|Posted on Tuesday, September 17, 2002 - 12:09 am: |
The Film Forum is starting to develop a few too many threads. I think we should consider creating a few basic subheadings so that it doesn't get too crowded in here. Instead of posting a film title everytime someone wants to discuss it, perhaps we should create a few categories that films, directors and actors can fall into. For instance:
NOW PLAYING - this will cover films that are currently in the theaters.
DVD/VIDEO - films you watch at home.
MIDNIGHT MOVIES - cult films, rare films, Hong Kong, trash, porn...
ART HOUSE - foreign and indie.
BOOKS ON FILM - read a good book lately...about
THE LOBBY - anything goes.
What do you all think? Is this too rigid? If so, how do we keep things from getting too cluttered and confusing?
|Posted on Monday, September 16, 2002 - 6:15 pm: |
Marc - We talked about her death a few days ago on NYT. My favorite performance of hers was in NO MAN'S LAND. See it if you haven't. It's brilliant.
|Posted on Monday, September 16, 2002 - 5:57 pm: |
Katrin Cartlidge died. She was 41.
Katrin starred in several Mike Leigh films, including the amazing NAKED. She was also in BENEATH THE WAVES and FROM HELL. Katrin had a very cool look, kind of gothic rocker. She wasn't pretty in a conventional sense, but she was someone I always loved looking at. Its such a shame to lose someone so speacial at such a young age. What a fucking drag.
|Posted on Monday, September 16, 2002 - 1:24 pm: |
See it Poker. Fuller is Great storyteller.
|Posted on Monday, September 16, 2002 - 10:36 am: |
For any Chicago-area forumites, I just got this e-mail:
Dear Film Center patrons,
When I booked Samuel Fuller's HOUSE OF BAMBOO (playing in "Widescreen Wednesdays" on Wednesday, September 18), I was told that the only available print was in fair condition only. In the interests of "truth in advertising," I conveyed this information in our September Gazette.
Contrary to our expectations, we have received an excellent print of HOUSE OF BAMBOO. If any patrons were discouraged from coming by the initial print estimate, I urge them to take advantage of this opportunity to see an outstanding and rarely shown film.
Associate Director of Programming
Gene Siskel Film Center
164 N. State Street
Chicago, IL 60601
I was not going because of the poor print quality advertised, so I'm delighted with this news. BTW, HOUSE OF BAMBOO was playing on TV when Tom Cruise was at home, getting high, in MINORITY REPORT.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 5:08 pm: |
Chick's woulda thunk it.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 2:51 pm: |
MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING's boxoffice has now surpassed that of THE ROAD TO PERDITION and its own its way to beating XXX. Who woulda thunk it?
I'm working on a script, MY HUMONGOUS OVERWEIGHT HIPPIE LOVE-IN.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 12:52 pm: |
Well, if you can't wait and you wanna dive right into the deep end of the pool, you can order an $85 bottle from Ian:
You'll be sipping Absinthe by Wednesday.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Absinthe enhances your visual reception in film viewing.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 11:59 am: |
I think Markus has been doing some work on his site. It's been up and down the last couple of days. Give it a bit and try again.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 11:55 am: |
Pata, It doesn't go through.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 7:49 am: |
The proper way to use this forum is under the influence of Absinthe.
Go right now to:
at the bottom of the left column click "International customer". Choose one bottle of "F. Guy" and one bottle of "Segarra".
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 6:30 am: |
I'm a newbie, too, and happy to be here.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 6:28 am: |
It's a fun place...but what do I know I'm a newbie!
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 6:20 am: |
Kallisti - I think you have done an amazing job with this site. I appreciate, too, having a site to come to where discourse can occur without censorship. We from the NYT have had a very factious history over there, and I'm afraid it has spilled over into here. I join Marc in urging other NYT'ers to refrain from the whining. If you learn to use the site, as I am starting to, you'll be impressed with what you can do.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 12:22 am: |
you and marantz's complaints about the way this forum is structured borders on being rude. Would you walk into someone's home and the first thing out of your mouth is to complain about the decor? I've been a member of sepulchritude for several years, as have most of the people posting here. We have no problem with the way kallisti has designed the forum. You are used to the NY Times forum. Once you get used to this one, you'll find that it offers much more freedom and variety. Shit, you can create your own thread whenever you want. You don't have to appeal to some fucking moderator. You can edit. You can post pictures. This place blows the doors off the primitive Times forum. Get to know this forum. Its fucking embarrassing to have my friends come in here and whine about the way the place is designed. E-mail the administrator, kallisti, and give her some input. You're a designer of websites. And keep in mind, this is a one woman operation.
It ain't some bigass corporate institution like The New York Times. Frankly I'm amazed at what kallisti has accomplished.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 12:06 am: |
e.g., Spoilable: the Game; Sixth Sense; etc.
Not-so-spoilable: Everything You Wanted to Know about Sex But Were Afraid to Ask; Short Cuts; etc.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 12:04 am: |
Hmmm...that could even be a list: movies that are "spoil-able."
Of course, then someone would complain that even seeing a movie mentioned on such a list constitutes a spoiler in itself.
|Posted on Sunday, September 15, 2002 - 12:02 am: |
I'm always amazed at why people get so upset about "spoilers" except in movies where there is some clever twist that would actually spoil the movie. For a charcter driven movie or otherwise, I have no problem knowing what happens.
Of course, everyone's different. But for me, for most movies, someone could give me a scene-by-scene summary, and I'd still want to see it and enjoy every minute of it.
|Posted on Saturday, September 14, 2002 - 11:52 pm: |
Nilson was asked to change his post about "The Good Girl" and he said he would, I only found this out after having the fucking film SPOILED!!!
Not only do I know that blah-dee-bloh dies, I know what fucking song they play when it happens.
p.s. I totally agree with marantz, I have no idea how to use this forum "properly"
|Posted on Saturday, September 14, 2002 - 7:01 pm: |
Well, unless my memory is going, I ain't no bearded lesbian. What does my sex imply about the movie?
I thought Aniston did a good job, as did most of the cast, but none of it was good enough to make the movie interesting.
|Posted on Saturday, September 14, 2002 - 5:09 pm: |
Anatomist...........You are a guy, no?
One thing about The Good Girl........J. Anniston is NOT sexy in it.
Thanks for the reminder about spoiler alerts.
|Posted on Saturday, September 14, 2002 - 5:00 pm: |
You neglected the spoiler alert, too.
As far as your interpretation, of GIRL goes, okay, I'll buy that. It's a theoretically interesting movie and your thesis would make for a good academic paper. However, it was still a dull movie to watch.
|Posted on Saturday, September 14, 2002 - 2:44 pm: |
I'm really looking forward to both Red Dragon and the Ring (i dig the Japanese originals as well as the Korean remake -- can't wait to see Naomi Watts in the US go-round), both of which open in the next month or so.
Yes, it should indeed be a good fall for cinephiles...
|Posted on Saturday, September 14, 2002 - 2:35 pm: |
excuse me while I get all teary-eyed and mushy.
I'm really happy to see sepulchritude's film forum come alive. For years we've been trying to
keep a film discussion going on a regular basis, but it always kind of fell apart. With the input of the newbies from the NYTimes forum and sepulchritude's regular gang of film freaks, the place is hoppin'. I hope we maintain this level of energy. It should be easy with some of the films coming out in the Fall/Winter:
GANGS OF NEW YORK
PUNCH DRUNK LOVE
FAR FROM HEAVEN
THE TWO TOWERS
CATCH ME IF YOU CAN
THE TRUTH ABOUT CHARLIE
I'm diggin' this.
|Posted on Saturday, September 14, 2002 - 2:35 pm: |
Thanks, Marc........I made it here at last. (Tho I feel like a bit of a bad girl doing so.)
To everyone who discounted The Good Girl: I really liked it.
I thought it was a very complex movie. On the one hand, you had the crazy humor of it. On the other hand, it was a tale of morality........one woman's morality.....Or call it amorality.
SPOILERS ALL THE WAY AHEAD:
I thought Jennifer Anniston did the role justice. Her transitions were unexpected and compelling to watch. In the beginning........she's bored, but seems nice and ordinary. Then she opens the door to the avid admirer and is confused about what she is doing. (Is she on the brink of discovering a way out of her boring life..........or is she on the brink of being trapped by a disturbed fool?)
Then, her decisions are interesting..........Should she take the co-worker to the hospital? (yes, if she doesn't go inside.) How should she break-up with the kid? (Certainly not by being direct..........let his parents send him to an institution.) Should she sleep with her husband's friend? (No problem.) Should she turn the kid in? Should she pretend her baby is her husbands?
This was a portrait of a person who does the expedient thing. You'd expect that kind of behavior in women of a different class (Think Valmont and it's clone.) or women in a drug culture. I thought Anniston's girl-next-door persona made this film an unusual look at "a girl not being good".