criterionforum.org

Steve Evans wrote:For the utterly prurient curiosity seeker with bare bosoms on the mind, Bonnaire was a very beautiful young woman who graces the screen often with her nude body.

Kirkinson wrote:Perhaps he meant it in the marginally less awkward sense of a "seeker of [utterly prurient] curiosities."

rrv1 from United States (IMDB) wrote:I just recently viewed the Film Les Yeux sans visage, or Eyes without a face. It is a French film with English subtitles. The motion picture is in black and white. It is a film that gives you a feeling that it was made very cheaply. The effects are very weak and the characters don't have very good acting abilities. It would have been a good plot line for a horror movie made in the 21st century, when it would have been possible to make it using more money and with better actors and actresses. The one part that I really liked was how the director used the same music every time something bad was about to happen. It made the anticipation better and more exciting. I probably wouldn't watch this film again if I had a choice, it wouldn't be worth my time.

Yes, if only Franju had waited 45 years to make this movie, he could have taken advantage of CGI and the summer hiatus availability of an actress on a CW show.

Matt wrote:Yes, if only Franju had waited 45 years to make this movie, he could have taken advantage of CGI and the summer hiatus availability of an actress on a CW show.

colinr0380 wrote:Or they could cast Paris Hilton again.

jkv1165 - Imdb.com wrote: Vagabond -Just more pretentious arthouse crap.

tramky on the IMDb wrote:My view of this film is that it did not particularly energize me or inform me about the Tokyo Olympics. Many of the editing choices were not good, and it was not a film that would stand the test of time. Compared with the wonderful Olympic films by Bud Greenspan over the years (16 Days of Glory), this is clearly the product of a relative amateur. But this predates Greenspan's Olympic work, and for its time it was probably the most ambitious approach to filming such an enormous athletic event since Riefenstahl's work in Germany.

Well, I've now seen this film once, probably will never watch it again--it brought back some memories of those Olympic Games, some nice photography. But in the end uninspiring & forgettable. Oh, yes, it rained a lot in Tokyo in October of 1964.

But this predates Greenspan's Olympic work, and for its time it was probably the most ambitious approach to filming such an enormous athletic event since Riefenstahl's work in Germany.

Oh my God, 9 April 2005

Author: James Beswick ([email protected]) from New York, NY

Anyone who's been to the Tate in London or MOMA in New York finds themselves facing an interesting dilemma: am I being ignorant or is this some joke I'm not getting? Do I not understand the importance of having a canvas all one color, or is someone getting paid for a much easier job than I have? Should I publicly deride this load of nonsense, or get rid of my briefcase, buy some square black glasses, and get short spiky hair? And so it is with this glorious practical joke of a movie that has Mr Jarman laughing to the bank, Tilda Swinton getting so surreal that at some point her body is going to evaporate from the implausibility of her entire career, and once more goodbye to another ten dollars wasted on a popcorn-less experience at some new weird Village cinema.

I'd really be interested to hear if anyone disagrees at me, but first please qualify your comments with a disclaimer guaranteeing that you've not taken Class A drugs recently, and don't have said square glasses and spiky hair. Gentlemen, the floor is yours.

. . . Mr Jarman laughing to the bank. . .

Why can't hollywood adjust and film all movies in 16:9?

I don't know much about film aspect ratios but why can't hollywood shoot all of their movies in 16:9 and make it the standard format so that consumers don't have to see black bars on the top and bottom of their widescreen tvs?

I thought a widescreen tv would eliminate the black bars.

is this Hollywoods way of trying to get more people to watch in the theater so they don't want to film movies where the picture will not fill up the entire tv screen?

some tvs have the option to shrink or stretch the screen but that ruins the look of the movie.

I thought a widescreen tv would eliminate the black bars.

is this Hollywoods way of trying to get more people to watch in the theater so they don't want to film movies where the picture will not fill up the entire tv screen?

The cinematography is great, the direction is decent and the performances are good, but I can't really say I enjoyed it. It's painfully dull at points and the characters are all largely un-appealing. It also largely forgot about the main plotline (and the first half-hour was pretty great) and that's when my interest in it started to dwindle.

Nice to see somebody else who agrees with me that this isn't a masterpiece. I found Man with a Movie Camera so incredibly terrible. It's boring, pointless and offers absolutely nothing of purpose. A downright waste of time, in my opinion.

dx23 wrote:JeffTheAlpaca wrote on dvdtalk:

Why can't hollywood adjust and film all movies in 16:9?

I don't know much about film aspect ratios but why can't hollywood shoot all of their movies in 16:9 and make it the standard format so that consumers don't have to see black bars on the top and bottom of their widescreen tvs?

I thought a widescreen tv would eliminate the black bars.

is this Hollywoods way of trying to get more people to watch in the theater so they don't want to film movies where the picture will not fill up the entire tv screen?

some tvs have the option to shrink or stretch the screen but that ruins the look of the movie.

You no longer have to deal with cropped off images while watching some of your favorite movies. With its wide screen 16:9 aspect ratio you can now watch movies in their original format. In fact, the 16:9 aspect ratio is one of the most important aspects of the TH-50PV70M since all future HDTV signals will be broadcast in this format.

Sexual Immorality (S)

- dressing to maximize the female form and/or skin exposure
- two women arm in arm (more than friends) going to a "party" with other gay/lesbian presences
- a woman massaging the breasts of another woman
- men showing intimate affection to each other
- upper female nudity
- excessive breast exposure, repeatedly
- open face kissing

I must tell you this up front. This report speaks to the ugliness, evil and vulgarity found in "Natural Born Killers." While there is no foul language in this report, it is impossible to be accurate with this movie without the report being intense. The bottom line: "Natural Born Killers" is a movie with all manner of corruptive influence right out of the smoking pits of Hell. I am most uncomfortable with giving you this report, but as much as I would like to ignore this and other extremes of the American culture I cannot. Paul didn't ignore the extremes in Corinth.

"Natural Born Killers" (R, 1994) - an unnatural and most vile production indeed. The central actress in this movie played the other sister in "The Other Sister" but in this movie she was NOT the sweet, humble, and wise young lady she was in "The Other Sister."

Well! A "Christmas story" with Jesus! Indeed, twice this film gives proper credit to the Reason for the season. Twice "baby Jesus" was spoken as part of the nativity scene play being presented by elementary school students. From England, no less! I am proud of Universal Pictures and Richard Curtis for being politically incorrect even if only for two brief moments. But I am not proud of them for the content of the rest of the show. I will explain. Regarding the immoral content, the film is nothing like the previews.

In his travels, Corso meets up with a shadow he can't shake (Emmanuelle Seigner). Her name is not given but she graphically shows you that which only her husband should see, and together she and Depp do a thing that should only be done between husband and wife. Oh yeah! Almost forgot. Liana Telfer and Corso show a couple things, too. Though one of the "things" is not seen, there again is that powerful influence tool called suggestion by implication plus explicit lead-in. Corso's "shadow" indeed saves his bacon a couple times but she acts definitely evil at times. She even levitates herself off a riverfront walkway staircase and off a balcony -- and it was NOT "Mary Poppins" levitation. She even appears and disappears. So, what is she to Corso other than a chance for immoral sex? Her motives are not revealed.

From the director of Chicken Run comes another animation marvel. Too bad it is so violent. Chicken Run was a morally better film.

Wallace and Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit starts off appearing much like the also British films of Harry Potter with a flair that reeks of sorcery and witchcraft. But I guess that was to set the mood expected of the unholy nature of lycanthropy.