Hold on there. Noir Muse seems to be waiting patiently enough. So am. You just have a few more days to go and we can all dive in.
In the mean time, watch the movie again. Or you can do what George did in film class and watch “The Sweet Hereafter” right away. The films are not at all connected by characters or story, but they do feature some of the same actors and they share some of Egoyan’s broader concerns and methods.
Oh yes, and if everybody has already seen it, I’d have no objection to starting early. How are people doing?
Oh, I didn't mean we should jump the gun. I just had to say wow. (Can you tell I haven't talked to anyone in two days? I'm sort of eager to go back to work tonight).
My dogs are excellent conversationalists, indeed. However, Rupert is not talking to me because he got in trouble for drinking out of the toilet, and Mabel apparently has taken his side. She won't come anywhere near me except to collect my shoes and sweaters and such and make a nest for herself in the corner. I just now tried to bring up Spanish film theory with Rupert and he roundly snubbed me.
Nah, Rupert's more of a sci-fi guy. You can show him "Metropolis," but if you really want to get him to talk, go with "Solaris" -- the 1972 Tarkovsky original.
Oh, I will. I just saw that this last year. So Rupert likes to watch people ride around in cars for hours? Maybe kc needs to get him out more.
George, what did you think of either Tarkovsky’s movie or the remake featuring the pretty boy?
I had mostly stopped reading any science fiction by the time I was twenty. One of the few exceptions was Stanislaw Lem. His work offers a lot of potential for movies—more even than Philip K. Dick, but I don’t know if it will ever be used. For instance, anybody who has read “The Futurological Congress” would realize that “The Matrix” is just a half-ass lazy piece of crap that wasted it time and budget on cheesy CGI. Maybe Terry Gilliam should do it.
Anybody who has read “The Futurological Congress” would realize that “The Matrix” is just a half-ass lazy piece of crap ...
Hehe. DW, I don't know who tarkovsky is, but I LOVE when he have conversations that make me feel like we're all high schoolers playing D&D in your basement.
(I thought the Matrix was a load of doo-doo, too, but I thought it was because I was just too dumb to understand sci-fi movies)
Ooh, I hope someone picks a good sci-fi movie at some point.
Tarkovsky’s is great, but hard to watch in one sitting because it's so long, and so much of it seems a bit random. But in terms of cinematography, it is a beautiful film, one of the best shot sci-fi films ever (probably the best, since I can't think of any others right now, except maybe "Blade Runner.")
When I first watched "The Matrix," I thought it was totally dumb -- tried too hard to be "Star Wars," pushing Lawrence Fishburne as a new Yoda, and this whole deal on whether Neo was The One, when it's not hard to figure out since his name's an anagram. But then they did the fight scene in the virtual dojo and my boyhood love of kung fu movies took over -- it was a nice wink to Bruce Lee, and if you don't take the movie seriously it's a lot of fun. That was the problem with the sequels: it wanted you to take them seriously and it didn't work, so they just sucked.
And dw, as far as the "Solaris" remake with the pretty boy, I've seen it but I don't really remember anything about it; I only recall it being unremarkable -- case in point.
Yup, I think you about have it there. For the remake it seems like they had two objectives—get a pretty face up on the screen, and make the thing short. Both choices helped their box office no doubt. And hey, we still get to talk like kc’s insiders since we are in the small club who have actually seen the Tarkovsky. I agree that it is beautifully shot, but I should have done some research before watching it since it took me a little while to adjust to its pace and direction. Luckily, since I’m a big Lem fan, I was willing to give it a chance.
One of the chain theaters here in Davis does “Retro Night” each Thursday at 10 PM after they have finished screening their first run movie. Most of these are movies that I wouldn’t care to see particularly if it means I don’t get home until after Midnight. But last night they showed “Brazil”.
This turned out to be Gilliam’s full edition with about ten minutes worth that I had never seen before. None of that material was very important, but it was cool to see the film the way he first made it. Has anybody ever seen the cut-and-paste version that Universal chairman Sid Sheinberg tried to release instead of Gilliam’s? I’m thinking about trying to rent the Criterion box set so that I can see. Gilliam called that hack the “Love Conquers All” version.
Kc, while I was watching the movie last night I kept thinking how good it would be for the film club. It is very rich in both themes and visuals. You could watch it through once doing nothing except reading the signs on the wall or things printed on paper. Then you could watch it just for the duct work....
George, if I had had a better background in “wuxia” when I saw “The Matrix”, I might have liked it better. But I doubt by much. My memory of the film is that it was a total mess. Besides making way way too much of their slow-mo hang-in-the-air gimmick, they, as you note, try to make a mystery of the very plain savior theme. That would have been better with some kind of Seigfried twist at least. Mostly what I remember is the excess of standing around pontificating. This must be the only time I can remember wishing a movie used more voice-over. If they had taken a bit of a campy tact, they might have made a fun movie. Then they could have leaped over all the conceptual holes just by having a character keep repeating, “I don’t get it.”
15 comments:
Hold on there. Noir Muse seems to be waiting patiently enough. So am. You just have a few more days to go and we can all dive in.
In the mean time, watch the movie again. Or you can do what George did in film class and watch “The Sweet Hereafter” right away. The films are not at all connected by characters or story, but they do feature some of the same actors and they share some of Egoyan’s broader concerns and methods.
Oh yes, and if everybody has already seen it, I’d have no objection to starting early. How are people doing?
Oh, I didn't mean we should jump the gun. I just had to say wow. (Can you tell I haven't talked to anyone in two days? I'm sort of eager to go back to work tonight).
I’ll agree with you about the “wow”.
But I happen to know from first hand experience that your dogs are excellent conversationalists. [George: insert “bow wow” pun here]
My dogs are excellent conversationalists, indeed. However, Rupert is not talking to me because he got in trouble for drinking out of the toilet, and Mabel apparently has taken his side. She won't come anywhere near me except to collect my shoes and sweaters and such and make a nest for herself in the corner. I just now tried to bring up Spanish film theory with Rupert and he roundly snubbed me.
Try the German Expressionists. Talking about Fritz Lang will bring him around.
Nah, Rupert's more of a sci-fi guy. You can show him "Metropolis," but if you really want to get him to talk, go with "Solaris" -- the 1972 Tarkovsky original.
Oh, I will. I just saw that this last year. So Rupert likes to watch people ride around in cars for hours? Maybe kc needs to get him out more.
George, what did you think of either Tarkovsky’s movie or the remake featuring the pretty boy?
I had mostly stopped reading any science fiction by the time I was twenty. One of the few exceptions was Stanislaw Lem. His work offers a lot of potential for movies—more even than Philip K. Dick, but I don’t know if it will ever be used. For instance, anybody who has read “The Futurological Congress” would realize that “The Matrix” is just a half-ass lazy piece of crap that wasted it time and budget on cheesy CGI. Maybe Terry Gilliam should do it.
Anybody who has read “The Futurological Congress” would realize that “The Matrix” is just a half-ass lazy piece of crap ...
Hehe. DW, I don't know who tarkovsky is, but I LOVE when he have conversations that make me feel like we're all high schoolers playing D&D in your basement.
(I thought the Matrix was a load of doo-doo, too, but I thought it was because I was just too dumb to understand sci-fi movies)
Ooh, I hope someone picks a good sci-fi movie at some point.
Tarkovsky’s is great, but hard to watch in one sitting because it's so long, and so much of it seems a bit random. But in terms of cinematography, it is a beautiful film, one of the best shot sci-fi films ever (probably the best, since I can't think of any others right now, except maybe "Blade Runner.")
When I first watched "The Matrix," I thought it was totally dumb -- tried too hard to be "Star Wars," pushing Lawrence Fishburne as a new Yoda, and this whole deal on whether Neo was The One, when it's not hard to figure out since his name's an anagram. But then they did the fight scene in the virtual dojo and my boyhood love of kung fu movies took over -- it was a nice wink to Bruce Lee, and if you don't take the movie seriously it's a lot of fun. That was the problem with the sequels: it wanted you to take them seriously and it didn't work, so they just sucked.
I could change my pick to a sci-fi flick -- ever seen "Brazil"?
And dw, as far as the "Solaris" remake with the pretty boy, I've seen it but I don't really remember anything about it; I only recall it being unremarkable -- case in point.
I LOVE Brazil. But don't change your pick, whatever your pick is.
Yup, I think you about have it there. For the remake it seems like they had two objectives—get a pretty face up on the screen, and make the thing short. Both choices helped their box office no doubt. And hey, we still get to talk like kc’s insiders since we are in the small club who have actually seen the Tarkovsky. I agree that it is beautifully shot, but I should have done some research before watching it since it took me a little while to adjust to its pace and direction. Luckily, since I’m a big Lem fan, I was willing to give it a chance.
One of the chain theaters here in Davis does “Retro Night” each Thursday at 10 PM after they have finished screening their first run movie. Most of these are movies that I wouldn’t care to see particularly if it means I don’t get home until after Midnight. But last night they showed “Brazil”.
This turned out to be Gilliam’s full edition with about ten minutes worth that I had never seen before. None of that material was very important, but it was cool to see the film the way he first made it. Has anybody ever seen the cut-and-paste version that Universal chairman Sid Sheinberg tried to release instead of Gilliam’s? I’m thinking about trying to rent the Criterion box set so that I can see. Gilliam called that hack the “Love Conquers All” version.
Kc, while I was watching the movie last night I kept thinking how good it would be for the film club. It is very rich in both themes and visuals. You could watch it through once doing nothing except reading the signs on the wall or things printed on paper. Then you could watch it just for the duct work....
George, if I had had a better background in “wuxia” when I saw “The Matrix”, I might have liked it better. But I doubt by much. My memory of the film is that it was a total mess. Besides making way way too much of their slow-mo hang-in-the-air gimmick, they, as you note, try to make a mystery of the very plain savior theme. That would have been better with some kind of Seigfried twist at least. Mostly what I remember is the excess of standing around pontificating. This must be the only time I can remember wishing a movie used more voice-over. If they had taken a bit of a campy tact, they might have made a fun movie. Then they could have leaped over all the conceptual holes just by having a character keep repeating, “I don’t get it.”
ACK! Crazy movie! I wish I had time to watch it twice, but great pick.
Post a Comment