It's summer. With body and soul warmed by the sun-god Ilios, I can only be magnanimous, Derek.

I ranted about a movie today at waltosworld.

It may be summer where you are but somebody switched months here and we've ended up in mid March. It's even worse in Doncaster apparently, but who the funk wants to live in Doncaster?

Are you serious about Born On The Fourth Of July, Walt, or has your tongue got pushed so far in your cheek it's come out of your ear? Best anti war film ever made? C'mon, man. And as for "Oliver Stone's finest achievement", well that's on a par with The Wit And Wisdom Of Margaret Thatcher (to quote Fawlty Towers). I've yet to see a single film that Stone has directed or written the screenplay for that hasn't been a pile of sentimental crap.
Now that should at least get a response from Phil Freeman, if he isn't off on a desert island somewhere.

Dead serious.

I've tried to post a lengthy discussion of anti-war films and failed (about seven times). Now I'm too lazy to get into it. I will say, though, that I put "All Quiet on the Western Front" and "Apocalypse Now" up there too. Both better movies than "4th" probably, but not as effective as anti-war pieces, I don't think.

Hmm, Kubrick's Paths Of Glory and Losey's King And Country for me. At least (especially in the latter) you get actors who can act. Tom Cruise or Dirk Bogarde? Not even worth asking the question.

Was that 7x here, Walt? Or over at your blog? We had a server outtage over the tailend of the weekend. The geeks at West Host have since sounded the “all clear”. Sorry for any inconvenience.

I’m just not that down w/ the “4th” either. There are some genuinely moving/disturbing scenes (the one in the VA hospital w/ the drainage pump comes to mind), but there’s just too much heavy-handed Stone-throwing (pardon the pun) & sappiness to go along with them. Paths of Glory blows it out of the water, IMO. Battle of Algiers also ranks pretty highly under the “Anti-War” heading in my book. Das Boot is pretty effective too. Also, Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, though I’m not sure if it qualifies as a “film”. One that doesn’t get talked about that often, but is surprisingly sharp is Three Kings. Oh, and The Americanization of Emily, flawed, but with some very good bits.

Just saw Paradise Now over the weekend & still cogitating on it. It takes a tack similar to Battle of Algiers detailing a day-in-the-life of two Palestine suicide bombers & their inevitable incursion into Israel. The “thriller” aspects of the film are a bit creaky, but the underlying moral themes are examined incisively. Anyone else seen it?

No, but would like to (question of time, as always - where you find yours?). Try & hunt down that Losey film, Derek. Not exactly action packed (in fact, not AT ALL action packed, unless cutting open a dead horse and beating rats to death counts as action in your book), but a fantastic piece of work. Bogarde, Tom Courtenay and Leo McKern on top form.
Since I "retired" (hah bloody hah.. done three Wire reviews this afternoon) I've been getting more & more into DVDs. Dangerous and expensive habit! Last night it was Orson Welles' The Trial, night before The Big Sleep, and a 5DVD set of Chantal Akerman is waiting for this evening. Yippee. The only Tom Cruise performances I've ever enjoyed are Minority Report and Magnolia (don't ask me why). Anyway, off to work.

To me, the most powerful anti-war Vietnam movie is 'Coming Home.' I've watched that one so many times and it always gets me.

I can't think of 'Born on the Fourth of July' and not hear 'I was there, man!' And then I start laughing.

I hear you on the paucity of time, esp. with the Twin Cities in the midst of its summer explosion of activity. Everyone here goes bonkers once the tundra thaws & it seems like there’s at least a dozen worthwhile festivals and arts-related events each day to choose from. This past weekend it was Prince Madness w/ three sold out shows incl. an after hours return to First Avenue (a venue I’m not sure he’s played since Purple Rain, bringing things back ‘round to cinema).

I haven’t seen that particular Losey, but will put it on the list on your rec. Bogarde’s a funny cat. I liked him in Accident, The Servant and The Night Porter (Charlotte Rampling… mmmm), but found him an absolute dud in The Damned.

What’d you think of The Trial?

Far as Cruise, what about his star-making turn as Joel Goodson (gotta love the transparency of the surname) in Risky Business? Which reminds me of Rebecca DeMornay, which in combination w/ the memory of Rampling may necessitate a mid-morning cold shower.

Coming Home is amazing, Jon Voight’s finest few hours for sure. And Fonda & Dern are right on par. The closing scene in the HS gymnasium never fails to open my eye faucets- often duplicated (incl. in Stone’s 4th), but never equalled. How far Voight’s fallen since his early days as Joe Buck. His turn in the new Michael Bay Transformers travesty being just the latest in career where artistic credibility was long ago snuffed out.

I am laughing out loud seeing you on line for Transformers.

SPOILER WARNING: Was it in 'Easy Riders, Raging Bulls' where they say that the original Voight monologue was atrocious and the scene owes it all to Hal Ashby's editing? Ashby was really a genius at construction (just look at Harold & Maude) but as much as I dislike Voight myself, I find it hard to believe. That scene really moves me and it is a great sequence of events. Fonda goes to the supermarket, Voight works on the kids and Dern drowns himself in the ocean. Oh, and Tim Buckley in the background.

And, if you really want to see the master Voight at work, try and sit through 'Runaway Train.'

Okay, I admit it. I saw it. I went w/ two friends who wanted to, but my stipulation was a pre-screening stint at a bar to get in a proper frame of stupor. Even several quick-succession shots of my old chum Maker’s weren’t enough to numb my senses to the necessary degree. I want those 2.5 hours of my life back. Imagine License to Drive w/ several metric tons of C4 and a $150 million budget sans the cinematic comedic dream team that was Coreys Feldman & Haim. Voight is even more ridiculous than his abysmal bit role in Anaconda channeling equal parts George W. Bush & Hoyt Axton & looking like a rutabaga in a suit. The dude is safely beyond thespian redemption as his signing on to both Super Babies: Baby Geniuses 2 and Karate Dog proves beyond a shadow. I will say this though: Megan Fox lives up to the promise of her name.

I love Runaway Train, but moreso for Eric Roberts hilarious portrayal of Buck than Voight’s scene-chewing turn as Manny. Poor Rebecca DeMornay is criminally divested of “hotness” & given little more than a wallflower character to work with.

Derek (& friends),

In my sun-bathed magnanimity, I will admit that there was one film which I thought highly of. The 1971 production of Shakespeare's "King Lear" by Peter Brook with Paul Scofield in the regal role.

Anyone have an opinion on it?

I didn't know Edward Bunker wrote the 'Runaway Train' screenplay. Maybe I should watch it again. But Eric Roberts? I won't be happy until he is reduced to making soft-core features on Cinemax.

On to some good films, I watched Alan Clarke's The Firm the other day. Damn, Gary Oldman, what happened? He is unbelievable in that one. Also, Harry & Tonto, that isn't the greatest of movie but it still tugs at my heart. Art Carney, sigh. I need to see 'Going In Style' again. Burns, Carney and Strasberg. I'm a sucker for movies about old people, I guess.

Graham, I, for one, greatly appreciate your sun-blanched magnanimity when it comes to all this movie badinage. I haven’t seen that version of King Lear, but I am wondering if your cinema allergy extends to music concert films? I am hoping to see a copy of the new Peter Kowald dvd/cd set show up soon & curious if you intend to screen it.

T, Eric Roberts’ career has been in the crapper for decades. He’s still making Best of the Best sequels for crissakes, a fate worse than Cinemax softcore by my estimation. The screenplay to Runaway Train ain’t much -it’s not a dialogue-driven flick by any stretch- but the stark kinetic visuals are pretty cool & there’s the camp value.

Oldman’s definitely made some turkeys. Hannibal and Air Force One spring immediately to mind, though the make-up job in the former *is* pretty disturbing. Haven’t seen The Firm, did that ever see theatrical release? On the old folks tip, you should check out Sarah Polley’s Away From Her, went into it w/ nearly nil expectations & was fairly blown away. Julie Christie is still gorgeous and Gordon Pinsent (Canadian actor, new name to me) & Olympia Dukakis turn in great work. Very memorable film.

Jon Voigt is a great actor.
The fact that he plays in shity movie doesn't change this fact.
His last "finest hour" is to be seen in Coppola's "The Rainmaker", ten years ago.

What if he does shitty work in a shitty movie? Then again, one's man's shit is another man's Shinola. Either way, the signifier "fact" always makes me a bit squeamish.

Voight is okay but he really has more misses than hits. I don't even give him much credit for 'Midnight Cowboy' but I guess I am a bit harsh. Still, I thought he was great in 'Ali.' Maybe even 'The Champ' but it's been some time. Also, 'Conrack.' Sigh, those damn teacher flicks always have a place in my heart. Well, except the new ones. That crap with Hillary Swank. Did I really pay 10 euro for that one? Color me sucker.

Yeah, Oldman, D, you need to see 'The Firm.' I thought it was a BBC TV film. Maybe I'll open your package and toss in another DVD or two. Be happy I forgot to send it today.

I remember 'The Rainmaker' as being pretty forgettable (sorry, couldn't resist). There are two types of performances I never give credit for. One is mentally retarded characters and the other is evil Southern attorneys. Coppola was through after 'Tucker,' unless you want to give credit to 'Dracula' which was pretty nice visually but otherwise M-T.

Derek: My aversion to movies can be best summed up thus: I have the wonderful Kowald set you just mentioned, watched it once (and of course loved it), and then promptly made an audio copy of the soundtrack, and will not look at the video portion again. Like all good music, it simply has to be heard!

Paths of Glory blows it out of the water, IMO. Battle of Algiers also ranks pretty highly under the “Anti-War” heading in my book. Das Boot is pretty effective too. Also, Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge, though I’m not sure if it qualifies as a “film”. One that doesn’t get talked about that often, but is surprisingly sharp is Three Kings. Oh, and The Americanization of Emily, flawed, but with some very good bits.

I don't care very much for "Paths of Glory," or "The Americanization of Emily." I do like "Das Boot," "Coming Home" and "Battle of Algiers" but I don't think any of them is as effective an anti-war flick as "4th" (the latter's very heavy-handedness is what makes it such powerful propaganda), and I don't know "Owl Creek Bridge."

the latter's very heavy-handedness is what makes it such powerful propaganda

To whom? Middle-aged liberals in Middle America? Platoon had a much bigger impact on me as a 14-year old viewer than Born on the Fourth did as an 18-year old one, even with its ridiculous crucifixion subtext.

You should definitely check out Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge. It’s based on an Ambrose Bierce short story & was originally broadcast on television as an episode of the Twilight Zone.

To whom? Middle-aged liberals in Middle America? Platoon had a much bigger impact on me as a 14-year old viewer than Born on the Fourth did as an 18-year old one, even with its ridiculous crucifixion subtext.

You probably should compare the effect on two-14-year-olds or two 18-year-olds rather than one of each. Maybe you were just more impressionable at 14. Most kids are. Half of "Platoon" is pretty good, though, I think.

Can't really do that from a vantage of personal experience. No argument that Platoon is flawed, but not to the same degree as Born on the Fourth, IMO. Both films completely unravel in their final reels. I still don’t get your admiration for the latter, but then again I also don’t understand how Stone could justify the final cut of World Trade Center either.

Both films completely unravel in their final reels.

What troubles you about the latter parts of "4th"? I think the scenes in Mexico with Dafoe are surreal and terrific. I take it the two contrasting National Convention scenes--including the feel-good ending one in '76, are straight out of the book and actually happened pretty much as described.

I don't care for the silly foreshadowing of this close by Kovic's mother when he was a kid ("I had a dream you'll make an important speech one day to millions of people") and this evil is aggravated by the fact that Stone flashes back to that scene for the dumber viewer, but it seems a minor flaw to me.

It’s been awhile since I’ve seen the film (classic back-pedaling caveat, I know), but I remember being left with the strong impression that it just peters out. The whole “vision quest/road to recovery” vibe of the Mexico commune scenes didn’t resonate with me (Dafoe basically reprising his Sgt. Elias role, albeit with an angrier saltier spin) and the Republican National Convention segment feels bombastically overblown. That’s part of what makes the dénouement of the Democratic one from a few years later feel oddly anti-climactic & slapped on. Kovic gives his speech, essentially preaching to the choir, and the credits roll, iirc. It’s as if Stone doesn’t know how to end the film in a non-clichéd way. Granted, that’s not always an easy task in a biopic when the subject is still alive.

I don't see how Stone can justify his bloody existence, full stop.

Kovic gives his speech, essentially preaching to the choir, and the credits roll, iirc.

Not exactly. There's no speech.

Oh, also, I don't see the Mexico segment (with the prostitutes who specialize in servicing paraplegics) anything like a "road to recovery." Those scenes could almost be from "Satyricon."

Doesn't Kovic/Cruise get up on some podium in front of the delegates & have his moment of vindication, basically running down the story/agenda he wasn't able to tell at the earlier convention? And as far as Mexico, that's where he pretty much hits bottom and decides that he needs to turn his shit around, culminating w/ his fight w/ Dafoe in the dirt. Right? Or is my memory of the flick even hazier than I thought.

"And as far as Mexico, that's where he pretty much hits bottom and decides that he needs to turn his shit around, culminating w/ his fight w/ Dafoe in the dirt. Right?"

Well, yeah, he hits bottom and has his fight with Dafoe (which I love). I don't know that it's actually ABOUT anything though.

"Doesn't Kovic/Cruise get up on some podium in front of the delegates & have his moment of vindication, basically running down the story/agenda he wasn't able to tell at the earlier convention?"

He gets up on the podium, the music swells and the credits roll. There's going to be a speech, but it's not in the movie.

I guess my mind magically filled in the blank on that speech, my bad.

Knowing Stone's previous & subsequent work I find it hard to believe that the fight doesn't have at least some sort of ascriptive meaning. The dude seems all about symbolism & subtext. Okay, maybe not in the movie U-Turn, but practically everything else & often to a fault.

I don't want to be put in the position of having to defend Stone generally. He's made some really awful movies.

Oliver Stone should've stuck to schlocky horror - like The Hand (w/Michael Caine at an obvious low point in his career) - though that movie was also horrible. Not enough disembodied hand attacks ...

I have to admit i loved oliver stone in my high school days and watching the doors at age 10 changed the course of my life and i still watch it every time it is on t.v.. but recently i needed something to put on the old netflic cue so i put heaven and earth by stone which is his third vietnam movie and i would say it is literally the worst thing i have ever seen. it ties many other crappy movies in terms of having nothing going for it and also adds in the fact it is maybe the most racist thing ever produced. it is however laugh out loud funny if your into like the landlord from breakfast at tiffanies.

I only really like Stone's very underrated Salvador, but BOTFOJ has its moments, and I agree with walto that it's a powerful antiwar statement, much more so than some of the other films cited primarily because it reached a much larger audience than those other films. Art-house choir-preaching isn't "antiwar" in any serious sense; getting Tom Cruise to star in the life story of a crippled veteran, and getting the movie distributed to every mall multiplex in America, on the other hand, is a major victory in the so-called "culture wars." For that reason, Three Kings is also worthy of major kudos. (It's a terrific movie, too, which helps.)

Jon Voight was terrific in Heat. After the movie came out, people started asking whether he was dying of something, such was the convincing nature of his weight loss and makeup job. And thanks for reminding me I need to buy Runaway Train on DVD.

Salvador is a great movie, but mainly for the work of James Woods, IMO. That penultimate scene on the bus hits like a hammer. Woods is another one who’s pretty much jumped the shark in the last decade or so.

So a film’s “power”as an anti-war statement is predicated primarily on how many people see it? I’m not sure I buy that. By that measure Saving Private Ryan ($216 mil U.S. box office) trumps Born on the Fourth ($108 mil U.S.). And iirc, Stone didn’t have to “get” Cruise to star in the flick. Cruise readily accepted, seeing it as a vehicle to gain credibility as a “serious” actor. I’m with you on Three Kings though, a film of far greater ambiguity and nuance, plus plenty more entertaining to boot.

I had forgotten that Voight was in Heat. That’s another good film despite various flaws. The downtown L.A. robbery segment is still one of the best choreographed shootout sequences ever, IMO.

"Heat". Mmmmmm.....Diane Venora. Yeah, really good of its type aside from the stupid end sequence gunfight. Just rewatched recently and remain convinced, naysayers to the contrary, that Pacino and De Niro were not in the same state during that diner scene. Excellent small role by one of my favorite character actors, Tom Noonan, as well.

Is "Saving Private Ryan" an anti-war movie? (I'm not asking to be a wise guy, I really don't know--I could only make it through about 20 minutes of it.) Other than being very boring, the one thing I noticed about it was that the colors were extremely pretty and tasteful--like there had been a "color-scheme" of some kind carefully chosen. Frankly, the part I saw looked more like a (nicely photographed) music video than a feature film. Loved some of those green tints, in particular.

But, again, did it have an anti-war message?

Is Saving Private Ryan” an anti-war movie?

I don’t think it is in the strongly political sense that Born on the Fourth or Platoon are. But it does have a distinct critical undercurrent present through the pains it takes in depicting how terrible & dehumanizing war is. There’s also the Catch-22 -ike nature of the soldiers’ mission: risking the lives of dozens of men to rescue one simply because his three siblings were killed earlier in the conflict. Various among the men comment repeatedly on the ridiculousness/inequity of their situation w/ Hanks’ character finally summing things up with: “If finding Ryan so he can go back home earns me the right to return to my wife and kids, then that’s my mission.”

Which twenty minutes did you watch, Walt? I can think of some pejorative adjectives that I'd attach to parts of the film, but "boring" isn't one of them.

Re: Heat, the “climactic” confrontations btwn. Pacino & DeNiro in Heat definitely count among the flaws of the film in my book. Tom Noonan is also great as serial killer Francis Dollarhyde in Mann’s Manhunter.

Thanks for your comments.

The opening (roughly) ten minutes once, and then a random ten minute segment from somewhere in the middle once. Both on TV. As I said, very pretty to look at. Not my thing, though.

Now I think of it, it could have been closer to 15 or 20 (opening) and 10 (middle).

Network TV? I ask because I'm wondering if it was edited for content. Better, though suffering from some of the same foibles, is the HBO mini-series Band of Brothers. It’s another Hanks/Spielberg production, but its 11+ hour running time allows for a more satisfying story arc & greater variety of topics/situations covered. Same strong production values & visuals too w/ the color schemes you mentioned.

Thanks for your comments too, Walt. It's nice to have some non-music related activity around here.

Cable.

How about some PRO-War movies?

I think 'Heat' and Mann are terribly over-rated. I don't see what people get out of that movie. It is just empty to me. The final confrontation and meeting of the two 'masters' (those two have barely done jack in so long) with the nod to Louis Feuillade didn't do jack for me. Lighting does not make the movie for me and I don't care about these nods to artists that are about as shallow as Mann. "Manhunter" and "Thief" I went back to thinking they had something but I was wrong. Mann and Scorsese can take the bulk of blame for stylizing Hollywood a la MTV and it is taking a long time to undo that. Dude has the depth of a flat-screen TV. Probably a little more though than DeNiro though, whose 'Good Shepherd' was atrocious.

Now, if you want skill in choreographing a shoot-out, the opening scene of 'Saving Private Ryan' can't be beat. The rest of the movie was mostly garbage but that opening scene, in the theater, was unbelievable. That is sound-editing at its finest.

To me, almost any war movie with battle sequences are pro-war because it uses war and those battle scenes to excite the viewer. It really is exploitation no matter how you want to purty it up with 'dramatic' performances, 'powerful' dialogue and 'beautiful' cinematography. I just don't buy any of them as anti-war. Maybe M.A.S.H. and Dr. Strangelove.

How about some PRO-War movies?

Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will and pretty much ANYTHING by Michael Bay.

Heat is all about hyper-stylized archetypes: the workaholic egotist cop; the world weary thief looking for one last score; the hotshot sidekick who’s heart gets in the way of his head, etc. In its best segments, like the L.A. robbery sequence, it’s like the best facets of Miami Vice amplified and divested of pastel-colored kitsch. That said, the whole “epic” Pacino vs. DeNiro angle was wasted from the get-go and Mann has an irksome tendency to wallow in machismo-bloated self reflection. Plus, you’re going to give props to Saving Private Ryan for sound-editing, but not Heat? C’mon!

Hey, speaking of cinematic shoot-outs, and copping to the possible reality that it bares my American roots, I’m curious to learn people’s faves. Maybe it’s little more than nostalgia, but for me the finale of The Wild Bunch is probably still tops. Several of the sequences in Hard-Boiled rank pretty highly too.

To me, almost any war movie with battle sequences is pro-war because it uses war and those battle scenes to excite the viewer.

I can’t really get behind this. I’ve never personally been to war, but from what I gather real life combat can be & often is exciting. It’s an adrenaline rush for some soldiers, bringing out a variety of primal instincts/emotions from terror to elation. Carrying facsimiles of those feelings over to the audience doesn’t necessarily negate a film’s overarching anti-war stance, IMO. Plus, most audience members expect to be entertained on some level. Most filmmakers in the genre recognize this expectation in their work. I don’t think that’s by definition always exploitative or makes them uniformly “pro-war”.

I know it is a big statement and a bit dramatic and probably not entirely accurate but I'll try to explain a bit more. I don't understand how filmmakers can use war sequences, jazz them up with all the excitement and music and drama, and supposedly be making an anti-war statement. it just doesn't make sense to me. I know audiences want to be entertained and directors want to entertain, just don't come to me with some anti-war stance to validate your desire to entertain with violence. I am mainly talking about 'Platoon.' I think the Russian roulette sequences in 'Deer Hunter' make a more dramatic statement than anything in 'Platoon' but that isn't really saying much. But even 'Saving Private Ryan,' I don't see it as anti-war. Probably because I really see Spielberg as in love with WWII in some perverse way. That is why I say movies like M.A.S.H. or Dr. Strangelove are more what I think of as anti-war because the actual fighting isn't really the whole theme of the movie.

Anyway, I do remember the sounds of that sequence in 'Heat' and it was intense but the advantage 'Private Ryan' had was it didn't bore me for two and a half hours before it got to it. Pacino and DeNiro are long gone. I think Jeff Bridges has a more sustaining career than either of those guys. He still is good and even though that Gilliam film was crap, I still think he takes chances and makes good films. But, I do have a soft spot for the 'Meet The Parents' pictures.

Oh, and shoot-outs in the end, you have to take Cox' 'Walker' into consideration. I remember it as a bit of a mess but enjoying those shoot-outs.

But even 'Saving Private Ryan,' I don't see it as anti-war. Probably because I really see Spielberg as in love with WWII in some perverse way.

Agreed. I think Private Ryan (which I found boring as well) is as anti-war as 'Lawrence of Arabia' - though perhaps 'Lawrence of Arabia' is more anti-war, in that it displays the bloodlust and insanity of it to a stronger degree.

Apart from the opening sequence, which did relatively little for me in terms of conveying the horrors of war - it was too tidy and slick, 'Private Ryan' seemed like a remake of the FedEx Movie, where instead of going to great lengths to deliver packages, Tom Hanks leads a pack of young stud stereotype soldiers to save another guy. Granted, yes, I have a personal antipathy towards films directed by Spielberg and starring Tom Hanks.

In terms of anti-war movies, I recently saw 'The Gladiators' (1969) by Peter Watkins - which, while ham-fisted, effectively showed the disconnect between the generals and military elite and the generally lower-class individuals that have to suffer.

Also of note about 'The Gladiators' is that the ending in many ways mirrors that of 'The Prisoner' TV series made at that time. I'd guess that Patrick McGoohan might have been familiar with Watkins work or vice versa, but I don't know.

I am going to try to see Herzog's "Rescue Dawn" soon. It Appears to be a dramatisation of "Little Dieter Needs to Fly". The Weekly paper gave it a luke warm review which normally means it is pretty good or even great.
We'll see if it is pro or anti war.

I though DeNiro's best role was in "Jackie Brown".

"I though DeNiro's best role was in "Jackie Brown"."

Try him in The Last Tycoon.

I think DeNiro's best performance was his first, in "Mean Streets."

Heat was such crap. Emptier than deep space.

I thought Stone's best film was Scarface, frankly.

DeNiro was best in Raging Bull.

I wish people would get over Tarantino. He made one great film, one good film, then crap. Jackie Brown is a crass rip-off of every film Pam Grier ever made in the 70s. Who cares about your geeky obsessions anymore, Quentin?

And the worst film by Kubrick was better than anything mentioned here so far.

Thank you, thank you. That was my re-enactment of the last scene of Bonnie & Clyde.

I am not sure a forum generally focused on improvised music is the best place to complain about crass rip-offs of work done in '70s or geeky obsessions...

I think Tarantino is clearly building on those early flims, and I don't think he is pretending not to.
But he takes it at least as far away from it as your recent work gets from Kondo and Lovens' "Last Supper", which is pretty far, though clearly related.

His awareness of the history of the areas he works in is part of the appeal of his work to an improv nerd.
Obviously there are tons of more artistic filmamkers but for example I'd say Tarantino's art has more depth than Matt Barney's.

Tarantino is definitely a film geek but 'Jackie Brown' is no rip-off. He really loves those films and makes one that never got made--a really well-made film. First of all, Robert Forster finally got a moment to shine and that guy needed it. He gets a great performance out of Pam Grier, too and I am sure she appreciated that role. It really is better than most of those 70s films. The more I dig back into those older films, few really hold up. To see one with really good acting and well made that you don't laugh at every ten minutes or so is a treat.

DeNiro's first film is not 'Mean Streets.' He really came out in the early DePalma films 'Greetings' and 'Hi, Mom' it's part sequel---the former, as a peeping tom and in the latter, became a now-turned porno filmmaker. 'Greetings' is a great film, by the way. A dark, dark black comedy that is really funny and pretty anti-Vietnam. The opening scene where the guy runs into a black bar on Delancey Street (I think) and shouts 'Nigger!' so he can get beat up so bad the draft board/army won't take him is classic. 'Hi, Mom' is okay but nothing to write home about. Strange that DeNiro was the one who really wanted the Rocky & Bullwinkle film being made.

Re: Kubrick, I don't think 'Full Metal Jacket' holds up so well and we really don't need to dig too deep into 'Eyes Wide Shut,' but it is likely the man didn't finish that film. Didn't see 'Barry Lyndon' but I can't imagine working with Ryan O'Neil could be that successful. Besides, Kubrick wasn't one to work that much and when you have the ability to go that slowly, you are bound to succeed. He never had to go up against what most directors have to deal with. I like him but I don't hold him up so high as others seem to put him.

Word, Ted. I also enjoyed him in Roger Corman's Bloody Mama (1970).
Disagree with you about QT too, Tom - Jackie Brown happens to be my favourite Tarantino. I think the script's tight, the casting superb and there's less showing off than in Pulp Fiction. Derivative? Sure - name me ten "truly original" films and I'll buy you a Wynton Marsalis album. Anyway - I don't care for either Kill Bill and haven't seen the new one, but it seems to have flopped pretty spectacularly here in France.
As far as Damon's remark about this being "a forum for improvised music", given the volume of posts we've had on that recently, I think we're better off talking about cinema!

Yeah, you're right, "Mean Streets" wasn't DeNiro's first film. First with Scorcese though, I think. I also loved him in "King of Comedy." "Raging Bull" and "Taxi Driver" not so much. Same for the movies as a whole.

BTW, "Barry Lyndon" isn't too good. Pretty, though.

BWTHDIK?

Understood about the hypocrisy endemic in a director attempting to condemn war while also using it as an entertainment vehicle. But I’m not sure how he or she might get around it without resorting to a rigid “documentary”-like style & featuring real, not staged, footage. Not a war film per se, but Michael Winterbottom’s United 93 strikes me as a decent example of this. It’s entertainment value is next to nil in its depiction of the events of 9/11, just a-play-by-play of events on the ground and conjectured events in the air. As such, I left the theater somewhat shaken, but not stirred. The whole thing was just a bit too textbook despite the by turns sobering & harrowing scenes shown.

but the advantage ‘Private Ryan’ had was it didn’t bore me for two and a half hours before it got to it.

I hear you, but as belabored as some of the scenes in Heat were, they still held my attention.

Jeff Bridges has a more sustaining career than either of those guys.

Cutter’s Way, baby! I think the most recent thing I saw Bridges in was The Door in the Floor, pretty great. Haven’t seen Walker, but remember the box cover from the video store when I was a kid. It’s the one with the Puritan looking dude w/ the pistols, right?

- it was too tidy and slick, 'Private Ryan'

Not too much “tidy” about a marine getting his face punched in by shrapnel Bill Plimpton-style, or another swimming in his own entrails, but I like the comparison to Castaway.

In terms of anti-war movies, I recently saw 'The Gladiators' (1969) by Peter Watkins - which, while ham-fisted, effectively showed the disconnect between the generals and military elite and the generally lower-class individuals that have to suffer.

Paths of Glory captures this reality effectively too. How about Fail-Safe as an anti-war movie? It’s a bit too stagey in spots, but the ending still packs a whallop (esp. considering the era in which it was released).

I am going to try to see Herzog's "Rescue Dawn" soon.

I’m looking forward to this too. By and large, Christian Bale does interesting work & I’m curious to see how his teaming w/ Herzog and Steve Zahn works out. For some reason, I’m imagining something along the lines of Boorman’s Hell in the Pacific in terms of look and vibe. Hmm, how about that one as an anti-war film?

Awesome defense of Jackie Brown, T. I’ve seen it maybe 3-4 times and have to admit to diminishing returns, but what I like most about it are the ways in which Tarantino checks his more bombastic impulses. It’s easily his most laidback project to date, IMO. And Forester really is great. Grier too. Hell, even Michael Keaton is well used.

Didn't see 'Barry Lyndon' but I can't imagine working with Ryan O'Neil could be that successful.

I’m no Ryan O’Neal apologist, but he’s pretty great in Paper Moon and The Driver.

Oh, 'Paper Moon,' now you are touching my heart. I recently watched 'Nickelodeon' and that was a bit of a disappointment. Bogdanovich really dropped the ball on that one. Should have known as soon as I saw Jack Tripper on the set. Tatum is great with the same type of role. Burt Reynolds was a bit of a disappointment though.

'The Driver' is really good, too. Been a while though and the boy in me is really fading. O'Neil has the advantage in that one. How many words does he have in his script? Walter Hill, coulda, woulda, shoulda. Used to have high hopes for that man. Anyone seen the director's cut of "The Warriors"? Is it that different?

Dan: So you'll buy me a Wynton Marsalis record if I name ten "truly original" films?! Ouch.

What do I get for naming the ten "truly unoriginal" films?

I'll claim the prize right now - the last ten you saw.

Watching Jackie Brown was like going through some teenager's bedroom while he breathlessly shows you all his really cool movie memorabilia from the 1970s. It's not about what happens in the movie or the characters or even the sources of his ripoffs. It's about Quentin and how cool he is.

I recently watched Res Dogs again and there is a script, my friends. Shakespearean, I dare type.

Walt, you're just parroting the contemporary reviews of Barry Lyndon. They didn't get it then, but a lot more people get it now.

Just a correction to one of Tom's earlier posts - "Scarface" is a DePalma film, not a Stone...

I find some of DePalma's stuff enjoyable in a trashy sorta way - Body Double, Scarface, and that super coked-out Phantom of the Paradise. But his recent stuff is just awful - most notably his version of Black Dahlia, which really does the Ellroy novel a serious disservice.

Stone is generally hilariously bad. Did any of you every see film critic Elvis Mitchell's video parody of Stone on some PBS show (name escapes me) back in the mid-90's? It was great - scathingly funny. That said, Salvador is pretty good, The Doors is a hoot (terrible but fun and accidentally comedic all over the place), and of course he wrote some deliciously silly dialogue for Conan the Barbarian that almost rivals Roger Ebert's purple prose for Z-man in Beyond the Valley of the Dolls...

Me, I like Cronenberg, R.Meyer, N.Roeg, Abel Ferrara, some Egoyan, Kubrick, among others. Paul Schrader's "Blue Collar" is a forgotten gem that I can't seem to find on DVD. And recently I saw Guy Maddin's "Brand Upon the Brain" and really dug it.

That's my film 2 cents for today. Keep it goin'

Sure - name me ten "truly original" films and I'll buy you a Wynton Marsalis album
"Motion Studies" (various) - Muybridge
"Un Chien Andalou" - Bunuel
"The Electrocution of an Elephant" - Edison and friends
"Voyage to the Moon" - Mélies
"Metropolis" - Lang
"Birth of a Nation" - Griffiths
"Leader" - Connor
"Punishment Park" - Watkins
"Wavelength" - Snow
"Sympathy for the Devil" - Godard

Nice list, Sarah. I haven’t seen at least half of those & haven’t even heard of Connor’s Leader? What’s the scoop on that one? Also, let me up the ante on Dan’s wager and make it 10 “truly original” films of the past TEN years. Prize is Wynton’s Village Vanguard box (probably the best thing he’s put out, IMO).

Gotta echo Rob’s praise of Paul Schrader’s Blue Collar too. Richard Pryor is great and co-stars Harvey Keitel & Yaphet Kotto aren’t far behind. Anchor Bay had a nice edition, but like so many choice titles in their catalog (Two-Lane Blacktop, anyone?) it’s been out of print for years.

'Blue Collar' is very good but does fade a bit. Richard Pryor's best role. The way he talks to his son in that film is priceless.

If we're going to go avant-garde, there are a mess of very original films. The 'genre' was reinventing itself for a few decades--40s-70s. Nice list, Sarah. Muybridge, though, is pretty derivative of photography studies but I have no problems with most of the others. Maybe with 'Birth of a Nation,' you can argue that Griffith was working that out in some earlier shorter films--still, that is an extravaganza for its time. Film schools might want Maya Deren's Meshes in there, too. I also think of Brakhage's Mothlight, but, there are so many experimental films that broke barriers. It was probably America's greatest artistic movement outside of the Jazz tradition.

I read somewhere of DePalma complaining that great films aren't made because the studios are all star-driven now. Maybe that's what he wants to blame it on but there is probably some truth to that. Probably why Hollywood rarely does anything innovative or interesting anymore.

Also, I think if Tarantino wanted to show you how cool he was, he'd make a movie like 'Kill Bill.' 'Jackie Brown' is something else. Maybe if I was a fan of samurai movies I'd see 'Kill Bill' in a similar light.

Making a list of truly original recent films is going to be tough. Not sure if I see Dogme, in general, in that light but I do give props to 'Breaking The Waves.' Though 'truly original' is a tough qualification. I've been pretty bad at keeping atop of recent films but I have a feeling the list could be filled with films from Asia and Eastern Europe. Would be good to spot some recent trends that are influencing the new school of filmmakers nowadays though.

"Motion Studies" (various) - Muybridge
replace with: Mondo Cane

Of course a list from just the past 10 years would be extremely difficult - I don't think I could do it. Every film on my list is at least 30 years old. While a good number of great films have been made in the past 10 years, I don't know how many I'd call truly original, but that begs the question of defining said phrase.

As far as "Leader" goes, it is a film composed entirely of leader, probably obtained from the same sources as his other found footage montage work. The story is that at its premiere screening, the audience reacted so badly to it, it got disassembled and the pieces thrown to the audience. I'm not sure whether this story is true.

As far as "Dogme" goes - I didn't think "breaking the waves" was a dogme film ... I think "The Idiots" (which is one of favorites) was Von Trier's entry into that experiment.

Also, I think "Two Lane Blacktop" is now out on DVD.

Is it? Could you post a link, Sarah? I've been waiting for that on DVD for a while. Picked up the two fabulous Hellman westerns (The Shooting - wooaah!!), now trying to get my paws on Cockfighter and Blacktop, which I haven't seen since school daze.
Tish tish Graham, "the ten last films you saw".. FYI, these were, in reverse chronological order:
India Song (Marguerite Duras)
Harry Potter and the Order Of The Phoenix (don't titter)
The General (Buster Keaton)
Visa de Censure (Pierre Clementi)
The Killers (Robert Siodmak)
The Shining (Kubrick)
Hotel Monterey (Chantal Akerman)
Jezebel (w/ Henry Fonda & Bette Davis)
Caravaggio (Derek Jarman)
The Trial (Welles)
With the exception of the Harry Potter, I'd say they're all pretty original myself.
You remind me of an English teacher I had at school, Graham, who had a pathological hatred of all 20th century literature. When I asked a colleague of his why this was the course, she replied "because he hasn't read any"
Anyway, glad to see Derek's stepped into provide the Wynton prize!

No, 'Breaking the Waves,' isn't Dogme. I didn't mean that. Excuse me for not being clear. Hard for me to think Dogme and not Von Trier. I was just saying that 'Waves' is a really good film and I find more original (though probably not 'truly') than the Dogme films I've seen. Although 'The Celebration' is also great but that script is a marvel. Vinterberg really dropped after that one. I could barely watch the sci-fi thing and 'Dear Wendy' was pretty stupid.

'Two Lane Blacktop' was available on DVD but it went oop. I never understood people's obsession over that one but it is pretty cool. Maybe I am not enough of a car guy. But, 'Cockfighter' is really great. Word is Hellman was repulsed by blood and cockfights. It comes from a great book that is surprisingly moving.

Also, for recent films, I thought 'Death of Mr. Lazarescu' was a pretty powerful film. Also, 'Cafe' Lumiere' is one of my recent faves.

Great! I escaped a Wynton prize. "Pathological hatred", Dan? That's way over the top. I saw "The General" about 55 years ago. Today's films are like today's improvised music - mountains of forgettable junk, with an occasional diamond in the dirt. Hence my mention of the Paul Scofield "King Lear" above, which no-one seems to know or care about.

I love that "King Lear," Graham.

Tom Djill, I didn't realize I was parroting. I did see "Barry Lyndon" when it first came out and thought it was boring but pretty. I saw it again, maybe ten years ago and thought it was boring but pretty. Filming by candlelight is cool and flickery, but that and nice costumes (Sarah's "Chien Andalou" notwithstanding), I'm not sure it a movie makes.

What is it that I'm not 'getting'?

Mr. Djll, could you please explain the provenance of your surname. Did you remove the vowel or did it leave of its own accord? Also, I am curious about its proper pronounciation. Thank you in advance for your reply.

Regarding movies, I do not have much to say.

Harry Potter and the Order Of The Phoenix (don't titter)

I saw this over the weekend too, what a snore. That franchise desperately needs 1000 ccs of concentrated creativity, stat. Sure, the visuals & production design are top flight, but both also feel oddly flat and hermetic. To borrow a phrase from Walt, animated paintings and millions of shattering crystal balls do not a movie make. I left the theater struggling to recall much of what I’d just seen, it’s that nondescript & spiritles. Radcliffe adds a bit more angst & ennui to his role (no doubt further channeled into his recent turn in the stage version of Equus), but is largely forgettable & he’s the frickin’ LEAD. Grint has simply gotten uglier (if that’s possible). Both he & the girl who plays Hermione are pretty much wallflowers this time out (along with most of the cast). Fiennes isn’t scary at all. Oldman mugs, Bonham Carter cackles, & Coltrane shows up as little more than excuse to show off more cgi in the form of his simpleton giant sibling (who, incidently, looks uncannily like Ang Lee's Hulk). Staunton’s Mary Kay mixed w/ Mussolini character is about the only bright spot & it’s still pretty dim. Did you find any diamonds in all the slag, Dan?

I haven't seen that Potter movie, but I've seen the others and read a little over one of the books. Based on those, I wouldn't expect much more. The success of whole franchise has always been mysterious to me.

I’m pretty much with you, Walt. Haven’t read the books, but have seen the flicks. The first two Columbus-piloted ones were mildly clever in places, but more like Disney rides than films. Comparatively speaking, I did like Cuaron’s take on the third, but this fourth installment has tilted the satisfaction meter well back into the red.

Speaking of counter-intuitive franchise successes. What exactly is so great about Lemony Snicket? Seems like a cheap bastardization of Edward Gorey & Wolves of Willoughby Chase to me.

I think that there are now actually five Potter movies, with (IMO) the third being not awful, and the fourth back to about the level of the first two. As indicated I haven't seen the last one yet.

With my older daughter I read the first four or five "Lemony Snicket" books. I thought they were cute at first, but they began to increasingly annoy me. And, when the last one we began started to focus on cutesy industrial accidents at a factory run by the main baddie, I simply had to stop.

I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, though.

You're absolutely right, Walt. I forgot about The Goblet of Fire, another case where FX excess smothers much of the charm and depth of a story.

The Snicket movie left me empty much like most of the Potter ones have. Again, nice production design & a ton of money dumped into the project, but virtually no emotional connection w/ the characters. If Jim Carrey's not careful he'll soon find himself in Robin Williams' shoes. The presence of Williams in a cast is now reason enough for me to strike a particular film from my screening list.

Haha, 55 years ago, eh? That was the last time ya went to the movies, Graham? (Don't they have cinemas in Greece (chortle chortle)?)
Considering how much information they had to cram into the HP film, I think they did a pretty good job, but at the price of sacrificing several important details (the fact that Trelawney made the prophecy, for example) and a lot of tasty character vignettes in the book (Tonks, Lupin..). Anyway, Vol 7 is out this weekend so don't expect to hear from me until the middle of next week..

In Barry Lyndon the only part I liked was when Ryan O'Neal got shot in the leg by that geeky kid. I actively disliked everything else.

I watch Kill Bill 2 this morning just because DJll hated it so much.
I still think it has some good moments. Although it is weaker than Jackie Brown which I consider his best film.
The Michael Madson section is pretty awesome, though.
He really needs more interesting feature roles.

Someone should make a movie with him, the guy who played Ricky in American Beauty (he should have won every possible award for that role), maybe Butch's girlfriend in Pulp Fiction and Franka Potente.
Probably Phillip Seymore Hoffman would be an obscene phone caller but in a much more expanded role than "Happiness".
Great concept but they really wasted the vast potential of that idea.

Note to Rob Cambre: Stone wrote the screenplay for Scarface -- that was my little joke, calling it Oliver Stone's best film.

Walt, I find Barry Lyndon fascinating for the casting, including Ryan O'Neal. He's perfect for a character who's buffeted about by world events, who never leads but just has things happen to him which are incidentally caused by titanic forces. Reminds me of Pynchon's Slothrop, bopping around Europe, crossing lines and re-setting alliances, watching the various states crumble and reconstitute around him, remaining mysterious and opaque at his core -- because there is no core to the character. I realize many people find it difficult to engage with such an empty character. By putting O'Neal in this role, Kubrick does that 'meta' thing that he does so well, stepping above the process of the movie-making to make a comment on that as well as the content of the film itself. I also heartily enjoy the various supporting characters, including Patrick Magee, Hardy Kruger, Leonard Rossiter, and Leon Vitali as the geeky kid who barfs before duelling.

Graham, what about, say, Mike Leigh's "Topsy Turvy?" Is that one of the diamonds in your opinion? Just saying, 'cause it's my favorite English-speaking movie of the 1990s.

I saw the newest HP at the midnight premier with my kid, so can't comment because I couldn't hear a thing over all the screaming fans. Def #3 is the standout in the series so far. If they could just convince JKR to have the Guillermo Del Toro of "Pan's Labyrinth" make the next two... let him do the script, too.

How to pronounce my (stage) name: Just the same as when you're ordering those kosher slices on your burger. Has nothing whatever to do with DJs.

Mike Leigh's "Topsy Turvy?" Is that one of the diamonds in your opinion? Just saying, 'cause it's my favorite English-speaking movie of the 1990s.

Is that the Gilbert and Sullivan one? I was so pissed off that with all the tunes they were doing from Mikado they didn't include "Merry Madrigal" that I left the theater in huff. I'd been waiting for it for the last hour.

Walto--I think you probably need to be more persistent with both Snicket & Rowling, since both series undergo a seachange after the first few volumes. In the case of Snicket it's just after the 5th volume where the parodic Pynchonesque everything-is-connected-to-everything conspiracy theory starts to kick in. With Rowling the 1st book is pretty lame & kidsy; it's only as the series gathers steam that its outlandishly large Dickensian cast of characters & dense plotting really takes off. There are problems--the closing chapters tend to have a lot of heavy lifting to do in terms of explaining the byzantine intricacies of the foregoing 300-500pp, & there are some unsatisfactory moments like the overlong shoot'em'up end to Order of the Phoenix or the feeble explanation of why Harry didn't get zapped by Voldemort way back when ('cuz his parents loved him, apparently). But on the whole I think the books' popularity is well-earned, which is a nice change from the usual run of pop fiction.

(On the other hand, I still can't fathom the enthusiasm for Pullman's His Dark Materials series, usually from people who are snooty about Rowling, who seems to me a far more interesting author..... but that's perhaps another thread. I guess it will become an issue soon with the film version of those books coming out.... I will be interested to see if the anti-Church polemics are preserved.)

I don't know what film I'd name if asked what English-language film of 1990s I valued most, but now that you (TD) mention it Topsy Turvy would certainly be in the running. A lot easier to like (or take) than Naked though perhaps that's the better film.

I haven't seen 'Topsy Turvy.' I'll check that one off soon. I love Mike Leigh. He has some misses and I include 'Naked' as one but most of his films are amazing to watch. His process sounds fascinating and I wish I could see it in action. 'Secrets + Lies,' 'Life is Sweet,' and 'High Hopes' are favorites. I really need to go back to those. I think it was 'Career Girls' that was a bit of a let down for me. Maybe that is why I skipped 'Topsy Turvy.' The early films never really grabbed me and I think it was with 'Meantime' that it really got his stride. Plus, Tim Roth and Gary Oldman. Always fantastic acting in his films. Curious to see how the musical panned out.

Speaking of kid's canon page-to-film adaptations, they're turning Susan Cooper's Dark is Rising series into a franchise too. Saw the trailer when I saw the latest Potter and it does not look promising at all: Ian McShane sleep-acting through his role as Merriman Lyon and a predictably blonde & plucky tween playing the part of Will Stanton. Damn.

Tom - right you are, sir. I got ya now. And yes, on that I agree with you completely. "Say hello to my little friend!!!" will probably remain Mr. Stone's finest contribution to the arts...

Much as "This is my happening and it freaks me out!" will be Roger Ebert's greatest-ever bit of writing...

We're definitely in agreement on Tarantino. I still love Reservoir Dogs - the Buscemi character's lines alone are enough for it to rank high.

As to Ted on Mike Leigh I thought "Naked" was brilliant, but I've only seen it the one time when it was first released which was some time back. Need to revisit it to see if it holds up.

Nate, while you're right that I may not have given either of those kids' series enough time, a couple of my main problems with the Potter book can be seen from the films to continue unabated. That is, I can't tell from moment to moment what's a big deal. E.g., that people and cars can fly--not considered a big deal. That Harry is a "parcel tongue" (can talk to animals)--BIG DEAL! You're supposed to care that/if people die, but, apparently, they can come back to life sometimes. There are no rules.

The other thing I don't like is the mixing up of so many various unconnected mythical creatures. Centaurs, unicorns, giant spiders, Merlin types, Vikings, ghouls, etc. She picks 'em from everywhere.

Like Scooby-do.

Hear hear for a little Aristotelian Order in the Harry Potter universe.