I’d like to see The Rules of Attraction. American Psycho is one of my favorites, for sure, and the book is amazing, as well. It’s really hilarious, especially since I know quite a few people like those guys… Very smart and rich and bored as hell but most of them don’t even realize it. It’s sad, too. And i love “period films” where the period is just 10-15 years before the film was made… takes a skillful hand to pull that off, and it’s amazing when it works.
Speaking of period films, I’ll throw Barry Lyndon out there. Anyone seen that? Another hilarious/sad film. I think almost all of Kubrick’s films are hilarious. It’s dry as shit but if you’re in the right mood it’s all so over-the-top that I know Kubrick himself was laughing at a lot of it on the inside.
Oh Adaptation is one of my favorites of recent times as well. Really outstanding characters, creative storytelling, very emotional viewing experience for me.
poliziotteschi on srk? and mentioned by louis? what’s going on?
by the way if you guys are into the whatever whatever whatever check out the mondo cane series. even though they’re kinda whatever, they’re still sort of essential viewing imo.
Dude… I fucking love most Polizi flicks. My absolute favorites:
Manhunt: Fernando Di Leo’s polizi masterpiece. Fucking amazing picture. I honestly think Di Leo is the master of the Polizi film, though some think Umberto Lenzi is up there. Speaking of which.
Almost Human: Lenzi’s best film. One of Thomas Milan’s best performances. Really good flick and very unique. DVD is out of print and the company that released it are now in the business of releasing of bootlegs so it can be hard to find. Check the torrents.
Contraband: Lucio Fulci’s hyper gory nihilistic polizi film. Has enough B moments to make you laugh, has enough cringe inducing gore and misogyny to leave an impression. Fun flick.
Rules of Attraction isn’t really a period peace. I think Avary said that the film was set in the present despite the fact that the book takes place in 1988. Doesn’t make any difference though.
It’s funny, Barry Lyndon, Lolita, and Spartacus are the only Kubrick films I’ve yet to watch.
Yeah, “inspired by” would have been a better choice.
I find that comedy classification a bit reductive. The film being a (faux) documentary/live interviews, jokes (as long as you like real black humor) come from a single person and are part of him, they’re not some sketches succession…
Also, i can’t help thinking about some Scary Movie crap whenever i read “serial killer comedy”…
… Do you take a massive bong hit before you post on SRK? Just curious.
Documentaries:
Encounters at the End of the World: Brilliant documentary by the great Werner Herzog focusing on the culture and underwater sea life at the South Pole. This and the other Herzog documentaries Cave of Forgotten Dreams and Grizzly Man come highly recommended.
A Man Within: About the great Beat writer William S. Burroughs. I’m biased as fuck as I’m intensely fascinated with Burroughs and his writings.
Ehhhhhhhhhh, somewhat. Tony Scott has a great eye for visuals but he’s basically another kind of Michael Bay.
I think True Romance works because it sticks very closely to Tarantino’s script. Same with From Dusk till Dawn. Keep in mind I hate the films of Robert Rodriguez.
I thought it was decent. I don’t know. I should see it again… only seen that one once, and I don’t like to judge movies after just one viewing unless my opinion is extreme. I guess to me it screamed Tarantino in the same way that Death Proof did - not necessarily in a good way. A lot of the “HEY GUYS LOOK AT HOW I CAN WRITE SUPER CREATIVE SMALL TALK THAT GIVES YOU DEEP INSIGHT AND EMPATHY INTO AND FOR THE CHARACTERS AND I COMBINE THAT WITH REALLY CAMPY CLICHES DONE WITH TASTE LOOK THAT’S MY FINGERPRINT” (yelled by Tarantino) and not enough awesomeness/mystery. One aspect of the film that screams Tarantino that I thought was pretty neat/engaging/well-applied was the very atypical “structure” of the story arc. He loves to play with that, sometimes more successfully than others, and it was really pronounced in FDTD because it was practically like two entirely different movies - the pre-vampire stuff and then completely out of nowhere it takes a SHARP left turn toward… vampire slaughtering and stuff. I wasn’t sure if I liked that or not at first but it kind of worked for me because both parts of the movie were pretty entertaining for what they were . A bit like Full Metal Jacket except the second half/part didn’t suck ass compared to the first.
All of that said, I actually LOVE Tarantino. I just think he has his limits, and I have a very particular opinion about his career and his place in history (subject to change of course). I think that he was/is one of the greatest screen artists of this last generation… however, I think that his gifts were for the most part all on the table with Pulp Fiction. And the thing is, there’s nothing wrong with that. I still love several of his post-PF works, but I think for a while both I and much of the movie-appreciating public were expecting Tarantino to completely blow our faces off again, and I don’t think that was or is in the cards (who knows, though - it’s possible). There are a lot of examples of this in other arts.
Like in music, I’ll go with Van Halen as a really good example. I think Van Halen was a really important and amazing band that broke new ground and captured a vibe at the perfect time with their first album. Yes they expanded their sound later and wrote more great tunes, but IMO everything that really made them amazing, influential artists can be found on their first album. And again nothing wrong with that - when I was younger I didn’t feel this way, but nowadays I believe that if you produce just one work of art that really touches people and influences the artform for generations… that’s… pretty amazing, and deserves “legendary” status.
Wasn’t planning to write all of that, I was just enjoying it - would love to hear other opinions.
i like jackie brown a lot… i don’t know shit about van halen but how is tarantino important or breaking new ground when his whole gimmick is to be referential? he’s clever sometimes, but for that kind of short sharp dialogue i prefer someone like mamet, who has made some amazing films himself. i hate rodriguez too, but i think deserves respect for basically doing everything himself on his films. that said i did enjoy from dusk til dawn, on the strength of harvey keitel.
full metal jacket… i think kubrick in the 2nd half of his career relied too heavily on his photography background. the killing is good, i think in my top 15, top 20 favorite films. fear & desire, killer’s kiss, paths of glory, are all masterpieces too.
-I like Jackie Brown a lot, too. In fact, I might go so far as to say that I love it. I actually didn’t see either film until years after they were released, and I knew that Pulp Fiction was hailed by critics and audiences alike (lol so cheesy) and that Jackie Brown was praised and enjoyed while generally being considered a disappointment as a follow-up to PF, especially considering how long it took for him to produce said follow-up. I do think Pulp Fiction is a better movie and prefer it personally, but to me it seems clear that Jackie Brown’s comparatively lukewarm reception was the product of how breathtaking Pulp Fiction was and the unrealistic expectation that Tarantino could strike such a chord with audiences with his next work. A whole lot of what I like about Jackie Brown is found in Pulp Fiction, and even in Reservoir Dogs… characters that are (or attempt to be, in some cases haha) complex and easy to empathize with, famous/recognizable actors playing characters that are extremely memorable in looks and personality, prominent soundtrack of highly memorable songs, narratives that jump around in time/perspective, and yes that rapid-fire semi-witty dialogue and lots of references.
-Not going to write out a full explanation of how/why Tarantino is/was important. Tarantino does have a pretty overt bag of gimmicks, but that’s just it - they weren’t overtly gimmicks until he released several more movies that all stood out for the same reasons as PF sans the novelty/quality (for the most part). His films have a lot of quirks/gimmicks/devices/stylistic choices or whatever you want to call them, and PF combined most of the best ones that he has so far utilized and applied many of them the most effectively. He is far more than being referential/producing homages… the quality of his characters, for example, and the best of his dialogue are completely his and S tier in my opinion. Many great artists can be reduced to a gimmick or two if you want to paint it that way, but Reservoir Dogs and PF were a unique blend of many influences (as is all great art… really, all great innovations in art are to some degree combining elements of great works of the past, adding a new twist, etc. etc.) that obviously meant something to a lot of people when they were released. PF was like, the epitome of coolness when it came out, for a million reasons. Some of it was just “right place, right time,” but that’s always the case when art has a widespread impact. Tarantino isn’t Ingmar Bergman or whatever, but he definitely had a huge impact and IMO deservedly so. And who knows, maybe he’ll surprise me with something radically different than PF in the future, but I doubt it.
-I think the only Mamet-penned production I’ve enjoyed is Glengarry Glen Ross, which is SO DAMN GOOD. I recommend it to everyone. I was shocked the movie is two hours long because it feels like an hour to me - totally gripping, hilarious, some of the best “epic pwnage” moments I’ve ever seen. I’ve been meaning to explore more of his work since I love that one so much, but I’ve never gotten around to it. Recommendation(s)?
-Do you mean the second half of Kubrick’s career as measured by time or by the number of films he made? I haven’t seen a few of his earliest works (Fear and Desire and Killer’s Kiss… although I was under the impression he didn’t have that much creative control on those. Could be wrong though, and of course that’s relative). I don’t disagree that some of the later films can be very visual-heavy, but I appreciate those qualities in the films, for the most part. I don’t think his films really dropped in quality over the years, but I think that he happened to make two of his best (quite possibly the two best), Dr Strangelove and 2001, back to back in the 60s. Kind of hard to go up from there, but unlike Tarantino I feel like Kubrick’s works all stand apart and he continued to challenge himself/viewers with the subject matter and style all the way through the end. I also think that it seems that the quality dropped because The Shining (due to it being a relatively straightforward horror film and the departure from King’s book, which I loved before I saw the movie) and Full Metal Jacket (first part is godlike, second part is so “meh” though…) are not two of his best, and his pace slowed to a fucking crawl so they form a large portion of his output over a very long span of time. I love Eyes Wide Shut though, have watched it many times, but some people disagree with me there.
what about the “HEY GUYS LOOK AT HOW I CAN WRITE SUPER CREATIVE SMALL TALK THAT GIVES YOU DEEP INSIGHT AND EMPATHY INTO AND FOR THE CHARACTERS AND I COMBINE THAT WITH REALLY CAMPY CLICHES DONE WITH TASTE LOOK THAT’S MY FINGERPRINT”? sure maybe he has some s tier dialogue, but a pint of shit mixed with a pint of ice cream gives you 2 pints of shit.
so what would you consider to be ingmar bergman’s gimmick? everything “cool” about tarantino’s films is x.c.o.p.y.'d. he even denied lifting city on fire for years. yes everything he does is a blend of many influences, but that’s all they are.
i feel like mamet might be an acquired taste. but you should check out “house of games” and “the spanish prisoner” (both of which he wrote & directed).
-Do you mean the second half of Kubrick’s career as measured by time or by the number of films he made? I haven’t seen a few of his earliest works (Fear and Desire and Killer’s Kiss… although I was under the impression he didn’t have that much creative control on those.
[/quote]
both i guess. and no, both fear and desire and killer’s kiss were self produced i’m pretty sure. don’t get me wrong, i think the majority of kubrick’s output is pretty good. but maybe he should have stayed in new york.
all about lily chou-chou is a good movie for some odd reason. i think just the vibe and way it was filmed really stuck with me when i saw it in highschool.
*Rules of Attraction is one of my favorite films. I didn’t particularly like enter the Void all that much. I know the psychedelica effects were supposed to be cool but I just didn’t get into that movie. I still haven’t seen I stand alone by Noe but I heard it’s pretty good. Irreversible was stomache churning at parts but it was still a quite well done movie… Unlike a Serbian film. *
(When I say underrated I mean that they stand on their own and are entertaining and meaningful despite fan backlash)
Predator 2 and Alien 3: Get these two out of the way first because I’m the Alien and Predator fanboy and I honestly think these are the last really strong films in either franchise. Which is kinda’ sad. Alien 3 is David Fincher’s debut picture, the stories and gossip on how this film came together is a crash course in Hollywood politics and the fight to retain any kind of vision in the studio system. Fans hate Alien 3 because of 3 things: Hicks and Newt die at the very beginning, it’s not an action flick like Aliens, and it’s not set on earth like some early teaser trailers had shown. It is however a damn well made Nihilistic Sci Fi Horror film with **strong **performances by Charles S. Dutton and Weaver. To me it’s the best closure to Ripley’s story. Watch the Assembly cut and ignore the theatrical version. Predator 2 is another people hate but for far dumber reasons. Far as I can tell the fanboys hate it because it doesn’t have Schwarzenegger and it’s not set in the jungle… Aside from that it is a damn good action horror flick with great effects, gore, shoot outs, Danny Glover and Gary Busey, and we get to find out a little more about the Predator. Yeah, the 3rd act gets a little ridiculous but man is it fun.
Exorcist 3: I’m in the minority who say it’s better than the original. Just a really well made slow and unnerving horror film with George C. Scott in one of his best later day performances. The 3rd act is a little messed up because of studio fuckery but it still works on it’s own. I think the original film loses it’s effectiveness because it relies on that religious terror, that and it’s been parodied so many times it has taken the piss out of it’s effectiveness.
Robocop 2: Another one where the story on how it was made could be more interesting than the movie it self. But as a sequel to Paul Verhoven’s masterpiece it retains the social commentary, gory violence and parody of the first film, it’s just not as good the original. Plus the child character didn’t add too much. But the 3rd act is fun over the top violence. Try to read the comic based on Frank Millar’s original script to see how much more batshit insane this film could’ve been.
Godfather 3: I actually like it more than part 2. I find the set pieces to be more interesting. Andy Garcia was a great addition to the cast and I like the family getting involved with the Vatican Bank. It’s a great ending to the franchise despite Sofia Coppola. Truth be told Sofia Coppola could be the worst actress ever featured in a film and kills every scene she’s in. My advice: fast forward over every scene with her and enjoy.
