12/30/2005

Reds (1981)

posted by mauer @ 11:46 am

I had never seen this. It has not been released on DVD in the US (Or VHS now) despite three A-list actors and a slew of Oscar nominations in 82. (Nine, winning three including best director for Beatty. Can there possibly be many other Best Director oscar winners not out on DVD? Particularly one that is fairly recent?!)

I wonder what the discussion was then as the Bright Shining Reagan Era was dawning about the merits of a very good film vs. its story of political dissent, socialism, communism, voting for leaders who would not take us into war and so on. Especially when, at its core, it’s just a love story. (more…)

12/27/2005

Brodre

posted by reynolds @ 5:12 pm

Doing the pretentious thing and keeping the original Danish, for the sort-of-Dogme production Brothers. It’s a very well-meaning, very (very) well-acted melodrama in the Coming Home or Deer Hunter vein, where experiences in war (this time Afghanistan) bleed back into life at home. Which seems timely, except (given the fairly-obvious storyline and its unmissable echoes of such earlier films) it also seems kind of un- or out-of-timely. I liked it well enough, but I kept wondering… well, okay, and?

And on another note, the always-enlightening year-end discussion of movies is ongoing at Slate.

12/26/2005

Serious, serious

posted by reynolds @ 3:52 pm

I could pitch my reactions to Neil Jordan’s glorious Breakfast on Pluto as yet another spin on the politics vs. personal desire/domesticity discussion, or as a glam-rock rejoinder (or alternative chorus) to Brokeback’s mournful fiddle, or simply say:

It’s the most fun I have had at the movies all year. (Tied, if I’m totally honest, with Kung Fu Hustle, but its pleasures are very, very different.) The soundtrack is perfect, the images saturated with color, the performances stellar. And it’s moving, funny, thrilling. I’m torn between wanting to read the novel or just see the film again.

12/25/2005

2005 Movie Quiz

posted by Chris @ 6:10 am

Happy Holidays

http://film.guardian.co.uk/quiz/questions/0,5952,1671399,00.html

12/23/2005

real quickie on The Family Stone

posted by gio @ 6:59 pm

this is not a movie worthy of discussion in a serious, intelligent forum such as this, so i’ll just say that a) we went to see it because there was absolutely nothing in south miami to see except munich, and simon wouldn’t see munich (don’t ask) and b) it is really not that funny for a christmas comedy. but i want to point out that rachel macadams, who was in the totally kick-ass and superbly paced red eye, is great. her comic talent belies her good-girl looks. i also want to register that i’m sick and tired of mothers dying of (breast) cancer. i do realize that fathers’ dying wouldn’t get the same tear-jerking effect (why don’t people love their fathers as much as they do their mothers?), but LET WOMEN LIVE, for goodnessakes! anyway, i spent most of the movie trying to figure out the birth order of the stone siblings and i can honestly say that i think i’ve got it down.

back 5 posts

Powered by WordPress