Row Three Narcissism: Movies We Watched
You may or may not have noticed one of the buttons along the side bar: “Movies We Watched”
This is an area of the site for the regular contributors to put up a blurb/capsule/thought on anything that they happened to catch at the rep cinema, on DVD, VOD or even old fashioned TV and did not write or post anything about on the main site. Every Thursday, we will pop up a post highlighting the Movies We Watched subsection (and this may have the effect of getting the writing staff to use this a little more. Hint. Hint.) Do not confuse this little feature with Dave’s much more detailed Hidden Gems though as Dave puts a lot more time into crafting his full posts than these little blurbs which are quite off-the-cuff. Either way, it may be a good conversation starter. Have at it.
To get the full list (dating back to December 2007) go here or click the similar graphic at the sidebar. When there, be sure to click the little “+” sign for the actual written text, some of which are repeated below:
“Ils” (2006) 3/5 - Solid if unspectacular horror/thriller set in and around an expensive rural estate in France. As these types of stories go, it lacks the mother/son bond in The Orphanage, the gonzo gore of High Tension or the meta-incisiveness of Funny Games. So in the end it comes right around the space of Vacancy or P2. Crisp, lean and mean are the assets on display here. -KURT
“Tropa De Elite” (2007)” 4/5 - This is a nasty piece of work. Variety has it bang on (so to speak) when it describes it as City of God meets The Wire. Throw in some Full Metal Jacket and some Michale Mann and, well, you get the idea. This thing chews rusty nails in between punches to the face and setting traitors on fire. All in all, Rio de Janeiro’s social infrastructure looks to be a disaster in this film, captured at favela ground-zero from the point of view of the paramilitary elite cops. -KURT
“To Live and Die in L.A.” (1985) 2.5/5 - It’s a good thing that Michael Mann came along to replace a sliding William Friedkin at around this point. While there are some technical tour-de-force moments (A freeway car chase against Rush-hour traffic for instance) Friedkin has trouble balancing his gritty 70’s machismo with 80’s trash-art aesthetic. Acting/intensity falls flat more often than is should, and Wang Chung’s score has aged embarrassingly into a bad cliche. If gunshots to the face are your thing, then have it. Kudos for the ‘extreme how-to’ in terms of counterfeiting currency though. -KURT
“The Good Shepherd” (2006) 3/5 - Curiously engrossing for its nearly 3 hour runtime, even if by necessity, all the performances and characters are subdued. It’s a thriller of moral quandaries and compromises that only gets goofy during the Skull & Bones sequences. Would that William Hurt and Michael Gambon (and the actor who plays Matt Damon’s son in the film got more screen time and that DeNiro (who directs here) and Pesci were left on the cutting room floor. -KURT
“Ripley’s Game” (2002) 4.5/5 - A sharp and nuanced performance from John Malkovich lights up the film that for some baffling reason went straight to DVD in North America. An anti-morality tale that has a dangerous allure and wicked sense of humour. Lena Heady, Dougray Scott and Ray Winstone are all solid, as is just about every individual element here. -KURT
“To Catch A Thief” (1955) 3/5 - Catchy dialogue and Cary Grant mocking gorgeous Grace Kelly cannot save a bloated and predictable plot (perhaps the film has simply not aged well and has been in parts copied and improved upon over the years). The film has some of the most gorgeous cinematography of the era though. -KURT
“The Great World Of Sound” (2007) 3.5/5 - A deceptively simple, yet knotty just below the surface on so many issues with the current state of the American psyche that it does bear to be mentioned with the great salesman dramas including Death of A Salesman and Glengarry Glen Ross. -KURT
“Night of the Hunter” (1955) 4.5/5 - Has to be considered one of the prototypes of crazy genre mashing. This film has it all. Broad comedy, Huck Finn Journeys, Western, German Expressionism, Noir, etc. Robert Mitchum puts in a creepy and crazy (read unguarded) performance. And the B&W cinematography is Top Shelf. A Must See for fans of the Coens, Sturges or Jarmusch. -KURT
“A Touch of Evil” (1958) 2.5/5 - Outside of the film-school-ish opening shot, and the closing action sequence, it is hard to love the muddled middle of this cross-border noir tale. A nice template for films like Chinatown (which gets the job done much better), it gets quagmired in the middle, and not in a good old-fashioned noir (The Big Sleep) sort of way. Wacko casting includes Charleton Heston as a mexican, Marlene Dietrich as a gypsy-fortuneteller and I’m pretty sure that Orson Wells (in the title role, sort of) was legitimately drunk out of his mind while shooting this. He’s here at his late-period Brando, batshit crazy best, but it’s not enough to save this messy film. -KURT
**Update: Not to make this post seem too narcissistic with all the blurbs belonging to yours truly, but at the time, the most recent half-dozen or so were that. Since this post, a few contributors went mad-men filling in many other titles. Check the sidebar link often.












Comment by John Allison — March 13, 2008
Comment by John Allison — March 13, 2008
what your take on Carnival of Souls and Southland Tales?
Comment by rot — March 13, 2008
Night of the Hunter rocked, I don’t know how I only caught up on it last year.
Comment by Shannon the Movie Moxie — March 13, 2008
Southland tales was good but I didn’t enjoy it as much as Donnie Darko. I thought it was a bit too easy to figure out and tried to do a bit too much. I don’t think it deserves the panning that it is getting and I think in the long run it will become somewhat of a cult favorite.
Both are definitely worth checking out. Since I’ve been giving ratings on my own blog I’ll mention that I gave Carnival a 4 out of 5 and I’m tempted to bump it up to a 4.5 . I gave Southland a 3.5 which puts it right in the watchable half decent movie range.
Comment by John Allison — March 13, 2008
Comment by John Allison — March 13, 2008
The cliches in To Live and Die are quite painful (Cop about to retire, bad eighties-pseudo-art-culture, Gay-Sadist, etc.)
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — March 13, 2008
Comment by Andrew James — March 13, 2008
Comment by Andy — March 13, 2008
I’ll admit to the bad-ass aspect, especially considering the ‘dropping’ fate of one of the characters. Oi. That was cold.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — March 13, 2008
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — March 13, 2008
Comment by John Allison — March 13, 2008
Comment by John Allison — March 13, 2008
Comment by Henrik — March 13, 2008
Last year happened to hit 4 for me.
5/5 = perfection or at the very least something that completely blows you out of the water when you leave the theater. I stand by all of my 5/5 from last year except “Man from Earth.” In retrospect, that should’ve been a 4/5 or maybe a 4.5/5.
Comment by Andrew James — March 13, 2008
Comment by John Allison — March 13, 2008
The comparison to Chinatown is particularly non-sensical. To say Chinatown “did it better” is to say you barely watched the movie.
I don’t get the Atonement dissent.
Comment by Rusty James — March 13, 2008
Comment by Andrew James — March 13, 2008
Comment by John Allison — March 13, 2008
Comment by Henrik — March 13, 2008
Comment by Shannon the Movie Moxie — March 13, 2008
Comment by John Allison — March 13, 2008
Comment by Rusty James — March 13, 2008
Comment by Matt Gamble — March 13, 2008
I stand by that A Touch of Evil was a large disappointment for me on a single viewing. The beginning and end are soooo good, but the middle and some of the casting choices are just wacky.
Comment by Kurt — March 13, 2008
Comment by Kurt — March 13, 2008
I’m not going to quarrel with you about your personal taste in the film. I just took issue with the film being described as amateurish. But since that wasn’t what you meant then I’m all set. I was just set on combat mode.
Comment by Rusty James — March 13, 2008
On a different note, I just finished the last episode of the last season of the Wire. My eyes are moist. The show is genius. The conclusion was perfect, and simply wow. The benchmark has been set.
Comment by Kurt — March 13, 2008
The Wire is an alright show I guess. It’s better than syfilis-inducing shows like CSI or Law and Order. But it’s still a TV-show - people talk way too much, way too quickly. Constant walk-and-talks with rapid-fire dialogue, in the end feeling like stand-up comedy more so than actual conversation. Inconsequential characters that seem to be everchanging and in a state of flux… *Sigh* Why anybody would waste their time on TV shows when they could be watching film is beyond me. Except if you want no-brain escapism, TV is good. I use it for that myself, just turn it on and have the sitcom unclock your thought-activity for a little while.
Comment by Henrik — March 13, 2008
(Yes, you’ve baited me once again, but you are a fool. a Damn fool.)
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — March 13, 2008
With David Mamet and William Shakespeare, almost none of the dialogue is written for the film. It’s written for the stage, then put on film. With Shakespeare, the reason the dialogue is spoken so fast in filmed versions, is because otherwise the film would be too long. When Shakespeare wrote his dialogue he hardly cared how it would work in film. So to watch a Shakespeare film and complain about the dialogue would be ignorance. But I will say if The Wire reached the same depth in its characters as Shakespeare does in pieces like Henry V or King Lear, I would be head-over-heels for it as well.
Seriously though, The Marx Brothers? If we can agree that The Wire reaches the same amount of realism and emotionally engaging storytelling as The Marx Brothers, then your argument works. I have only seen bits of TMB films though.
Comment by Henrik — March 13, 2008
Henrik, Didn’t Lars Von Trier work on television?
Comment by Rusty James — March 13, 2008
Your satire is weak though, borderline pathetic.
Comment by Henrik — March 13, 2008
Also, i was not comparing The Marx Brothers to the Wire (!!??!!) merely stating that writing of a medium because a few examples prefer to stylize dialogue a bit or that all the ums, ers and otherwise everyday speech bleeps and farts are omitted for dramatic purpose.
Shakespeare and Mamet may not have been originally meant for film, but there are some exemplary examples of high quality cinema from both sources.
We’ll have to agree to disagree, because I fear this conversation is going nowhere (sadly).
I’m heading into territory where Goon goes when you start dissing animation as a form.
Comment by Kurt — March 14, 2008
Comment by Matt Gamble — March 14, 2008
Comment by rot — March 14, 2008
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — March 14, 2008
I’ve only ever seen one David Mamet-inspired film which is of course Glengarry Glen Ross.
It’s not so much the ums, ers etc. that I miss from TV-dialogue, it’s more that the acting style seems to be reminiscent of a Kevin Smith film, where everybody knows exactly what to say within a nanosecond of the other person having stopped talking.
Comment by Henrik — March 14, 2008
Juno, yes. The Wire, no.
Sheeeeeeeeeeee-it
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — March 14, 2008
Comment by Andrew James — March 14, 2008
Comment by Henrik — March 14, 2008
Nothing wrong with a bit of stylization in fiction, it can be the soul of fiction, oft-times.
I admit it is a matter of taste though.
I Love
-Mamet
-The Wire
-Kevin Smith
-The Coens
-The Marx Brothers
-Lubitsch, Sturges, etc.
, it’s the dialogue and delivery that makes those movies..
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — March 14, 2008
Comment by Henrik — March 14, 2008
And you don’t feel like becoming a worse person sitting down for a night with the latest TMNT movie? (yes, that’s a cheap shot…nothing like ending this conversation on a class-less note!)
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — March 14, 2008
Lets not forget you were the one bringing up various other examples of dialogue reminiscent of what is in The Wire. I simply went along with your argument that they were all the same. It’s like comparing Picasso to a high-school art class though.
The same as with Juno, TMNT is without any sort of ambition or pretention. I like ninja-style action, and I thought it was done well. Add to that the fact that I also laughed. I will defend myself a little bit and say that it was my first ever experience with actually reviewing and putting a rating on something, and 3.5/4 in retrospect does seem really high. I recently rewatched the film and I was ready to feel like shit for praising it so much, but I have to say I feel the same way now that I did initially - the film is way better than it should have been, and is an awesome actionmovie. And Kevin Smith would never have the balls to name his main characters Leonardo, Raphael, Donatello and Michelangelo - a tribute I can only respect.
Comment by Henrik — March 14, 2008
Comment by Kurt — March 14, 2008
-pretentious? no idea.
Comment by Kurt — March 14, 2008
Comment by Jonathan — March 16, 2008
Comment by John Allison — March 16, 2008
Good catch Jonathan. Now where’s your Doomsday review?
Comment by Andrew James — March 16, 2008