yeah. was reading how it’s a very “scorsese” movie while on the surface wouldn’t seem so.

the voiceover is a bit obtrusive but he had already done that for goodfellas. except in goodfellas it works better— it’s spoken by a character not a narrator.

a couple of funny facts about the movie:

1. it’s about romantic frustration—scorsese dedicated it to his dad! lol.

2. carolyn farina, aka audrey rouget from “metropolitan”, has a small part in it. she didn’t act any more after that, except little bits in other whit stillman movies.

(i hate to put commas inside quotation marks that don’t belong to it. oh, english!)

btw, i should add. this came up after i saw this picture



oh yeah that’s neither of them

t t the last movie you watched
 

I dont even count the deer I have hit. Heck,, I came across a friggin herd on the UP some years back ,,put two in the grill and never even touched the brakes.,,no way with 8" snow on the road and hooked up to a loaded 5 legger. Last moose I hit was a few months ago,, I could have missed him but there was a oncoming truck in other lane. Moose previous to that ran in between my trailers All two lane highway in my area so its a shoe in you are going to put steaks on the grill. My MO,,not my truck ,,not my problem

so is that some kinda flash fiction or sumpn?

The fug?

Paranormal Activity 4

I loved the 1st one and I'm generally a fan of the franchise. This one's probably the weakest, though. Too many nods to The Shining and a slightly watered-down feel throughout. A rubbish 'ending', too. Still some decent scares along the way, though - albeit mostly of the 'jump' variety.



Plus a nice little visual tribute in The Guardian to The Scala, the best cinema in London and one where I spent a huge chunk of my youth. It probably did more to forge my taste in all things B-movies than anything else.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/gal...re-in-pictures

ZARDOZ!!!



which is my favorite 70s scifi film, because it’s great in so many ways, but also


hell yes charlotte rampling

For all its silliness, Zardoz is brilliant. One of those films I just can't imagine anyone making now.

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

it is brilliant, and people are stupid. when you read contemporary reviews people make way too much out of irrelevant stuff like “sean connery in a red diaper,” and miss on big and important ideas like the horror of utopias, the illusion of human agency, and the necessity of death for life to thrive.

i loved it, again after i dont knwo how many rewatches over decades, and my only problems with it this weekend were the length of the effects sequences (when he absorbs the knowledge, and when he fights the tabernacle, maybe were more enthralling in the 70s, just like in 2001 when he goes into the prism and theres a laser show that seems to last forever now, and maybe worked better ina 70mm screen) and then obvious ways to drive the points home with bits of hammy dialogue, like when she says trying to destroy you i became you, etc, lol. and then he replies with obvious nietzsche quote with nietzsches name at the end lmao. like we didnt see that and we needed it with a signature fo affirm its authority lololol. i laughed.

but people are stupid and need their hammy dialogue. like in lotr when legolas says “a diversion!” no shit sherlock, thanks for the dictionary definiton legolas... so even with hammy explanation tons of people still dont get zardoz. this was boorman with freedom to do what he wanted after deliverance made bank.

the comedic exchanges between friend and arthur frayn still hilarious though. very good stuff!

i like john boorman. this one and the merlin one... what was the name of it. EXCALIBUR! fuck yes. wanna catch that one soon too. epic and great. love his take on the legend.

"gun good, penis bad":D

Like you, I've watched it countless times over the years and always loved it. The red diaper stuff and the weird effects only add to its overall bonkers-ness. I see its pretentiousness, its cod philosophising, as just a symptom of its time, like a lot of prog rock from that era.

haaa haaaa ahaaa haaaaa!

the connection had not occurred to me but... yes! (i cant avoid this pun)

btw, speaking of music genres, boorman also made POINT BLANK, which is very much not prog rock hah a ha

o man i have to rewatch point blank soon


also, get carter

Watched Avengers: "Left Behind" this weekend. It was the best avengers film to me, at least most entertaining

It’s fhe best one for sure.

Second one is second best (fuck you, convention!)
First one is by far the worst and has the worst captain America costume

Boorman's filmography is all over the place. Point Blank, Deliverance, Exorcist II, Zardoz, Excalibur, Emerald Forest, etc. All they seem to have in common is they're all one offs.

hope and glory won some stuff and first time i even hear of it

leo the last won best director at cannes. wtf is leo the last?

i need to investigate this dude some. stupidly have been giving it an involutary miss because... no idea

What I meant was it's unusual for a name director to have made so many films where it's hard to recognise any unifying style or theme. You watch anything by Michael Mann or Christopher Nolan or Tarantino and within a few minutes you'd kinda know you were watching one of their films. Boorman seems more like, say, Ridley Scott: another big name director whose name tends to figure highly in the marketing of his films but where it becomes difficult to really say what constitutes a 'Ridley Scott film' (besides generally being pretty good). That's not a criticism of Boorman (or Ridley Scott) it's just unusual for a director as successful as either of them to have no apparent signature. (Not saying they don't have one but they're certainly not apparent to me).

oh i know what you meant. what i meant is i just started reading about him after your post and realized holy fuck he’s been there all the time hidden in plain sight and it’s even a director whose movies i like but now it’s dawned on me i don’t really know him. ive never searched his films i just happened to like all of them ive seen ha ha ha.

and maybe that’s the reason why.... he camouflages well!

Although he's British, he has very little profile here, although, like you, plenty of people will have seen his films. Maybe there's something in that. Ridley Scott, John Boorman, Mike Figgis, Sam Mendes and Paul Greengrass (to name just a few) are all British and have made some very successful films in Hollywood, without really establishing an identity through those films. Alan Parker has to be the ultimate for that, moving seamlessly through the likes of Midnight Express, Fame, Mississippi Burning and Angel Heart.

I know Christopher Nolan kind of bucks that trend (not to mention Hitchcock) but I get the feeling the whole idea of directors being auteurs has less significance here than it does for a lot of big name US directors. It might also explain why they get so much work. Apart from being commercially and critically successful, they tend to just get on with making a movie without getting sidelined trying to stamp their identity (or ego?) on everything they do.