[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Purely out of interest, do you like Cronenberg's early horror stuff? Rabid, Shivers, stuff like that. Just that I love those but can't stand his more recent stuff so I'm wondering if it's a vice versa thing for people who like what he's doing now.

oh, damn, i love his early stuff, i've even watched stuff he did for canadian tv and found it excellent ("the italian machine"), and would watch his stuff from the 60s if i could but it's hard to find.

the first thing of his i didn't like was "spider"--- i even fell asleep i think. maybe i didn't understand what he was mumbling or something. but anyway, that's my only "wtf?" experience with his work.

the thing that rabid, the brood, scanners or videodrome had in common is that they were a) cheaply made, and b) written by cronenberg himself. so you're watching cronenberg by cronenberg and the productions have this sort of guerrilla feel that tells you "hey, outsiders can make movies too." it's kind of punk in this sense. but he's just gotten so good at it now that you can't tell his french/german films from his hollywood work. he still works very cheaply, his crew is amazing that way, and it's the same crew since the 80s.

i like that he's not afraid of using other people's material though, which he has done more as he got older. any writer has obsessions that get repeated over and over (many painters too), so i don't want to watch cronenberg make 20 versions of the same movie, like the guy in that wim wenders movie who can't stop watching his own dreams.

opening up to other writers has bproduced great work and has made him continuously interesting for me. he can hide his own obsessions behind other people's, and this adds more layers instead of being always the same shit (which is good shit, just, doesn't have to always be the same). it's like cloning yourself vs. having children-- yes, the children all are different, and some take after their mother, or their father, or are an even mix, but none are the same.

i don't see his progressive refinement as a bad thing or a betrayal of his principles-- yes he's no longer 30 and he doesn't have to make movies on a shoestring, but he does what he can with what he has and is very conscious about every detail of his work. to me he's one of the few people who has made time their ally and keeps getting better with age. his level of craft is simply extraordinary. in a world of hacks who do things for all the wrong reasons, he remains a true artist.

[Rob Instigator]

Me and the wifey were killing time until the new Mad men yesterday and so we watched this

 

It was a lot different from how it was marketed. I remember in 1992 this was being sold as a laugh a minute romp with Joe Pesci, but it is a lot more serious and heavy than that. I give it 7/10. My wife said it seemed like a tribute to a lot of good actors who were no longer getting quality roles in '92. That is a good way to describe it. Not bad though.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

oh, damn, i love his early stuff, i've even watched stuff he did for canadian tv and found it excellent ("the italian machine"), and would watch his stuff from the 60s if i could but it's hard to find.

the first thing of his i didn't like was "spider"--- i even fell asleep i think. maybe i didn't understand what he was mumbling or something. but anyway, that's my only "wtf?" experience with his work.

the thing that rabid, the brood, scanners or videodrome had in common is that they were a) cheaply made, and b) written by cronenberg himself. so you're watching cronenberg by cronenberg and the productions have this sort of guerrilla feel that tells you "hey, outsiders can make movies too." it's kind of punk in this sense. but he's just gotten so good at it now that you can't tell his french/german films from his hollywood work. he still works very cheaply, his crew is amazing that way, and it's the same crew since the 80s.

i like that he's not afraid of using other people's material though, which he has done more as he got older. any writer has obsessions that get repeated over and over (many painters too), so i don't want to watch cronenberg make 20 versions of the same movie, like the guy in that wim wenders movie who can't stop watching his own dreams.

opening up to other writers has bproduced great work and has made him continuously interesting for me. he can hide his own obsessions behind other people's, and this adds more layers instead of being always the same shit (which is good shit, just, doesn't have to always be the same). it's like cloning yourself vs. having children-- yes, the children all are different, and some take after their mother, or their father, or are an even mix, but none are the same.

i don't see his progressive refinement as a bad thing or a betrayal of his principles-- yes he's no longer 30 and he doesn't have to make movies on a shoestring, but he does what he can with what he has and is very conscious about every detail of his work. to me he's one of the few people who has made time their ally and keeps getting better with age. his level of craft is simply extraordinary. in a world of hacks who do things for all the wrong reasons, he remains a true artist.

You make too good a case for me to even attempt any kind of counter argument. I suppose it's just a prejudice on my part. I like Cronenberg's earlier stuff because I have a soft spot for those kinds of movies generally, so it's probably less about liking one Cronenberg era over another. And he's certainly a filmmaker I respect (perhaps more now than ever - for reasons you cover) even if I'm not really into what he's currently doing.

 

3:10 to Yuma (orig)

I think I mentioned this earlier on the thread but just rewatched it. A simple but brilliant Western. Far better than the recent remake.

[uhler]

 

Just finished rewatching that gem.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

And he's certainly a filmmaker I respect (perhaps more now than ever - for reasons you cover) even if I'm not really into what he's currently doing.

if you can, get the dvd for videodrome and watch the whole thing with the commentary track on. same thing with crash. same thing with existenz or everything he does. he's fucking great. really, give it a try. will blow your mind. he's an incredibly smart guy.

Originally Posted by uhler

Just finished rewatching that gem.

uhler? damn! back from the dead??

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

if you can, get the dvd for videodrome and watch the whole thing with the commentary track on. same thing with crash. same thing with existenz or everything he does. he's fucking great. really, give it a try. will blow your mind. he's an incredibly smart guy.

I don't need convincing of Videodrome, which I love. I'm less convinced by Crash or Existenz, though, so I'll give them another go - via the DVD commentaries, as you suggest. I suppose my general thinking on Cronenberg is that he was a raw talent with some spectacularly great ideas but not a great director. As such, I started losing interest in him when he started moving in a direction where his limitations as a filmmaker started to reveal themselves. But then it's obvious, given the films I gravitate towards (simple, largely action-based stuff) that Cronenberg's more recent output would largely leave me cold.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I don't need convincing of Videodrome, which I love.

yes, but it's not about convincing you that videodrome is great-- it's that the commentary track on it is so fucking excellent! it's a real pleasure to listen-- it's like, i don't know, remember sitting at the lectures of your favorite university professor? except that he's an artist and not a philosopher. like that.

[tesla69]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I'm less convinced by Crash or Existenz, though, so I'll give them another go -.

Jeez, how could you not like Existenz, Jennifer Jason Leigh at her most luscious...

[demonrail666]

It's cool; I know you're not trying to convince me of anything. I generally love DVD commentaries and can think of numerous occasions where they've swayed me towards a film I've previously not been fond of (Planet Terror being only the most recent instance). There's actually very few films I consider beyond the pale, and my default setting is that I always want to like whichever film I watch, so anything that increases that likelihood is most welcome.

[EVOLghost]

 

I thought commie Superman would be a bit cooler....but...nah...much like the American superman....THough I loved this...uhh...."animated comic". Anyways....a few plots holes(braniac and the shrinking of a Russian city)... unless I missed something(I did fall asleep halfway through and finished later on that night). The end also reminded me why I love Superman so fucking much.

[Rob Instigator]

my car broke down yesterday (cracked radiator) and I had to take it to the shop. while I waited for thr repair work at home I watched this cuz I really liked Pitch Black.

 

I give it a 6/10. There were parts I liked a lot, and parts that were inexplicably WHA?????? Good for an afternoon trying to de-stress after a shit morning.

[sonic sphere]

 

[Dr Chocolate]

we watched THE ROOM in blu-ray the other day
it still just as bad as its always has
but damn, look at all those spoons!!

[Torn Curtain]

 

2/10

One of the worst films I've ever seen, vacuous and visually ugly, it's so bad it's not saved by Depardieu's good acting. WTF with the Adjani scenes (which are supposed to be reminiscent of Godard and especially Pierrot le fou I guess, at the very least Pierrot le fou was visually amazing...).

[Rob Instigator]

 

Not that good. 3/10

wish it was more hardcore.

(EDIT) - Changed it from a 5 to a 3/10 It was really stupid scientifically. REALLY stupid. anyone else seen this piece of shit?

[dale_gribble]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

 

Not that good. 3/10

wish it was more hardcore.

(EDIT) - Changed it from a 5 to a 3/10 It was really stupid scientifically. REALLY stupid. anyone else seen this piece of shit?

i liked it, but i'm not as educated about science as you and i'm also not a harsh movie critic in general.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

 

Not that good. 3/10

wish it was more hardcore.

(EDIT) - Changed it from a 5 to a 3/10 It was really stupid scientifically.

Have you seen Looper? I didn't take much notice of the science but a friend of mine who's into that kind of thing says it drove him insane. I'll have to ask him what he thought of Prometheus. I quite liked it but, like dale gribble, tend not to really pick up on the scientific details.

[keep poppin pimples]

i didn't like prometheus very much either

[LifeDistortion]

I saw Prometheus recently as well, I never caught it in theaters because it seemed so divisive with fans. Having seen it now I can understand how some could love it, and some could hate it for what it is. I certainly don't want to give anything away, all the online movie people I check out were purposely vague about how this movie connects with the "Alien" series, so I feel like I should respect that for those who haven't seen it.

[evollove]

Promethueus made no sense.

Or I'm stupid.

Who was the guy at the beginning? Was that Earth? Why did the spacecraft leave a poison on the side of a cliff? Or did it? What the fuck??

Already I was lost. After a while I forgot about the "plot" and just wanted to see monsters eat up humans.

That self-surgery scene was fucking awesome, however.