"Dead Man", a Jim Jarmusch film.
A young man from Cleveland is offered a job as an
accountant. To get it, he must sell everything and
move west to a town called Machine. Machine is
controlled by the capitalist owner of the local works
(Robert Mitchum). It has taken the lad two months to
get there. He gets off a very long train ride across
mid-Nineteenth Century America herself and finds
himself at the end of the line. The bizarre and
surprising images which surround him are soon to be
suplimented by equally bizarre and surprising
happenings. The dude from Cleveland is about to
become involved in an adventure which will transform
his life and put him on the road to spiritual
awakening and eventually his death. The dude's name
is William Blake. He's not the poet, however a lone
Indian thinks that he might be and strangely enough
this Indian knows Blake's poetry. "Realms of bliss.
Realms of light. Some are born to sweet delight, some
are born to the endless night..." Get ahold of
somebody's copy of the Doors first albumn, the one
with "Endless Night" on it. Put the song on while
you're toking up. Then, put "Dead Man" on. You'll be
glad you did.
Mike B)
Amongst other things, the voiceover showed up the teenager's chatter for
what it was - shallow. It emphasised the wider world and social context they
lived in (and took no notice of - rather a problem when one wanted to be a
novelist).
I liked it a lot. I've been a fan of Alfonso Cuarón ever since "A Little
Princess" and was in the 50% who liked his modern-day take on "Great
Expectations". I'll be fascinated to see what he does with the third Harry
Potter movie.
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike O'Brien" <mob61uk@...>
To: <filmtalkuk@...>
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 3:21 PM
Subject: [filmtalkuk] Re: And Your Mother Too
> On the whole I would tend to agree with this assessment. There are
> some funny moments though, and it's a pleasant enough film. But as
> to all the critics who think it is anything more than this, well I
> just can't see it myself.
>
>
> --- In filmtalkuk@y..., Peter Langley <PLangley310@c...> wrote:
> > Was rather disappointed by this. The excuse for the road trip (two
> > 17-year-olds take an older woman to a beach they've invented) was
> flimsy.
> > There's an underlying theme of melancholy and death - there's a
> voiceover
> > which periodically alludes to death - death of family members of
> the main
> > characters, and I found this theme of death all rather odd, and it
> didn't
> > sit easily with the genre of a road movie. And lastly my main
> complaint
> > was the all-too-frequent puerile and one-track talk of rather
> immature
> > 17-year-old boys, obsessed with one thing only. I often found my
> mind
> > wandering and thinking, yes move along, what's the next piece of
> proper
> > action.
> > The acting's good and there are some fantastic scenic shots, but
> on the
> > whole I came out of this film thinking it was all a bit
> lightweight.
> > Peter
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> filmtalkuk-unsubscribe@...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms.html
>
>
On the whole I would tend to agree with this assessment. There are
some funny moments though, and it's a pleasant enough film. But as
to all the critics who think it is anything more than this, well I
just can't see it myself.
--- In filmtalkuk@y..., Peter Langley <PLangley310@c...> wrote:
> Was rather disappointed by this. The excuse for the road trip (two
> 17-year-olds take an older woman to a beach they've invented) was
flimsy.
> There's an underlying theme of melancholy and death - there's a
voiceover
> which periodically alludes to death - death of family members of
the main
> characters, and I found this theme of death all rather odd, and it
didn't
> sit easily with the genre of a road movie. And lastly my main
complaint
> was the all-too-frequent puerile and one-track talk of rather
immature
> 17-year-old boys, obsessed with one thing only. I often found my
mind
> wandering and thinking, yes move along, what's the next piece of
proper
> action.
> The acting's good and there are some fantastic scenic shots, but
on the
> whole I came out of this film thinking it was all a bit
lightweight.
> Peter
Blier is a master of what I think of as cinema of the absurd. This
film is Blier being his usual outrageous self, with a story that
sticks two fingers up to conventional melodrama. Depardieu plays a
husband who is desperate to lift the spirits of his depressed wife.
In the restaurant they happen to be eating in, he spots a man who
seems to be taking an interest in his wife. He goes to the man, and
asks if he will be the wife's lover. And that's just the start of
the plot!
Plenty of people seem to hate Blier's films, but I'm fascinated by
them. They are always cinematically literate, funny, unashamedly
non-pc, and never what you would expect.
Worth checking out.
Hurrah for that! Minelli is perfectly cast as the
vacuous flapper fascinated with divine decadence. Run
it as a double feature with "Eye of the Needle". I
know a lot of people didn't care for "Eye...", but for
me, Sutherland captured the ruthless amorality of Nazi
politics in a swirl of naivite.
Mike B)
--- Mike O'Brien <mob61uk@...> wrote:
> I remembered this film as being good, but I now find
> it brilliant.
> It is as fresh and sharp as ever.
>
> I had forgotten just how good the cabaret routines
> were, and how
> pertinent they are to the whole feel of the piece.
> I also find
> myself admiring the acting of Michael York and Liza
> Minelli - not
> people I usually have much time for.
>
> There is some rather unsubtle cutting between scenes
> to emphasis the
> rise of the Nazis, but they work for me. And what
> about that perfect
> scene in the beer garden when the German's sing
> "Tomorrow Belongs To
> Me". Perfect.
>
> If you haven't seen this film for a while - I
> recommend you dust it
> down, and give it another try.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> filmtalkuk-unsubscribe@...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms.html
>
>
=====
"Man first begins to philosophize when the necessitites of life are supplied."
Aristotle
"determinatio est negatio" Spinoza
"There are no ordinary cats." Colette
http://au.profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
This was certainly better than all the reviews seemed to suggest when
this first came out. Kevin Spacey, as the man who claims he's from
planet K-Pax, is on good form, as is Jeff Bridges.
The only problem with the film is its unwillingness to resolve
the "is he" or "isn't he" issue. The obvious "he isn't" scenario is
actually far more interesting than the rediculous alternative. But
then the plot seems to suggest early on in the film that he most
certainly is.
If you don't think about it too much, this is a pretty enjoyable film.
I remembered this film as being good, but I now find it brilliant.
It is as fresh and sharp as ever.
I had forgotten just how good the cabaret routines were, and how
pertinent they are to the whole feel of the piece. I also find
myself admiring the acting of Michael York and Liza Minelli - not
people I usually have much time for.
There is some rather unsubtle cutting between scenes to emphasis the
rise of the Nazis, but they work for me. And what about that perfect
scene in the beer garden when the German's sing "Tomorrow Belongs To
Me". Perfect.
If you haven't seen this film for a while - I recommend you dust it
down, and give it another try.
Back in the late Seventies (or early Eighties) there was a low budget
(made for TV type) movie that starred a fading Jack Lemmon, and a TV
cop star called Michael Douglas. What the film was about, was the
unlikely tale of a Nucleur accident in an American power station.
However just as that picture was about to fade into obscurity, a real
life Nucleur accident took place at the US 'Three Mile Island'
reactor; at which point said movie THE CHINA SYNDROME went on to
clean up at the box office. My point being, that timing is critical
when it comes to realising a movie. So perhaps if K19 THE WIDOWMAKER,
had been released a few years ago, at the same time of the sinking of
the Russian nucleur submarine 'Kursk' this may have done much better
business at the American box office. Personally, I think that it is a
shame that films like this, do not do better than they do; perhaps
audiences can only cope with reality movies these days like SPIDERMAN
or STAR WARS.
Anyway this is a true (but hushed up for three decades) story from
1961, about the maiden voyage of a Russian Nucleur Submarine. When I
saw the BBC2 low budget version of this story a few years back, it
was presented as: 'but for the bravery of these Russian sailors, none
of us would now be here'. Obviously given the low budget nature of
that production, that was a little hard to swallow. However with
this 'Katherine Bigelow' version, one really gets a feel for how
close to sparking off 'World War Three' this incident took us.
'Liam Neeson' plays the newly installed captain of this flagship (but
not fully fitted) Russian Nucleur Submarine. 'Neeson' has obviously
been assigned to the Sub, along with all his crew from another one in
the fleet. He and his men are undoubtably close, and 'Neeson' is by
instinct a cautious man. However at a time of real escalation in the
Cold War that is not what is required; the Sub may not be fully
tested or operational, but the Russian top brass see it as imperative
that they have this deterrent out at sea. Sensing that 'Neeson' has
perhaps been promoted above his level of competence, they
impose 'Harrison Ford' as captain of the Sub. 'Ford' sees it as his
job to push both the Sub and its crew to its limits (even at the risk
of the Submarine's destruction) to prove that it's fully operational.
With the sea trials completed and a successful test missile firing,
the K19 goes onto operational status on patrol around the Atlantic.
So far so good, until a critical reactor failure means the Sub is
crippled and close to Thermonucleur self destruction, close to the
American East Coast. An event that would certainly have been
misinterpreted by the Americans as a hostile strike, requiring a full
retaliatory response; hence 'World War Three'.
The film is basically an exploration of men under unbelievable
pressure in impossible circumstances. Thus crewmembers are given the
impossible choice of sacrificing their lives, by taking turns to
spend ten minutes in the reactor room affecting repairs. Or wait to
die anyway when the reactor turns critical, only to have the
Motherland (and the rest of the world) pay the ultimate price with
them. That idea might seem a little far fetched to some of you, but
if you know your history, and the name/story of someone like 'Gary
Powers' rings any bells, then you will realise that this was a very
dangerous time. Certainly the scenario was as high risk as the 'Cuban
Missile Crisis'.
Both 'Liam Neeson' as the cautious commander whose first priority is
the safety of his men, and 'Harrison Ford' as the Captain with an
understanding of the larger picture, are excellent. I for one had no
problem accepting that they were long serving members of the Russian
Navy; 'Ford' being especially craggy in this respect. 'Bigelow' also
conveys well among the other crew, that special Russian
characteristic, of being able to endure any hardship, for the greater
good, even if it means been given the choice of being microwaved on
either full power or defrost.
Perhaps these days films need to have lots of little twist and turns,
and multifaceted sexy characters to sell at the turnstyles. This has
none of that; just a mega high stakes cautionary tale, of ordinary
men to whom we may actually owe a lot.
filmfan99uk
With all the hype I have been hearing about Lynne Ramsey as
the "bright young talent" of British cinema, I began to get that
dread feeling of a huge disapointment looming.
Quite the contrary. I haven't been this impressed and exited by a
British film, apart from Loach of course, for many a year. I found
this film brilliantly controlled, fresh, and beautiful shot. Ramsey
really does have a style that is all her own: at times muted, but
pregnant; then stunning, without being pretentiously flashy.
Morvern Callar is about a rather inarticulate girl who works in a
supermarket. Then, a sudden event changes her life. From the
opening, perfectly judged shot of the film, the viewer is taken on a
quite unexpected, and sometimes surreal, journey.
I was lucky enough to catch the director being interviewed after the
film. It was interesting to see Geoff Andrew trying to pin her down
to all the usual cinema theory cliches, while she politely (well
most of the time) rubbished this angle, saying most of her style was
instinctual rather than intellectual. This is a sentiment that I
suspect most director's share.
It's not the sort of film that will appeal to everyone, but I think
it's great cinema.
Yes, I know what you mean! See my review at message 493 for what I
thought about it.
Mike
--- In filmtalkuk@y..., Robert Holz <mensch_uk@y...> wrote:
> If you think that Solaris is mataphysical then I
> suggest that you watch "Stalker". You will be left
> with so many questions you'll think that you need to
> see the film again!
> It won't do you any good though.
> --- Mike O'Brien <mob61uk@y...> wrote:
> <HR>
> <html><body>
>
>
> <tt>
> A metaphysical science fiction film. Get your
> head round that one!<BR>
> <BR>
> Clearly influenced by Kubrick's 2001, this is an
> altogether more <BR>
> intense and claustophobic affair. It does verge
> on the pretentious <BR>
> at times, but still manages to be a truly mesmeric
> cinematic <BR>
> experience.<BR>
> <BR>
> It's story of someone sent to a space station above
> Solaris where <BR>
> some strange things are happening, provides Takovsky
> with plenty of <BR>
> metaphorical fodder, which he exploits with great
> skill.<BR>
> <BR>
> Very slow, yet somehow gripping. Worth
> seeing.<BR>
> <BR>
> </tt>
>
> <br>
>
> <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
>
> <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
> <td align=center><font size="-1"
> color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
> </tr>
> <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
> <td align=center width=470><!--
>
http://rd.yahoo.com/M=125884.1859648.3361824.1784667/D=ukclubs/S=1710
324707:HM/A=950192/R=0/?http://www.yahoo.com
> --><iframe
> src="http://uk.adserver.yahoo.com/a?
f=1710324707:HM&p=ukclubs&l=HM&c=hm&bg=ffffff&site-
country=uk&tgt=_blank&rand=1035320046"
> width=470 height=80 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0
> hspace=0 vspace=0
> frameborder=0 scrolling=no><script
> language="JavaScript"
> type="text/javascript"
> src="http://uk.adserver.yahoo.com/a?
f=1710324707:HM&p=ukclubs&l=HM&c=jm&site-
country=uk&tgt=_blank&rand=1035320046">
> </script></iframe></td>
> </tr>
> </table>
>
> <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
>
>
> <br>
> <tt>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
> filmtalkuk-unsubscribe@y...<BR>
> <BR>
> </tt>
> <br>
>
> <br>
> <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
> href="http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms.html">Yahoo!
> Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
> </br>
>
> </body></html>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Everything you'll ever need on one web page
> from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
> http://uk.my.yahoo.com
If you think that Solaris is mataphysical then I
suggest that you watch "Stalker". You will be left
with so many questions you'll think that you need to
see the film again!
It won't do you any good though.
--- Mike O'Brien <mob61uk@...> wrote:
<HR>
<html><body>
<tt>
A metaphysical science fiction film. Get your
head round that one!<BR>
<BR>
Clearly influenced by Kubrick's 2001, this is an
altogether more <BR>
intense and claustophobic affair. It does verge
on the pretentious <BR>
at times, but still manages to be a truly mesmeric
cinematic <BR>
experience.<BR>
<BR>
It's story of someone sent to a space station above
Solaris where <BR>
some strange things are happening, provides Takovsky
with plenty of <BR>
metaphorical fodder, which he exploits with great
skill.<BR>
<BR>
Very slow, yet somehow gripping. Worth
seeing.<BR>
<BR>
</tt>
<br>
<!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC>
<td align=center><font size="-1"
color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF>
<td align=center width=470><!--
http://rd.yahoo.com/M=125884.1859648.3361824.1784667/D=ukclubs/S=1710324707:HM/A\
=950192/R=0/?http://www.yahoo.com
--><iframe
src="http://uk.adserver.yahoo.com/a?f=1710324707:HM&p=ukclubs&l=HM&c=hm&bg=fffff\
f&site-country=uk&tgt=_blank&rand=1035320046"
width=470 height=80 marginwidth=0 marginheight=0
hspace=0 vspace=0
frameborder=0 scrolling=no><script
language="JavaScript"
type="text/javascript"
src="http://uk.adserver.yahoo.com/a?f=1710324707:HM&p=ukclubs&l=HM&c=jm&site-cou\
ntry=uk&tgt=_blank&rand=1035320046">
</script></iframe></td>
</tr>
</table>
<!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
<br>
<tt>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR>
filmtalkuk-unsubscribe@...<BR>
<BR>
</tt>
<br>
<br>
<tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a
href="http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms.html">Yahoo!
Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
</br>
</body></html>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
THE LIMITS OF ELECTORAL POLITICS
Roughly speaking we can distinguish five degrees of
"government":
(1) Unrestricted freedom
(2) Direct democracy
(3) Delegate democracy
(4) Representative democracy
(5) Overt minority dictatorship
The present society oscillates between (4) and (5), i.e. between
overt
minority rule and covert minority rule camouflaged by a facade
of token
democracy. A liberated society would eliminate (4) and (5) and
would
progressively reduce the need for (2) and (3). . . .
In representative democracy people abdicate their power to
elected
officials. The candidates' stated policies are limited to a few
vague
generalities, and once they are elected there is little control
over their
actual decisions on hundreds of issues -- apart from the feeble
threat of
changing one's vote, a few years later, to some equally
uncontrollable rival
politician. Representatives are dependent on the wealthy for
bribes and
campaign contributions; they are subordinate to the owners of
the mass
media, who decide which issues get the publicity; and they are
almost as
ignorant and powerless as the general public regarding many
important
matters that are determined by unelected bureaucrats and
independent secret
agencies. Overt dictators may sometimes be overthrown, but the
real rulers
in "democratic" regimes, the tiny minority who own or control
virtually
everything, are never voted in and never voted out. Most people
don't even
know who they are. . . .
In itself, voting is of no great significance one way or the
other (those
who make a big deal about refusing to vote are only revealing
their own
fetishism). The problem is that it tends to lull people into
relying on
others to act for them, distracting them from more significant
possibilities. A few people who take some creative initiative
(think of the
first civil rights sit-ins) may ultimately have a far greater
effect than if
they had put their energy into campaigning for lesser-evil
politicians. At
best, legislators rarely do more than what they have been forced
to do by
popular movements. A conservative regime under pressure from
independent
radical movements often concedes more than a liberal regime that
knows it
can count on radical support. If people invariably rally to
lesser evils,
all the rulers have to do in any situation that threatens their
power is to
conjure up a threat of some greater evil.
Even in the rare case when a "radical" politician has a
realistic chance of
winning an election, all the tedious campaign efforts of
thousands of people
may go down the drain in one day because of some trivial scandal
discovered
in his personal life, or because he inadvertently says something
intelligent. If he manages to avoid these pitfalls and it looks
like he
might win, he tends to evade controversial issues for fear of
antagonizing
swing voters. If he actually gets elected he is almost never in
a position
to implement the reforms he has promised, except perhaps after
years of
wheeling and dealing with his new colleagues; which gives him a
good excuse
to see his first priority as making whatever compromises are
necessary to
keep himself in office indefinitely. Hobnobbing with the rich
and powerful,
he develops new interests and new tastes, which he justifies by
telling
himself that he deserves a few perks after all his years of
working for good
causes. Worst of all, if he does eventually manage to get a few
"progressive" measures passed, this exceptional and usually
trivial success
is held up as evidence of the value of relying on electoral
politics, luring
many more people into wasting their energy on similar campaigns
to come.
As one of the May 1968 graffiti put it, "It's painful to submit
to our
bosses; it's even more stupid to choose them!"
[Excerpts from "The Joy of Revolution." To see the complete
text, click
http://www.bopsecrets.org/PS/joyrev.htm .]
Thanks for the interesting comments, especially the one about
Kubrick (I didn't know).
Mike
> Quite agree - The Lovers of the Arctic Circle was one of my films
of the
> year before last. You could see the artifice in its form and
construction
> (not to give anything away, but it has two mutually exclusive
endings) but
> it still touched the heart. I couldn't always read the subtitles
on my DVD
> copy, but the film is so visually strong that it didn't matter if
I missed
> lines of dialogue here and there. (Incidentally, Tartan's DVD is
Region 2
> only, not Region 0 as it says on the packaging - anyone on this
list outside
> Europe may need to take note.)
>
> Tierra was certainly visually striking - the talent was definitely
there,
> but it didn't really come together for me. Mind you, I'm quite
prepared to
> give it a second go!
>
> Did you know that the late Stanley Kubrick was so impressed by
Medem's Red
> Squirrel that he bought his own 35mm print?
>
> Gary
What will be interesting (for me at least) is a fairly rare opportunity to
see the same basic story told in two very different styles and visual
languages - more or less mainstream Hollywood (Soderbergh) and Euro art
movie (Tarkovsky). Apparently Soderbergh is returning to Stanislaw Lem's
novel. Tarkovsky did deviate from it - the whole opening sequence on Earth
is not in the novel.
Though I'm sure some people will be interested in George Clooney doing his
first ever nude scene... :-)
Gary
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike O'Brien" <mob61uk@...>
To: <filmtalkuk@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 8:41 PM
Subject: [filmtalkuk] Re: Solaris (Solyaris) [Andrei Tarkovsky, 1972]
> What a fascinating prospect: Soderbergh does Tarkovsky. I'm a big
> fan of Soderburgh, but I can't quite see him doing Solaris. Should
> be interesting!
>
> Mike
>
>
> --- In filmtalkuk@y..., "Andrew" <jhawkproductions@y...> wrote:
> > At solaristhemovie.com, you can see a teaser trailer for the
> Steven
> > Soderbergh remake. It stars George Clooney and is produced by
> James
> > Cameron. Soderbergh mentioned this on the Ocean's 11 commentary,
> and
> > I just checked it on imdb.com. I'm intrigued.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> filmtalkuk-unsubscribe@...
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms.html
>
>
What a fascinating prospect: Soderbergh does Tarkovsky. I'm a big
fan of Soderburgh, but I can't quite see him doing Solaris. Should
be interesting!
Mike
--- In filmtalkuk@y..., "Andrew" <jhawkproductions@y...> wrote:
> At solaristhemovie.com, you can see a teaser trailer for the
Steven
> Soderbergh remake. It stars George Clooney and is produced by
James
> Cameron. Soderbergh mentioned this on the Ocean's 11 commentary,
and
> I just checked it on imdb.com. I'm intrigued.
At solaristhemovie.com, you can see a teaser trailer for the Steven
Soderbergh remake. It stars George Clooney and is produced by James
Cameron. Soderbergh mentioned this on the Ocean's 11 commentary, and
I just checked it on imdb.com. I'm intrigued.
Medem is one of my favourite contemporary directors. The recent Sex &
Lucia was wonderfully intriguing and enigmatic, and Vacas I thought was a
staggering and brilliant effort. Agree about his cinematography - quite
magnificent. He's a very very talented director.
Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike O'Brien" <mob61uk@...>
To: <filmtalkuk@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 10:18 PM
Subject: [filmtalkuk] Tierra (Earth) [Julio Medem, 1996]
> My very personal view...
>
> The blurb on the video cover of this film says that Medem is the
> European answer to Lynch. Well, for my money, Medem is the more
> consistent, more exciting, and more cinematically proficient film
> maker. Tierra has some parallels to the recent Mulholland Drive
> (especially with its female characters) but, even though it is not
> one of Medem's best, I find it more complete, more engaging, and far
> more profound than Lynch's rather stitched together effort.
>
> Medem has his faults, but I really feel that he is one of the best
> directors around at the moment.
>
> Tierra is a parable on life and death with a protagonist who thinks
> he's half alive and half dead: half man and half angel. He visits a
> region of red earth where a plague of woodlice have turned the wine
> earthy, and where people and sheep get struck by lightening. The
> narrative is oblique and unresolved, while the cinematography is
> stunning.
>
> As I say, Tierra is not Medem's best, but it is still an astonishing
> film.
>
Quite agree - The Lovers of the Arctic Circle was one of my films of the
year before last. You could see the artifice in its form and construction
(not to give anything away, but it has two mutually exclusive endings) but
it still touched the heart. I couldn't always read the subtitles on my DVD
copy, but the film is so visually strong that it didn't matter if I missed
lines of dialogue here and there. (Incidentally, Tartan's DVD is Region 2
only, not Region 0 as it says on the packaging - anyone on this list outside
Europe may need to take note.)
Tierra was certainly visually striking - the talent was definitely there,
but it didn't really come together for me. Mind you, I'm quite prepared to
give it a second go!
Did you know that the late Stanley Kubrick was so impressed by Medem's Red
Squirrel that he bought his own 35mm print?
Gary
My very personal view...
The blurb on the video cover of this film says that Medem is the
European answer to Lynch. Well, for my money, Medem is the more
consistent, more exciting, and more cinematically proficient film
maker. Tierra has some parallels to the recent Mulholland Drive
(especially with its female characters) but, even though it is not
one of Medem's best, I find it more complete, more engaging, and far
more profound than Lynch's rather stitched together effort.
Medem has his faults, but I really feel that he is one of the best
directors around at the moment.
Tierra is a parable on life and death with a protagonist who thinks
he's half alive and half dead: half man and half angel. He visits a
region of red earth where a plague of woodlice have turned the wine
earthy, and where people and sheep get struck by lightening. The
narrative is oblique and unresolved, while the cinematography is
stunning.
As I say, Tierra is not Medem's best, but it is still an astonishing
film.
A metaphysical science fiction film. Get your head round that one!
Clearly influenced by Kubrick's 2001, this is an altogether more
intense and claustophobic affair. It does verge on the pretentious
at times, but still manages to be a truly mesmeric cinematic
experience.
It's story of someone sent to a space station above Solaris where
some strange things are happening, provides Takovsky with plenty of
metaphorical fodder, which he exploits with great skill.
Very slow, yet somehow gripping. Worth seeing.
Paul Goodman's article "Designing Pacifist Films" is now online
at
http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/goodman.htm
At a time when antiwar communication is increasingly necessary,
most
"radical media" efforts seem to remain mysteriously ineffective
or even
unwittingly counterproductive. Goodman's keen insights into both
psychological and "aesthetic" factors help to show why this is
so, and what
might be done differently.
* * *
Texts on related themes at the same website:
"Guy Debord's Film 'The Society of the Spectacle' " --
http://www.bopsecrets.org/PS/Debordfilm.htm
"Radical Film" -- http://www.bopsecrets.org/PS/joyrev2.htm
"The War and the Spectacle" (on the Gulf war, the media, and
various antiwar
strategies) -- http://www.bopsecrets.org/PS/gulfwar.htm
"Two Local Wars" (Situationist article on the Vietnam and
Arab-Israel
wars) -- http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/11.wars.htm
"War Is the Health of the State" (Randolph Bourne) --
http://www.bopsecrets.org/CF/bourne.htm
"Advantages and Limits of Nonviolence" --
http://www.bopsecrets.org/PS/joyrev2.htm
*****************************************
This noncommercial information has been sent to you in the
belief that you
may find it of interest. If this is not the case and you do not
wish to
receive any further messages, please reply with "Remove" or
"Unsubscribe" in
the subject line.
*****************************************
BUREAU OF PUBLIC SECRETS
http://www.bopsecrets.org
"Making petrified conditions dance by singing them their own
tune."
Considering how many films I watch at the cinema, it is someting of
an irony for me, that the greatest films I have ever seen, I have
only ever caught on the TV (i.e SCHINDLERS LIST, GOODFELLAS, THE
RIGHT STUFF etc). Well I missed BLAIR WITCH PROJECT at the cinema
when it came out, and as every horror movie these days is billed
as 'Spine Tingling Suspense', I assumed this was a case of all hype
and no substance. Especially as at the time SCREAM was billed as
reinventing the genre, when all I could see was another rip off of
HALLOWEEN.
Well having seen BLAIR WITCH PROJECT on TV last night, I can
definately say this is one of the greatest movies I have ever seen;
and you know how much I prefer to criticise everything. Was I
surprised or what, it was scary, moving, and (unlike 99% of the films
I see these days) totally believable. The three characters were so
real, I am actually convinced it was a true documentary. One of the
interesting moments was when one of the characters compared their
plight to that of the movie DELIVERENCE. In fact that and this film
had an awful lot in common. You never actually saw the BLAIR WITCH,
and for all one knew they could actually have being stalked by the
same type of Redneck Inbreds, that hassled 'Burt Reynolds' and 'Ned
Sherrin' all those years ago. The whole camcorder/16mm camera thing
was brilliant, and added an air of realism that mainstream Hollywood
and all their millions of dollars special effects budgets couldn't
hope to emulate. In fact the camcorder effect worked on the TV in the
same way as standard television news reporting does, yet I bet it
worked even better in the cinema. However what really made it for me
(unlike MY LITTLE EYE which I saw last week) was that you were
actually rooting for the three characters and hoping nothing ended up
happening to them.
Brilliant, Brilliant, Brilliant.
filmfan99uk
Ah yes 'Perdition'; I of course assumed 'Roaring Twenties' (in the
event 1931), gangsters and all that, must be the same thing
as 'Prohibition'. However someone must have seized all the illegal
booze from the film set, recquiring a last minute change to the
movie's title. It actually turns out that 'Perdition' means the same
as the 'Chris Rea' song. In the film 'Chris Rea' makes a cameo
appearance as a one hit wonder obsessed with cars and ............
Sorry let me start this from scratch again. ROAD TO PERDITION is a
not too complicated tale of Twenties/Thirties organised crime,
and 'Tom Hanks' as an even less complicated hitman for local Irish
mobster 'Paul Newman'. Trouble (isn't there always trouble in these
films) begins when 'Newmans' son starts to wipe out his fathers local
associates, on the pretext that they are stealing from 'the old man'.
Needless to say it is 'Newmans' son who is doing the stealing, and
when 'Hanks' son (concentrate here) witnesses 'Newmans' son and his
father ('Hanks' that is not 'Newman') wipe out the brother of the man
whom 'Newman' had thrown a wake for, because 'Newmans' son had killed
him, then 'Hanks' son succeeds in getting his father in trouble
with 'Newmans' son, although nor necessarily his father. See I told
you it wasn't complicated.
Or to put it another way ROAD TO PERDITION is both a road movie,
as 'Hanks' and son, are on the run from 'Newman' and son; or a simple
tale of revenge as 'Hanks' wants to kill the man who killed his wife
and other son, which of course was 'Newmans' son.
What the film does well is recreate a Twenties/Thirties (pre
Depression) America. The sets and decor come across as authentic,
although not having lived then, one can never be sure! Certainly it
reminded me of MILLERS CROSSING in this respect. 'Tom Hanks' does a
fairly competent job in his role as a one dimensional hitman/human
being. Yet somehow I never quite bought into the relationship with
his son. One always felt that they had probably just met on the
studio set in the morning, and told 'lights, camera, action, now
start bonding'. As the crux of the film centres around their
relationship, this is where it fell down for me.
'Paul Newman' was a different matter however. I don't know if you
remember ten years back when 'Nigel Mansell' was driving for
the 'Newman/Hass' team in American Indycar. Well every time I used to
watch him being interviewed then, I used to say to everyone 'this guy
must only have weeks to live'. Well obviously by the look of
him 'Newman' must have died back then. Yet with the miracles of
modern science, and no doubt a new formula embalming fluid, he is
back in the movies. Certainly he was the best thing in this one, and
came across as a perhaps more world weary Irish version of 'Vito
Corleone'. Unfortunately he wasn't on the screen long enougth to give
this picture some much needed life (if you can use that word
in 'Newmans' case).
Ultimately I found this to be a very bleak and cold movie. Apparently
a few months back at some film festival or other, when this finished
it was roundly booed; that is certainly not a fair assesment. However
neither are those voices who are tipping 'Sam Mendes' to win another
Oscar for this correct either. So wait for it to come on the telly,
tape it, keep the video for a few weeks, and then tape over it
without watching it.
filmfan99uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael T. Ballard" <swillsqueal@...>
To: <filmtalkuk@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 4:50 AM
Subject: [filmtalkuk] "Perfect Murder"
> Has anybody here seen "Perfect Murder"? I watched it on Friday.
> It's not bad. I saw the outline of "Dial M for Murder" in it.
> Obiviousy influenced by same. Went to the DVD rental store and found
> a copy of "Perfect". Sure enough "Dial M" was mentioned as an
> influence on the backcover of the DVD case.
It's more than an influence - it's an adaptation of the same play that "Dial
M" was based on.
This seemed to divide people 50/50 when it came out, and I was in the 50%
who liked it. Andrew Davis (the director) may not be Hitchcock, but at his
best he can turn out an entertaining thriller, and that's what this was, to
my mind. Not sure about pairing off Gwyneth Paltrow and Michael Douglas,
though.
Also viewed an Australian film named, "The Monkey's Mask". Anyone
> seen this flick yet?
>
Yes - I bought the DVD from Australia (Region 0). I've not read Dorothy
Porter's verse novel on which this is based (chunks of it are used as
voiceover), but it did hold my attention, though more as a love story than
as a detective thriller. Susie Porter and Kelly McGillis were both good.
This was director Samantha Lang's second feature - it's an advance on her
first "The Well" (which has been on Film Four now and again), which is an
interesting psychodrama that didn't really come off for me. Her new film,
"The Idol" is about an Australian student (played by Leelee Sobieski) in
France - I've not seen it, but word is mixed.
Gary
Has anybody here seen "Perfect Murder"? I watched it on Friday.
It's not bad. I saw the outline of "Dial M for Murder" in it.
Obiviousy influenced by same. Went to the DVD rental store and found
a copy of "Perfect". Sure enough "Dial M" was mentioned as an
influence on the backcover of the DVD case. I went looking of a copy
of "DM" to rent; but no luck. However, I did manage to find a copy
of "The Harder They Come". When I saw it back in the 70s, it had
subtitles. The version I saw yesterday had none, a lack IMO.
Regards,
Mike B)
P.S.
Also viewed an Australian film named, "The Monkey's Mask". Anyone
seen this flick yet?
Mike B)
In the first few minutes of this film, when the camera seemed to be
constantly moving about a group of people in a rather ostentatious
way, I thought I was going to be disappointed in this film. However,
I was quickly seduced by the sharp and witty characterisations, the
spot-on acting, and - yes - the direction (it all began to make sense
after a while).
This was a really enjoyable comedy about a sports-writer husband
married to an actress (real-life wife Charlotte Gainsbourg) who is
obsessively jealous about her relationships with fellow actors.
Fresh, funny, and quite poignant in places: I highly recommend this
film.
Most actors don't have much choice when they play parts. The result
is that they can play parts which their hearts really aren't in to.
When he was at his best i.e. when he had his heart in it, Brando was
great. Warren Beatty has been the same way. Helen Mirren is my
favourite actress.
Regards,
Mike B)
--- In filmtalkuk@y..., "Davy" <davy_evans@y...> wrote:
> Who are your fave actors and do you collect movies starring them?
> Mine is as I have already said is De Niro and the Sopranos and yes
I
> do collect evrything I can get hold of on them.
> Davy
> here is my De Niro list I still have 4 of his movies to
get .........
> Bang the drum slowly
> Jenniefer on my mind
> The wedding party and
> Bloody mama
> .........
> Score, The (2001) .... Nick Due
> 15 Minutes (2001) .... Eddie Fleming
> Meet the Parents (2000) .... Jack Byrnes
> Men of Honor (2000) .... Leslie W. 'Billy' Sunday
> Adventuresof Rocky&Bullwinkle,(2000)...Fearless Leader
> Flawless (1999) .... Walt Koontz
> Analyze This (1999) .... Boss Paul Vitti
> Ronin (1998) .... Sam
> Great Expectations (1998) .... Prisoner Arthur Lustig
> Jackie Brown (1997) .... Louis Gara
> Wag the Dog (1997) .... Conrad Brean
> Cop Land (1997) .... Lt. Moe Tilden, Internal Affairs
> Marvin's Room (1996) .... Dr. Wally
> Sleepers (1996) .... Father Bobby
> Fan, The (1996) .... Gil Renard
> Heat (1995) .... Neil McCauley
> Casino (1995) .... Sam 'Ace' Rothstein
> A Hundred and One Nights, (1995) .... Actor for a Day
> Frankenstein (1994) .... The Creature
> This Boy's Life (1993) .... Dwight Hansen
> Bronx Tale, A (1993) .... Lorenzo Anello
> Mad Dog and Glory (1993) .... Wayne 'Mad Dog' Dobie
> Godfather Trilogy: The (1992) .... Young Vito Corleone
> Night and the City (1992) .... Harry Fabian
> Mistress (1992) .... Evan Wright
> Cape Fear (1991) .... Max Cady
> Guilty by Suspicion (1991) .... David Merrill
> Backdraft (91) .... Lieutenant Donald 'Shadow' Rimgale
> Awakenings (1990) .... Leonard Lowe
> Goodfellas (1990) .... James "Jimmy" Conway
> Stanley & Iris (1990) .... Stanley Everett Cox
> Jacknife (1989) .... Joesph 'Jacknife' Megs
> We're No Angels (1989) .... Ned
> Midnight Run (1988) .... Jack Walsh
> Untouchables, The (1987) .... Al Capone
> Angel Heart (1987) .... Louis Cyphre
> Mission, The (1986) .... Mendoza
> Brazil (1985) .... Archibald 'Harry' Tuttle
> Falling in Love (1984) .... Frank Raftis
> Once Upon a Time in America David Noodles Aaronson
> King of Comedy, The (1983) .... Rupert Pupkin
> True Confessions (1981) .... Des Spellacy
> Raging Bull (1980) .... Jake La Motta
> Deer Hunter, The (1978) .... Michael Vronsky
> New York, New York (1977) .... Jimmy Doyle
> Last Tycoon, The (1976) .... Monroe Stahr
> 1900 (1976) .... Alfredo Berlinghieri
> Taxi Driver (1976) .... Travis Bickle
> Godfather: Part II, The (1974) .... Vito Corleone
>
> Mean Streets (1973) .... Johnny Boy Cervello
> Born to Win (1971) .... Danny
> Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight,(1971) Mario Trantino
>
> Blue Manhattan ...aka (Hi, Mom!) (1970) .... Jon Rubin
>
> The Swap - aka - Line of Fire (1969) .... Sam Nicoletti
>
> Greetings (1968) .... Jon Rubin
I don't usually tend to think of favourite actors, more favourite
directors. Take De Niro. Great actor, but I prefer him in Scorsese
films, rather than some of the other more dubious stuff he's been
involved with. Mind you, some other highlights for me are Awakenings
(this lovely little film always seems to be dismissed by the critics -
I can't see why though), Jackie Brown, and that wonderful cameo he
did in Brazil.
I will only collect all the films of a very small number of
directors - those who produce (more or less) consistently good films,
such as Julio Medem, Kieslowski, Amenabar, Soderburgh, etc.
Mike (mob61uk)
--- In filmtalkuk@y..., "Davy" <davy_evans@y...> wrote:
> Who are your fave actors and do you collect movies starring them?
Who are your fave actors and do you collect movies starring them?
Mine is as I have already said is De Niro and the Sopranos and yes I
do collect evrything I can get hold of on them.
Davy
here is my De Niro list I still have 4 of his movies to get .........
Bang the drum slowly
Jenniefer on my mind
The wedding party and
Bloody mama
.........
Score, The (2001) .... Nick Due
15 Minutes (2001) .... Eddie Fleming
Meet the Parents (2000) .... Jack Byrnes
Men of Honor (2000) .... Leslie W. 'Billy' Sunday
Adventuresof Rocky&Bullwinkle,(2000)...Fearless Leader
Flawless (1999) .... Walt Koontz
Analyze This (1999) .... Boss Paul Vitti
Ronin (1998) .... Sam
Great Expectations (1998) .... Prisoner Arthur Lustig
Jackie Brown (1997) .... Louis Gara
Wag the Dog (1997) .... Conrad Brean
Cop Land (1997) .... Lt. Moe Tilden, Internal Affairs
Marvin's Room (1996) .... Dr. Wally
Sleepers (1996) .... Father Bobby
Fan, The (1996) .... Gil Renard
Heat (1995) .... Neil McCauley
Casino (1995) .... Sam 'Ace' Rothstein
A Hundred and One Nights, (1995) .... Actor for a Day
Frankenstein (1994) .... The Creature
This Boy's Life (1993) .... Dwight Hansen
Bronx Tale, A (1993) .... Lorenzo Anello
Mad Dog and Glory (1993) .... Wayne 'Mad Dog' Dobie
Godfather Trilogy: The (1992) .... Young Vito Corleone
Night and the City (1992) .... Harry Fabian
Mistress (1992) .... Evan Wright
Cape Fear (1991) .... Max Cady
Guilty by Suspicion (1991) .... David Merrill
Backdraft (91) .... Lieutenant Donald 'Shadow' Rimgale
Awakenings (1990) .... Leonard Lowe
Goodfellas (1990) .... James "Jimmy" Conway
Stanley & Iris (1990) .... Stanley Everett Cox
Jacknife (1989) .... Joesph 'Jacknife' Megs
We're No Angels (1989) .... Ned
Midnight Run (1988) .... Jack Walsh
Untouchables, The (1987) .... Al Capone
Angel Heart (1987) .... Louis Cyphre
Mission, The (1986) .... Mendoza
Brazil (1985) .... Archibald 'Harry' Tuttle
Falling in Love (1984) .... Frank Raftis
Once Upon a Time in America David Noodles Aaronson
King of Comedy, The (1983) .... Rupert Pupkin
True Confessions (1981) .... Des Spellacy
Raging Bull (1980) .... Jake La Motta
Deer Hunter, The (1978) .... Michael Vronsky
New York, New York (1977) .... Jimmy Doyle
Last Tycoon, The (1976) .... Monroe Stahr
1900 (1976) .... Alfredo Berlinghieri
Taxi Driver (1976) .... Travis Bickle
Godfather: Part II, The (1974) .... Vito Corleone
Mean Streets (1973) .... Johnny Boy Cervello
Born to Win (1971) .... Danny
Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight,(1971) Mario Trantino
Blue Manhattan ...aka (Hi, Mom!) (1970) .... Jon Rubin
The Swap - aka - Line of Fire (1969) .... Sam Nicoletti
Greetings (1968) .... Jon Rubin
Hi Davy, and welcome aboard. Feel free to post any reviews, etc.
Mike (mob61uk)
--- In filmtalkuk@y..., "Davy" <davy_evans@y...> wrote:
> Hi All I just joined and wanted to say hi,
> I have a huge collection of films on VHS PAL video,
> I am a BIG fan of the Sopranos and Robert De Niro...... more later
> just wanted to say "HI"
> Davy
Offline 
Send Email
