The Film Thread

[BOF]

I Love You, Man: HIlarious

I found that ... how do I explain it ... I squirmed a lot watching the interactions in that. It was quite awkward to watch. Some bits were funnyish. Overall it was a decent watch. Doesn't hold a candle to The Hangover though. In fact I'd say the better parts of Stepbrothers were better than the better parts of ILYM - and that's saying something!

[tonyh29]

looks interesting .... think i will check this one out

[villa4europe]

don't know if it's already been mentioned but The Big Lebowski is a classic

I really really didnt get it, and agree with stevo about there will be blood, imo too long, the milkshake bit I was a bit wtf? and without DDL performance it wouldnt be anything much at all

[RunRickyRun]

Watched 'In the Loop' and 'Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room' over Easter - both very good films.

It's probably a good idea to watch a few episodes of 'The Thick of It' before watching 'In the Loop'. The characters aren't entirely the same but the pace of the film is relentless so the series will get you used to this

[villa4europe]

Yeah I found in the loop alot funnier 2nd time round, it goes a million miles an hour at times

[packoman]

Watched spun the other day, really liked it also watching enemy at the gates now, good film.

[Chindie]

Watched spun the other day

The scenes with the 6 packs make that film.

As does tripping about being swallowed by a vagina.

[KevMur]

Interesting article on the future for professional film critics

The film critic is dead. Long live the film critic

The days of professional pundits pontificating unchallenged are over. But as the walls come tumbling down, it is time that film reviewers smartened up

Few people would deny that film reviewing is in crisis. One hears the wailing and gnashing of teeth everywhere in the English-speaking world. Panel after panel, discussing "the Future of Film Criticism", has come to the conclusion that there isn't one.

AO Scott, the respected reviewer on the New York Times, has weighed in with his thoughts on the axing of his TV programme, At the Movies. He writes: "There used to be James Agee, and now there is Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten movies routinely make huge sums of money in spite of the demurral of critics. Where once reasoned debate and knowledgeable evaluation flourished, there are now social networking and marketing algorithms and a nattering gaggle of bloggers. Or – to turn the picture on its head – a remnant of over-entitled old-media graybeards are fighting a rear-guard action against the democratic forces of the Internet, clinging to threadbare cultural authority in the face of their own obsolescence."

As Scott intimates, the days of pundits pontificating unchallenged are over. However, he doesn't recognise that the only ones who mourn this situation are film reviewers like himself. The general punter doesn't give a toss.

A post from a blog about the sacking of long-time Variety film reviewer Todd McCarthy, probably sums up the consensus. "Couldn't care less if all film critics lost their jobs. I just don't see why people waste their time reading or listening to what some stranger thinks about a movie. It doesn't matter what other people think, at all. They have their tastes like everyone else. We don't need people to be paid to do something that anyone would gladly do for free. It doesn't take any talent at all."

I believe that we have no choice but to embrace the cinemagora. Yet, in all the vigils at the bedside of print film reviews, rarely has the quality of the professional reviews been questioned. Judging from the many blogs and websites by "amateur" film reviewers, the latter are as good or as bad as most professionals. No wonder readers of film reviews get the impression that "it doesn't take any talent at all". (I make a distinction between film reviewing and film criticism, which is a more scholarly and academic pursuit. Unlike film reviews, film criticism is more concerned with form rather than content.)

Indubitably, there are excellent reviewers around, some with a devoted following, but most are indistinguishable from the unpaid ones. Anybody can tell you what happens in a film. There is no difficulty in describing the "whatness" of a film, but there is more trouble with the "howness" and the "whyness". Most reviews are starstruck and anecdotal, the writers being more comfortable with narrative than narratology. The worse a film the better they like it, because it's easier to be amusing at the expense of a bad film than to explain the ineffable qualities of a great one. Although film is, above all, a visual medium, they seldom tell you what a film looks like unless it contains special effects. Neither do we get any analysis – even on a superficial level – of the style or grammar of the film.

Some time ago I wrote a blog called "What every film critic should know", suggesting that reviewers should have a basis in film theory and a wide and deep knowledge of film history. I was accused of being elitist and out of touch with popular taste. While proudly confessing to the accusation, my purpose was only to suggest that the bar be raised a little higher. Is it asking too much for film reviewers to be as educated about cinema as classical music, literature or art critics are about their own subjects?

If professional film reviewing is to survive, then critics have to know more than their readers. This shouldn't prevent film reviewers from still writin entertainingly, wearing their erudition lightly. But they should not be modest in displaying it. They should write with authority without being patronising. Instead of dumbing down, film reviewers should smarten up. Readers should go to reviewers as much for their opinions as with the desire to learn something. They should enjoy being challenged by them.

The problem is, as Oscar Wilde pointed out, that "the public have always, and in every age, been badly brought up. They are continually asking Art to be popular, to please their want of taste, to flatter their absurd vanity, to tell them what they have been told before, to show them what they ought to be tired of seeing, to amuse them when they feel heavy after eating too much, and to distract their thoughts when they are wearied of their own stupidity. Now Art should never try to be popular. The public should try to make itself artistic". The internet, Facebook and Twitter now offers that chance.

Link

[Chindie]

Watched the Devils Advocate earlier.

Delightfully stupid.

'They took my ovaries!

...

You could have set a clock by my periods.

[BOF]

Always preferred Bols.

[BOF]

Long live film crickets Here's one

[Witton_Lane]

Just watch Heat for the first time in about 10 years, still love it.

I've watched it 3-4 times now ...

Really boring from start to finish ...

why would you watch a film which you find "really boring from start to finish" 3 or 4 times? :?

He's explained himself above.

I've done the same before. Watched a film, thought it was shit, been persuaded by a mate to give it another chance "maybe you weren't in the mood?", so watched it again. Seldom has my opinion changed mind you.

Worked with the Godfather though. Honestly thought that was shit when I first watched it. One of those really disappointing moments when you think "I thought this was like the best film ever".

Enjoyed it much more the second time round, excellent film.

Still think Part 2 is incredibly boring though. When it asked me to insert disc 2 I nearly slit my wrists.

Godfather 2 is boring? It's even better than the first one in my opinion....also to fly in the face of general opinion it's a shame the 3rd one gets pissed on so much by people as it's actually an extremely good movie. Not as good as the first 2 but still very good, despite Coppolas daughters crap acting.

I still think for gangster films you can't beat Casino, Goodfellas and A Bronx Tale though, in that order. It's all about personal opinion of course.

[Witton_Lane]

Just watch Heat for the first time in about 10 years, still love it.

I've watched it 3-4 times now ...

Really boring from start to finish ...

why would you watch a film which you find "really boring from start to finish" 3 or 4 times? :?

He's explained himself above.

I've done the same before. Watched a film, thought it was shit, been persuaded by a mate to give it another chance "maybe you weren't in the mood?", so watched it again. Seldom has my opinion changed mind you.

Worked with the Godfather though. Honestly thought that was shit when I first watched it. One of those really disappointing moments when you think "I thought this was like the best film ever".

Enjoyed it much more the second time round, excellent film.

Still think Part 2 is incredibly boring though. When it asked me to insert disc 2 I nearly slit my wrists.

Me too. Still haven't got through Apocalypse now. (please don't kill me) But I WILL give it a go and watch the whole movie one day or another.

And I felt the same way as you did about The Godfather the first time I saw it. The second time I understood what the fuss was all about. Great movie. Still haven't seen part 2. :oops:

Just seen The box with Cameron Diaz. Decent. Worth a look, IMO. But not as great with a that great a twist as it was said to be. But I enjoyed it.

I can sympathise with the Apocalypse Now thing, once sat through 3+ hours of the directors cut of that film, and it's **** shit. Probably the most over-rated movie in history.

That's one film that no matter what friends say, I will never be convinced to watch again.

[Stevo985]

Just watch Heat for the first time in about 10 years, still love it.

I've watched it 3-4 times now ...

Really boring from start to finish ...

why would you watch a film which you find "really boring from start to finish" 3 or 4 times? :?

He's explained himself above.

I've done the same before. Watched a film, thought it was shit, been persuaded by a mate to give it another chance "maybe you weren't in the mood?", so watched it again. Seldom has my opinion changed mind you.

Worked with the Godfather though. Honestly thought that was shit when I first watched it. One of those really disappointing moments when you think "I thought this was like the best film ever".

Enjoyed it much more the second time round, excellent film.

Still think Part 2 is incredibly boring though. When it asked me to insert disc 2 I nearly slit my wrists.

Godfather 2 is boring? It's even better than the first one in my opinion....also to fly in the face of general opinion it's a shame the 3rd one gets pissed on so much by people as it's actually an extremely good movie. Not as good as the first 2 but still very good, despite Coppolas daughters crap acting.

I still think for gangster films you can't beat Casino, Goodfellas and A Bronx Tale though, in that order. It's all about personal opinion of course.

Like Casino, LOVE Goodfellas, liked the first Godfather.

But Godfather 2 was an absolute drag. It's on TWO DVDs for **** sake. Just thought it was way way too long for the sake of being long.

Just didn't really like it to be honest and have absolutely zero desire to give it another chance.

[Stevo985]

I Love You, Man: HIlarious

I found that ... how do I explain it ... I squirmed a lot watching the interactions in that. It was quite awkward to watch. Some bits were funnyish. Overall it was a decent watch. Doesn't hold a candle to The Hangover though. In fact I'd say the better parts of Stepbrothers were better than the better parts of ILYM - and that's saying something!

It's supposed to be awkward. Kinda like the office. It's funny because Paul Rudd's character is so crap at interacting it does make you squirm a lot.

That being said you're dead right about Stepbrothers and the Hangover, both better films than I love you, man. But all 3 are pretty funny in my book (Hangover being by far the best)

[briggaman]

Think I have mentioned this before, anyway 'Once Upon a Time in America' is a very good film. By the way, has anyone else bothered to watch 'Mesrine' (part one and two) yet? I am a big fan.

[mjmooney]

Just watch Heat for the first time in about 10 years, still love it.

I've watched it 3-4 times now ...

Really boring from start to finish ...

why would you watch a film which you find "really boring from start to finish" 3 or 4 times? :?

He's explained himself above.

I've done the same before. Watched a film, thought it was shit, been persuaded by a mate to give it another chance "maybe you weren't in the mood?", so watched it again. Seldom has my opinion changed mind you.

Worked with the Godfather though. Honestly thought that was shit when I first watched it. One of those really disappointing moments when you think "I thought this was like the best film ever".

Enjoyed it much more the second time round, excellent film.

Still think Part 2 is incredibly boring though. When it asked me to insert disc 2 I nearly slit my wrists.

Godfather 2 is boring? It's even better than the first one in my opinion....also to fly in the face of general opinion it's a shame the 3rd one gets pissed on so much by people as it's actually an extremely good movie. Not as good as the first 2 but still very good, despite Coppolas daughters crap acting.

I still think for gangster films you can't beat Casino, Goodfellas and A Bronx Tale though, in that order. It's all about personal opinion of course.

Like Casino, LOVE Goodfellas, liked the first Godfather.

But Godfather 2 was an absolute drag. It's on TWO DVDs for **** sake. Just thought it was way way too long for the sake of being long.

Just didn't really like it to be honest and have absolutely zero desire to give it another chance.

Sorry, but count me in with the "Godfather II is even better than the first one" camp. One of the best fims ever made, IMO.

And I agree that "III" is underrated.

[Designer1]

The flashback sequences with the young Vito (particularly the one when he kills Don Fanucci) are cinema at it's best, fantastic stuff.

[mjmooney]

The flashback sequences with the young Vito (particularly the one when he kills Don Fanucci) are cinema at it's best, fantastic stuff.

Where do you stand on the "new" version?

I've only seen the original, with the flashbacks, but apparently there is a cut with bonus material, and everything re-edited into "chronological" order (I think it was done to make it into a US TV series).

[Designer1]

The flashback sequences with the young Vito (particularly the one when he kills Don Fanucci) are cinema at it's best, fantastic stuff.

Where do you stand on the "new" version?

I've only seen the original, with the flashbacks, but apparently there is a cut with bonus material, and everything re-edited into "chronological" order (I think it was done to make it into a US TV series).

Haven't seen it Mike to be honest, but it would have to be pretty special to beat the original version. I thought the flashbacks worked really well running parallel to Michaels story.