The Cronenberg Thread

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Because there is not yet a thread with the general purpose of discussing Cronenberg, in general. Or of Picking Only Five. Or anything of the sort.

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:09 (7 years ago) Permalink

Let's begin with The Fly, shall we? Cronenberg says it's his meditation on aging and the strange decay of the human body, though "meditation" may be laying it on a bit thick. Still, there are so many good things about this movie. Goldblum is as good as he's ever been, nerdy and nervous at first, then scary but cracking wise to the bitter appendage-sprouting end. Geena Davis is serviceable enough -- I wonder if they cast her because she was a good match in height? The big effects date badly -- the emergence from the skin at the end looks like rubber, and the vomit-on-the-hand thing is the same cheese effect used for face-melting in Indiana Jones. But it's the details that get you. The hair coming out of the wound. The oozing fingertips. The vomiting. You're thanking the heavens they don't actually show him "eating." It's all the little stuff that adds up to one of the most genuinely icky movies I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of other Cronenberg, so that's saying something.

His best? I dunno. Discuss.

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

nah, it is pretty great though. i thought i'd heard he said the fly was about how in a love affair one person always turns into a monster. and of course the reading at the time was 'it's about aids'.

― j blount (papa la bas), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:16 (7 years ago) Permalink

I haven't seen enough to really determine. But Spider and eXistenZ = duddy McDudDud. Videorome has some great moments but does have some problems aging.

― Jeff-PTTL (Jeff), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:16 (7 years ago) Permalink

I'm going to shock everyone by saying that Existenz is probably the one I enjoy the most.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:17 (7 years ago) Permalink

i thought i'd heard he said the fly was about how in a love affair one person always turns into a monster.

I bet he did say that. I love the romance angle of The Fly as well.

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:18 (7 years ago) Permalink

POV CRONENBERG!!!

shivers
videodrome
scanners
fast company
dead ringers

― j blount (papa la bas), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:22 (7 years ago) Permalink

In order:

Existenz
Naked Lunch
The Fly
Scanners/Brood (tied)
Spider
Dead Zone
Rabid
Shivers
Dead Ringers
Crash

Never seen Fast Company so that's excluded. Crash is the only actual real bad movie of the lot, but he's also never made a truly great film either.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:23 (7 years ago) Permalink

Totally forgot Videodrome. That's after Naked Lunch, but before the Fly.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:23 (7 years ago) Permalink

I haven't seen Shivers! Netflix ahoy.

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:27 (7 years ago) Permalink

eXistenZ = duddy McDudDud

Thank you. Not to mention the storyline is just a re-hash of Videodrome.

Scanners is his best, and Crash is underrated. Okay, so it's not a great film, but I can't think of any better way for the translation from the book.

― Sasha (sgh), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:29 (7 years ago) Permalink

That's damning with faint praise.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:30 (7 years ago) Permalink

Well then why translate the book? The book was a pretty pointless exercise to begin with, if you ask me. Which you didn't.

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:31 (7 years ago) Permalink

It's definitely one of my least favorite Ballard books from that era. I'm kind of surprise no one has tried to do Concrete Island or High Rise which both strike me as much more cinematic (and obv miles better to boot.)

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

haha i really didn't care for his naked lunch so never bothered with crash. i prefer his earlier, funnier films.

― j blount (papa la bas), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

I think the film actually is... enjoyable. I've watched it a couple of times and will probably watch it again. James Spader is great in it.

― Sasha (sgh), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

My five, which may change as I read this thread and see more of them:

Dead Ringers -- has its probnlems, sure, but also has Jeremy Irons.
Naked Lunch -- it's a rare horror/sci-fi director that gets the kind of performances from his actors that he gets out of Peter Weller in this. Spot-on, funny, and... just fuckin' great.
The Fly -- See above.
The Dead Zone -- Walken!
Spider -- I loved this movie. Also had the pleasure of seeing it in a theater with a fussy five-year-old, upon which others in the theater started shouting at the mother. "This is not a movie for kids!" Beautiful.

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

It's definitely one of my least favorite Ballard books from that era.

Agreed. You know what would make a great movie? War Fever.

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:38 (7 years ago) Permalink

Oh, man, that ending. Just picks up the gun. Nothing to do but go kill. Would anyone make this movie?

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:40 (7 years ago) Permalink

i hear spider was pretty great - should i definitely see it?

― j blount (papa la bas), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:41 (7 years ago) Permalink

Definitely.

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:42 (7 years ago) Permalink

A lot of his short stories would translate well into films. As would probably his last three novels. Cocaine Nights and Super Cannes expecially, seeing as they paint such a good visual image throughout.

― Sasha (sgh), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:42 (7 years ago) Permalink

And I reckon Cronenberg would be the best director for his stuff.

― Sasha (sgh), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:44 (7 years ago) Permalink

i like him so much i will be a bit upset if someone says he sucks. 'rabid' was kind of shit tho

― franken-vader, Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:51 (7 years ago) Permalink

i think that crash is brilliant--a conflation of machine and flesh that continues and expands his themes (which are the themes of all of us--it takes the la of five ecologies and turns it on), that is isolating, slick, beautiful, erotic, well versed and morally complicated.

i think it is the best film formally he has made

― anthony, Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:56 (7 years ago) Permalink

Ugh Cocaine Nights is terrible. No one should direct that.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 03:59 (7 years ago) Permalink

xpost
Did you really find it erotic, though?

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 04:00 (7 years ago) Permalink

Formally, yes. Sexually, no.

― Just Kidding (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 04:01 (7 years ago) Permalink

actually thats a perfect answer

― anthony, Tuesday, 24 May 2005 04:07 (7 years ago) Permalink

I don't know what "formally erotic" means, but I do understand why it's the perfect answer. May also explain my disconnect from the movie.

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 04:08 (7 years ago) Permalink

Ebart: "Cronenberg has made a movie that is pornographic in form, but not in result. Take out the cars, the scars, the crutches and scabs and wounds, and substitute the usual props of sex films, and you'd have a porno movie."

So, yes. Ebert liked it way more than I did, though.

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 04:12 (7 years ago) Permalink

I thought Spider was a total z. At least Crash was unintentionally funny. I find the stuff really entertaining but I think the 80s were his peak - charismatic leads help make his style a little less starchy.

POV:
Dead Ringers
Dead Zone
Scanners
Videodrome
The Fly

I really want to see Shivers.

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 04:54 (7 years ago) Permalink

That should be I find the early stuff

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 04:54 (7 years ago) Permalink

shivers is great, like if romero directed an orgy flick

― j blount (papa la bas), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 04:58 (7 years ago) Permalink

Oh, and Howard Shore music scores for Videodrome, Crash & Scanners... FUCKING CLASSIC.

― Sasha (sgh), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:03 (7 years ago) Permalink

yeah I saw a lot of clips of Shivers on an IFC documentary about horror films back in 2000 (I turned 21 that October, freaked out and spent every weekend eating pizza and watching tons of Craven, Romero and Cronenberg films on the station - all hosted by Tom Savini!) and it looked terrific.

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:09 (7 years ago) Permalink

charismatic leads help make his style a little less starchy

Not that I find his style starchy -- more like gooey (ha) -- but as the Star Wars threads (and esp. movies) have reminded me, it doesn't just take a good actor to be a good actor. It takes a relatively decent filmmaker as well. Th fact that Cronenberg consistently gets such good actors and such good stuff out of them is a testament to his ability to work with actors, and that's a laudable talent. Makes the movies better for all of us. A round of applause, please, for Goldblum in The Fly and Irons in Dead Ringers and even Jude Law in eXistenZ. Cronenberg doesn't always give these guys top-shelf material to work with, I won't argue that, but he apparently gives them the room to actually *act* in movies that are not perfect, and that's good direction.

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:10 (7 years ago) Permalink

apparently cronenberg's gonna make a movie out of london fields - i'm quite curious about this!

― j blount (papa la bas), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:11 (7 years ago) Permalink

You're kidding. I need a link.

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:15 (7 years ago) Permalink

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0404207/ - admittedly just 'announced', with no status update for over a year so, hmmm, maybe not so likely to happen. i'd see that movie for sure though.

― j blount (papa la bas), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:29 (7 years ago) Permalink

Oh, I could have looked that up myself. I was hoping for an article.

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:31 (7 years ago) Permalink

Holy shit a DC London Fields would be NICE.

― David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

Yes. Yes it would.

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:38 (7 years ago) Permalink

I can't tell if its a shame or not that he never got to do Basic Instinct 2. It almost happened!

― miccio (miccio), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:39 (7 years ago) Permalink

If he'd done the first one, it would have been a great movie. It almost was anyway, but it lacked any subtext whatsoever.

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:44 (7 years ago) Permalink

TS: verhoeven vs. cronenberg

― j blount (papa la bas), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:47 (7 years ago) Permalink

Holy shit a DC London Fields would be NICE.

It COULD be, depending on many, many things. At least the very thought doesn't make me want to die like pretty much any other director on this shit would.

― box of socks, Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

I love every Cronenberg movie I've seen but The Brood is my favorite. I made my girlfriend watch it and not only was she totally creeped out and disturbed but shortly after that she became pregnant. We have a good laugh about that now and then.

I always feel compelled to compare Cronenberg to David Lynch and as much as I admire Lynch, I think Cronenberg is much more successful at doing the same types of things Lynch attempts. For example while Lynch flirts with bad acting, camp, b-movie conventions, and general awkwardness, Cronenberg seems to operate in that territory quite naturally. He kind of skirts a thin line between the arthouse and schlocky failure that I find very exciting. Where other directors working in a similar vein might come across as too clever and knowing, Cronenberg manages to make movies that can be truly confounding and get the most intense reactions out of people.

So anyway, I think he's very underrated. Crash and Naked Lunch in particular are quite underrated. Total classic.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:53 (7 years ago) Permalink

I forgot to mention: search his appearance in the film Last Night.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:56 (7 years ago) Permalink

At least Crash was unintentionally funny.

Really? Unintentionally?

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 05:57 (7 years ago) Permalink

Doesn't matter if you're describing Crash as "funny" or "unintentionally funny," you're still missing the point.

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 06:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

Here I am again, defending a movie I don't even like.

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 06:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

I've never read the book so I'll admit I'm probably missing the point. Still, it's a great film on its own merits.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 06:17 (7 years ago) Permalink

Don't taunt me like that. It's own merits are not great, so... you can grok the rest of my arguments from there.

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 06:20 (7 years ago) Permalink

What is your argument exactly? Crash is not great because you didn't like it and people who enjoyed it are missing the point? Finding humor in the movie is wrong because... why exactly? If the humor was intentional it betrayed the source material? Or if was unintentional then it's not worth enjoying? I'm not trying to taunt you but I'm curious what someone who otherwise likes Cronenberg would have against Crash (other than deviation from the source).

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 06:27 (7 years ago) Permalink

Now you've really lost me. You though it was supposed to be funny?

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 07:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

I mean, if you thought it was intentionally funny you did not see hte same movie as I did. If you though it was unintentionally funny ... well, I don't quite know what to think about that.

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 07:40 (7 years ago) Permalink

POV Cronenberg:

Shivers
Naked Lunch
Videodrome
ExistenZ
Dead Ringers

I like Crash and The Fly, too, and Scanners (although I was anticipating the head-blowing-up scene too much to really appreciate much else of the film).

― emil.y (emil.y), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 10:38 (7 years ago) Permalink

Best Cronenberg moment ever might be in Scanners when the main character is ambushed in the artist's barn-studio and his psychic counter-attack is portrayed as the most ridiculously hammy head swing and grimace into the camera. It looks like a castmember of Fame playing "tough".

― Dan I. (Dan I.), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 10:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

Crash and Fight Club are amazing fetish movies.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 14:51 (7 years ago) Permalink

What, no mention of DC's star turn in Friday The 13th: Space Travel Sucks? FOR SHAME!

I'm not the biggest fan of Crash, but I think a lot of that has to do w/ the subject matter (and the portrayal of it) (the fierce unyielding atavistic obsession the characters have re: the fetish), so I'm thinking the movie worked really well. I'm thinking "atavistic obsession" could summarize DC's career succinctly.

― David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 14:57 (7 years ago) Permalink

"last night"!

― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 16:04 (7 years ago) Permalink

New DVD of Dead Ringers June 7.

― slightly more subdued (kenan), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 16:07 (7 years ago) Permalink

scanners
dead ringers
videodrome
dead zone
crash

the only other director who can finesse some of the same essence out of a scenario the way that he can is nicolas roeg. they're working in two different arenas, in general, but both are adept at channeling the anxiety of being an awkward fleshy thing with a brittle skeleton beneath, and i very much like the endings in their films. and the beginnings middles and rests too.

ok, strike the only out of that sentence. i hate that kinda talk.

― firstworldman (firstworldman), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 16:43 (7 years ago) Permalink

i already have the previous criterion edition of dead ringers, is this the same thing just reissued or a whole new DVD with new features?

― latebloomer: B Minus Time Traveler (latebloomer), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 16:52 (7 years ago) Permalink

anyway firstworlddude otm

― latebloomer: B Minus Time Traveler (latebloomer), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 16:53 (7 years ago) Permalink

DVD Features:

* Commentary by Jeremy Irons
* Behind-the-scenes featurette
* Cast/filmmaker interviews and filmographies
* Dead Ringers Psychological Profiler (menu-based quiz)
* Theatrical trailer

ok, i see. still im not gonna need to buy this. the criterion edition from a few years back has much better features.

― latebloomer: B Minus Time Traveler (latebloomer), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 17:01 (7 years ago) Permalink

Dead Ringers
eXistenZ
Videodrome
Crash
Scanners

I'm going to shock everyone by saying that Existenz is probably the one I enjoy the most.

I adore eXistenZ, it's incredibly funny! Poor Jude Law's excessive uptightness really makes it.

I like just about everything Cronenberg's ever done, including Crash. When I lived in Paris the Cahiers du Cinema people did a big retrospective, they screened all his films and brought Cronenberg there to give a few talks & such. He is super nice and seemed rather surprised by all the attention from that realm, i.e. the film scholar/auteur worshipping contingent instead of, you know, Fangoria. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

As part of the retrospective they had an exhibition of various props and plans and things from his films.. This turned out to be extremely hilarious, because on the ground floor of the same building there happened to be an exhibition of a century's worth of advertising art for Lu, the dessert company. So you'd walk in and it was all bright sunlight and cheery vintage Art Nouveau posters and candy and cookies, and then you got to go downstairs to this gloomy, dark basement (really!) and look at tools for operating on mutant women. I wonder if Cronenberg ever made it over there to see what they'd done, I think he would have been amused.

xpost
Holy shit, "psychological profiler"? That's messed up. Awesome.

― daria g (daria g), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 17:30 (7 years ago) Permalink

'Shivers' is great. Remove the parasites and you have almost an adaptation of Ballard's 'High Rise.'

― robertw, Tuesday, 24 May 2005 18:52 (7 years ago) Permalink

There might not be a contemporary director whose fans vary so widely on what his best and worst work is. I even know some people who would call Dead Ringers his great sellout.

Personally, I think I like Crash and The Dead Zone the best.

― L'Histoire d'Eric H. (Eric H.), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 18:55 (7 years ago) Permalink

I'm not so hot on The Dead Zone as a movie, but there are some scenes (THE OFFICER IN THE BATHROOM WITH THE SCISSORS) that are beyond amazing (in the worst possible way).

― David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 19:11 (7 years ago) Permalink

I think Guillermo del Toro (on a Bravo special about the 100 scariest movies of all time - co-produced by some Fangoria people, I think) called DC a "poet of disgust" (or something equally pithy), and said, w/ respect and awe, in regards to that scene from The Dead Zone I mention (and I paraphrase) - "well, yeah, of course CRONENBERG'S gonna do that; who else would?"

― David R. (popshots75`), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 19:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

What is in the Dead Ringers psychological profiler? This is going to be some kind of idée fixe until I find out, dammit.

― daria g (daria g), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 21:27 (7 years ago) Permalink

ANSWER: YOU ARE A PERVERT

― The Sensational Sulk (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 21:31 (7 years ago) Permalink

Hah! All paths lead to U R FUCKED UP OK THX

― daria g (daria g), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 21:35 (7 years ago) Permalink

What do people think of M. Butterfly? I thought it was a terrible film, really disappointing. but I haven't seen it since it came out.

Dead Ringers, the Dead Zone, Scanners, videodrome: all great. I LOVE his Naked Lunch adaptation; again, adapting this was a thankless job and he got a lot of flak for not doing the book (like he could really film the book) and instead focusing on Burroughs biography, but I think he made a real masterpiece here, his best and most emotional film.

I liked the fish gun in Existenz and that was all.

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 21:39 (7 years ago) Permalink

oh, I this Crash is pretty good. I'm sure it's better than the movie Crash that just came out that everyone hates.

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 21:48 (7 years ago) Permalink

I thought M Butterfly was interesting and I didn't dislike it at the time, but I saw it about seven years ago. It wasn't supposed to be about what the play was about, but everyone expected that it would be, and that was a problem. I don't think Cronenberg and David Hwang saw eye to eye at all.

― daria g (daria g), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 22:30 (7 years ago) Permalink

is it not about what the play is about? I never read or saw the play.

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 24 May 2005 22:31 (7 years ago) Permalink

My understanding was that the play was highly interested in, hmm.. Orientalism, to use the theory term, and Cronenberg didn't care about that angle. I am certain I read an interview where Cronenberg says he'd talked to Hwang about how he thought certain stuff in the play was weak and such.. this might be in that Cahiers de Cinema book on Cronenberg, I'll see if I can find it.

― daria g (daria g), Wednesday, 25 May 2005 00:44 (7 years ago) Permalink

Cronenberg On Cronenberg is a pretty fun read. It's part of a interview book series and probably my favorite that I've seen of them.

― miccio (miccio), Wednesday, 25 May 2005 01:32 (7 years ago) Permalink

3 months pass...

so cronenberg's crash was on uk tv last night. anyone watch it? i just did. rather a lot of fucking. and music that sounds suspiciously like the work of thurston moore. not sure i really liked it much, although some of the ideas are...interesting.

― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Friday, 23 September 2005 08:10 (7 years ago) Permalink

fuck channel 4 they cut out the best scene

― Ste (Fuzzy), Friday, 23 September 2005 08:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

i missed it, no tv guide. i like it, anyway. what scene did they cut?

― N_RQ, Friday, 23 September 2005 08:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

where they have a threesome on the backseat, they cut to ads strangely just as it started but wierdly the channel 4 logo came up with some other logo as if the film had ended (no stella artois link).

i think anyway, i switched over in protest at this botch up.

― Ste (Fuzzy), Friday, 23 September 2005 08:38 (7 years ago) Permalink

the stella artois bit: so apt for 'crash'.

― N_RQ, Friday, 23 September 2005 08:39 (7 years ago) Permalink

1664 bad year for directing

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 23 September 2005 08:52 (7 years ago) Permalink

why would stella promote cronenberg etc.

― ken c (ken c), Friday, 23 September 2005 08:52 (7 years ago) Permalink

"and music that sounds suspiciously like the work of thurston moore"

what made you say that? it was howard shore, btw.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 23 September 2005 08:55 (7 years ago) Permalink

vintage stuff ken!

― N_RQ, Friday, 23 September 2005 08:59 (7 years ago) Permalink

JG Ballard on Cronenberg in today's Guardian

― chris j (chris j), Friday, 23 September 2005 09:25 (7 years ago) Permalink

A History of Violence is out today in the US.. HOORAY
I think I'm off to see it this afternoon..

― dar1a g (daria g), Friday, 23 September 2005 13:18 (7 years ago) Permalink

Kenneth Turan creamed himself over History of Violence on NPR this morning. In fact, West Coasters can hear it coming up right about now.

The Crash score is by Howard Shore and it's really, really great.

― Rock Hardy (Rock Hardy), Friday, 23 September 2005 13:30 (7 years ago) Permalink

"and music that sounds suspiciously like the work of thurston moore"
what made you say that? it was howard shore, btw.

yeah i know it was howard shore, but i was surprised by the running guitar motifs - i thought he was famous for/usually employed to provide orchestral scores?

― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Friday, 23 September 2005 16:43 (7 years ago) Permalink

Oh that was the movie he was creaming himself over? I missed the title but could hear the orgasm building in his voice.

― jocelyn (Jocelyn), Friday, 23 September 2005 16:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

History of Violence premiered 2 weeks ago at the American Museum of the Moving Image w/ a talk by Cronenberg but by the time I called it was sold out. I WIll see it asap, as I keep missing his films in theaters. Never saw Spider and only recently saw Crash. Otherwise, am a huge fan, own a few of his movies, have seen almost all of them, "taught" a class on him at Oberlin, which really just meant watched some movies and me and my friends got credit for it. I like him for many reasons, including the fact that even when his movies aren't that good, and they're not all that great, but I think even the worst ones are interesting. As an "auteur" type its fun to see how he deals with the same themes in different contexts. Also, as a fan of horror movies, it was interesting to see how he came out of that scene and still toys with it, and it's been fun watching him gain more mainstream critical acceptance while making movies that while they may seem more mainstream then say, Shivers or Rabid, are really even more fucked up.

Also, he's fun as an actor, like in Last Night and Nightbreed.

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Friday, 23 September 2005 16:55 (7 years ago) Permalink

my favorite director. greatly anticipating "A History of Violence".

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Friday, 23 September 2005 17:25 (7 years ago) Permalink

i can't wait for history of v!!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 23 September 2005 17:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

it opens today but no way i can see it for at least a week :(

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 23 September 2005 17:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

Limited release today — what other cities besides NY and LA would have it?

― Rock Hardy (Rock Hardy), Friday, 23 September 2005 17:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

It's opened here in Chicago.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 23 September 2005 17:54 (7 years ago) Permalink

also I LOVED existenz, and while I realize it's a re-write of the themes of videodrome, it features a sense of humor that videodrome lacked.

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Friday, 23 September 2005 17:58 (7 years ago) Permalink

No more love for The Brood? That's a classic. I would like to watch that movie back to back with de Palma's Sisters.

― The Milkmaid (of Human Kindness) (The Milkmaid), Friday, 23 September 2005 17:58 (7 years ago) Permalink

yes. The Brood is actually my favorite Cronenberg movie. Especially the guy, I can't remember his name, the one with the cancer of the lymphatic system who has to keep moving? He's in a bunch of other Cronenberg films, a small but important role in Existenz as well. His scenes in the Brood are amazing.

And I discovered the Brood around the same time I first saw Oliver Reed in Ken Russell's The Devils.

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Friday, 23 September 2005 18:05 (7 years ago) Permalink

i'm in montreal

god i love existenz!!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 23 September 2005 18:06 (7 years ago) Permalink

I haven't seen a Cronenberg movie I didn't like, but I love Videodrome and Scanners.

― recovering optimist (Royal Bed Bouncer), Friday, 23 September 2005 19:28 (7 years ago) Permalink

I'm going to see History of Violence in 3 hours. I have high hopes.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 23 September 2005 20:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

The Brood lovers finally arrive! As I mentioned upthread, watching the Brood made my girlfriend pregnant.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Friday, 23 September 2005 22:01 (7 years ago) Permalink

Psychoplasmics!

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Friday, 23 September 2005 22:02 (7 years ago) Permalink

I'm going to see History of Violence in 2 hours. I have high hopes.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 23 September 2005 22:17 (7 years ago) Permalink

i taped crash last night, when it was on channel 4. i'm going to watch it tomorrow. should i have high hopes?

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Friday, 23 September 2005 22:40 (7 years ago) Permalink

No.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 23 September 2005 22:41 (7 years ago) Permalink

should i go jogging instead?

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Friday, 23 September 2005 22:42 (7 years ago) Permalink

Yes.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 23 September 2005 22:43 (7 years ago) Permalink

why is it so bad, alex?

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Friday, 23 September 2005 22:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

you have less than 2 hrs to provide a satisfactory reply...

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Friday, 23 September 2005 22:48 (7 years ago) Permalink

It's just really boring. It's not a great book either, but at least the book has the benefit of Ballard's internal dialogues which hold at least a marginal amount of interest. The movie has nothing except some supposedly "titilating" sex scenes which come off as way too clinical and forced to actually be sexy.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 23 September 2005 22:49 (7 years ago) Permalink

LOL

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Friday, 23 September 2005 22:51 (7 years ago) Permalink

Basically if you've read the book you'll be disappointed cause it's taken only most surface part of the text and doesn't do much with it and if you haven't read the book you'll just come away thinking it's just trying to hard to be sexy and shocking and is failing completely.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 23 September 2005 22:51 (7 years ago) Permalink

i think it's actually pretty funny... intentionally funny even.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Friday, 23 September 2005 22:56 (7 years ago) Permalink

if you haven't read the book you'll just come away thinking it's just trying to hard to be sexy and shocking and is failing completely.

Or you'll actually watch the film and enjoy it.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Friday, 23 September 2005 23:07 (7 years ago) Permalink

two words: JAMES SPADER

please destroy

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 23 September 2005 23:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

I liked the movie. I liked(and have always liked) James Spader. And I ESPECIALLY like one mr. elias koteas. Especially in that movie.

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Friday, 23 September 2005 23:41 (7 years ago) Permalink

you're crazy.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 23 September 2005 23:42 (7 years ago) Permalink

James Spader!!? He's like an assail the unassailable.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Friday, 23 September 2005 23:43 (7 years ago) Permalink

are you kidding? he's terrible. more wooden than keanu.

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 23 September 2005 23:44 (7 years ago) Permalink

but smugger!

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Friday, 23 September 2005 23:53 (7 years ago) Permalink

spader is pretty wooden, but he does seem to have a bit more going on upstairs than keanu.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Friday, 23 September 2005 23:54 (7 years ago) Permalink

how can you tell?!?!? he's wooden!

― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 23 September 2005 23:55 (7 years ago) Permalink

his eyebrows are carved a tad differently than keanus on the wood!

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Saturday, 24 September 2005 00:09 (7 years ago) Permalink

I don't think spader is wooden at all, I think he's genius. in most roles he's like "this movie is so below me that I'm not even going to bother raising my eyelids all the way".

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Saturday, 24 September 2005 00:38 (7 years ago) Permalink

hstencil OTM.

― jed_ (jed), Saturday, 24 September 2005 00:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

You guys just hate him cuz he's a stoner and his droopy eyelids make him look "wooden."

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Saturday, 24 September 2005 00:51 (7 years ago) Permalink

A History of Violence is wow. Completely and totally wow. I think I need to see it again. I'm not even sure I can quite process it.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Saturday, 24 September 2005 02:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

really?!! must see must see must see. I couldn't make it this afternoon. Tomorrow then.

Also I don't think Crash was trying to be that, Alex - shocking people just isn't interesting.

― dar1a g (daria g), Saturday, 24 September 2005 03:53 (7 years ago) Permalink

I have no idea what Cronenberg was trying to do with Crash, but whatever it was it ended being horribly unsuccessful in everything it attempted (it's not funny enough to be "funny" IMO.) I think the biggest problem is that taken out of the time when the novel was written, the themes begin to make very little less sense (car crash culture just isn't what it was.) Maybe if Diana had died before the movie was made it might have worked somehow, really given the film something to focus on, but as it stood the whole car crash thing did seem kind of like joke and frankly there are funnier ones.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Saturday, 24 September 2005 04:05 (7 years ago) Permalink

I recall reading that Ballard liked the film very much.. Um, there never was a car crash culture, that was the reason he chose it (JGB I mean), a fetish that doesn't exist.

― dar1a g (daria g), Saturday, 24 September 2005 04:41 (7 years ago) Permalink

Oh, look, a blog:
http://www.historyofviolence.com/cronenbergblog/

― dar1a g (daria g), Saturday, 24 September 2005 15:11 (7 years ago) Permalink

actually my parents were big into car crash culture in the 70's and i was actually conceived in a car crash orgy. so Crash is a personal movie for me.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Saturday, 24 September 2005 15:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

I am lamely excited about this movie. The end of the graphic novel goes way over the top and I'm very interested in seeing what DC does with it.

― adam (adam), Saturday, 24 September 2005 16:31 (7 years ago) Permalink

I'm looking forward to it too. The last Cronenberg film I liked was Naked Lunch.

My faves:

Dead Ringers
The Fly
Naked Lunch
Videodrome

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Saturday, 24 September 2005 19:01 (7 years ago) Permalink

actually my parents were big into car crash culture in the 70's and i was actually conceived in a car crash orgy. so Crash is a personal movie for me.

so are you sure that's your dad?

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Saturday, 24 September 2005 21:12 (7 years ago) Permalink

History of Violence..

Well, that was something. The beginning was really really frosty and weird. Interesting sort of uh.. comic timing toward the end, the audience would laugh and then sort of recoil like OMGWTF.

― dar1a g (daria g), Sunday, 25 September 2005 03:46 (7 years ago) Permalink

I'm seeing HOV tomorrow. But I just watched Naked Lunch again, and holy shit what a movie.

― Paunchy Stratego (kenan), Sunday, 25 September 2005 04:06 (7 years ago) Permalink

It was fun to watch it with a bunch of virgins, to Cronenberg and to Beats. I got to point things out... "That's Kerouac. That's Ginsberg. That's Tangiers." And I got to glance over to their reactions to, say, him rubbing bug powder dust on the talking asshole of a giant imaginary bug. God I love that movie.

― Paunchy Stratego (kenan), Sunday, 25 September 2005 04:11 (7 years ago) Permalink

That's one I haven't seen! I'll have to rent it soon.

Re: Violence, the Boston Globe critic seems to get it.

David Edelstein at Slate writes an incredibly stupid review that seems to have little to do with the film and a lot to do with his own issues.

― dar1a g (daria g), Sunday, 25 September 2005 04:22 (7 years ago) Permalink

you lucky big city folk! ;-)

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Sunday, 25 September 2005 04:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

I've been dying to see History of Violence for so long it seems. This week! As soon as freakin' possible! I even had a conversation tonight about Cronenberg with a friend who turns out to be a big fan too! Right now, well, maybe not right now but earlier today or tomorrow, I would be reading the book "Cronenberg on Cronenberg" but the library's self-checkout wouldn't scan it yesterday (and the real-person checkout was closed.) Anyway, new Cronenberg + latest ep of Battlestar + discovery that I do in fact really like Joanna Newsom = pretty good day.

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Sunday, 25 September 2005 05:47 (7 years ago) Permalink

Ok, HOV was great. Everything Cronenberg is good at stripped down to essentials, shot and acted very well. Very funny, too.

― adam (adam), Sunday, 25 September 2005 11:36 (7 years ago) Permalink

*spoilspoilspoil*
I saw it last night. Seven out of ten. Good things: acting, little tiny details (children's heights on doorframe, clothes that are not his own being too big for him), flitting from one little girl to another at the beginning lost me, then by losing me got me right into it because I started thinking. Bad things: one of the sex scenes, unbelievably cute mother with hips that are unlikely to have borne two children in slinky jeans that show them off too well, big scary gangster played a bit too comedy. I also liked the way the two guys who hold up the diner are like islands in the plot.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Sunday, 25 September 2005 15:02 (7 years ago) Permalink

That's one I haven't seen! I'll have to rent it soon.
Re: Violence, the Boston Globe critic seems to get it.

David Edelstein at Slate writes an incredibly stupid review that seems to have little to do with the film and a lot to do with his own issues.

-- dar1a g (dar1a_...), September 25th, 2005.

I enjoyed his review. His enthusiasm makes me count down the days when it opens in South Florida.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Sunday, 25 September 2005 16:51 (7 years ago) Permalink

Edelstein's review isn't great, but he at least deals with a number of the isseus the film raises. (I can think of little good popular criticism that doens't also deal with the critic's "own issues". What do you want, pure formalism?).
It's a mesmerizing movie but Cronenberg is really playing both sides of the violence coin. It's not just that the movie is explicitly violent but in a number of scenes (especially when the son beats up the bully) there's the typical action/thriller treatment of violence-as-catharsis. I think Sympathy for Mr. Vengenance deals with a number of the same ideas (and is equally pornographically violent) in a more compelling (not necessarily better) manner.

― C0L1N B... (C0L1N B...), Sunday, 25 September 2005 19:38 (7 years ago) Permalink

I found it pretty aggravating, like he's fixated on this shame/guilt thing which didn't make any sense to me, and I didn't see it in the movie. But then, I didn't find anything satisfying or virtuosic about any of the violence in the movie, it was all hard to watch, I thought.

The sudden bloody discharges are lightning-fast and deliciously satisfying—orgasmic, even. But they also leave you sickened, because Cronenberg cuts briefly—in an extra frame, like a comic book's (sorry, graphic novel's)—to men with heads shattered and faces beaten, literally, to bloody pulps. But here's the thing: Those extra frames don't sicken us morally. Even though A History of Violence is suffused with loss—[..]—the right people are always on the right end of the (righteous) violence.

No, no, no..

― dar1a g (daria g), Monday, 26 September 2005 03:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

i liked it alot!

― huell howser (chaki), Monday, 26 September 2005 07:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

I liked it, too.

Edelstein, fwiw, has been grappling with violence and vigilantism in film for a while now. See, for example, his reviews of In the Bedroom and Kill Bill. He worries about the bloodiness in History of Violence, but I never thought it was overdone. I agree with Rosenbaum, who said (in a review that apparently isn't online yet) that the shots of bloody faces don't dwell on the gore in a fetishistic way but linger on them just long enough to convey the real-life consequences of shooting someone in the head.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 30 September 2005 15:00 (7 years ago) Permalink

I hated it!

― 100% Nice (nordicskilla), Saturday, 1 October 2005 03:22 (7 years ago) Permalink

is this going to be released nationwide? curse my hick town!

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Saturday, 1 October 2005 03:24 (7 years ago) Permalink

I was so rooting for Cronenberg, but this movie was a horrible reminder that he is just the fuck that made Existenz!

― 100% Nice (nordicskilla), Saturday, 1 October 2005 04:44 (7 years ago) Permalink

Also the acting was some of the worst I've seen in quite some time and the score was so intrusive and portentous and awful. I'm starting to believe that Spider (which I loved) was just an anomaly and that David Cronenberg started out making great movies and is going to make progressively worse ones as time passes.

― 100% Nice (nordicskilla), Saturday, 1 October 2005 04:46 (7 years ago) Permalink

AND ANOTHER THING

― 100% Nice (nordicskilla), Saturday, 1 October 2005 04:52 (7 years ago) Permalink

Existenz is totally hilarious!

Now, the score was intrusive and overwrought at the start, this was deliberate. Same for acting seemed to be v awkward and wooden in the opening scenes as well. I guess what I am saying is, do you think this stuff wasn't deliberate & therefore that is why the film wasn't good, or that regardless, even if it was meant to come across that way, it was just a bad idea that didn't work?

― dar1a g (daria g), Saturday, 1 October 2005 05:05 (7 years ago) Permalink

Cronenberg characters always seem a little detached from the actual happenings of the film, that's absolutely nothing new. Spider *thrived* on that, since it was kind of the point of the film! This is why, no matter how Crash turned out, Cronenberg was the best director for that job, too. The detached pragmatism and lack of aversion when it comes to the grotesque or violent...

― mike h. (mike h.), Saturday, 1 October 2005 05:41 (7 years ago) Permalink

Oh, Adam.

― jaymc (jaymc), Saturday, 1 October 2005 06:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

how sexy is it?

― j blount (papa la bas), Saturday, 1 October 2005 06:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

i hated the howard shore score at the beginning but as the movie progressed it was great! and btw it was based on a graphic novel. of course the acting was comic book like.

― huell howser (chaki), Saturday, 1 October 2005 07:15 (7 years ago) Permalink

Why is that an explanation for bad acting, Chaki? I'm sorry, I can't help it if terrible dialogue and implausible relationships ruin my enjoyment of a movie. Sin City had more complex characters than this film!

Everything was so telegraphed and cliched, moments like when Maria Bello says "because we were never teenagers together" (or whatever) were so awkward and incongruous and screamed ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION?

To me, this was like an Oliver Stone movie gone emo. It's like, if you're going to have a good pulp scenario, fucking work it! Don't give your movie a title like "The History of Violence" and act like it's some sort of treatise on identity and the universal human condition! Don't have stupid teenage bully revenge scenarios and boring gangsters in dark cars with SCARY eyes! John Dahl used to be really good at this kind of thing. Or yeah, make everything really stupid and overblown, make U-TURN, at least it would be fun. But instead with Cronenberg all we get is the weak, wibbly middle-ground that tries to sell itself as "complex". Ugh.

― 100% Nice (nordicskilla), Saturday, 1 October 2005 14:54 (7 years ago) Permalink

I'm sort of becoming a pariah on these film threads, I guess.

I still love and respect all of you and your opinions, though!

― 100% Nice (nordicskilla), Saturday, 1 October 2005 14:55 (7 years ago) Permalink

how sexy is it?

not very. The sex scenes actually had both of us laughing out loud!

― 100% Nice (nordicskilla), Saturday, 1 October 2005 14:57 (7 years ago) Permalink

Comparing Sin City to A History of Violence is like comparing Magnum Force to The Wild Bunch. Please.

I loved the film. The acting is certainly not wooden: in the case of Viggo Mortenson, he makes the transitions between cornfed Midwesterner and gangsta like a pro I never expected him to be. Maria Bello quivers and rages with an intensity she's never quite shown before (her greatest moment: the look of disgust she gives Mortenson after their tryst on the stairs). As for William Hurt - well. Talk about a pro. If this had been a play, I would have given him a standing ovation. His ham-on-rye performance summons the pity, terror, and comedy that the film's schematic, over-explicit script (its weakest element) wants us to understand.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Saturday, 1 October 2005 19:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

Adam, have you seen that much Cronenberg or seen him interviewed? I don't think he's trying to be "deep" per se, just that he has this interesting ideas and runs with them. If you're getting a treatise from one of his film, it's one you're bringing to the table.

Cronenberg's work with sex and gore are pretty consistent. This film doesn't try too hard to shock or make a bold statement, but places it right in the middle of the completely ordinary. I don't see it as some sort of artistic contrast or shocking "My god, there is weird shit among this normal town," it's just kind of... there. And people have to deal with it. Seriously, if the film was filled with "You must deal with these things you've been through! You're tearing this family apart!"-style arguments filled with a rising in the score, it'd be every other schlocky film.

― mike h. (mike h.), Saturday, 1 October 2005 20:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

i thought the sex scenes were interesting!

― huell howser (chaki), Saturday, 1 October 2005 20:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

And "Violence" is very much a piece with Cronenberg's other genre explorations. The contours of this picture (the scenes involving Mortenson's son in school; the pulp dialogue Ed Harris has to deliver) are B movie-esque.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Saturday, 1 October 2005 20:43 (7 years ago) Permalink

that son was a horrible actor!

― huell howser (chaki), Saturday, 1 October 2005 20:44 (7 years ago) Permalink

that son was a horrible actor!
-- huell howser (chaki.tim...), October 1st, 2005.

He was marvelous. I especially loved the scene in which he blasted Ed Harris with the double-barrelled shotgun. He looks at his father with the creepiest mixture of contempt, love, and fear.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Saturday, 1 October 2005 20:56 (7 years ago) Permalink

yah.. that was pretty bad. but great!

― huell howser (chaki), Saturday, 1 October 2005 20:57 (7 years ago) Permalink

i really disliked it. if the film's ultimate point was that violence lurks just beneath the surface of everyday life -- even in, and perhaps especially, smalltown USA -- then so what? have we not learned that in a trillion other films, most relevantly to hov a simple plan and one false move? the pastiche of hunky dory domesticity was so over-the-top hollow that it was tough for me to take (so many lines in the early going -- the script was horrible), and viggo's superhuman talent for violence was equally thin. i really don't see what so many others saw in this film. it left me completely cold, and i have to say that everyone in the theatre seemed to feel the same way. mario bello was good, though.

― Jams Murphy (ystrickler), Sunday, 2 October 2005 02:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

― Jams Murphy (ystrickler), Sunday, 2 October 2005 02:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

I thought the point was more, once you let it in, you can't get rid of it. Maybe?

The teenage son was great, by the way.

the pastiche of hunky dory domesticity was so over-the-top hollow that it was tough for me to take (so many lines in the early going -- the script was horrible)

Sure. Very true, and interesting that it got less hollow and wooden as it progressed. I suppose Cronenberg could have tried to find a way to not play it this way at the beginning, but didn't do so. I read that it was a work for hire so he probably looked at this kinda awful and generic Hollywood script and thought, now what can be done with this?

― dar1a g (daria g), Sunday, 2 October 2005 17:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

what a goofy movie... i basically agree with jams on this, except i liked the funny bits more than he did. over all, it felt like a hybrid of "simple plan" and the 90's-style-eccentric-gangster genre (which i figure all the shlocky bits were intentional), but without the strengths of either... i haven't seen any of cronenberg's other films, so maybe i'm missing something

― dave k, Sunday, 2 October 2005 18:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

it's too bad there's not a director named davolas roegenberg

― firstworldman (firstworldman), Sunday, 2 October 2005 22:18 (7 years ago) Permalink

there's some spoilers here, but oh well.
actually, i really truly loved this movie. i thought that it thoroughly explored and dug out everything that it presented/suggested. it was funny in a direct way, something i've never gotten from cronenberg before. i have had a love hate relationship with several of his movies... definitely tending towards ardor though. even the films i don't enjoy watching, i enjoy to think about. also, with regard to the son @ school plot, i liked the way that when he finally lashed out, i was simultaneously impressed, exhilirated and disappointed with him. and while i wouldn't say that it's a treatise, or that it aims to be despite the big bold title, that it plays with the notion of violence, as doled out by several characters in an interesting way: violence is genetic, violence is inevitable/necessary, violence is justifiable, violence is horrific, violence is funny, violence is a skill, violence is earned. when the acting was wooden, as it was most obviously in the scenes dealing with the high school, it seemed like a reference to tv drama to me, as to use that alternate vocabulary, we get a footnote or digression from the film, a relevant factoid that is a distinct circuit to and from the storyline, or maybe a suggestion that hidden in the middle of the country, comes the cheesey reality from which so much badly staged television drama emerges.

as for the sex scenes, i thought they were handled very well... i actually thought they were totally erotic. some douchebag in front of me was taking camera phone pix though and after putting up with it for about 15 seconds i leaned forward in my chair and said in his ear quite loudly, "Put your phone down." apart from that distraction, which well and truly took me out of the movie, i thought the sex scenes were great. maria bello and viggo mortensen are both very sexy, sexual seeming people. i thought that when maria bello said 'we never got a chance to be teenagers together', she didn't mean it to be serious. she meant it as an enigmatic setup to a fantasy that she had always wanted to live out. the sex scene on the stairway is a surprisingly common fantasy among a lot of women. to be raped safely by someone who loves you. this was obviously a little bit removed from that, but it did have the added notion of just being another role playing exercise. i don't know how to get into the mechanics of explaining it, but i've been with girls who have fantasized about that. danger/thrills are sexy to most people.

the scene with william hurt was hilarious... for some reason, the setup actually reminded me a little bit of the cremaster thing in the guggenheim... sort of similarly videogame-esque.

and to end it the way this ended, knowing that a happy ending would probably come eventually, but not feeling the need to go on any longer showing it happen, left it feeling very real and honest.

and other thoughts....

― firstworldman (firstworldman), Sunday, 2 October 2005 22:44 (7 years ago) Permalink

STFU

― ----------, Sunday, 2 October 2005 22:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

: D

― firstworldman (firstworldman), Sunday, 2 October 2005 22:47 (7 years ago) Permalink

Adam so completely OTM up there about not ruining your pulp with overreaching pretentiousness.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Sunday, 2 October 2005 23:51 (7 years ago) Permalink

firstworldman, all completely OTM.

― melton mowbray (adr), Sunday, 2 October 2005 23:59 (7 years ago) Permalink

About William Hurt's performance: I said on my blog that it was like watching Sonny Corleone played by Margo Channing.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Monday, 3 October 2005 00:06 (7 years ago) Permalink

Does anybody, in Philadelphia or anywhere else, actually say "broheem"?

― Rock Hardy (Rock Hardy), Monday, 3 October 2005 00:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

Adam, have you seen that much Cronenberg or seen him interviewed?

I've seen every movie of note he's made in the last 20 years, except for M. Butterfly.

― 100% Nice (nordicskilla), Monday, 3 October 2005 01:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

Comparing Sin City to A History of Violence is like comparing Magnum Force to The Wild Bunch. Please.

Did I mention I also hated Sin City?

Magnum Force is a'ight.

― 100% Nice (nordicskilla), Monday, 3 October 2005 01:29 (7 years ago) Permalink

Also aren't you the same Alfred Soto that rates Dirty Work?

...

― 100% Nice (nordicskilla), Monday, 3 October 2005 01:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

hahahahaha

― kyle (akmonday), Monday, 3 October 2005 01:36 (7 years ago) Permalink

(xpost)

I sure am! Both Dirty Work and the Cronenberg film are agreeably superficial examinations of violence.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Monday, 3 October 2005 10:18 (7 years ago) Permalink

saw it. eh.

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 12:01 (7 years ago) Permalink

i thought ahov was utter shit and that's a shame because i a ctually really like cronenberg.
not to the director: get back to making films about exploding people, sex-crazed debbie harrys, people who fuck weird stuff and opiate-addicted deviant identical twin gynaecologists, please.

― sfxxx, Tuesday, 4 October 2005 12:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

I really like AHOV. It was very funny. Meant in a good way.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 12:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

the sex scenes were the best part because they looked like bugs

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 12:49 (7 years ago) Permalink

Cronenberg made Maria Bello look just like Debra Unger in this although not quite as hot.

Also, they should have just tried to hire Adam Brody as the son rather than getting someone with the same mannerisms and the same hair.

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 15:02 (7 years ago) Permalink

"Cronenberg made Maria Bello look just like Debra Unger in this although not quite as hot."

This is true.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 15:12 (7 years ago) Permalink

1) Totally agree with Fristworldman's first paragraph - well articulated (you lost me at the role-play-rape and Cremaster stuff because I have no experience with either)...

2) How the fuck did this POSSIBLY get an R rating?? Surely that's some of the most graphic violence ever seen onscreen (I lean towards the notion that the gore is dwelled on to emphasize the range of emotions that can be conjured by such extreme violence - horror, disgust, shock - then awed laughter - then back to disgust). I mean, "Ichi the Killer" is one thing, but I thought this was much more intense.

3) I was also sort of surprised by the first sex scene - is there another instance of two lead characters in a flagrant, fairly graphic 69 in a mainstream movie ever?

― Stuck to a Seat in the New Beverly (Bent Over at the Arclight), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 18:02 (7 years ago) Permalink

probably

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 18:04 (7 years ago) Permalink

Surely that's some of the most graphic violence ever seen onscreen

hardly

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 18:05 (7 years ago) Permalink

I mean, I presume it didn't happen in Madagascar, but I'm sure it's not such an anomaly.

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 18:05 (7 years ago) Permalink

i basically agree w/ firstworldman upthread. perhaps my biggest peeve is with maria bello's wardrobe. if her shopping choices were limited to that little tiny mall, she must have been doing some serious mail-order from anthropologie and j.crew that none of the other family members were allowed to join in.

― lauren (laurenp), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 20:20 (7 years ago) Permalink

Anthropologie sell cheeleader costumes?

HOTT

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 20:44 (7 years ago) Permalink

Rabid needs a lot more love on this thread, i liked it a lot. I really have to see shivers.

― -rainbow bum- (-rainbow bum-), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 20:47 (7 years ago) Permalink

adam--why did you get the sense that cronenberg was trying to make a grand statement about the human condition? the title? the teenage bully stuff? i'm not sure that cronenberg wasn't just trying to make a pulpy western with a few laughs. that's how i saw it. i loved it.

― dan (dan), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 20:49 (7 years ago) Permalink

adam--why did you get the sense that cronenberg was trying to make a grand statement about the human condition?

Ach, I was using a bit of poetic licence here. With some hindsight, I think the main problem is the family dynamic. I do think there is something in the use the use of a "smalltown America" construct. It is supposed to imply universality, even if the majority of the audience for this film will be childless people who live in major urban centers. There is nothing exceptional about these characters at the beginning of the film, and we're supposed to identify with them, but we're also asked to laugh at them as well as fear for them.. It's totally flawed.

On top of that, all of the characters who make up the family seem totally disparate, their reactions to each other follow no discernible pattern of emotional logic and our understanding/enjoyment of the film is key to seeing them as a family unit, even before we can see them as compromised or fragmented or in danger.

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:02 (7 years ago) Permalink

Also too many scenes where people do everything sloooooooowly in order to allude to some sort of grand symbolic importance.

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:05 (7 years ago) Permalink

or emotional importance. or whatever.

Sometimes a tear is just a tear!

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:06 (7 years ago) Permalink

Also, I really didn't go looking for the meta-textual layers-not-layers in this movie. I still know a straight-up genre film when I see one! (I hope)

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:09 (7 years ago) Permalink

i didn't really see importance in the scenes where people did things slowly. in fact, I didn't notice anything very slow at all.

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

The scene where he had just ran back from the store and was waving the shotgun around and talking to the son played for way too long - we get the point about two minutes through it, and it seemed to go on for another ten. Also the last scene was excruciating.

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:17 (7 years ago) Permalink

i disagree! although I still don't like the movie at all!

the last scene reminded me of something but I can't remember what.

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:18 (7 years ago) Permalink

I'll disagree with you until my arguing muscles atrophy and disintegrate!

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:20 (7 years ago) Permalink

I'm not sure what I thought of it. But I can't remember the last time every single person I speak to seems to have just seen or be about to see a film. And I can't remember the last time I've left a cinema to feeling such a palpable (and often audible) consensus of "Errr... right.... O-kayyyy" from the audience.

I don't think I really get Cronenberg as a director. Though I did love Spider. There's some kind of deliberate thinness or something to his style. In my head I think it's a Canadian thing.

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:21 (7 years ago) Permalink

all cronenberg films have slow moving scenes. it's part of his "thing". I think it's because he's Canadian.

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:21 (7 years ago) Permalink

hahaha XPOST I swear I didn't see that

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:22 (7 years ago) Permalink

"A Canadian Thing" = when everyone's face is sort of strange and the humour is kind of obtuse or confusing and things are familiar but only in the way things from dreams can sometimes seem familiar.

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:23 (7 years ago) Permalink

and even though I sounded glib I really do think it's a canadian thing because Egoyans films are NOTHING BUT slow scenes that may or may not be loaded with import; they're easier to deal with when you decide it's stylistic and doesn't necessarily have any deep meaning.

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:24 (7 years ago) Permalink

I'm sure even Canadians have access to hundreds of resources that can teach them how to pace movies in order to get the maximum dramatic effect.

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:24 (7 years ago) Permalink

YES (XPOST)

but that doesn't explain Rush.

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:24 (7 years ago) Permalink

Yeah but the difference is that Egoyan is WICKED at that and even his worst movie is still pretty good.

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:25 (7 years ago) Permalink

Also, new Egoyan movie out soon so hold on to your hats.

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:25 (7 years ago) Permalink

the other canadian thing is "this is weird looks all 80's and the trousers are the wrong length and the hair is feathered and wrong". INSTANT CANADIAN INDICATOR.

yes I know Egoyan is a vastly superior director; they get compared only because of their candian-ness.

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:28 (7 years ago) Permalink

I mean, as people have said, there were some nice touches to it, and I do like the idea of not being able to keep a lid on a history of violence, to start a new life without your unresolved past crimes catching up with you. But the cartoonishness I didn't really understand. I'm not so much talking about the violence. I mean the way the plot develops in the final third. The scene where she confronts him in the hospital was the start of the weirdness, really. They acted it fine, I think. It was the script. Unnaturalistic and I don't know what the lack of naturalism achieved, if it was deliberate.

OK, so let's say it was a "genre exercise" on Cronenberg's part. Something to be appreciated for its formal aspects. Well OK, thought that's never going to make for a very satisfying thriller. It makes it neither one thing nor the other. I dunno. I'm rambling now. I just know that my friend at work thught it was appalling and I realised that I'd have a hard time defending it by any criteria I am comfortable arguing for the use of.

Ha ha - x-post with all this Canadian talk.

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:30 (7 years ago) Permalink

"Yeah but the difference is that Egoyan is WICKED at that and even his worst movie is still pretty good."

This is only true until his last two movies which are just okay.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:32 (7 years ago) Permalink

The Cronenberg film it reminded me of the most was the Dead Zone, I guess. The pacing is similar and thematically it even seemed to resonate. And once I had that in my head I kept comparing them and it just kept falling short.

Although the bloody faces were cool.

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

Felicia's Journey is just okay, Ararat is pretty good. Neither of them are Exotica. Or even the Sweethereafter, which I jsut saw again the other day. There are so many WTF? moments in that film.... A HOV could have used some WTF? moments instead of being so obvious all the time.

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

We were watching My Life Without Me the other night and I got up in the middle, turned to my wife and said "IS THIS CANADIAN OR SOMETHING?".
All my Canadian friends on ILX r gonna hate me now. but I called it, didn't I?

-- @d@ml (nordicskilla@hotmail.com), April 1st, 2004.

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:35 (7 years ago) Permalink

Ararat is meh.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:36 (7 years ago) Permalink

I watched The Dead Zone with Kyle last Halloween and I forgot how hilarious it is!

I think we were stoned, though.

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

We were watching My Life Without Me the other night and I got up in the middle, turned to my wife and said "IS THIS CANADIAN OR SOMETHING?".

and Sarah Polley is! I think. Anyway I like that movie as well.

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

You do???????

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:38 (7 years ago) Permalink

Ararat is meh.
-- Alex in SF

YOU LIKE EXISTENZ

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:38 (7 years ago) Permalink

Existenz is so bad it would actually have been improved by the presence of Ice Cube.

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:39 (7 years ago) Permalink

And Jeremey Piven.

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:39 (7 years ago) Permalink

You people are strange. Existenz is throughly entertaining. How can you sing the praises of Videodrome and not like what's basically an updated version of it with better acting.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:41 (7 years ago) Permalink

because Videodrome is good and didn't need to be updated?

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:41 (7 years ago) Permalink

Oh please. Every good director revisits the same damn ideas over and over. Do you wish that Hitchcock had only made his "Wrong Man" movie just once or something?

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:43 (7 years ago) Permalink

This is my vote for Shivers.

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:44 (7 years ago) Permalink

Has anyone seen Cronenberg's race-car movie, Fast Company? I've had the DVD on my shelf for a while but never gotten around to watching it.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

Do you wish that Hitchcock had only made his "Wrong Man" movie just once or something?

If it had been eaxctly the same actors, set pieces, shots, etc then YES!

The only exceptions to this rule for me are Woody Allen and David Lynch, but I think I have a limit on how much I can watch ANY cinemtaic idea or concern recycled over and over by the same person.

I'M not arguing this for Existenz though.

Jude Law vs. James Woods!

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:47 (7 years ago) Permalink

Existenz did remind me how glad I am that I have not ever wasted my time reading bad cyberpunk fiction.

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:49 (7 years ago) Permalink

Wait are you saying that Cronenberg used "eaxctly the same actors, set pieces, shots, etc" in Existenz as Videodrome? Did you even watch the movie? Plus Jennifer Jason Leigh vs. Debbie Harry, please!

I've seen Fast Company. It's okay. Some interesting shots, but the plot is a joke.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:50 (7 years ago) Permalink

Wait are you saying that Cronenberg used "eaxctly the same actors, set pieces, shots, etc" in Existenz as Videodrome?

No, not at all. I was arguing the need for SOME diversity in a filmmaker's body of work. Non-specific.

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:52 (7 years ago) Permalink

Have you seen M. Buterfly?

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:52 (7 years ago) Permalink

No, I haven't. But Cronenberg can hardly be accused of being a non-diverse filmmaker. This isn't John Ford or anything.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:55 (7 years ago) Permalink

Jennifer Jason Leigh vs. Debbie Harry, please!

IN WHAT FUCKED UP WORLD DOES THE FORMER TRUMP THE LATTER?

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 22:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

Uh the one where you give a shit about acting.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 22:18 (7 years ago) Permalink

In what fucked up world does Atom Egoyan even begin to approach the brilliance of Cronenberg? You people are all bonkers!

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 22:18 (7 years ago) Permalink

walter, if you've seen Family Viewing and don't think Egoyan's brilliant, then you're bonkers

― milton parker (Jon L), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 22:23 (7 years ago) Permalink

Yeah Egoyan through Exotica is a nearly perfect filmmaker. Calender is one of the my favorite films ever.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 22:28 (7 years ago) Permalink

they aren't really comparable so I'm sorry for even bringing him up now.

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 22:30 (7 years ago) Permalink

they're not comparable beyond both being good, weird filmmakers

yeah Calendar just kills me.

― milton parker (Jon L), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 22:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

I think both are comparable to Lodge Kerrigan, who isn't Canadian, but ought to be.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 23:09 (7 years ago) Permalink

ign interview with cronenberg

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 23:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

"Surely that's some of the most graphic violence ever seen onscreen

hardly
-- kyle (akmonda...), October 4th, 2005."

Kyle, name another mainstream film that has such unrepentantly gory, generally unstylized (a'la not "Sin City") violence. I'm genuinely curious - "Irreversible" had that vicious fire-extinguisher-to-the-face scene, but I can't think of anything else that had me that truly shocked.

Also, why was Viggo's ass so shiny in the stairs scene? It seemed almost buffed and waxed. I was prepared to notify the Gaffe Squad if I caught a glimpse of Cronenberg in the reflection somewhere.

― Stuck to a Seat in the New Beverly (Bent Over at the Arclight), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 23:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

Irreversible isn't a mainstream film, but if you don't consider the rape scene in that "graphic onscreen violence" then you need help.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 23:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

>"Irreversible" had that vicious fire-extinguisher-to-the-face scene

yeah the rest of the film was just a daisy-strewn waltz through the fucking park

― milton parker (Jon L), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 23:51 (7 years ago) Permalink

No, I agree on both counts... I suppose I'm really just thinking more about films that depict violence with consequences and are also extremely gory. I mean, Christ, Viggo stomping on that guy's throat? The nose-less henchman gurgling blood-bubbles?

I thought of one - the "American History X" curbing scene... that was tough to watch.

(x-post: Of course "Irreversible" is brutal non-stop - and it fits the criteria being discussed, in that it is definitely about brutal violence with real consequences - but it's definitely arthouse fare. "A History of Violence" is out in wide-release.)

― Stuck to a Seat in the New Beverly (Bent Over at the Arclight), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 23:56 (7 years ago) Permalink

I do think there is something in the use the use of a "smalltown America" construct. It is supposed to imply universality, even if the majority of the audience for this film will be childless people who live in major urban centers.

Something.. the construct was intensely weird, and I can't put my finger on exactly what was off about it. Right away it was this feeling about that family, "you're not from around here, are you.." I don't know, the pulp genre elements and sort of uncomfortable interaction were obvious but in a way, it make sense because.. if there's this underlying tension or unresolved problem, people still tend to act as if everything is A-OK. Especially in small town America.

Funny about Egoyan, I was fascinated by his early stuff esp. Speaking Parts (Family Viewing is good too) but thought Sweet Hereafter and Exotica were unfortunately v obvious and not as good!

eXistenZ is a treat. It's kind of about Jude Law being a bad actor.. And there is nothing cyberpunk about it at all, which adds some extra comedy - the video game world is just gritty and run down, and all the weird gadgets and things are organic, and they end up going where in this crazy futuristic video game world? A Chinese restaurant and a trout farm. Willem Dafoe as Gas = totally classic. I don't know, maybe there's this issue one could have with the film pointing at Big Philosophical Problems and taking those problems quite seriously, but doing so in a way that's very funny and requires extra splattery props and effects. I don't mind this at all.

― dar1a g (daria g), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 00:27 (7 years ago) Permalink

eXistenZ is a treat. It's kind of about Jude Law being a bad actor.. And there is nothing cyberpunk about it at all, which adds some extra comedy - the video game world is just gritty and run down, and all the weird gadgets and things are organic, and they end up going where in this crazy futuristic video game world? A Chinese restaurant and a trout farm. Willem Dafoe as Gas = totally classic. I don't know, maybe there's this issue one could have with the film pointing at Big Philosophical Problems and taking those problems quite seriously, but doing so in a way that's very funny and requires extra splattery props and effects. I don't mind this at all.

otm!

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 00:31 (7 years ago) Permalink

but thought Sweet Hereafter and Exotica were unfortunately v obvious and not as good!

These are the only two I've seen except for maybe some early short thing with some sort of video gimmick that I saw in school. So if I'm missing out on Egoyan's brilliance, so be it. I still say he can't touch Cronenberg.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 00:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

Me give existenz and egoyan love too. Cronenberg and egoyan are both on a very high level of goodness so why put them against each other.

Egoyan eats dinner with my friend sometimes because they are relatives. He got my friend to do a little graphic of some traditional armenian design thingy that was on a wall in the background of ararat somewhere.

― -rainbow bum- (-rainbow bum-), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 00:52 (7 years ago) Permalink

I prefer the compromises and strict narrative line of The Sweet Hereafter to any of Egoyan's earlier films.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 00:53 (7 years ago) Permalink

I really enjoyed total recall . triple titties!

― fratboy slim (latebloomer), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 00:54 (7 years ago) Permalink

My Life Without Me is terrible.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 00:56 (7 years ago) Permalink

I don't find Egoyan as interesting but haven't seen his recent work.. Exotica and Sweet Hereafter bothered me on a level because they were beholden to.. having a plot and then resolving it, maybe? I don't like it when things make too much sense, and I felt like people who liked these two films preferred things to make sense, just in a different, unexpected way.

― dar1a g (daria g), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 01:01 (7 years ago) Permalink

No, I haven't. But Cronenberg can hardly be accused of being a non-diverse filmmaker. This isn't John Ford or anything.

Alex, READ MY POSTS! I never said anything about Cronenberg not being diverse.

Anyway, I think Cronenberg and Egoyan and Lodge Kerrigan are all great. It's CANADA that's the problem!

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 02:07 (7 years ago) Permalink

(j/k)

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 02:07 (7 years ago) Permalink

"Alex, READ MY POSTS! I never said anything about Cronenberg not being diverse."

I read your post! I was just responding to a question which wasn't asked! The same way you did! ;)

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 02:18 (7 years ago) Permalink

wacka wacka

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 02:20 (7 years ago) Permalink

i thought it was great. i kinda agree with what Alba said upthread about the lack of naturalism in the script being kidna purposeless, but i thought the whole idea was to create an ill-at-ease mood which worked thru unsettled blend of genres, character disjunction, odd dialogue etc.

i think what cronenberg always tries to acheieve is an unsettled mood. he's not aiming to be naturalistic and criticising scenes for being cliched (esp the cheerleader scene) implies that they were played straight when they were riddled with discomfort.

the sex and violence shots linger too long on purpose - very self-referentially saying 'here's something you don't normally see which i'm going to show you'.

rambling, but i just think cronenbeg's expert at unsettling an audience in a way few other directors can. return to the form of dead ringers, for me.

― barbarian cities (jaybob3005), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 08:22 (7 years ago) Permalink

Taking direction too far in sex scenes.

― aldo_cowpat (aldo_cowpat), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 09:29 (7 years ago) Permalink

oh sure, crash could never happen that ballard, what a sicko

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 09:36 (7 years ago) Permalink

"I don't like it when things make too much sense, and I felt like people who liked these two films preferred things to make sense, just in a different, unexpected way."

DING DING!!

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 10:15 (7 years ago) Permalink

I saw it and loved it. All I'll say is first of all, Cronenberg didn't write this script, which is rare. A guy who made a movie called "Infested" about killer insects wrote it, based on a graphic novel. I think this movie, in someone else's hands, would've been a silly bit of entertainment. Second, Cronenberg is a genre film-maker obviously. Whether he started making horror films because it suited his concerns or because it was deemed the one feasible way to make your money back, it's what he does. I think the new yorker used the phrase "pulpy noir" or something, and it suits me to think about Jim Thompson when thinking about this movie.

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 11:36 (7 years ago) Permalink

Reading Ebert's review prior to watching this prepared me to enjoy it in a different light, which was nice, because really it's just kind of a Bourne Identity Kill Bill movie minus the slickness and plus a lot of gory bits. Kill Bill had more than its share of Peckinpah paint and severed bits but there sure as hell weren't any shots of destroyed faces.

Really though it's not as if anything in this film is even vaguely controversial. I mean every single man on the planet WISHES his secret, hidden problem that he tries to keep secret from his family was that he has an incredible knack for brutally sending evil gangsters to oblivion. "Baby, I have to tell you something about myself. It might be hard to understand and if you want to leave me after I tell you this I can't blame you. I spent my formative years as The Punisher." Oh yeah FACE THE MUSIC MOTHERFUCKER. YOU GANGSTER-MURDERING... JERKFACE, I can't BELIEVE you would just have this QUASI-SUPERNATURAL ABILITY to just y'know KILL BADGUYS with near impunity and not TELL YOUR FAMILY?!?!?

During the vaguely unnecessary staircase fuck, I actually thought for a minute "She smells the killer gene!" etc. etc. obv badguy slayers give off a pheromone which is irresistable to ladies who never wash their hair.

Actually I think a lot of things in this movie could be described as "vaguely unnecessary" but you could say that about Kung-Fu Hustle, too, and that's the best film I've seen this year.

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 11:46 (7 years ago) Permalink

Yes, 'A History of Impotence' would have made for a more challenging picture.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 12:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

'A History of Internet Messageboard Celebrity'

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 12:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

A History of Hentai Collections

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 12:17 (7 years ago) Permalink

Yeah but the difference is that Egoyan is WICKED at that and even his worst movie is still pretty good.

Haha, it's strange, everyone in Canada I've spoken to loves Cronenberg, but tend to think Egoyan's movies are overrated and sucky.

But History of Violence: it's not very good, is it? If it's a Dahl-type genre thriller, it's not really exciting enough; if it's a Hitchcockian identity movie, there's no real mystery; and if it's an examination of suburban mores (yawn), it has absolutely nothing to say that wasn't said (better) in the first series if Six Feet Under (and a MILLION other movies.)

As it is, it's this weird kind of halfway house, with a silly-as-hell noir copout ending. Hurt's performance is terrific, but it's wrong for the movie.

That said, "(adopts wiseguy voice)I shoulda killed yew in Philly" is my new catchphrase.

― Chuck_Tatum (Chuck_Tatum), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 12:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

That and the fact that I thought Ed Harris kept calling him "Joey Jew Sac", which made me laugh.

― Chuck_Tatum (Chuck_Tatum), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 12:25 (7 years ago) Permalink

regarding comparisons to kill bill, make sure you read cronenberg's ign interview posted above where he disses tarantino.

― Dan Selzer (Dan Selzer), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 12:59 (7 years ago) Permalink

You could've just said "he disses Tarantino with that same old song about homage being phony" and saved me a lot of time!

"Unbreakable" was honestly more interesting by a long shot, too. Except I much prefer the son shooting Ed Harris in the back with a double-barrelled shotgun than I do the son pointing a revolver at his own pops followed by painfully awful dialogue for five neverending minutes.

I'm glad I saw this movie and I thought it was entertaining, but not entertaining enough to excuse the lack of anything really gripping on offer. I will be purchasing "I, Robot" and "The Island" on DVD long before I ever think of purchasing this. But you all already knew that.

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 13:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

Unbreakable has the most dissapointing ending of any movie in history.

― Chuck_Tatum (Chuck_Tatum), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 13:43 (7 years ago) Permalink

(Possible hyperbole)

― Chuck_Tatum (Chuck_Tatum), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 13:43 (7 years ago) Permalink

OMG I think this is the first time I have agreed with Tom about anything!

(I think Kung Fu Hustle was my favorite movie this year too!)

(Should I join the military and marry Ally?)

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 14:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

nah

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 14:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

Also, news just in:

Apparently the new Egoyan movie is TERRIBLE.

There's still time to delete this whole thread.

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 14:35 (7 years ago) Permalink

You can delete it if you want but I've read every single post and I'll remember what you said. About Egoyan and Canadians.

I found AHOV kind of...ok. That's about it. It was kind of OK. I don't even remember it being gory or shockingly violent at all!! I mean I had to think pretty hard, when Tom said "destroyed faces," to remember that there was those scenes were people got punched and their noses disappeared. I don't really remember much of this movie.

― Allyzay knows a little German (allyzay), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 15:24 (7 years ago) Permalink

where did you hear about the egoyaon film?

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 15:30 (7 years ago) Permalink

You TOTALLY gasped when they cut to the shot of that mustachioed dude in the beginning lying on the floor trying to breath through the giant sucking wound that used to be the bottom half of his face, I was sitting next to you.

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 15:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

Not you kyle.

― TOMBOT, Wednesday, 5 October 2005 15:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

Yes, I know that, but I didn't remember it 5 minutes after it happened, is the point I was making, that I had to THINK about it. I mean I gasped when Steve Coogan kicked over that Arnold statue in Around the World in 80 Days too, I'm like that and you know that already, stop trying to spot up my reputation or I'll do you one, I'll have you know.

― Allyzay knows a little German (allyzay), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 15:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

where did you hear about the egoyaon film?

my film geek red telephone ran in the middle of night.

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 15:40 (7 years ago) Permalink

hitchcock does a samurai movie

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 6 October 2005 14:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

that's kind of how i saw it, anyway. the entire first 45 minutes is almost exactly like "suspicion"!!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 6 October 2005 14:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

at the theater i saw this in, people started by giggling at it, and then about half the room started giggling WITH it.. we were pretty much divided at the end. i can definitely relate to alba's description of his crowd's "well, wtf" reaction.

when william hurt's standing there in the door frame, a woman sitting up behind me starts going "kill him! KILL HIM!" -- and every time we wanted that, we got it .. with the kid in the high school .. with everyone who crosses viggo.. and every time, it's like YEAH!!! URK!!!!!!

i really like the things madchen noticed. they're things that i either didn't notice, or didn't noticed that i noticed.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 6 October 2005 15:12 (7 years ago) Permalink

The message I got out of the film is this: violence is a trap. It's more of a pitfall than it is an actual solution, and once you're stuck in the trap it's hard to escape. That's the message that the Tom character believes, at least. What you guys are missing is that Tom is just as extreme as Joey. He's fair and evenhanded with his employees, he stays calm, he shrugs off litter left next to his restaurant, tries too hard to be nice to everyone. Seriously, Jesus was meaner than Tom.

All references to Joey mention how he was crazy or angry. Tom's unsettlingly sane and calm! Even in sex, he shows some motivation but never agression. There are as many people like this as there are superhuman hyper-violent people like Joey. You've got this unbelievable character, with the approximation of a real person stuck somewhere in-between. There's this visual tic that showed up on Mortensen's face in the transitions. There's an outright denial that there's a multiple personality situation in play, which is kind of true: everything that constituted Joey dropped off the face of the planet when Tom came into being, and it's a conscious effort to bring Joey back. It's Joey that slaps her on the staircase, etc.

Videodrome/eXistenZ are about people who are "normal" but are pursuing something they think is deviant or subversive for sexual pleasure. Lately, Cronenberg is kind of on a roll lately with characters that deny part of their pasts. With Spider you ended up with a man who was insane, but with AHOV you end up with a walking caricature of all that's good and right that contrasts with the "evil" past...

― mike h. (mike h.), Thursday, 6 October 2005 15:39 (7 years ago) Permalink

mike h., otm, very interesting to watch Mortensen's face at certain moments..

Weird audience reaction when I saw it as well. Some people walking out trying to puzzle out something about the plot, others going "OMG that was awful," others kind of stunned. Nervous laughter as well as laughter with the movie (more of that toward the end).

― dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 6 October 2005 16:18 (7 years ago) Permalink

"oooh you're a bad, bad boy!"

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 6 October 2005 17:17 (7 years ago) Permalink

During the vaguely unnecessary staircase fuck, I actually thought for a minute "She smells the killer gene!" etc. etc. obv badguy slayers give off a pheromone which is irresistable to ladies who never wash their hair.

That was my favorite scene in the movie by as many miles as the drive to Philadelphia.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 6 October 2005 21:09 (7 years ago) Permalink

that scene made several of the women in the cinema i saw it in pretty hot.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 6 October 2005 21:15 (7 years ago) Permalink

Yup. At the afternoon screening I attended, populated by genteel fiftysomething couples, I was careful to look at their reactions to the scene. All were alarmed, but no one was disgusted.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 6 October 2005 21:20 (7 years ago) Permalink

The message I got out of the film is this: violence is a trap. It's more of a pitfall than it is an actual solution, and once you're stuck in the trap it's hard to escape.
Ok, yeah - but so what? Isn't that something that's been said a million times before, in movies with far less pretense? Didn't we give an Oscar to a movie about this two years ago? Didn't Road to Perdition tread this exact same territory, while sucking even more?

I guess what amazes me about the critical reaction is that so many reviews are working angles of this - 'oh, he's undermining our societal attitude toward violence'/'violence comes back to haunt you'/etc. - like this message isn't just as much of a cliche as anything Hollywood produces.

And if I'm not enthralled by the concept (which I'm not), then all I've got are some relatively ungruesome fights/shootings, bad performances and weak humor.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 6 October 2005 21:28 (7 years ago) Permalink

yeah but tell us how you REALLY feel about the film, milo.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 6 October 2005 21:29 (7 years ago) Permalink

Didn't we give an Oscar to a movie about this two years ago?

That's what the Lord of the Rings movie was about?

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 6 October 2005 21:42 (7 years ago) Permalink

Honestly, the only thing I was really aroused by (in every sense) was the way the (SPOILER) mafia element was incorporated into Viggo and Maria's domestic lives, and how turned on she was by it, how she hated herself for that.

The son scenes work on basically the same level, but without anything quite as psychologically rewarding. Basically he seems to harbor latent Michael Corleone-ism. And whoever mentioned Adam Brody upthread OTM!

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 6 October 2005 21:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

Why do Cronenberg haters keep watching his films? Why?

I like how he always has some decompressed (omg am I some film auteur bullshit artist for using this word?) scenes in his films and they seem to go on a while, but Cronenberg usually barely breaks the 90 minute standard.

― mike h. (mike h.), Thursday, 6 October 2005 21:54 (7 years ago) Permalink

I'm not a hater - the only other Cronenberg film I've seen was Videodrome (good but not amazing, again the ideas weren't exactly original - but Debbie Harry is vastly more entertaining than Bello).

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 6 October 2005 22:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

Um what's an example of an "original idea"? Cuz I honestly have no idea what the fuck you are talking about?

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 6 October 2005 22:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

'sex/pornography is violence,violence is sex/pornography' etc.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 6 October 2005 22:41 (7 years ago) Permalink

That wasn't an original idea, of course. There's nothing wrong with re-treading old material or working with old ideas, of course, but Cronenberg (based on these two) seems to have a considerable opinion of himself, thinking that just restating those old ideas was an innovative act in itself.
Videodrome works because it's an effective movie in its genre, HOV fails at the same.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 6 October 2005 22:43 (7 years ago) Permalink

better phrasing than 'original idea' - What did Cronenberg have to say that hadn't been said before, and what did he improve upon if it had been said before?

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 6 October 2005 22:46 (7 years ago) Permalink

What did Cronenberg have to say that hadn't been said before, and what did he improve upon if it had been said before?
-- milozauckerman (wooderso...), October 6th, 2005.

The quality of the performances, the skillful editing, grounding the tale in a believable if overstated reality...I can go on. All these things redeem his "ideas"; I mean, who cares about IDEAS anyway? It's the execution. You think the film sucks, I think it's marvelous. If we can't disagree about movies, the world's in dire shape. Let's have a drink.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 6 October 2005 22:52 (7 years ago) Permalink

(xp) Why must the film say something new or original? I thought it was an effective thriller, and the thematic abstraction of the title strikes me as a red herring.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 6 October 2005 22:54 (7 years ago) Permalink

I'll drink with you, Soto.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 6 October 2005 22:54 (7 years ago) Permalink

Well, yeah, that's what it boils down to - I found it to be ineffective in the performances and narrative background (unsurprising given the thin source material), and the editing was unspectacular to me (do you mean the momentary shots of violence's aftermath)? So in my book it was a complete failure.

I don't want to sound like a dick, but I'd honestly like to know how it was effective as a thriller, jaymc. The end was never in doubt to me - there was no question that Viggo would settle his Philly business and wind up back on the farm.

I'm just referring to much of the commentary and praise surrounding the film, esp. from daily and mag critics, who seem to think that the 'violence comes back to bite you on the ass'/'never outrun your past'/etc. is something new and innovative. I wouldn't care if the film had been otherwise successful.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Thursday, 6 October 2005 22:59 (7 years ago) Permalink

(xpost)

If only, John.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Thursday, 6 October 2005 23:02 (7 years ago) Permalink

'sex/pornography is violence,violence is sex/pornography' etc.

'violence comes back to bite you on the ass'/'never outrun your past'/etc.

I haven't seen the new one yet but now I don't have to thanks to this brilliantly succinct encapsulations!

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 6 October 2005 23:32 (7 years ago) Permalink

or even just one encapsulation

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 6 October 2005 23:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

which one?

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 6 October 2005 23:35 (7 years ago) Permalink

I like the second one because it almost rhymes.

― walter kranz (walterkranz), Thursday, 6 October 2005 23:49 (7 years ago) Permalink

But the first one's tautology is so correct, since the film itself has two complimentary sex scenes that involve attraction via role-playing. Man, if the rest of the movie was as interesting as that one element, I'd probably be as excited as anyone else here about it. Alas...

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Friday, 7 October 2005 00:01 (7 years ago) Permalink

Jeez, Milo, hate art much?

― dar1a g (daria g), Friday, 7 October 2005 02:35 (7 years ago) Permalink

I mean, take a complex work and reduce it to a single note, and then blame the artist..!

― dar1a g (daria g), Friday, 7 October 2005 02:38 (7 years ago) Permalink

The end was never in doubt to me, either. So ... I mean, it's not like the kind of thriller where it could go in one of a million different directions. But I appreciated the mood a lot: everything was ominous and ripe with tension.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 7 October 2005 02:53 (7 years ago) Permalink

and intimacy.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Friday, 7 October 2005 03:00 (7 years ago) Permalink

I think I would love this film if it had fifteen more minutes between when he leaves the farm and when he arrives in Philly.

― kurt broder (dr g), Friday, 7 October 2005 03:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

Dude, Milo, I'm still with you even if nobody else is.

― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Friday, 7 October 2005 03:24 (7 years ago) Permalink

I love art. I just don't much care for this art.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Friday, 7 October 2005 03:48 (7 years ago) Permalink

I finally saw History of Violence today and basically liked it, still thinking about its thesis (like, whether it has a coherent one). One thing I'm thinking is that Tom Stall seems very Canadian. As opposed to Joey, who's very American. I guess it would have been too obvious to have him resettled in some small town in Ontario.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 16 October 2005 03:56 (7 years ago) Permalink

I'd say AHOV is DC's weakest since "M. Butterfly," but even MB might be a more interesting failure. I can't bring myself to hate it -- "You never lived in Portland?" and "How do you fuck that up?" might be the two funniest movie questions of the year -- but it's a passionless stylistic exercise. Scorsese's "Cape Fear" got sillier, but at least it had that 'playhouse' scene and embraced the pulp elements more primally. When you have nothing but bare-bones archetypes, you're walking a thin line, and when the quaking Chess Club-type son stomped the WB-drama bullies, the movie lost me. This Seitz guy from NY Press nails it, esp in the last 3 paragraphs:

http://nypress.com/18/38/film/seitz.cfm

Hate to think how arid it would've been without Ed Harris and William Hurt having a ball. As mysteriously overrated as "Spider was underappreciated.

I wonder what non-auteurist heartland multiplex audiences make of scenes like the staircase fuck. "Edna, this remind you o' Crash?"

>Cronenberg can hardly be accused of being a non-diverse filmmaker. This isn't John Ford or anything.<

Alex, you know he made non-westerns, yes? War films, comedies, "The Informer"? Try "The Sun Shines Bright," which on certain days I think is his best work. (And it's a remake of an early '30s Ford film with Will Rogers, "Judge Priest," which was quite good to begin with.)

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 13:08 (7 years ago) Permalink

non-auteurist heartland multiplex audiences

They go "Man I hate Dr Morbius, constantly making asinine comments on all the threads about films and sports and politics on that there I Love Everything web-enabled BBS. How come these movies never show any wang?"

― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 18 October 2005 13:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

Whatever you say, Joey.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 13:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

"This reminds me of something I read on that message board, I Hate Everything."

― William Paper Scissors (Rock Hardy), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 17:05 (7 years ago) Permalink

>Cronenberg didn't write this script, which is rare<

He wrote some of it without WGA credit in collaboration with this Josh Olson guy; from a Salon interview:

I didn't know this script was based on a graphic novel for a long time, because nobody told me. When I found out, Josh and I had already done a couple of rewrites. I said, "What do you mean, graphic novel?" and he said, "Oh, didn't anybody tell you?" They found me a copy and I looked at it, and I thought, well, we've gone so far in a different direction that this is actually irrelevant. In fact, if someone had brought me the graphic novel and said, "Are you interested in adapting this?" I'm not sure I would have said yes...

Q. Did his screenplay include the two intensely physical erotic scenes we see in the film?

It did not. I added those scenes.

Jams Murphy OTM on the hideous early Viggo-Bello dialogue; when I read in that same interview DC says "no irony" was a rule -- shit, there goes his only out.

Not one of Howard Shore's better scores; my friend recognized one of the closing-credit themes as a short walk from Return to the Shire.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 18:15 (7 years ago) Permalink

"Only out"? I don't understand.

― dar1a g (daria g), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 18:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

Re: that NYP review I think Zeitz sort of missed the point. Not that I think it's a masterpiece, but I think there's more going on than he credits. He's reading it very literally.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 18:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

only out = only excuse

There's a lot going on, nearly all of it sledgehammer-obvious, even compared to "Unforgiven" as MZS mentions.

I though the peak was the shots wrapping up the stairs hatefuck -- Bello kicking VM away, her showering, the blue night-shot of the scrape on her back.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 18:41 (7 years ago) Permalink

Well, the theme is obvious, the violence that underlies everyday life, etc. But most themes are obvious. I thought he nibbled at it in some interesting ways, most interesting being the movie's fundamental ambivalence toward violence and its acknowledgment of its ambivalence. Zeitz criticizes the violence for generally producing good rather than bad results -- the motel massacre at the beginning aside, bad guys are always on the losing end. But that was deliberate, clearly. The whole movie is set up in that tension between the knowledge that violence breeds violence etc. and the actual events of the story in which violence puts an end to violence. I thought the point of the dining table scene at the end was that the whole family is now sort of in on what Tom/Joey has known all along, which is that domestic security is inevitably built on some kind of blood sacrifice. Like suburban housing developments on old battlefields, etc. Not an original insight, OK, but I thought it was handled with some elegance and a fair amount of black comedy.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Tuesday, 18 October 2005 18:51 (7 years ago) Permalink

domestic security is inevitably built on some kind of blood sacrifice.

It struck me, and I just remembered, that some sense that all kinds of security are built on some kind of.. well, force and the willingness to use it. That's not so clear, but what I mean is, all the scenes with the local sheriff had this feel of playing up the effects of just straight up intimidation and potential for violence as the real forces keeping some sort of order in the community, the letter of the law being pretty much irrelevant.

― dar1a g (daria g), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 03:38 (7 years ago) Permalink

I couldn't believe how simpering Viggo was with the murderer who barked his coffee order at him. It really was, as a poster above said, a kind of psychosis, an unwillingness to confront.

I don't get this "violence underlying everyday life" theme. If your everyday life involves you desperately, schizophrenically hiding your bounty-killer past, then yes, it's about the violence the underlies everyday life. Otherwise it's about the violence underlying the life of a man desperately, schizophrenically hiding his bounty-killer past.

I agree with Dr. Morbius about the dialogue of the first 30 minutes or so. It really seemed over the top, and it's really hard to believe Cronenberg sees it playing straight down the middle.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 03:56 (7 years ago) Permalink

Well the theme was most cartoonishly elucidated in William Hurt's little soliloquy about "When mom brought you home from the hospital I tried to strangle you in your crib. She caught me and whacked the hell out of me." Then he says something like, "I guess all kids go through that." There's also the weird little story from the fry cook about the woman who stabbed him with a fork -- "So I married her!" And of course the sex-is-violence scene. All kind of reinforcing this sense of rumbling bloodlust, the excitement and allure of it balanced against the damage, etc.

I'm not saying it's done geniously (Blue Velvet does some of the same stuff, way more geniously), but I think it's all there.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 04:39 (7 years ago) Permalink

(Also I think there's a difference between playing something straight and meaning it straight.)

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 04:40 (7 years ago) Permalink

Certainly those themes can be found in the dialogue (similar to the talk about parents, killing pests, etc in "Psycho"); DC is no dummy. But they just seemed too telegraphed in an 'arty exercise' way.

As far as it being a metaphor for W's foreign policy, as Croney and Viggo are talking up in their interviews, I guarantee you that's not crossing the mind of viewers who aren't reading it beforehand. The quiet dinner finale brought Bill (compassionate bomber of Serbia / executioner of brain-damaged man / welfare abolitionist / serial postadolescent tomcat) Clinton to my mind.

"The Fly" is still his triumph to me; an accessible, disgusting romantic comedy/tragedy derived from a '50s B movie (and the peak of its two stars). It had the emotion and resonance this one only has in jolts.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 12:57 (7 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I didn't buy the Bush analogy, and I was looking for it.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 19 October 2005 13:21 (7 years ago) Permalink

O joy:

http://www.slantmagazine.com/dvd/dvd_review.asp?ID=780

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 20 October 2005 20:29 (7 years ago) Permalink

saw this, late last night. liked it

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 20 October 2005 20:47 (7 years ago) Permalink

Haha... I just saw that you fingered The Fly this morning and was heartened by it.

(I originally wanted the "overall" line to read "Better than A History of Violence," but that was just as a joke.)

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Thursday, 20 October 2005 22:21 (7 years ago) Permalink

i really, really liked this.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Friday, 21 October 2005 08:23 (7 years ago) Permalink

-- gypsy mothra (meetm...), October 18th, 2005.

otm. generally i think this movie sits well with the rest of cronenberg's ouevre, in that it's theme of 'violence underlies human behavior' is part of the greater theme in his work: that human beings are essentially fragile biological machines.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Friday, 21 October 2005 08:32 (7 years ago) Permalink

i really loved this film. i wasn't expecting it to be so...silly, in places. i didn't expect that one of the genres mashed up in it would be a healthy dose of "oooh! he's BEHIND YOU!" pantomime action, and i didn't expect william hurt to be so hammy ~~and look like sir alan sugar~~.

the way it veered between that (and of course the plunging into all sorts of cliché and massively obvious signposts with relish) and some really gripping intensity was unsettling: i was laughing pretty much throughout the last violent scene, when tom/joey escapes his bro's henchmen, because his knack for killing and not getting killed was somewhat ludicrous by that point (plus "how d'you fuck that one up?"), but that amusement was ruptured by the violence being just slightly more graphic than you expect, and viggo mortensen's amazing acting - his eyes switch-flicked between genial and psychotic so effectively.

also viggo mortensen was HOTT. um, as was the son. i couldn't quite decide which was hotter.

― The Lex (The Lex), Friday, 21 October 2005 09:07 (7 years ago) Permalink

I just want to reiterate that Viggo turned FORTY SEVEN yesterday.
Dear god I hope I look like that when I hit 47. Holy frijoles.

― TOMBOT, Friday, 21 October 2005 11:55 (7 years ago) Permalink

Well not exactly like that but you understand what I mean.

― TOMBOT, Friday, 21 October 2005 11:59 (7 years ago) Permalink

47!!!

― The Lex (The Lex), Friday, 21 October 2005 12:11 (7 years ago) Permalink

I understand they were probably going for blankness, but I really didn't find Viggo ... there.

I like my DC films with new orifices (or uses for them) or detachable body parts.

Some critic brought up "dreamlike" mise-en-scene, and not so much charcterizations as "role-playing." Which was my defense of Eyes Wide Shut, but too many strings were showing in this film.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 21 October 2005 12:52 (7 years ago) Permalink

I liked it, both pn visual and thematic levels. My date was a little unsettled, however, but then she did choose it!

― BARMS, Friday, 21 October 2005 13:27 (7 years ago) Permalink

I think it worked extremely well as a satire of contemporary America, specifically underscoring how violence and lies are what really bind homes together. Family values, indeed. It can even work as a broader, more primal satire of America, period, positing that the entire country - its founding, its morality, its pride - exists as a sort of big lie.

― Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Friday, 21 October 2005 15:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

for me, the 'big' point which was best made was the ease with which violence seeps into 'normal' life - the son and the mother, basically, neither of whom had any previous experience of violence or any predisposition to it, being suddenly given psychological leeway to let it show in their own lives.

― The Lex (The Lex), Friday, 21 October 2005 15:28 (7 years ago) Permalink

positing that the entire country - its founding, its morality, its pride - exists as a sort of big lie

I see the "lie" in History of Violence in the way the straight characters continue to deny the level to which they're invigorated by their own opportunity for debasement. The son's snitfit where he makes a crack to his dad "you gonna rub me out?!" is directed so that it's clear the son's gas tank (which was filled during the school hallway scene) just got topped off.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Friday, 21 October 2005 15:36 (7 years ago) Permalink

in other words, what Lex said.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Friday, 21 October 2005 15:37 (7 years ago) Permalink

And then the unease of the final shot/scene, with the family together wondering "What next? do we continue to live the lie, now that it has been revealed to us? Can we?" With the daughter present as a reminder of the innocence the other three so clearly crave but know they can never have, or even pretend to have anymore.

― Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Friday, 21 October 2005 17:04 (7 years ago) Permalink

Viggo's "I should have killed you in Philly" is one of the most satisfying moments I can remember in the movies.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 21 October 2005 17:19 (7 years ago) Permalink

And yet, I don't even remember that. When I see the line quoted I can't remember if Ed Harris said it.

If the thing had been executed (yuk yuk) with any sort of aesthetic *conviction*, I might've bought it, but it was like a schematic Brechtian thing with little verve.

And really, at no level of stylization is THAT kid kicking THOSE bullies' asses deserving of any response but WTF?!

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 21 October 2005 17:39 (7 years ago) Permalink

The William Hurt scenes were so smashingly effective because Cronenberg and Hurt purposely went over the top; I was laughing as hysterically as you were, as was the audience.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Friday, 21 October 2005 17:47 (7 years ago) Permalink

Morbs, it was a big deal because until that moment Viggo has been denying his past completely -- it finally confirms that he is capable of recognizing his past/that the mafiosos are not, in fact, mistaken, which Viggo's incredibly believable incomprehension of them still holds out of tiny promise of. And just the way he says it, it's like he's slipping back into a comfortable leather jacket he hasn't worn in years..

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 21 October 2005 17:56 (7 years ago) Permalink

how stylish are you, Dr Morbius?

― RJG (RJG), Friday, 21 October 2005 18:30 (7 years ago) Permalink

here's an interesting review, from this blog.

A History of Violence
Wednesday, October 19th, 2005

I’m not sure how much I can add, belatedly, to what k-punk, girish twice, Chuck, Jodi — followed by k-punk’s reply and Jodi’s counter-reply — Jonathan Rosenbaum, and others have already said about A History of Violence. But I do think that it is David Cronenberg’s best film since at least Dead Ringers (1988). Quite some time ago, I wrote extensively about the body horror in Cronenberg’s early films: which meant a lot, and still means a lot, to me. I was a bit disappointed, however, about the way that Cronenberg’s distancing himself from genre, in order to embrace “art film,” got in the way of his adaptations of writers with whom he shared a sensibility (William Burroughs and J. G. Ballard). And I was still more disappointed, when, in his more recent films, even though sometimes with increased artistic power, Cronenberg moved away from that explosive sensibility altogether, and towards an implosive concern with the anguish of wounded white male interiority — a subject with which I have little sympathy, as I think that we (since I have to be included as part of that “we”) need to get over it, and go on to more important things than whining over our supposed (more fantasmatic than actually real) loss of privilege. (In fairness, I should note that my friend Bill Beard, in his excellent book on Cronenberg, not only gives a far less pejorative account of this progress, but also argues that such a process was in fact already the real concern of Cronenberg’s earlier films as well, despite all the posthuman exploration that I, among others, have read into them).

The editing of A History of Violence is very tight and powerful, like that of Spider. But the important thing is that A History of Violence for me is that the film is not psychological, not about interiority, in the way Spider definitely still was (and the way many of the Cronenberg films of the last fifteen years or so have been). By “not psychological”, I don’t mean not affective, but that the affect in some way is impersonal or transpersonal. In Spider, dread was tied in to the protagonist’s point of view: a POV that we know is distorted and fantasmatic, but which we cannot escape from, or get an independent perspective on, despite this knowledge. The epistemological deadlock — or better, prison — that is at the heart of that film was reinforced by the way in which the adult protagonist (Ralph Fiennes) appears in the frame as a silent observer of his own psychotically distorted childhood memories.

The editing and pacing of A History of Violence create a similar sense of dread, even when what is explicitly going on (the members of a picture-perfect nuclear family eating breakfast, pouring the dry cereal, etc.) is entirely “normal” and banal. But Viggo Mortensen, playing the protagonist, is so closed off and opaque that we can’t really read (or more accurately: feel) what he’s going through as subjective anguish. (I’m assuming anyone who has read this far has seen the movie, or at least knows the basic premise: Tom Stall, exemplary small-town family man, turns out to have a dark past as Joey Cusack, psychotic mob hit man). As Tom, Mortensen is simply too blank to “identify” with; as Joey, he doesn’t display any of the self-congratulatory feeling that even Clint Eastwood (wonderfully minimal in expression as he is) does ultimately allow himself when he is in vengeful mode. In an email exchange, Bill Beard suggested to me that Cronenberg and Mortensen are operating by subtraction: “A History of Violence produces something radical simply by subtracting standard conduits of viewer empathy from what is unmistakably a mainstream-movie framework.” So we get, for instance, generic small-town Americana such as is found in the paintings of Norman Rockwell, and in the films of Frank Capra and (more recently) Steven Spielberg; everything is literally as it is supposed to be, but some dimension of warmth (or smarminess) is unaccountably missing, and this makes it all rather creepy. I’d only add to Beard’s account that the greatness of Mortensen’s acting, in particular, lies in the way he switches from one to the other of his two ‘characters’ or personalities, so that ultimately he seems to be trapped in a no-man’s-land between them. He’s a man without qualities, which is why both of his personas seem unpsychological. The conventional way to tell this story would be to make one of the personas more basic, more in depth, revealing the other persona to be just a mask; but this is precisely what Cronenberg refuses to do.

All this is even more evident in the two extraordinary sex scenes between Mortensen’s character and his wife Edie (Maria Bello), which are at the heart of the movie. The first involves playacting, as Edie drags Mortensen-as-Tom off to a secret tryst in the course of which she dresses as a cheerleader, and they pretend to be making out while their (whose? hers, I think) parents are sleeping in the next room. The second is when Mortensen-as-Joey drags Edie down the stairs and brutally fucks her in what is at least a near-rape (she ultimately seems to consent, though it’s clear that she continues to feel loathing as much as desire). What unites these two opposed scenes is that they both seem similarly distanced and performative, except that there is no sense of any realer or truer self behind the mask of the performance. The first scene is a parody of what adolescence is supposed to be like; the second is a parody of what maturity or adulthood all too often turns out to be like. This is why I felt a bit queasy during the first scene, and found it almost as disturbing as the second one. Both scenes suggest a kind of void, and a failure of contact: the two people never really come together. (Is this what Lacan meant by declaring that “there is no sexual relation”?). It’s not a void that one can feel anguished about, however; for the selfhood, or sense of “thrownness” at least, that would allow one to feel anguish is precisely what is missing, what has been replaced by a void.

All this is to say that the split or doubling in A History of Violence is ontological, rather than existential or psychological. The split between Tom and Joey, and between the two sex scenes, of course corresponds to the two worlds of the film, both of which are themselves cinematic — and thereby social — fantasies: the wholesome, Capraesque or Spielbergesque small town (Ronald Reagan’s America, or George W. Bush’s red states) on the one hand, and the big-city-at-nighttime on the other. (I initially thought of film noir for these scenes; but on further reflection I’m reminded more of the big city in violent-revenge-fantasy films like Charles Bronson’s Death Wish, or, more recently, Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller’s Sin City — it’s not irrelevant that A History of Violence, like Sin City, is an adaptation of material that first appeared in comic book form).

The result is that A History of Violence offers us a kind of spookily abstract modeling of cultural formations: of American fantasies about family, the good life, violence, empowerment, and self-reinvention: and in particular of how these participate in the construction of masculinity. This is very different from exploring the disintegration of masculinity — or of American culture, for that matter — from the inside. I call this ‘abstract modeling’ not just because Cronenberg’s presentation is so distanced and subtractive, but also because in a very real sense the abstraction is all that there is: the “inside” — something more personal and subjective, that would give the abstraction existential density and individual quirkiness and variability — simply doesn’t exist. This is Cronenberg’s version of postmodern flatness: the depths do not exist, everything is visible and apparent. This also explains the title of the film: this move really is a “history,” in the sense that it tracks the emergence of violence, and the different forms it takes at different times and in different circumstances. Violence is generated — almost as a autonomic effect — out of tiny rifts in the social fabric, or in the fabric of social myth (I mean, in the myth of noir as much as in the myth of wholesome “we take care of our own” Americana). This is why we get the story of Jack (Ashton Holmes), Tom’s teenage son, who erupts with violence in a parallel way to his father: as if what came back out of the past in the father’s case were generated as it were spontaneously, out of his very need to struggle, as an adolescent, with the (entirely stereotypical) problems of autonomy from the father and coming to terms with normative formations of masculinity. (I think that Jodi’s reading of the film as the son’s fantasy is valuable in the way it works out the son’s perspective; but I don’t accept it as an overall reading of the film, because it overly psychologizes the film and privileges the son’s perspective more than the film itself does, and thereby gives that perspective too much existential weight, ignoring how the film suggests it is just another social cliche, another purely superficial mode of articulating an otherwise blank subjectivity).

To say that A History of Violence is ontological and historical, rather than existential and psychological; and to say that it shows violence to be itself a surface or superficial effect of a structure or abstract model that is itself all surfaces (I’m calling it a “structure”, but the point of this is precisely that there is no underlying “deep structure” in any sense of the term): to say all this is also to say that the dichotomy or structural opposition that the film presents us with is false, and that the film ‘deconstructs’ the opposition, rather than affirming it. In other words, A History of Violence is like a Moebius strip. At any given point, it seems to have two sides; but the two sides are really the same side, each is continuous with the other, and slides imperceptibly into the other. There is no way to separate the Capra/Spielberg side from the noir/revenge nocturnal side. The common interpretive tendency in cases like this is to see the ‘dark’ side as the deep, hidden underside of the ‘bright’ side, the depths beneath the seemingly cheerful surface. But in A History of Violence, everything is what it seems. Both sides, both identities, are surfaces; both are ’superficial’; and they blends into one other almost without our noticing. The small town, with its overly ostentatious friendliness, is a vision of the good life; but brother Richie’s enormous mansion, furnished with a nouveau-riche vulgarity that almost recalls Donald Trump’s penthouse, is also a vision of the good life. In their odd vacancy, they are both quintessentially American (this could be, as Cronenberg has hinted, an allegory of America’s current cultural divide: blue states and red states, which actually are more continuous with one another than anyone on either side recognizes… this is something, perhaps, that only a Canadian could see, as it is invisible both to us Americans, who are too caught up in it, and to people from outside North America, who are too far away).

The Moebius strip would be Cronenberg’s version of the postmodern idea that there are no depths, only surfaces. Or (the same thing, to me) that there are affects, but not identities to be owners of those affects. And this two-sides-as-one would be why/how Cronenberg can be so unrelentingly grim, instead of having to resort to camp, in the ways that David Lynch and Guy Maddin both do (in the ways, I would say, that they are both forced to do, because of the extremities of their visions). K-Punk is right to assert that, for both Cronenberg and Lynch, it’s wrong to explain away the dualities and dichotomies of their films by saying that one side is the dream or fantasy or underside of the other. Rather, we have to grasp the total congruence of the film’s two halves (this comment would apply to Mulholland Drive as much as to A History of Violence. The difference is that where Lynch marks the two sides in the form of manic camp on the one hand and depressive bitterness and paranoia on the other, Cronenberg flattens both of them out, empties them both out. Lynch is thus a maximalist, Cronenberg a minimalist).

To say that Cronenberg’s vision in this film is ontological is also to say that he recognizes no hierarchy of levels. A History of Violence isn’t a film about existential male anguish, precisely because it works equally well, without privileging any one of these, as a study of the vacancy of the isolated inidividual, of the bourgeois nuclear family, of America as a fantasmatic formation or imaginary community, and of the “human condition” in the most general terms. But if it works most bitingly and corrosively on the level of family, this is because the Spielberg/revenge dichotomy-that-isn’t-one, which is Cronenberg’s largest cinematic reference point, tends to play out most overtly in terms of Family. The small town, of course, is grounded on the nuclear family, and its “family values”; Joey became Tom, in large part, by becoming a family man (which is why Edie worries, when she discovers the hidden identity, what the family really is, what their name is or could be). In Philadelphia, Richie makes a speech to Joey/Tom about why and how he never married & would never marry: it ties you down, makes difficulties, if you are married, then when you have a fling with somebody else (as you will inevitably want to do) you will have to do it with elaborate secrecy, etc. All this is a prelude to Richie’s trying to kill Joey, not in spite of, but precisely because of the fact that they are brothers (Richie never got as far in the mob as he wanted to, he says, because his family tie to his crazy brother held him back, just like getting married would). But by the end of the film — the last scene — being a married husband/father/family man is just as hollow as Richie’s life was — and retrospectively, it always was this hollow. Cronenberg rejects and undermines what is to me the one most absolutely offensive thing about all of Spielberg’s films (and about all of Spike Lee’s films too, for that matter): the absolute insistence on taking on the responsibilities of fatherhood, and thus restoration of a 1950s nuclear family, as an unquestionable and totally redemptive gesture. I hated that insistence before I had children; and now that I am a father, I hate it even more. The hollowness of the final scene of A History of Violence — the son getting out a setting for the place of the now-returned father at the dinner table — is devastating in its absolute oppressive rightness.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Friday, 21 October 2005 18:35 (7 years ago) Permalink

OMG grad student alert

phew!

that'll take a while to process.

― dar1a g (daria g), Friday, 21 October 2005 19:23 (7 years ago) Permalink

If the thing had been executed (yuk yuk) with any sort of aesthetic *conviction*, I might've bought it, but it was like a schematic Brechtian thing with little verve.
Doc ain't wrong.

― Are You Nomar? (miloaukerman), Friday, 21 October 2005 19:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

too long, didn't read
-- latebloomer (posercore24...), October 21st, 2005.

― fixed it for you, Friday, 21 October 2005 19:49 (7 years ago) Permalink

I think True Believers in this film are unlikely to convince others, prraps like those of us who think "Fight Club" is a far more original, funny, sharp treatment of identity/ social roles/ violence (although it's more about the Absence of Family, and Fincher's resume is far spottier and shorter than Cronenberg's).

Didn't buy Viggo as smalltown diner guy or Philly thug.

If "In the Bedroom" was a revenge flick for the NPR crowd, AHOV is one for _________?

btw, the grosses aren't all that great ($25 M or so), and this was supposed to be DC's first 'broad appeal' project in years. Can the masses tell his heart wasn't really in it, or do they just find it airless?

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 21 October 2005 20:22 (7 years ago) Permalink

If "In the Bedroom" was a revenge flick for the NPR crowd, AHOV is one for anyone who didn't know what the fuck was going on it "Lost Highway."

I like the way people keep referring to Cronenberg's idea of small town life as "generic," when in fact it seemed quite real to me. People driving around blasting hip-hop. Kids smoking pot on the corner. Hardly Capra, very contemporary. That was my first real clue that I was in for something far deeper than the usual "darkness lurks beneath the surface of small town life" trope.

― Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Saturday, 22 October 2005 12:09 (7 years ago) Permalink

Here's David Thomson's Guardian review:

On September 23, a great American movie opened in the US, and New Line, the distributor, revealed it at just 14 theatres. I am not complaining - I love and respect old-fashioned opening plans where just a few cities get a picture at first and then the word goes out. And New Line had their arguments: it wasn't that David Cronenberg was prepared to have this movie called Recoil! or The Last Day in Tom Stall's Life. No, this movie has a chilling edge of academic authority or analytic dread. It's called A History of Violence. And it's the first unmistakably great American film since Mulholland Dr., even if it is made by a Canadian.

Cronenberg is 62 now. Born and raised in Toronto, he still lives there, and his work is followed at an international level, but without the solid, financial reward that can change a man, or an artist. When he made Spider a few years ago, an uncompromisingly bleak study of schizophrenia in which Ralph Fiennes had hardly a word of dialogue, Cronenberg's determination to follow his own vision nearly destroyed the enterprise for lack of funds. And there will be some viewers now inclined to see A History of Violence as a sell-out, a desperate excursion into full-blooded film noir about the kind of things that happen - notoriously - not in Canada but in the United States.

Tom Stall is a gaunt-looking fellow with a dreamy smile on his face and an easy manner that fits in to the small Indiana town where he owns a diner called Stall's. He looks a lot like Viggo Mortensen. He has a wife, Maria Bello, and two decent kids. The teenage boy is mocked at school for not being as male as Indiana prefers. But Tom and his wife still have a wild, tender sex life of the kind that might not be owned up to in all towns in Indiana. But even though this is "sleepy" Indiana, the air is as taut as an old wire ready to snap. Something terrible is coming, and we know after just a few minutes that Cronenberg has devised and outfitted the terror in keeping with the "Let's do an experiment" tone of the title.

In the past, Cronenberg has been one of the world's most creative experimenters with the horror genre. I suspect that was because he felt able to push that genre towards his own necessary economy plus the quite startling dismemberment or parasitic possession of his vision. This was evident in They Came From Within, Rabid, The Brood, The Dead Zone and even The Fly, which was the first glorious blooming of his special sense of humour. But still, there was something very deliberate in Cronenberg that felt unable to get into what you might call popular genre. But like many ascetics, familiarity with his own medium has made his search for formal beauty more fundamental. And that is what is so American: for nearly always, I think, the most radical departures in American come with the telling of the old, old stories.

So this is a myth composed by a master that operates at the level of pulp fiction, or graphic novel - its actual source material. Ed Harris and later William Hurt take a huge exultant pleasure in knowing that they are playing stock figures from that tradition. And they know that we are loving hating them. But beyond that this is a superb story of a marriage, in which a great lie has been told, but guessed at? And even hoped for? The interaction of Mortensen and Maria Bello is actually the core to what the title is about, and their two love and sex scenes are the essence of this stunning movie. And when the family next sits down to dinner together the air is still taut with new discoveries and the affirmation of very old truths. By letting himself make a simpler kind of picture, Cronenberg has left us not so much with his glittering intelligence as a kind of question that the US has to ask itself.

Quite deliberately, I am not telling you the story of A History of Violence. That's because it employs a formula you've seen before, but gives it a radically new rhythm, one in which the atmosphere of the title is not just the energy that renews the country and which makes it safe and dangerous again. This film is a preparation for the uncertainty of the last few shots.

Just as with the close of The Deer Hunter, where survivors sing softly, "America the Beautiful", we are left to weight the balance of irony and forgiveness.

Those two films are ideal material to be shown to soldiers just returned from a war where the ordeal of survival eclipsed all thought of what the war was about.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Saturday, 22 October 2005 12:25 (7 years ago) Permalink

x-post "eXistenZ" is great, if only because it's one of the few films outside of "Mulholland Drive" (and, perhaps, "Starship Troopers") to make poor acting a plot point. In fact, I think one of the reasons Naomi Watts still gets kind of overlooked all these years later for her massive, massive performance in "MD" is that her bad-acting acting is simply too good! Likewise, all the corny bad accents and whatnot in "eXistenz" are distracting until the final revelation of what is/was and what is/was not "real."

Thomson is OTM about the "new rhythm" of "AHOV."

― Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Saturday, 22 October 2005 12:28 (7 years ago) Permalink

Josh, you're right about Watts' "bad-acting acting" in MD - except for the audition scene, in which she stuns the sunburned Bob Barker-esque lech and the audience with her intensity and sincerity.

― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Saturday, 22 October 2005 12:40 (7 years ago) Permalink

Thomson had me until he brought up The Deer Hunter.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Saturday, 22 October 2005 13:46 (7 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, The Deer Hunter also got a lot of Rorschachian praise for things that weren't on the screen, and COULD have been adapted from a pretentious comic book: "Terry & The Pirates Go to Vietnam."

"radical new rhythm" -- just ridiculous!

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 22 October 2005 16:24 (7 years ago) Permalink

Well, it's only "radical" in the sense that anyone going to "AHOV" looking for your typical action/vengeance film will find something else. That's, I think, part of what makes it so subversive. Also why so many people (including many at the screening I saw) seem to be laughing a lot. Everyone I've talked with has said the same thing, namely that people were laughing at odds moments all throughout. I'd say much of this has to do with the film's "rhythm," since it sure isn't due to the film's hilarious script.

― Josh in Chicago (Josh in Chicago), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:15 (7 years ago) Permalink

Well, it's only "radical" in the sense that anyone going to "AHOV" looking for your typical action/vengeance film will find something else. That's, I think, part of what makes it so subversive.
Howso? Who went to AHOV expecting a 'typical action/vengeance film'?

It wasn't released as one (it got a slow roll-out, per usual for mainstreamish arthouse fare), every review focused on the Cronenberg connection, it wasn't advertised as standard action/vengeance flick.

You could make that statement for something like Starship Troopers - and the fact that wasn't a typical action/vengeance movie led to some bad feeling from the audience - but AHOV was released as an artsy Cronenberg film. If there was subversion attempted, it was a failure.

― Are You Nomar? (miloaukerman), Sunday, 23 October 2005 01:29 (7 years ago) Permalink

my friend Sean jokingly called this movie The Ass of Aragorn. he loved it, by the way.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Sunday, 23 October 2005 07:08 (7 years ago) Permalink

The Fly pretty much peaks with the President's abortion nightmare and then tails off after there, doesn't it? The effects get worse, it's not as scary in general.

― Are You Nomar? (miloaukerman), Sunday, 30 October 2005 06:02 (7 years ago) Permalink

Thomson's right about this: This film is a preparation for the uncertainty of the last few shots. The ending's basically a question -- now that you know this...what? That last scene is what made the movie make sense to me.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Sunday, 30 October 2005 06:26 (7 years ago) Permalink

i just bought the new "Collector's Edition" DVD of The Fly. haven't sifted through all the extras yet. classic movie though!

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Sunday, 30 October 2005 15:36 (7 years ago) Permalink

Looks like Cronenberg is going to adapt Dead Ringers as a miniseries for HBO..!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4426386.stm

― dar1a g (daria g), Friday, 11 November 2005 20:44 (7 years ago) Permalink

A friend emailed me about that. As a longish series, it MIGHT work, but I doubt it (esp w/ Wesley Strick).

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 11 November 2005 20:58 (7 years ago) Permalink

i'm more interested to see his take on London Fields

― kyle (akmonday), Friday, 11 November 2005 21:02 (7 years ago) Permalink

Cronenberg will co-produce and direct the adaptation, which is being written by Doom writer Wesley Strick.

THE HEAVENS WEEP :-(

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Friday, 11 November 2005 23:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

Oh, it'll be OK, he'll just rewrite it as he goes.

I wonder if it'll be even better than Nip/Tuck..

― dar1a g (daria g), Saturday, 12 November 2005 17:57 (7 years ago) Permalink

More "presold" bullshit brought to you by Conglomerate-Run Showbiz Inc. (and YES, it was more creative and chancy in the classic studio period)

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 12 November 2005 17:58 (7 years ago) Permalink

more like dr whorebius

― Skelewhore, Saturday, 12 November 2005 18:00 (7 years ago) Permalink

4 months pass...

saw History of Violence last night - very impressed, even tho I felt like I knew what was coming at every turn. Oddly one of the few Cronenberg films that doesn't have anything to do with technology or the supernatural - really just a stripped down, weirdly compelling morality play.

(Also, my main reaction was: that was the most violentest violence that was every violented. jeeeeezUS!)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 17 March 2006 22:02 (7 years ago) Permalink

oh man, i really really want to watch this again now.

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Friday, 17 March 2006 22:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

Watch an honest B movie instead.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 17 March 2006 22:54 (7 years ago) Permalink

so Morbs I take it you didn't like it...

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 17 March 2006 22:55 (7 years ago) Permalink

Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes made of tickytacky
Little boxes on the hillside, little boxes all the same
There's a green one and a pink one and a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.
And the people in the houses all went to the university
Where they were put in boxes and they came out all the same,
And there's doctors and there's lawyers, and business executives
And they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.
And they all play on the golf course and drink their martinis dry,
And they all have pretty children and the children go to school
And the children go to summer camp and then to the university
Where they are put in boxes and they come out all the same.

And the boys go into business and marry and raise a family
In boxes made of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 17 March 2006 22:57 (7 years ago) Permalink

Yeah apparently it was no Munich.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 17 March 2006 22:57 (7 years ago) Permalink

dood - where does that ticky tacky houses song come from!?? My grandpa (a prof at Berkeley) used to sing it to me when I was little...

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 17 March 2006 22:59 (7 years ago) Permalink

DONT EVER LISTEN TO DOC MORBS ABOUT MOVIES. HE LIKED THE ICE HARVEST FOR FUCKS SAKE!!

― chaki (chaki), Friday, 17 March 2006 23:02 (7 years ago) Permalink

I know Pete Seeger had it in his regular set!

I thought this guy nailed AHOV:

"Dear A History of Violence,

This is hard for me. I hardly know what to say. Maybe I should just shoot straight with you. You're a B-picture. Now, I don't mean this in a bad way. Lots of really cool movies fall into this category. But really, you and I had a good time and all, expecting some big twist that never came (good for you!) and having that steamy rendezvous on the stairs and oh yeah, William Hurt. He was awesome. But you're just not quite top ten material, and if that hurts you I'm sorry. I know lots of other viewers love you, but to me, it's like you just reflect back whatever anyone wants to see in you. Critique of violence in the Gulf War II era? Okay. Portrait of fractured masculinity? You got it. Subdued Cronenbergian treatise on the body in crisis? I'm your film. Etc. Etc. I mean, look, I enjoyed our time together but surely you didn't think this was serious, did you?"

http://www.geocities.com/michaelsicinski/2005notgoodenoughformyexactingtaste.htm

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 17 March 2006 23:03 (7 years ago) Permalink

(xp) "Little Houses" was made famous by Pete Seeger, don't know who originally wrote it.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 17 March 2006 23:04 (7 years ago) Permalink

HOV was definitely in my top ten films from last year. It was a poor year for movies though.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 17 March 2006 23:07 (7 years ago) Permalink

just cuz me n Morbius don't always agree doesn't mean I'm not curious about his opinion...

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 17 March 2006 23:08 (7 years ago) Permalink

read the thread, dood!

― chaki (chaki), Friday, 17 March 2006 23:12 (7 years ago) Permalink

1) Head On
2) Kung Fu Hustle
3) The Constant Gardener
4) The Beat My Heart Skipped
5) Best of Youth
6) History of Violence
7) Wallace & Gromit
8) 2046
9) "Dumplings" from Three Extremes
10) Breakfast on Pluto

It was #6 apparently.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 17 March 2006 23:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

Doc ain't wrong (on this).

― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Friday, 17 March 2006 23:34 (7 years ago) Permalink

well I def. don't see how there's any substantive Dubya analogy to be drawn, that's for sure. and yes, "the strings do show" and I too mostly prefer Cronenberg in obsessed-by-orifices mode (the Fly, Videodrome, eXistenz), but the understated simplicity of the film worked for me this time around - it seemed appropriate, fit the subject matter.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 17 March 2006 23:36 (7 years ago) Permalink

It's a very good B-movie, which in a crappy year like this one means it's better than 99% of what got released (let alone what got nominated for Oscars.)

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 17 March 2006 23:36 (7 years ago) Permalink

Note: the guy who just meh'ed HOV above thought that A Hole in My Heart was one of the best films of last year so yeah.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 17 March 2006 23:38 (7 years ago) Permalink

i rented 'a history of violence' a couple of nights ago. i agree more with what rosenbaum said than snarky mcblog up there:

Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is a happy family man running a diner in idyllic small-town Indiana, with a lawyer wife (Maria Bello), a teenage son (Ashton Holmes), and a little girl (Heidi Hayes). One night he responds so deftly and definitively to the violent threats of two killers that he becomes a local hero. A Philadelphia mobster named Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris) hears of the story and soon arrives in town claiming that Tom has another name and background -- that he was once a gangster himself who mutilated one of Fogarty's eyes with barbed wire.

Is A History of Violence a popular genre movie, soliciting visceral, unthinking responses to its violence while evoking westerns and noirs? Or is it an art film, reflecting on the meaning, implications, and effects of its violence, and getting us to do the same? David Cronenberg's genius here is the way he makes it impossible to settle this question.

You can't logically claim that it's both kinds of movie at once -- the devices and intentions of one interfere with those of the other. Yet Cronenberg is so adept at tinkering with our thoughts about violence that he comes very close to pulling off this feat. He provokes confused emotional responses -- laughter at serious moments and spontaneous applause at some of the violent ones -- that might embarrass us, but Cronenberg isn't engaging in parody or irony. Nor is he nihilistically pandering to our worst impulses: the filmmaking is too measured and too intelligent. He implicitly respects us and our responses, even when those responses are silly or disturbing.

There's hardly a shot, setting, character, line of dialogue, or piece of action in A History of Violence that can't be seen as some sort of cliche. Its fantasies about how American small towns are paradise and big cities are hell are genre standbys that Cronenberg milks at every turn. But none of this plays like cliche; Cronenberg is such an uncommon master of tone that we're in a state of denial about our familiarity with the material -- a kind of willed innocence that resembles Tom Stall's own disavowals. (Warning: what follows is full of spoilers.)

Cronenberg keeps his camera too close to Stall's violence to let us feel detached from it. He also takes care to show the immediate consequences of violence -- such as what a shotgun can do to someone's face -- without rubbing our noses in it. But our proximity never allows for any simple identification with Stall -- or if it does, we eventually feel penalized because we don't really know who he is. (His elected surname surely isn't irrelevant.) There's a similar ambiguity in that Cronenberg has spent most of his life and career in Toronto; you might call him a next-door neighbor to the American dream, which includes the cherished idea that we can start our lives over again with a clean slate. We seem to believe and doubt that idea with equal conviction, and the uneasy laughs the film draws out reflect this familiar brand of doublethink.

So do the two remarkable sex scenes between Tom and his wife before and after she learns about his violent past (reportedly Cronenberg's main contributions to Josh Olson's script). In the first, she starts out dominant, playfully dressed as a cheerleader ("because we never got to be teenagers together"), though he winds up on top; the second is spurred by his rough aggression, and she's turned on even though she no longer wants to share the same bed with him. Both scenes testify to the uncommon skills of Mortensen and Bello: they expose more layers of personality than we can possibly keep up with.

At Cannes last May Alexander Horwath -- director of the Austrian Film Museum and one of Europe's best film critics -- caused a minor scandal by loudly berating his colleagues for laughing during a screening of the film. It's easy to feel superior to this behavior, especially since Cronenberg himself has said he doesn't regard laughter as an inappropriate response to certain scenes. But I think Horwath's anger is in some ways a sensitive response. Cronenberg isn't a posthumanist cynic like Lars von Trier, whose nihilism we honor by jeering along with him. Cronenberg is a troubled moralist who doesn't succumb to political correctness about violence, and the meaning of our laughter, however "appropriate," is part of what bothers him.

I've seen the film twice, with very different audiences -- at a gala in Toronto with the filmmakers and cast present and at a local preview with a mainly younger crowd -- and it was uncanny to hear both the laughter and spontaneous applause occur at precisely the same places. The most memorable instances followed two scenes in which Tom's teenage son, Jack, is taunted, insulted, and provoked at school by a classmate.

The first time, in a locker room, Jack defuses the tension, lightly mocking the insults by accepting and even embroidering them. The second time, in a hallway, he again tries to remain cool, but when that doesn't work he beats both the bully and his friend to a bloody pulp. The audience all but cheered -- boorishness won out. Even after we learn that both boys have landed in the hospital, their families might sue, Jack has been suspended from school, and Tom is furious, Jack's stupidity and momentary loss of control are still being celebrated. (A moment later, a similar point gets made when Tom says to Jack, "In this family, we don't solve problems by hitting people." Jack snaps back, "No, we shoot them," and Tom slaps him in response, immediately disproving his point. This time no one applauded, at either screening.)

Jack's comebacks in the locker room got some laughs, but certainly not applause. I'd wager this has to do with our programmed responses to genre; thoughtful responses (which you might call "art-house" responses) are likely to come later and more slowly. But in either case Cronenberg sets up our reactions, both simple and complex, with equal care. Combined with the visceral responses he creates, our thoughts become more than theoretical -- we wind up experiencing them in our gut.

― gear (gear), Friday, 17 March 2006 23:41 (7 years ago) Permalink

You can't logically claim that it's both kinds of movie at once

Oh, who needs logic! art doesn't need logic. seriously.

― dar1a g (daria g), Friday, 17 March 2006 23:47 (7 years ago) Permalink

Shakey -- understated? UNDERSTATED?!? Broheem! Like the WB-style high-school bullies and the geek son turning into Popeye? (I agree w/ darla, but context is all.)

(most of my comments are Oct 18, Mo)

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 17 March 2006 23:55 (7 years ago) Permalink

to be fair that seems like rbaum's point, though, dar1a

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 17 March 2006 23:56 (7 years ago) Permalink

understated in the sense that there is never much going on on-screen, things are kept pretty low-key (no frantic editing or "surprise!" shots, with the possible exception of Ed Harris getting blown away), the pace is fairly slow - almost glacial, in places - plenty of scenes with minimal dialogue. Plot-wise things were totally obvious, I don't mean there were a lot of subtleties to be grasped as to what was going on - but it struck me more as being simple to the point of being a parable, a fable, reducing all the elements to their barebones archetypal essence.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 18 March 2006 00:10 (7 years ago) Permalink

(he does this to more comic effect in eXistenz too: "GAS", etc.)

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 18 March 2006 00:12 (7 years ago) Permalink

it just felt subdued to me - punctuated with bursts of superviolence.

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Saturday, 18 March 2006 00:13 (7 years ago) Permalink

I thought it was a really crappy B-movie, largely because Cronenberg was weighed down by the need to make it IMPORTANT.

― Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Saturday, 18 March 2006 00:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

This is so true. Most of Kings & Queen worked because of the vertigo it induced in me. The shift in tones in AHOV, sometimes within the same scene, were almost Hitchcockian, with Cronenberg's similarly clammy regard for people perversely warm and human this time around, thanks in no small part to Bello and Mortensen.

And I detected no self-importance in AHOV, for the same reason I don't view Blue Velvet as a Horrifying Critique of Reagan's America. AHOV is a B-movie purified. Whether you think B-movies need purifying is a whole other question.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Saturday, 18 March 2006 03:32 (7 years ago) Permalink

Note: the guy who just meh'ed HOV above thought that A Hole in My Heart was one of the best films of last year so yeah.

Sicinski is pretty much the smartest non-professional critic I know of. He could've put Crash in his top ten and I would've rushed to give it a second look.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Saturday, 18 March 2006 05:11 (7 years ago) Permalink

Hell, what am I talking about? Sicinski is published in Cinema Scope.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Saturday, 18 March 2006 05:14 (7 years ago) Permalink

(i.e. he's as professional as the term even matters)

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Saturday, 18 March 2006 05:15 (7 years ago) Permalink

11 months pass...

Who will meet me in LA September 7th next year?

Horror flick 'The Fly' to mutate into an opera
By Diane Haithman
LA Times Staff Writer

Los Angeles Opera and the Théâtre du Châtelet of Paris will co-produce "The Fly," a new opera based on director David Cronenberg's 1986 horror film about a scientist who mutates into a human-fly hybrid, executives of the two artistic entities are to announce today in Paris.

The opera, to be directed by Cronenberg with music by Academy Award-winning film composer Howard Shore and a libretto by playwright and Los Angeles native David Henry Hwang, is scheduled to have its world premiere in Paris on July 1, 2008, then arrive in the U.S. on Sept. 7 as the opening offering of L.A. Opera's 2008-09 season.

"The Fly," to be inspired by the 1957 George Langelaan short story as well as the Cronenberg film, will feature set designs by Dante Ferretti and costumes by Cronenberg's sister, Denise Cronenberg, a frequent collaborator on his movies.

L.A. Opera General Director Plácido Domingo said in the fall of 2004 that the company hoped to bring together Cronenberg, Shore and Hwang for "The Fly," which was originally planned for the 2007 season but was delayed because of scheduling issues. Domingo now plans to conduct the premieres.

While "The Fly" represents Cronenberg's and Shore's first foray into opera, it is not the first time they have collaborated. Shore has scored 11 of Cronenberg's films, including "The Fly" and "A History of Violence."

Both Cronenberg and Shore also have a previous connection with Hwang: Cronenberg directed the film and Shore wrote the score for the 1993 movie version of Hwang's Tony Award-winning play "M. Butterfly."

Hwang has a history with opera as librettist for Philip Glass' "The Voyage," Bright Sheng's "Silver River" and Osvaldo Golijov's "Ainadamar." In an interview Thursday, Hwang said the story of the tragic man-insect in "The Fly" represents another facet in his exploration of identity confusion, a theme in both "M. Butterfly" and his revisitation of "Flower Drum Song."

"I thought it would be fun to do an opera based on 'The Fly,' focusing more on the Kafkaesque, metaphysical, transformative themes than in the movie," Hwang said. "The film is quite operatic, really. There are a lot of special effects, and a certain amount of blood, and that may be what, initially, drew a lot of people to the movie. But David managed to use that story to get to something deeper … more human — the kind of big issues that are suitable for opera."

― Dr Morbius, Thursday, 22 February 2007 16:16 (6 years ago) Permalink

4 months pass...

trailer for DC's latest:

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809794102/video/3182401/

― Ward Fowler, Sunday, 1 July 2007 22:49 (5 years ago) Permalink

no no no no no

― Eric H., Sunday, 1 July 2007 22:55 (5 years ago) Permalink

ok, huh? Mafias and prisons? I want Cronenberg back.

― kenan, Sunday, 1 July 2007 22:57 (5 years ago) Permalink

Looks like Viggo's playing Ed Harris from the last one here.

― Sparkle Motion, Sunday, 1 July 2007 23:19 (5 years ago) Permalink

― rrrobyn, Sunday, 1 July 2007 23:26 (5 years ago) Permalink

it's sure to have some brutal violence though, i guess
as long as it's got his brand of grime and grit and general uncontainable ooziness, even if not hyper-viscerally rendered, i'm fine

― rrrobyn, Sunday, 1 July 2007 23:29 (5 years ago) Permalink

i feel a constant pain in my lower right abdomen, is that a warning sign for the Cronenberg disease?

― Heave Ho, Monday, 2 July 2007 01:49 (5 years ago) Permalink

4 weeks pass...

anybody ever seen this? worth going to...?

Crimes of the Future screening at the Castro with music by I Am Spoonbender

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 30 July 2007 19:01 (5 years ago) Permalink

it's definately worth seeing, but not with added "live score."
the long gaps of silence in that film are integral to its aesthetic.

― sexyDancer, Monday, 30 July 2007 19:04 (5 years ago) Permalink

yeah I'm a little perplexed at their addition - as a band they're quite good and definitely attuned to Cronenberg's aesthetic and ideas but I don't see why they're necessary. Cronenberg's rumored to attend, maybe he'll shed some light on it.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 30 July 2007 19:07 (5 years ago) Permalink

4 weeks pass...

A phenomenology of tragedy: illness and body betrayal in The Fly
by Havi Carel

Many interpretations... read [The Fly] as a film about monstrosity ...Illness is taken to be a metaphor for the changes in Seth, changes that continuously turn him away from the human and towards the monstrous. .

...I suggest an opposite interpretation: instead of seeing Seth’s illness as a metaphor for monstrosity, I suggest that monstrosity is a metaphor for illness. Seth’s physical corruption as he becomes more and more monstrous is, in fact, a depiction of illness, and elicits disgust in the viewer that is identical to the disgust elicited by physical corruption brought about by illness. The external deformation of Seth as he becomes more and more fly-like, shown so spectacularly in the film, is a representation of the internal destruction and physiological chaos caused by disease....

http://scan.net.au/scan/journal/display.php?journal_id=95

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 18:43 (5 years ago) Permalink

The Fly was a genuine Hollywood film, a love story, rich in morbid humour, and a metaphor for genius and for any and every disease mankind has faced. As never before, in the relationship between Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis, Cronenberg's compassion was revealed. Indeed, The Fly is only incidentally a horror film; it is primarily a screwball romance, one of the great movies about the kinship of freaks and... the rest of us.

^^ david thomson w/ the only worthwhile analysis of this film

― r|t|c, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 19:36 (5 years ago) Permalink

uhhhh...people (incl. I think Cronenberg himself) have been saying that about The Fly for years. xpost.

― jessie monster, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 19:51 (5 years ago) Permalink

I love every Cronenberg movie I've seen but The Brood is my favorite. I made my girlfriend watch it and not only was she totally creeped out and disturbed but shortly after that she became pregnant.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!

He has creepy gyno stuff in the Brood, the Fly, Shivers, and of course DEAD RINGERS...what is the deal with this man?

He played the gynecologist in The Fly.

― Abbott, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 23:24 (5 years ago) Permalink

There's creepy gyno stuff, yes, but there's also a more general obsession with bodies in general, and how squicky they are, and how they break down.

― kenan, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 23:26 (5 years ago) Permalink

Oh, see, I hadn't read the Morbs post. The Fly is a perfect example.

― kenan, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 23:27 (5 years ago) Permalink

i thought i'd heard he said the fly was about how in a love affair one person always turns into a monster.

^^also this

― kenan, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 23:29 (5 years ago) Permalink

I'm looking forward to the new Cronenberg about as much as I am the new Paul Haggis flick.

― Eric H., Tuesday, 28 August 2007 23:35 (5 years ago) Permalink

Hey, Haggis wrote the screenplay for Casino Royale, which I think is great. He's not all bad.

― kenan, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 23:38 (5 years ago) Permalink

There's creepy gyno stuff, yes, but there's also a more general obsession with bodies in general, and how squicky they are, and how they break down.

True, but it's worth noting that Cronenberg has never pushed specifically male sexual biology for grossness points.

― Bob Standard, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 23:39 (5 years ago) Permalink

what about the armpit peepee

― da croupier, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 23:40 (5 years ago) Permalink

i've seen the trailer for "eastern promises" . it was kinda lame, i hope the movie won't be.

http://emanuellevy.com/article.php?articleID=6811

― Zeno, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 23:43 (5 years ago) Permalink

Man, yeah, he's got hella stuff about getting PREGGERS...I can't imagine him making a movie about twin proctologists.

Makes him all the scarier, me being a girl and all. UGH that birth scene in the Brood.

― Abbott, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 23:44 (5 years ago) Permalink

what about the armpit peepee

It comes out of a armpit girl vagina that is attached to a actual girl. So "maleness" angle here is kinda secondary. Fact, it ranks kinda high on the girl-sex-grossness scale.

― Bob Standard, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 23:47 (5 years ago) Permalink

Man, watch that Eastern Promises trailer. Naomi Watts plays a MIDWIFE...there's a scene of her in surgical scrubs. I can't wait to watch interror as a 14-year-old-girl dies in a puddle of her own leukorrhea or something.

Actually I think it looks like a good movie. The only problem I can foresee is the fake Russian accent. I'm afraid it'll remind me of that letter being read by Lisa's Russian pen pal in the Simpsons, which changes in the middle to being written by a man overthrowing their house. "SINCERELY, LITTLE GIRL."

― Abbott, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 23:49 (5 years ago) Permalink

haha

― kenan, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 23:56 (5 years ago) Permalink

Cronenberg movies suck.

― milo z, Tuesday, 28 August 2007 23:59 (5 years ago) Permalink

"Cronenberg has modestly described himself as looking like a Beverly Hills gynaecologist"

― Abbott, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 00:04 (5 years ago) Permalink

Apparently Scorsese said this about him!

― Abbott, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 00:04 (5 years ago) Permalink

But he was MORE THAN HAPPY to keep the title, apparently.

― Abbott, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 00:06 (5 years ago) Permalink

hmmmm

I don't see the problem.

― kenan, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 00:07 (5 years ago) Permalink

more recently:

― kenan, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 00:08 (5 years ago) Permalink

He looks like a guy.

― kenan, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 00:08 (5 years ago) Permalink

No, he's fine-looking man, it's just like, "Hey, J.G. Ballard, describe me as looking like a gynecologist. Like I played in the fly. Not that I'm obsessed with gynecology, it's...bodies...in general."

― Abbott, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 00:09 (5 years ago) Permalink

Are you accusing Cronenberg of being... creepy?

― kenan, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 00:12 (5 years ago) Permalink

THIS IS NOT HERESY AND I SHALL NOT RECANT

― Abbott, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 00:16 (5 years ago) Permalink

No, I know what you're saying, and you're acknowledging an undercurrent that's in most of his movies, which is a male protagonist dealing with women as if they are an "other." But I don't feel like he's dishonest or self-deluding about it. Almost the opposite. And I think the reckless abandon with which he goes about displaying this tendency is interesting and possibly admirable. In Dead Ringers, a gynecologist becomes convinced that women are mutants and designs special and in fact sadistic-looking tools for these women. I do not imagine that Cronenberg himself is that horrified by the female form, but he's taking a tendency, possibly one of his own, grabbing the ball and running as far and as fast as he can with it.

― kenan, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 00:21 (5 years ago) Permalink

I know, I love that about him too. And I dig that he's so open about it. I just didn't entirely agree w/yr statement that there's "a more general obsession with bodies in general, and how squicky they are, and how they break down." I mean, there is for sure, but maybe the gyno thing hits home for me bcz, you know, sitting in those stirrups can be scary enough without fearing you're going to get experimental treatment with some silver Geiger pterodactyl leg or explode with sacs that grow clowns of creepy Canadian boys.

(It's something I've always noticed due to the "AAAGH!" factor rather than the gender politics.)

― Abbott, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 00:25 (5 years ago) Permalink

He would be honored to hear you say that. :)

Ok, so he's creepy. Creepy R People Too.

― kenan, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 00:27 (5 years ago) Permalink

I sure love that man.

― Abbott, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 00:28 (5 years ago) Permalink

Have you seen Shivers, kenan? It's my favorite one.

― Abbott, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 00:29 (5 years ago) Permalink

I finally did, just a few months ago.

I still like Naked Lunch better.

― kenan, Wednesday, 29 August 2007 00:32 (5 years ago) Permalink

So. . . Eastern Promises.

I was simultaneously excited and uh oh about this one from the previews (excited cuz it's new Cronenberg and uh oh cuz it looks like it might suck) and apparently it's written by the guy who did the awesome Dirty Pretty Things and it's getting really good reviews.

I heard one review describe this as a less weird Inland Empire haha!

― Alex in SF, Sunday, 9 September 2007 16:14 (5 years ago) Permalink

Whoa, when is it released? WANT TO SEE.

I saw Videodrome for the first time the other night....holy wow.

― Abbott, Sunday, 9 September 2007 16:21 (5 years ago) Permalink

Oh, sorry, I can do my own homework. IT will be released two Fridays from now. I'll scribble that into my day planner or something.

― Abbott, Sunday, 9 September 2007 16:24 (5 years ago) Permalink

I see that it will be release this coming Friday, where do you see two?

― Alex in SF, Sunday, 9 September 2007 16:26 (5 years ago) Permalink

Oh wait SELECT THEATERS nevermind.

― Alex in SF, Sunday, 9 September 2007 16:27 (5 years ago) Permalink

My theater is far from select, but it is quite close to a Cik•Fil•A.

― Abbott, Sunday, 9 September 2007 16:30 (5 years ago) Permalink

the early revies says it's excellent.
something in between the godfather and inland empire...
sounds tasty..

― Zeno, Monday, 10 September 2007 07:18 (5 years ago) Permalink

naked knife fight, hooray

― Dr Morbius, Monday, 10 September 2007 18:08 (5 years ago) Permalink

I'm pretty sure no amount of good reviews from people I trust will be enough to convince me this won't suck.

― Eric H., Monday, 10 September 2007 18:10 (5 years ago) Permalink

I R EXCITED

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 10 September 2007 18:19 (5 years ago) Permalink

"I'm pretty sure no amount of good reviews from people I trust will be enough to convince me this won't suck."

Yeah I'm sure it won't be as good as Black Dahlia.

― Alex in SF, Monday, 10 September 2007 18:22 (5 years ago) Permalink

hey, Eric didn't even like BD much.

At least this figures to be less pretentious than History of Violence. I hope.

― Dr Morbius, Monday, 10 September 2007 18:24 (5 years ago) Permalink

Haha I thought he said it was the most exciting movie he saw last year. Maybe I'm misremembering.

― Alex in SF, Monday, 10 September 2007 18:27 (5 years ago) Permalink

there was some good stuff in BD but I spent more time laughing at it than genuinely enjoying it

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, 10 September 2007 18:28 (5 years ago) Permalink

(xp) Yes. I was underwhelmed with Dahlia.

― Eric H., Monday, 10 September 2007 18:29 (5 years ago) Permalink

I might have said something about it being the not-worst movie I saw last year, which may have understandably led to confusions.

― Eric H., Monday, 10 September 2007 18:30 (5 years ago) Permalink

(btw Redacted isn't out til December)

― Dr Morbius, Monday, 10 September 2007 18:30 (5 years ago) Permalink

Ebert gives Eastern Promises four of four stars

― Abbott, Friday, 14 September 2007 19:02 (5 years ago) Permalink

What was pretentious about A History of Violence? I'm not arguing that it wasn't, just asking.

― jaymc, Friday, 14 September 2007 19:08 (5 years ago) Permalink

It didn't even start with the mesopotamians. Some history.

― Abbott, Friday, 14 September 2007 19:09 (5 years ago) Permalink

j, we had a whole thread on it! My problem: B movie as a Grand Statement.

― Dr Morbius, Friday, 14 September 2007 19:19 (5 years ago) Permalink

At least this figures to be less pretentious than History of Violence. I hope.

It's less pretentious, but the stakes are also much lower. It's the slightest (formally, narratively and idea-wise) Cronenberg I've seen.

― C0L1N B..., Friday, 14 September 2007 19:20 (5 years ago) Permalink

Haha have you seen Fast Company?

― Abbott, Friday, 14 September 2007 19:20 (5 years ago) Permalink

I couldn't finish the Hoberman review, it seems like the more he praises Cronenberg (he again calls him the best North American filmmaker of his generation), the fewer ideas he has about him.

― C0L1N B..., Friday, 14 September 2007 19:23 (5 years ago) Permalink

Haha, no. Nothing older than The Brood, so I guess that could explain my response.

x-post

― C0L1N B..., Friday, 14 September 2007 19:24 (5 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, it was more interesting back in the day, the reviews, when his movies were cold and schlubby and no one liked them.

I want to get the Criterion Videodrome, are the extras good?

― Abbott, Friday, 14 September 2007 19:25 (5 years ago) Permalink

"him the best North American filmmaker of his generation"

thats easy: no competition,except david lynch

― Zeno, Friday, 14 September 2007 19:28 (5 years ago) Permalink

See, no one said that after SCANNERS, at which point I think he'd made a half-dozen movies.

― Abbott, Friday, 14 September 2007 19:30 (5 years ago) Permalink

Lol @ Lynch and Cronenberg as only major North American directors of the 80s and 90s.

― C0L1N B..., Friday, 14 September 2007 19:32 (5 years ago) Permalink

I guess it's to read the Death of Cinema thread.

― C0L1N B..., Friday, 14 September 2007 19:33 (5 years ago) Permalink

^time

― C0L1N B..., Friday, 14 September 2007 19:33 (5 years ago) Permalink

My problem: B movie as a Grand Statement.

otm... he tried to squeeze way too much out of a pretty thin premise.

― kenan, Friday, 14 September 2007 19:34 (5 years ago) Permalink

I still haven't seen that one.

― Abbott, Friday, 14 September 2007 19:34 (5 years ago) Permalink

not the only one, but waaaay above all others

― Zeno, Friday, 14 September 2007 19:38 (5 years ago) Permalink

"... he tried to squeeze way too much out of a pretty thin premise"

depends how you look at it.
you can also enjoy it flat, as lots of people did

― Zeno, Friday, 14 September 2007 19:39 (5 years ago) Permalink

I thought the movie totally worked on the level of Viggo KICKING ASS.

He showed up on Colbert last night, fwiw. Not as a guest, just as an odd cameo, in a LOTR costume. He gave Colbert a very big sword. I don't even remember the premise.

― kenan, Friday, 14 September 2007 19:44 (5 years ago) Permalink

AWESOME

― Abbott, Friday, 14 September 2007 19:46 (5 years ago) Permalink

I thought the movie totally worked on the level of Viggo KICKING ASS.

This is true. The steam room scene is great.

― C0L1N B..., Friday, 14 September 2007 19:47 (5 years ago) Permalink

slight? it can't be boringer than spider, can it?

― remy bean, Saturday, 15 September 2007 02:53 (5 years ago) Permalink

I want to get the Criterion Videodrome, are the extras good?

-- Abbott, Friday, September 14, 2007 7:25 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

YES

good commentary and packaging too.

― latebloomer, Saturday, 15 September 2007 02:59 (5 years ago) Permalink

so what kind of "big statement" was Cronenberg trying to make with AHOV?

the film touches on some themes beyond the gangster stuff, maybe. but i don't see that making the film pretentious.

― latebloomer, Saturday, 15 September 2007 03:12 (5 years ago) Permalink

what's wrong with a b-movie as a grand statement anyway. ffs.

― latebloomer, Saturday, 15 September 2007 03:14 (5 years ago) Permalink

I liked Eastern Promises (although a little less that AHOV--which it is much cleaner than thematically--and a lot less than Dirty Pretty Things--which it's just not as good as.) Watt, Mueller-Stahl, Cassell are all good (if at times not entirely believable in their respective Roles), but it's really all Mortensen's movie. The bathhouse fight scene is great.

― Alex in SF, Saturday, 15 September 2007 03:31 (5 years ago) Permalink

i thought this thread will be more popular,now when the movie is out...does it mean i can wait for the dvd?

― Zeno, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 15:04 (5 years ago) Permalink

not the only one, but waaaay above all others

^Spielberg, trendies

― Dr Morbius, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 15:10 (5 years ago) Permalink

I saw it last night. Fabulous. See it now on the big screen—you'll be able to see the FOOD better.

― Beth Parker, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 23:11 (5 years ago) Permalink

this was an awesome movie.
Hitch would have been proud of it.
cronenberg is proving he is currently the best director on playing with genres,injecting deep subtext about modern society and psychology.
and it's very enjoyeble as well.

― Zeno, Saturday, 22 September 2007 00:12 (5 years ago) Permalink

Saw Eastern Promises a few hours ago: much thinner than AHOV (this one more obviously betrays B-movie origins), and not as satisfying, although Mortensen is quite excellent in a performance that shows with what grace and power he can move.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Saturday, 22 September 2007 02:11 (5 years ago) Permalink

I found it totally satisfying and actually preferred it a tiny bit to AHOV. I liked AHOV a lot, I just wasn't all that interested in the guy's marriage/ family, blah blah.

― Beth Parker, Saturday, 22 September 2007 15:34 (5 years ago) Permalink

an american friend who normally watches things like norbert just saw this and says it is freakin terrific

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 13:36 (5 years ago) Permalink

viggo, naomi and vincent cassell - cronenberg is such a perv

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 13:45 (5 years ago) Permalink

loved it. beth's right - this is like ahov with the fat removed.

i've read several capsule reviews that mention cassel being miscast and thus the weak link, but i didn't see it.

― lauren, Tuesday, 25 September 2007 13:49 (5 years ago) Permalink

I just saw Eastern Promises - I thought it was fantastic.

― Hurting 2, Sunday, 30 September 2007 03:57 (5 years ago) Permalink

Very much one of those films where you can spend the train ride home thinking of another and another detail whose significance didn't immediately occur to you. The bathhouse fight was incredibly gripping - although I could have done without the "Oh shit, fat dude is still alive!" moment.

― Hurting 2, Sunday, 30 September 2007 04:01 (5 years ago) Permalink

I just got my copy of Russian Criminal Tattoo Encyclopaedia Vol 2, the first volume of which, when delivered into Cronenberg's hands, provoked a rewrite of the original script of Eastern Promises. It's quite beautiful; I mailed Fuel today asking whether vol 1 would come back into print. (Volume 1 goes for several hundred $, as best I can tell.)

― libcrypt, Sunday, 30 September 2007 04:21 (5 years ago) Permalink

although I could have done without the "Oh shit, fat dude is still alive!" moment

fat dudes die hard

― latebloomer, Sunday, 30 September 2007 07:17 (5 years ago) Permalink

i liked this, but then i ran into a girl from kiev who hated it, and now i'm not so sure. it was cool and entertaining. and the bathhouse scene was pretty amazing and it brought back old(er) cronenberg for me (not just because of the blood, but because of the staging.) but it was a little too contrived at the same time, a couple of lines peeked through that built-up noir world.

― strgn, Sunday, 30 September 2007 08:13 (5 years ago) Permalink

I think the Hitch comparison was a good one - it was more of a tightly written thriller than a realistic crime story.

― Hurting 2, Sunday, 30 September 2007 15:28 (5 years ago) Permalink

4 weeks pass...

Just saw a History of Violence. Holy shit it's intense and suspenseful and man, that guy's head sure gets shot open. Want to know what happens to his son.

― Abbott, Monday, 29 October 2007 19:52 (5 years ago) Permalink

7 months pass...

http://www.hulu.com/watch/15520/naked-lunch

― and what, Friday, 30 May 2008 02:56 (4 years ago) Permalink

two-disc edition of The Fly now at HMV for $4 (in toronto, at least). The second disc has a 2 1/2 documentary + the usual extras.

― negotiable, Sunday, 1 June 2008 22:12 (4 years ago) Permalink

7 months pass...

man ahov was great, finally saw it for the first time -- generic 'is dr. morbius wrong about everything' comment here -- i dont get why ppl think its 'pretentious' or whatever. it avoided camp i guess, in a way that made it seem really severe/stark. i also dont think it was at all about 'violence behind the scenes in small towns!', more about how the cost of peace is violence, and how violence exists in a lot of diff forms & whathaveyou throughout history ... nothing particularly pretentious about it tho, other than the discourse around it being 'ppl took this film seriously'

― choom gangsta (deej), Monday, 5 January 2009 09:09 (4 years ago) Permalink

6 months pass...

― bad-boy cartographer (Abbott), Monday, 27 July 2009 22:31 (3 years ago) Permalink

Has anyone else noticed this?

― bad-boy cartographer (Abbott), Monday, 27 July 2009 22:33 (3 years ago) Permalink

lol @ viggo's flag pin

― bad-boy cartographer (Abbott), Monday, 27 July 2009 22:35 (3 years ago) Permalink

you left out Jeremy Irons

― girlish in the worst sense of that term (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 27 July 2009 22:41 (3 years ago) Permalink

but yeah he likes guys with pronounced cheekbones and penetrating stares

― girlish in the worst sense of that term (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, 27 July 2009 22:41 (3 years ago) Permalink

His eyes are brown tho U SEE

― bad-boy cartographer (Abbott), Monday, 27 July 2009 22:42 (3 years ago) Permalink

cherubic outlier

― bad-boy cartographer (Abbott), Monday, 27 July 2009 22:44 (3 years ago) Permalink

― free jazz and mumia (sarahel), Monday, 27 July 2009 22:49 (3 years ago) Permalink

See he doesn't look like that in the Fly BUT Goldblum-in-the-Fly does look sort of like the-Fly-era-Cronenberg

― bad-boy cartographer (Abbott), Monday, 27 July 2009 22:54 (3 years ago) Permalink

― bad-boy cartographer (Abbott), Monday, 27 July 2009 22:56 (3 years ago) Permalink

stephen mchattie:

― omar little, Monday, 27 July 2009 22:58 (3 years ago) Permalink

― wax onleck, wax affleck (jjjusten), Monday, 27 July 2009 23:09 (3 years ago) Permalink

Am I really going to have to be the first person to mention Cosmopolis on this thread?

― Telephone thing, Monday, 27 July 2009 23:43 (3 years ago) Permalink

Yes, please do.

― bad-boy cartographer (Abbott), Tuesday, 28 July 2009 01:48 (3 years ago) Permalink

but what about?

― free jazz and mumia (sarahel), Tuesday, 28 July 2009 01:55 (3 years ago) Permalink

He's making a movie of DeLillo's Cosmopolis.

I'm afraid that's all we know.

― Telephone thing, Tuesday, 28 July 2009 01:59 (3 years ago) Permalink

That's... intriguing? I guess?

― never name anything coolpix (kenan), Tuesday, 28 July 2009 02:13 (3 years ago) Permalink

Halfway through Cronenberg's screenplay Elias Koteas crashes into Packer's limousine and starts furiously humping the armrests.

― Telephone thing, Tuesday, 28 July 2009 02:49 (3 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, no doubt whatever that turns out to be, it won't be Delillo. Maybe he liked the idea of it because it's one of those "plots" that you can hang anything off of, and of course Cronenberg shows up at every party with a big aged oak cask of his own neuroses.

― never name anything coolpix (kenan), Tuesday, 28 July 2009 02:51 (3 years ago) Permalink

so are you saying it's gonna be a kegger?

― free jazz and mumia (sarahel), Tuesday, 28 July 2009 03:01 (3 years ago) Permalink

You know it.

― never name anything coolpix (kenan), Tuesday, 28 July 2009 03:05 (3 years ago) Permalink

He has mellowed out in his middle years, to be fair. He no longer holds your feet up and screams at you to chug.

― never name anything coolpix (kenan), Tuesday, 28 July 2009 03:07 (3 years ago) Permalink

Am I forgetting something, or was Rabid the only film he made with a female lead?

― free jazz and mumia (sarahel), Tuesday, 28 July 2009 03:12 (3 years ago) Permalink

eXistenZ, kind of?

― Telephone thing, Tuesday, 28 July 2009 03:15 (3 years ago) Permalink

I FINALLY watched A History of Violence. I've seen Eastern Promises three times but I have no excuse for not watching this like four years ago.

― fields of salmon, Tuesday, 28 July 2009 22:26 (3 years ago) Permalink

I also finally watched A History of Violence last night! And then read through most of the comments about it that were posted or linked upthread, many of which are frustratingly wrong-headed -- "well jeeze david, of course violence is terrible and icky and doesn't solve anything, we all know that already! also just FYI you sort of accidentally showed violence solving some things in your movie, you might want to fix that before the DVD comes out."

also, I didn't see anyone comment on one of the elements I found most interesting: the fact that Tom/Joey almost never intimidates people. he doesn't use violence as a threat, he just remains calm as long as possible, then flips the switch and kills everyone as quickly and efficiently as possible (highly significant exception: when he slaps his son for talking back). this isn't necessarily a good thing, though, and it's not portrayed as one; there are good and bad people on both sides of the intimidation/violence divide (Tom/Joey, his son, and the serial killers vs. the mafia, the police, and the bullies). in some cases, the movie seems to suggest, a telegraphed show or threat of violence, unpleasant though it may be, can defuse a situation before it goes too far. the whole bullying subplot illustrates this pretty well -- the bully isn't really a violent guy, he's just a prick who gets a kick out of going through this bullshit macho posturing ritual with kids who are lower on the totem pole. the son's response is 'violent' in the sense that it breaks the rules of this game -- in fact, this is kinda the film's thesis: violence is something that always appears excessive and uncalled-for. even if it's not explicitly pro-intimidation, it certainly calls into question the morality of the archetypal "good man who's been pushed to the breaking point".

― Someone Still Loves You Dennis Kucinich's Hot Wife (bernard snowy), Wednesday, 29 July 2009 13:14 (3 years ago) Permalink

basically I think this film is operating beyond the simplistic "hey guess what, there is VIOLENCE in the heart of EVERY MAN!!!" analysis that people are accusing it of; it takes that as a starting premise and asks, okay, now that we all agree on this, does that knowledge entail any moral obligations for us, either as individuals or as a society?

― Someone Still Loves You Dennis Kucinich's Hot Wife (bernard snowy), Wednesday, 29 July 2009 13:51 (3 years ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

Just saw Naked Lunch again. Has he ever used a supporting cast this well (Judy Davis, Ian Holm, Roy Scheider, Julian Sands, etc).

― Little starbursts of joy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 27 September 2009 03:13 (3 years ago) Permalink

dont think i posted abt it, but 'shivers' is pretty great

― johnny crunch, Sunday, 27 September 2009 03:15 (3 years ago) Permalink

xp - I think the supporting cast in Naked Lunch was probably the best of all of his, usually there are only one or two standouts.

― I ♠ my display name (sarahel), Sunday, 27 September 2009 03:33 (3 years ago) Permalink

Eastern Promises is the first Cronenberg in a while that I've really loved. I think Viggo Mortensen gave one of the best performences I've ever seen.

― Dan S, Sunday, 27 September 2009 03:45 (3 years ago) Permalink

So funny this got revived. We just finished watching Videodrome 10 minutes ago.

― Mordy, Sunday, 27 September 2009 03:47 (3 years ago) Permalink

He is apparently re-remaking the Fly. After already adapting it into an Opera.

This is either depressing or Next Level Shit on the order of Herzog doing a Bad Lietennant movie with Nic Cage.

― deus ex lawnmower (latebloomer), Monday, 28 September 2009 04:05 (3 years ago) Permalink

the fly is def one of those movies where there's no way the CGI fx are gonna be nearly as gruesome and effective as the old-school latex and karo syrup gore was.

― dan selzer, Monday, 28 September 2009 04:24 (3 years ago) Permalink

for sure. though i doubt senor c-bergo would over-rely on cgi.

i don't know if it's gonna be a straight-up remake or some other new thing. a cinematic adaptation of the opera would be kind of hilarious.

― deus ex lawnmower (latebloomer), Monday, 28 September 2009 04:53 (3 years ago) Permalink

Just like Michael Mann and Miami Vice, I guess.

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 28 September 2009 05:08 (3 years ago) Permalink

flyami vice

― deus ex lawnmower (latebloomer), Monday, 28 September 2009 05:12 (3 years ago) Permalink

Where's that JBR names thread.

― Ned Raggett, Monday, 28 September 2009 05:13 (3 years ago) Permalink

4 months pass...

Watching 'The Brood' now. Saw 'The Dead Zone' and 'eXistenZ' two days ago.

Thoughts?

Also, I didn't know Oliver Reed was in this.

― Sex Sexual (kingfish), Friday, 26 February 2010 11:06 (3 years ago) Permalink

Long long time but I used to love The Brood. It feels like a big step towards his Dead Ringers mature ease-up-on-the-splatter phase. Which is not a wholly good thing but in the case of this movie it works big time. Thinking back on it now it occurs to me that he's quoting The Birds during that whole big lab full of babies bit?

― National Sockpuppet Helpline (Noodle Vague), Friday, 26 February 2010 11:19 (3 years ago) Permalink

Had you seen The Dead Zone before? That is a great film, easily one of C'berg's best I reckon.

― Bill A, Friday, 26 February 2010 11:42 (3 years ago) Permalink

I'd never actually seen it, except for the later SNL parody of it, and that I always remember early-80s Walken from seeing 'Brainstorm' too many times on HBO growing up.

It's been part of my recent effort to view every single Stephen King adaption I can find for my 'Stephen King's Cavalcade of Terribleness' movie night that I'm planning. So far, I only have Sleepwalkers & Pet Sematary, and I need one more...

― Sex Sexual (kingfish), Friday, 26 February 2010 11:46 (3 years ago) Permalink

tommyknockers

― quiz show flat-track bully (darraghmac), Friday, 26 February 2010 11:49 (3 years ago) Permalink

Dead Zone is the second best King adaptation by a country mile, probly the best straight King adaptation.

― National Sockpuppet Helpline (Noodle Vague), Friday, 26 February 2010 11:50 (3 years ago) Permalink

kingfish what did you think of existenz?

― bracken free ditch (Ste), Friday, 26 February 2010 11:52 (3 years ago) Permalink

I liked it. I remember when it was playing on campus the same summer that the Matrix came out and plenty of reviewers drew explicit comparisons between the two.

It reminded me of Cronenberg's standard weird-shaped-flesh-fetish from the bits of Naked Lunch I'd seen, along with the Fly and Dead Ringers.

― Sex Sexual (kingfish), Friday, 26 February 2010 11:58 (3 years ago) Permalink

xpost - Not Cronenberg but The Mist is the most surprisingly good King adaptation in a long long time. Maximum Overdrive and Creepshow are great too.

― Nate Carson, Friday, 26 February 2010 12:05 (3 years ago) Permalink

Tommyknockers is way too long to watch with two other movies, and it's only kinda enh rather than outright hilariously horrid.

― Sex Sexual (kingfish), Friday, 26 February 2010 12:09 (3 years ago) Permalink

Also, the melodramatic strings soundtrack to The Brood really does remind me of peak-era Hitchcock

― Sex Sexual (kingfish), Friday, 26 February 2010 12:15 (3 years ago) Permalink

Hey, I didn't know this, from his wiki:

Since 1988's Dead Ringers, Cronenberg has worked with cinematographer Peter Suschitzky on each of his films (see List of noted film director and cinematographer collaborations). Suschitzky was the director of photography for The Empire Strikes Back, and Cronenberg has repeatedly said that Suschitzky's work in that film made it the most beautiful sci-fi film he had ever seen, which was a motivating factor to work with him on Dead Ringers.

― Sex Sexual (kingfish), Friday, 26 February 2010 12:28 (3 years ago) Permalink

wow david crononberg don't watch much sci fi huh

― quiz show flat-track bully (darraghmac), Friday, 26 February 2010 12:30 (3 years ago) Permalink

Well, I'm trying to think of other 1980-or-before sci-fi flicks that the dude would find that striking. Kubrick's stuff? Solaris? Alien? Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind?

― Sex Sexual (kingfish), Friday, 26 February 2010 12:37 (3 years ago) Permalink

Blade Runner

― quiz show flat-track bully (darraghmac), Friday, 26 February 2010 12:41 (3 years ago) Permalink

not pre-80 but certainly pre 88

― quiz show flat-track bully (darraghmac), Friday, 26 February 2010 12:42 (3 years ago) Permalink

Star Wars duh

― take me to your lemur (ledge), Friday, 26 February 2010 12:42 (3 years ago) Permalink

i seem to make some connection btwn star wars and empire strikes back but i may be rong

― quiz show flat-track bully (darraghmac), Friday, 26 February 2010 12:45 (3 years ago) Permalink

Yeah but SW isn't as visually striking as Empire can be.

And Blade Runner was the first thing I'd thought of, except the year's wrong

― Sex Sexual (kingfish), Friday, 26 February 2010 12:45 (3 years ago) Permalink

SW can be pretty striking - the opening scene for one but imo every shot is a work of art. Does have more limited environments though, just desert or spaceships.

― take me to your lemur (ledge), Friday, 26 February 2010 12:48 (3 years ago) Permalink

Also

shivers is great, like if romero directed an orgy flick

haaaaa I wish Blount was still around.

― Sex Sexual (kingfish), Friday, 26 February 2010 12:49 (3 years ago) Permalink

I watched Empire again quite recently and was surprised by how well shot it is. Thinking especially of the stuff on Dagobah and almost everything on Bespin - the final battle between Luke and Vader is so atmospheric and powerful, esp the shadows, smoke and neon opening in the carbonite chamber.

― Bill A, Friday, 26 February 2010 13:09 (3 years ago) Permalink

Apropos of nothing, the 1980 Oscar nominees for cinematography:

The Blue Lagoon (1980) - Néstor Almendros
Coal Miner's Daughter (1980) - Ralf D. Bode
The Formula (1980) - James Crabe
Raging Bull (1980) - Michael Chapman (I)
Tess (1979) - Geoffrey Unsworth; Ghislain Cloquet

― queen frostine (Eric H.), Friday, 26 February 2010 13:16 (3 years ago) Permalink

(Sort of retrospectively shocking that The Shining was snubbed in favor of those first three nods, but I guess the movie's stature wasn't particularly high back in 1980.)

― queen frostine (Eric H.), Friday, 26 February 2010 13:17 (3 years ago) Permalink

yeah, seems amazing that it would miss out, especially to tat like The Blue Lagoon.

― Bill A, Friday, 26 February 2010 13:30 (3 years ago) Permalink

Apparently, the cinematography branch in the '70s was possibly the most insular of all academy branches, hence repeated nominations for, say, Owen Roizman for generally ruddy-looking movies.

― queen frostine (Eric H.), Friday, 26 February 2010 13:49 (3 years ago) Permalink

Ghislain Cloquet, btw, lensed Bresson films AND Woody Allen's Love and Death.

The Shining just utilized late Kubrick's usual, what is the word? Glare.

― Fusty Moralizer (Dr Morbius), Friday, 26 February 2010 13:53 (3 years ago) Permalink

that's a challop for the ages...

― Bill A, Friday, 26 February 2010 13:59 (3 years ago) Permalink

In fact, I think it was his first (and least) glare movie.
The challops in 1980 was that The Shining didn't fucking suck.

so Croney doesn't have a new project ready to go?

― Fusty Moralizer (Dr Morbius), Friday, 26 February 2010 14:04 (3 years ago) Permalink

topic for the aged, perhaps.

eh except i agree with morbs totally there.

― quiz show flat-track bully (darraghmac), Friday, 26 February 2010 14:06 (3 years ago) Permalink

The challops in 1980 was that The Shining didn't fucking suck.

Yeah, I did say that already. Happily, time has been especially kind to that, Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut (i.e. Kubrick's three best films).

― queen frostine (Eric H.), Friday, 26 February 2010 14:07 (3 years ago) Permalink

I think you mean Paths of Glory, 2001 and Barry Lyndon <3

― Fusty Moralizer (Dr Morbius), Friday, 26 February 2010 14:09 (3 years ago) Permalink

I think you should go to bed.

― queen frostine (Eric H.), Friday, 26 February 2010 14:11 (3 years ago) Permalink

good idea! maybe i'll put that Hal Holbrook movie on again...

― Fusty Moralizer (Dr Morbius), Friday, 26 February 2010 14:12 (3 years ago) Permalink

Rituals, I hope?

― Shannon Whirry and the Bad Brains, Friday, 26 February 2010 14:47 (3 years ago) Permalink

no, That Evening Sun to make me sleepy.

― Fusty Moralizer (Dr Morbius), Friday, 26 February 2010 14:48 (3 years ago) Permalink

Shining was marketed like a slasher so it wasn't taken all that seriously at the time? Probably wasn't seen by a lot of academy voters anyway...

― Nate Carson, Friday, 26 February 2010 19:30 (3 years ago) Permalink

so Croney doesn't have a new project ready to go?

thought he was doing that Philip Roth adaptation

― mark roflr (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 26 February 2010 19:33 (3 years ago) Permalink

He was working on an opera of "The Fly," no foolin'. Don't know if that's still in progress, done, abandoned, or what.

― blow it out your bad-taste hole (WmC), Friday, 26 February 2010 19:41 (3 years ago) Permalink

thought that was over. Roth thing was posted here somewhere, something about a day-long cross-town journey of NY. I've never been able to stomach more than 10 pages of Roth so I dunno what book this was...

― mark roflr (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 26 February 2010 19:42 (3 years ago) Permalink

daylong crosstown journey of ny sounds like delillo 'cosmopolis'

― johnny crunch, Friday, 26 February 2010 19:53 (3 years ago) Permalink

^^^that's it. mixed up Roth and Delillo, my bad.

― mark roflr (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 26 February 2010 19:59 (3 years ago) Permalink

Cronenberg is currently attached to direct an adaptation of The Talking Cure, set to star Keira Knightley, Christoph Waltz, and Michael Fassbender.[8]. He also plans to write and direct a film adaptation of Don Delillo's Cosmopolis.[9] He was also recently set to direct the film version of The Matarese Circle with Denzel Washington and Tom Cruise until Cruise backed out.

― Sex Sexual (kingfish), Friday, 26 February 2010 20:04 (3 years ago) Permalink

Keira Fucking Knightley!

― Bill A, Friday, 26 February 2010 20:12 (3 years ago) Permalink

May she be lucky enough to get one of the squishier body-mod roles

― Sex Sexual (kingfish), Friday, 26 February 2010 20:17 (3 years ago) Permalink

Cronenberg + Fassbender, fuck yeah.

― Simon H., Friday, 26 February 2010 20:18 (3 years ago) Permalink

She's just such a *nothing* in every role she plays, a charisma vacuum. Some balance might be achieved by Fassbender, who is ace and likely a perfect fit with C'berg's approach. I've only seen Waltz in IB, but he totally owned that.

ha! you beat me to it for the F/bender love Simon!

― Bill A, Friday, 26 February 2010 20:22 (3 years ago) Permalink

I can't wait to see how he messes with Knightley - there's something Hitchcockian about the way he treats women in his movies.

― Tracer Hand, Friday, 26 February 2010 21:05 (3 years ago) Permalink

The Talking Cure,

is this a freud biopic or something? wasn't somebody else working on a freud film? malick maybe?

― by another name (amateurist), Friday, 26 February 2010 23:40 (3 years ago) Permalink

btw cronenberg is really on a roll lately.

― by another name (amateurist), Friday, 26 February 2010 23:41 (3 years ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

tonight's flicks are Rabid and Naked Lunch

― Sex Sexual (kingfish), Saturday, 13 March 2010 07:21 (3 years ago) Permalink

2 months pass...

pretty amped for this

― just sayin, Friday, 14 May 2010 19:27 (3 years ago) Permalink

i think i saw the fly as a little kid but just saw it again and HOLY SHIT IS IT A GOOD MOVIE

― johnny crunch, Friday, 14 May 2010 20:12 (3 years ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

Interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/jun/23/david-cronenberg-jonathan-lethem

― jaymc, Friday, 25 June 2010 02:59 (2 years ago) Permalink

Oh and I had no idea he was filming Cosmopolis. Hope it's better than the book!

― jaymc, Friday, 25 June 2010 03:02 (2 years ago) Permalink

All I know for sure is that the pic they chose for that article is awesome and a half.

― kenan, Friday, 25 June 2010 03:05 (2 years ago) Permalink

I'd have desaturated it a bit, though. Sinister is good vibe for the pic, but evil Oompah-Loompah is... a different vibe. Like if the movie Elf was made by Cronenberg.

― kenan, Friday, 25 June 2010 03:08 (2 years ago) Permalink

The family wakes up to find him eating a bowl of vaginas for breakfast.

― kenan, Friday, 25 June 2010 03:09 (2 years ago) Permalink

not too jazzed about cosmopolis, but i am thrilled to hear that somebody's gonna take a shot at and she crawled across the table. fact that it's cronenberg is just icing.

― contenderizer, Friday, 25 June 2010 03:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

and, as, whatever

― contenderizer, Friday, 25 June 2010 03:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

1 year passes...

I saw the trailer for A Dangerous Method tonight:

I haven't liked a Cronenberg film since Dead Ringers, but this one looks good. "From the director of A History of Violence and Eastern Promises," though--ouch. What next, "From the director of Shutter's Island and The Aviator"?

― clemenza, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 05:08 (1 year ago) Permalink

"From the director of his last two movies..."

― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 05:11 (1 year ago) Permalink

Nice!

― clemenza, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 05:12 (1 year ago) Permalink

stooooked for this

― thick-necked and hateful (latebloomer), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 05:21 (1 year ago) Permalink

This looks ace.

"From the director of A History of Violence and Eastern Promises,"

I really like them both, and coming after a long run of commercial failures it doesn't surprise me that this trailer plays on them. I suspect there's plenty of people who saw them that know next to nothing about Cronenberg's earlier stuff (except maybe The Fly), and in box-office terms there cannot be any harm in reminding people about his previous work with Viggo; I've a co-worker who I'd never have taken for a C'berg viewer who stans for both of these primarily because of "that lovely man"!

― that mustardless plate (Bill A), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 07:18 (1 year ago) Permalink

From a commercial standpoint, you're right. I'm just such a fan of his '80s work and so indifferent to the later films that it hit a discordant note. Maybe they could split the difference and at least mention The Fly, which was a big hit at the time and probably known to most everyone through TV or video.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 20:47 (1 year ago) Permalink

yeah saw this preview awhile ago - looks promising

― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 20:48 (1 year ago) Permalink

I do kinda wish he would return to horror/sci-fi at some point tho

― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 20:49 (1 year ago) Permalink

"from the director of shivers and videodrome" did not test well

― hello I love you but I've chosen darkness my old friend (Edward III), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 20:50 (1 year ago) Permalink

I don't think he needs the gross stuff anymore, though. For me, The Dead Zone and Dead Ringers are my ideal for a Cronenberg film (there's a bit of gore in each).

― clemenza, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 20:51 (1 year ago) Permalink

ugh Dead Ringers fuck that movie

Dead Zone is aces tho

― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 20:52 (1 year ago) Permalink

and it's not the gross-out stuff I pine for (there's plenty of that in his last few!) it's the conceptual audacity, the ideas that go beyond the psychodramas of criminals and neurotics

― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 20:54 (1 year ago) Permalink

― http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i_qxQztHRI (Princess TamTam), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 20:59 (1 year ago) Permalink

I love The Dead Zone. I distinctly remember that a lot of Cronenberg fans at the time thought it was tepid, even a sell-out--those who loved Rabid and [i]Shivers and The Brood--but for me it's close to perfect, with Walken's performance the best found in any Cronenberg film. I'm surprised you're so down on Dead Ringers; if nothing else, I'd say it's conceptually audacious.

PTT just posted one of my favourite line readings in any film ever.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:02 (1 year ago) Permalink

better title: Hunks of Psychoanalysis

― incredibly middlebrow (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:05 (1 year ago) Permalink

― strongo hulkington's ghost dad, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:07 (1 year ago) Permalink

lol

― http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i_qxQztHRI (Princess TamTam), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:07 (1 year ago) Permalink

i am stoked for this but then i will watch anything he does at least once. (and many of them i will watch many, many times.)

― strongo hulkington's ghost dad, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:07 (1 year ago) Permalink

there's a thread for it btw

A Dangerous Method -- David Cronenberg/Viggo Mortensen's latest

― http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i_qxQztHRI (Princess TamTam), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:07 (1 year ago) Permalink

i can't see why they didn't go with something simple like spanking miss knightley

― And the piano, it sounds like a carnivore (contenderizer), Tuesday, June 21, 2011

― strongo hulkington's ghost dad, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:10 (1 year ago) Permalink

My post up there comes across as a bit more pro box-office than I really mean; I absolutely love his earlier stuff (esp. The Dead Zone and Videodrome), but also dig how he's maintained a lot of the weirdness yet managed to make money since he and Viggo's bromance took root. I remember the first time I saw AHoV and the rasping shot-away jawbone bit just felt like a *pure* Cronenberg moment.

I can see I already gave her both barrels way upthread, but it still seems a shame that he's bought into the Keira Knightley hype for this, when the male cast is so stellar in comparison. Again though, she will get tickets sold, despite what sounds like the best "russian" accent this side of Malkovich in Rounders.

― that mustardless plate (Bill A), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:10 (1 year ago) Permalink

I'm surprised you're so down on Dead Ringers; if nothing else, I'd say it's conceptually audacious.

I'm just don't find the central conceit - TWO Jeremy Irons'! - all that interesting. I can see how it must have been fun/challenging to make given the technology at the time, but I don't find anything particularly interesting about the symbiotic, self-destructive relationship of two twins, it kind of goes nowhere.

― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:10 (1 year ago) Permalink

like I get it, they're different, but they're also THE SAME DO U SEE *snore*

― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:11 (1 year ago) Permalink

would watch any movie where viggo plays freud tbh, cronenberg or no

― http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i_qxQztHRI (Princess TamTam), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:12 (1 year ago) Permalink

is there a thread of missing contenderizer

― hello I love you but I've chosen darkness my old friend (Edward III), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:12 (1 year ago) Permalink

i think keira knightley's a good actress and also i'm excited to see her get spanked *old italian guy leer*

― http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i_qxQztHRI (Princess TamTam), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:13 (1 year ago) Permalink

xposts: yeah i mean there were parts of eastern promises (which i loved) that coulda been any gangster drama but then there were the close-ups of viggo snipping a corpse's fingers off with a pair of garden shears. plus one of the most brutal and literally balls-out fight scenes of the last couple years, so it's not as if dude's gone all genteel on us.

― strongo hulkington's ghost dad, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:14 (1 year ago) Permalink

he got the only diverting performance out of both JIs that i've ever seen, plus genevieve b is always watchable -- but DR's arc "story arc" is just \

― mark s, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:14 (1 year ago) Permalink

i kinda felt like the camera regarded the baby at the end of EP like some kind of special effects monster too

― http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i_qxQztHRI (Princess TamTam), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:15 (1 year ago) Permalink

actually the fly and DR have the same story: "the flies"

― mark s, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:16 (1 year ago) Permalink

yeah I can kinda see that

― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:17 (1 year ago) Permalink

re: The Dead Zone, am yearning for a blu-ray release of this. Totally agree with clemenza and others who are repping for it, prob my favourite Walken performance too. At least its relative lack of cred means I was able to pick up a lovely 1-sheet of the original poster for about £10, although to get it framed (in the UK) will cost 10x that.

And yeah, re: EP baby etc, no matter how much his style matures there's that very distinct looming-dread feeling in everything he does. Which is obviously a very good thing.

― that mustardless plate (Bill A), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:18 (1 year ago) Permalink

btw i dunno if this has been posted itt or not, but it's a pretty entertaining (and sometimes lolz-y) four-part tv doc from around the fly era (i'd guess). kind of a snapshot given how differently he's positioned (himself) for the last twenty years or so.

― strongo hulkington's ghost dad, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:23 (1 year ago) Permalink

another one from around the same time

― strongo hulkington's ghost dad, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:24 (1 year ago) Permalink

^^ that one's definitely more interesting. though lol @ the squeamishness of almost everyone interviewed.

― strongo hulkington's ghost dad, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:26 (1 year ago) Permalink

Dead Ringers is my favorite but I don't rewatch it often.

I like most of his work through 1991 in varying degrees, even Naked Lunch.

― a 'catch-all', almost humorous, 'Jeez' quality (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:49 (1 year ago) Permalink

every time i am reminded that this freud trailer exists its like being given a candy bar

― am/sand (Lamp), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:51 (1 year ago) Permalink

still too traumatized by Dead Ringers to ever revisit it.

― Gukbe, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:52 (1 year ago) Permalink

Naked Lunch doesn't totally work but I enjoy it, it nails a unique smacked-out sci-fi noir vibe. which is Burroughs in a nutshell really

― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:52 (1 year ago) Permalink

even Eastern Promises, which was just okay, had such a lived-in texture: the smell of the upholstery in the restaurant, Armin Mueller-Stahl's face, the borscht, the hospital.

Viggo's Oscar nod was one of the few genuinely surprising moments the Academy's given us in recent years.

― a 'catch-all', almost humorous, 'Jeez' quality (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 21:54 (1 year ago) Permalink

Quite by accident, I found out a few days ago that a friend of mine worked on The Dead Zone. From a Facebook post: "Next time you see Christopher Walken's Volkswagen crash into that truck, think of me holding off traffic." Naked Lunch was where he started to lose me; never saw M. Butterfly or Eastern Promises (yes, I know, I should see the latter--that's how much I disliked A History of Violence).

― clemenza, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:00 (1 year ago) Permalink

I'm laughing looking at my last post--okay, "worked on" is a stretch.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:01 (1 year ago) Permalink

Eastern Promises is better than a History of Violence imho

never liked M Butterfly. or Crash for that matter.

― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:02 (1 year ago) Permalink

Those two are awful. Crash generated more walkouts than any movie I've attended.

Any movie named "Crash" is doomed to ignominy.

― a 'catch-all', almost humorous, 'Jeez' quality (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:05 (1 year ago) Permalink

gtfo

― strongo hulkington's ghost dad, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:06 (1 year ago) Permalink

Cronenberg's awful Crash better then Haggis' even more awful Crash.

― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:08 (1 year ago) Permalink

I've lived my whole live waiting for a sex scene between Holly Hunter and an Oldsmobile.

― a 'catch-all', almost humorous, 'Jeez' quality (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:08 (1 year ago) Permalink

I hated Crash too; at the time, I tried envisioning an SCTV parody with Edith Prickley in the Holly Hunter role..

― clemenza, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:10 (1 year ago) Permalink

Anyway I like most of Cronenberg's films and his recent track record is fine by me as both HoV and EP are well worth watching (as is Spider.)

― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:11 (1 year ago) Permalink

i seriously loved ahov, and liked ep a good deal - i think with the latter it was a much livelier movie than maybe it had any right to be. kinda like inside man, which was undoubtedly garbage on the page but had all these spike lee moments stuffed into the margins that kept you watching.

i dont love crash, but i appreciate some scenes in it. i dont really 'get' whatever he was doing with that movie, but i dig how detached and minimalist it is. but it makes for a pretty dry viewing experience

― http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i_qxQztHRI (Princess TamTam), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:20 (1 year ago) Permalink

I liked Inside Man too.

― a 'catch-all', almost humorous, 'Jeez' quality (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:24 (1 year ago) Permalink

Inside Man is like the best movie Spike Lee has made in 20 years or so

― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:26 (1 year ago) Permalink

its not better than malcom x mate...

― http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i_qxQztHRI (Princess TamTam), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:28 (1 year ago) Permalink

somehow I watched HOV without realising it was Cronenberg. I liked it but then when the penny dropped I felt a little disappointed. Think I should probably see it again to make an informed decision but I feel like it can be grouped in with EP in the films Cronenberg has made that don't drill his hallmarks home quite so aggressively. Apologies if this has been said elsewhere as I think it's a pretty obvious point.

― owenf, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 22:45 (1 year ago) Permalink

Crash > Crash

― Gus Van Sant's Gerry Blank (Eric H.), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 23:01 (1 year ago) Permalink

have you seen Malcolm X lately? doesn't hold up imho

― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 23:02 (1 year ago) Permalink

Yeah, Malcolm X is tepid. Summer of Sam is the last good non-for-hire Spike joint.

― Gus Van Sant's Gerry Blank (Eric H.), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 23:04 (1 year ago) Permalink

25th Hour

― Gukbe, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 23:08 (1 year ago) Permalink

Summer of Sam over Malcolm X? That's quite a leap for me.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 23:10 (1 year ago) Permalink

Summer of Sam is quite good except for the punk club scenes which are just silly.

― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 23:11 (1 year ago) Permalink

Guess I'm in the minority there--it was the first Spike Lee film I really hated. I even liked some things about Girl 6 and Crooklyn.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 23:14 (1 year ago) Permalink

Clockers is better than 25th Hour.

― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 23:14 (1 year ago) Permalink

I don't remember anything about Girl 6. Crooklyn is good though.

― Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 23:15 (1 year ago) Permalink

It's been a while, but Girl 6 had "Erotic City," Spike brandishing a Ken Griffey rookie card, and Theresa Randle. Good enough for me.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 23:17 (1 year ago) Permalink

clockers is a p rad movie imo and i liked crooklyn too

eastern promises was just enjoyable to watch, i think, if not a 'great' movie. its also the sort of movie where i could get engrossed w/o really caring about action on screen or anticipating the action, like it was pleasurable just to watch the screen as it happened

― am/sand (Lamp), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 23:18 (1 year ago) Permalink

Clockers is better than 25th Hour.

It is but there's some strong emotional undercurrents in the latter. I watched it again with a friend a couple years ago who was far less forgiving of its absurdities (I couldn't bear to watch the Anna Paquin-Hoffman scenes again, or endure Edward Norton's besty's obsession with being prison bait).

― a 'catch-all', almost humorous, 'Jeez' quality (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 23:19 (1 year ago) Permalink

i'd be curious to know what clemenza hated about ahov - it really feels to me like something by the same guy who did the Dead Zone, really confident and scary and funny. makes for an interesting comparison w/road to perdition, the other paradox press funnybook turned 'serious' movie. neither flick cares much about the comics they're based on, but cronenberg is much more comfortable working with the pulpiness of the material. mendes clearly looks down on it, and he has a very primitive point of view and a very ponderous and self-serious way of expressing it. the result is one of the crappier movies ive seen in the last decade.

have you seen Malcolm X lately? doesn't hold up imho
― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, August 31, 2011 7:02 PM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah, i actually havent seen it in quite a while. still feel like i'd take most of the 90s stuff over inside man though (which i think is good, dont get me wrong!). inside man's story is such gimmicky bullshit, but the movie comes to life whenever spike finds time for his little asides - clive owen sitting down with the kid playin a video game, denzel's interactions with white cops, the sikh in the restaurant. but i wouldn't take it over clockers or crooklyn. those movies didnt have to smuggle in those cool little moments.

― http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i_qxQztHRI (Princess TamTam), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 23:41 (1 year ago) Permalink

okay so maybe I should have said in 15 years. now are you happy

― I can feel it in my spiritual hat (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 31 August 2011 23:44 (1 year ago) Permalink

One specific thing I hated about History was something many people liked: William Hurt. I do understand that he gave the kind of florid performance that divides reaction--there are similar performances in other movies I like a lot. Speaking just generally--I haven't given the film a second thought since it was released, and I don't remember a lot--I found it very dull. All through the '80s, Cronenberg's films were really interesting to me, like nobody else's. I felt at the time that History was drained of all that, and could have been made by any skilled technician.

― clemenza, Thursday, 1 September 2011 00:00 (1 year ago) Permalink

The Bello-Viggo scenes are as good as Irons-Bujold's.

― a 'catch-all', almost humorous, 'Jeez' quality (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 1 September 2011 00:02 (1 year ago) Permalink

William Hurt only has a few minutes at the end, so you're lucky.

― a 'catch-all', almost humorous, 'Jeez' quality (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 1 September 2011 00:03 (1 year ago) Permalink

I've got it on the shelf, so I'm going to take another look. I often set myself up for disappointment with favourite (or at least one-time favourite) directors.

― clemenza, Thursday, 1 September 2011 00:17 (1 year ago) Permalink

Disappointment is more edifying than fandom, thankfully.

― a 'catch-all', almost humorous, 'Jeez' quality (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 1 September 2011 00:19 (1 year ago) Permalink

the bello-viggo stuff IS great, and led to me being disappointed that bello hasnt appeared in anything substantial since then...

william hurt's one of those guys who i think is a considerable actor within a certain range, but if you get him in the wrong role it's usually a disaster. i would've expected this to be one of those wrong roles, but i loved him in it

― http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i_qxQztHRI (Princess TamTam), Thursday, 1 September 2011 00:28 (1 year ago) Permalink

He's unusual, isn't he? When cast to project plodding WASP intelligence, he can be affecting.

― a 'catch-all', almost humorous, 'Jeez' quality (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 1 September 2011 00:29 (1 year ago) Permalink

Crash was funny, you dingalings

― incredibly middlebrow (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 September 2011 00:54 (1 year ago) Permalink

like jizz on vinyl

― a 'catch-all', almost humorous, 'Jeez' quality (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 1 September 2011 00:57 (1 year ago) Permalink

agreeing with morbs omg

― strongo hulkington's ghost dad, Thursday, 1 September 2011 00:59 (1 year ago) Permalink

i feel dirtier than anything j.g. ballard ever cooked up

― strongo hulkington's ghost dad, Thursday, 1 September 2011 00:59 (1 year ago) Permalink

"Crash" is awesome if only for the pull-quote emblazoned on the DVD: " ...sex and car crashes ..." I chalk the movie up as a failed attempt at filming the unfilmable, a la "Naked Lunch," but like that one is has a lot going for it.

I've pretty much found something to like or love in all his films, save "Spider," which I never finished, and "M. Butterfly," which I've never seen. I think his somewhat overlooked masterpiece may be the short "Camera."

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 1 September 2011 01:21 (1 year ago) Permalink

Hey, look!

― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 1 September 2011 01:21 (1 year ago) Permalink

I've never seen History, for exactly the criticism Clemenza levels at it –– it seems technically skilled, elegant, and dull. I'll take unskilled, ugly, and interesting any day; somebody like Araki or Korine, even if I end up hating the film.

― notorious ilx wet noodle (remy bean), Thursday, 1 September 2011 02:21 (1 year ago) Permalink

"technically skilled, elegant, and dull"

are yo usaying the first 2 ensure the 3rd?

I don't much like it, but it springs to life occasionally (eg, on the stairs).

I've avoided Eastern Promises, for the violence.

― incredibly middlebrow (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 1 September 2011 02:31 (1 year ago) Permalink

Well, I'd hold out for the hat trick (skilled, elegant, and exciting) but ... I wouldn't be watching a lot of movies. What I mean is that if I'm deciding between two films, and one of them is technically skilled and classically beautiful and looks a little inert, it would be a trailing second choice behind a movie that appears ugly, amateur, and exciting. I guess my main film-selecting rubric (especially given my background in LA) weighs dramatically/narratively interesting films more heavily than technically sparkling and well-composed ones.

― notorious ilx wet noodle (remy bean), Thursday, 1 September 2011 02:37 (1 year ago) Permalink

I also hate being "shocked" or "moved" by watching people doing new iterations of old terrible things to each other. My taste doesn't see it as enlightening, just as shit-wallowing. I love Cronenberg's early career, but he lost me with Spider, and History of Violence didn't seem to be the film to bring me back into the fold.

― notorious ilx wet noodle (remy bean), Thursday, 1 September 2011 02:40 (1 year ago) Permalink

the bello-viggo stuff IS great, and led to me being disappointed that bello hasnt appeared in anything substantial since then...

US prime suspect! cautiously optimistic over here.

aaaand 'the cooler' heh

― goole, Thursday, 1 September 2011 02:42 (1 year ago) Permalink

"The Cooler" was 2 years earlier, even.

― Halal Spaceboy (WmC), Thursday, 1 September 2011 02:55 (1 year ago) Permalink

Remember Hello in Towelhead? No? You're lucky then.

― Status Update...in my Seether? (C. Grisso/McCain), Thursday, 1 September 2011 03:09 (1 year ago) Permalink

Bello. Stupid phone.

― Status Update...in my Seether? (C. Grisso/McCain), Thursday, 1 September 2011 03:09 (1 year ago) Permalink

2 months pass...

"Cosmopolis is an upcoming drama film starring Robert Pattinson and directed by David Cronenberg"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolis_%28film%29

― owenf, Thursday, 17 November 2011 01:45 (1 year ago) Permalink

"do the worm on acropolis. slamdance cosmopolis."

― encarta it (Gukbe), Thursday, 17 November 2011 01:51 (1 year ago) Permalink

on Freud, Jung etc:

http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-11-16/film/freudian-trip-in-dialogue-with-david-cronenberg/

has anyone seen that Last Jew in the World short that's mentioned?

― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 17 November 2011 03:25 (1 year ago) Permalink

I can guiltily say I enjoyed Cosmopolis as a book and await Cronenberg's treatment

― mh, Thursday, 17 November 2011 14:51 (1 year ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

NYC retro in a few weeks kicks off w/ appearance by the man himself:

http://www.movingimage.us/films/2012/01/21/detail/david-cronenberg/

― Dr Morbois de Bologne (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 3 January 2012 21:44 (1 year ago) Permalink

I'm really bummed that we're heading to a city big enough to show his new one, but two weeks before it opens. ;_;

― Steamtable Willie (WmC), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 00:23 (1 year ago) Permalink

i watched rabid p recently -- was impressed @ how many set ups, etc there were, it seemed v v professional for an "early" work. think i like shivers more though

also cronenberg talks abt marilyn chambers boyfriend being around the set @ carrying a gun -- i think this is artie mitchell right? idk i thought that was interesting

― johnny crunch, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 01:21 (1 year ago) Permalink

Rewatched Eastern Promises over the festive season and liked it as much as the first time round. Going to rewatch A History Of Violence before the Freud/Jung one reaches here in February.

― only NWOFHM! is real (krakow), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 09:02 (1 year ago) Permalink

There was definitely money behind Rabid. Even the choice of Chambers...I remember reading that the producers or whomever really thought it was going to be a big smash. Cronenberg wanted Sissy Spacek for the role.

― dan selzer, Wednesday, 4 January 2012 15:29 (1 year ago) Permalink

yeah Shivers is better

― The Silent Extreme (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 4 January 2012 17:49 (1 year ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

finally seeing A Dangerous Method on Tuesday

― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 10 February 2012 00:12 (1 year ago) Permalink

On the differing "impossible adaptations" of Naked Lunch and Crash

http://www.movingimagesource.us/articles/migrating-forms-20120203

― Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 10 February 2012 01:34 (1 year ago) Permalink

I should rewatch Crash. I really like Cronenberg's Naked Lunch!

― valleys of your mind (mh), Friday, 10 February 2012 01:42 (1 year ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DCFB-WPe9Ic

― just sayin, Thursday, 22 March 2012 07:50 (1 year ago) Permalink

HAahah .... ok but guys what was that fucking dinosaur was doing there.....hats off 2 u robbiiiee love u
Rafarish1 26 minutes ago

― these pretzels are makeing me horney (Hungry4Ass), Thursday, 22 March 2012 09:05 (1 year ago) Permalink

holly freaking molly!!! is this R-rated or what?? .. It'd be so awkward to watch this with my buddies. They will think that I am sexually addict...lol!!
jpattzlovevampz 2 hours ago

*HYPERVENTILATES* ROBERT! ooh I am so dead just looking at him in this teaser trailer! 
gshivy123 2 hours ago

― these pretzels are makeing me horney (Hungry4Ass), Thursday, 22 March 2012 09:07 (1 year ago) Permalink

Well I'm sad now I'm only eleven can't see it :( get the trenchcoat
MissBethanyCullen 1 minute ago

― Number None, Thursday, 22 March 2012 11:09 (1 year ago) Permalink

Back on track.

― Eric H., Thursday, 22 March 2012 11:20 (1 year ago) Permalink

nah, I don't see many boring horror tropes there

― Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 22 March 2012 11:40 (1 year ago) Permalink

http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/2193-notes-from-a-videodrome-test-screening

― Michael B Higgins (Michael B), Thursday, 22 March 2012 11:59 (1 year ago) Permalink

^3rd time this has been posted

― Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 22 March 2012 12:09 (1 year ago) Permalink

Is it just me or has David Cronenberg, in an inversion of the Soderbergh formula, been making intellectually-minded critical favorites in order to gain the room in his career to produce what he REALLY loves, schlock exploitation flicks

― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 22 March 2012 12:17 (1 year ago) Permalink

'cause those are what brings in bank

― Eric H., Thursday, 22 March 2012 12:19 (1 year ago) Permalink

man this looks sick as hell. i dont even like the book and had no expectations for this, but now...

― these pretzels are makeing me horney (Hungry4Ass), Thursday, 22 March 2012 12:42 (1 year ago) Permalink

for real

― just sayin, Thursday, 22 March 2012 13:29 (1 year ago) Permalink

daaaaaaamn

― (⊙_⊙?) (Alan N), Thursday, 22 March 2012 14:04 (1 year ago) Permalink

what are the "schlock exploitation flicks"?

― Number None, Thursday, 22 March 2012 14:05 (1 year ago) Permalink

I like the book! This teaser video makes it look like it's going to be a lot less sedate than Delillo's prose.

― mh, Thursday, 22 March 2012 14:10 (1 year ago) Permalink

I finally saw A Dangerous Method and it was ok but not as great as I hoped? Really low-key for Cronenberg.

― mh, Thursday, 22 March 2012 14:11 (1 year ago) Permalink

but see, Spelrein's head never exploded nor did Jung ever stomp anyone's eye out.

― Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 22 March 2012 14:13 (1 year ago) Permalink

was hoping for more messed-up sex or sexual tension I guess

― mh, Thursday, 22 March 2012 14:20 (1 year ago) Permalink

my fan edit has ten minutes of Videodrome edited into the middle for no particular reason

― mh, Thursday, 22 March 2012 14:20 (1 year ago) Permalink

NN - Shivers? Videodrome? Dead Ringers? Crash? OK maybe "schlock exploitation" was the wrong phrase but more like.... sensationalist genre films are what he "gets" to do after making critically lauded mainstream movies, which is like the reverse of the normal directorial jujitsu

― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 22 March 2012 14:45 (1 year ago) Permalink

man this looks sick as hell. i dont even like the book and had no expectations for this, but now...

― these pretzels are makeing me horney (Hungry4Ass), Thursday, March 22, 2012 8:42 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

― A Little Princess btw (s1ocki), Thursday, 22 March 2012 14:51 (1 year ago) Permalink

nah, I don't see many boring horror tropes there

What?

― Walter Galt, Thursday, 22 March 2012 15:01 (1 year ago) Permalink

<3 & lol @ DON DELILLO flashing in neon

― johnny crunch, Thursday, 22 March 2012 15:03 (1 year ago) Permalink

man this looks sick as hell. i dont even like the book and had no expectations for this, but now...

^^^^

looks way more exciting than Delillo's boring books

― the sir edmund hillary of sitting through pauly shore films (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 22 March 2012 15:24 (1 year ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

Paul Giamatti as the nemesis is a little too easy, but I'll wait n' see

― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 13 April 2012 21:29 (1 year ago) Permalink

http://io9.com/5903396/robert-pattinson-searches-for-sex-and-a-haircut-in-the-future-hell-of-david-cronenbergs-cosmopolis-trailer

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 19 April 2012 17:26 (1 year ago) Permalink

that gunshot thru the palm is kinda almost a spoiler

― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 April 2012 17:38 (1 year ago) Permalink

#occupythenewflesh

― diamanda ram dass (Edward III), Thursday, 19 April 2012 17:45 (1 year ago) Permalink

never read the book (which a trusted friend said is one of the author's worst), but this could be great if Cronenberg's feeling up to it (based on trailer I'm hopeful).

― stay in school if you want to kiw (Gukbe), Thursday, 19 April 2012 18:05 (1 year ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

Pattz goes all Croney in a photo shoot:

http://www.movies.com/movie-news/look-robert-pattinson-recreates-39videodrome39-39dead-ringers39-39scanners39-for-freaky-cronenberg-esque-photo-shoot/7874?wssac=164&wssaffid=news

― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 11 May 2012 11:18 (1 year ago) Permalink

in other news, virus-laden apple does not fall far from tree

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/first-pictures-from-brandon-cronenbergs-cannes-entry-antiviral/

― diamanda ram dass (Edward III), Friday, 11 May 2012 14:31 (1 year ago) Permalink

never read the book (which a trusted friend said is one of the author's worst), but this could be great if Cronenberg's feeling up to it (based on trailer I'm hopeful).

I'm reading the book now. It's basically a piss-take on Ulysses, and it doesn't really add up to much, but DeLillo can always put a sentence together. Anyway, I don't think it matters -- remember, Cronenberg made a movie of Naked Lunch, which can only be called a book because it's available in a bound and printed format. I think he could do something brilliant with this material.

― cue "White Rabbit" (kenan), Friday, 11 May 2012 15:13 (1 year ago) Permalink

can only be called a book because it's available in a bound and printed format

excessively challopsy

― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 11 May 2012 15:15 (1 year ago) Permalink

Well, it's certainly not filmable as-is, you have to give me that.

― cue "White Rabbit" (kenan), Friday, 11 May 2012 15:20 (1 year ago) Permalink

I am one of the few people who really liked Cosmopolis and if this lives up to the potential of the book/director pairing I will be thrilled

― mh, Friday, 11 May 2012 15:43 (1 year ago) Permalink

Few books are filmable as is, and the only one I can think of that works brilliantly as virtual Cliff Notes is The Maltese Falcon.

― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 11 May 2012 16:08 (1 year ago) Permalink

First Cosmopolis clip:

― The Painter of Blight™ (Sanpaku), Monday, 21 May 2012 18:57 (1 year ago) Permalink

i feel like cronenberg has this masterpiece theatre/white elephant mode that kind of lurks around some of his films and that intruded a little too uncomfortably on dangerous method. i worry that it'll come to the fore here.

― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Monday, 21 May 2012 19:03 (1 year ago) Permalink

otm. I feel like those moments really only work when they're juxtaposed against scenes that render them somewhat unreal. A Dangerous Method never really had that and it ended up very much masterpiece theatrey

― mh, Monday, 21 May 2012 19:35 (1 year ago) Permalink

the spanking scene was pure pbs

― bark ruffalo (latebloomer), Monday, 21 May 2012 20:45 (1 year ago) Permalink

I didn't feel like it was that edgy, compared to other Cronenberg films! May as well have been PBS

― mh, Monday, 21 May 2012 21:05 (1 year ago) Permalink

public bondage system

― bark ruffalo (latebloomer), Monday, 21 May 2012 21:06 (1 year ago) Permalink

never been crazy about Farbert's taxnomoy tbh

― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 21 May 2012 21:08 (1 year ago) Permalink

*Farber

― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 21 May 2012 21:08 (1 year ago) Permalink

^yeah every time i hear "white elephant" used to describe a movie i just kind of tune out

― bark ruffalo (latebloomer), Monday, 21 May 2012 21:09 (1 year ago) Permalink

unless the movie is literally about elephants that are white

― bark ruffalo (latebloomer), Monday, 21 May 2012 21:10 (1 year ago) Permalink

would watch a movie made by termites, though

― bark ruffalo (latebloomer), Monday, 21 May 2012 21:10 (1 year ago) Permalink

not crazy abt Farber's taxidermy on white elephants

u ppl just don't like PERIOD CUSTUMES

― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Monday, 21 May 2012 21:12 (1 year ago) Permalink

i like them!

― bark ruffalo (latebloomer), Monday, 21 May 2012 21:13 (1 year ago) Permalink

is this about that photo shoot in vice magazine

― mh, Monday, 21 May 2012 21:14 (1 year ago) Permalink

I liked the movie's courage in reproducing how two prodigies wrote and spoke to each other; it assumed the audience would Get It.

― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 21 May 2012 21:16 (1 year ago) Permalink

exactly

― bark ruffalo (latebloomer), Monday, 21 May 2012 21:17 (1 year ago) Permalink

oh i liked the movie fine i just feel like there was some airless fussiness hovering around.

― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, 22 May 2012 02:17 (1 year ago) Permalink

for me, dangerous method was cronenberg's least interesting - and entertaining - film to date (not seen m. butterfly, or fast company come to that), and am afraid i'll agree w/ this cosmopolis review, in time:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/may/25/cosmopolis-review?newsfeed=true

― Ward Fowler, Friday, 25 May 2012 13:20 (11 months ago) Permalink

Simon Abrams strongly disagrees

Kohn a little more tepid

― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Friday, 25 May 2012 16:19 (11 months ago) Permalink

cronenbergesque typo

trades barbs with his scowling body guard (Kevin Durand), while making vein attempts to ignore the Occupy-like protestors

― diamanda ram dass (Edward III), Friday, 25 May 2012 17:14 (11 months ago) Permalink

I find the sum of these reactions encouraging

http://www.fandor.com/blog/daily-cannes-2012-david-cronenbergs-cosmopolis/

― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Friday, 25 May 2012 17:28 (11 months ago) Permalink

As do I. Aren't we all getting tired of Cronenberg movies that everybody likes by now?

(Not sarcasm, in case that was unclear.)

― cue "White Rabbit" (kenan), Friday, 25 May 2012 17:31 (11 months ago) Permalink

No. I will never be tired of The Fly. It's sort of got that "gets better with age" thing built in that way.

― Count-Dracula-Down (Eric H.), Friday, 25 May 2012 17:34 (11 months ago) Permalink

Ok, ok... I have to give you that one. The more time I see The Fly, the more I'm convinced that it's almost perfect. The first 15 minutes alone, with twitchy Goldblum hitting on silky Gena, are worth the whole movie.

― cue "White Rabbit" (kenan), Friday, 25 May 2012 17:37 (11 months ago) Permalink

coming in 2013/14, a TIFF-created touring exhibition, plus a "multi-platform augmented reality game."

http://twitchfilm.com/news/2012/05/david-cronenberg-to-infect-toronto-in-new-travelling-exhibition.php

― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 29 May 2012 14:22 (11 months ago) Permalink

watched the brood last night. almost barfed at the demon womb sac.

― judas, a homo (elmo argonaut), Tuesday, 29 May 2012 14:27 (11 months ago) Permalink

so 1997

xpost

― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, 29 May 2012 14:39 (11 months ago) Permalink

coming in 2013/14, a TIFF-created touring exhibition, plus a "multi-platform augmented reality game."

http://twitchfilm.com/news/2012/05/david-cronenberg-to-infect-toronto-in-new-travelling-exhibition.php

― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, May 29, 2012 10:22 AM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the conservative gov't here slashed film production massively and put a shit ton of money into this video game

― A Little Princess btw (s1ocki), Tuesday, 29 May 2012 14:39 (11 months ago) Permalink

Through the presentation of artifacts, props, documentation and audio-visual interviews, as well as reconstructed set-pieces from Cronenberg's films, the exhibition parallels his growth as a filmmaker with his ongoing examination and interpretation of human evolutionary possibilities, tracing his work from a focus on biological change towards examinations of shifting psychological states. A parallel art project based on the same themes will be announced at a later date.

this all sounds very excessive, self-regarding, and absurd.

― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, 29 May 2012 14:47 (11 months ago) Permalink

tbh i have no problem with them doing a cronie exhibit (makes way more sense than the tim burton one they launched the lightbox with) but this is getting ridic

― A Little Princess btw (s1ocki), Tuesday, 29 May 2012 14:49 (11 months ago) Permalink

tracing his work from a focus on biological change towards examinations of shifting psychological states

somehow framing it this systematically/schematic and making it the linchpin of a museum exhibit is just kind of embarrassing.

― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Tuesday, 29 May 2012 14:55 (11 months ago) Permalink

could just be the way the exhibit was written up, these kinds of things usually sound terrible

― A Little Princess btw (s1ocki), Tuesday, 29 May 2012 14:57 (11 months ago) Permalink

Ah, I get it now.

being young = being afraid of your body deteriorating
being old = being afraid of your mind deteriorating

― Björk lied (Eric H.), Tuesday, 29 May 2012 14:58 (11 months ago) Permalink

actually both of those are really "being old"

― A Little Princess btw (s1ocki), Tuesday, 29 May 2012 14:59 (11 months ago) Permalink

I revise:

being young = loving movies about being afraid of your body deteriorating
being old = loving movies about being afraid of your mind deteriorating

― Björk lied (Eric H.), Tuesday, 29 May 2012 15:05 (11 months ago) Permalink

being somewhere in between = writing program notes for museum exhibitions

― Björk lied (Eric H.), Tuesday, 29 May 2012 15:06 (11 months ago) Permalink

press releases ain't program notes (we hope).

DC is as much about mutation as deterioration, no?

― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 29 May 2012 15:22 (11 months ago) Permalink

yeah, long live the new flesh and all that

― Ward Fowler, Tuesday, 29 May 2012 15:43 (11 months ago) Permalink

I do often think of him when a smartphone with a selfish asshole attached is blocking the subway stairs.

― World Congress of Itch (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 29 May 2012 15:47 (11 months ago) Permalink

iirc 'the smartphone with a selfish asshole' was one of the skits cut from naked lunch

― Ward Fowler, Tuesday, 29 May 2012 15:58 (11 months ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

watched cosmopolis at the w/end - never seen so many people walk out of a film, seriously. it is exceptionally boring, but somehow more Cronenbergian than the pallid heritage cinema of 'Dangerous Method'

― Ward Fowler, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 08:20 (11 months ago) Permalink

hah

― Black_vegeta (Hungry4Ass), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 09:23 (11 months ago) Permalink

nooooooo

― mh, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 12:21 (11 months ago) Permalink

lol @ "exceptionally boring"

That's become my baseline expectation of new Cronenberg movies

― old people are made of poop (Eric H.), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 12:25 (11 months ago) Permalink

I liked aspects of it, but it's probably his least accessible movie ever, and yes, *many* walkouts. Also, he doesn't handle digital very well.

― Simon H., Tuesday, 19 June 2012 13:12 (11 months ago) Permalink

what did he drop the camera or something?

― brony ver (s1ocki), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 15:18 (11 months ago) Permalink

From the never tedious IMDB message board:

"I haven't had this less fun since I watched Synecdoche New York!"

In other words, I'm sold!

― to welcome jer.fairall, pie is served. (jer.fairall), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 15:21 (11 months ago) Permalink

Fowler and Eric, go sit in the corner

― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 15:26 (11 months ago) Permalink

Synecdoche was great!

― a dense custard of infinity (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 15:45 (11 months ago) Permalink

Synecdoche might still be the best film of the last 5 years.

― to welcome jer.fairall, pie is served. (jer.fairall), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 15:49 (11 months ago) Permalink

lot of good stuff in it, but crazee talk

― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 15:50 (11 months ago) Permalink

It's that or The Tree of Life, according to Ebert.

― old people are made of poop (Eric H.), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 15:51 (11 months ago) Permalink

or prometheus

― brony ver (s1ocki), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 15:51 (11 months ago) Permalink

maybe Juno

― old people are made of poop (Eric H.), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 15:52 (11 months ago) Permalink

what a guy.

― brony ver (s1ocki), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 15:53 (11 months ago) Permalink

half the time I love and appreciate Ebert, and then I just wonder what the hell he is thinking the other part

― mh, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 15:54 (11 months ago) Permalink

Gotta admit I was bummed when Ebert chose Tree of Life over Synecdoche for his S&S list, but if I'd been through what he'd been through lately perhaps new age hokum would be more appealing to me than something as beautifully miserable as Synecdoche.

― to welcome jer.fairall, pie is served. (jer.fairall), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 15:56 (11 months ago) Permalink

Synechdoche kind of falls down in the last third (agree w Morbz, in general)

― a dense custard of infinity (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 15:58 (11 months ago) Permalink

kind of want to punch anyone that refers to Tree of Life as "new age hokum" a hundred thousand times in the face.

― circa1916, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 15:59 (11 months ago) Permalink

BUT, different thread.

― circa1916, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 16:00 (11 months ago) Permalink

Take yr best shot :-)

― to welcome jer.fairall, pie is served. (jer.fairall), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 16:00 (11 months ago) Permalink

In fairness, I *like* TOL on balance...I just woulda liked it better if it were just the 50's coming of age stuff without an introductory half hour of pretty screen-savers and the last half hour of dead people walking on a beach.

― to welcome jer.fairall, pie is served. (jer.fairall), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 16:01 (11 months ago) Permalink

creation sequence is awes fuiud. more ambivalent about the ending, but interesting stuff there and hey it's only 15 or so minutes iirc.

even more psyched for Cosmopolis now tbh.

― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 16:06 (11 months ago) Permalink

me too
i just expect to feel a certain kind of bored-but-not-bored feeling when watching cronenberg films, and i like it

― obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 16:15 (11 months ago) Permalink

i think most Canadian filmmakers are dealing in how to dramatize boredom/the boring on one level or another

― obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 16:18 (11 months ago) Permalink

but interesting stuff there and hey it's only 15 or so minutes iirc.

6 or 7 tops.

― old people are made of poop (Eric H.), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 16:28 (11 months ago) Permalink

6 or 7 tops

Oooh. What are their names?

― Kevin John Bozelka, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 16:50 (11 months ago) Permalink

Chaz, Bo, Dunk, Tad, Bluto, Swain, and Tia

― old people are made of poop (Eric H.), Tuesday, 19 June 2012 16:56 (11 months ago) Permalink

MY GOD this was tedious

― Number None, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 16:56 (11 months ago) Permalink

Agonizing. A running stream of babble we're supposed to find profound, Twilight looks like he's struggling to remember his lines. JBinoche still hot, though.

― SongOfSam, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 19:00 (11 months ago) Permalink

I'm scared that Cronenberg's ability to slow burn has exceeded his film length. I'm sure there's tons of crazy action and violence in the 110th minute of A Dangerous Method but the movie was over by then.

― mh, Tuesday, 19 June 2012 21:20 (11 months ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

Big shrug of the shoulders for Cosmopolis. Fun spotting Toronto locations, and that was about it. I was sort of with it for the first half, Giamatti's scene was interminable. Maybe the philosophizing on capitalism and greed might have seemed more immediate three years ago, but after so many documentaries on the subject, it was like a weak echo. (I should mention I haven't read the book.) My biggest problem was simply the lifelessness of just about everyone, the lead especially. I know, he's supposed to be lifeless. he's dead inside...which is rarely a good strategy. James Woods in Videodrome, Walken in The Dead Zone, Goldblum and Davis in The Fly, even Jeremy Irons in Dead Ringers to a lesser degree--these are all engaging characters. When Cronenberg drifts way over to his clinical, austere side, he loses me.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 11 July 2012 04:55 (10 months ago) Permalink

I assume you're counting Crash as 'clinical, austere', which works fine for me.

― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 11 July 2012 11:41 (10 months ago) Permalink

I would, yeah...At the time, I was really proud of something I tacked onto my year-end music ballot, which was Crash reimagined as an SCTV parody. Edith Prickley got the Holly Hunter role, I think. Being a Canadian publication, they used it.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 11 July 2012 11:58 (10 months ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

from NYT feature:

“I don’t think Rob’s face has ever been examined in such excruciating detail, from so many angles,” Mr. Cronenberg said. “That was part of the casting. You want a face that can take that.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/movies/cosmopolis-cronenbergs-take-on-don-delillo.html?ref=movies

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 5 August 2012 12:00 (9 months ago) Permalink

Croney, Pattz ring NYSE opening bell. Thank God for meta-marketing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/robert-pattinson-makes-sure-stocks-can-be-traded-today-by-ringing-bell/2012/08/14/56991bfe-e61d-11e1-8741-940e3f6dbf48_blog.html

― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 14 August 2012 19:45 (9 months ago) Permalink

That's ... kinda perfect.

― Eric H., Tuesday, 14 August 2012 19:48 (9 months ago) Permalink

is this movie as bad as everyone said? I always get excited about cronenberg movies, then get depressed by bad reviews, then eventually watch them on demand or whatever and end up loving them.

― dan selzer, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 19:52 (9 months ago) Permalink

I kinda liked this one, or at least admired its arrogance.

― Eric H., Tuesday, 14 August 2012 19:55 (9 months ago) Permalink

Ending will make a lot of people want to hurt someone, tho.

― Eric H., Tuesday, 14 August 2012 19:56 (9 months ago) Permalink

trailer for new (brandon) cronenberg

― just sayin, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 19:59 (9 months ago) Permalink

Glenn Kenny gave it five stars. I haven't looked at a lot of reviews, but my general impression from festival-time was people were at best muted and at worst severely disappointed. GK isn't at all credible though because he's a pretty hardcore Cronenberg stan, but I sort-of am as well so I'm still pumped.

― Legendary General Cypher Raige (Gukbe), Tuesday, 14 August 2012 20:02 (9 months ago) Permalink

This is a pretentious Cronenberg stylez I can get behind.

― Eric H., Tuesday, 14 August 2012 20:03 (9 months ago) Permalink

A Dangerous Method was the only Cronenberg film where I've felt unenthused, but I think that was a glitch.

― your native bacon (mh), Tuesday, 14 August 2012 20:04 (9 months ago) Permalink

Agree with crix that call Giamatti's segment (or, rather, his performance) a miscalculation, but it was still kind of riveting after all that android pseudo-conversation.

― Eric H., Tuesday, 14 August 2012 20:08 (9 months ago) Permalink

Haven't bought the issue yet, but Amy Taubin has Cosmopolis on her S&S list. She always has a Cronenberg film on there. I think she may second-guess that one.

― clemenza, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 20:25 (9 months ago) Permalink

I guess that's no stranger than putting Spider on her '02 list, tho I still haven't managed to sit through that one.

― Eric H., Tuesday, 14 August 2012 20:30 (9 months ago) Permalink

wonder if this means Cronenberg will get *another* Film Comment cover

― Legendary General Cypher Raige (Gukbe), Tuesday, 14 August 2012 20:31 (9 months ago) Permalink

Haven't bought the issue yet, but Amy Taubin has Cosmopolis on her S&S list. She always has a Cronenberg film on there. I think she may second-guess that one.

― clemenza, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 21:25 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i read her repping for it somewhere - film comment's cannes review i think - & it made me really want to see it. i like taubz & i think it's probably in some ways as honourable to include something super current as to just co-sign potemkin or w/e.

― , Blogger (schlump), Tuesday, 14 August 2012 22:00 (9 months ago) Permalink

spider sucks iirc

― WheatusVEVO (Hungry4Ass), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 01:06 (9 months ago) Permalink

^^^

― contenderizer, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 01:12 (9 months ago) Permalink

Spider's pretty good, cert'ly tons better than A History of Graphic Novel Violence.

― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 01:28 (9 months ago) Permalink

you're replacing one graphic-novel-level approach with another?

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 01:37 (9 months ago) Permalink

still love HoV, but I guess it did come from that inferior art form

― Legendary General Cypher Raige (Gukbe), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 01:38 (9 months ago) Permalink

M. Butterfly, Crash, existenZ, and Spider are the duds of the last twenty years, although I'd watch the last one again. Funny how no one has ever made a case for the first on this list. I saw in the theatre after loving Naked Lunch -- one of my first disappointments as an Adult Film Watcher.

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 01:39 (9 months ago) Permalink

still love HoV, but I guess it did come from that inferior art form

lol, art form. i liked it cuz it was fun to think about, appealingly heightened and quite strange. spider was just a drag.

― contenderizer, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 01:40 (9 months ago) Permalink

alfred otm, except that i genuinely love about 90% of existenz. falls apart towards the end cuz the dreamlike oddity is much more interesting than the espionage plotting behind it, but up to that point, i've got no complaints.

― contenderizer, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 01:42 (9 months ago) Permalink

"cuz"

― contenderizer, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 01:42 (9 months ago) Permalink

alfred OTM about all those EXCEPT eXistenZ imho, which is awesome

― Shameful Dead Half Choogle (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 01:43 (9 months ago) Permalink

on the other hand I don't like them all but he went from strength to strength in the Videodrome-The Fly-Dead Ringers-Naked Lunch sequence.

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 01:45 (9 months ago) Permalink

Alfred all wet cept for M Butterfly

Naked Lunch is an interesting failure, and I bet we've all said these fucking things upthread.

― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 01:53 (9 months ago) Permalink

we're improving as we age, appearances to the contrary

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 01:53 (9 months ago) Permalink

no, I still look good but have otherwise gone to shit.

― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 01:55 (9 months ago) Permalink

Another existenz lover here.

― dan selzer, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 01:56 (9 months ago) Permalink

"new ports are tight"

― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 02:00 (9 months ago) Permalink

so is Jude Law in that fillum

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 02:01 (9 months ago) Permalink

I thought M Butterfly a bit of a damp squib but Existenz and Spider were both good.

― EZ Snappin, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 02:16 (9 months ago) Permalink

Crash is his last great movie, among the ones I've seen.

― Eric H., Wednesday, 15 August 2012 02:31 (9 months ago) Permalink

it's good but not the last great, sheesh

― your native bacon (mh), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 03:05 (9 months ago) Permalink

When I first saw it Spider was one of the most depressing things I'd ever seen, being forced into such intimacy with a guy who writes an illegible diary and barely utters anything coherent. It was a genuinely uncomfortable, despairing psychological space to occupy. Admittedly the film didn't impress me quite as much when I saw it again a few years later, but I'd still probably it's still my favorite Cronenberg since, oh, Videodrome. I'm not quite sure on what level it's deemed a failure, what it should offer that it doesn't.

― eatandoph (Neue Jesse Schule), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 03:17 (9 months ago) Permalink

i wasn't terribly interested in the film's surface, well detailed though it was. it seemed to depend for tension on the unraveling of a mystery whose solution seemed fairly obvious from early on, and on the similarly predictable parallel disintegration of the protagonist's mental health.

i've never read the mcgrath novel on which the film is based, but others have suggested that it was a risky choice to begin with, given how much the original story depends on the protagonist's subjectivity. despite cronenberg's attempts to depict interior states visually, i felt as though i were observing only the shell of a narrative inside which something potentially interesting was happening.

― contenderizer, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 03:32 (9 months ago) Permalink

The book is better than the film, but Spider is as good a film as one could make from it and have it still be watchable.

― EZ Snappin, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 03:36 (9 months ago) Permalink

existenz is one of his best, but you may need to be steeped in canadian content to really get it i think

― Author ~ Coach ~ Goddess (s1ocki), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 04:35 (9 months ago) Permalink

I don't know--I know lots about The Trouble with Tracy and the Poppy Family and Joey McLaughlin, and it didn't really help.

― clemenza, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 04:40 (9 months ago) Permalink

Well, here's one rave anyway:

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/cosmopolis/6446

― Eric H., Wednesday, 15 August 2012 17:38 (9 months ago) Permalink

that doesn't really say much

― Number None, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 17:43 (9 months ago) Permalink

'rizer, that novel's style has a certain amount in common with the one he adapted here, so bevare perhaps.

― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 17:43 (9 months ago) Permalink

"darkly comic" is a phrase i'm always wary of seeing in reviews. It basically means "not funny"

― Number None, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 17:50 (9 months ago) Permalink

To me it usually means I'll be one of the only ones laughing.

― Eric H., Wednesday, 15 August 2012 17:52 (9 months ago) Permalink

There was actually a lot of laughing at the press screening I went to, but probably of a few different varieties. There was also some yelling at the screen.

― Eric H., Wednesday, 15 August 2012 17:53 (9 months ago) Permalink

i may have emitted an anguished moan at some point

― Number None, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 17:54 (9 months ago) Permalink

I may have launched an ironic belch.

― Eric H., Wednesday, 15 August 2012 17:54 (9 months ago) Permalink

Prostate exam was a crowd pleaser.

― Eric H., Wednesday, 15 August 2012 17:55 (9 months ago) Permalink

^when aint it

I did laugh a fair bit at the funny bits in Crash when I saw again a few months ago, as I did at much of Viggo's Freud in ADM.

However, the only great film I've seen from DC is The Fly.

― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 17:55 (9 months ago) Permalink

I can settle on that as his best. (That or The Brood.)

― Eric H., Wednesday, 15 August 2012 17:56 (9 months ago) Permalink

I tried reading the novel several years ago.

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 18:04 (9 months ago) Permalink

can't decide between The Fly and Dead Ringers.

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 18:05 (9 months ago) Permalink

I'm also usually one of the only ones laughing at some moments.

Apparently a few friends are still wondering why I was giggling throughout a lot of Barry Lyndon

― your native bacon (mh), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 18:12 (9 months ago) Permalink

I like Dead Zone too

― Fiendish Doctor Wu (kingfish), Wednesday, 15 August 2012 18:43 (9 months ago) Permalink

Dead Zone, the one time I saw it, was super.

A superhero movie, by definition, you know, it's comic book. It's for kids. It's adolescent in its core. That has always been its appeal, and I think people who are saying Dark Knight Rises is 'supreme cinema art,' I don't think they know what the fuck they're talking about.

http://www.nextmovie.com/blog/robert-pattinson-david-cronenberg-cosmopolis-interview/

― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 16 August 2012 00:22 (9 months ago) Permalink

As an actor, I would play Batman.

― Number None, Thursday, 16 August 2012 00:41 (9 months ago) Permalink

hell, who wouldn't? but with Adam West's rhythms.

― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 16 August 2012 00:47 (9 months ago) Permalink

with Heath Ledger's rhythms

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 16 August 2012 00:49 (9 months ago) Permalink

^also adolescent in its core

― Pangborn to be Wilde (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 16 August 2012 01:01 (9 months ago) Permalink

checked Cosmopolis out of the library; it reads like a script.

― a regina spektor is haunting europe (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 16 August 2012 01:13 (9 months ago) Permalink

Some dick is remaking Videodrome.

http://twitchfilm.com/news/2012/08/videodrome-remake-cronenberg-berg.php

― pun lovin criminal (polyphonic), Wednesday, 22 August 2012 20:35 (9 months ago) Permalink

script by the guy who wrote the Transformers movies.

― dan selzer, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 20:54 (9 months ago) Permalink

They are the new flesh.

― Eric H., Wednesday, 22 August 2012 20:55 (9 months ago) Permalink

it's not even just that semi-talented people are remaking once-untouchable movies now, it's also that they're remaking movies to look more like video games, yet we can't even play our way through the emotionally bereft slickness, so, seriously, they should just fuck off with this

― obliquity of the ecliptic (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 22 August 2012 21:09 (9 months ago) Permalink

if there's no market for a Total Recall remake and I don't see why anyone would think there would be one for Videodrome.

Still: Who is today's Debbie Harry equivalent that they should cast for the role?

― Legendary General Cypher Raige (Gukbe), Wednesday, 22 August 2012 21:12 (9 months ago) Permalink

I would play a Videodrome point and click adventure

― Number None, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 21:12 (9 months ago) Permalink

point and squick

― contenderizer, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 21:19 (9 months ago) Permalink

if there's no market for a Total Recall remake and I don't see why anyone would think there would be one for Videodrome.

― Legendary General Cypher Raige (Gukbe), Wednesday, August 22, 2012 5:12 PM (32 minutes ago) Bookmark

there sort of is a market for a total recall remake... just not a $200 million one.

― WheatusVEVO (Hungry4Ass), Wednesday, 22 August 2012 21:48 (9 months ago) Permalink

They'd probably swap Debbie Harry for Lady Gaga or Nicki Minaj or other misc pop singer that likes to give crazy wide eyes in front of fish eye lenses.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Friday, 24 August 2012 21:35 (8 months ago) Permalink

saw Cosmopolis today, and may have been too tired and distracted to really get into it, but it was certainly compelling at points. I felt like the claustrophobic style was obviously motivated but it sure was exhausting and even a little boring. I was even spacing off during the final bit before the credits! (again that's probably my fault)

I did like the sense that it was about a guy having a total mental/life breakdown and keeping this odd composure through it all. I liked the dialogues...i liked how they portrayed how people talk when they are over-consuming information. they sorta talk AT each other.

― ryan, Friday, 24 August 2012 23:25 (8 months ago) Permalink

i was sorta hoping for a movie of impending doom and dread and pessimism, but for all that certainly being there i didn't feel it much. maybe that makes it that much more despairing?

― ryan, Friday, 24 August 2012 23:27 (8 months ago) Permalink

Crash is his last great movie, among the ones I've seen.

― Eric H., Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:31 PM (1 week ago)

yah, up until crash I had seen all his films save m butterfly, and crash felt like the logical end to what he was doing - science fiction made not with technology but with actual human behavior. one of my favorite directors, and I practically ignored him after that, have only seen a history of violence. I'm glad he's been able to build a successful career making movies that would end the careers of others, tho.

― vincent black shadow giallo (Edward III), Monday, 27 August 2012 18:45 (8 months ago) Permalink

4 months pass...

You're in a good spot, though, now. You're in the Woody Allen zone – you keep your budgets low, you get enough dough back in Europe, the people in the US that dig it dig it and then you make the next one.

That's true, and every time I've tried to play with the studios it's never worked out. I don't blame them or me, it's the mix of sensibilities is not there, we don't fit. Listen, I see some big movies and I think “Oh, it would be fun to make that, challenging.” Then reality sets in and it's not going to happen. Your estimation of where I'm at with filmmaking is pretty accurate....

I'm usually reluctant to include deleted scenes. They're deleted for a reason....

Have you seen the new High Frame Rate that Peter Jackson used for The Hobbit?

No, though you see it on television all the time. Sports shows are 60 frames. Those flawless slo-mo playbacks with no smearing. I haven't seen The Hobbit yet, but I do believe it would be nice to get away from 24 frames per second — even just to 30 frames per second. I don't have a nostalgic longing to stick with the smearing or strobing you get when you pan with a film camera. It's not nice. It comes from ancient technology that we don't need anymore. Even upping to 30 might get rid of that, I don't know why 48 as opposed to 50 or 60, frankly. In a weird way, 48, as double of 24, is still clinging to the old technology.

http://movieline.com/2012/12/31/david-cronenberg-talks-cosmopolis-high-frame-rates-and-bullshit-oscars/

― saltwater incursion (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 2 January 2013 16:53 (4 months ago) Permalink

OW! Oh, crap, the cat just jumped on me.

I like cats.

Yeah, he's adorable, but very heavy.

quality journalism here

― If I was a carpenter, and you were a douchebag (Shakey Mo Collier), Wednesday, 2 January 2013 18:52 (4 months ago) Permalink

I like cats too

― CGI fridays (Edward III), Wednesday, 2 January 2013 21:15 (4 months ago) Permalink

it's so strange how journalism keeps getting worse as journalists' paychecks and job prospects keep getting smaller

― Poliopolice, Wednesday, 2 January 2013 21:19 (4 months ago) Permalink

oh no... 3 senteneces about cats... journalisms dead... stfu

― turds (Hungry4Ass), Wednesday, 2 January 2013 21:27 (4 months ago) Permalink

no... please DON'T stfu. i'm talkin to you, Poliopolice!

― Tome Cruise (Matt P), Wednesday, 2 January 2013 21:29 (4 months ago) Permalink

tell me more about the state of journalism in 2013, damn it!

― Tome Cruise (Matt P), Wednesday, 2 January 2013 21:30 (4 months ago) Permalink

so I hafta quit film threads for the year too, huh

― saltwater incursion (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 2 January 2013 23:00 (4 months ago) Permalink

can't believe you guys hate cats like that

― CGI fridays (Edward III), Thursday, 3 January 2013 01:54 (4 months ago) Permalink

next one w/ Weisz, Viggo, Pattinson

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/rachel-weisz-joins-david-cronenbergs-maps-to-the-stars-with-robert-pattinson-viggo-mortensen-20121107

― saltwater incursion (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 3 January 2013 16:05 (4 months ago) Permalink

so I hafta quit film threads for the year too, huh

― saltwater incursion (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:00 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

Don't get us excited if you don't mean really it

― turds (Hungry4Ass), Friday, 4 January 2013 04:27 (4 months ago) Permalink

try to get shakey to do it

― saltwater incursion (Dr Morbius), Friday, 4 January 2013 04:28 (4 months ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.