Surf Nazis must die!

Looks like QT is taking the rap for his leaked Inglorious Bastards script for, I quote, being disrespectful to German soldiers.

Calm down, folks. The Nazis have been reliably eeeevil bad guys ever since the 40s, just like the Russians in 60s Bond. And even if we're all big boys and girls now, and we understand things are more complex, we're still talking Tarantino.

Remind me of the last time he's made a movie remotely resembling Real Life as we know it? The sticky irony of Mr Orange's situation is as realistic as its ever got, and even then his actions at the end of the movie are governed by a Samuri concept of honour or something. Pulp Fiction was one massive homage to a genre - none of those people were meant to be real. Jackie Brown moreso, but it was also busy being a blaxsploitation tribute at the same time. And Kill Bill! That's my entire argument boiled down into two 2-hour chunks!

If it was a serious director making a serious Private Ryan-esque movie about slapping the it to the hun, then we could be alarmed. But surely any Tarantino war movie would be a boy's-own men-on-a-mission tribute BEFORE it was an intelligent commentary on 1940s politics. I'm expecting comic-book level gung ho behavior, the requisite bloodbath, some truly unredeemably villanous Nazis, and I'm expecting to have fun watching it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/aug/15/quentintarantino.secondworldwar

The guardian confirms this theory - that it's going to be pure unhistoric pulp. So what's the problem? I mean, I'm defending a script I haven't read, for a movie I haven't seen, so he could still prove me wrong. Who knows - maybe troops going on a Holocaust-vengeance mission might turn out to be tasteless? *sarcasm* But at this rate, no one's going to get to see it!

I'm a little disappointed that both Tim Roth and Simon Pegg are out of the picture - I was looking forward to the Roth vs. Madsen rematch rumoured, oh, two years back. Their replacements are interesting to say the least. But I'm willing to give it a chance. And if in a years time this post mysteriously vanishes, you'll know I bet on the wrong horse.

I've skim read this link, if anyone wants the spoilerific low-down on the leaked script - which I don't particularly, but you might:

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/07/weve_got_quentin_tarantinos_in.html

And here's the telegraph, with a much more general article along the same lines:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2562334/Quentin-Tarantino-angers-Germans-with-film-about-slaying-Nazis.html

And a PPPPS to all that...

4. The Happening is out! And Cinecism is not a happy bunny. Why is Cinecism an unhappy bunny? Because it's not out over here. Which means I'll have to endure it being criticised by all and sundry, and won't be able to defend it. Fair enough - If i'm already resolved to defend it, why can't I do it without having seen the film first. After all, being an M. Night fan, I know what one of his movies looks like; and the trailer doesn't seem to have broken the mould. And it never stopped me with Grindhouse. But if the best the Times critic can come up with to justify his 3 star review is "the good news is this film isn't as bad as I thought it was going to be", you know there's not justice in the world.

Fair enough - that's exactly what my most recent Hulk review said. But that was the Incredible Hulk - a comic book adaptation, a sequel to a not-great film, a movie about two big lumps of CG smashing each other. Forgive me, but I'm allowed to be critically sniffy.

We're talking about one of our classiest directors here - a guy who has proved that "mainstream" and "shit" are not necessarily synonomous. Ghosts, superheroes, alien invasion! Only with style and a lot of heart. That's the deal-sealer for me - the way he takes these unlikely movie situations, and really gets into the emotions of what that situation would be like.

We're also talking about a group of petty, petty people who're still peeved about getting caught out by Sixth Sense; the same cynical people who've cheerfully struck back at everything he's done since. Until Lady in the Water that was OK. Because Unbreakable was insanely classy; Signs a brilliant thriller, even if you couldn't make a leap of faith at the end; and The Village had nice music. But Lady has become an open invitation to just lay in. It was not a terrible film! It was an attempt to do something different - and it only failed a little bit.

Michael Bay! Uwe Boll! Ed Wood! There aren't lines of people waiting to pour scorn on their movies, some of which are truly terrible. Check out his IMDB's director's board - the hate never stops and I don't know why.

Maybe it's just the undercurrents. Every director has underlying ideas and themes which he brings to every movie. For M. Night it's redemption through the supernatural, Philidelphia, great set pieces, James Newton Howard music and me crying at the end. The things the masses admired in Sixth Sense - i.e. heartstopping terror - aren't in the other films. People keep saying "ugh, but the Village wasn't scary..." But was it meant to be? No. Incidentally, the things which attracted me to Res Dogs aren't always there in QT's other movies - the sincere human drama and tension. So it works both ways.

In any case, I am peeved that I can't see it at the cinema, already on the defensive, at war with anyone who doesn't like it - on principle unless they first prove that they thought Unbreakable was a decent piece of cinema, and very annoyed.

Nothing comes between me and my AK

Now why would anybody want to pick on poor, maligned Jackie Brown?

The impression you get goes something like this – ignoring the cousins (Four Rooms), second cousins (Sin City) and adoptees (Hostel and Hero), Pulp Fiction and Res Dogs are the solid centre of QT’s film family. You’re not going to alarm anyone unduly by claiming they’re the Best Films Ever – even if you disagree personally. Grindhouse and Kill Bill are the slightly gangly little kid sisters – more of an acquired taste, but not without fans. And then Jackie Brown – the fruity aunt whose eccentricities we tolerate, but don’t encourage.

Odd comparison, but it’s the impression I get – it’s basically establishment now to like the first two, it’s cool-in-a-culty-way to worship the latter pair. You get one or two oddballs who admire Jackie Brown and remind you it’s “his most mature and subtle film”, but they’re mostly sour D.W. Griffith fans who pathologically disagree that films should be fun.


Well wake up and smell the roses – I’m out on a limb to tell you Jackie ain’t half bad. We may even have to elevate her to older sister status.

Fair enough, Pulp Fiction’s “the classic”, but who really gives a damn about any of them? I liked all of the characters, they were variously cool and amusing, but I wasn’t going to shed any tears should they meet with misfortune…well, possibly Pumpkin and Honey Bunny, but then again I’m biased (timrothlove…) Compare Butch’s pretty insipid romance with the beautifully handled relationship between Jackie and Max. I mean finally, some fully rounded characters! By gum, I love every single character in Dogs (save Joe) but at the end of the day, you can reduce them down to one or two character traits…

I’ve heard it said Tarantino can’t write realistic women. Disagree. On the strength of Kill Bill vol 1 and Pulp Fiction alone, you’ve got a good case – but Jackie herself is wonderful character. Yes, she’s a strong female, but it’s never at the expense of her humanity. She’s allowed to cry and have basic, sensible human fears, without seeming weak. Her friendship with Max is a beauty to watch.

On the other hand, she’s not really Tarantino’s woman at all. What we have here is a Elmore Leonard's novel Rum Punch pulled apart and reassembled as a QT film. Consequently, while you can recognise all the hallmarks, at its core the story is a completely different animal. It’s like remodelling a Skoda as a Cadillac – the tailfins are there, but if you try to drive it at speed, you’re going to notice the difference.

For one thing, the humour’s all gone. Jackie Brown is pretty entertaining (because of the music) but it’s nowhere near as fun as the others. QT himself has argued that PF and RD belong in the comedy section. He writes with a smirk and a wink – amid the ultra-realism, you’re reminded it’s not real. Perhaps my complaint that his characters are generally unsympathetic helps this – you can still have a fun time, even if they’re not.

For one thing, notice how all the deaths here are handled gently – no Kill Bill style limb loss or bloodbath a la Dogs here. They take place mostly off screen, with the minimum of ceremony and maximum respect. You don’t laugh, you can’t even smirk (one possibly exception SPOILERVISION: the death of Melanie. It’s a horrible, brutal moment (is this the nastiest QT moment ever? You are, after all, invited to enjoy Mr Blonde’s moment of glory…), but I couldn’t help a momentary, shocked chuckle at Louis’ overreaction.) Perhaps this is where the regular QT fans disappeared – there’s not the comedy comfort zone.


At the same time, all the exterior tweaks are 100% Tarantino. It's got a brilliant soundtrack (think the intercut sequence, where the three separate parties are differentiated by the three different things they're listening to on the radio) and operates in a banal world (i.e. Ordell needs to explain how his car key works. This kinda thing happens all the time in real life, but in films these details are pared down so no one ever gets confused when using unfamiliar items unless it’s a massive plot point.) The homages are subtle, but present; he's resurrecting the career of a slightly past-it star (here, Pam Grier). We had a trunk shot (and was anyone else reminded of the on-set trivia about Michael Madsen deliberately riding down a bumpy road with the radio on when Kirk Baltz decided to follow his actor's method?) - and he even managed to pull the same scene-different angle trick in the dressing room scene.

Not that being samey is necessarily a virtue, but it proves this isn't muse-sacrificing movie. My favourite overhang was that vintage-kitch world his movies inhabit. Even when reminded it's the 90s, it still feels like it's set in a different era. Can you even imagine Tarantino characters buying iPods? Vinyl, yes, tape, yes, radio or jukebox, fine. CDs and iPods? Never...

Let’s put it this way. In the original story “Rum Punch”, Jackie was a blonde bimbo. That says it all, really.


I can see why it’s unpopular; yet at the same time, I think there's a good case to be made for it being better than Pulp (not that I'm brave enough to be the one to make it)...maybe even Dogs as well, though it's unlikely to replace it in my affections.

For one thing, it was nice to see a plot again. Boring? Only if that's a synonym for well paced and relaxed - and it frequently is. I’ll admit the film dragged in places, and it could have lost 15 minutes here and there, but that didn’t significantly spoil my enjoyment (specifically the Ordell section after the shopping centre sequence. It felt like the film had ended ten minutes ago – and if I’m gonna be really picky, it took a while to get going too. )

Actually, as boring is the insult most frequently levelled at it, let’s just sit down and have a long hard think about his other films. I know this meant to be about JB, and not a bitch at PF*, but still…it must be said…if someone were to accuse Pulp of being boring (which I, as a pretentious-movie-buff in training, blindly adoring Tarantino fangirl and bona fide coward, would never even consider) I’d admit they had a very good point. Somebody called Dogs boring last week, and love it as I do, I could also see where they were coming from. I’m not saying Jackie was “less boring” – I’m saying it’s “as boring”.

I’d say that Tarantino counts as an auteur (I don’t care what Truffaut laid down, my private scoring system is this: “Can you talk about one of their films in isolation, without referencing the rest?” I hate this obsession with reviews which resort to discussing the film’s background and citing influences more than the film itself and its own merits. Which is why when I find myself doing it, I know it’s irresistible auteur-power. You’ll see this is the second recent review which has accidentally spilled over into director-love…) which entitles us to write about his films as a sequence, instead of individual works. But Jackie Brown is special. She really needs to be treated differently. PF and RD are a natural pair, and should be left so. Similarly, KB and Grindhouse can be placed in the same box as rampant tributes to everything going. And while I’ve just spent a few pages comparing her (oops, mybad) you’ll get a lot more out of it if you try to think of it on its own. A lot of people will go into it expecting (and wanting) Dogs 3, and they’re the ones which’ll come out disappointed. Is Fellowship of the Ring better than Run Lola Run? Is 2001:A Space Odyssey better than L.A. Confidential? Is Memento better than Citizen Kane? There's a reason you're finding those questions hard to answer...

To put the focus on the actors a moment, they’re all fab. Special mention for Samuel L. Jackson, who is really starting to go up in my estimation: Ordell makes an increasingly chilling villain, without ever becoming pantomime. I think that's more or less it. To sum up, then - this film is not a comedy, and shouldn't be compared to his other comedies. If you don't do that, then you're going to love this film. It’s been 20 minutes and I’m still beaming. It served the ultimate function of film – entertainment. I feel great. In fact, it’s so cool that I feel cool; and I’m telling you, I’m as groove-less as they come. And I loved the Chicks who Love Guns video. Outrageous, but almost plausible…


That probably wasn't the best review I've ever written. Too many things to say, not enough commas, semi-colons and brackets to say them with. Really wasn't very coherent at all. Oh well, I think you got the gist - I liked it a lot. On the other hand, I'm hardly a reliable and unbiased source, considering a) that I'm something of a QT nut and b) I enjoyed Godfather III.


Final word I'm just going to throw in while we're on the subject...and honestly, folks, it is a subject I try not to return to too too often...Tarantino just has this spell over me. All concept of "rated 18"and "patience" go straight out the window the moment he makes a film I haven't seen. And most recently, Grindhouse has invaded that despairing "I have got to see this film right now" hole in my heart so recently vacated by Reservoir Dogs and The Godfather - my new infandum amorem.

I made the mistake of finding and listening to the fantastic soundtrack online. I've been mournfully haunting the official website, playing with the scream machine (ok, only in short bursts, because it's sick) and building my own poster and trailer, not to mention loping around imdb as spoiler-freely as is humanly possible. Friend 4 informs me I used "the G word" five times within three hours. This is all exacerbated by the fact Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost contributed a trailer (significance being that their Hot Fuzz also occupies a small part of that dispairing space, and it isn't out on dvd until 11th June) which is compiling the agony somewhat.

Mope...mope...it's not out in cinemas over here....mope...and it really needs to be seen at the cinema...mope...and our cinema would be perfect for it, because you get the GH-style crackles and scratches on most films here anyway...and I'm not 18 anyway...mope. But you heard it here first: he's promised to make Inglorious Bastards next (read: spaghetti western set in nazi occupied France), and so far both Tim Roth and Michael Madsen are on the cast list. I'm sure I'm not the only one drooling about that combination. And if things continue that way I'm gonna go see it at the cinema.


*OK, I’m sorry Establishment, I take it back. I am deeply, deeply fond of PF. Don’t hurt me? Please?

I like it, while consciously admitting to myself that there’s something missing – there was never any love. Lots of good things, but they never quite join into a satisfying whole. Great script, great music, great editing, a whole whack of great moments, but no glue. And I’d say my problem with it was lack of emotion. The acting was acceptable, not great – there wasn’t anything wrong with it, but as the plot abandons traditional character arcs in favour of random and meaningless events, there were never any deep emotions for the actors to get their teeth into. They proved they could chat, but we never saw them bleed (emotionally as well as physically)

Plotless is OK up to a point, as long as there’s something which significantly makes up for it. PF almost manages it, with the intriguing characters and fab script, but it’s missing genuine heart. OK, that phrase conjures images of dreadful made-for-TV movies about some kid dying of leukaemia (spot the quote ;) or sickening “heartwarming” tales of a child’s bond with their grandmother (spot the bad film) but I watch films for an emotional ride and Pulp never gets out of first gear. You laugh, you feel uncomfortable, and that’s it. Because you’re uncomfortable, you never laugh as much as you might and vice versa.

So, back to my boring claim. This is the real killer. I have a lot of affection for PF – I put it on when I’m feeling really miserable, but have work to do. Just hearing the words and music is comforting in a wacky way, but crucially, it’s not so engaging I get nothing done. I can easily write an essay while watching it. That’s a claim I make for very, very, very few films indeed. Actually, I can’t think of any other films which I can ignore with such ease.

So is JB better than Pulp? Obviously not – all those critics and members of the general public can’t be wrong [/sarcasm] Seriously, I don’t know. They can’t be compared. They shouldn’t be compared. STOP COMPARING THESE MOVIES!

Fear death by water

It's pronounced "SHAH-ma-lawn", but I won't hold it against you if you forget. In fact, I rarely even remember how to spell it, which is pretty shameful considering M. Night Shyamalan (had to check imdb for that) is possibly, nay, probably my favourite director of all time ever. Yes, I have occasional dalliances with Tarantino, Leone and Gilliam, but while they make damn fine movies...well, at the end of the day they're only movies.

According to an author whose name I've forgotten, a good book should "add something to the human condition". Whatever that means. It's an opinion I theoretically disagree with; theoretically, because today's post is a love letter to a canon of work which is all about making the mundane world wonderful.

Of course, wherever there be great love, others develop great and bitter hate if they don't understand what others see (you may at this point nudge my grumblings about Hitchcock...) Two minutes on imdb turns up "Worst Director........... .....Of ALL TIME?", "M Night sucks ass. The man has no talent, his movies are so predictable" AND "He has a gift. read between the lines and you will find the true beauty and passion in his films." and "i think he is awsome. I like how he tells a story." And a lot of people plain miss the point - too cynical to accept what he's trying say. Some of his films have mass appeal, but they’re not really aimed at the popcorn demographic. “Pearls before swine”, as Friend 2 says on a totally different topic. They get the plot, but not the point. Watch, enjoy, then look deeper.

For the purpose of this post, "all his films" means all the ones I've watched - Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs, The Village and Lady in the Water. I've seen Stuart Little too, but y'know, it doesn't quite fit into the canon so well. I want to see Praying with Anger and Wide Awake, so I can say I've seen them all, but unfortunately, my parents get suspicious of ordering stuff off the web. This post is spoiler-free, so don't comment and point out that I've got my facts wrong in places. And I apologise in advance if I tip over from critical analysis into gushing worship at times.

Firstly, what makes him great? His films manage to be stylish and original, while still being commercially succesful. He balances great characterisation with a great plot - in general, most films manage one or the other, but MNS combines them perfectly. And he makes actors act really well. Bruce Willis can act (Twelve Monkeys), but then you watch Unbreakable and 6th Sense and you realise he can act. His scripts are really emotional. Does anybody really talk like that? No…but it means the characters get a chance to articulate their beautiful truths about life. In fact, beauty is a world I use as sparingly as Ricky in American Beauty, but all his films are truly lovely - take a bow James Newton Howard, musical collaborater, who's ace. He makes tiny movies (though he began his career with Disney, his earlier films could easily have been shot independant, with few locations and characters) about big themes. The ole' guilt-hope-despair-redemption circle.

The auteur theory reminds us that directors have a certain, personal style - and this shines through his films, especially as he not only directs but writes, produces and acts as well. So what makes an MNS film and, more importantly, what's gone wrong recently? I love The Village, and Lady in the Water is better than most people give it credit for. Naturally I'm biased, but even I can see a definite shift in quality between those two and the other three.


One day we'll all be dead people, and if M Night is remembered at all, it'll be for The Sixth Sense. Admit it. You didn't see it coming. The twist or the success of this little film. The whole world suddenly sat up and took notice - as proved by the fact it was spoofed everywhere.

It's also a legacy he's been running to escape ever since. This film's terrifying reputation, and some ill-judged trailers, initially pidgonholed him as a horror director, provoking betrayed wails that The Village wasn't scary (which it isn't, although it does contain the biggest jump of his career). No wonder he insisted "director of the Sixth Sense" to be removed from advertising campaigns for Signs.

And then there's that twist, which completely overshadowed the rest of the film, and
enfuriated audiences, who expected something similarly mindblowing in his subsequent flicks. In truth, while they all have a reversal of sorts (set up well enough that you'll notice different things next time round, and heralded by a mini-montage of clips), Sixth Sense is the only one where it's big news.

The others aren't so much about changing the film you've just seen, but enhancing it. You can only see Sixth Sense for the first time once. Unbreakable is significant, haunting and scary, but not world shattering. Signs is perhaps the only one which wouldn't work without its punchline - but knowing the end doesn't significantly shift your perspective on what's gone before.


Unbreakable came next. Again, assuming he's remembered, I've got a sneaking feeling that while Sixth Sense was the noisy phenomenon, this is the one which will be regarded as the eventual classic. My personal favourite is Signs, but I'll admit that possibly this one's the best. Like Sixth Sense, it takes the ordinary world, adds something extraordinary, and then treats it like it's all real again. While all his films carry a deep undercurrent of sadness, this is possibly the most downbeat. It's reflected in the colour scheme - all cold blues, and subdued and muted browns. It’s a really chilly movie, suggesting the mindset of the protagonists. (spoiler for Unbreakable There is only one warm scene throughout. After David starts doing hero-stuff, and he carries his wife upstairs. Everything gets glowy and nice.)

M Night always pays attention to his colours - The Village is rustic and golden, Lady is very very blue, Sixth Sense too is dusty brown, with the odd flash of red to draw attention to things. Unbreakable takes this to the next level (perhaps reflecting its comic book origins, where characters always wear the same outfit) - David blends into the background in greeny blue; Elijah is purple (as is his mother, and more significantly, the wrapping of his first comic book) - and this time, it's the oranges who're up to no good. This film is by far his most adult - the more you think about it, the darker it gets.


Signs is my favorite of the canon. Taking his cue from The Birds, Night of the Living Dead and War of the Worlds (basement, anyone?), it's another beautifully constructed masterpiece about fractured families and dealing with grief. Though not as scary as Sixth Sense, it takes terror back to the home and showcases his skills at building atmosphere, and coaxing convincing performances from his child actors. The suspense and spine-tingling wonder, not to mention all the emotions dragged up in the final ten minutes, accompanied by James Newton Howard's final tune that ties together all the musical themes so far into one fantastic whole.

At the same time, I'd say this is probably the hardest to love. You've got to buy into the central concept behind the whole plot. I did 100%, which is why I lavished another three pages on it last time I discussed it:
http://cinecism.blogspot.com/2006/11/in-defence-of-my-top-12-parts-3-and-4.html

It definitely contains some of the best set pieces in his career - though it's hard to pick one segment from a script that flows so seamlessly, the whole sequence in the basement is fantastic.



M Night himself said after making Signs that he felt like it was the end of that sequence of films, and he didn't know where he was going next. What we got was The Village, and it's a radical departure. Out with moody colours and a world where people are searching for beauty and meaning - in with sunshine, and a pre-packaged paradise. I'm very fond of it - the soundtrack is stunning, and there are some lovely moments. But compared to the previous three, perfectly constructed films, something just doesn't gel...

Though the plot is most reminicent of Signs (invasion of the home by outsiders), it's a period drama, while the others take place in modern Philadelphia. The significance in the city is that's where M. Night lives. For him, Philadelphia is "the normal world", it's neutral and typical. So when ghosts and aliens move in, the idea of the extraordinary invading the real world, is reenforced because it's personal. This may be just me, but sometimes I even forget the films aren't set in England (which is "normal" for me). Not so The Village - set in the past, and menaced by creatures who we have know knowledge of. The action is removed from us by a degree.

Where did the normality go? Even Signs (which I adore, so knock-ye-not) is in a different zone of reality from the first two, which are pretty grounded. Praps this is where it went wrong? It's not set in our real world. It's harder to sympathise with a distant utopia than the cities of the present, however many monsters he fills it with.

And then it jumps protagonist, which distances the audience even further- primarily, you think it's Kitty, then Lucius, then it turns out to be Ivy, and finally you realise you should have been paying more attention to some of the supporting cast. And it jumps plot - when Ivy has to leave to find medicines, it feels too late. The structure feels end heavy.

Or the twist(s)? There are queues to pour scorn on each of his twists, mostly because people have a hard time accepting the logic of his films and agreeing to follow wherever he may lead. But with the Village, perhaps they have a point.

My definition of a good twist is one you should have seen coming. You should watch it a second time and groan, not scream "where the hell did that come from?" at the screen.

But if the filmmakers have cheated - if they've lied, or deliberately decieved the audience, or (worse) thrown in a twist-for-twist's-sake, it feels tacked on, instead of a natural part of the movie. A massive sinner is the classic The Usual Suspects. It's a fairly good crime film, but that's not why it's remembered. Without going into details, I felt cheated at the end, because it was a twist that could be tacked onto any film.

The Village commits this sin - there's absolutely no clues - and worse, the twist's trivial. It doesn't add anything to the film's message, and it feels insignificant while being presented as a massive lifechanging event. (you can argue the same for Unbreakable *spoilers for it*- no warning, and incidental to the film - but I disagree. The knowledge is the final link that makes the story whole. It gives it another layer of meaning and significance. Throughout, the tale has been shown as equally Elijah's and David's.)

It's not that The Village is a bad film. I love it. It's just nowhere near as great as his other three, all of which I'd give 5/5 without flinching. It's the same formula, but somehow it doesn't work. Little problems, like William Hurt's presence (can't stand him), or being annoyed by all those tiny plot kinks in the middle which make Sixth Sense look like a Roman road.

It's built with the usual precision and care, with tidy clue-scattering and a gift for character introduction - but it misses many of his usual themes, which makes it feel souless.

There's more to movies than "deep meaning" (Pulp Fiction, anyone?), but there should be something to make up for a lack of meaning (i.e. a scene with a guy delivering a monologue to screen about hiding a watch up his behind. Surely that makes up for any lack of Freudian subtext? But seriously...perhaps Pulp Fiction's meaninglessness is its meaning, about the randomness and banality of life?)

There is nothing wrong with Ivy and Lucius' lives - they're perfectly happy. There's no conflict, in a Todorov sense. They don't learn anything, or change as people. There's not that search for purpose which drives his other films - it's entirely missing disatisfaction with the world (although SPOILER for Village - the idea's there in the way the Village elders move away from the town to establish a paradise, as you only learn this at the end it doesn't influence the whole film) It almost feels like there's a good M Night movie struggling to get out, but one centering around the elders and their horror of the world which has lead them to hide away.

One theme it does address is people's reactions to the supernatural. Naturally, I don't ask for him to hang around the same themes forever, but if that's what inspires him then...without this, it's just a good story - it misses the depth his other films. Donnie Darko is told everything comes down to two basic human emotions - love, and fear. And those two little words sum the Village right up. And that's tragic...

...especially as there is a good film in there - the people's fear needed to be made our fear, and that twist is horrifying if you think about it. The film just had to hammer the point harder, and make the betrayal deeper. That would have justified the entire lack of conflict.

Incidentally, I heartily recommend The Village. Friend 5 thinks it's the best film ever (*smugs* I knew she'd like it when I leant it to her...), and the soundtrack is wonderful.


After that, we had Lady in the Water. Now I think of it, the critical backlash after The Village sent him scurrying back into his comfort zone. He returns to water, to Philadelphia, to moody blue colour schemes and a depressed male protagonist. He puts a crucial child back on the cast list. He even returns to the good ole themes - "What is my place in life?" and "I need to believe".
Lady in the Water is Unbreakable without the moral ambiguity. So what the hell went wrong?!

Because even though I cried in the usual way, and left the theatre (well, switched the airplane seatback TV off. Left the theatre metaphorically...) with a warm, gooey feeling about how wonderful the world is, again something crucial was missing.

Because it visually resembles his more successful films, it's harder to spot the difference. But I think it's probably because it didn't actually make sense.

Or rather, it plays by their own rules. In The First Three, we understand the conventions of ghosts, aliens and comic books. But those-we-don't-speak-of? Narfs? Scrunts? Hang a moment. WTH?! Take Unbreakable - the rules of David's world are explained to him gradually, but it's ok because subconsciously, we already knew them. The rules unfold in exactly the same way in Lady - but here we feel cheated, because it's coming from nowhere. He throws a fantasy at us which seems like it merely exists to serve a good plot. Which, of course, it does.



So what have we learnt? Nothing, really. The Village is a worse film than I thought when starting the post. Writing about Lady didn't make me love it any more. I need to get Unbreakable on DVD, preferably the two-disc edition. Abd when discussing the films of MNS, you can never use the words "significant", "significance" or "significantly" enough.

And the title? From TS Eliot's "The Wasteland". We're studying it, so it's on my mind.


I'll end with a quote from the man himself, evidently spouted when promoting The Village. But if you think about it, it says a fair amount about his other films too:

"When you say fear of the unknown, that is the definition of fear; fear is the unknown, fear is what you do not know, and it's genetically within us so that we feel safe. We feel scared of the woods because we're not familiar with it, and that keeps you safe."

In defence of my top 12 - parts 3 and 4

3 Signs

Can't sufficiently break down in one sentence...it's not about aliens...


One could say Sixth Sense was the first film I ever saw properly. They just don’t make that many good quality kids films. I mean genuinely well directed, well acted kid-friendly masterpieces. You don’t see the likes of Kevin Spacey and Baz Luhrmann introducing those of a tender age to the big wide world of decent film making. Perhaps they should?

Anyway, Sixth Sense was one of those films which changed my life. To start with, I began doing a running leap towards my bed at night in case a ghost was hiding under there to grab my ankle; but more importantly, it was staggeringly well made. What sort of trash had I been watching for the first 12 years of my life?! I don’t know, but that was the one which introduced me to great moviemaking.

But I never really loved it (too busy hiding behind cushions), and it was left to his second effort to sweep me off in such a way I still cry every time I see it. A student of Hitchcock, his films are one long Maguffin. Take Signs. About aliens? You couldn’t be more wrong. The existence of aliens is merely the trigger that sets the ball rolling. It’s about faith, and love, and hope and destiny and lots of other wonderful wonderful emotions, and that’s what makes his films so beautiful. Sixth Sense scared the hell out of me (as it still does), but when you look at it it’s really about how we deal with loss and letting go. This is what makes me so cross about MNS’ detractors who complain Signs wasn’t scary – it wasn’t meant to be. Anyone who thought Sixth Sense was just about dead people is missing the point. And perhaps, then, that was the problem with The Village. It had no deeper message. I liked it a lot more than the majority, but I still felt something wasn’t quite there. The title “Signs” sums up what he’s been saying all along.

MNS is best known for films which can only be seen for the first time once. After you get to the end and he’s revealed his latest ace, you never see it in quite the same way again. Most notably, in Sixth Sense, yes but Signs is as neatly plotted, and I don’t just mean introducing Morgan’s asthma and Bo’s water tick early on. When the dog gets ill, Graham mentions he’ll call so-and-so the doctor (implying not a vet). I forget how the rest goes, but it’s a tiny scene I’ve never seen the importance of, never even noticed, until today – when Graham visits Ray, there’s an establishing shot of his house. His mail box reads “R. Reddy – vetenarian”. It’s an afterthought of an observation. More crucially, Merrel’s throwaway remark near the end that they were gone, only leaving their wounded behind requires a second think after they go back upstairs. Every moment in this film counts – either it’s advancing the characters, or the plot. Period. No plotlets unresolved, no pointless conversation. This, ladies and gentlemen, is how you script a movie (see: Reservoir Dogs, starring in a later post)

Apparently there’s a lot of religious imagery in here too. I’ve only ever thought “last supper” when they’re picking what to eat, but I’m sure there are more. It’s a tribute to his skill he can put it in without banging you over the head with it.

What most impressed me the first time I saw this was the balance. It’s about as scary as I can handle, but there’s deep humanity there as well. It’s sad in places, tense, there’s even the odd amusing moment. It’s not about the scares dammit! In every other alien film I’d seen, the hero went out to save the world from invasion. The idea that someone was treating the genre seriously! And the hero just stays at home taking care of his own family?! I’d never seen anything like it. And it runs you through all the emotions, which are always sincere and never feel forced.

Everyone always talks about the twist. It’s become a guessing game to spot it beforehand. And there is a strange turn of sorts at the end of this, but you’ll feel cheated if you go in expecting it to be mindblowing. It’s a perfect reflection of the rest of the film – if you’re hating it, you’ll be pretty sceptical – but at that moment, I, for one, was ready to believe whatever he threw at me. Graham’s a secret crossdresser? Yeh. Totally. The aliens are a product of his split mind? That too.

I’m very suceptible to criticism. I don’t have that much faith in my own opinions, which is why I never read bad reviews of films I’ve loved, always end up agreeing with the opposition when arguing and haven’t seen this film for three years since Friends 1 and 4 mocked the hell out of it. The reason I watched it today was I wanted to know if it was actually all that good…three years is a long time, I’ve changed, and I feared it was on my list out of habit rather than genuine affection. Fret no more. I wrote an entire two pages about it, which looks like enthusiasm to me. It’s stunningly well made (cripes, I haven’t even mentioned the acting yet), and there are very very few films that still make me cry every time

Sum up the film in a moment: "Is it possible there are no coincidences?"
Best scene: Ray Reddy in the car. You may, at this moment, quote Ed Wood. “I write, direct, act and produce” “Nobody does all that.” “Just two people – me and Orson Welles”. And MNS. And me, as it happens, but I’m obviously lining up with Ed as opposed to Orson. He’s definitely attempting auteurdom. Here's some clues:

• He’s worked with the same composer 5 films running - James Newton Howard, long may it remain!
• He follows the auteur-actor continuation rule (Signs->Village = joaquin Phoenix. Village-> Lady in the Water = Bruce Dallas Howard etc).
• His films have a definite style and number of identifiable traits and ideas – the twist, yeh, but has anyone else ever noticed the theme of redemption through the supernatural? Or the inclusion of virtually unimportant sub-mystical traits (Bo’s “feelings” in Signs, Ivy’s ability to see auras.)

And now he’s appearing in his own films. I’ve heard a fair few detractors, but I don’t think that’s quite fair. Even before I knew it was his somewhat extended director’s cameo, I loved it. I just have a thing for the guilty, and his despairing delivery of “people who kill reverend’s wives don’t exactly get ushered to the front of the line in heaven” breaks my heart every time.

Best line: “Excluding the possibility that a female, Scandinavian Olimpiad was running around our house last night, what else could be a possibility?”
Favourite character: Bo Hess is so sweet, but I really did like Ray, on account of the scene.
Nerdy observation: fearing a nasty death, the Hess family all eat their favourite foods the night before. But did anybody notice that Bo had put on her prettiest party frock? It might even have been a fancy dress Disney Princess costume, I’m not sure. Still…very sweet…
Special mention: the music. Those three notes become your best friends during this movie. They dash from curious, to creepy, to sensitive, to all out wonder. Most impressively in the final song, where it actually does all that within two minutes without feeling messy. MNS says he always makes sure a film can work on its own before even considering music, which is commendable, but I’m sure it’s the tune as much as the images I’m sobbing over.
Best watched: when you’ve given up all hope in life.

4 Fellowship of the Ring
Nine heroes set out to destroy a ring which, in the wrong hands, would enslave the world

Sixth Sense changed my moviewatching life. FOTR actually genuinely changed my life. I was snotty before I saw it – and for a fair while afterwards, it must be said – but all that goodness had a positive effect on my personality. Which is why I’m not trying to condense it into best scene etc. It just IS. I just can’t analyse it the way other people can. I refuse to get drawn into conversations about its cinematic merit, because for me it’s always been more than just a film.


You can tell I’m one of the people who speak two dialects of elven, can’t you?




In other news... getting rather paniced about PJ being sacked. OK, I'm sure someone else will do the job well, but there's no one else I trust to do it as faithfully. Friend 3 has come up with a genius plan - she's taken out an Total Film subscription. I've had Empire for a year - we're going to swap them once we've finished. Last night I watched Pulp Fiction again while doing homework - it's really comforting. The pace is slow, the cinematography calm and it's thoroughly pleasant to have the words and music wash over while you work. Out of three friends on MSN messenger, only one asked whether I wanted to be left alone when I said I was watching it. I said no, but I think I need better friends...

I see you shiver with anticip.....

This morning was awful. I got my act together and determined to watch a film to cheer myself up.

Question is, what? Lets put it this way, I knew what I wanted to watch. Can you guess, folks? Unfortunately, I don't have my own tv, and watching the same film three times in two weeks smacks of borderline insanity. If it weren't for my family...

Now a few months back I saw Rififi, and at the time it made a big effect. I kept thinking "What if I never see a film this good about a diamond-heist-gone-awry ever again?". This was the reasoning behind recording The Asphalt Jungle, which was also in black and white. Anyway, I recovered eventually and the film remained unwatched on the video.

Time passes, I discover there is another great movie along those lines, watch it, love it and get hit by "Hang on, surely there can't be three movies this good about a diamond-heist-gone-awry?" Enter The Asphalt Jungle, still patiently waiting to be seen. So I wound the video back and discovered the beginning had been partially wiped over by somebody else.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Lesson learnt: you can only ever see a film for the first time once. And there is no way to get around it. No matter how hard you try.

By gum I was cross. I was pretty irritable beforehand, but this really made me mad. Anyway, I rather halfheartedly pulled Run, Lola, Run.

Thank-ee goodness. It was just what I needed to run the stress out of my system. I've wanted to see this ever since hearing the theme tune, which is jolly exciting let me tell you! It's very exciting, fast paced, and totally great.

My mother hates whizzy cinematography, films where the camera won't stay still. She would have left almost immediately. It's part music video, part advert, part computer game. Lola has twenty minutes to get 100,000 marks to save her boyfriend. Now that's what I call high concept.

There are animated scenes, black and white, slo-mo, speed-up, scenes in red, cut screens, wipes, fades, dissolves - somebody has had a lot of fun with their editing suite. Lucasitis! But for once it doesn't feel superfluous. To quote some info cribbed straight from imdb, in a 71 min film they use 1581 transitions. That's an average shot length of 2.7 seconds. makes a nice contrast with all those tortuously long edits from Alien.

To start with it's disorientating, but priceless when everything falls into place. For example...the first time round she almost kills someone taking the safety catch off the gun. Second time round, she's learnt. This is what I mean by video game - you try to beat the level, you get killed, you learn and try again. She knows the bike's been stolen. Every time, things are different. Minor ripples result in one woman joining the church instead of winning the lottery. It actually reminds me slightly of a script I wrote once; but for once, the similarity didn't annoy me. Have I mentioned the music yet?

All in all, this'll go in the same box as Moulin Rouge - some people are going to hate this on account of the visual style, but if you get into it you'll adore it. There's a layer of whimsy propelling the plot which may annoy some people, but not me and not all 'em folks who put this on the imdb top 250. And it's equal to what I imagine a good dose of ecstasy to feel like.

Best of all, it entirely cured me of my apathy and I managed to zip through all my jobs for the day in about ten minutes. And it gave me the edge I requred to climb out of the window and jump about my own height onto gravel with bare feet when I got trapped in the toilet instead of sitting around lamely for an hour until my family came home and let me out (the handle's stopped working from inside, so if you shut the door you can't get out).

And it was such a boost, that when mum and sis finally did return and told me I had an hour to get ready, I actually had the drive to sort out two costumes and my tea within twenty minutes.

I hadn't told you, had I?

We're gonna see the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Properly. The way it was meant to be seen. Going to one of these, as has been one of my dreams for as long as, oh, forever. I couldn't find a proper costume in time, so I'm just going as a random Transylvanian in pink slut-wear. It's gonna be great. It had better be great.


PS - last night we played the movie game again, and guess what? Not only did me and my sister win both times, but the diretor card that came up was WARNER HERZOG! It's become a bit of an in-joke, really, especially now he's taken over the position as "Favourite Director (of whose filmography I've actually seen zilch)"

Still, playing with my sister is tiring. One day, i'll be on a team with someone where I can say "Lawrence of Arabia" instead of two minutes of "David Fall? David Jump?" in reply to the best possible clue - "First name, like as in Goliath, second, what you shouldn't do over a cliff..." and

Reviews and moviechat

Yesterday, the family had a go at the new movie board game. . My little sister insisted she wanted to be on my team, so I gave her a crash course in famous directors using Empire's top 20 list. Warner Herzog did not come up, much to our team's distress (I'd already briefed her that he chased his actors on set at gunpoint) The highlight of the exercise went something like this:

Me - "Okay, Orson Welles?"
Sis - "Rosebud!"
Me- "Very good...[turns page] okay, it's an old game so he won't be in there [turns page] Ah, Hitchcock. You know him, right?"
Sis - "Yes - he made the Terminator, didn't he?"

...

I am surrounded by idiots. Not like I'm The Master's greatest fan, but I'd expect people to know The Da Vinci Code was not written by Shakespeare. However I feel about the stories and dudes involved, I would expect them to know it. Needless to say we lost - but only by one card, and only via a technical annoyance whereby the other team could pinch a card of their choice from the enemy. Oh yeh, and we kinda deserved to lose because we, er, cheated...

It goes like this. There are Suspense cards, which the entire table can answer. Now this particular card had 6 pairs of actors on it and my sister had to pick one of the pairs for the entire table to guess a film they'd been in. The entire table= me, mum and dad. So she flashes me a discreet peepy at the card and I casually throw up two fingers. "Okay..." she starts, a tad apprehensively, "Richard Dreyfuss and Roy Schnei..." "Jaws!" I call back. We kept the turn and won another few cards. Henry Gondorff would have been proud. Not that I was particularly...

Anyway, onto the reviews:

Runaway Jury

In a vitally important gun case, THREE sides fight to control the verdict using less than honest means, for profit, prestege and personal something-beginning-with-p.

Now surely I've told you the Runaway Jury story before. It's the final proof why exciting trailers work so well. Believe me, I'm not normally swung by trailers, but this and Hero are the exceptions. My sister and I saw the trailers and were hooked! It was the first film I ever obsessed about before seeing it. And we both put it on every birthday and Christmas list from habit more than any desire to see it. Fascinating, non?

Runaway Jury is great fun. With a fast paced and pleasantly twisty plot, it really doesn't allow you to get bored. It's just complex enough to feel satisfied at understanding what's going on, while remaining actually pretty simple.

There are a couple of rules I want to share with you today, which I've probably shared before, but nevertheless you may need to be reminded of. NEVER get involved in a Gulf War. NEVER try to kill the Godfather. NEVER go into the army if you have a fiancee or baby on the way. But NEVER retire either. In fact, the less backstory the better - but not too little, because then you're in for a nasty surprise. And NEVER allow the camera to focus on a happy family for more than half a minute, because we all know exactly in what direction it's going...

I just need to add that while our couple do nothing special, they look awesome together.

Rachel Weitz (however you spell it) is, as always, very good. She's kinda underrated, I think. She was great in both The Mummy and Constantine, though perhaps those names are why she isn't more widely appreciated. Dustin Hoffman acts exactly as I expected him to, which I suppose is not a bad thing. The best character was undoubtedly the twitchy jury. Henry Fonda never had that lot to deal with, and even he'd have had a pretty tricky job convincing them of anything, what with their various murky problems. I just liked the way they all interact.

Our hero in the jury is Nick Easter, and he's basically great. Can't think of much more to say. Good looking chappie too. Somehow the style does not get repetitve (I was sure I'd be sick of the Gene Hackman Is Shouty scenes by the end, but no...)

However there is one flaw - a big one. The entire plot hinges not on the characters, but on the ending. So like so many mystery films, once you've seen it once you won't need to see it again. I call 'em sprint films. You get sprint books as well - they're usually found abandoned in airports and at second hand book sales.

Another flaw are the computers. Somehow, for all the technological advances, Hollywood has never discovered the humble mouse. No, all you need to do is tap a few keys and lots of cool popups appear on screen - all containing the relevant information, none containing adverts for dating agencies or spam claiming they've one $1,000,000. Similarly, they always have really snazzy computer programs which suit their every need. Now honestly...you watch this film (or, indeed, most films) and try not to be cynical about the baddie's hardware (PS, can you really download an entire computer harddrive in under half a minute? And is it possible to download them to an mp3 player?)

Final comments - though the initial twist that... Nick really wanted in on the jury was great, his scene in the candle shop was unecessary. Why were they acting like they didn't know each other? Purely to lead the audience off, no other in-plot reason. And if they were worried they'd be seen together, why go to her apartment later and why does she reveal her identity at all? ...Not that it really matters, I'm being picky.

New York Minute

The plot? Why, of course there's a plot! Whatever made you think otherwise? Snooty-sister and Scatty-sister attempt to get to a competition and concert respectively, while dodging hitmen with unfunny accents, rescuing poodles, dodging truancy officers bumping into cute lads and running around in towels while learning about friendship and tolerance.

I'm going to let you in on a secret. Off the record, on the QT and very very hush hush etc...I LOVE Mary Kate and Ashley. Don't tell any of my posh film friends, and if you are any of my posh film friends forgive me I have sinned, I've a copy of Metropolis on hand to cleanse my mind. So when the parents bought New York Minute for my sister, she was less than happy, I was overjoyed. So let's think about this for a moment - as a film, it has nothing original or too different from any MK+A movie. But if we sweep away those layers of predjudice to begin with and allow it's going to be pretty dire, then it's great!

I grinned from start to finish, excluding any scene which appealed to our emotions because they were all painfully scripted. There's a montage 3/4 of the way through which made me want to attack my own eyes. And the House of Bling hurt a bit as well. The romances were unforgivably one-dimentional, and not helped by my (younger?!) watching companion who implied twincest at every available oppertunity (twincest = exactly what it sounds like)

The style (dear God, I'm talking about cinematography...) was similar to in their mini-film things - fast cutting and abusing every trick in the editing suite. Still, it kept it visually interesting.

As always the plot was unbelievable. They manage to get on stage at the Simple Plan concert and pull off a stage dive? Mary/Kate/Ashley manages to run about New York for what seems like an eternity wearing only a towel which doesn't fall down? (Seriously, we've all tried the towel-wrap thing - it doesn't work) Oh, and they mayaswell been handed a box labelled "deus ex machina" at the end. There's also a lot of coincidence, but I don't really object to that.

It was funny at times. At the beginning they bump into a chap on a train and terrorise him. I laughed every time he showed up. And while usually I don't like Matrix spoofs, the sunglasses chap+slowmo birdies+train station fight did raise a smile. And the neurotic-one's obsessing over her day planner made me grin too - I know people like that...

So OK, it wasn't all that classy, but at the end of the day, it wasn't boring either. Even though we all know where it's going, the journey there is fast paced, moronic, but fun. Now compare it to My Big Fat Greek Wedding, the only film I've truly despised this year - the ending was obvious from looking at the box, but the journey was tedious as hell. So New York Minute retains 3 star status, for at least being a bit of a laugh.

All in all, girls of a Certain Age will love it, as will anybody else who loves MK+A or wants to kill themselves laughing from mockery.

PS, a massive helicopter just passed over the house - with two rotating-propellor-things. Reminds me, as always, of Black Hawk Down.

PPS, They're trying to remake the Sting. And unlike the previous Butch Cassidy and the Unecessary Remake rumour, this one's come from a reliable source. Kill me now.

PPPS, you may have gathered by now I have a lot of friends. And one of them made a new friend on a course last year, and now he's visiting our town for the week. And the only reason I'm mentioning this is that out of the blue he said he thought Q.Tarantino should direct a film of the Bible. He said it might increase interest in religion. Now isn't that an, er...interesting thought. It's making me think of other director's "Bibles". Tim Burton, for example. Jesus - the quirky, outcast loner - Nazareth all done in pastel colours, plus score by Danny Elfman. In fact I want to see this one - it'll really capture the magic and enchantment of the miracles. David Lean's an obvious candidate - big screen, deserts. In fact, hasn't he already done one? It's such a good idea that perhaps I'm just remembering it. Terry Gilliam is ideal for filming Revelations, because they're approximately as wacky as each other. Peter Jackson can handle the Old Testament, what with his new penchant for 12hour epics AND his old penchant for plenty of gore.

My Movie new-year Resolution

I know it isn't new year yet, gimmie a break!

I love movies but in the sort of way Proper Fans would be sneery about, and hence to change that pronto I've made a list! Not just any list, a list of the directors in Empire's top 20 directors list which I have yet to see a film of. This list is circa the beginning of the year, just so I can tick a few more off...

2. Alfred Hitchcock
Dude, it's Hitchcock.
You know how I feel about Vertigo, right?

4. Stanley Kubrick
This isn't quite fair - I've seen Spartacus and half of Dr Strangelove, but Empire says Spartacus doesn't really count. I'm gonna try and see the rest of Dsohiswaltltb (sorry, I just wanted to see it abbreviated...) seeing as the first half was great. The speech about bodily fluids is one of the most amusing things I've ever seen.
Well I've now seen Barry Lyndon, but does that count? I know Spartacus and Paths of Glory get vocally dismissed, but Barry Lyndon is never mentioned at all. Still, it's a very good film regardless - a tad souless perhaps, but very pwetty. Mind you, you'd have to be a bit of a pillock for it not to be beautiful what with those lovely locations and costumes.

6. Akira Kurosawa
Wanna see Seven Samuri cos I know I'll like it as I've already seen it. How, you may well ask?Well there's Maginificent Seven, the new King Arthur which I have on DVD, the Battle of Helm's Deep in Two Towers...
Er...ok, I've seen it now and while there was nothing wrong with it, it really didn't do anything for me. Bounced straight off. I wasn't engaged, excited, thrilled or even interested. I don't like disliking the classics, you understand. Makes me feel very left out.

8. Quentin Tarantino
Ah yes, the only director to which Empire has given the honour of abbreviation...Hmmm, well as you know I'm going through a bit of a phase, and I am working on my parents. And have I mentioned Reservoir Dogs is only £7 in Woolworths at the moment? Though it will be a pity to relinquish the title of "Biggest Tarantino Fan Who Hasn't Actually Seen A Tarantino Film"(three words: Empire issue 173 - he speaks some serious truth in his interview)
Farewell, title! Hello long, long lonely hours of discussion and quoting between me and myself and a mounting list of comments to make to anyone who cares.

9. Orson Welles
To be fair I have seen Citizen Kane. I was 6 at the time. I remember the end. And that irritates me no end. Still, I've got to see it.

10. Woody Allen
I've been wanting to see Melinda and Melinda ever since it came out, but that doesn't count, does it? You want me to see Manhattan, don't you? Well ok then...that's what I'll do...

15. Francis Ford Coppola
He made the Godfather, you know...
...and wasn't it great! And now there's a copy of Apocalypse Now at the other side of the room, tormenting me...

17. Sergio Leone
I've seen bits of one of them, tG,tB+tU I think...a long time ago...
Now seen Once Upon a Time in the West (what does this chap have with short titles?) and I love it to bits!

18. John Ford
Yay, more westerns!

19. Billy Wilder
No thoughts whatsoever here.
Seen Some Like it Hot now. Very good - ace lines abound (the last five minutes had me in perfect stitches), and I can see why he managed to work with Marilyn Monroe a second time - she is just 100% pure class.

20. Sam Peckinpah
the funniest Monty Python sketch of all time. Hmmm, well I may be alone in this, but the one which made me laugh most (and I don't just mean laugh, I mean hoot and giggle and stop breathing) was "Sam Peckinpah's Salad Days", a short spoof movie clip all about a luncheon party...I can't believe it could have been any funnier even if I had known who Sam Peckinpah was at the time!

Update! Update! Look what me find! Forgive the Polish overdub, it really is very funny. And some nice person at the Filmwise board recommends Pulp Fiction and Goodfellas as an excellent way to scrub two off the list. Thanks, Batman, my parents will be thrilled...no seriously, thanks.


We've got Seven Year Itch and Wild Bunch recorded at the moment, so hopefully I can cross some more off soon. Until then, meet my spiritual cinematic ally!

http://cinemawrite.blogspot.com/