go to list of threads
pantheon movies better, shorter, less pretentious... posted by: publius 15:01 8.21.10 and more...well...original....than the original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsZ1SagUPb4 honestly... posted by: simplicissimus 10:06 7.20.10 all i wanted was a pepsi.* * and by that i mean i wanted to give it a shout out and i didn't think it deserved it's own thread. i know it wasn't a "pantheon" movie, but it was a damn good film. not art, to be sure. but the man gets props from me, in any event. (though i also have to ask, why we don't hear rabelais on film more often?) mmmm....i disagree.... posted by: rabelais 02:31 7.20.10 to be considered a "pantheon" movie, ya gots to contribute something that makes me remember you beyond the time we spent together in the theater. and with "inception" all i felt as i walked towards the exit was "oh chris nolan, what a clever boy." and i haven't thought much of it since. i'm a big fan of "the batman" series. this one though, a righteous demonstration in craft, sure enough, and the time did pass quickly (with the help of the alluuuuring marion cotillard), but otherwise, pretty empty of anything of true note. ok, ok ... posted by: simplicissimus 22:07 7.19.10 the "9s across the board" comment was a little gratuitous. i mean, it isn't "the seventh seal", and you know that going in. it isn't going to be remembered in 20 years as a pinnacle of movie making. it's a popcorn movie. but hanging with adam kline (sir pimp a lot) these days -- who is a real live screen writer -- i've really come to appreciate the art of the well made, intelligent, interesting pororn movie. like a "good fellas" or an "the inglorious basterds" or maybe even early tarantino ... it's really an art form. and i fucking appreciate it greatly. i so knew this was coming. posted by: simplicissimus 21:57 7.19.10 yep. 100%. serious. i really, really liked it. inception posted by: publius 17:45 7.19.10 really? really? you mean it? you're not joking? tell me you're joking... inception posted by: simplicissimus 16:01 7.19.10 i fear i'm going to get a lot of shit for it. but this movie may well belong on the list. just like the dark knight, it wasn't a "10" on any single scale, but it pretty much got 9s across the board in every single category ... which in book qualifies as excellent. NYT always has to one-up second city Tribune posted by: camdolphin 16:58 6.29.10 Commemorating the 30th anniversary of Airplane: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/movies/27airplane.html?8dpc I'm told by my local rag posted by: camdolphin 09:15 6.17.10 that it's the 30th anniversary of the Blues Brothers. It's right about this one - the Blues Brothers deserves recognition. Seen it many times, but before we moved back to Chicago in 2003, my wife and I rented it and watched it in its entirety. What a great movie. It's got everything - the music, Frank Oz, "on a mission from God." Few movies encapsulate a city as well as the Blues Brothers. I mean everything - Donald "Duck" Dunn, pee wee, the swat team guys, carrie fisher, "1060 west addison," Illinois nazis, making fun of blind people, miss piggy, "both kinds" of music. I say no pantheon would be complete without the Blues Brothers. all i can say is.... posted by: publius 00:21 6.17.10 san dimas high school football rules! Modern Family posted by: misterconradbain 14:01 5.22.10 Camdolphin you are correct both with your analysis of LOST and your call on Kate being very attractive. In the early seasons she was hauntingly hot but there is another character on LOST who I think is even hotter and its not Hugo, its Jack's first wife played by Julie Bowen. I realize that I am officially old whenever I watch Modern Family and think that the middle aged mom played by Julie Bowen is good looking. That is actually a pretty good show. It might not be fancy and artsy enough for the high brow elite like simpli, hb, squisshy etc. etc. but it features the hands down two finest actors working today. Rico Rodriguez who plays Manny and Ty Burrell who plays Phil. Due to this site's anonymity requirements posted by: camdolphin 09:53 5.22.10 I can neither admit nor deny recent speculation about my identity [confidential to misterconradbain - did you see that touchdown I threw to beat the jets? I think about that one every night before I go to sleep. Say hi to arnold!]. I can confirm, however, a certain zest for Lost. It's inventive, creative, well-crafted characters. Plus Kate is the second hottest woman on tv (the hottest woman is Wanda from the Bernie Mac Show). Sadly, we are fully three seasons behind. So I have no idea if the show kept it up for 6 seasons or dragged to fill them out. LOST posted by: misterconradbain 20:19 5.21.10 Hi guys, its Bainsy. For those of who don't remember me or if I have not made your acquaintance. I am now Doctor Conrad Bain, J.D. Doctor of Law and Love. I recently shared a warm fondue dinner with the dewk of earl and simplilicious and decided to come check in. It is nice to see you are all thriving! Mr. Strock, Thank you for introducing me to this what to rent site. Yes, for those of you that don't know Camdolphin is really legendary Dolphins QB Donny Strock. I really loved the questionnaire and am really looking forward to renting both Booty Call and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. I have a website for anyone who doesn't know what to rent. The website is ABC.com and the show is called LOST. Best show ever. I think it is the most brilliant thing since McDonald's invented that hamburger where they kept the meat in one compartment of Styrofoam and the lettuce and tomato on the other side, I believe it was called the McRidiculous or something like that. My top staff researcher Glen says it was called the McDLT and please take 1 minute and 2 seconds to watch George Cantstanya sell it while wearing a very smart white sports coat http://listverse.com/2009/05/30/top-10-failed-mcdonalds-products/ Please rent Lost. It really is the best show since Sue Somers owned the role of sheriff. It is the best show since Bobby Guillaume owned the role of Benson Dubois. Anyone who hasn't seen LOST should quickly drop the crustless egg salad finger sandwich and turn off the Ghost Whisperer and run to video store and spent a few hundred dollars to rent all 6 seasons immediately. What to rent.com posted by: camdolphin 10:09 5.6.10 Probably the best personality questionnaire I've taken: http://www.whattorent.com/ all you need to give it is a user name (no email address) and it will recommend movies for you after a short questionnaire. bookends posted by: publius 01:23 2.28.10 i saw two movies in the theater today. i saw godard's bande à part (band of outsiders) at 11 am, and after a most pleasant ny day went and saw avatar (3d!!!) at 8pm. it would be difficult to come up with two more disparate films with which to bookend a day. bande à part is one of my all-time favorites (natch). the dance scene alone would make it a pantheon movie. if you haven't seen it, stop what you're doing and go watch it now... avatar...well, it was in 3d (!!!), and that was pretty cool, though after about 1/2 an hour the novelty wore off and you're left with not much except a lot of large blue people flying around looking for a quidditch match and trying to save the hometree casino from attacks b the millenium falcon. perhaps the most interesting aspect of the film is that it turns the trick of getting an american audience to root against its own military and for a bunch of blue hippies who are denying us access to the oh-so unfortunately named "unobtanium". avatar tries very very hard in a very very lowbrow way to show...errr....tell us what humanity should be! could be! must be!!!....or something like that. if i got hit in the face with a metaphoric sledgehammer one more time i don't think even the tree of life could have saved me. bande à part (in 2d!!!!) on the other hand, in godard's inimitably provocateurish way, shows you what humanity is in all of its ridiculous messy hilarious illogical glory. if for some reason however you need people painted blue to make your cinema experience complete, you'd be much better served by watching godard's pierrot le fou (in 2d!!!). and that is all i have to say about that. i can't really match (or argue with) the mr. fox review posted by: simplicissimus 00:05 1.23.10 save for the comment about bottlerocket, which has been in a never-ending battle with the big lebowski over the last 10 (!) years as my favorite movie of all time. that said, i will add this: over thanksgiving we took 6 neices and nephews ages 9, 6, 5, 4, and 4 to see mr. fox. and the entire time i'm wondering what in the hell do they think about this movie. when it was over, it was the first thing they asked. they all *loved* it, and when i asked the 4 year olds what their favorite part was they screamed, in unison: "when the fox glowed!!!". which also happened to be the final shot of the movie. but who i am to argue? fantastic mr. fox posted by: publius 23:43 1.22.10 i had been down on wes anderson for a while. zissou and darjeeling, while beautiful and unmistakably wes anderson films, felt thin and forced compared to royal tennenbaums and (especially) rushmore (i've never really been the biggest fan of bottle rocket, though it had its moments). so i had been avoiding the fantastic mr. fox. the fact that it's animated didn't exactly speed me to the theater either. but tonight i was meandering around after work and decided to go a movie, and the only thing playing in the megaplex i had any interest in seeing (aside from avatar 3d, but tonight wasn't the night for that) was mr. fox. and i loved it. my favorite wes anderson movie since rushmore by a fair margin. why? take "davey and goliath", cross it with animal farm, stir in some bonnie and clyde and oceans 11, let bugs bunny cue the dialogue, add a bit of thomas jefferson and have wes anderson season it and tell you when it's done aging and maybe you're somewhere sort of kind of but not quite there (you're probably wide left). i loved the way he played the inherent non-pixarness of the stop-motion figures to full effect - both their strengths and their "weaknesses". mr. fox's dialogue about the talents and limitations of the various animals is a great summation of both the nature of stop motion animation and how you can use the whole gamut to your advantage if you're a bit crafty. the dialogue was creative, perfectly timed and almost always dead on pitch. clooney as mr. fox. i have something of a love/hate relationship with george clooney, but that casting decision was genius. it's one of those roles where it's difficult to even imagine anyone else playing the part. like the best of the looney toons, there was high comedy mixed higgledy piggledy with low, and the characters always have a wink for the audience when they "know" they're being hams. the use of hidebound english tradition as a foil and goad for creative and rebellious individual characters. this is present in pretty much all wes anderson films to some degree (the english public school roots of a place like rushmore, the upper east side faded blue blood setting of the tennenbaums, the three brothers roaming around post-raj india). it's much more explicit here, but handled so well that at times you forget all about it (the fact that all of the main/animal characters american and humans are the ones with british accents might have just a touch do with that). there are many examples of how this is done well, but my favorite is the description of the game whackbat. it is the funniest sports "joke" i have ever seen. the scene with the wolf. best scene i've seen in any movie in a fair while. but most importantly of all mr fox succeeds the same way that rushmore succeeds. anderson creates a world with its own internal logic which is removed from (clearly a bit more so here than in rushmore), yet still recognizably, our own. why does clooney's mr. fox wear a double breasted tweed suit when he's out stealing chickens? because in the world of the film it would be almost impossible to see him wearing anything else. why does the son, voiced by jason schwartzmann, wear a towel as a cape the entire movie and continually remind everyone that he really is an athlete? because nothing else would work. this is where zissou and darjeeling didn't work. they had similar seeming-non-sequiturs, but in those films they actually felt like non-sequiturs as you were watching because they were forced. in rushmore and mr. fox none of the oddball details feel like non-sequiturs while you're watching the movie. it's only when you pull them out of wes-world and talk about them as isolated moments that they seem like nothing more than the random imaginings of a precociously annoying 9th grader. that's the core of the genius and brilliance of wes anderson. he always tries to create those hermetic not-quite-doppelganger-of-our-own worlds in his movies...and sometimes he fails. it's an incredibly difficult trick to turn. but so long as there's a rushmore or a mr. fox in the mix from time to time i'll be fine sitting through some of his other efforts when you can see his slip showing. because great or not, all his movies are beautiful on the screen, and they're a far sight better than almost anything else out there. Inglorious Basterds posted by: simplicissimus 11:54 8.26.09 A pretty funny movie to see after District 9, which I just mentioned I loved. I loved it. I don't want to go too much into why because the plot is interesting and a lot of what I liked would just give it all away. That said, a few things: It is not nearly the war movie it's being marketed as. In fact, the band of basterds is not present in @70% of the movie, and when they are almost none of them say or do anything. Mike Myers has an incredible cameo. Tarantino loves movies, and it shows. He subtly goofs on every war movie trope (see the Mike Myers scene) but there's something so damn respectful about it that it's a pleasure to watch. Brad Pitt is quickly becoming my favorite Hollywood actor. He spends the entire movie one word away from being over-the-top, but plays it perfectly. A single word -- "Bongiorno" -- was perhaps the funniest line I've seen in a movie this year. I haven't heard a single critic mention it, but the "movie within the movie" and the germans' reaction to it and our reaction to the germans' reaction to it seems to be a pretty obvious jab by Tarantino about people who enjoy his films for the violence. It's a much smarter movie than I expected. It really is a movie about the power of myth and stories, including film. As for HB's "jewish question", I think it's an interesting point. Again, it is marketed way more as a "jewish revenge" film that it actually is. And for that reason alone I was probably going to love it. But really, it is much more (and Tarantino seems to say as much) a film about the manner in which the oppressed -- we've got a black Frenchman, a hidden Jewish french woman, a part-Indian American, and a band of American Jews -- use whatever they have at their disposal to take down a power structure. Which includes bombs strapped to bodies, scalping, and film. Not exactly tanks and airplanes. So, yes, it's a "jewish revenge" film. But if you're going to make the type of movie Tarantino wanted to -- which is a Spaghetti Western set in WW II, which means there's going to be some very simply good/evil paradigms and a lot of death -- I have no idea how it could *not* have been a "jewish revenge" film. As a side note, whoever sees it pay attention to something, especially in light of all the talk of myths/movies: (With the exception of Lt. Raine's gift at the end) the world will always believe that the Brits/Germans/American soliders were responsible for Hitler's death and that nobody will ever learn of the second (more successful) act by Soshanna and her lover? District 9 posted by: simplicissimus 11:36 8.26.09 I -- being a dork -- was super psyched to see it ever since the trailer came out this spring. Though I had assumed it would be in theaters for two weeks and disappear without a trace. After all of the critical buzz, I was prepared to be disappointed - but I wasn't. I loved this movie. The best thing I can compare it to would be the Batman Dark Knight movie. It isn't that it's the best action movie I've ever seen. And it isn't the smarterst, or cleverest, or best shot, or best scripted movie, either. And it can be a little over-the-top with its symbolism. However, I guess I'd say it scored a "8/10" in basically all of the categories - which is an exceptionally rare feat for modern movies. There's a scene in the movie where they're testing the weapon and they place one of the creatures in the line of fire -- 40 minutes before and these things were the most repulsive thing you'd ever seen, but the amount of sadness you feel (or at least I felt) for it is incredible - and a real testament to good writing and directing. And the lead actor was fantastic (and even more fantastic when you consider he was simply the then-unknown writer/director's friend who was helping with screen tests when it was decided he should just go ahead and play the role). posted by: horsebeater 12:05 8.25.09 it wasn't until I read this atlantic article that i even contemplated Jewish reaction to the Tarantino pic: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/tarantino-nazis Will the pic make money from Jewish teenage boys going to see it 6, 7 and 8 times? Movies, Movies, Movies! posted by: simplicissimus 17:17 8.21.09 Seeing "District 9" tonight and "Inglourious Basterds" at 10 AM tomorrow. Am I about to embark on the best 16 hours of cinema going of my life? And I don't care what it's *actually* like: QT doing Brad Pitt and a group of Jews killing NAT-ZIs is *already* one of my top 5 movies of all time. JCVD posted by: horsebeater 15:15 8.21.09 OK... so maybe not in the pantheon, but this ended up being a lot fucking better than I thought it was going to be. Van Damme plays himself, and mocks his own miserable C-list (or maybe B-list) celebrity life to some extent. The plot centers around JCVD being taken hostage in a bank robbery, although the cops and the public mistakenly believe that JCVD is himself conducting the robbery. The bad guys are a little too over-the-top and the police chief isn't credible and it's a little too "we're big stars and it is so rough" mopey. But the concept of the movie overall is just gorgeous and makes up for a lot. The semi-detached speech JCVD gives 75% through the movie is priceless and worth the price of admission. [and the part where JCVD talks about getting beaten out for a recent role by Steven Segal ain't half bad] An 11 word review: Killing Zoe meets Hard Target meets French Cinema. Set in Brussels. Tell No One posted by: ludwig 14:56 8.14.09 I'm not sure whether this is deserving of inclusion in the pantheon, but I will say that it was quite gripping. It requires a hefty dose of suspension of disbelief, but it moves so quickly and is paced so well that you rarely notice the improbabilities. My wife, who suffers from cinema-induced narcolepsy, watched the whole thing without once passing out. That is a true testament to how good it is. we've talked about it before... posted by: publius 19:31 7.28.09 but i just watched dr. strangelove again last night and it's as brilliant as it ever was. i could do without a lot of the scenes in the bomber, but every time peter sellers is onscreen (as mandrake - in particular madrake, strangelove or the president) is pure gold. if you haven't seen it, do. if you have, see it again. now. Chauncey Gardiner is posted by: rahoohl_dewk 19:46 7.27.09 laughing or rolling or something like that... Hal Ashby recently retired from the copyright po-po. Otherwise, there'd be hell to pay. in the loop. posted by: simplicissimus 20:51 7.26.09 somebody do me a favor and see this movie. here's the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQrqMkCuHqA&feature=channel and here's what the movie is like most of the time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reTHiReUNo4&feature=channel --- when i took my job with the guvment, ludwig gave me the come to jesus speech about how many bizarre, petty, kafka-eque things i would see. i didn't believe him. i do know. but, most importantly, i've never seen a movie come so close to how strange it all really is (though being a satire it is way over the top, natch). until this one. seriously, it's fucking hilarious and -- at points -- dead spot on. the big lebowski... posted by: simplicissimus 11:27 9.11.08 i talk enough nonsense that -- please, please, please -- somebody tell me that they've heard me spout pretty much this *exact* theory about the big lebowski. http://www.slate.com/id/2199811 he developes this theory way more and better than i ever did, but once you think about how the movie actually begins, and how donnie is the one who dies, it's pretty clear. (on a sidenote, for those of you who don't know him: i've always thought spacehippie to have a bit of the lebowski in him.) snake on the big screen.... posted by: publius 14:27 9.4.08 tonight in brooklyn.... nice. http://bam.org/view.aspx?pid=356 Not sure if it's "pantheon" worthy posted by: ludwig 09:34 8.1.08 but "Jonestown: The Life and Death of Peoples Temple" was a fascinating and profoundly disturbing documentary. The film incorporates news footage, footage and audio created by the church and its members, and commentary from a number of former members and family members of former members. It is utterly engorssing and fascinating. It starts out fairly even handed showing how Jim Jones actually had some good ideas (a true communitarian with very progressive views on integration and race relations ) but foreshadowing his dark side. Once jim goes crazy, things go bad real fast and his dark side emerges more and more. Once Rep. Leo Ryan arrives in Jonestown to investigate abuses, the movie accelerates towards his murder (by the cult) and the mass suicide. The pacing of the film mimics the hurtling towards death that occurred at the community. Once they killed Rep. Ryan and many members of his entourage, there was no going back. The testimony from the former members is fascinating as they now seem so old and normal. But what's really interesting are the deleted scenes in the "Extras" which provide relatively unedited versions of their commentary . In the main film, there's one guy who talks about watching his wife and child die and -- from the way he's presented -- you'd think that he's on the fringe of the cult. But, watching the unedited version of his commentary, you (or at least I did) experience a "what the f#ck" moment. You realize that his role in the cult was far more complex. You wonder whether he was complicit in the suicide. One caution: My wife is a patient woman. She accommodates my passion for documentaries without much complaining. I rented this movie thinking she and I would watch it together. In retrospect, I have no idea why I thought a documentary about a mass suicide might make for a "relaxing evening" . There a number of graphic accounts of deaths of children. I shudder to think how upset she would have been had she watched it. Not sure if it's " posted by: ludwig 09:17 8.1.08 I didn't need molded plastic over my physique. . .Pure West posted by: prankmonkey 17:13 7.22.08 And Michele Phifer? For me, the only Cat Woman will always be Julie Numar. Or Lee Meriwether. Or Eartha Kit. And why doesn't Batman dance anymore? Remember the Bat-tusi? saw it last night posted by: publius 14:43 7.22.08 i wanted to wait until i could see it in imax, but those tickets are sold out well into next week.... my thoughts? since i'm sure not everyone has seen it yet, but my guess is that most folks will, i'll hold off on any plot-contingent comments until a safer amount of time has passed, not wanting to repeat my let-the-cat-out-of-the-bag gaffe with the last season of the wire. i agree with simplicissimus that it is the best take on "the post 9.11 world" that i have seen from any film. very little of the content/opinions/actions of the film was crammed into neat little hollywood boxes. there ambiguity everywhere, but ambiguity that feels like real, not abstruseness masquerading as depth. what i thought made it work was the general sense of dread and foreboding that characterizes the dark knight combined with well-placed details and real-world echoes. i thought heath ledger was very good. some of this scenes are stronger than other (his "hospital speech" is particularly strong). i kept trying to tease out how much of the power of his performance was due to the writing (quite a bit), how much was due to costume (some, but unlike javier bardem in no country for old me, ledger wore his costume well, as opposed to letting it wear him), now much of it was due to directing (quite a bit) and how much of it was due to his acting (again, quite a bit). now, had you taken a lesser actor and stuck him in there how would he have done? silly question, and who really cares. ledger pulled it of with an originality and depth that more than qualifies him for oscar consideration, regardless of how many cards he was holding thanks to the work of others when he stepped into the role...and my guess is that his winning the oscar becomes the morbid-feel-good hollywood story of the year. i've been watching a lot of bond flicks again lately, and i must say that in many ways batman really is the american bond (much more so than say, jason bourne). it got to a point where i felt like nolan was consciously inserting little bond homages (the knife in the toe of the shoe? come on...). merge the bruce wayne/batman dichotomy (admittedly one of the more interesting parts of the batman schtick) into one person and you're pretty damned close to bond. i guess you could say that about almost all the iterations of the save-the-world archetype, but i was particularly struck by it in this film. as for squisshy's question of "do i *really* need to see another take on the batman saga?"...no, not *really*. but even removed from the batman hoopla, this was a hell of a good movie. and if you like any of the previous batman movies, this one is far, far superior to all of those that have come before. so i suppose you don't have to see this film, but writing it off as a superhero flick is not a good enough reason, because that's truly selling it short. there are other things i want to discuss, but they will have to wait until this thread can be "spoiler-friendly".... well... posted by: simplicissimus 11:26 7.21.08 i don't think i'd seen a superhero movie since the previous batman movie that involved the joker in the late-1980s/early-1990s (and i've never seen a lord of the rings, harry potter, etc.), so i'm not the best person to answer this question. i will say this though: the fact that he's batman (or, as the characters all inexplicably call him "the bat man") really seemed secondary throughout the film...i really didn't think about it much at all. i don't want to over-sell it, and like i said there are times when it over-reaches, packs too much in, is a bit obvious. but, this really is such a rare movie in that (at least for me) brought up a lot of intriguing questions about the rule of law vs. state of nature, the nature and purpose of laws, the undeniable fact that "evil doers" and good guys *need* each other, the usefulness of a "little bit" of crime vs. the alternative, etc. etc. and if i get to watch that, set to the backdrop of a dreary, foreboding chicago, with heath ledger playing the most horrifically charasmatic villain of recent times? well, it's a no-brainer. it does look good ... posted by: squisshy 11:03 7.21.08 but i've got to say, do i *really* need to see another take on the batman saga? that was sort of the reason i never went to go see batman begins; i just felt like, you know, batman didn't really hold all that much relevance for me at this point. but i've read such good things about this one, that i'm wondering whether it's worth seeing another superhero flick ... is it really that good? batman: the dark knight posted by: simplicissimus 10:40 7.21.08 holy jesus. i saw it, and -- per usual -- was expecting to be disappointed. the hype was so ridiculous, the heath ledger obsession so full blown, etc. that i figured it could not be nearly as good as was being said. but it just may have been. this movie was something special because it really worked -- often quite well -- on a numerous different levels. it was an action hero movie. it had a romance. it had lots of explosions. and all of this was well paced and beautifully shot (if you live in chicago you'll want to see it for no other reason because of how bad-ass it makes chicago look). but it also really was -- especially for a box office movie -- a pretty solid meditation on 9/11, toture, bush, etc. etc. sure, it veered into the obvious at times, but that's about my only complaint. far and away most impressively -- and what other 9/11 movie can say this -- it really posed a million more questions that it answered. it was neither the "law and order are fascists who will destroy our country" or the "liberals are wimps who will allow our country to be destroyed", but instead critiqued both, back and forth, the entire movie. and i can't think of a single post 9/11 move -- art house or otherwise -- that managed to pull this off nearly as well. really, this flick was that good. and when you consider how successful it is on all of the other, more mundane, levels, it means it was excellent. and heath ledger? he deserves most of the hype he is getting. in bruges posted by: simplicissimus 00:20 4.21.08 i had no intention of seeing this movie. we went to it because there is nothing very good out at the moment. it was literally the only palatable choice. and, perhaps, it's because i had no expectations, or perhaps because i'm a closet collin ferrall fan. perhaps i'm a sucker for the introspective bad guy as a protagonist. all i know is this: it is anything but the "snatch" warm-over the previews made it out to be. it is wonderfully paced, beautifully shot, and really quite funny (though rarely "ha ha" funny...more dark and uncomfortably funny. but best of all - the manner in which the characters drive the plot is really quite lovely to watch. sometimes (most of the time) you see a movie and you're just watching the characters follow the plot turns and twists that you know are coming. this was something much more special. it never seemed like a documentary, of course, but time and again it felt like you were following characters who were just acting out their life without a full idea of where it was going to lead them. in short: see this movie. it has its maudlin moments, especially the midget at the end, but ferrall is really quite good and the plot will keep your interest. and any movie that has the line (repeated 3 or 4 times): "look! they're filming midgets!" is worth seeing. singing in the rain posted by: horsebeater 22:49 4.20.08 finally saw this one tonight. it was very good and would have certainly exceeded expectations if I hadn't read earlier this week about how it's in the AFI's top 10 list. I've heard this recommended for people with kids. My 1 and 4 year old paid attention to it on and off and liked some of the dancing, but didn't love it and couldn't follow the complex movie-within-a-movie story line (why is it black adn white now?). My 7 year old was into though. Top 10 ever? Nah. But pretty good, especially for 1952. did anyone else know... posted by: simplicissimus 21:42 3.17.08 that in 2000, a little movie -- starring ice t, no less -- was made? it was called "leprechaun 5: in in the hood". here in the summary from the television info button: "An evil leprechaun and a powerful producer pursue three rap artists who stole a magic flute." this leprechaun is something else (i remember watching leprechaun, the original, in the tube room and there was a scene where he was rollerblading....classic) and i have to say, he looks a little like publius. publius posted by: horsebeater 23:48 2.24.08 ... you can follow your lenten-esque tradition of giving things up and get rid of the oscars next year. if you keep it up too long, however, it'll just be you and something odd like comic books left at age 75. oh yeah... posted by: simplicissimus 23:20 2.24.08 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThZI-p8SKe0 two things... posted by: publius 23:10 2.24.08 1. which clip 2. klum's dress? ebay. two things posted by: simplicissimus 23:07 2.24.08 i (and half the internet) got it wrong...it's daniel *plainview* -- though the not so subtle name is just as pregnant. second, for penance for his bitterness publius must watch this clip once a day...for eternity. bonus: why would one want the red dress worn by heidi klum from coca-cola? i mean, it's surely a size 2, right? so would one mount it? wear it and tell everyone that heidi klum wore it? i just don't get it. then again, i'm not sure i'm supposed to. not a bad idea... posted by: publius 23:04 2.24.08 though i think that what i'll be left with after i've gone on a years-long streak of maniacal pruning would be your wife...just don't know that i could ever give her up... publius posted by: horsebeater 22:52 2.24.08 ... you can follow your lenten-esque tradition of giving things up and get rid of the oscars next year. if you keep it up too long, however, it'll just be you and something odd like comic books left at age 75. when forest gump beat pulp fic posted by: publius 22:34 2.24.08 for best picture, i knew for well and true that the academy is almost always a sham when it comes to dovetailing with good work in the cinema. why, you may ask then, am i still spending time railing against the academy's lameness 15 years on? i have no good answer...all i can say is...i just can't help myself... good god! posted by: simplicissimus 22:30 2.24.08 after watching that montage, it has now occured to me just how *godawful* many of the "best film" winners truly are. braveheart? gladiator? the departed? forest gump? i could go on and on...but, my god, i seem to forget every year just how historical bad the academy has been. i agree with all you've said.. posted by: publius 21:41 2.24.08 and perhaps i pulled my punch too much in the above post...i actually did like it...but just not as much as i was "supposed" to. had i seen it without all the buildup i am sure i would have been satisfied that this is a paul thomas anderson film which actually had something to it without being off the scale pretentious, and that daniel day lewis kept himself more or less in check until the end. a fine day at the movie theater...it's just all the swooning and over-laudation that i really have a problem with... and like mccain with the lobbyist who he either did or did not have a romantic relationship with, i have said all i'm going to say about "there will be blood". the end... posted by: simplicissimus 21:19 2.24.08 yes, it tied things up a little too nicely. but i have to say, plainfield made good on his promise (unheard, but made right after he was "baptized"...you see him saying something ominous to eli, who suddenly leaves for a his "mission" in the very next scene, i think), so it wasn't entirely fluff. part of me thinks those last 10 minutes (baby in a basket! i drink your milkshake!) were the only means available -- short of making the movie 5 hours long -- to show that plainview was not "misunderstood"...he was a one-dimensional psychopath who didn't give a fuck for god, family, or money...just winning the oil game. i could go on and on - and it isn't worth reading - but plainfield is the archtype of the new man (get it! he was an undeveloped field!) that built this country and still runs it today. and to show him at his end, when he has every reason to be satisfied with his money, helpful to his child, and engage in a little false public piety but has none of it, i think it was to some effect. over the top and campy? you bet. but, jesus, publius - it's a movie! i did, i did... posted by: publius 21:03 2.24.08 i just got back. i guess what i'll say about it is that i didn't dislike it as much as i thought i would (until the end, when daniel day-lewis shows all his cards). it had its moments, but i still think the gushing reviews are out of scale with the film itself... i thought daniel day-lewis's best parts of the movie all centered around his "brother"...the moment when he comments on "the peachtree dance" and he figures it out was really well played... i also agree that it's better to have seen it in a theater, as the first 3/4 of the film are heavily reliant on landscape to turn its trick... i agree ... posted by: squisshy 20:50 2.24.08 see it, publius. it's unique, and while i wouldn't exactly call it fun to watch, i was very glad i saw it in a theater. speaking as a "magnolia"-hater posted by: rabelais 18:44 2.24.08 (i walked out of the theater on that flick - not something i do often), "there will be blood" is not guilty of the same sins. it picks its course and stays true to it. no masturbatory diversions and over-reaching silliness. relentless. and while daniel-day may have in the past enjoyed chewing on a scene a bit too much ("gangs of new york"), he works inside-out on this one. a great piece of work (and very much worth seeing in a theater.) i've heard the "over-actathon" posted by: simplicissimus 17:33 2.20.08 but i'm not sure it's apt. there's a scene (with the napkin in the restaurant, when he sees the standard oil guy) that is so ridiculous, so absurd, so bizarre...but so pitch-perfect in expressing plainfield's insane combination of drive, anger, and will...that it really blew me away. and it was the type of shit you just know was not in the script. i've been avoiding this movie. posted by: publius 17:23 2.20.08 because despite all the good reviews i've heard, i have a hard time believing i will not find it to be a daniel day-lewis overact-a-thon. plus i have a lingering hatred of paul thomas anderson for the cinematic holocaust that was magnolia.... so despite everything i hear from to the contrary, even from as trusted a source as simplicissimus, i'm pushing this one to my netflix list if i get to it at all.... i drink your milkshake! posted by: simplicissimus 20:04 2.19.08 i drink it uuuuuuuuuuuuppppppppp! if you don't know what i'm talking about: please, do yourself a favor, and check out "there will be blood". lawrence of arabia posted by: horsebeater 20:20 1.27.08 wow. i had no idea. i had never seen a minute of this movie. it's funny that this movie hasn't gotten more play over the last 5 years when discussing how f-ed the middle east is, etc. (and I pulled out the old VHS tape of fish called wanda 2-3 years ago and had the same pleasantly surprised reaction squisshy appears to have had... it really does hold up well) i just watched a fish called w posted by: squisshy 00:44 1.25.08 and i must say, i love it. so many great calls out of kline and cleese, and so many burned in my memory by virtue of having short wave files on my 1990 macintosh at dartmouth. that and the "it goes to eleven" speech from tap ... my god, i can still hear the sonic glitches on my bad copies of the quotes, even though they're not there int he original: e molto pericoloso, signorina ... molto pericoloso ... hello, k-k-k-ken's p-p-p-pets! wake UP! wake up, limey fish!!! oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. you don't even know why you're excited, do you? you pompous, stuck-up, snot-nosed, English, giant, twerp, scumbag, fuck-face, dickhead, asshole! how very interesting. you're a true vulgarian, aren't you? you're the vulgarian, you FUCK! so the old lady's gonna mmm-m-m-meet with an accident, eh k-k-k-k-ken? ah, i just can't deny it ... i think it holds up really well {screech, BOOM] ASSHOLE! his jackets were outlandish... posted by: horsebeater 14:18 1.22.08 ... i thought i was watching a super cool sci-fi movie! I kept waiting for Starbuck to burst through the door. ****** and the new world did suck (and the thin red line wasn't a masterpiece either). you guys need to put down the malick kool-aid and watch his movies whilst sober. (actually, try to watch his movies after 11 p.m. while slightly tired. if you can fall asleep during a movie, how good can it be?) Dude...this is why I have fait posted by: simplicissimus 14:08 1.22.08 one second he's trashing "The New World" (you have to be his Netflix Buddy...which actually would be kind of cool if you all were) and the next he's name checking two of the best movies I've seen in the last 12 months. but let me ask you, was it the stasi guy or his choice of jackets that impressed you so? in case you went with choice a), you'll be happy to know that the stasi guy is an actual 1980s east german dissident who was fucked with by the stasi in real life. you gotta believe he's spent a couple decades ruminating on the internal lives of stasi agents...because he really is awesome. double plus, richochet rabbits! The Lives of Others posted by: horsebeater 13:56 1.22.08 This is a German movie (English subtitles) from about a year ago. It is set in the 1980's in East Germany and is about a member of the Stasi who is supposed to monitor some artists who are barely dissidents and begins to have doubts about what he is doing. It's shot on video and is, of course, European, so it felt less like a movie than a PBS. The lead actor, however, the Stasi guy, is just awesome and is very believable in the role, and makes the movie. They could've trimmed 10 mins or so, but it's a very very good movie. Best movie I've seen since ... Children of Men. Third Man posted by: ludwig 15:32 1.20.08 I watched the The Third Man last night. It's a classic of film noir based on the Graham Greene novel. I forgot that although Orson Welles is most closely associated with it (he acts in the film but neither directed nor wrote the screenplay) he is on screen for about 8 minutes en toto. The plot is a little hokey, but it works. An American comes to post-war, occupied Vienna to meet up with his old friend Harry Lime. only to find out that Lime was killed in an auto accident right before he arrived. The American hears conflicting stories and proceeds to investigate his friend's death believing more and more that a murder, and not an accident, has occured. The cinematography is suberp. It was shot in Vienna when it was still occupied by the four powers, each in its own zone and then an international zone (I think the area encompassed within the Ringstrasse) patrolled by all four powers. The scenes of beautiful baroque buildings next to piles of bombed out rubble are fascinating. The interiors are so shabby they couldn't be anything but real. I couldn't help but compare it to The Good Shepherd, a movie I had seen recently and with which I was profoundly disapointed. The scenes in the Good Sherpherd were too clean, too stylized. The Third Man has the dirt, the rubble, the filth, the thread bare surroundings. It's real deal and it shows. If you've been to Vienna, you'll find the movie fascinating. If you haven't been, watch it any way and you'll want to go. an almost very good review of posted by: publius 01:20 1.16.08 it loses its way about midway through, but it hits on the fact that schnabel's accomplishment with this film is no mean feat. http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,2241444,00.html rabelais.... posted by: publius 17:39 1.6.08 you need to be introduced to tinyurl.com...so.... http://www.tinyurl.com i'll just add.... posted by: rabelais 08:04 1.6.08 1. i apparently (and coincidentally) saw the film the night before publius did. he beat me to the punch though in adding it to this thread. i couldn't agree more that it's worth your time. 2. the book upon which the film is based is itself a treasure. 3. it's fun watching julian schnabel (the director) and david bowie bat the ball back-and-forth on charlie rose while discussing "basquiat". http://www.charlierose.com/search?q=julian+schnabel&searchTopic=-1&searchFromMonth=MM&searchFromDay=DD&searchFromYear=YY&searchToMonth=MM&searchToDay=DD&searchToYear=YY&searchFilter=julian+schnabel&searchType=guest 4. the evolution of an artist over the course of a lifetime can be what's most inspiring about that artist (more so than your appreciation of an individual work.) piet mondrian comes to mind as an example. picassso doesn't (in that individual paintings are great art by themselves) but does (in that the arc of his career is itself a distinct achievement - just look at how his painting of women evolved.) i bring this up because julian schnabel is getting better as a filmmaker. (before seeing "the diving bell and the butterfly", i re-watched "basquiat" and "before night falls" in that order.) his command of cinematic story-telling techniques is increasing and this allows him to pull more into his films and address a broader scope of human emotions and experiences. (watch terrence malick's "bad lands", "days of heaven", and "thin red line" in order and witness a similar evolution.) progression of that sort is inspiring. and i'll leave it at that. that person posted by: publius 11:37 1.4.08 is a moron. i heard someone call it... posted by: horsebeater 11:32 1.4.08 ... "awakenings" for the indie crowd. they weren't complementing it. here here posted by: simplicissimus 11:20 1.4.08 i'll hesitatingly admit that i'm feeling emotional just thinking about it. the older i get, the more i realize that great art is defined by how it moves the observer. and i can't remember the last film that moved me -- and we're talking the gamut of emotions here -- so often and so effectively. just wonderful. and, one more thing: incredibly, this film somehow resisted the temptation to resolve all, or even many, of the issues it presentsed. there are at least a half dozen things that are hinted at (and which you feel clever for recognizing before they develop) that never develop. ....i'll stop. but i second the recommendation. see this movie. the diving bell and the butter posted by: publius 10:59 1.4.08 i saw this last night, and it is easily the best new film i've seen in a very long time. it's a french movie (but not a "french movie") directed by julian schnabel, the artist/director who also made "basquiat" and "before night falls" (which it resembles in some ways). it's a true story about a guy aged 42 who is a victim of "locked in syndrome"...while he is alert and all there mentally, he can't move at all, except for blinking his eyes. now, this could have been a really generic "feel good, human spirit" movie in the hands of the wrong director. and it is a feel good, human spirt movie, but there is nothing generic about it. there aren't really many great performances in the film either (with the exception of the peerlees max von sydow as the main character's father). the lead role is played by a very good french actor named matthieu almaric, and while he does a fine job, it's the way the story is told rather than his performance which make the film work. again, it could have been one of those films the academy loves where a big name actor plays a person with some kind of "disability" (forrest gump, rain man, i am sam, etc.) and warms your little heart. but it's distinctly not that. just trust me on this one and go see it. if this film doesn't move you, i dare say you may be dead. Affair to Remember posted by: ludwig 20:18 10.18.07 with the death of deboarah kerr, you are pretty much required to watch this movie (the cary grant version). The first half flows and the back and forth is phenomenal. The second half drags a bit. In the words of the 1957 reviewer in the NYT: "But something goes wrong with the picture, after the couple get off the ship and abandon that area of romantic illusion for the down-to-earth realities of dry land. The marriage pact seems ridiculously childish for a couple of adult people to make. The lady's failure to notify her fiancé of her accident seems absurd. The fact that the man does not hear of it in some way is beyond belief. And the slowness with which he grasps the obvious when he calls upon the lady is just too thick." It reaches an appalling low when two black kids appear out of nowhere, dance the old soft shoe, and then disappear again. In my mind, it is one of the most bizarre movie interludes ever. Anyhoo, good movie. It's predecessor, "Love Affair" - by the exact same director but 19 years later, is an interesting movie. not as crisp, but more ambivalent. wes anderson posted by: publius 10:58 10.2.07 i'd say mr. anderson has two movies that rank in the pantheon: rushmore (arguably the best "comedy" ever) and the royal tennenbaums ("did you just call me coltrane?). some would argue for bottle rocket, which i think was very good but anderson hadn't quite found his feet style-wise. because that's what makes a good wes anderson movie so very good - the creation through attention of every stylistic detail to world which is recognizably but also completely unreal. and now we have the darjeeling limited. the few reviews i've seen of it haven't been great, but who gives a fuck, really? when wes anderson makes a movie, you go see it because he's earned that fidelity. my roommate saw the movie a few days ago and really liked it, though he is admittedly even more of a wes anderson fan than i am. however, for those of you not living in new york where the movie is already in a few theaters, there is part one titled "hotel chevalier" starring jason schwartzman and the indescribably lovely natalie portman. it's 13 minutes long and the whole thing is beautiful. what takes place is somewhat cryptic, but really anderson is just using plot here as a way to move his actors through one visually stunning scene after another. get it here: http://www.hotelchevalier.com/ if penn absorbed a tenth of wh posted by: rabelais 23:45 9.18.07 his next flick "into the wild" might be pretty good. early notices seem promising. a real affinity between director and source material, a talented (and appropriately cast) lead actor, and the year or more sean spent with terrence learning how to look at and shoot the natural environment. might just not suck. persona, by ingmar bergman posted by: publius 20:44 9.18.07 there is a film series at the school from which i am a recent graduate which is often quite good. tonight they showed "persona" by ingmar bergman and it was easily one of the better films i've ever seen. it's typical bergman (rip, a few weeks ago) bleak, with liv ullmann and bibi andersson playing two sides of the same persona. it's hard to describe much further than that, and an explication of the "plot" doesn't really help, but the next time you're in the mood for an intense movie, check it out. http://imdb.com/title/tt0060827/ netflix... posted by: publius 23:26 8.9.07 still the best internet company ever... the other day i received a notice in the (real) mail from netflix. they were LOWERING my monthly fee (i have the 3 movies at a time plan) AND in addition i now get something like 13 streaming download movies for free each month. when was the last time you got something in the mail from a corporation telling you they are lowering the rates they charge you and giving you additional services at no charge? add this to my astonishment when, a few years ago, i first lost a disc that netflix had sent me. i figured that surely that was when the other shoe was going to drop on this too-good-to-be-true company. you may not have to deal with late fees or the endless laps around the video store anymore, but if you fuck up and misplace "river's edge" they're going to charge you $90 or something similarly ridiculous to replace it. not so. not so at all. you fill out a short little form on the web site and they essentially tell you, "as long as we don't detect you making a habit of 'losing' our discs, we understand that these things happen. your next disc is on its way today'". now, i understand that there are many possible reasons for all of this nicety...competition from other dvd/download movie services, declining subscription rates, etc. but still. i find it pretty amazing. i am motivated to write this now because, after a prolonged couple of days of re-re-re-re-reading jim harrison (this time it was specifically a collection of his food writing called "the raw and the cooked") i spent the last 4 hours in the kitchen cooking a couple of meals at once. cooking always puts me in a somewhat romantic, sentimental type of mood (the soundtrack to my cooking jags always starts out with chet baker, though once i get into the wine a bit all bets are off. and perhaps the wine is what's truly responsible for my sentimental mood...), so now that i'm done and wondering what to do with myself, i have decided that watching "casablanca" for at least the 10th time sounds perfect. and thanks to netflix, all i have to do is click a few times and i'm good to go. netflix...yr the best... can i put a movie on this list posted by: simplicissimus 23:09 8.9.07 (and won't until december of 07?) http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809761737/video/3631941/standardformat/ mos def? check. jack black (doing what he does best)? check. the director of "eternal sunshine..."? check. i'm tell y'all now...this is definitely going to be fucking good. i think. "hot fuzz" posted by: simplicissimus 09:34 6.20.07 not sure if you guys are hip to this movie or not (it was marketed really, really poorly, and i doubt very widely). anyhow, these are the guys from "shaun of the dead". and this movie is really, really, really funny. the type of funny that makes you realize how cheap most hollywood funny movies are. no naked women. no bodily functions. no laughing at unfortunate people. just lots of british humor. really funny british humor. "i'm not bad, i'm just drawn t posted by: publius 00:03 6.3.07 if, like me, you haven't seen "who framed roger rabbit" since it came out 20 years ago....see it again. in its way, it's as ahead of its time as tron, and it's a better movie by far. the technology is somewhat laughable by pixar standards...you can see lots of seams (it's odd, but the human characters seem more 2d than the toons). but don't doubt that in the next couple of years we're going to see a lot more movies that mix human actors and animation. mashup roger rabbit, waking life and sin city and you're probably on the right track. i haven't seen spiderman 3 or pirates of the caribbean 3 (speaking of mixing humans with animation) but i don't think i'm going to waste the $11 or so to do so. i'd rather watch roger rabbit three times... and jessica rabbit? what can you say? to paraphrase "true romance": " if i had to fuck a toon...i mean had to fuck a toon...i'd fuck jessica rabbit." call me snake posted by: squisshy 16:25 5.25.07 it may not qualify as a "pantheon movie" but i had the pleasure recently of ordering up a free HD viewing of Escape from New York. The opening "set the scene" text is priceless (in fact i almost paused the movie and ran to the computer to set it all out word-for-word but was ultimately too lazy and squashless): 1988: the crime rate triples ... the island of manhatten is converted into the one maximum-security prison in the United States. a containment wall is erected around the city, and all bridges and tunnels are mined. there are no guards inside, only the world that the criminals have created for themselves. the rules are simple: once you go in, you don't come out. 1997: NOW ... anyway, it is a pretty pitch-perfect reflection of its 1981 creation date. NYC was seemingly spinning more and more out of control crimewise, and it was probably a logical view at that time that, really, the country should just abandon the city. the music, which i love and which apparently john carpenter wrote himself, definitely dates the flick. and oh, what a cast! russell as snake plissken, isaac hayes as the duke of new york, harry dean stanton and adrienne barbeau as "brain" and maggie, the irrepressible ernest borgnine (you may remember me as sergeant fatso judson!) as cabbie, lee van cleef as Hauck (the personification of The Man) and of course, donald pleasance as the prez. despite its maaaany ridiculous elements (not least of which is the giant digital clock that plissken totes around town -- why it is 10 times larger than a 1981-vintage wristwatch i have no idea) i must say i was again struck by what is a pretty cool vision of what a freakish and often disturbing world would be created in those circumstances. Escape from NY is one of two outstanding and very ridiculous Russell/Carpenter collaborations -- the other being The Thing. another thing that was funny about this flick is the prevalence of smoking. there were even No Smoking signs in the hallway where one has to follow the orange line to get taken inside -- necessary, of course, because smoking was allowed everywhere else in the building, and in fact plissken lights up when discussing the plan with Hauck ... Here's Johny! posted by: prankmonkey 15:17 5.25.07 Recently caught The Shining for a random millionth viewing. This is the greatest horror flick of all time. Bar none. Prime, scenery-chewing Nicholson. Creepy-as-all-get-out vibe, and yet so human and real you can almost believe it. Trippy alternate reality stuff. And Scatman Crothers, to boot. chuck klosterman once compared posted by: simplicissimus 12:52 5.25.07 a couple of hipsters at a morrisey show (his article was about how morrisey is the favorite of latino young men...which is true...and his shows have almost no white folks at them anymore) to contestants in a bud cort circa harold & maude look-a-like contest. why do i bring this up? i don't know. there was just something about it that was too fucking funny. Harold and Maude posted by: rahoohl_dewk 10:30 5.25.07 A dark comedy focused on relationships and the contrast of life/death. There are so few films with a 1 second image that have such an impact on the theme of the film. [I'm intentionally being vague not to give anything away about this classic, but if you've seen it, you know exactly what Harold sees in this 1 second shot] About 4 years ago I saw this film on 16mm at a weekend getaway at my old summer camp (where I just got married) in honor of my friend's 10th wedding anniversary. The film was shown in the dining hall on a sheet hanging on the wall with 30+ people sitting on the dinner benches ranging from 8 y/o to 75 y/o. We were all together and reveling in the film. It was a testament to how this film cross-cuts age/culture/generation gaps. Since this viewing, my wife (she was my girlfriend at the time) and I have agreed that we watch the film together at least 1x per year to remind us of the great things in life. Ruth Gordon puts on one of the finest roles by a female lead. I can understand why Harold loves Maude and Maude loves Harold. Easily in my top 10 films with a message. Tremendous TIMELESS film. A lesson for everyone: L-I-V-E. [Addendum: I loved how on AD the Court tv show with Judge Reinhold was replaced by Night Court with Bud Cort...] resevoir dogs posted by: simplicissimus 21:14 5.6.07 continuing on the tarantino tip... has anybody re-watched resevoir dogs recently? jesus, the man is a master. you don't remember, or at least you forget, how fucking much he set the trend for a decade's worth of movies. while he surely wasn't the first to use the jumpy camera, plots that jump (sometimes, as here, leaving the most "critical" part of the action unseen), the witty gen-x banter, and the soundtrack as a major device, he was the first to do all of it. and do it so fucking well. yes, we've suffered through a million and one cheap knockoffs, but after watching this movie again i'd still say it's worth it. lantana posted by: ludwig 21:50 4.28.07 Anyone seen it? I thought it was really well acted and the plot rather interestingvery much worth the two hours. the guy who directed it has a new movie starring gabriel byrne and laura linney . . . just saw tarantino's "grindhou posted by: simplicissimus 13:02 4.19.07 i was expecting very little, and was really, really suprised at how much i like it. http://www.grindhousemovie.net/ it runs 3:15 (it's really two entirely different movies..."planet terror" and "death proof"), which is idiotic from a money-making standpoint (you pretty much need to see it on a weekend and need to set some time aside, at that...) but i thought it pretty much fucking rocked. the women were foxy. the cars were awesome. the dialogue was just right. the violence was over the top. it is amazing to me that a movie like 300 can rule the box office for a month, while (again, besides the length) this seems to be slipping by un-noticed. know what you're getting into, but if it is even remotely interesting to you definitely check it out. more than anyone needs to know posted by: publius 22:08 4.6.07 about this film... http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s44fearkill.html ok, so this movie may not be i posted by: publius 22:00 4.6.07 but it is a vampire spoof from 1967 directed by and starring roman polanski. it also stars his future wife sharon tate, most famous at this point for being murdered by charles manson and friends while she was 8-1/2 months pregnant... what's it called? "the fearless vampire killers, or pardon me but i believe your teeth are in my neck" just watch it. it has a few moments that are worth it. but mostly you just get the impression that all involved must have had a hell of a time making it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_Vampire_Killers y'know... posted by: horsebeater 11:35 3.15.07 ... when i was in high school i got busted for sleeping with my girlfriend by her parents (not in flagrante delicto, thankfully), and they kept saying "i can't believe you did this in our house." That made no sense to me at the time, but I finally figured out what that meant: they know kids are going to have sex, but they have to pretend for their own sanity that they are not ... doing it in the house makes them face the reality ... doing it in a car on a backcountry road somehow makes it better. And let me mention the fact that I was 16 and my girlfriend was 14 at the time makes me sicker and sicker as the years go by now that I've got a daughter who will be 7 in a few weeks. HALFWAY THERE... AARARRRGGHGHARARAGHGAHGA (see what thinking about this does to me?... I'm going to start drinking) ok... i'm skipping the reasoni posted by: horsebeater 11:31 3.15.07 ... the upshot is that eventually I am 98% sure that what I'm going to do is what fathers have done for time immmemorial. Tell your daughter not to do that stuff once and then just block it out of your head and willfully ignore reality for the next 10-15 years. When a girl comes downstairs dressed like a hussy, what normally happens in a standard American household? The dad doesn't even look up from the newspaper (unless you're in a movie about an italian family set in the 1960's... then the dad, wearing a wifebeater t-shirt, yells at his daughter... WASP dad's, however, do nothing). It's the mom that freaks out and complains about the way she's dressed. This is because if the dad starts to think about this, he will go crazy, and he knows that. So you don't think about it. For those that are childless but in a relationship, maybe this can best be compared to sitting around thinking about all the other dicks your girlfriend has fucked. You might have done that when you were 16 or 17 and gotten yourself jealous, but you learned over the years that there wasn't any fucking point. It's the same thing here for dads and daughters. You can drive yourself absolutely bonkers thinking about it, or you can live in willful, blissful ignorance. the dad's enforced ignorance gives dads and daughters some distance between them, which is a sad sad thing. It's part because of sex, but also because junior high school girls frankly aren't the nicest creatures on the planet. you can't know everything about your daughter's life anymore or get involved in the day to day stuff. sometimes you don't want to because you don't really want to know when your daughter's been a complete shit. you'd rather maintain the illusion. in a best case you get to be like the dad in sixteen candles who talks to molly ringwald late at night about big picture things but can't really help with the small stuff that's really bothering her. and then they grow up more and get more girly and you lose common interests with them. maybe when they get into their mid-20's you can start going to baseball games and talking to them again and try to reconnect. but that's what you get. that is your destiny. dear god i am definitely going to go home and play video games with emma tonight. ***** Now, Izzi, your dad was absolutely right to shut down Jack & Diane even under the above regime. Clearly your sister, by singing that in front of him, was breaking down his ability to keep the mental block in place which prevented him from ever ever thinking about his daughter's sex life. he needed to IMMEDIATELY restore the mental block or the consequences would have been truly disastrous for him, for fatherhood in general and potentially for the universe. luckily none of us are there y posted by: horsebeater 11:10 3.15.07 ... and I would note that I am going to thoroughly enjoy my somewhat tomboyish daughter's seventh through tenth years as much as I possibly can. **** I've given Izzi's comments some thought in the past. There was an article in Slate or the Atlantic where they quoted a feminist saying that female empowerment is a wonderful thing, but why is it that college girls are using that empowerment to give blowjobs to guys they barely know (note: even 2 years ago, I would have made the joke "and why wasn't I born 15 years later" but as your daughter gets older, those jokes become bad bad bad bad bad karma). The sense is that if you are puritanical toward sex, then you can probably delay / limit your daughter's involvement, but also that if the sex DOES happen it is more likely to be exploitative or a bad situation. So you wonder if there is another way. You wonder if trying to foster a healthy attitude toward sex (here's some condoms for your 15th birthday, honey!) will at least make it so your daughter is making guys go down on her, which somehow seems better than her sexing them. ok... i just started to feel physically ill typing the above, so i'm gonna have to come back to this later. Me? posted by: spacehippie 16:44 3.11.07 I'm going to stop procreating and stick to just the two boys so I don't have to deal with the specter of raising a prostitot. I'll also do what I can to instill in my boys a love for Sir Mix-a-Lot, so they'll just avoid that god awful Pussycat Dolls bullshit. Don't you wish your boyfriend was SWASS like me? For the parents on the fort, o posted by: isidorus 15:00 3.11.07 [NOTE: this post is not about movies, but related to other content above. --ed.] I don't have cable TV at home, but occassionally watch it at the gym. On Friday morning, out of frustration with the insipidness of basically everything (including you, Soledad!) I spent my time on the treadmill watching VH1's "Jump Start" and I was reminded of a defining parenting moment from my youth. My older sister, who was about twelve at the time, had just purchased (with my dad's help) the Jack&Diane single (45rpm) and then was listening to said recording when my dad heard the risque lyrics about sucking on a chili dog, letting me do what I please, etc. At this point my dad confiscated the single and grounded my sister. And I remember thinking, at the age of, like, ten, that his reaction was way uncool and that when I'm a dad I'd never behave in such a way. So I'm not even a dad but cue Jump Start. The first video I see is "CandyMan" by Christina A. http://youtube.com/watch?v=HkBWQzuu6XA And I'm thinking it's not so bad until they get to the chorus and they start singing about how Mr. Candyman makes "the panties drop" and, in turn, "makes my cherry pop" (?) and I'm thinking, this is an outrage, both for the insipid bluntness of the lyrics (at least John Cougar left something to the imagination) but also for the fact that Christina Aguilera songs are so obviously marketed to the pre-teen/tween/teen whatever girl market, and the song is so explicit about drinking (vodka-double-wine?) and sex that if I had a daughter in the house this song would be completely verboten. So now Candyman's over and here come the Pussycat Dolls with Busta Rhymes with what is essentially a music video crossed with soft-core adultery-porn http://youtube.com/watch?v=cim0I0deOvc) and (despite my fondness for the porn genre) I'm basically in shock. But then I remember Jack&Diane and I think, well, my fictional eleven year old daughter is probably going to dance around and sing "don't cha wish your girlfriend was raw like me..." despite all of my best efforts to the contrary and so I'd better just play it cool. Then I got to wondering how the actual dads on the fort are approaching this one, and so I'm asking. obviously an accidental omissi posted by: misterconradbain 20:59 12.29.06 I really enjoyed your movie lists but noticed that all of you forgot "Yentl" If you want to raise a kid right, do what my parents did and keep Yentl on a loop. Also I noticed someone had a list where Kicking and Screaming was a second tier - please tell me you are talking about the Will Ferrell movie and not the Noah Baumbach movie because that one is first tier. The Graduate and Fish that Saved Pittsburgh are movies every five year old should see, everyday, until their bar mitzvah. "Children of Men" posted by: simplicissimus 10:33 12.28.06 check it out kids. though dark doesn't begin to describe this flick, i thought it was fantastic. my take is that its the first post 9-11 film to do any justice whatsoever to the post 9-11 world. not perfect by any means. but pretty fucking good (and beautifully shot), nonetheless. what's more, it has that object of my desire julianne moore *and* michael caine...and that alone is good enough. raising arizona posted by: simplicissimus 22:37 11.13.06 Just a little note to everybody: put it at the top of yer movie list. this movie is funnier, better acted, better shot, more entertaining, and more incisive than the last time you saw it (unless that was in the last few years). and if you've ever wondered why you *still"* like nick cage, regardless of what he's done lately, and why uou are *certain* john goodman is the most under-rated actor in hollywood (jeff bridges being a close second): watch this movie and wonder no more. "half-nelson" posted by: rabelais 00:06 9.24.06 not a smaller model of a certain dog...think instead: a film version of the "the fan's notes." go check it out. (and read the book, if you haven't already.) great article on netflix queue posted by: horsebeater 15:06 9.15.06 ... http://www.slate.com/id/2149575/ according to netflix... posted by: publius 18:50 8.17.06 horsebeater has an 83% similiarity to me ludwig (with the wife) has an 79% similarity to me simplicissimus has a 62% similarity to me this i find a bit surprising... can you dig it? posted by: publius 02:24 7.30.06 http://www.netflix.com/Roadshow?id=5340 warriors!!!!!! for all the netflixers out the posted by: publius 16:12 3.3.06 rent often, go to the back of the line... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11262292/ i personally have no issues with netflix...i still think it's about the best service of any kind out there. perhaps i haven't fallen prey to the "frequent renter" problem because my renting is so erratic - there are time when i go through 5 or 6 films a week, others when i'm lucky if i watch 3 a month... just so's y'all're aware. (thanks for the link, a...) a history of violence posted by: publius 12:54 1.13.06 i saw this last night, and it is one of the best movies i've seen in the theater in a very long time. i'm normally somewhat lukewarm on cronenberg's movies. they're usually overly conceptual and try a bit too hard to do whatever it is they do. but this is far and away his most accessible film (in fact, i believe he was chided by his hardcore fans for having sold out), which is a good thing where he is concerned. viggo mortensen is excellent, as is pretty much everyone else. so make it a point to check it out. you know what.... posted by: publius 00:08 9.18.05 i agree with you on that one. i had myself all confused. when i was writing alphaville i was thinking of bande a part. as i was reading your post i couldn't figure out how you were linking that one to sci-fi. but then i straightened myself out. so yeah, despite alphaville being one of the more canonical godard films, i'm not such a huge fan. If only 2.5 were an option (bu posted by: horsebeater 22:52 9.17.05 Watching Alphaville this week, I couldn't help but have deja vu for the points in my nerdish life as a 15 year old where I began to get glimpses of what the cool people were starting to get into. Lots of stuff (like beer and ladies) was entirely new to me, but then you'd see the cool people clearly listening to the smiths for the first time, and you'd think, "My god man, us dorks have been listening to this for a year now. Could it be that the cool people are actually not as advanced as me and my friends in some areas?" I mean, how could I know that the grandeur that is French film is actually sometimes average sci fi? With a basic storyline that could have been ripped from a 1958 Vonngeut short story anthology? My fear of foreign films was literally cut in half after this one(but my hopes that they would unveil a new dynamic world that I would fall in love with also took a beating). I probably would've liked this more if I hadn't already had a "sci fi" phase. My reaction to this was similar to reading Stranger in a Strange Land after already having read 100+ sci fi books during my preteen and early teen years. Some of the stuff that shocked and surprised most people didn't seem that special or novel to someone familiar with the genre. I probably would've liked this much more had I seen it in 1965 when it came out. The fears it preys upon just don't exist on that level all that much anymore (and most of the sci fi I read in my life hadn't been written yet). I probably would've liked this more if 2001: A Space Oddysey didn't come out 3 years later. These films compete on many of their details (the respective voices of the computers) and in their themes (computers, facism, losing what makes us human, etc.), and 2001 does a better job (then again, I last saw 2001 14 or so years ago, so what do I remember). come now horsebeater.... posted by: publius 00:45 9.16.05 2 stars for alphaville?....quelle horreur! this very misguided quote... posted by: publius 13:25 6.7.05 reminded me that in our discussion of pantheon movies, we somehow managed to forget the cannonball run trilogy (yes, there was a third one...) the first two are clearly pantheon movies. "the stupidest thing i ever did was turn down 'terms of endearment' to do 'cannonball run ii'" - burt reynolds oh burt! time will show you the error of this assessment! i'll comment more later... posted by: horsebeater 17:25 5.25.05 ... but i just wanted to note that I didn't mean to imply, publius, that you were being inconsistent or anything. my quoting you wasn't an attempt to take a shot at you. And I did take your point on why you liked the Time list in its non-U.S. centered-ness. I actually appreciate it very much for that fact (and will be adding some of the POST 1980 foreign films to my Netflix Queue). i agree with you almost to the posted by: publius 15:56 5.25.05 as i said when you first started listing movies, any such list is bound to be somewhat controversial. my point in saying that the time list was better than expected centered on the fact that it wasn't an exclusively us/hollywood affair. it was much broader in scope than i would have expected from time. i'm right there with you on the 1924-syndrome. i do think that most of the movies from that era retain only historical interest. an exception is "l'age d'or" by bunuel and dali. and buster keaton's work. and some of chaplin. but in general what i said about the photographs applies here too. i'm not willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater though. dr. strangelove and citizen kane are great movies...and i also think your "things i'd rather see at the local multiplex" criteria is a bit trite. beethoven's string quartets are undeniably (well, i suppose it's deniable by really dumb people) greater works of art than kid rock's oeuvre, yet when i put on my ipod to go running it's the kid every time...i don't want to sit through "l'age d'or" all that often (even though it's only about 20 minutes long), but i can all but guarantee it's a "greater" film than anything at your local multiplex right now. also, bear in mind, that unlike most of these lists, this is simply the opinion of two admitted cinephiles....there is little in the way of concensus (explaining the presence of something like ulysses gaze)... if i were making a list of the top 100 movies, POSSIBLE points of intersection (i have no interest in spending the time to generate such a thing) between the time list and my own would be (giving me some leeway for things i haven't seen but feel i should have by now, like the apu trilogy...): bande a part (see my post above on this one - though how you include this and not breathless is beyond me) blade runner (mostly for the aesthetics of it) brazil (i love terry gilliam) casablanca (best great movie that didn't set out to be a great movie) chinatown (just saw in again about a month ago...best noir-reinterpretation ever) citizen kane (it gets on every list. it should.) day for night (actually not - there are much better truffaut films) dr. strangelove ("we must not have a mineshaft gap!" and the genius of peter sellers get this one on the list...) 8 1/2 (i could go either way with this one...i think there is better fellini...like "la dolce vita"...) 400 blows (just saw it again three weeks ago - never gets old) godfather i+ii (on every list, and deservedly so...) the good, the bad and the ugly (sucker for the spaghetti westerns) goodfellas (yeah...) ikiru (though like bande a part, there are better kurosawa films) manchurian candidate (the original, of course) metropolis (another exception to the old movie rule, this one purely for aesthetic reasons. to not at least be familiar with this film makes you at least partially visually-illiterate.) on the waterfront (brando was only better in streetcar...) once upon a time in the west (see good, bad, ugly...) psyco (yet again...there are better hitchcock films...) pulp fiction (i lost all faith in the academy when forrest gump (!) won best picture over pulp fiction. it truly was a crime against humanity) star wars (though i'd take empire strikes back any day) a streetcar named desire ("stella!"...anybody here who wouldn't fuck brando in this movie?...anyone who says no is lying...) ulysses' gaze (a bit turgid and overly artsy, but captures a moment in time - the fall of the eastern bloc - better than anything else i've seen) unforgiven (just good solid clint) yojimbo (see ikiru) Additions to the Pantheon over posted by: horsebeater 15:16 5.25.05 (A) GET CARTER (British version). Tier 4. This was pretty fucking good. It's the only new addition to the list. (B) SHAUN OF THE DEAD and SUPERSIZE ME just miss the list. Yes, I watched SUPERSIZE ME and kind of liked it... I thought the guy was really fair, actually... which is NOT what I expected... I was really ready to (and even wanted to) hate that movie, but it just didn't deserve it. (C) Other old(er) movies I saw and thought were ok, but weren't much better than that: These 2 were good (not "very good," but more than ok, I guess): SUNSET BOULEVARD THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS These 2 were ok at best: ITALIAN JOB (old, British version) DOWN BY LAW (I've now tried Jarmusch twice, and I think I'll pass from now on, thank you very much) (D) More of Ludwig's movies are coming up on my netflix queue soon. Taking (pot)shots at the canno posted by: horsebeater 14:55 5.25.05 I have a very strong visceral reaction to lists like this, as soon as I see them and see the year "1924" more than once, in that I nearly immediately think "I just don't buy it." The main problem I have is the equal empahsis of new and old movies. ****************** Once upon a time, a wise man said (with my additions in brackets): "the photographs [movies] ... are interesting almost exclusively from a historical perspective.... they're really only intriguing in a burns brothers documentary way. the last couple of photos [movies] are nice technically but the titles turn them into cliches - and the fact that he got there first doesn't do much to mitigate that fact. to anyone living today their impact as art - of their impact at all - is minimal. if you've seen something like the matrix, it's tough to view most of these images as much more than historical snapshots. and that's all i have to say about that." ****************** If the Matrix can make old pictures seem obsolete, it can certainly do the same thing for MOVIES. While the impact might not be identical for movies, I think the general thought expressed above is often true for movies. If you take practically ANY movie made before 1965, the fact that it is an old movie, and all that entails, is going to affect my enjoyment of it. Whether its the unnatural dialogue (partially because the writers were often worse; partially because its 40+ years old), the archaic cinematography (no close-ups, etc.), wooden acting or simply unbelievable characters (this happens to me almost constantly in old movies... I'm expected to believe, completely contrary to my experience, that someone would actually ACT as weird as they do in some of these "great" movies), I just don't buy it. I realize that *some* of it is that modern moviemakers know how to manipulate the audience more (and I am personally subject to that kind of emotional manipulation). But the ability to manipulate just means that we've learned how to draw out reactions in an audience, which is pretty much the point of art. If the techniques are used in a schlocky manner, that sucks, but if the techniques are used in a skillful and artful manner, then that can only make a good movie better. The first time I saw Citizen Kane and Dr. Strangelove, my first thought at seeing the credits roll was "that's all there is to it?" In part because I'm used to more action (or manipuation, if you prefer) in movies, the movies weren't viscerally or emotionally powerful to me and I never felt fully drawn into them. And those still, to me, were pretty good. The high points / overall stories / messages overcame many other shortcomings. Many other movies fail miserably. I can't fucking stand The Graduate, for example. When I look at the Time list (they go 100 movies over 80 years, so you should expect about 1.2 movies per year), and I see Pinochio and King Kong (and I haven't seen most of the movies on the 1954 and earlier lists), I start to choke. No way I'm even sitting through King Kong; No doubt in my mind that there are 4 movies at my local multiplex that I'd rather see than King Kong.... in fact, going to the newspaper, I find Star Wars, Crash, Hitchhiker's Guide and Kingdom of Heaven all at the Regal Severance Center 14 that is 5 minutes from my house. I would expect the list to reflect the simple fact that great technical improvements in movies as an art form mean that better movies are being made today, generally speaking. Some kinds of movies, PARTICULARLY an action-based movie like King Kong or an animated movie like Pinnochio, get "overtaken" when the technology overcomes them. When the lists don't seem to recognize this, I immediately start to doubt the authors (my doubt then doubles when "The Fly" gets included on the list). surprisingly... posted by: publius 17:43 5.24.05 this list from time magazine of the top 100 films is pretty good... http://www.time.com/time/2005/100movies/the_complete_list.html especially impressed with/surprised at the inclusion of "ulysses' gaze"...i was under the impression that the only people who had even seen it were myself, rabelais and a few hundred other assorted new york types in who saw it as part of some festival or another in 1995... first rule of tentfort posted by: horsebeater 14:25 3.14.05 (1) izzy is of course right to invoke the first rule of tentfort regarding whether a kid will give a fuck / be receptive to this stuff. I've already had my heart broken by emma, who consistently refuses to give any details at all to me and the wife about what has occurred at preschool on any given day. When this first happened, threats and bribes were made to no avail: "did you play with nora or did you play with charlotte today?" "i don't want to talk about it" "only 'talkers' get skittles, emma" (sidelight: even if you don't think you'll be a controlling parent, you will be more than you think, at least in the early years, because you HAVE to take complete control over their lives whether you want it or not for the first year. And during the following 2 years they are such a mess that you have to keep control even though they don't want you in control and are fighting against you ("no you can't eat candy for lunch today." "get down off of the dresser." "get the gum out of your hair"). After being in control for so long (even if you didn't want it), you just kinda get used to it being that way and it spills over for a few more years, in my experience. It's kind of like sitting behind the wheel and after 3 years of driving a car, it starts to drive itself. It's a little weird.) And worry about whether this whole deal was practical was part of my inspiration for asking the question: the fact that no one on tentfort seems to have gotten substantial or even moderate parental guidance on these media is discouraging and makes it appear that this might not work. Maybe a teenager is going to say "get the fuck away from me dad" even if you brought a bag of pot and a 12 pack up to their room. (2) On the other hand, the oughts/teens and the 70's/80's are and will be very different decades. I thought I would be a father that parented very much like my parents did and I'm not really doing that as much as I thought I would: so the fact that it worked out that my parents were hands off might not mean that's the way it's bound to be. And while I sometimes mock the "my parents are my friends" type shit, I don't think it has to be a total us vs. them thing. Even when I was in high school, I had friends who stayed relatively tight with their parents (for another thread: these were often the single mother households). In fact, if this works, it could be one area where you keep some ability to talk to your kids when you are separating from them in other areas. And, really, it wasn't that bad with my folks. My dad started giving me books at about age 8 and I liked them and that continued really all the way through high school. When I was 15-16-17-18, I remember him saying "do you want to read this" and having me examine the jacket cover rather closely and turning him down a few times, but I also accepted an equal amount. So maybe its a credibility issue. So you have to be very careful about the timing. You probably have to build the credibility prior to the years during which teenagers are subhuman (from my boarding school teaching experience, I can advise that this is from age 14.5 to 16 for boys; I'm told it's a little earlier for girls). Or maybe you just skip the heart of the rebellious years and its a graduation present kinda thing. And maybe its a situation where sometimes the gift is made and the DVD/CD/book goes on the shelf, only to actually be watched/listened to/read at age 22. And while that isn't ideal, it's not really much of a problem, either. The goal is to try to communicate with your kid, to show them and get them interested in some of the cool stuff in the world and to try to build some common interests. While it certainly a case of "the sooner the better," so long as it eventually happens... So I personally think "self-indulgent" goes too far. If I try this, in about 10-15 years I'll be able to give a more definitive answer. ************** speaking of my daughter emma, as far as surprise pregnancies go, i'm glad izzi finally hit it. it was sitting there on the tee all fucking week. on parenting posted by: isidorus 12:56 3.13.05 What an excellent and thought provoking thread. The initial posts were especially timely for me, as I read them moments after returning from several hours of time spent with my own dad, drinking beers and swapping stories about graduate school. Before I chime in, though, I must note the irony in the libelous comments included a few posts above. Unlike a sizable portion of the tf community, I've never been a party to a surprise pregnancy. As far as I know. Horsebeater. That said, a few months ago I was randomly listening to nevermind and thought to myself, "what if my son asks me what music I liked when I was younger?" and I imagined I would give him that album and he would be impressed. But I'm probably wrong. I had mostly hands-off parents and, now that I'm in my thirties, I wish they'd been more hands-on. But it wouldn't have mattered. Example: Christmas 1982 I received my first two LPs, from my parents, Business as Usual by Men at Work and Eye in the Sky by the Alan Parsons Project. I asked for these albums because I heard them on the radio and I liked them. It didn't occur to me that it might be odd for a nine year old to like that stuff. Over the next few years, though, I fell prey to my older sister's questionable taste (lots of wham!) and I wish my parents had been like, "well, if he liked Alan Parsons Project maybe he'll like some other prog-rockers..." My dad tried a little bit, with music (hank williams, mostly) and movies (The Jerk and It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World). He tried a little harder with books (Old Man and the Sea, The Hobbit, Manchild in the Promised Land, and others) but mostly I resisted that stuff, and he never forced the issue. The fact that it came from my dad meant that it wasn't cool. As a teenager, parents are making rules, setting limits, basically, being parents. And god bless them for it. I doubt that they can be sources of "cool" until you're in your twenties and out from under their thumb. It's unlikely that a kid would receive the box of pantheon anythings with the reverence that it would warrant. And in that way my dad was probably right to not push it -- teenagers have to find that stuff without their parents. So the pantheon exercise, while interesting, is kind of self indulgent. So I ask you: think back to when you were 14. If your parents gave you a box of pantheon movies/books/records, what would you do? Would you take it seriously? re: "another comment on father posted by: armyoflebron 18:25 3.10.05 uh, best post ever. (typed through tears of laughter...well, perhaps not only laughter.) better than anything i've ever read in harpers... or heard come out of ira glass's mouth... or andy rooney's... ...damn, that was great. kudos, hb. still struggling to get through the movie lists. Movies posted by: ludwig 18:10 3.8.05 HB's list was herculean. I quibble with the order and agree with publius that more foreign films need to be included. There's also no silentfilms, older films or documentaries. Netflix is a god send in that regard. they have a pretty phenomenal slection. Off the top of my head, I'd add (and I'm sure some are duplicative): Primary: An Affair to Remember Annie Hall The Apartment The Big Sleep Bringing Up Baby City Lights Duck Soup The General Grand Illusion Great Dictator Philadelphia Story The Searchers Stagecoach Steamboat Bill Sunset Boulevard Secondary: Crimes and Misdemeanors A Day at the Races Lawrence of Arabia The Leopard (Italian) A Night at the Opera Paths of Glory The Producers Rear Window She Wore a Yellow Ribbon Some like it Hot Stalag 17 To Catch a Thief Vertigo Tertiary: Animal Crackers Bananas Capturing the Friedmans Cocoanuts Dr. Death Foolish Wives Take the Money and Run The Weather Underground The Wild Bunch Zelig I think.... posted by: simplicissimus 17:43 3.8.05 1) The post two posts above is incredible. 2) You should definitely spread it out. Come up with the list. Buy the stuff. And 3 or 4 times a year, drop something. I like the arbor day, flag day (which is actually may day everywhere but here, i think, but i digress) idea. 3) Even if I'm anti-irony, your child needs to know what irony is. Hence, please put Napoleon Dynamite on there. ditto on the parents posted by: ludwig 17:38 3.8.05 My taste in art, music and literature have nothing to do with my parents. I'd like to say that my parents have no taste. Indeed, I'd be gratified if that were true. Instead, I must admit that they have atrocious taste. My Dad will watch anything with "action" as long as it is not "urban," have bad language, or - God help us and save us - "adult situations." I particualrly remember him walking in to the kitchen from the living room with a VHS rental box. I asked him what he thought of the movie (a plotless western extravaganza). With a huge smile on his face, he gave the movie his highest compliment. He said "I tell ya, it was the most shoot-em-up shoot-em-up I've ever seen." My dad doesn't read books. He reads the newspaper and magazines. I think I developed that habit (4 newspapers a day and numerous magazines per week). He doesn't listen to music much. He has no understanding or time for art. I sometimes think of him as Virgil Starkwell in "Take the Money and Run." Virgil's cello teacher, assessing his perfomance said "He had no concept of the instrument. He was blowing into it." My mom reads a lot but is a child's librarian. Not too much insight there. She generally listens to children's music since she had so many and has no attempted to annex my nieces and nephews. I read constantly as a child. It was a product of my lack of coordination and my poor eyesight (I have a 50% chance of going blind in 10 years). So, sports weren't really an option. More on movies . . . army of lebron's question posted by: horsebeater 17:34 3.8.05 a good point on the books... maybe you build your street cred with the movies and spend it by getting them to read crime and punishment or something the next year. or maybe you could do it up in stages... give them a 12 year old package, a 15 year old package and an 18 year old package of some CD's, some movies, some books. Or maybe each year, on Arbor day, you give them 3 books. On Flag Day, 3 CD's. You could play with the details, but your point is well-taken. another comment on fatherhood posted by: horsebeater 17:10 3.8.05 i realize that this is probably only interesting to me at this point, being the dad here (panurge?). Of course, izzi has the most kids of anyone on tentfort, but because they are scattered across the country with different mothers and he doesn't even send the monthly checks half the time, I'm ignoring him for the time being... you might be a sperm provider, izzi, but you aren't a "father." But i digress. I fully understand and even sympathize with the "superparenting syndrome." This takes some degree of explanation, I think. The melancholy truth when it comes to parenting is that it is a big sacrifice: there are huge benefits in some areas of your life, but there are definite losses in other areas in your life. While the pluses outweigh the minuses in my view, the benefits don't really REPLACE the losses, because they are in different areas of your life. Your life becomes more interesting to YOU, but probably less interesting to other people. This is because the stuff you spend your time on is much less richer and intellectual than in your pre-child days, and you certainly don't get to continue to appreciate arty stuff (including literature, movies, music in this category) the way you once could. After they're about a year old, while the kids are awake, watching movies or reading books without interruption becomes close to impossible. And once they're asleep... well, lots of the time you're just fuckin' tired. Even if you CAN watch a movie, you're often going to pick "Major League" on TBS over Publius' latest 1980s arthouse flick. But I digress again. The point is that your life, while richer in many respects, is less rich in others, and you will miss your old life. You may not want your old life back, but that doesn't mean you don't miss parts of it (this is maybe like breaking up with the sexy, psycho girlfriend? can I analogize to that?) So in any event, you start to realize that you are working at a less-than-ideal job and spending a fair amount of your time reading dr. seuss books for the 12th time, long after they remain interesting to you (one thing about 1 and 2 year olds that you don't recognize until you have one is that they love repetition more than anything) because you love and care about your kids. You realize that you haven't watched a syndicated seinfeld or simpsons episode at 5:30 p.m. or 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. for the last 5 years, and while that isn't necessarily IMPORTANT, it was nice when you used to do that. You realize "hey... I am giving up a lot of shit because I love them so that this fucker can have a good life." And then you think: "That fucker better turn out to be an interesting, worthwhile person, because I'm wasting a lot of freaking time and money on this kid." And this is how it starts. I think most on the TF would think "I'm not going to super-schedule my child and be super-hands on and take them to dumb shit like organized soccer for 3 year olds." And you think that the answer to the inklings you are starting to have about the importance of your child being "worthwhile" or "interesting" is... shit, maybe I need to NOT spend so much time/money on this kid. I mean, you can't live vicariously through your kids: you have to let them find their own way. And I, certainly, would have led that pack. So you wake up Sunday morning (at 7 a.m., because its your turn because the wife woke up with them on Saturday) and you feed them and put their clothes on them and you play with them until 9 a.m. and then you say "now they need to play by themselves." And you try to read the paper but you notice that your child builds the same boring fucking tower with the blocks 18 times in a row (straight up... about 10 blocks until it fell... same size blocks every time... no variation... it was fucking unbelievable how boring it was), and you think "my god, there are much cooler possibilities." And you watch them waste 90 minutes in a row on the most inane tv programs imaginable. And you think... "my god... I'm stuck in the house today and making my sacrifices in my life so that they can do this incredibly retarded shit?... I better read to them or teach my daughter football pass patterns or fucking something." And so you find yourself in your living room shouting "No... down and IN... NOT down and OUT" at your 4 year old daughter. And she tells you that she only wants to run fly patterns (and you roll your eyes in disgust... the hotdog finds only fly patterns to be cool enough for her, the spoiled brat... i didn't know my daughter's name was Terrell Owens (but not even your wife understands this joke)). And then you realize that you're playing catch with a large spherical purple ball (i mean, large, like 2 feet in diameter), because she can't consistently catch a football (and when she turns the wrong way and you nail her in the back of the head with even the mini-football, the game ends suddenly and it is somehow your fault, even according to your wife, which is really ridiculous when you think about it). And then you realize that your daugher is wearing a princess outfit as you throw the football at her. And you realize that you might be going insane. But I digress again. And so you think... fuck... maybe I should take them to a freakin' class or something, because this football pattern game just isn't working out for me. And so you end up driving them to "Art class for 4 year olds" and you know it's crazy but... well... what can you do. And that's how that happens. You start doing the weird shit you never thought you'd be doing... and you can actually sit and read a book while they are there in peace and quiet, and they actually seem to enjoy it. And you take them to the class for a few weeks and you start to think "well, shit. Bob the accountant from down the street can take his kid to Art Class for 4 year olds." I mean, I'm now devoting a decent chunk of my life to working on this kid: caring for them; showing them cool stuff. And I'm essentially giving them the same upbringing as moron Bob the Accountant. And then you think "shit... how can I do better than Moron Bob" and then you say "well, maybe I can do nothing now, but when they are 14 years old, it would be really fucking cool of me to give them a box full o' movies." run lola run... posted by: horsebeater 16:31 3.8.05 ... i did see that one! wasn't stallone in "get carter"? a word on how i came up with m posted by: horsebeater 15:29 3.8.05 Publius' point is well-taken, as I am very very sad as far as foreign movies go. a high percentage of my foreign movie watching probably involves jackie chan. of course, when you spent the first 24 years of your life more than 25 miles away from a theatre or video store that might possibly have anything like that, obvious results follow. so that's my excuse until 1996. But an equally big part of the problem is how i generated the list. I looked at websites that catalogue the top 10 movies of each year (box office wise) starting in about 1970 AND I looked at the approximately 600 movies I had personally rated on Netflix over the past 8 months or so. Most of the Netflix ratings are because I've accepted their prompt at various times to rate movies, so they'll offer up lists of movies to you and you rate them if you've seen them, so you'll naturally end up rating the popular movies that Netflix expects you to have watched. So the combination of this effect is that I was largely choosing from a list of domestically-made movies, and tending toward the larger end of the spectrum. I probably need to go back and look at the top 50 box office for each year from about 1950 to present. I would think that would catch most movies I've seen. everyone now... posted by: simplicissimus 16:45 3.7.05 the original get carter is absolutely fantastic. wonderful. and british, so you don't have to worry about the whole french thing. and i know you do worry about it. these lists are endlessly engr posted by: publius 16:42 3.7.05 so i won't quibble over details (except to laud you for your appropriately high placement of bill and ted's excellent adventure). however...have you ever rented a movie not made in the us (i know, i know, there are a few in there)? your list is proof-positive that that blockbuster must die and that if it's marketed right people (even very smart people) will but it and it only. granted, my francophilia is well documented and mocked, but come on...not a single movie by godard or truffaut (granted, truffaut was in close encounters)? is this some kind of republican/patriotic thing, or do you just not watch any foreign [language] movies? here's a very few that should be on any list that long. think of it as a starter kit, for you and your progeny...i'll work up a longer list so i can be mocked even further when i've got some more time a bout de souffle, aka breathless (the original, not the remake with richard gere) the 400 blows masculine feminine les amants de pont neuf the red/white/blue trilogy jules et jim get carter (the original) the italian job (the original) withnail and i run lola run alphaville alice et martin bande a part (simpli will remember the mesmerizing dance scene from this one...it's also the reason tarantino's production company is called "band apart"...plus it's just a great movie) etc. etc...gotta run to class... almost forgot...who in their right mind ranks star wars higher than the empire strikes back?... towards a new heremeneutics of posted by: simplicissimus 16:35 3.7.05 I hazily recall a summer evening somewhere abouts 1980 when, after dinner, my brother assisted me in putting on a show of my baseball prowess for my dad. I distinctly recall my dad saying to my brother, "your kid brother sure has a great arm." It wasn't until I was @21 years old that I realized I never had a "great" arm, that the comment was designed for me to hear. But in that intervening decade, especially Reagan's first term, that one comment had me convinced that I could make any throw necessary. And, as a result, I more than likely made a few relays (if you can believe it, I played 1st base/SS for a good 4 or 5 years in little league...) that I otherwise would never have thought I could. The point? Though I fault my folks none for their (presumed) relative lack of involvement in my artistic sensibilities, I have to wonder if my memory of "discovering" things on my own is no dufferent than that - a deft plant by folks who gave me the goods without ever letting me know that they did. I still think, especially with my experience over the last decade, that this isn't how it went down. My folks really aren't into this type of stuff. But, they've proven themselve pretty adroit at fooling a young kid, so... in praise of disinterested par posted by: armyoflebron 15:48 3.7.05 (this is a muthah of a topic, by the way, and likely merits a night or three at the skylark or somesuch to do justice. perhaps we should commandeer the coach house. btw, do we still hang like that?) to start, ditto simpli's (who's made some hella recommendations in his own right regularly over the past decade) comments completely. as to parents... my folks is old. way beyond generationally cool. there were likely "silent" tips from the old man...midway, patton, spaghetti westerns, dirty harry...which i knew were profoundly influencing me as i watched them. (and god, night after night of those late '70s/early '80s tribe games...on the porch and on the radio...followed by pete franklin after the post-game show...again, in pretty much silence, broken up by intermittent chuckling.) but probably just because i was around, he was around, and there was a good movie on channel 43 (or game on 3we) that night. never anything of the "son, you're growing up..." variety. nothing overt, anyway. (unless the tribe games were preparing me for something unspeakable.) all television and/or radio-based. no books, no music. none that i can recall, at least. my mom? she worked nights. i was in school days. what i am fortunate to have though is a bunch of siblings, some of whom have been confused for my parents in the past. lots of "contact cool" was transferred back in the day. i thought so, at least. mostly music related. to them i credit my at-one-time, since lost encyclopedic knowledge of 1960s/1970s aor song lyrics, titles and bands. i was a head, and like many heads of that generation, i burned out eventually. now, i'm happy when i can distinguish ice-t from ice cube. sorry, i know it hurts. ok, i'm out of gas. your movie list was long, and interesting. i have to confess i've probably actually seen only about a third to a half of it, so am likely not the best person to add to or delete from it. one question to think about though. if you gave a 13-year old 50 books, how long would it take him/her to read them? would they ever get through? i would doubt it. i guess that's another way of saying keep it heavy on the music/movies side. much less investment required. WOW. posted by: simplicissimus 08:51 3.7.05 This is incredible. And will be commented on at a later date. However, the crux of your post is interesting for a personal reason. It occurred to me just last week that: 1) The only book ever pushed on me by my folks from the age of 6-18 was "Where do I come from?", a cartoon sex-ed affair. 2) My parents have never, ever, ever commented on, let alone recommended, a single piece of music to me. The only piece of music related to my folks that I recall ever being played in our house was Simon & Garfunkel's "Bridge Over Troubled Water", which was owned by my parents but discovered by my teenage older brother. 3) I don't believe my parents ever rented / took me me to a "special" or "recommended" movie when I was younger. Everything I rented / went to see was because I showed interest in it. They encouraged my interest, but never really played an active role in it. Yes, I know, thanks for sharing. But this is fascinating to me, as I have realized that I am passionate about all three of these mediums, but my parents share none of these passions and literally had almost nothing to do with my appreciation of them. I think this is generational, as unless you had really, really "cool" (or, younger) parents, it seems like the entire generation that got married by the mid-60's is utterly ambivalent about having passion for particular works. 183 MOVIES posted by: horsebeater 01:06 3.7.05 PANTHEON MOVIES (5) ZERO EFFECT GROUNDHOG DAY CASABLANCA FIELD OF DREAMS BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI SECOND TIER (18) A FISH CALLED WANDA DIE HARD NAKED GUN KICKING AND SCREAMING MONTY PYTHON & THE HOLY GRAIL THREE KINGS GODFATHER MEMENTO HARD BOILED IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE UNFORGIVEN ELECTION 12 ANGRY MEN 12 MONKEYS THE FUGITIVE HIGH NOON PRINCESS BRIDE RESERVOIR DOGS THIRD TIER (47) THE ROYAL TENNENBAUMS AIRPLANE NIGHT FALLS ON MANHATTAN GODFATHER II BLACKHAWK DOWN GLADIATOR THE UNTOUCHABLES SAVING PRIVATE RYAN SO I MARRIED AN AXE MURDERER LETHAL WEAPON FULL METAL JACKET ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND LA CONFIDENTIAL THE USUAL SUSPECTS GROSS POINTE BLANK FIGHT CLUB GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS MAJOR LEAGUE THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL HEATHERS ADAPTATION SCHINDLER’S LIST COOL HAND LUKE A.I. SPINAL TAP FARGO DANGEROUS LIASONS BEING JOHN MALKOVICH EL MARIACHI OLD SCHOOL THE SIXTH SENSE RUSHMORE NORTH BY NORTHWEST CITIZEN KANE LOST IN TRANSLATION CLERKS SEVEN MIDNIGHT RUN MIGHTY WIND BILL & TED’S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE JACKIE BROWN HOOSIERS KILL BILL (OVERALL) RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK STAR WARS AMADEUS FOURTH TIER (113 (I THINK)) THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE PLATOON ROXANNE NEVER CRY WOLF TRAINSPOTTING RAISING ARIZONA LIFE OF BRIAN STAR TREK II: WRATH OF KHAN DRUNKEN MASTER MINORITY REPORT FOOTLOOSE WAYNE’S WORLD FEAR OF A BLACK HAT SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION PERFECT STORM BOTTLE ROCKET APOCALYPSE NOW 2001: A SPACE ODDYSEY THE STING MAN ON FIRE TRUE ROMANCE BOURNE SUPREMACY BETTER OFF DEAD GANGS OF NEW YORK TRON HALLOWEEN SCREAM EMPIRE STRIKES BACK THE MISSION RED DAWN PLANET OF THE APES ROUNDERS HERO FERRIS BUELLER COLLATERAL 48 HOURS CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND AS GOOD AS IT GETS BRAVEHEART BACK TO THE FUTURE (AND THE SECOND ONE) OUT OF SIGHT TRAFFIC CATCH ME IF YOU CAN HEAT THE LONGEST YARD THE THIN RED LINE STAR TREK IV ROGER & ME STALAG 17 GHOST WORLD PULP FICTION DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE DAZED AND CONFUSED BEAUTIFUL GIRLS BEFORE SUNRISE / BEFORE SUNSET (OVERALL) BUCKAROO BANZAI SAY ANYTHING AMERICAN SPLENDOR THE GREEN MILE TRAINING DAY SILENCE OF THE LAMBS A FEW GOOD MEN BARBARIANS AT THE GATE HIGHLANDER PSYCHO PATTON WHEN HARRY MET SALLY THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY SPELLBOUND BEST IN SHOW MR SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON THE LAST EMPORER THE LAST STARFIGHER BOYZ IN THE HOOD SERPICO GLORY DRUGSTORE COWBOY SLING BLADE WHITE MEN CAN’T JUMP CLOCKWORK ORANGE UHF THE MUPPET MOVIE AMERICAN HISTORY X PCU BIG LEBOWSKI HIGH FIDELITY STAND & DELIVER BRIAN’S SONG MIRACLE DEFENDING YOUR LIFE LORD OF THE RINGS (THREE TIMES) BREAKFAST CLUB GOOD MORNING VIETNAM CONTACT REVERSAL OF FORTUNE THE JERK WE WERE SOLIDERS ONCE EIGHT MEN OUT ANY GIVEN SUNDAY VERTIGO JERRY MAGUIRE GOOD WILL HUNTING THE RIGHT STUFF THE MATRIX THE NAME OF THE ROSE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER SINGLES GOODFELLAS OFFICE SPACE AMERICAN BEAUTY HOOP DREAMS ROCKY OCEAN’S ELEVEN THE KILLER HERO so having to start on one cate posted by: horsebeater 01:05 3.7.05 LET'S START WITH MOVIES... that's the easiest, I think. So my goal is to come up with 50 or 30 or 70 movies to give to my children as a PACKAGE to try to give them a sense of movie history, give them a sense of what I like... to catch them up with all the good shit out there. In trying to determine the "pantheon" movies, I've taken a stab at placing over 150 movies into 4 categories. So let's see the pot shots... what did I miss.. what is ranked too high, too low... GIVE ME YOUR BEST SHOT (my kids' tastes depend on it) as you have children posted by: horsebeater 00:59 3.7.05 you start to realize that you can introduce them to shit and mold their tastes in some respect. i have gotten no greater joy in my life than driving around cleveland heights last summer with my daughter emma, great day, 4 down, the song "crossroads," by bone-thugs and harmony blaring (the song written about easy-e's death from aids), with my daughter sing/rapping along with me at full volume. My second favorite story here is that my daughter, upon hearing "its the end of the world as we know it" (having previously heard it with me and danced to dozens of times), heard it with my father-in-law, who's 57 years old. She leaned over to him and said [sic] "this is the ramones... they are really cool" as if giving him a helpful tip was called for. So I am recognizing the great impact you can have on your children's tastes. Certainly they are different at age 4 than age 14 or 18 or 23 when they can REALLY "get stuff" but you have to think that even when you're losing out to peer pressure, introducing your 13 year old son to monty python's holy grail HAS to make you seem reasonably cool in his eyes, I would have to believe. So in any event, I thought that I should find 50 movies (or 20, or 100?) to give to my children at age 15 (or 13? or 17?) to try to show them the way. Ideally, there would be a giant box with 50 movies, 50 books and 50 CD's. But maybe the right number of movies is 40 and CD's is 90 and books is 30... but this is an open issue as well. How many books / movies / cd's is the right number? At minimum, what are the ratios? In this day and age, should it just be 200 songs PLUS 30 CD's? maybe you have to have kids posted by: horsebeater 00:50 3.7.05 I fully start this post realizing that maybe you have to have children and be 4 beers into an evening to get into the overall vision of this, but also think that anyone with an opinion might like to weigh in. I was struck the other day, speaking to my parents, at how little they had influenced me in the artistic-type endeavors that I enjoy. and struck by how, really odd it was that the real sum contribution of my parents in my reading/musical/movie tastes were highly minimal and can be summed up thusly: (1) books: my father tossed the lord of the rings series at me at WAY too young of an age and essentially hung my ass on the fellowship for about a year back in 1980-81... I carted that book around for a good 14 months before finishing the fucker. He also gave me asimov, and the good orson scott card and niven & pournelle and essentially acted as a filter for all good science fiction that I've ever read in my life. But other than that... they gave me watership down... the 3 musketeers... that's about it. (2) i got some cool beach boys from the folks. some cool beatles shit. that's about it musically. (3) movie-wise, I got a fair amount here. mostly dad again... star wars series; raiders of the lost ark series; i was getting shown good movies in the early 80's, but certainly no effort was ever made to show me artistic-type movies or to educate me on movies past.