1. Films Seen: 2005

Yes.

I second that emotion. If it doesn't get here soon I may just have to buy the non-region one DVD.

The Loach film. I think it's called 'Ae Fond Kiss...' in Britain, and 'Just a Kiss' everywhere else.

I had 'Notorious' at [****] for a while (peer pressure!), but decided to lower the rating for two reasons:

1) It's missing the subtext that's present in Hitchcock's greatest works ('Rear Window', 'Vertigo', 'Psycho', 'The Birds', 'Strangers on a Train', 'Shadow of a Doubt', 'Marnie', 'Frenzy' and, to some extent, 'North by Northwest')

2) The beginning's too long, and the film takes a while to get going.

In my mind, 'Notorious' is a bit overrated. But I'd be happy to hear a severe rebuttal to that!

Thanks for the comment.

It'll probably be a while until I get to it on the Blog, so here are some quick thoughts:

Many great ideas (some underdeveloped) and themes in the film. Like in 'Code 46', which you didn't like nearly as much as I did, there's so much to think about.

a) The role of memory in our lives, and how memory intsects with objective truth.

b) The notion of a Rememory is interesting in how it reduces people's lives to a few hours of images.

c) Along with that, there's also emphasis on the visual (and aural) memory. What about Touch, Taste, Smell?

d) The idea of a contemporary "surveillence society" was nicely explored.

e) The "cutter" as Film Editor! Because Editors don't get the recognition they deserve, damn it.

The plot had three, ever wider ranging, layers: There was Alan's struggle to find out the truth about his childhood event, the whole conflict between the Industrialist's (whose name I can't remember) true identity and public identity, and then the fate of the Zoe implant in society.

Granted, neither the acting or direction is great. But I think that 'The Final Cut' has enough going for it to make it a memorable Sci-Fi, a minor 'Gattaca' perhaps.

'Bad Santa' forced me to change my Rating System. But, eventually, a defence will come!

I haven't seen Carpenter's version. Not sure if that means I overrate the remake, or don't fully appreciate it. Have you seen both?

Dull and sappy. The dialogue is some of the worst I've heard in a while, too. The characters too often say exactly what's on their minds. And whoever says that 'In Good Company' is good satire is just wrong.

I also have a strong dislike of Dennis Quaid and, in general, actors who, as they grow older, start making Harrison Ford-like facial grimaces.

Sometimes I jot down notes while I'm watching a film, or quickly after, so even when I write about the film later I have some information that jogs my memory (I'm a geek, I know). Characters names, and other facts, I look up on the IMDB.

As to my opinion of a film, I'm usually better able to argue my point a few weeks after watching it. Especially if it's a film I liked. I'm almost certain that my review of 'Sideways', for example, will be better than it would have been had I written it the night I saw the film. Most of the time, when I finish watching something good I don't really know why I liked it (if it's bad, then it's easier). I guess that makes my reviews much colder than those of other reviewers, but I don't like to let the experience of watching a film overshadow what I thought of it. And if a certain element catches my interest, such as the use of music in 'The Motorcycle Diaries', then I remeber it for quite a long time. My ratings also drop ('Million Dollar Baby' is going down every day!) more often than they rise ('The Aviator' is a rare one going up). In other words, I'm not one for emotion. I'd rather a film make me think than feel. And the more time elapses since I've seen the film, the less I remember the emotions and the more I begin to understand it.

Phew! Rant over.

Nope, haven't seen it. Do you recommend?

It was a sadistic impulse coupled with the desire to see if it actually is that bad. And is it ever!

I think I like Hitchcock because he didn't dive into the demon world.

I coulda told you it was crap. No idea where its reputation came from.

Depends on your sense of funny and, I guess, knowledge of Korean society and politics. I don't share the film's sense of humour and didn't understand a wink of it's satire. Might be like one of those Czech (Forman's The Fireman's Ball) or Polish (Piwowski's Rejs) Communist-era films that are a whole lot better if you understand the context in which they were made. But I still get a feeling I'm giving Attack the Gas Station! too much credit.

Sometimes, I just don't know anymore...

I hope to have a longer review of it up soon, but there are quite a few things I didn't like about it.

1) The rather trite idea behind the film, that tragedy and comedy are always mixed, or in the "eye of the bolder", is undermined because the funny segments of the film aren't funny and the tragic parts either over-the-top or kept offscreen. They're alike because they're both bland.

2) Allen's touch at directing and usually pretty good cinematography is painfully absent from this film. It lacks style. And it's edited down in a way that makes it a mess. One of the first shots of the film is of the exterior of a restaurant that then begins to snake toward the entrance and then inside. Except, instead of completing the fluid motion, there's a jarring, very weird, fade (or is it a dissolve?) to a bunch of people at a table inside a restaurant. Seems the editors either didn't know what they were doing, or were struggling to cut down the film and ruined whatever rhythm it had.

3) The ensuing, and subsequent, conversations sound too much like Allen discussing "issues" with himself. I know, this happens in pretty much every Allen film, but it was never this painfully obvious. Even The Pacifier was less stilted.

4) So much talking... and so much of it is boring. Where's the wit? Must be back in the 90's somewhere.

5) Acting's much worse than Allen usually gets. Other than Will Ferrell, and a few of the supporting actors and actresses, the cast stumbles through. Radha Mitchell sulks and "emotes" all the time, while the others just sound awkward talking about classical music and theatre and dining in bistros. But I put the blame for that on the characters as much as the actors. Still, Amanda Peet is not Michael Caine or Mia Farrow (though Mitchell does kind of look like her).

6) The story's a rehash of the Mickey Sachs (Woody Allen) half of Hannah and Her Sisters, but it lacks the warmth of that film. Melinda and Melinda just ends, without ever finishing, and isn't supported enough by memorable or fresh characters to be satisfying. Most of what we find out about the characters in Melinda and Melinda is because of what they, or others, say about them. In good Woody Allen pictures, the characters are revealed and evolve because of what they do or how they react.

Uh oh... I'm rambling. But I really did dislike this film.

Thanks, I'm looking forward to diving into the book sometime soon. Any other Steinbeck you'd recommend?

Hehe. I don't think I quite agree with myself on that one, either. But I enjoyed Love Song more than a I probably should have (I blame the weather and/or my mood that day!) and wasn't impressed enough by Life Aquatic to give it a 3.0. I still think that Anderson's is a better film, but there was something endearing, in a schmaltzy fairy tale way, about Love Song. But if I had to pick a film to watch again, there'd be no hesitation. Life Aquatic.