comment #1

Kakihara says ...

"Coppola also announced his intention to take Twixt on the road, four-wall style, and literally play alternate versions of the film to audiences, "

Is it true Apocalypse Now had multiple endings, or was that just a joke in Pork Lips Now?

comment #2

Kakihara says ...

N/M, Wikipedia answered that question.

comment #3

Markj74 says ...

I finally saw Tetro last week and thought it was wonderful, apart from a disappointing final 10 minutes. It's nice that Coppola is actually doing what Lucas only ever talks about.

comment #4

Alexander says ...

I agree with markj; Tetro was one of my favorites of 2009 and my favorite Coppola since Apocalypse Now.

comment #5

thehumanear says ...

I saw Dan Deacon perform at EMPAC in Albany about a year and a half ago. Still ranks among the best live music performances I've ever attended. He's literally 50-75% of the reason I'll be seeing 'Twixt'

comment #6

Eddie Carmel says ...

I know it's unfair to judge by a set pic alone (cue for doing exactly what I just described as "unfair") but Fanning in that Tim-Burton-Victorian-fetish costume and Coppola looking like Psychotic 'Nam Vet Goes to Paris make me think that this film has gone off the deep end, and Michael's description of Coppola's Nosferatu hip-hop iPad remix does nothing to dissuade me.

Nevertheless, TWIXT will be an interesting film for me to remember six months after it comes out and say, "oh, TWIXT...I wonder how that was." Some films and their production buildup/marketing/trailers, such as DRIVE, THE MASTER and TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY, make me salivate to see them in such a way that I know I couldn't possibly avoid it...others, like this, are like this. I guess.

comment #7

littlebigman says ...

Did Coppola really direct all those '70s masterpieces?

He is now directing Val Kilmer.

comment #8

kingofnails says ...

Val Kilmer's character is named "Hall Baltimore," per IMDB.

comment #9

BobbyLupo says ...

"The Twixt footage suggests an unhinged student film."

So, just like his last two? Still a step up from the last time he tried "gothic horror".

The idea of constantly showing different cuts doesn't really suggest interactivity with an audience so much as either that he's lost the ability to make decisions or that he is throwing shit at the wall to see what will stick.

comment #10

Barnes78 says ...

Baby Jesus in a manger, you guys are a fickle lot. What the hell do you want (or need) Francis to do? Is there anyone else from the 70s era still moving and shaking with such unexpected tenacity dashed with a spirit of adventure?

He's doing whatever the hell he wants, exactly how he wants without giving a shit about what we, the audience, expect of him. That take balls, even now (especially now).

comment #11

Gaydos says ...

Barnes78 says ...

Baby Jesus in a manger, you guys are a fickle lot. What the hell do you want (or need) Francis to do? Is there anyone else from the 70s era still moving and shaking with such unexpected tenacity dashed with a spirit of adventure?

Answer: Yes.

comment #12

BobbyLupo says ...

"What the hell do you want (or need) Francis to do?"

Make a movie with at least one scene that isn't a shitty film school cliche. Maybe tell an interesting story. Write a second draft. It's not much to ask.

Actually, to be fair, that first one only applies to 'Tetro'. 'Youth Without Youth' is batshit crazy and incomprehensible, but it does eschew cliche just as much as it eschews character, story, and interesting things happening.

"He's doing whatever the hell he wants, exactly how he wants without giving a shit about what we, the audience, expect of him."

Whether true or not, "balls" don't inherently make for good movies. And if he's talking about four-walling and live appearances where he personally remixes the film as the audience is watching it, it's pretty clear that he *does* give a shit about the audience.

comment #13

BobbyLupo says ...

batshit crazy, I regret writing that. batshit crazy implies that it's interesting in some way, and it's not. It's not like Robin Williams at the beginning of 'Fisher King', it's more like Robin Williams during the coma sequence. Still crazy, but a lot more boring.

comment #14

LexG says ...

FANNING POWER.

Coppola's get-up in that pic is something else.

comment #15

Eloi Wrath says ...

"Is there anyone else from the 70s era still moving and shaking with such unexpected tenacity dashed with a spirit of adventure?"

Spielberg and Scorsese seem to be doing fine, and they're still making crowd-pleasers, too.

Coppola's legendary, but there's no shame in admitting he's off the ball a bit lately. That's fine, he's got nothing to prove.

comment #16

BobbyLupo says ...

FATHER GUIDO SCARDUCCI POWER!

I will admit, I like pretty much everybody in this, even that kid that looks exactly like Dicaprio from Tetro.

comment #17

Barnes78 says ...

Eh, Spielberg and Scorsese are doing....fine. I mean...I guess that's kind of accurate. Sort of. Spielberg had a much stronger decade than Scorsese, which is the elephant in the room. Marty finally won an Oscar in the decade that just may prove to be his overall weakest as a filmmaker.

The funny thing about Coppola is that you all rail against him as if he was ever (ever) anything other than the filmmaker he is today. He's by and large operating from the same mindset he's had since the 70s. Few seem to realize that, let alone admit it.

comment #18

LexG says ...

Coppola has that Friedkin issue where he had a whole decade of movies before his first massive film-geek classic, but nobody watches them, so excuse the unfortunate cluelessness about Dementia 13, You're a Big Boy Now, Rain People, and Finian's Rainbow.

BOW:

Godfather: A-plus
Godfather II: A-plus MASTERPIECE best thing ever.
The Conversation: A (Never really liked the interactive supernatural dream sequences.)
Apocalypse Now: My third favorite movie ever.
One From the Heart: B-minus
The Outsiders: CRUISE POWER BOW A.
Rumble Fish: A-plus work of art
Cotton Club: B-plus EARLY LANE LOOK AT HER.
Peggy Sue Got Marries: Blows except for Cage
Gardens of Stone: Well-intentioned, not great.
Tucker: Anybody watch this, or think of it, once since 1988?
Godfather III: A-PLUS work of GENIUS and COMEDY CLASSIC. OLIO-OLI-OLIEEEEEEEVAY! ZASA!
Dracula: MUUUUUSIC? Those ANIMALS? B
Jack: Not THAT bad.
Rainmaker: Solid, underrated, excellent. Anyone who says it's a hack job is ignoring that AWESOME part at the end where the Italian-looking father runs over to Voight and holds up that picture.
Tetro: Excellent.

comment #19

BobbyLupo says ...

No, Barnes, you're the only person who keeps insisting that his "mindset" matters. We're judging him by the movies he makes. In the '60's, he made crap. In the '70's, he made masterpieces. In the '80's, he made really solid movies. In the '90's, he was mediocre, with 'Jack' as a specific nadir. And in the '00's, he's making pretentious indie movies.

Actually, no, his mindset is completely different too. For the '80's and '90's, he was a straight director for hire, whereas now, he's doing exactly what he wants, which is what makes *these* movies more disappointing than 'The Rainmaker'.

comment #20

BobbyLupo says ...

Lex - whether you like 'You're A Big Boy Now' depends entirely on what you think of Richard Lester movies. Like them, like it.

comment #21

Eloi Wrath says ...

Barnes: I'm one of the few on HE who strongly believes that Scorsese's DiCaprio-era is as good as he's ever done. Truly believe that. At this stage, I'd far rather catch a weekend afternoon cable showing of The Departed than GoodFellas.

And Spielberg has basically never consistently been off his game. He has the occasionally oddity, like Hook or The Terminal. But he's a staggeringly consistent filmmaker across a variety of genres.

comment #22

BobbyLupo says ...

Not entirely with you on Scorsese, Eloi, but 'The Aviator' alone is better than anything Coppola has done since at least 'Rumble Fish'.

Oh, and I just noticed Lex's 'Tucker' knock -- I dig 'Tucker' a whole bunch, Lex. And, right now, it's one of the highest priced non-Criterion OOP DVDs on Ebay, so some people really do want it. I'm glad I liked it as much as I do, because I paid $5 or less and will get $40-50 for it.

comment #23

Eddie Carmel says ...

LexG, I did a total spit-take at your "COMEDY CLASSIC" line re: Godfather III. That's seriously the funniest thing I've heard all week, and has the added benefit of being true.

comment #24

Barnes78 says ...

Thank you Bobby for being the god that you are.

"The Aviator" is Scorsese's most overrated pieced of shit in the last decade, possibly his entire career.

Over the top and inconsistent performances. A script that couldn't decide what the fuck it wanted to ultimately do. It's a clusterfuck, top to bottom.

comment #25

Eloi Wrath says ...

The Aviator is brilliant. The more I see it, the more I'm convinced it will be considered one of his very best films when he dies. It's one of those rare movies that wears its style on its sleeve but also packs an incredible emotional punch. DiCaprio is legendary in that film and should have been given an Oscar for it. Utterly superb film. Hate the way it's been rebranded as some sort of misfire by internet douches.

comment #26

BobbyLupo says ...

"Thank you Bobby for being the god that you are. "

So, we're having a conversation and you disagree with my opinion and you immediately leap to being an asshole?

comment #27

Barnes78 says ...

Eloi, I never rebranded the film. It's been a misfire, for me, since day one.

DiCaprio's performance is too erratic. They do a piss poor job of aging Leo, not to mention the accent that comes and goes. On top of that, I never felt as if I were watching Hughes rather, I was watching DiCaprio act. I could see the method actor wheels a'turning with every tic, nuance, and facial expression. Also, the first forty five minutes of the film details 2-3 years of his life then quickly hits the 'fast forward' button for the next couple of decades. Alan Arkin is lamely introduced near the end of the second act all for the sake of having a confrontational third act with a villain that Hughes must overcome. Yawn.

Let's not forget that Blanchett (like too many before her) won an Oscar for an over the top impersonation as opposed to an actual character as embedded by an actor. Overrated.

comment #28

BobbyLupo says ...

Eloi - I had a friend I worked with, a black guy, who basically echoed what I believe Spike Lee said about Jamie Foxx in 'Ray', only he was talking in hindsight. (That is, "If he hadn't won, it wouldn't be racism.")

I told him Dicaprio gave a perfect, career-best performance in 'The Aviator'. He eventually watched it and agreed with me that Dicaprio could've won that year and it would not have been remotely race-based (I personally would've given Foxx the supporting actor award for 'Collateral').

comment #29

BobbyLupo says ...

"Alan Arkin"

You should probably re-watch the movie if you want to talk intelligently about it.

comment #30

Barnes78 says ...

Bobby, you're way too sensitive for such remarks. It's Saturday night, have a drink. I could have called you out for a possible condescending tone. I opted, instead, to use sarcasm. At this point, I'm not sure either tract would have worked on your end.

comment #31

BobbyLupo says ...

And I could've made fun of the fact that you pretty clearly latch on to unpopular things and react negatively to popular things without reacting to the film itself, but I thought we were having a fun conversation until you took a turn for a the douche.

comment #32

Barnes78 says ...

Sorry Bobby, ALAN ALDA. There, sorry. I get those two old guys confused all the time. Either way, the same point holds. Goodness, it's certainly for a complete stranger to bring out your condescending, arrogant tone. You should look in to that.

comment #33

Barnes78 says ...

Without reacting to the film itself? Say wha? My entire opinion of the film is a result of my reaction to the film itself. Christ, do you always assume someone's intent? Weird.

comment #34

BobbyLupo says ...

None of the rest of what you said accurately reflects the movie either, except Blanchett, who pretty obviously won because (1) she's generally great and (2) it's always a weak year for supporting actress.

Especially the way that you mistake make-up for aging and accents for acting.

comment #35

BobbyLupo says ...

You should've just said "I didn't like The Aviator because I didn't want to see the story of Howard Hughes" it would've expressed exactly the same insight you showed.

comment #36

Barnes78 says ...

"Especially the way that you mistake make-up for aging and accents for acting."

You lost me at that point. Yes, those things do comprise one's performance, for better or worse. It's either spot on perfect or it's a horrible distraction from what could be a great performance. Someone as traveled and established as Scorsese should have known that by then.

My goodness, how do you ever have a conversation of differing opinions about anything, let alone movies? None of what I said accurately reflects the movie? Is that a hardcore fact or are you so lonely on a Saturday night that you're determined to win a war of words with a stranger (which, by itself, would be fairly sad)? Just how is your opinion of a film a fact of the film itself? Odd. Again, have a drink.

comment #37

Barnes78 says ...

But I wanted to see the story of Howard Hughes? Lol. Bobby, Bobby, Bobby.

My critiques of the film are a reflection of how they chose to tell the story, not the fact that the story was told at all. What on earth, man?

comment #38

BobbyLupo says ...

Yeah, it would've been a great idea to have Dicaprio talk like Leo Dicaprio, instead of sounding exactly what everybody knows Hughes sounded like.

But I really love the way you continue to argue and yet pretend that you're above it all with "you're so determined to win the argument". Nothing of the kind. I've already lamped your lame opinion, now I'm just enjoying laughing at you. I tend to only have conversations about movies with people where there is mutual respect; once you act like an asshole, I'm done with the "conversation" part, but I do love out-assholing assholes on the Internet. It's pretty much always funny to me.

comment #39

BobbyLupo says ...

"My critiques of the film are a reflection of how they chose to tell the story"

You're right, that is funny, because the only part of what you said that deals with storytelling reads as if you're latching on to textbook-screenwriting theory to explain why the movie was objectively bad, and using screenwriting theory is especially funny in a conversation that started with you defending post-2000 Coppola movies.

comment #40

Barnes78 says ...

I wanted DiCaprio.....to talk like DiCaprio? I said that? I'm pretty sure I said his accent was inconsistent, which would be a legit distraction.

At this point, I'm not even arguing with you. On the contrary, I'm simply highlighting what I've said (again and again) as a way to point out your total misinterpretation of what I said. As it were, I didn't rear my "asshole" head until you opted to whip out the condescending tone. Then again, I understand that it's difficult for you to own up to your part in two way conversation.

On top of that, I'm not trying to...out-asshole you. You don't need any help from me to do that successfully by your own accord. Again, you disrespected my position from the outset. Simply because I didn't bow to the feet of this film and declare it an unqualified masterpiece, then I no longer had, for you, anything of value to say.

So please, carry on with your laughter. Whatever it takes to keep you entertained on a Saturday night.

comment #41

Barnes78 says ...

I was defending Coppola's films? I was praising his adventurous spirit. I don't recall praising (or even declaring "like" for any of his films). Are you sure you're even reading (and processing) the comments I've made?

comment #42

BobbyLupo says ...

"As it were, I didn't rear my "asshole" head until you opted to whip out the condescending tone."

The conversation is right there in front of everybody. At the first sign of disagreement, you responded with condescending dismissal, making it clear that you weren't interested in actually having the conversation. You then followed it up by laughably accusing *me* of not being able to handle different opinions, despite having two other simultaneous conversations in the same thread where I disagreed with people.

"Simply because I didn't bow to the feet of this film and declare it an unqualified masterpiece, then I no longer had, for you, anything of value to say. "

Again, the conversation is right here in front of everybody; you were an asshole before 'The Aviator' came up.

comment #43

BobbyLupo says ...

correction, before the disagreement over 'The Aviator' came up.

comment #44

BobbyLupo says ...

"I don't recall praising (or even declaring "like" for any of his films)."

So, somehow, in criticizing his later efforts, I was condescending your opinion enough that you decided to be an asshole, even though you now say you didn't actually express an opinion for the films, and somehow, I'm the one who's grasping at straws just trying to win an argument with a stranger?

Man, this thread is the gift that keeps on giving.

comment #45

Barnes78 says ...

Bobby,this ENTIRE fracas is a result of your choice to assume my tone of voice. It's really that simple. This is why IM interactions are so tricky and treacherous. Having this conversation in person would have been significantly different.

You made your decision of my tone, picked up the ball, and ran with it. Such is life, I suppose.

comment #46

Barnes78 says ...

Again, Bobby, I didn't praise any specific film. I was talking about his method, nothing more. The only film of Coppola's I've liked in the last twenty years is "Tetro". It's nearly a masterpiece.

comment #47

BobbyLupo says ...

Barnes in post #45: "Bobby,this ENTIRE fracas is a result of your choice to assume my tone of voice."

Barnes in post #30: "I could have called you out for a possible condescending tone. I opted, instead, to use sarcasm."

So, who's the one who read disagreement as condescension again, hmmmmm?

comment #48

BobbyLupo says ...

"I was talking about his method, nothing more."

Let's just jump back to the derailing point, where I said that we're not talking about method, we're talking about results, and you took that as condescension, for some reason.

ahem... We're not talking about method, we're talking about the films that result from the method.

comment #49

Barnes78 says ...

Bobby, you might wanna revisit comments #19 and #29 on your end to understand why I replied with sarcasm in the first place. Because, you know, it takes two sides for a disagreement to occur, not just one.

comment #50

Barnes78 says ...

Bobby, my first comment was about his method. That's what I was talking about. Why? Because Coppola's method was a part of the original post by Jeff in the first place. Eesh. You know, the mention of four-walling and live music.

comment #51

BobbyLupo says ...

Okay, fine, olive branch retracted -- I dismiss #29 because, as said, you were an asshole, so I stopped conversing and started making fun, and as for #19, again, *you* are the one who is misinterpreting tone, which has already been pointed out, so it's HILARIOUS to watch you refuse to acknowledge that while simultaneously accusing me of the same. I quite clearly did NOT misinterpret your tone, since you've already owned up to having the tone I interpreted when I decided the conversation was only worth having if I just made fun of you and your weak arguments.

comment #52

BobbyLupo says ...

"Eesh. You know, the mention of four-walling and live music. "

I honestly have no idea how this post is meant as a response to anything that has been written here, or even a summary of anything you've written previously, but, yes, Jeff did say that.

comment #53

Eloi Wrath says ...

This thread took off!

comment #54

BobbyLupo says ...

and to be clear, #52 is not sarcastic or making fun of you. I genuinely have no idea how that point has anything to do with anything you said about his mindset or his balls or his tenacity or anything. Four-walling is the mark of a director who can't get a distributor. In Coppola's case, it's because he writes a first draft, has the money to make it, and then can't find anybody interested in releasing it.

comment #55

BobbyLupo says ...

Eloi - I felt bad when I thought you'd been chased away but, hell, this thread was never meant to be about 'The Aviator' anyway. Though, for the record, I love John C. McGinley and Danny Baldwin in that movie too.

comment #56

LexG says ...

Minority opinion: I think "Bringing Out the Dead" is A-tier Scorsese. Like it better than GONY or "Aviator," both of which I think are 3.5-star flawed near-greats. I know it gets ripped for being too close to "Taxi Driver," but it's such a steamy, exhausting, erratic, gritty Spike-ish NY movie with that incredible late-night vibe and rotating cast of maniac character actors, from Sizemore to Cliff Curtis to Goodman and everyone in between, anchored by Cage in top form. I know you can't "go back home" to vintage '70s Schrader/Scorsese, but for me that one comes pretty close... Has some of the same qualities as "25th Hour" in terms of being one of the last, or should I see "most recent," movies to capture that old, anxious NYC vibe on film, like those guys' formative classics or like vintage Lumet.

Also back to Aviator: STEFANI POWER.

comment #57

BobbyLupo says ...

Lex - I find 'Dead' a little too episodic, and, for me, the reason it falls short of 'Taxi Driver' is that the build-to- and the climax itself don't feel as organic to the movie. I'd also say it's going for the pacing of 'Goodfellas', but tries to outdo that. I think the shortened timeframe is an interesting experiment, but ultimately doesn't quite work for me in this case.

But I do wish I'd seen it on a bigscreen; it's the only Scorsese film of the last 20 years which I didn't, and I'd assume it would work 20-30% better if I had. I remember a few moments of true cinema shining through that would've played well that way. It's just that, for Scorsese, if he's trying to do/outdo 'Taxi Driver' and 'Goodfellas'... well, good luck, I'll always like watching him *try*. [I do like it better than 'Gangs'.]

comment #58

Eloi Wrath says ...

Lex: 25th Hour is an astonishing masterwork, easily one of the best of the '00s. Saw it before I moved to NY and only grows in my mind since. Boasts the finest club scenes of any film, including the best ever sound mix of a club scene put to film, and also has that authentic sweaty NYC summertime feel to it.

comment #59

BobbyLupo says ...

Also, I finally got around to watching it [I believe it was my second Netflix, after 'The Missouri Breaks'] because of all the actors from 'The Wire' and 'Oz' and, goddammit, Omar's barely in it! Everytime they cut to, say, Ving Rhames, I thought, "That's fine, but where's Omar?"

comment #60

Marty Melville says ...

Count me in for The Aviator.

Featuring a movie-loving delusional-obsessive worthy of Travis Bickle, it's easily Scorsese's best film in the last decade, a bracing mix of his own low-rent, jittery, paranoid New York style married to the monied bio-pic extravaganzas of old Hollywood via Sirk and Minnelli.

comment #61

BobbyLupo says ...

"married to the monied bio-pic extravaganzas of old Hollywood via Sirk and Minnelli."

Good point -- especially well done when you think about how badly it turned out the last time he tried aping those old movies, in the film that's only notable attribute is giving the world "The Theme From New York, New York".

(Well, okay, the part where De Niro dismisses Liza's movie as "Sappy Endings" and mimes jerking off is pretty good too.)

comment #62

some_guy says ...

Lex & Eloi are right about 25th Hour; it may be the only film to really capture post 9/11 New York and America, should have been on those Best of the Decade lists the last couple years.

It's cool to still see Coppola still having far out crazy ideas. I liked Youth Without Youth and loved Tetro, and I'm glad to have him back. I'll give whatever the hell Twixt ends up being a try.

comment #63

LexG says ...

Might as well drop my take on The Aviator:

I suffer from pretty severe OCD, and have since I was a teenager-- I used to count my teeth, I repeat nonsense phrases, I check locks, stoves, the dome light in my car... When I was 14 I used to scour my hands in such hot water after touching ANYTHING that they were raw and my knuckles bloody... So all THAT stuff about Aviator is spot-on and absolutely RIVETING to me; "The blueprints, the blueprints," etc. It's also chock full of hot chicks, PLANES RULE, so all the airplane stuff is fun, DiCaprio is GREAT, Alda and Baldwin are great, there's a few moments in the back end where he's watching movies on a projector in a RED ROOM with some stop-shots that are straight out of Travis Bickle and are PURE GENIUS...

But what DOESN'T do it for me, is this whole "the GLITZ! The GLAMOR! You're gonna be a STAR, KIDDO!" reverence for OLD HOLLYWOOD that's obviously near and dear to Scorsese's heart, but speaking as someone who wants his movies to reflect MY INTERESTS AND OBSESSIONS, I'm not exactly jizzing with delight at a spot-on recreation of Katharine Hepburn's annoying cadence (Ham Blanchett) or just that whole WHAAAA, IT'S HOLLLYWOOD, HOORAY FOR HOLLYWOOD! Jazz Age camp swoon about old movie stars I don't know about. In a way, it's sort of like "Midnight in Paris," how it presupposes that my Korean War Vet Uncle is gonna be BOWLED OVER by "Why, why, WHY IT'S GERTRUDE STEIN! And ZELDA FITZGERALD!" instead of throwing his hot dog at the screen and blasting one as he storms out annoyed.... Same kind of deal in Aviator, where, being honest, I'd rather see mook pool hall fights and pimps in big '70s hats and gangsters at the Copa than the GLITZ AND GLAMOR of OLD MOVIES.

But, again, Stefani rules. And is infinitely more awesome than puggish Jean Harlow.

comment #64

Gaydos says ...

I'm going to turn you guys who are arguing with each other into HE's Joy Luck Club with my view of this fracas. Get ready for a group hug.

I just watched Stanley Donen's FUNNY FACE tonight and did some post film research and discovered (new to me only probably) that Donen never directed a film after he turned 60.

This is an absurdity, a crime, a travesty. For my money, SINGIN IN THE RAIN is a better film than any of the many terrific, but essentially non-game-changing cinematic outings you're all jostling about.

Whether you agree on that point or not, if someone can explain a defense for an industry that has NO work for a supreme master innovator genius like Donen, I'd like to hear it.

He must have watched Hollywood movies for the past 30 years thinking, "Whose barn I did to burn to stand by while all these mediocre crap masters getting their turns at bat?"

FUNNY FACE, btw, is beautiful, elegant, dazzlingly imagined in purely visual terms and clearly influenced a whole bunch of filmmakers, including Almodovar.

I'm going to watch it again tomorrow and just ordered a Donen bio to try to figure out why Hollywood so often sends its great directors out on gardening leave while consistently employing hacks who will never deliver a minute of cinema worth a warm pitcher of spit.

It's a murder mystery worthy of Chandler.

comment #65

BobbyLupo says ...

It's a reasonable comparison, Lex, but I would argue the difference there is that 'Midnight in Paris' depends upon actual knowledge of Stein, Hemingway, et al, maybe not to fully enjoy it, but to really understand many of the scenes. I mean, I can't imagine somebody who doesn't know who Dali is getting most of the jokes in the Dali scene, for instance.

In 'The Aviator', the glitz and glamor -- which is what's actually important there -- will get through to the audience pretty easily, and whatever details they actually need to know are explained in context. The exception might be Jude Law as Errol Flynn; it's not important who he's playing, and I don't think it's all that established, but he's in it so quickly that I know a lot of people were distracted, like "Why is Jude Law there?" instead of the only slightly better "Who is he even supposed to be?"

Except for the affectation with the colors. I'll give you that one for free even though you didn't bring it up.

comment #66

LexG says ...

Now I'm all sorta stoked to watch The Aviator again... and I can't find it anywhere in my collection, and cannot remember if I ever bought it or not, even after it was 9.99 at Best Buy. Heh, no bullshit, I DO have a copy of "The Aviator," but it's the Christopher Reeve/James Ivory one, which I bought at the *supermarket* like five years ago for six bucks, then never opened.

Just don't anybody try to talk up "Kundun" as some great, hidden Scorsese gem.

And long as this is so, so far off the rails: Being TOTALLY HONEST, if you guys were under a polygraph, you don't think Elle Fanning is pretty much the awesomest thing to ever be awesome? In Somewhere and Super 8, she's SO OBVIOUSLY, PAINFULLY OBVIOUSLY so destined to be a massive IMMORTAL MEGASTAR. Just saying, if you could pull a Tom Hanks in "Big," you wouldn't kinda hope you landed in Fanningville?

comment #67

BobbyLupo says ...

Gaydos - it's not entirely fair (if only because of 'Charade'), but when your nickname is "The King of the Hollywood Musical", and the Hollywood Musical dies, you're going to have trouble getting work. Dude had enough money that he didn't feel the need to grovel for more work from people 20 (now 40) years younger than him who had no understanding of craft, I can respect that. (I would argue that, in a way, it's sadder that, say, Lumet or Altman never made enough Fuck You money and had to keep working until they died... but, in another way, I'm glad to have as many Lumet and Altman movies as possible.)

Nobody (I hope) would hold any of the films mentioned in this thread up to 'Singin' in the Rain', except for maybe a few of those that were alluded to briefly. I read that book that came out a few years back, and I have a vague memory that Kelly didn't like Donen getting co-director credit, which I imagine wouldn't have helped, since Kelly was a Star.

comment #68

BobbyLupo says ...

If Kundun were a Terence Malick movie, a lot more people would accept that it's great. The thing is, to me, the fact that it's a Scorsese picture, that he's capable of that (in between 'Casino' and 'Bringing Out the Dead', no less, basically polar opposites of Kundun), makes it even better.

But it's not exactly "enjoyable", and, like 'Thin Red Line' (Lex, I seem to remember you expressing the same exact way I feel about TTRL), I'm not sure I'd risk upsetting that one viewing by watching it again. I feel like it has most of the positive aspects of 'Last Temptation', but Scorsese is able to stay detached and make better decisions because it's not *his* religion.

comment #69

BobbyLupo says ...

to give a little more response, Lex, I was raised an atheist. With that in mind, I've always been extremely interested in faith, especially the question "How can intelligent people have religious faith?" Just because it makes no sense to me at all.

So here's a movie where an intelligent guy full of faith makes a movie about a very intelligent guy even more full of faith, and he's such a good filmmaker -- if you will, a prodigy of making things cinematic -- that he manages to express those ideas in filmic ways that should be impossible. Well, I was swept away and completely fascinated. So much so that I don't see how a second viewing could possibly improve the film as it is in my head, even to this day.

comment #70

LexG says ...

Agree with all that, having been raised a FIRE AND BRIMSTONE, "You will BURN IN HELL" Catholic before wisely choosing Atheism in my 20s...

But face it, Last Temptation is about all the shit I grew up learning, all full of relatable actors like Keitel, Dafoe, and David Bowie...

and "Kundun" is a bunch of Chinese guys talking about some bullshit that isn't real.

comment #71

BobbyLupo says ...

Well, Tibet being taken over by China, how people deal with faith in an increasingly faithless world (as represented by Mao), these things certainly are real.

From another perspective, neither one is "real". The key difference between the two then becomes that Scorsese can't look at 'Last Temptation' as objectively, because he still is a fairly devout Catholic. 'Kundun' has the advantage (from an atheist perspective) that he actually doesn't believe it's real and, no matter how much respect he treats it with, he can't quite commit to the religious side itself being real. Which, in turn, is what worked better about it.

There's another problem I had with 'Last Temptation'... similar to 'The Passion', though it doesn't go as far as that... Christian filmmakers making movies about Christ have a problem with translating their stories to the masses, presumably because they have known the stories for so long that they don't realize that not everybody does. Things happen a certain way that doesn't make sense but, hey, that's the way it is in the Bible (or, in Gibson's case, some crazy nun's interpretation of the Bible). It would be comprable to making a movie about the X-Men and never explaining what being a mutant is because, after all, those comics have been around for so long that *everybody* knows that. There's a lot in that movie where, if you know The Bible, then you see Polyfarias in the desert in his goofy hat or whatever, and you know exactly who he is and what he's doing there and what (possibly even iconic) scene is about to happen.

That is to say, it's easier for me as a viewer to relate to Scorsese's perspective on 'Kundun' than his perspective on 'Last Temptation'. I can understand intellectually why certain things would have power for people who were raised in the faith, but to me, a lot of the middle of that movie was kind of a slog. The last 20 minutes is probably better than anything in 'Kundun' (the only thing that comes close is the Mao scene), but, as a whole, 'Kundun' worked better on me.

comment #72

Rashad says ...

I love Scorsese's past decade sans The Departed. I'd put them up with any of his films.

Bobby is spot-on about Coppola. Making movies he wants is all well and good, but so are dozens of other filmmakers. If you're making crap, it doesn't matter your mindset in it, it's still crap.

comment #73

BobbyLupo says ...

Wow, agreeing with Rashad!

I mean, I think that Uwe Boll has a fantastic mindset about making films. Ed Wood seems to have had the right idea too (he also liked fourwalling later in his career). On the flip side, James Cameron has a terrible mindset, as far as I can tell. But, of the three, Cameron makes the films that are objectively the best (whether you want to argue against them or not).

comment #74

Gaydos says ...

bobbylupo, all good informed points. i really like many of donen's other films and "funny face" seems so much more than a musical, but far far ahead of its time as cinema so probably didn't get him the street cred it should have provoked. i just marvel at the amount of attention focused on directors who have nothing to add and who serve as studio functionaries when the visionaries, in so many cases, are sitting home waiting for the phone to ring. i think king vidor was in mid sixties when the whole show ended for him. and he made the crowd and big parade etc. altman and lumet loved their gigs. they were both exactly like my own father: no retirement planned or wanted. or to quote another exiled filmmaker, tho one who did everything in his power to put himself in exile, sam peckinpah: "Kick back to what?"

comment #75

olivia says ...

I dont know what to say. This blog is fantastic. Thats not really a really huge statement, but its all I could come up with after reading this. You know so much about this subject. So much so that you made me want to learn more about it. Your blog is my stepping stone, my friend. Thanks for the heads up on this subject.
Cheap Supra Shoes

comment #76

Tina Jones says ...

Also, I finally got around to watching it [I believe it was my second Netflix, after 'The Missouri Breaks'] because of all the actors from 'The Wire' and 'Oz'

Thanks..
Tvshowdls

comment #77

mulberry handbags says ...

Thanks! I love your information very much.
mulberry bags
mulberry outlet
mulberry handbags
mulberry alexa
mulberry sale
mulberry uk
alexa bags
mulberry bayswater

comment #78

hermes bags says ...

Thank you! I like your information so much.
hermes bags
hermes handbags
hermes shop
hermes outlet
hermes sale
hermes birkin
birkin bag
hermes birkin bag
birkin hermes
hermes birkin price

comment #79

mulberry bags says ...

Thank you for sharing it! Now I am sharing this:
mulberry bags
mulberry handbags
mulberry bags sale
mulberry bags uk
mulberry bags outlet
designer bags
mulberry alexa
mulberry alexa bag

comment #80

dr dre beats says ...

Thank you for sharing it! Now I am sharing this:
beats by dre review
beats by dr dre
monster headphones
monster beats sale
beats headphones
dr dre headphones
monster beats outlet
monster beats by dr. dre
monster beats by dre
monster beats studio
beats by dre studio
beats studio red

comment #81

cheap jerseys says ...

Thanks for your sharing!
cheap jerseys
cheap jerseys online
cheap jerseys wholesale
wholesale jerseys china
nfl jerseys china

comment #82

dr dre beats says ...

I love this, thanks for sharing it. I think you will like these :
beats headphones sale
monster headphones
dr.dre headphones
monster beats headphones
beats by dr dre
monster lady gaga
beats studio review
red studio

comment #83

alberto783 says ...

Could it be disappointment in our Administration Could it be possibly that some dont have a taste for the problems we are having with Government illegals and states going bankrupt b and you forfait sans engagement forfait illimite forfait sms illimite forfait internet forfait bloque rio orange rio orange rio sfr rio bouygues rio virgin forfait bloque calcul imc

comment #84

flyboots says ...

for us is what could have been been Coach Purses Outlet been ... who would look in their chimney for a missing child. ... We kind of can have humor in
now because it turned out well."Surgeon Amputates Patient's Penis Without Permission