Daniel's comments
(member since Dec 30, 2008)
Daniel's comments from the Movies We've Just Watched group.
(showing 1-20 of 155)
It was a landmark film, even back then.
Mawgojzeta wrote: "My son (17) and I just watched METROPOLIS Friday night. He had no interest what-so-ever in doing so. I talked him into trying 15 minutes of it. Only once did I offer to shut it off, and he declined. We both loved the movie. It was about two hours long, so I am not sure which version we ended up seeing. "The fully restored version has yet to be released, but there have been a number of restorations that have included previously lost material that are in circulation. Sounds like you may have seen a fairly complete version, but the one being worked on now will trump everything else.
I had it on my ten best list. The important thing to remember is that this is more of a parable than a documentary. People who don't like it object to all sorts of "errors" (such as the most obvious: a child like Shmuel would not have been imprisoned, but murdered immediately). It's trying to explore the mindset that would allow the Holocaust to happen (both the perpetrators and the bystanders) by seeing it through the eyes of two young boys.Here's my review from the time:
http://208.112.77.53/datebook/movierevie...
No, "Z" was never rated X. It was banned in Spain for many years because of its anti-fascist politics, but in the US it was NOT rated X (changed many years later to NC-17). It was rated M (later changed to PG).As I noted, I saw this on film first run on a high school field trip. They were not taking us to X rated films. In those first few years there were a number "legit" X rated films, like "A Clockwork Orange," "Midnight Cowboy" and "The Killing of Sister George." "Z" was NOT one of them.
George wrote: "I did manage to catch it at the theaters when it came out, back in the day when X rated was treated as it was intended as a serious film for adults. I'd forgotten it was in fact X rated. "You didn't forget. "Z" wasn't X rated. It was M, or as it was later called, PG.
I saw it first run on a field trip with a high school class. They did not take high school students to X rated films, not even in early 1970 when I saw it.
It's not clear in the movie but in the book the old guy is a child molester who finds an outlet for his perversion in being allowed to serve the vampire. He had only been in a service for a few years.Your theory is more along the lines of the vampire movie "The Hunger."
This was one of my favorite films of 2008. I found out (here on Goodreads) that the book it's based on was translated into English and went out and got that. I'm proud to say that when the Boston Society of Film Critics met, we named it best foreign language film of the year.Anyone who likes *intelligent* horror movies will find this a rewarding experience.
Ah, Bunuel, what a career you have to explore. I love his films. See "Los Olvidados," "Illusion Travels by Streetcar" and "The Crminal Life of Archibaldo de la Cruz" (all from his Mexican period), "Viridiana," "Simon of the Desert," "The Milky Way," "The Phantom of Liberty" and "That Obscure Object of Desire." Others are good too but these are my favorite along with the ones you've already mentioned. Just showed "Un Chien Andalou" to my film history class and it really shook them up.Here's a great scene from "Phantom":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A24ABgDuR...
George wrote: "I agree. Of course, some folks do simply refuse to see black and white films."Their loss.
Imagine "Virgin Spring" boiled down to rape and revenge, with no character building and no angst over how God can allow such things in a just universe, and you have "Last House on the Left."
Not that the '72 film was all that special. Oddly, the origination of these ghastly films was Bergman's "The Virgin Spring." Something got lost in the translation.
For anyone who cares, my reviews are generally available at rottentomatoes.com.I hope no one is eager to see the movie I had to review THIS week: the remake of "The Last House on the Left."
My reviews there are written with a general audience in mind, not just "younger generations." I think the film is hard to digest for people not familiar with the book. Not in all cases, perhaps, but my suspicion has been confirmed in subsequent conversations with people who have seen the movie.I agree we're consuming media in new and different ways but someone coming to "Watchmen" uninitiated will need to pay close attention to a dense and complex story. Over two and a half hours, that's asking a lot. I'll be very curious to see how the film fares this weekend, now that the fans have all gone to see it.
Cutiepie wrote: "Daniel, can yu post yr review? I'd reely like to read it!"You can read it here:
http://208.112.77.53/datebook/movierevie...
It's only about 500 words long so it's nothing in depth.
Phillip wrote: "hey daniel, have i been mean to you lately?"Not lately. :)
My objections to the film are not "politcal."
Guess you kind of put your foot in it. :)
No, the tragedy is that people died because of willing murderers like her.I don't give a damn about "her" tragedy. She is a murderer, and a willing accomplice.
And that's the problem with the movie. It's about "her" tragedy.
No, it really doesn't. It makes excuses for her.But I fear we're not going to convince each other.
I have to completely disagree with your comments. It's not merely "understanding" her, it's excusing her: she was stupid, she was trying to better herself, she didn't know any better.Read Goldhagen's book. The people who did what she did DID know better, and they willingly did it. They may not have been instigators but they were full accomplices.
Committing atrocities was not simply a "terrible choice." It was mass murder with full knowledge of what one was doing.
No, most of the war criminals were NOT like that. Read "Hitler's Willing Executioners" by Daniel Goldhagen. Germans had choices as to whether they wanted to take on these assignments. These were WILLING people and many of them took special glee in the brutality and death they visited upon their victims.
The idea that Winslet's character was "stupid" and a victim herself is one of the worst messages of "The Reader."
Movies We've Just Watched
