movies

[Vidor]

After "Citizen Kane" and "Jaws", and having skipped "Chinatown" due to working nights and completely forgetting about a screening of "High Noon", today we saw "The Bridge on the River Kwai" as part of that cinema classics series in multiplexes mentioned upthread. I watched this years ago but I'd forgotten just how much of a douchebag Nicholson is. And upon further viewing, it seems less ambiguous about how he blows the bridge--he is clearly striding towards the plunger even before the shell lands.

[Cole Burns]

Watched "The Conversation" last night. Very entertaining movie. Gene Hackman is so good, I miss his work. I really enjoy seeing great director's early efforts. And the fact they reused the character for "Enemy of the State" gives it that many more layers when you watch them in reverse order.

[thrill]

they reused the character for "Enemy of the State" gives it that many more layers when you watch them in reverse order.

That had not occurred to me, dude.

[thrill]

It's mother [expletive] The Master time.

[Schlich]

It's mother [expletive] The Master time.

Just saw it... well, that was an experience.

[thrill]

It's mother [expletive] The Master time.

Just saw it... well, that was an experience.

Yes. That's all I've got for now. Need to sleep on it.

[Vidor]

I am working all weekend, have to wait until Tuesday

dammit

[thrill]

So, I'm still chewing on this one. It's incredible, yet not in any way exhilarating like There Will Be Blood, though that's the most similar to it of his works. There is no real resolution and I know there is a message in that which relates to "The Cause" and The Master's teachings were chosen as his subject matter for that reason.


I'll just say this. Sit in the back of the theater. I've never felt myself trying to focus on individual features in close ups or scanning the reactions of all the characters in a group shot quite like this before. In fact, i burst a blood vessel in my eye, i think from not blinking enough and moving my eyes too much too uickly. The combination of the direction and individual actor's performances is almost too much to take in. I feel like I could see this movie once just to really focus on each main character in any given sequence, but I wouldn't want to do that, because even though the performances are that compelling, it's just not an enjoyable or entertaining way to spend the 12 or so hours that would take.

Joaquin Phoenix is absurd. I've never seen anything like it. He's a raw nerve without any cartoonish theatricality. It's stunning. The more I think about it, the more it blows me away. His choices feel natural and familiar but perverse. Like a schizo James Dean or Brando crossed with a wounded starving animal.

PSH is the best buffoon in the game. He can play funny buffoons better than Chris Farley or Jack Black and he can play evil buffoons better than (other well known evil buffoon?). He's incredible here as a hyper intelligent buffoon/charlatan. You never know if Lancaster Dodd is evil or if he's such a great bull shutter that he believes his own message.

This film will win best director, actor, supporting actor and supporting actress but it won't come near best film. Just not accessible enough.

[Schlich]

So, I'm still chewing on this one. It's incredible, yet not in any way exhilarating like There Will Be Blood, though that's the most similar to it of his works. There is no real resolution and I know there is a message in that which relates to "The Cause" and The Master's teachings were chosen as his subject matter for that reason.


I'll just say this. Sit in the back of the theater. I've never felt myself trying to focus on individual features in close ups or scanning the reactions of all the characters in a group shot quite like this before. In fact, i burst a blood vessel in my eye, i think from not blinking enough and moving my eyes too much too uickly. The combination of the direction and individual actor's performances is almost too much to take in. I feel like I could see this movie once just to really focus on each main character in any given sequence, but I wouldn't want to do that, because even though the performances are that compelling, it's just not an enjoyable or entertaining way to spend the 12 or so hours that would take.

Joaquin Phoenix is absurd. I've never seen anything like it. He's a raw nerve without any cartoonish theatricality. It's stunning. The more I think about it, the more it blows me away. His choices feel natural and familiar but perverse. Like a schizo James Dean or Brando crossed with a wounded starving animal.

PSH is the best buffoon in the game. He can play funny buffoons better than Chris Farley or Jack Black and he can play evil buffoons better than (other well known evil buffoon?). He's incredible here as a hyper intelligent buffoon/charlatan. You never know if Lancaster Dodd is evil or if he's such a great bull shutter that he believes his own message.

This film will win best director, actor, supporting actor and supporting actress but it won't come near best film. Just not accessible enough.

pretty bold statement at the end, but I have to agree with everything else. I will say that it set the bar. I think Hoffman is the only one who's got it on lock, and Phoenix will be very very hard to beat. It's too early though.

[The Third Man]

After "Citizen Kane" and "Jaws", and having skipped "Chinatown" due to working nights and completely forgetting about a screening of "High Noon", today we saw "The Bridge on the River Kwai" as part of that cinema classics series in multiplexes mentioned upthread. I watched this years ago but I'd forgotten just how much of a douchebag Nicholson is. And upon further viewing, it seems less ambiguous about how he blows the bridge--he is clearly striding towards the plunger even before the shell lands.

I regrettably passed on this. I was just entirely too exhausted to go see it.