fun, unchallenging experience with nice performances from everyone involved but the film is saying nothing about the times in which it was made, or the culture or audiences it is playing to (or perhaps it is in its lack of depth, much as the soulless remakes of 70s horror films are carefully stripped of any subtext), which is almost jaw-dropping in comparison to Death Race 2000 (or The Running Man or Fortress, or any other film from more than ten years ago which embellished the same plots with at least some satire or with loving detail of their futuristic societies). The same could be said of Event Horizon as being a version of Solaris stripped of its philosophy and with its aggression level ramped up to compensate.

But before the idea of 'pure entertainment' sounds too condescending, I think creating such a product is a feat in itself - compare the Anderson films of Resident Evil, Mortal Kombat, Death Race even Aliens vs Predator with their sequels created by other directors which try and often fail to recapture the same 'empty, pure fun' tone, and it helps to make the original films seem better achievements in comparison!

The one honourable exception to this rule for me would have to be the Jeremy Bolt and Paul Anderson produced Pandorum, directed by Christian Alvart, which contains more than enough interesting moments, scenes and characters, along with a few surprising twists (and the 'expanding action and environment' technique that worked so well for Resident Evil) to make for an effective, relatively original sci-fi horror film. It also gives Dennis Quaid one of the more challenging roles he has had for quite a while too.

Spoiler

Even though it does have kind of the same ending scene as Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow!

For Days of Heaven alone, Richard Gere is forgiven. But as knives says, the hate for him seems unfair. He's not terrible and he's often in interesting movies.

Sausage and thirtyframes posts sum up my feelings on Gere pretty well. Coogans impression is spot on but thankfully in Days of Heaven that's all you really need to do. It's practically silent when you take away the voiceover.

dx23 wrote:The only reason I see QT liking The Three Musketeers is because Christoph Waltz is in it.

I really can't comment on the quality of the film itself, since I haven't actually watched it yet, but I thought a few respectable critics seemed to respond positively to it. I vaguely recall that Ignatiy Vishnevetsky provided a fair deal of praise for the film on an episode of At the Movies.

Andre Jurieu wrote:

dx23 wrote:The only reason I see QT liking The Three Musketeers is because Christoph Waltz is in it.

I really can't comment on the quality of the film itself, since I haven't actually watched it yet, but I thought a few respectable critics seemed to respond positively to it. I vaguely recall that Ignatiy Vishnevetsky provided a fair deal of praise for the film on an episode of At the Movies.

As R. Emmet Sweeney says here:

W.S. is one of the few contemporary directors to fully investigate the possibilities of 3D, with both Resident Evil: Afterlife and The Three Musketeers templates for how to shoot fight scenes in depth, with multiple planes of action roiling at once.

So there is that anyway. None of the Paul W.S. love is surprising to me. I have a friend who adores the Resident Evil series (I enjoy them but am probably less enthused); he considers it amongst the very best continuing series of films. I'm not entirely sure what his exact criteria is, though.

Also, just want to add that I really am shocked that QT would have us believe he hates Sucker Punch. Wow, really? Setting aside arguments for quality, doesn't this just seem (on the surface at least) like a movie made for him? Does he have some personal issue with Snyder or something?

More black chicks in "Sucker Punch" and QT (and Ebert for that matter) would have probably liked it.

dad1153 wrote:More black chicks in "Sucker Punch" and QT (and Ebert for that matter) would have probably liked it.

Did that post just happen?

mfunk9786 wrote:

dad1153 wrote:More black chicks in "Sucker Punch" and QT (and Ebert for that matter) would have probably liked it.

Did that post just happen?

Spoiler

Since this is Sucker Punch, that may depend. If you look straight ahead and see Jon Hamm, yes. If you see a robot or a Nazi instead, no.

domino harvey wrote:...I expect to see everyone's guesses for Oscar noms soon

Ah crap, I'll bite.

PICTURE
The Artist
The Descendants
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
The Help
Hugo
Midnight in Paris
War Horse

DIRECTOR
David Fincher, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
Terrence Malick, The Tree of Life
Alexander Payne, The Descendants
Martin Scorsese, Hugo

ACTOR
George Clooney, The Descendants
Jean Dujardin, The Artist
Michael Fassbender, Shame
Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Brad Pitt, Moneyball

ACTRESS
Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs
Viola Davis, The Help
Rooney Mara, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
Michelle Williams, My Week With Marilyn

SUPPORTING ACTOR
Kenneth Branagh, My Week With Marilyn
Albert Brooks, Drive
Nick Nolte, Warrior
Ben Kingsley, Hugo
Christopher Plummer, Beginners

SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Bérénice Bejo, The Artist
Jessica Chastain, The Help
Janet McTeer, Albert Nobbs
Octavia Spencer, The Help
Shailene Woodley, The Descendants

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
The Artist
Bridesmaids
Midnight in Paris
A Separation
Young Adult

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
The Descendants
The Help
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
Tinker Tailor Solider Spy

Oscar shortlist for foreign language films:

Belgium, "Bullhead," Michael R. Roskam, director;
Canada, "Monsieur Lazhar," Philippe Falardeau, director;
Denmark, "Superclásico," Ole Christian Madsen, director;
Germany, "Pina," Wim Wenders, director;
Iran, "A Separation," Asghar Farhadi, director;
Israel, "Footnote," Joseph Cedar, director;
Morocco, "Omar Killed Me," Roschdy Zem, director;
Poland, "In Darkness," Agnieszka Holland, director;
Taiwan, "Warriors of the Rainbow: Seediq Bale," Wei Te-sheng, director.

Aside from a couple obvious ones (A Separation, Pina, In Darkness), all of those films (and their respective directors) are new to me, and I don't recall seeing many of those films (aside from A Separation) pop up on any "best of 2011" lists. I am amazed neither Turin Horse, Le Havre, Melancholia (does this count as foreign film?), Certified Copy, nor other high profile foreign films made the shortlist.

Let's be honest - if it weren't for the inclusion of A Separation, the shortlist would be an utter joke; I'm not even holding my breath that Farhadi's film will manage to become a nominee.

The foreign film category has different rules than the other categories. Each country gets to pick only one film to submit for consideration. This year, 63 countries submitted films. They don't always choose the film that has the highest profile in the U.S. The films actually do not need to be released in the U.S. at all, and a great many of them are not. For consideration this year they must be released in their home country after October 1, 2010 and before September 30, 2011. They must predominantly in a language other than English (so no Melancholia).

From this information, I gather that my unfamiliarity with over half of the titles on the shortlist is a product of the arbitrary guidelines that inform the shortlist, rather than any cinephilic failing on my part.

Jazzkammer wrote:Let's be honest - if it weren't for the inclusion of A Separation, the shortlist would be an utter joke; I'm not even holding my breath that Farhadi's film will manage to become a nominee.

Really? After the Golden Globe award and the almost-universal positive reviews (plus its still-strong theatrical engagement in the US) I'd say it's the movie to beat for Best Foreign Film.

Jazzkammer wrote:Aside from a couple obvious ones (A Separation, Pina, In Darkness), all of those films (and their respective directors) are new to me, and I don't recall seeing many of those films (aside from A Separation) pop up on any "best of 2011" lists. I am amazed neither Turin Horse, Le Havre, Melancholia (does this count as foreign film?), Certified Copy, nor other high profile foreign films made the shortlist.

Let's be honest - if it weren't for the inclusion of A Separation, the shortlist would be an utter joke; I'm not even holding my breath that Farhadi's film will manage to become a nominee.

It's the Oscars. I mean, what are you really expecting? It's pointless to treat them as anything more than a bit of fun. Even though they are undoubtedly the highest profile film awards, that's about it. It's essentially the LA County film awards after all.

A Footnote is good, and Pina supposedly is. But otherwise, I agree, this is definitely NOT representative of the best of the year.

I've seen Bullhead and there may be several great films worthier of being nominated this year but I don't think that should discourage anyone from checking it out. It's got a very impressive main character-performance combo in the guise of Matthias Schoenaerts as a mesmerizingly emotionally stunted, hormone-growth addicted palooka. Seriously.
Like I said, I wouldn't call it a great film (it's got too slight a plot for that) but It's certainly worth a gander.

As heartthesilence said, Footnote is a decent film, dressing up an academic subject with (too) tricksy stylistic flourishes. Not a patch on A Separation, but I expect the academy would lap it up, even if it is ultimately quite a feel-bad experience. Does it have any sort of profile in the US?