Yeah, the Chicago Reader scale makes the most sense to me right now. A huge chunk of any other scale basically equates to "Nothing worth recommending", which the CR scale nicely lumps into one rating and dispenses with nitpicking. :)
I see you've retired my rating system. RIP. I think you outlasted me on that -- I stopped using it more than a year ago! :)
But it was flattering to have you use it all the same.
BTW, I think I'm in the minority with you on "There Will Be Blood" -- roughly a B is about what I'd give it as well. The film impresses me, but I just can't find my way into it. It's like the unknowable Obelisk to my unknowing ape: I stare at it and it stares back at me, but I find making a verifiable emotional connection to it impossible.
It's astonishing to look back at this list almost exactly three years after I posted it. Really goes to show how blessed we are in this age of DVD. I can check off roughly 75% of the films in this list. :O
Thought it was going to take decades...
Of course, it may take decades to see them all on film, which is the ideal.
You can give it a shot, but I doubt it. I loveI Walked with a Zombie. I initially disliked The Leopard Man, but I've significantly warmed to that one as well. I'm not the biggest Tourneur fanboy, but these three films really do it for me.
It does have a couple, thankfully, though only one that really managed to get my blood pumping like the best De Palma set-pieces. But the film as a whole seems less mobile, less kinetic, more perfunctory than what he's capable of. Picks up a little steam in its last act, but too much tepid ground has already been tread. It's not bad, but I'd warn fans to lower expectations a bit. This ain't top-drawer De Palma.
And Josh Hartnett is just horrible. De Palma, against all odds, managed to wrangle in a decent performance from Rebecca Romain-Stamos, but Hartnett seems to be beyond the touch of a good director.
Hey, an hour ain't that far! Heh. Seriously though, if you're at all a Malick fan I'd suggest taking the drive. If you're not a Malick fan, I suppose it'd be alright to wait because it's probably not going to convert you.
BTW, why is no one seeing "The New World"? I can't imagine it's going to stick around in theaters for much longer. Along with "King Kong" (and probably even moreso), it's the other movie of 2005 that absolutely demands to be seen on a huge screen.
I'm also a fan of underground-monster-movies, but I thought "The Cave" was downright awful. Dayfornight's assessment that it seems like a daytime Sci-Fi Channel flick is pretty accurate -- only difference is that it doesn't star Lorenzo Lamas (maybe he was already committed!). As far as these types of things go, another movie from last year called "The Descent" is much better. If this one got a 53, that one should be through the effin' roof.
Yeah, I couldn't complain about "Cigarette Burns" on those grounds because I've yet to see "In the Mouth of Madness". Udo's exit was truly awesome, and becomes even awesomer when you see the projected images playing out behind the conflicts in the theater, and they look like a Brakhage movie in slow-motion.
Totally. Definitely my favorite of the series so far. I haven't noticed that any have played since "Cigarette Burns" though. Is the show on haitus right now?
"The 40-Year Old Virgin" struck me as low-rent Farrelly Brothers stuff -- like the ones they produce but don't direct. I went in expecting quite a bit, especially after being very pleasantly surprised by "Anchorman", but it's really just a shit, run-of-the-mill gross out comedy. There'll probably be some people who like it more than me, but I can't see it developing any of the kind of following that "Anchorman" did. It just ain't on the same level.
About the new Eli Roth... firstly, I have to mention that it was a test screening, so there were incomplete CGI effects and distracting music cues from "The Matrix" and stuff like that, but that aside, it seemed pretty complete. And holy shit is it bad. I was no fan of "Cabin Fever" (I think I gave it a rating in the mid-30s or something), but this one is just nearly unwatchable. It's so awful that I'm inclined to think the only reason it won't be finding itself an immediate home as a straight-to-video release is because of Quentin Tarantino's name as a producer -- that's the only reason. The best part is a 15-second cameo by Takashi Miike, but even that only serves to intensify the feeling that Roth just watched a bunch of slow-burn Asian horror movies and completely fucked up in apeing them.
I could say more about it (lame gore, cheesy soft-core porn sex scenes, hideous acting), but it's ain't worth it. Eli Roth is offically on my shit-list.
Yeah, the Chicago Reader scale makes the most sense to me right now. A huge chunk of any other scale basically equates to "Nothing worth recommending", which the CR scale nicely lumps into one rating and dispenses with nitpicking. :)
I see you've retired my rating system. RIP. I think you outlasted me on that -- I stopped using it more than a year ago! :)
But it was flattering to have you use it all the same.
BTW, I think I'm in the minority with you on "There Will Be Blood" -- roughly a B is about what I'd give it as well. The film impresses me, but I just can't find my way into it. It's like the unknowable Obelisk to my unknowing ape: I stare at it and it stares back at me, but I find making a verifiable emotional connection to it impossible.
It's astonishing to look back at this list almost exactly three years after I posted it. Really goes to show how blessed we are in this age of DVD. I can check off roughly 75% of the films in this list. :O
Thought it was going to take decades...
Of course, it may take decades to see them all on film, which is the ideal.
You can give it a shot, but I doubt it. I love I Walked with a Zombie. I initially disliked The Leopard Man, but I've significantly warmed to that one as well. I'm not the biggest Tourneur fanboy, but these three films really do it for me.
Your favorite movie only gets an 89?
At a free early screening here in Los Angeles.
It does have a couple, thankfully, though only one that really managed to get my blood pumping like the best De Palma set-pieces. But the film as a whole seems less mobile, less kinetic, more perfunctory than what he's capable of. Picks up a little steam in its last act, but too much tepid ground has already been tread. It's not bad, but I'd warn fans to lower expectations a bit. This ain't top-drawer De Palma.
And Josh Hartnett is just horrible. De Palma, against all odds, managed to wrangle in a decent performance from Rebecca Romain-Stamos, but Hartnett seems to be beyond the touch of a good director.
Hey, an hour ain't that far! Heh. Seriously though, if you're at all a Malick fan I'd suggest taking the drive. If you're not a Malick fan, I suppose it'd be alright to wait because it's probably not going to convert you.
BTW, why is no one seeing "The New World"? I can't imagine it's going to stick around in theaters for much longer. Along with "King Kong" (and probably even moreso), it's the other movie of 2005 that absolutely demands to be seen on a huge screen.
I'm also a fan of underground-monster-movies, but I thought "The Cave" was downright awful. Dayfornight's assessment that it seems like a daytime Sci-Fi Channel flick is pretty accurate -- only difference is that it doesn't star Lorenzo Lamas (maybe he was already committed!). As far as these types of things go, another movie from last year called "The Descent" is much better. If this one got a 53, that one should be through the effin' roof.
Yeah, I couldn't complain about "Cigarette Burns" on those grounds because I've yet to see "In the Mouth of Madness". Udo's exit was truly awesome, and becomes even awesomer when you see the projected images playing out behind the conflicts in the theater, and they look like a Brakhage movie in slow-motion.
Totally. Definitely my favorite of the series so far. I haven't noticed that any have played since "Cigarette Burns" though. Is the show on haitus right now?
So why exactly did you hate "Kung Fu Hustle" so damn much?
That his stuff is astonishing, revelatory, and sadly ignored.
"The 40-Year Old Virgin" struck me as low-rent Farrelly Brothers stuff -- like the ones they produce but don't direct. I went in expecting quite a bit, especially after being very pleasantly surprised by "Anchorman", but it's really just a shit, run-of-the-mill gross out comedy. There'll probably be some people who like it more than me, but I can't see it developing any of the kind of following that "Anchorman" did. It just ain't on the same level.
About the new Eli Roth... firstly, I have to mention that it was a test screening, so there were incomplete CGI effects and distracting music cues from "The Matrix" and stuff like that, but that aside, it seemed pretty complete. And holy shit is it bad. I was no fan of "Cabin Fever" (I think I gave it a rating in the mid-30s or something), but this one is just nearly unwatchable. It's so awful that I'm inclined to think the only reason it won't be finding itself an immediate home as a straight-to-video release is because of Quentin Tarantino's name as a producer -- that's the only reason. The best part is a 15-second cameo by Takashi Miike, but even that only serves to intensify the feeling that Roth just watched a bunch of slow-burn Asian horror movies and completely fucked up in apeing them.
I could say more about it (lame gore, cheesy soft-core porn sex scenes, hideous acting), but it's ain't worth it. Eli Roth is offically on my shit-list.