So, nuts_score... Give me your opinion on these films:

Stone's 'Alexander'
Verhoeven's 'Starship Troopers'
Jonathan Glazer's 'Birth'

If you've seen 'em, of course...

I'll start worst to best:

Oliver Stone's Alexander:
I fondly remember the Fall/Winter season when this one came out; at the time I was an enormous Stone fan, but my favorites leaned more toward Platoon, JFK, and Nixon rather than Natural Born Killers or Any Given Sunday. So, naturally, I adore Stone when he's tackling historical subjects. Also, during the end of my high school years, I was a huge Roman and Greek history buff; partially due to my eighth grade Social Studies teacher opening my eyes with the novel Gates of Fire(chronicling the Battle of Thermopylae). Alexander the Great was one of my admired heroes of Greek history and knowing that a visualist like Stone was to tackle the story had me very excited . . . until I walked out of the cinema. Now, granted, many of the battle scenes have a visual austerity to them that may be unmatched (namely the final assault in Hydaspes) but the Guagamela felt like something out of LotR or, worse, Troy. The epicness of that battle just wasn't re-created like I had imagined. Outside of the battle scenes, the film falls as flat as Keira Knightley. The dialogue is ridden with heroic, cliched monologues that add no humanism to the character of Alexander and Colin Farrell's acting has always been atrocious in my eyes (except in The New World, but if Malick can make Richard Gere a good actor he'd have no trouble with Farrell, who at least shows some promise). All in all, one of the more disappointing affairs of the past decade (topped only by Troy) and I really wished we had seen Baz Luhrmann's more visual take on the history with Leonardo DiCaprio in the lead. And, for the record, I have not seen the director's cut nor do I plan to.

John Frankenheimer's The Island of Dr. Moreau:
There's a lot of these silly little films from the 90s that I have love/hate relationships with; this is one of them. I remember being excited by how different it looked when I was still just a young kid and I remember sneaking a viewing of the film on VHS when my parents rented it. At the time, I didn't understand the film but I loved the make-up and was really tickled at Brando's little "assistant" playing the piano. Later, as I became more of a cinephile I remember re-visiting the film as it played on cable on afternoon. It was atrocious; every aspect, from Brando's scene-chewing to David Thewlis' underuse. I couldn't even remember one thing I liked about it when I was little. Now, after I've had a good long time to look back on Frankenheimer's films, I'll admit that it's one of his most overlooked. It still really is a horrid film, but I'm under the impression that even Frankenheimer knew this but decided to run with it anyway. Still, it's always nice to see Thewlis in anything other than Mike Leigh films and Brando's freakish imp assistant is a wonderful puppet.

Jonathan Glazer's Birth:
It helped me to have seen Sexy Beast and to be familiar with his music video oeuvre before seeing this difficult film. The cast has one of my favorite character actors of recent times, John Huston's son Danny, and even Lauren Bacall; so, automatically, it has some good things going for it acting-wise (though I don't register any feelings for Nicole Kidman and I think Cameron Bright is a lame child actor). Desplat's score is mesmerizing, as always and the cinematography has a very nice light to it. The story is simple, and it could have been more effective if it was given more time to address its themes (as well as a more restrained leading lady). This is one of those few films that I wish was made by Ingmar Bergman or John Cassavetes because so much more would have been made of it.

Stanley Kubrick's The Shining:
Although not my favorite Kubrick by a long shot, this is still one of the most un-nerving films of my childhood. It scared me so much because I didn't understand it until late into my teen years when I re-visited it during my Kubrick discovery (I'm sure we all experience that in high school). It still has an immensely creepy atmosphere and Jack is acting like, well, Jack, but I think the presentation is a little too shallow for Kubrick. It might be because I'm no fan of Stephen King; but who really knows. Also, after becoming an immense, die hard Altman fan, I come away from the movie with a little more respect for Shelley Duvall's role and character; one of the more overlooked performances in the films (thanks of course to Nicholson's mastication of the celluloid).

Paul Verhoeven's Starship Troopers:
Color me blind, by I've never read Heinlein's original text, so I don't know how "on the mark" Verhoeven was with this film. That being said, this is a film I take enourmous pleasure out of; but not in a blood, guts, violence, and tits sort of way. Certainly not, this is one of the 90s best satires, and it's all done with an gigantic smirk on its face. The film excels with it over-the-top spectacle and bombast Poledouris score (one of his best, IMO); each character is draw as such a broad stereotype that it's impossible not to see them again when they appear in films like Pearl Harbor acting the exact same way that Rico and his crew do in this film; and those others call themseleves "serious cinema". I doubt it. It's so funny for me to hear the rampant criticism this one takes from the general public, who treat the film as the cheesiet piece of garbage to come down the shoot since Steven Seagal's latest STD (that's "Straight-to-DVD" by the way ); yet they fall head over heels from the latest Michael Bay garbage and shower those films with the box office they don't deserve. It's 90s excess in the same tongue-in-cheek fashion that Verhoeven delivered 80s excess in the equally entertaining RoboCop (one of my favorite films). And Phil Tippett's incredible effects work is too-often overlooked; just like his involvement in Jurassic Park.

I guess that settles it. Enjoy!

I asked for your opinion, score, because naturally I respect it, and find your thoughts interesting, as always. This group of five films, however, actually do come out of the "positive" group in my noggin'; I like every single one of them, to perhaps unhealthy degrees (given that so many people lambaste them). Just wanted to get your take.

How many times have you seen 'Alexander'? Strangely, this film won me over, and pretty quickly. I had the [mis?]fortune of viewing the film on DVD long after it suffered severe post-traumatic stress from its collective molesting of. Heck, I remember being at Blockbuster, and looking at the DVD cover; the box was so pathetic, simple, and slopped together I'm really amazed I even picked it off the shelf. Alas, though, like you, what brought the subtle energies within my hands to grab the disc was Stone's presence. Though I would never have listed Mr. LSD Nam as a favorite director of mine, the force of his filmmaking is undeniable; regardless of what film we're talking about, the man, I find, is leagues above most in simply creating a powerful filmic expression. That, combined with the inherent scope that a picture like 'Alexander' could bring, lavished me with JUST enough interest.

I remember, upon my first viewing, a few moments inparticular. The segment where young Alexander tames the horse had me in fits of anguish as Vangelis' corny synth-laden score flew high to its own unintentional raucousness. There were other scenes, none worth spending time with at length, that made me cringe. That said, these were few and far between, and I distinctly recall proudly thinking "this isn't that bad" when I realized I was pretty immersed as Alexander lay on his deathbed towards the film's conclusion.

For whatever reason, I ended up watching the film again. And again. I think I've seen the film about ten times now. Director's cut only, as I never had the opportunity to view the theatrical cut. Needless to say, the thing became somewhat of an obsession. And, indeed, it is the exact same sentiments I associated with Stone that make 'Alexander' so captivating -- he commands a film, like few directors; it is HIS vision, passionate and with utter conviction. The narrative surely hampers the film, but ultimately I just find it all a fascinating mess. Surely, there is no real drive to the story whatsoever, and the detached, unconventional feeling this brings with it is admirable; I don't think, looking back, there's anyway the film could have mustered support, because it's quasi-documentary storytelling and overall plot structure is too banal and unstimulating for Joe Schmo. Again, though, I ended up admiring this sort of collective neurosis within film, because it presents everything with a more naturalistic, uncontrived view of things.

It's pathetic I'm writing this much on a film nobody likes, and surely you must gawk with disinterest at a length dedicated to something you find so trivial. I think I'm just trying to hear myself talk. Maybe, just maybe, go watch the film again... I will say, at MINIMUM, there are individual moments that move me dearly, if not emotionally for the characters, for the sheer artistry gleaming on the screen. I must say I'm disappointed that you would even think about comparing the Guagamela battle to something as truly awful as 'Troy', but so be it. The rhythm that scene takes on is pretty fun, IMO, riding alongside Vangelis' tempo for near fifteen minutes. Very elaborately choreographed. Yes, the final battle in India is far more evocative, and within it I find several defining, individual seconds of film that are eloquent and reek of passion.

****. I'm so boring. I'm not going into instances inparticular because they're probably not too lucid for you anyway, given you don't like the film. What a waste of space, lol. Just try and see the film again.

I quit for now. Again, I do like the other four films quite a bit, and will elaborate a bit tomorrow hopefully and maybe hear some of your responses to those thoughts.

Allow me to place them in alphabetical order:

What really annoys me is that the German dubbers* obviously didn't get the satire (or they were Nazis or something), because much of the really strong bits of satire (e.g. all the "good citizen" and "bad democracy" stuff) are completely gone in the German version... thus making the human characters much more "likeable" than in the original version. Considering the intentions of the original, I find these changes somewhat... dangerous.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Southall:
I have seen two of these films.

Allow me to place them in alphabetical order:

The Shining
Starship Troopers

---

I really think 'The' should be considered the first word there. So I give you a more comprehensive alphabetical listing:

Alexander
Birth
Starship Troopers
The Island of Dr Moreau
The Shining

I have seen all but one of these films, and I can say the following:
- one of them is hoot - great fun;
- one of them is simply great - the work of a great film-maker;
- one of them is a promising mess, with one of the greatest scores written in recent years;
- one of them is just a fascinating mess, sans one of the greatest scores written in (not-so) recent years;
- the one I haven't seen has perhaps the most unimpressive soundtrack that genre has seen in some time.

I thought Farrell was strong in MIAMI VICE, nuts. Arguably better even than he was in THE NEW WORLD. The last year has helped me appreciate him a lot more as an actor. (Not that he was bad in MINORITY REPORT, ASHES AND DUST and HOME AT THE END OF THE WORLD by any means.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
Alexander
Birth
Starship Troopers
The Island of Dr Moreau
The Shining

I have seen all but one of these films, and I can say the following:
- one of them is hoot - great fun;
- one of them is simply great - the work of a great film-maker;
- one of them is a promising mess, with one of the greatest scores written in recent years;
- one of them is just a fascinating mess, sans one of the greatest scores written in (not-so) recent years;
- the one I haven't seen has perhaps the most unimpressive soundtrack that genre has seen in some time.

---

OK, OK, so let's get guessing about Franz's preferences.

Conrad's statement of this unknown flick could easily be given to any of these films... Fascinating messes.

Robert Altman's Popeye
Russell Mulcahy' The Shadow
Brian DePalma's The Black Dahlia

The Shining. I'm either thankful or not for never seeing it as a child; these days I look at the films which used to scare me to the point of painful amounts of anxiety during childhood with great admiration, even if they fail to hold up from a more adult perspective. So, thankful for the psychological anguish spared, and disappointed for never knowing how the film would have really affected the most visceral part of me that I'll never again be able to revisit wholly (unless I decide to mess with psychedelics or something at some point). It's funny, because the first time I did watch it was in mid-high school, and I wasn't that impressed after hearing so much of its iconic status. The biggest determent, at the time, was that, as you state, Jack is acting like Jack (though I'm sure this was far less a problem back in 1980), and I had a hard time buying his psychosis because all I saw was a sort of caricature. Having just watched it recently, though, I was mostly in a state of awe, because the film is one of the most hypnotic I've ever seen. Even though I'm hardly familiar with Altman's work, I so agree with your position on Duvall's performance; for what it's worth, I find it to be the pinnacle of the movie's acting (though there are moments where she doesn't fare quite as well). Have you seen the half hour long behind-the-scenes directed by Kubrick's daughter? It's one of the more compelling I've seen, if only because it's not bright and sunny; seeing Stanley at work is, obviously, humbling and such a sight, but his stern, aggressive interactions with Duvall are enlightening and caught me surprised. Truly, the experience was not a pleasant one for Duvall, and frankly it's hard to tell that the two even like each other an inkling, but what's so beautiful is that out of this animosity came what I think as one of the most accomplished female performances I've ever witnessed. As if it needs to be stated, but they are bonafide professionals.

Still, it's obvious this film is ALL Kubrick. As far as superficiality is concerned, I wouldn't argue with you, but I'm not so sure I have a problem with the matter, especially because one of my favorite aspects of the film is its deadpan straightforwardness. Frankly -- and I wonder what you finally "understood" in your adolescence -- the film's more ominous, metaphysical aspects still by and large escape me, but what I love about Kubrick's take is that it is entirely content with leaving the subject at bay, allowing the haunting, mysterious aura to envelope the more rational horrors within the landscapes therein. And it does this with such force, even if it is (for myself) rationally inscrutable. Again, reverting to the boundless imagination of the child, seeing so much through the soul of Danny (lovely performance, again) beckons that child self within me, and this makes the supernatural sphere work.

It's so stupidly obvious that this is one of the most gorgeously shot movies ever made, and in the most preciously eerie way possible. I just sit in awe, unable to turn away. The dilatory cinematography and extravagant set designs are remarkable. I just adore Kubrick's use of space here... obviously it evokes a sense of isolation, but really it's the excruciating physical, spatial intrusion that overbears and gives the more demonic forces such power. This is so brilliantly expressed in 'The Exorcist' too, which is probably my favorite horror movie, period.

OH BOY THE LONG-WINDED. I'll try to remember reading that is probably much easier and less time consuming than writing it. I love discussing this stuff, nuts, but I tell you, a part of me is so scared of sounding crudely pretentious.... I hope I don't come off like that.

To add another few bombs to the list that I find titillating:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nuts_score:
Since you've promised to return tomorrow with more energy I thought I might throw some titles at you:

Robert Altman's Popeye
Russell Mulcahy' The Shadow
Brian DePalma's The Black Dahlia

And, like always, only if you're seen them.

---

I'm a fan of Mulcahy's THE SHADOW, as I was a fan of THE SHADOW comics series from the late '80s, particularly when things were bleak, ultra-violent and completely geared towards my warped adolescent sensibilities.

The film is underrated, and at times gloriously cheesey (Lamont Cranston battling a vengeful dagger, the immortal line "Shiwan Khan has hypnotized the entire city!").

While the effects, production and costume design are all top-notch, there is a second-string feeling with the cast (yes, many talented people here, but how many ticket-buyers were really lining up for Alec Baldwin, Penelope Ann Miller, John Lone and Jonathan Winters in 1994?). There are also moments where I don't feel like the direction takes as much care as it could.

Then there's the film's uneven tone. While I enjoy a bit of humor in my films -- ultra-serious stuff bores me -- I think the audience, albeit a limited one, was confused by the frequent dashes of humor in THE SHADOW.

You can tell how Universal feels about the film too. They've never bothered to release a widescreen DVD of the film. Instead the big-screen visuals have been reduced to a TV-movie-ish 4:3 frame.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sean:
nuts, tell me what you think of something interesting, like Yor: Hunter From The Future! Where's my Royale With Cheese!?!

---

"Drinking the blood of our enemies gives us strength!"