The real point is, you are seriously undermining every legitimate point on the table. I'll even start with Umberto Eco, are you referring to this review? When he says, "If nothing else, [Casablanca] is a phenomenon worthy of awe"? That doesn't sound so damning to me. (That is a great review, btw, he said it better than I ever could.) Even your point-by-point rebuttals, which I'll leave you to, are full of errors. That was not Nazi police who arrived on the scene, they were French police. Strasser does not run Casablanca with his Nazi troops - it is unoccupied France. And why does Ilsa need to be a doctor to go be with Laslo when he's sick? The most important question is this - what would make you happy? A visceral scene in which the Nazis tie Laslo to a chair and stick bamboo shoots up his fingernails? The Nazis, in their infinite power, raining bombs on Casablanca? That is why I asked the question of how much you've really looked into basics of story, because you miss every plot element that elevates it to the level its at and are so furiously focused on the trivialities that you render the entire film moot. Stick to it, you have my condolences. Lastly, you can cling to this rather minor point that keeps getting brought up about how something is obviously good if so many people like it for so many years (which isn't really what I said). I've already explained how that has nothing to do with Twilight, but I'll go halfway with you here - there is no reason, none whatsoever, that you should like Casablanca on the fact that it's hailed as one of the top three movies ever made. In no way. Now that I've said that, it should at least make you curious. Because you're missing something here; you want to dismiss whatever I said about the craft of story fine, but even people who couldn't string two words together can see how much there is to absorb in Casablanca, without having written a screenplay themselves. If anything, that's what I invite you to do - you can start with that review by Umberto Eco, it's really good. But you've already broken it down for me, so you're probably fine.
You guys both had excellent points on both sides. The thing that bothered me about the film (the only thing, other than the basic things that bother you about old movies) is summed up by this statement of the review. reason for this: The film was made up as the shooting went along, and it was not until the last moment that the director and script writer knew whether Ilse would leave with Victor or with Rick I think because of this the ending was too convenient for me.
One of Eco's first lines in the review is "The question is a legitimate one, for aesthetically speaking (or by any strict critical standards) Casablanca is a very mediocre film." That's precisely what myself, Chater, Mike Ness, and others have been saying. So if you agree with the great author, does that mean you think the film is mediocre, minus one's personal nostalgia? Really? Why or how is even that made clear? More importantly, you mean to say a Nazi major representing the Third Reich was in Casablanca ALL ALONE during that time, with no security outfit? Again, how wonderfully convenient, for when he gets shot at the end. She doesn't; but why would either Laslo or her friend request her presence, then? They do realize that with the Nazis occupying Paris, she would be put into tremendous danger? Really, it's a plot point written for the sole purpose of Ilsa looking more sympathetic, giving her more of an excuse for leaving Rick. And really, that's something that has bothered me about the whole film; if Laslo is such a wonderful guy, why does he continually put someone he loves (Ilsa) in danger? Wouldn't he WANT her to think he was dead, and leave Paris, until the war was over, and her association with him would no longer put him at risk? Oh come on, now. It's not my job as a viewer to write a better story for the film. That's just a variation of your "you don't like this basketball player?! Well, I bet YOU can't dunk a basketball!" argument. And no, I can overlook a LOT of plot holes, but at some point, they become overwhelming, rendering the entire film an unrealistic cliche. An example of films I thought were great and had several major plot holes? The Prestige, and The Dark Knight, for instance. And that doesn't make me deserving of "condolences"; the same thing that makes me hate unrealistic films with stories made of Swiss cheese (Casablanca) is the same thing that makes me love others. (Like The Shawshank Redemption, Citizen Kane, etc.) I have absolutely no problem understanding WHY "Casablanca" was popular. That is very easy, and it's weird that you keep pounding this point as some proof of its quality. It's popular because it's a cliched Hollywood romance DRESSED UP REALLY WELL, with Bogie's fine acting, the exotic setting, great sets, the excellent camera work. Other examples? Titanic (which is actually superior to Casablanca in most ways, sadly enough), The Notebook, etc. This sounds to me like the same tired argument defenders of 2001 use; "Well, maybe the film sucked, but if you read a shitload of articles/reviews by people who really LOVE the movie, ignored all the freaking plot holes/weaknesses, and interpreted a ton of things that aren't evident from the movie...well then, you'll like it, too!!!" And just to re-iterate, Eco, whose review you like so much, called the film very mediocre. I certainly agree with that.
Off topic 2001 rant. Spoiler Hold up. Are you saying 2001: A Space Odyssey sucked? Because I can deal with the Casablanca hate. It is just a Hollywood love story. Albeit a particularly fine one. Comparing the two? No fucking way. 2001 is genius visionary filmmaking and raises some of the deepest questions of our existence. Questions that are immediately apparent to anyone with half a brain. Like: are we alone in the universe? How would we react to alien contact? What is God and does he exist? Can a life form evolve into super intelligence? Plus it is one of the most technically amazing films ever made. How many other sci-fi movies from 1968 have realistic special effects? 1988 for that matter? Casablanca is a fucking pop tart compared to the subtleties and texture of 2001. If you can't recognize that I'd say it's a complete waste of time trying to get you to appreciate a lot of amazing films. On topic review: Baraka: I'm surprised more people have not heard of this film. It is a non-traditional documentary in the style of the Koyaanisqatsi trilogy. It's a series of beautiful images of nature, religion, culture, and habitats. There is no narration, no dialogue, no plot. Just images from 24 countries around the globe. The theme often centers around religious rituals, from tribesmen in Africa, monkey worshippers in Bali, whirling dervishes, hasidic Jews, buddhist monks, shaman, etc. But it also shows daily life, culture and industrial work. Shots of cigarette factories in Asia or crowded subway trains or kabuki theater. Really it is just a few hours of amazing cinematography from around the globe and some of the most beautiful/surreal locations and events in the world. If you like anthropology or nature or mysticism you will completely love it but if you just like pretty pictures its worth watching too. Get it on blu-ray and enjoy. Edit: I forgot to mention that if you get stoned/tripping enough, it'll turn into a pretty spiritual journey.
Sucked might be taking it too far, and I certainly give it points for its novel approach, but it was boring and damn near impossible to sit through, in addition to being completely inscrutable. We can discuss this over PM if Aetius doesn't like conversations about films in this topic, but these videos pretty much sum up my thoughts. Focus- Boondock Saints 2- Christ. They tried to make the same film as the original, except everything good in the first sucked in the sequel. You know how there were things you thought were really cool in junior high, but later realized were fucking lame and pathetic? That's basically the cartoony bullshit that was this entire movie. I appreciate an action film with humor, but this was just one brutal, painfully bad joke and scene after another. It wasn't just me; I saw the film with 6 other people, and there was rarely even a light chuckle. Worst of all, Willem Dafoe's gay detective character, who was arguably the best part of the original, was mostly replaced by a some petite, red-headed girl with the worst fake Southern accent I have ever heard. Any time she opens up her mouth to show how fucking badass and awesome she is, it was physically nauseous to sit through. And like any bad torture, this film just goes on...and on...and on. One cliche and crappy scene after another. Dreadful stuff; 26/100
Taken I went into this movie with extremely high expectations as everyone said how awesome it is. Granted it's a good movie, but what makes it stand out from any other action/spy flick of the past 10 years? The spy tech was standard, the fight scenes were good but nothing exceptionally awesome, and the story was fairly linear. I guess I have the hype to blame, but overall I thought it was a decent flick but nothing I would rave about. Of course Liam Neeson is a badass, I'll give you that. 7/10
Hard Eight Paul Thomas Anderson's first film a a razor-sharp casino drama/thriller. Phillip Baker Hall gives an impossibly likable and award-caliber performance as the successful gambler Sidney, a polite and very Sinatra-cool older gentleman who makes his living playing the smart ways in Vegas, who decides to take a young none-too-bright homeless man under his wing (John C. Reilly) after feeling pity for him when he has no money to bury his mother, and teaches him (and us, the viewers) how to be a good gambler. This is a great movie, utterly real with compelling characters marred in believable situations. Gwyneth Paltrow is miscast to perfection as a super-stupid waitress/call girl, and Samuel L. Jackson rounds out the cast as, well... another bad-ass motherfucker persona, but sleazier and a little sadder than his usual. This is one of Anderson's typical character studies, more subtle than the wonderful Boogie Nights, less weird than Punch Drunk Love and more low-key and less epic than There Will Be Blood. It's simple, solid movie making that does everything right. I like movies that actually show you how to do things (like scamming free rooms and food at casinos for example). Hall is the shining star here, playing one of my favourite characters in virtually ANY movie I've seen, which is quite a lot. High regards, and a lost classic. 8/10
Aliens Director's Cut James Cameron, I thank you. This movie defines sci-fi thriller for me. The director's cut dragged a little bit in places, it was almost two and a half hours long. But, this movie is great for several reasons. 1. The set design is pretty good. 2. Bill Paxton's future slacker space Marine is infinitely quotable ("Game over, man!"). 3. The creature effects were amazing. 4. It was legitimately scary and the final 30 minutes were as taut as they could have been. 5. At no point did I say, "well that's pretty good...for 1986." 6. Sigourney Weaver, Michale Biehn, are fantastic badasses.
Training Day This is the best cop drama of all time. Denzel Washington owns this movie throughout. Ethan Hawke plays the naive rookie and you can never go wrong with Eva Mendez nude. Of all the movies I own, I've probably watched this one the most times. 10/10
Narc MY version of the best cop drama (not to take away from Training Day, Scotch). Ray Liotta and Jason Patric both give the best performances of their careers. Liotta is intimidating and ruthless as a violent detective (he gained 35 lbs. for the role), and Patric gives hyper-realistic panache as a smooth-talking undercover with understandable demons. The dialogue bristles with realism, and it's not without a sense of humour (especially during the investigative encounters at criminals' apartments, which are a riot to watch). This is how I imagine cops who have seen it all actually act in real life. The opening chase scene on foot through a Toronto ghetto is one of the best ever filmed. It's exhausting to watch, and it ends in such a horrid way you would think you were watching a real police tragedy take place. I especially like the unpredictability of the conclusion, which isn't satisfying but at least isn't the boring cliche you get in most crime dramas. I am shocked to know that the same director made the flashy and worthless Smokin' Aces. And remeber: always load a sock with a pool ball. 8.5/10
I second pretty well everything said above. It is also my favorite of all Liotta's performances. His intro scene in the practice range was fucking awesome! My only beef with this film, which strangely enough is one of its major upsides, is the speed with which dialogue is spoken, and how much slang is used. It's a bit hard to pick up on the first viewing, but since this movie is worth watching multiple times, it's easy to overcome.
If you guys liked this check out Rush 1991, starring Patric, Sam Elliott and Jennifer Jason Leigh. Leigh and Patric are undercover cops who bust numerous drug dealers and are after one Texas king pin. Very, very few movies do a good job at capturing drug use without absolutely exaggerating the hell out of the scene. (People seeing pink elephants, thinking they are flying, stupid crap like that) This movie nails it. It is really well acted so much that you forget at times that it's 29 years old until you see Leigh's outfits. Elliott is great and The badguy with an awesome badass Texas name "Will Gaines" is played by Greg Allman. I stole this from another board, good review. Rush was a controversial film upon it's initial release. Scenes depicting drug use by police officers were denounced by the usual Fraternal Orders and right wing cranks. Those scenes are only part of what makes Rush such a memorable experience. Good performances from Jennifer Jason Leigh as a starry eyed rookie narc, Sam Elliott as her burned out boss, and especially Max Perlich as a construction worker making some extra bucks in the drug trade anchor a film that makes a mockery of our vain attempts to somehow end the importation and use of these illegal substances. When does use change into addiction? How far will we go to stop people from abusing their bodies, and how many lies must be told in the process? Rush is a brave and provocative film that tells it's story without histrionics, a minimum of gunplay, and a dearth of sensationalism...despite what Officer Friendly may say about it. 8.5 /10
I spelled collage wrong in the book thread recently, this one I can't fucking add. I'm not posting late anymore.
Major Payne This is a terrible movie uplifted by one single non-stop hilarious performance by Damon Wayans. Esentially, a combat killing machine is ditched by the Army since there's no one left to take out, so he gets re-assigned to traingin ROTC students who he takes pleasures in putting through the ringer. The kids are all annoying and give horrid performances, the plot is rubber-stamped, but Wayans is absolutely hysterical. His actions are funny, his lines are funny, his voice is funny, his dance moves are awesome. He is funny in every scene he's in. The movie is a potboiler, some make like and some may hate it. Judge for yourself. "It's been nearly two weeks since I killed me a man..." 6/10
You nailed it. Damon Wayans (very underrated/overlooked comedian and actor) is hilarious and awesome, but everything else about the movie sucks. Overall, I found it enjoyable enough. Overnight (2003) A movie that really highlights my frustrations with most American documentaries. It follows the story of Troy Duffy, the writer and director of "The Boondock Saints", as he gets his script bought for $300k by Harvey Weinstein of Miramax, goes around being an egotistical asshole, and supposedly destroys his career. And yet, the documentary doesn't reveal the stuff that was truly interesting and important. Sure, Duffy was naive and talked a lot of shit...but that's true of most first-time writers and directors, too. (Most of it just isn't recorded by camera) Duffy was also rude and arrogant...but that describes a lot of successful people in Hollywood and business overall. So what was the exact action or set of events that hurt him so much? At what point did he burn his bridges? When and where? Him being an asshole to his music co-managers, (who, incidentally, were the directors of this film, with a major axe to grind) in no way alters his relationship with Miramax. So what gives? Or, was it something entirely different that caused his career to go downhill, with his personality being besides the point? After all, there are a lot of nice, polite people who have their film scripts stuck in Limbo, too. (Watch the much better, funnier documentary "Pitch" by the Kenny and Spenny people, for instance) Is this really a comeuppance at all, or just a life circumstance that Duffy, being so overconfident and egotistical, was less capable of overcoming? (Although one could argue he did just that, with the DVD sales of Boondock Saints) What I'm trying to convey is that there is a genuinely interesting story to tell here, not just "Guy is asshole, alienates people!". The only interesting part of the film was watching these Hollywood people interact with each other; the sick level of praise and ball-licking that goes on while they call each other worthless motherfuckers behind one anothers' backs. 42/100
From Dusk Till Dawn This movie is just plain fun to watch. Harvey Keitel as the preacher who lost his faith and takes his two kids (one of which is Juliette Lewis) on an RV excursion through Texas. George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino are bank robber brothers who are on the run. Salma Hayek, Cheech Marin, Danny Trejo, Fred Williamson all play great bit parts. I had a good time trying to describe this movie in terms of other movies (if Blade was a truck-driver, the Mexican vampire massacre, if Pulp Fiction was a horror movie about burritos, etc.). It also has a pretty good tex/mex blues soundtrack, Salma Hayek in one of the more unique stripper scenes ever, and the movie is split completely in half, the first part dealing with how the characters collide in the same RV, the second dealing with Spoiler a half million Mexican vampires trying to kill them all Bottom line, if you liked Desperado and wouldn't mind it being a little more ridiculous, you won't be disappointed with this one.
Altered States This is a very strange, very awesome science fiction film about a weirdo scientist and his experiments with a sensory deprivation tank. It's a salt water tank that you float in, completely cut off from any sensory input. Eventually your brain creates things to fill in the blackness, and the result is hallucinations. The film beings with a hallucination, and they get progressively more insane as the main character experiments with ritualistic drugs he procures from Mexico and 8 hour sessions in the isolation tank. He's trying to find the "first, pure human form" or some such nonsense. It doesn't really matter because the film suggests he is probably schizophrenic. It's really more about his obsession to cross some sort of barrier he perceives in his blackouts. Soon his hallucinations start manifesting themselves physically, culminating in an entire 30 minutes when he, no joke, turns into a primal humanoid and breaks into a zoo to eat some goats. And it gets weirder. Wayyy weirder. I won't give it away because it's best to go into this film with no real expectations as far as plot, because there isn't a solid one. What you get is a pretty smart film about some freaky psychological shit, and some very jarring, mind blowing special effects of 1980 vintage. The film tries to play the horror angle with varying degrees of success, but it's well worth watching if you feel like tripping yourself out for 2 hours. There are ways to experiment with sensory deprivation at home too, with white noise and some halved ping pong balls. That's something they never showed us on Bill Nye.
M (1931) A classic German film about a child murderer (played very well by Peter Lorre) who terrorizes Berlin in the early 30s, putting the city in a panic. The police are unable to catch the criminal, but conduct nightly raids, making life difficult for the criminals. With their business threatened, and the murderer giving them a bad name, they set out to capture him first. Without question, for its day, this movie must have been a revelation. Even today, it looks good, has plenty of funny, intelligent, and engaging scenes, does a great job portraying the mad murderer and his sick obsession, and the hunt that leads to his capture. The most enjoyable part of the movie was wonderfully it portrays life in Berlin in the early 30s, from the woodwork of the cuckoo clocks to the shop windows to the spiral staircases of an apartment to its citizens' facial expressions. Beautiful stuff. Still, this film suffers from slow pacing, and unnecessarily prolonged scenes. And while I won't spoil it, the conclusion was not satisfying. Nevertheless, it was a ground-breaking movie that is still pretty good today. 75/100
I just saw Narc because of the previous reviews, and because, well, Jason Patric is awesome. It's a good movie and it's real enough to avoid major cliches. The ending isn't satisfying or conclusive not because of the abrupt cut but because the plot was focused on Jason Patric's character until mid-way where it was then the murder investigation. The ending of Patric's plot extends beyond the murder investigation, so the viewer probably feels hollow. Still a good, recommendable, movie.