criterionforum.org

... This is VERY badly produced…shoes horrible production values, and worse story telling abilities, and is a clear cry for help from the mental health profession. Not only does Does Lynch live in a nasty, dark world where the range of human emotions make NO SENSE to him, but doesnt even understand the concept of cause and effect.

Alphonse Doinel wrote:Self professed "movie buffs" are the worst. This comment in the about section is further evidence of that.

Great Stuff Guys!!!I m too myself a Movie Buff and i watch atleast 3 movies a day and 7-10 on weekends…The movie list u made is really amazing and i m gonna watch all movies u have in ur 100 list

yipyop wrote:On Eraserhead:

... This is VERY badly produced…shoes horrible production values

Zazou dans le Metro wrote:Flashing on Hattie McDaniels here.... Ain't fittin'.. Uhh Huh.. Just ain't fittin' Mr Sokhurov

Mr. Omnibus Biscuit "O.B." (London) - See all my reviews Amazon
This review is from: Moloch [2004] [DVD]

Not relevant to anyone who is interested in Hitler or WWII, and to those interested in interesting films, really not relevant.

Shown in the Film Forum's 28-film Tatsuya Nakadai retrospective (NYC, Summer 2008) under the title "Onimasa," Hideo Gosha's 1982 gangster family epic "Kiryûin Hanako no shôgai" fully qualifies as "The Japanese Godfather." Is there any doubt that Gosha hoped to cash in on the box office and Academy Award successes of its U.S.-made predecessors, "The Godfather" (1972) and "The Godfather Part II" (1974)? For me, at least, and, I suspect, for others who are not charmed by Scorsese-style glamorized gangsters and their macho excesses and despite its two awards and nine Japanese Academy nominations, this multi-decade saga of the Kiryûin clan — patriarch Masagaro (aka Onimasa), wife Uta, adopted daughter Matsue, biological daughter Hanako and Onimasa's household staff of bully boys, servants and concubines — and its enemies amounts to a colossal waste of time, treasure and talent. This is not to say that Nakadai and company did not turn in highly skilled and memorable performances. They certainly did that and, in the process, reached every step on an actor's emotive ladder from extreme subtlety to massive scenery-chewing. Nevertheless, the great Nakadai's frequent full-circle mood changes were not always fully convincing, drawing attention to the actor and away from the character. (Was the director to blame for these lapses?) The dreadful music by Mitsuaki Kanno left this reviewer wondering whether or not it was intentionally ugly.

An underlying theme of "Onimasa" was its portrayal of 20th century Japanese gangsters as cartoonish reincarnations of the ancient samurai caste (the armed enforcers of feudal rule) in the era of modern capitalism. This leitmotif could have been the basis for significant socio-historical observations but the film does not pursue such lofty aims. Instead, while Gosha does not ignore Japan's tumultuous labor struggles of the 1930s, his approach is the all-too-familiar one of market-oriented filmmakers: subdued sympathy mixed with trivialization. Thus, at the behest of his Big Boss, Suda, (who is seen getting his orders from the railroad owner), Onimasa tries to intimidate the leaders of a railway strike into submission. But the forthright and courageous behavior of one of these men, Tanabe, (which includes taking a vicious beating without saying "uncle") causes Onimasa to undergo a change of heart. (The word "capitalism" actually appears in this sequence!) The gangster then risks his position by defying the Big Boss and, even more unbelievably, invites Tanabe to become his son-in-law! But it is one thing to sentimentalize a gangster and quite another to show more than a modest degree of sympathy for a "red." Subsequently, the politically-demoralized Tanabe describes himself as "too weak." To avoid interfering with their glamorization, we are not shown the sordid details of the means by which the gangsters extract their income. Even the English subtitles conspire in this effort. Inexplicably, the word "yakuza" (gangster) is rendered repeatedly as the much tamer "gambler."

Sean J. Giorgianni wrote:Reading James Naremore is a bit like eating a pizza delivered the day after you ordered it - you know it's supposed to be tasty, but somehow it isn't very satisfying.

Read this book for the history of Burt Lancaster, Clifford Odetts, and Tony Curtis. That, and maybe you'll look more interesting at your local Starbuck's.

On the plus side, it's a well-made book, with heavy stock and lots of interesting photos.

But have you heard Tarkovskis movies are getting re-released in a 23 dvds box? It's got awesome features, like a 6h interview with Tarkovski discussing the colour of his turds which changes when its full moon... And tons of great deleted scenes (the slo-mos of raindrops falling on a bonzaï... wicked cool.)
You HAVE to check it out.

Hipster Ariel wrote:I found films in 4:3 unwatchable before The Little Mermaid.

As a child, I held a record of sorts. By 12, I had seen Terminator 2: Judgement Day, 40 times. Every day when I left for school, I would tell my mother, “Hasta la vista, baby!” Other sci-fi films followed. Robocop, The Matrix, Alien, Jurrasic Park, 2001: A Space Odyssey, all of them providing one big adrenaline rush. So at about 1am, one fine night, I decided to watch Andrei Tarkovsky’s sci-fi film Stalker.

he premise seemed interesting. A meteorite had crashed on earth, creating a zone, an area which could fulfill a visitor’s innermost desires but was extremely dangerous.

Maybe that meteorite had left behind strange powers, I thought. Maybe a team of superheroes would be created. Or perhaps there were aliens. I wondered if a ‘Soviet’ alien would look any different from the one in ET.

I played the film, expecting the screen to explode with guns and bombs. Nothing could be further from the truth. The film was in sepia tone, and a man was having an argument with his wife. This went on for 15 minutes. I presumed, now that he (identified as Stalker) was ready, he would tie a bandana around his forehead, strap a few bombs, and fire his way into the Zone.

But in the next scene, he was in conversation with two men he was taking to the Zone. One was called Writer and the other, Professor. Another ten minutes passed, all of which was just one take, where they discussed the importance of writing and science in society.

When the characters reached the Zone, Stalker told them that they needed to reach an area in the Zone, called the Room. Stalker put pebbles in a rag and flung it, and either Writer or Professor had to lead the way till that point. In one instance, a scared Writer took out a gun from his coat. My interest suddenly piqued. But Stalker made him discard it. In fact, Stalker looked straight at the screen, and nudged the gun into water. Tarkovsky was snubbing the likes of me.

Eventually, the characters reached the Room, which resembled a train station’s washroom. Writer and Professor wanted to destroy it, so that it did not fall into evil hands, but Stalker wanted no such thing. They eventually decided against it and went back to the bar.
I looked at the watch. It was nearing 4am. A total of 240 minutes of a science-fiction film and nothing happened. What was the point of the film?

I dreamt of Tarkovsky that night. He had a huge frame and wore a big moustache. He told me that Stalker was Joseph Stalin and the Zone was communism. The next morning, I think I finally got it. Writer and Professor represent the intellectuals in society, who are required to reach communism. The Zone itself is communism which can make people’s wishes come true. And all along there will be a Stalin who will stand beside the intellectuals till he tries to misuse the Zone.

When my mother asked me to mouth a one-liner from the film, I couldn’t think of any. It was just not that kind of a film.