Write about the last movie you watched (2006-2010)

[Melvil]

Failure here is, in fact, success!

I've gotta admit, it's a brilliant business model.

[Clovis8]

Failure here is, in fact, success!

I've gotta admit, it's a brilliant business model.

That's art for you!   This discussion is making me rethink my position on Funny Games and thinking it is going for the same thing as Van Sant's experimental films. Perhaps I misjudged Funny Games.

[CSSCHNEIDER]

Star Trek:  The Motion Picture

My housemates are on a quest to rewatch all the Star Trek films in order.  I had never seen this, so I jumped in.  Its not bad, really epic in its photography of the ship, but ultimately really boring.  Dozed off a few times, and thankfully my friend woke me.  I enjoyed it to a certain extent but I can't really praise it very much.

Grade B

[mañana]

The Double Life of Veronique (Kieslowski, 1991)

If The Reader is Oscar bait, then this one is Cannes bait. It’s stunning to look at and Kieslowski photographs Irene Jacob beautifully, but I dunno that kind of thing doesn’t hold my attention the way it does other people. I guess the whole metaphysical thing didn’t really turn my crank, the internet tells me it was an exploration of identity or something. Sure, I’ll buy that. Not that I need things to always be narrative driven, far from it, but for whatever reason nothing really drew me in in a big way. Anyway, it was pretty enough and there were enough good moments to get a good grade.
Grade: B-   

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (Gordon, 2007)

A second viewing. I liked it the first time, but I’m actually more impressed with it this time around. Upon the first viewing I was hung up on whether or not the subjects were being mocked, and I now think I was being way too cautious. Also the good v evil framing device, although perhaps simple, is perfectly executed. At times “Steve as the nice guy” seemed too uncomplicated; while he certainly is a nice guy, there were times when I thought he should just turn that thing off and go read to his kids or something. And it kind of felt like the film let him off the hook a bit because the makers want him to be their hero. Anyway, great movie nonetheless. 
Grade: A-

The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1928)

Close-ups! Felt far less like homework than I expected. Really beautiful but also hypnotic and completely engrossing. The last ten minutes are harrowing. I watched it with the music on, was I right or wrong to do that? 
Grade: A

[Verite]

Speaking of Gus Van Sant's Elephant, has anyone seen Alan Clarke's Elephant (EDIT: even more spare narrative-wise than GVS's) or Bela Tarr films (EDIT: specifically Damnation, Satantango, or Werckmeister Harmonies)?

[flieger]

The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1928)

Close-ups! Felt far less like homework than I expected. Really beautiful but also hypnotic and completely engrossing. The last ten minutes are harrowing. I watched it with the music on, was I right or wrong to do that? 
Grade: A

I love the final scenes. A masterclass in composition and editing. Music on? Dunno, I watched it with it off...

[Fugee]

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (Gordon, 2007)

A second viewing. I liked it the first time, but I’m actually more impressed with it this time around. Upon the first viewing I was hung up on whether or not the subjects were being mocked, and I now think I was being way too cautious. Also the good v evil framing device, although perhaps simple, is perfectly executed. At times “Steve as the nice guy” seemed too uncomplicated; while he certainly is a nice guy, there were times when I thought he should just turn that thing off and go read to his kids or something. And it kind of felt like the film let him off the hook a bit because the makers want him to be their hero. Anyway, great movie nonetheless. 
Grade: A-

That is a perfect screencap you have there. I agree with your take as well!

[mañana]

The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1928)
http://i38.tinypic.com/1z5i0lj.png
Close-ups! Felt far less like homework than I expected. Really beautiful but also hypnotic and completely engrossing. The last ten minutes are harrowing. I watched it with the music on, was I right or wrong to do that? 
Grade: A

I love the final scenes. A masterclass in composition and editing. Music on? Dunno, I watched it with it off...

It was 30 minutes in before I realized the music wasn't original, but by then I figured I'd just go with it.

That is a perfect screencap you have there. I agree with your take as well!

Thanks. I have to confess though, I didn't take the screenshot, I forgot to get some before returning it to the store so I got that one off the internet.

[Sam the Cinema Snob]

"Safe sucked.  It was so boring."
"It was supposed to be boring.  That's the whole point."
"Was it supposed to suck, too?  Because it totally sucked."
"How can you say it sucked when it totally did what it set out to do?"
"To bore the shit out of me?"
"Exactly!"
"Give me back my Twizzlers."

I knew someone was recording my conversations with myself.

[Bill Thompson]

"There is no explainable reason" is something that can be done effectively, this isn't it. If that's what he was going for, why include scenes of every stereotype imaginable for the killers? The other characters were just as badly portrayed, Van Sant putting together a collection of every high-school personality stereotype in the book. Of course they were only fodder for his little staged tragedy anyways, so there's not much to say about them.

Keith said it better than I did, but it goes back to not giving the audience what they want. But placing every stereotype imaginable on the killers he leaves the audience with no concrete reason for why they killed. That attacks their natural instinct to look for an easy label or an easy way out and thus makes them look at the situation and all those involved differently.

The other characters are handled the same way because they represent the way the general populace views high school students. However once the shooting starts GVS turns the characters around and shows why its not a smart move to buy into the stereotypes by having them act opposite of the way a movie would have them act. Nothing highlights this better than the school jock skulking through the hallways ready to pounce and save the day, but this isn't an action movie and he gets snuffed out before he can do anything. GVS is all about playing with what the audience expects and giving them the opposite, what happens after that depends on you.