Films you've seen recently and would unreservedly recommend:
- Thread starter Woebot
- Start date
-
- Tags
- beware the dog killer craner's got herpes damn well 'urts! don't be so basic eye-watering dick nailage gay cowboy death squad greek dudes herzog i went to oxford italo jamaican voodoo gang from marked for death jamaican voodoo gang from predator 2 rolling sultry voodoo sweat sex chicken stuff versioncore u know the score what's the frequency kenneth?
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
Freaks is great. I say this as someone who often finds it difficult to get into pre-50s films - it's such a modern film.
IdleRich
IdleRich
I remember Dan telling me he went to a Liquid Sky and Cafe Flesh double-bill at the Scala about ten years ago - are they repeating old double-headers or something? He said Liquid Sky was great and Cafe Flesh was awful though...
Personally I think they are both pretty interesting films - I'd be keen to see some of the other Rinse Dream films. He did a (non-erotic) version of Dr Kaligari as well which I'd be keen to see too.
i def wanna see more rinse dream films. cafe flesh is amazing. i would type more but i have told myself to spend less time checking msg boards. liquid sky is just plain bad - poor script, ropey acting, and so on. ive never been totally into the affection for 'bad films' though so if you like that kinda thing, then cool. though tbh for the first half i was still knackered and waiting for my caffeine to kick in. yep they are repeating double headers. well except for wes andersons fantastic mr fox which was obv never shown there. saw pink flamingos on saturday with bride of frankenstein. pink flamingos is still bloody weird.
Last edited:
Gregor XIII
Well-known member
Oh cool. What did you think of it? And yeah, I wrote a blogpost in two parts here. I wanted to write some kind of follow up on The Turin Horse, but I was much too baffled by that one.
IdleRich
IdleRich
Well, it looked beautiful, and many (if not most of) the scenes were interesting in and of themselves but I was really struggling to find a coherent theory of what the film was about - or, more simply, how the individual scenes were related except in the simplest of ways. What did the whale represent? Who was the priest, what happened to the main character at the end? And so on and so forth.
I think that knowing more about Hungarian history might be an advantage - but then again maybe I've got totally the wrong end of the stick and it's not political at all. Watching it was definitely an experience and an enjoyable one but I found it frustrating in the way that I failed so badly to get a handle on any of it.
It reminded me a little of the Anderson film from the earlys 2,000s called Songs From The Second Floor - a strange, almost ghostly town with continual hints of an apocalypse and a lack of any narrative made for many similarities. But, although SFTSF is a lot "weirder" and deliberately splintered in that (as far as I remember) virtually every scene involves new characters and different locations, it was nowhere near as confusing and inpenetrable as Werckmeister Harmonies.
Anyway, gonna read your stuff now, hopefully might help me some. Cheers.
I think that knowing more about Hungarian history might be an advantage - but then again maybe I've got totally the wrong end of the stick and it's not political at all. Watching it was definitely an experience and an enjoyable one but I found it frustrating in the way that I failed so badly to get a handle on any of it.
It reminded me a little of the Anderson film from the earlys 2,000s called Songs From The Second Floor - a strange, almost ghostly town with continual hints of an apocalypse and a lack of any narrative made for many similarities. But, although SFTSF is a lot "weirder" and deliberately splintered in that (as far as I remember) virtually every scene involves new characters and different locations, it was nowhere near as confusing and inpenetrable as Werckmeister Harmonies.
Anyway, gonna read your stuff now, hopefully might help me some. Cheers.
IdleRich
IdleRich
OK read the first bit on your blog (which I realise now was actually written second) and enjoyed it a lot. Good stuff.
Some things - yeah, I agree with you about the helicopter (and the tank in a scene slightly before that), up to that point you could be in the 19th century or earlier or really in a kind of no-time (and no-place) but the modern things suddenly attack what you may have been lazily assuming and suggest (to me at least) that the movie isn't really set at any particular time. Not so much in an unidentified time but in a time that can't really exist. In fact, come to think of it, prior to the tank and the helicopter you see a truck driving but it's dark and you can't judge how modern it is, plus it moves so slowly it seems like an antiquated vehicle from a different age.
The whale - I watched it with my girlfriend and, at the end, when you see the whale out of the container she said "it looks really fake" - I wondered at that point if it was indeed going to be revealed as fake, an absolute nothing around which the whole movie rotated, but perhaps that would have been too trite.
I like your "an apocalypse, not the apocalypse" reading.
Some things - yeah, I agree with you about the helicopter (and the tank in a scene slightly before that), up to that point you could be in the 19th century or earlier or really in a kind of no-time (and no-place) but the modern things suddenly attack what you may have been lazily assuming and suggest (to me at least) that the movie isn't really set at any particular time. Not so much in an unidentified time but in a time that can't really exist. In fact, come to think of it, prior to the tank and the helicopter you see a truck driving but it's dark and you can't judge how modern it is, plus it moves so slowly it seems like an antiquated vehicle from a different age.
The whale - I watched it with my girlfriend and, at the end, when you see the whale out of the container she said "it looks really fake" - I wondered at that point if it was indeed going to be revealed as fake, an absolute nothing around which the whole movie rotated, but perhaps that would have been too trite.
I like your "an apocalypse, not the apocalypse" reading.
IdleRich
IdleRich
No mention of the music at all in your piece by the way. Saw someone else writing about how it was non-diegetic and that seems right. I wondered if the pieces were composed in any way according to Giury's theories but I simply don't know anything like enough about music to figure that out.
Agreed with you about the naked old man bit, at first the most depressing moment in the movie (as you think they're gonna smash him), it becomes a moment of hope as the sight of him causes an awakening of compassion.
What did you think of the scene with the horrible children constantly threatening to be "hard on you"?
Agreed with you about the naked old man bit, at first the most depressing moment in the movie (as you think they're gonna smash him), it becomes a moment of hope as the sight of him causes an awakening of compassion.
What did you think of the scene with the horrible children constantly threatening to be "hard on you"?
Gregor XIII
Well-known member
Well, I had the same problem that you have with the music. I was pretty sure, that it was highly important, but I wasn't able to hear what it said. To my ears, the piano does sound slightly 'out of tune', but whether that is true, or if that means they use 'mean tuning', I don't know. I don't think it is meant to be music that Gyuri has made, because he seems mostly concerned with Bach, and dissapointed with the end-results.
Hm. The children. I'm pretty sure, that I thought they were imitating dictators and marching bands, in the most generic way possible. It's just noise and violence. As such, it could be seen as another instance where the film indights not so much communism as authoritarian rule in general. The children are somewhat like the mob. We don't know where they get it from, but the result is violent. Another focus on effects rather than causes. Dunno, that seems a bit obvious, and probably more inspired by me just rereading the blogposts, as I found them again. It's a bit vague to me.
Hm. The children. I'm pretty sure, that I thought they were imitating dictators and marching bands, in the most generic way possible. It's just noise and violence. As such, it could be seen as another instance where the film indights not so much communism as authoritarian rule in general. The children are somewhat like the mob. We don't know where they get it from, but the result is violent. Another focus on effects rather than causes. Dunno, that seems a bit obvious, and probably more inspired by me just rereading the blogposts, as I found them again. It's a bit vague to me.
IdleRich
IdleRich
Yeah, I am absolutely underqualified to even guess about the music. I'm only conjecturing on the basis that they talk about the theory in the film, couldn't make any comment at all on how the tuning actually sounds.
Also remembered the bit about how the young guy takes the whale as proof of God while the old guy mentions it in the context of evolution. I think that that is maybe a clue that it means whatever you want it to mean basically. Unless those bits are a comment on how people take things to mean whatever they want them to mean.
Also remembered the bit about how the young guy takes the whale as proof of God while the old guy mentions it in the context of evolution. I think that that is maybe a clue that it means whatever you want it to mean basically. Unless those bits are a comment on how people take things to mean whatever they want them to mean.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
Wendy and Lucy. Just great North American indie cinema, of which there is always so much, much of it under the radar...not this film particularly, but Kelly Reichardt's other films, I've never even heard of....anyone have one to recommend?
i really wanted to see the thundercrack screening last week but it was totally sold out. saw the Female Convict #701 trilogy at the weekend which was actually really brilliant. last one was actually the most artsy and the actress playing the lead def helped take it way beyond straight up female prison/exploitation films.
nochexxx
harco pronting
am i right in thinking their are more than three parts? the first two Female Convicts are really great. i think the later ones had a different actress, which i have yet to see.
IdleRich
IdleRich
I've only ever seen the first two Female Convict ones - I think I wasn't that keen on the second to be honest. I preferred the simplicity of the first. Don't know about the third film or if it has a different actress.
I watched Drive at the cinema on Friday and I thought it was great. Much like Valhalla Rising it's a rather strange film disguised as a mainstream film (although this makes more concession to plot than the earlier film). Endless meaningful/meaningless silences take it through the Hollywood version of stylized and out the other side. Complete lack of back story or explanation keep it both simple and gloriously empty and when the extreme violence kicked in it took us totally by suprise. (Some of) the music and the awful neon credits added to these effects pretty well as well. I was also glad that stunt driving scenes were kept pretty much to a minimum with none of that stupid fast cutting that means that you can't tell what's supposed to be going on. Instead it's just cars driving quickly which I reckon should be enough.
I watched Drive at the cinema on Friday and I thought it was great. Much like Valhalla Rising it's a rather strange film disguised as a mainstream film (although this makes more concession to plot than the earlier film). Endless meaningful/meaningless silences take it through the Hollywood version of stylized and out the other side. Complete lack of back story or explanation keep it both simple and gloriously empty and when the extreme violence kicked in it took us totally by suprise. (Some of) the music and the awful neon credits added to these effects pretty well as well. I was also glad that stunt driving scenes were kept pretty much to a minimum with none of that stupid fast cutting that means that you can't tell what's supposed to be going on. Instead it's just cars driving quickly which I reckon should be enough.
seems a bit sad that drive seems to be out to recreate bygone 80s/90s 'cool', its like its desperate to be a cult fave, but ill reserve judgement til i see it. i wont go so far as to say gosling can do no wrong (i did not like blue valentine) but hes good in crazy stupid love. and i like any film that has lines like 'so what do you do?' 'i drive'. do wonder if the fact the director is not from the US or LA played a part in how his vision of LA seems to be one so familiar from films he prob watched in preparation.