Recently viewed films

miss buenos aires · Post by **miss buenos aires** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:10 pm

SPOILER

The play was the one that he had written for her, as was not too subtly underlined by the flashback voiceover. I loved the scenes of Ann Darrow doing vaudeville for the ape, because it a) showed him as having a wonderful, primate-like sense of humor and b) provided a plausible reason for them getting along besides her remarkable beauty and his ferocious sense of protection. And then she tells him to stop when it's not funny anymore, and he does! And every performer is fond of an appreciative audience.

I could have done with fewer dinosaurs and no giant bugs, but I loved every moment that mammals were on screen.

Mr. Average · Post by **Mr. Average** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:56 pm

King Kong:

Trying to figure the techical motivations of Peter Jackson (other than the stated motivation related to wanting to recreate the classic of his youth).

In my opinion, the movie advances special effects in the area of animated creature direct interaction with actor. Special effects and animations are so good, in so many films. The advances are astounding. BUT, in the area of hand-to-hand interaction between a real life human with a pulse and a fabricated bug/dinosaur/creature, the effect loses a little. I think Jackson wanted to advance this, and the unrelenting scene where one plague after another impedes the progress of the rescue team, he really pushes this advance to new levels.

An enjoyable film that reminded of the "Sinbad" films of my youth.

pophead2k · Post by **pophead2k** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:14 am

Saw the Family Stone yesterday. Very 70s. Luke Wilson the only likable character, but that's by design! I've never seen a Hollywood feature that featured so many purposely unlikable people in it. Still, good acting.

Post by **BlueChair** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:04 am

Am I the only one who's seen Brokeback Mountain, the year's best film by far?

Mike Boom · Post by **Mike Boom** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:44 am

I cant be with watching no film about gay cowboys - it just aint right - what would John Wayne say? Its just plain wrong I tell you - and damn, its just - its just - UN AMERICAN!

Post by **BlueChair** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:44 am

Who Shot Sam? · Post by **Who Shot Sam?** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:48 am

Mike Boom wrote:I cant be with watching no film about gay cowboys - it just aint right - what would John Wayne say? Its just plain wrong I tell you - and damn, its just - its just - UN AMERICAN!

What about Montgomery Clift in Red River? The original gay cowboy.

I know he's supposed to be straight in the film, but come on...

selfmademug · Post by **selfmademug** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:50 am

There was a great piece in The Times a few days back about "real" gay cowboys. It's not accessible unless you're a subscriber but I'll post it in a separate thread if anyone's interested...

Scratch that, I just went ahead and posted it on a new generic thread called "Articles Clipboard."

so lacklustre · Post by **so lacklustre** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 9:58 am

Went with family to see Narnia, pretty good film. I must be one of the few people in uk not to have read the Narnia chronicles so was not totally familiar with the story, although I did realise that it was a good v bad with religious undertones. The acting was good and it was all very visually pleasing. My daughter (7) was hiding behind her fingers a couple of times but I would think most children of her age would enjoy it (it's classified 12A here).

Who Shot Sam? · Post by **Who Shot Sam?** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:06 pm

Not recent (we need a "Recent DVD Purchases" thread to go along with the CD thread), but I got this...

Includes The Asphalt Jungle, Gun Crazy, Murder My Sweet, Out of the Past and The Set-Up.

El Vez · Post by **El Vez** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:28 pm

Who Shot Sam? wrote:Not recent (we need a "Recent DVD Purchases" thread to go along with the CD thread), but I got this...

Includes The Asphalt Jungle, Gun Crazy, Murder My Sweet, Out of the Past and The Set-Up.

YOU BASTARD!

Who Shot Sam? · Post by **Who Shot Sam?** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 1:37 pm

El Vez wrote:YOU BASTARD!

The Warners Gangster box looks tasty too (includes Angels with Dirty Faces, The Public Enemy, The Petrified Forest). Here's hoping for a big fat gift certificate on Xmas day!

Boy With A Problem · Post by **Boy With A Problem** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:07 pm

Mike Boom wrote:

I cant be with watching no film about gay cowboys - it just aint right - what would John Wayne say?

Miller: John Wayne was a fag.
All: The hell he was.
Miller: He was, too, you boys. I installed two-way mirrors in his pad in Brentwood, and he come to the door in a dress.

Repo Man

Otis Westinghouse · Post by **Otis Westinghouse** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 6:31 pm

so lacklustre wrote:Went with family to see Narnia, pretty good film. I must be one of the few people in uk not to have read the Narnia chronicles so was not totally familiar with the story, although I did realise that it was a good v bad with religious undertones. The acting was good and it was all very visually pleasing. My daughter (7) was hiding behind her fingers a couple of times but I would think most children of her age would enjoy it (it's classified 12A here).

Bollocks, we're planning to go inc. 5 year oold tomorrow. Someeone told me it might be too much for him. 12A is pushing it. I've never (excerpt from another thread) read any of the books either. I think. The L, W and W was in the house, just never got there. Mind you, Prof John Carey, Lit bigwig professor and ex-booker chair of judges hadn't read it until the film was realise either, so I don't feel too guilty. That + King Kong + Harry Potter are on the family list for the hols.

King Hoarse · Post by **King Hoarse** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 6:45 pm

Otis Westinghouse wrote:
so lacklustre wrote:Went with family to see Narnia, pretty good film. I must be one of the few people in uk not to have read the Narnia chronicles so was not totally familiar with the story, although I did realise that it was a good v bad with religious undertones. The acting was good and it was all very visually pleasing. My daughter (7) was hiding behind her fingers a couple of times but I would think most children of her age would enjoy it (it's classified 12A here).
Bollocks, we're planning to go inc. 5 year oold tomorrow. Someeone told me it might be too much for him. 12A is pushing it. I've never (excerpt from another thread) read any of the books either. I think. The L, W and W was in the house, just never got there. Mind you, Prof John Carey, Lit bigwig professor and ex-booker chair of judges hadn't read it until the film was realise either, so I don't feel too guilty. That + King Kong + Harry Potter are on the family list for the hols.

I had my first tv-induced nightmare after secretly going back up post bedtime to catch an episode of animated Narnia when I was 2 (the one where witches shave off the lion's mane on an altar). When I was 5 I saw it again (but with actors) and thought it was 'childish'. So I think it's OK for your 5 year old.

selfmademug · Post by **selfmademug** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 6:47 pm

The boy and I are going to see Harry Potter tomorrow; perfect timing as we're just finishing reading Half-Blood Prince and so are Potter-mad (Potter-potty??)!

Who Shot Sam? · Post by **Who Shot Sam?** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:42 pm

Watched this with my wife tonight after we got the kiddies tucked in.

Of Hitch's early American films, I think I like this and "Shadow Of A Doubt" best. Ingrid Bergman looking fine, as usual (Oh man, that face, those lips). Some lovely scenes with Cary Grant. And then there's Claude Rains' character's creepy Nazi mother. Yikes.

Don't drink that coffee Ingrid!!!

bobster · Post by **bobster** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:34 am

For me, and lots of other people, "Notorious" and "Shadow" are among Hitch's all time best. (Truffuat's favorite was "Notorious", Hitch loved "Shadow.") For me, the only one that tops those two is "Rear Window."

Who Shot Sam? · Post by **Who Shot Sam?** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:37 am

bobster wrote:For me, and lots of other people, "Notorious" and "Shadow" are among Hitch's all time best. (Truffuat's favorite was "Notorious", Hitch loved "Shadow.") For me, the only one that tops those two is "Rear Window."

I agree. "Rear Window" is my fave. I've never been as high on "Vertigo" as some others have been. "Strangers On A Train" is damn fine too. Robert Walker ultra-creepy.

bobster · Post by **bobster** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:43 am

WSS --

Re: "Red River"...I was watching a bit of "The Celluloid Closet" a while back and caught a bit where they featured a clip from that film of Clift and another cowboy (can't remember the actor's name) comparing the guns and prowess with same. I thought the moving was stretching the point in a rather obvious way, but, you know, it never occured to me until just that moment that Clift's real-life gayness might have impact on the movie. But then I had to be clued into the possiblity that Sal Mineo's affection for James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause" might be only be little brotherly....I'm still not sure I buy.

(Just because an actor's gay doesn't neccessarily the part in the film is filled with gay subtext. If so, then I suppose "Brokeback Mountain" should be chock full of heterosexual subtext. I can just imagine what I might say in my film, "The Celluloid Terrarium"...."You know that when Jake Gylenhall gazes longingly at Heath Ledger, you know he's really just thinking about Michelle Williams")

Who Shot Sam? · Post by **Who Shot Sam?** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:50 am

bobster wrote:WSS --

Re: "Red River"...I was watching a bit of "The Celluloid Closet" a while back and caught a bit where they featured a clip from that film of Clift and another cowboy (can't remember the actor's name) comparing the guns and prowess with same. I thought the moving was stretching the point in a rather obvious way, but, you know, it never occured to me until just that moment that Clift's real-life gayness might have impact on the movie. But then I had to be clued into the possiblity that Sal Mineo's affection for James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause" might be only be little brotherly....I'm still not sure I buy.

(Just because an actor's gay doesn't neccessarily the part in the film is filled with gay subtext. If so, then I suppose "Brokeback Mountain" should be chock full of heterosexual subtext. I can just imagine what I might say in my film, "The Celluloid Terrarium"...."You know that when Jake Gylenhall gazes longingly at Heath Ledger, you know he's really just thinking about Michelle Williams")

I don't know. There's a sort of anxiety in Clift's performances that I can only put down to him feeling uncomfortable about put into the "straightjacket", so to speak. Not only in "Red River" - I also see it in a film like "The Heiress" with Olivia De Havilland. Maybe I'm just letting the fact that I know that he was in the closet infiltrate my impressions of the films. At the same time, it gives the films an extra dimension that is very interesting and adds a little edge to the viewing experience.

Otis Westinghouse · Post by **Otis Westinghouse** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:06 am

King Hoarse wrote:I had my first tv-induced nightmare after secretly going back up post bedtime to catch an episode of animated Narnia when I was 2 (the one where witches shave off the lion's mane on an altar). When I was 5 I saw it again (but with actors) and thought it was 'childish'. So I think it's OK for your 5 year old.

But he didn't have his innocence stripped at the age of 2!

Actually, SLL, it's a PG in Cambridge, cos you're a bunch of pansies and kids nurtured on the mean streets of Cambridge are used to the darker side of life. I don't get it, I thought the certification was meant to be national, but I've seen this before where it's different in different towns/counties.

so lacklustre · Post by **so lacklustre** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:07 am

Otis Westinghouse wrote:
King Hoarse wrote:I had my first tv-induced nightmare after secretly going back up post bedtime to catch an episode of animated Narnia when I was 2 (the one where witches shave off the lion's mane on an altar). When I was 5 I saw it again (but with actors) and thought it was 'childish'. So I think it's OK for your 5 year old.
But he didn't have his innocence stripped at the age of 2!

Actually, SLL, it's a PG in Cambridge, cos you're a bunch of pansies and kids nurtured on the mean streets of Cambridge are used to the darker side of life. I don't get it, I thought the certification was meant to be national, but I've seen this before where it's different in different towns/counties.

I thought the certs were national too, I just checked on the website where I booked the cinema tickets and it still says 12A. Harry Potter & Goblet of Fire was 12A too, much darker than the first three definitely.

Otis Westinghouse · Post by **Otis Westinghouse** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 8:23 pm

Ster Century (soon to be Vue?). Seems PG is the standard, but maybe the actual cinema can opt for 12A. Had a quick scout, but couldn't find anything definitive on this. This is fun, though, on the very issue of whether to take a 5-year old or not:

http://ruk.ca/article/3340

I loved it. Very nicely realised, loved the excellent James McAvoy of shameless fame as Mr Tumnus, kids were good, especially the younger two, and Tilda Swinton is an amazing White Witch. Her face is unbelievable, the look on it as Aslan pounced upon her! Can't wait to see her as Nico next year. She was the most memorable thing, though I loved the snowy wood too. Quite shocked at how poor the 'blue screen' filming was - very, very obvious fake imposition of kids over panoramic backgrounds, about 20 years behind the times, it seemed, which my eldest son picked on immediately - don't they realise they've got to keep up with the times to not let down their technically savvy young audience? Why is this? Other big-budget films don't fall foul of that. Our 5 year old hid behind his hands a few times, and as he's a bit out of sorts right now (recovering from a vomiting bug), he announced he wanted to go home after 30 mins, but he got into it by the end and enjoyed the very good battle scene. The 'Christian allegory' bit isn't at all piled on - of course Aslan is a resurrected redeemer, but the film is essentially a good triumphing over evil classic like so many others, with a very English feel about it. Recommended.

alexv · Post by **alexv** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 5:41 pm

Bobster, interesting point about subtexts and hetero/homo actors. I would argue that there really should be no comparison. When a hetero actor plays a homosexual on film or stage, there should be no reason for the actor to layer his performance with "heterosexual" subtexts. We all know the actor is not gay, and why would there be a need for any kind of heterosexual subtext at all. The need for gay subtexts arose out of the need for subterfuge in a closeted age. No such need exists in the heterosexual context.

Traditionally, in the case of closeted gay actors, the argument goes, there was a hidden aspect of the performances when the gays played straight. The actor was not "out", and when playing straight, certain actors, though not all, nuanced their performances in such a way that a viewer clued in to the signs could spot the subterfuge. Whether this was intentional or not is debatable, and you are right that we now, in hindsight, see things in those performances that were really not there at the time but have been imported.

Clift is a good example. Like WSS, I think he was fundamentally a "nervous" method actor, who because of his feminine features, slight frame, and self-conscious acting style, particularly when playing opposite someone like Wayne, came across as alien, particularly in a western context. I remember seeing Red River as a kid, knowing nothing about Clift's sexuality, and feeling uncomfortable in the movie's later scenes when Clift goes a little nuts and tangles with Wayne. I remember thinking, wait a second, what's going on here. This is not the kind of western I'm used to. What gives?

In hindsight, the subtext people would argue that what my ten year old self was reacting to was the homosexual context of Clift' performance. Could be. I was definitely thrown for a loop. But I think it could just as easily been the fact that a pretty-boy, twitchy young method actor was highjacking a perfectly normal (I was going to say straight) western through his acting style and unusual physicality. Very much the same could be said of Dean in Giant.