white radical nerd lady in my 30s
transplanted to the East Coast US
happily living in sin with my co-conspirator Mr. X
my Dragon Age sideblog
Other tags of interest - Places I Wish I Was Right Now, GPOY, owls, you are cordially invited to my pants, this has been a post, OH MY GOD, Favorite of all the things, Maru is the best cat in the whole world
[[MORE]]adding to my last post, i don’t think i’ll ever really be 100% over the problems i had with fenders shippers esp fenders shippers who were...
I’m used to reading his reviews every week. I don’t even know what movies are out anymore since he died :(
Are there any other good film reviewers out there nowadays?
Because mine is “Destroy Everything You Touch” by Ladytron.
I am genuinely sad to hear about this. I had a feeling when he stopped reviewing films a few months ago something was up.
I watched Siskel and Ebert religiously when I was a kid. I lived in the middle of nowhere and we had a single movie theater with one screen and artsy/independent/foreign films were literally unreachable for me. Before Blockbuster video, before the internet, those little clips I got on Sneak Previews were my one glimpse into a larger artistic world.
I’ve always loved reading his film reviews ever since the Sun-Times started archiving them online. I’ve checked his website weekly for years and years. He was a good writer and even when I didn’t agree with his take on a movie I would always learn something from what he had to say. I’m used to checking on what he thinks of all the films that come out and it’s going to take quite awhile to break that habit.
Condolences to his wife Chaz. She seems really awesome and they always looked really in love with each other and oh, that makes me even more sad. :(
I wrote about this once before, but I see there’s a new US release coming out just in time for Christmas…
For $60, you get a 15-hour documentary on the history of cinema around the world, from the very beginning right up to now, with special emphasis on world cinema beyond the usual US/Europe pantheon.
Every episode is packed with TONS of film clips, interviews with major directors/writers/actors, and in-depth analysis of the development of film language as it communicated across borders, across genres and across decades.
Even if you don’t agree with all the assertations, the inclusions and ommissions, you will LEARN a lot from this series.
I’m not sure WTF I just saw but I reeeally liked it.
First of all, it looked fantastic. Worth seeing on the big screen in 70mm.
If you’re hoping for a Scientology expose, forget ALL about that. Paul Thomas Anderson is not interested in that. Yes, the Philip Seymour Hoffman character is obviously L. Ron Hubbard and PTA obviously thinks The Cause is all hogwash, but that’s not what the movie is about. It may have started out that way, but in the making of the thing it became just another interesting setting for psychodrama. Really, the less you know about Scientology and the less you’re looking for parallels to that, the more you’ll enjoy this.
The Master is a cousin to There Will Be Blood in a lot of ways. Some of which are sort of obvious and vaucous, like that they’re both period pieces centering around a solitary and troubled man set up against his opposite. Or who initially appears to be his opposite, but is really a kind of counterpart. The soundtracks are pretty similar, both of them percussive and interior and unsettling. More than that, though, they just feel similar. Evasive. They’re mysteries. Mysteries of personality. Why is this man the way he is? What made him that way? Could he ever have been otherwise? What is this connection he has with this other man? And for that matter how does anybody connect with anybody?
I have to say that as good as PSH is in this, Joaquin Phoenix is fucking mesmerizing. Really astonishingly good. I could just watch his facial expressions and body language all day and never be bored. His character is kind of a slow-motion trainwreck you can’t look away from. If you’re a fan of Phoenix and HIS FACE this movie is a great excuse to stare at it lingeringly for two and a half hours, and I actually mean that in a good way.
Lancaster’s interest in Freddie is sort of mysterious in itself and they never really explain that (the movie never really explains anything, of course). If I got really boringly analytical about it you could say that he wanted to cure Freddie of all the things he most disliked in himself, since at the root of it they are very similar people. In his own way Lancaster is also a drifter and a fuckup who exists in his own bubble of adulation and success and flees a situation any time that bubble is pierced even slightly. (This is especially clear if you’re at all familiar with L Ron Hubbard). But I think that kind of explanation is trying to pin down something amorphous and elusive that lives in this film and spoils some of the wonder of it.
I also thought Amy Adams was fascinating in a much smaller role that has a lot going on under the surface. There are an awful lot of interesting gender dynamics going on in this movie and she is sort of the exclamation point on the whole thing. Considering the film is set in the 1950s she calls to mind the stupid saying about behind every great man and if she doesn’t have a great man to get out in front of her, by god she will make him one.
Anyway: I love Paul Thomas Anderson and I was not disappointed. I thought this movie was riveting and I need to see it again to really get a handle on it.
A few interesting details I’m pulling out of this. These are all from the Top 100 films only
Films by female directors: (ONE FILM)
Films not made in America or Western Europe: (18 films)
(Russia and Japan account for 12 of the 18 films)
Films made after 1970: (19 films)