another maniacal Armond White review, this time "Fahrenheit 9/11"

x-post

An IMDB entry for it says documentary - OK, IMDB also lists Häxan as a doc. Is Häxan a documentary? An Amazon review, a dictionary reference that includes the line "In later years, attempts to steer the action in this way, without informing the audience, have come to be considered both unethical and contradictory to the nature of documentary film."

None of these show a consensus of opinion on Nanook that lets you use it and its methods as a standard. (Because that consensus does not exist.)

I think your error is in assuming that a documentary is about accounting history. Documentary != history book.

I'm reminded of how effective this whole embedded journalist thing worked during the war's early stages... lame ass FOX reporters felt the espirit de corps and wouldn't report anything negative... they became buddies with the soldiers.

(And my point is....?)

i am really dreading seeing this movie.

J. Hoberman

a) does he mean Garth out of Wayne's World?
b) if so, what's he on about?
c) and you know what the worst part is? I never learned to read.

No other reviews "noticed this" because he left off the last part of the reporter's statement - "it must be avenged, or at least punished." (something to that effect)

No Country for Old Men > better than There Will Be Blood, Zodiac

The Coen brothers hauntingly mythologize Americana, while P.T. Anderson and David Fincher make it morbid, sadistic and self-congratulatory.

o_O

zodiac >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no country for old men (which i loved)

yes

armond's line that morbs quoted in the "there will be blood" thread was some all-time hilarity

Plainview is the most remarkable movie performance since Eddie Murphy’s Norbit trifecta.

zodiac >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no country for old men (which i loved)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>there will be blood (which i really really liked)

zodiac was not that good ..... the first half, maybe

i dont like pt anderson but i wanna see there will be blood

To be fair zodiac is maybe only >>> no country for old men.

and what and Alex OTM

and No Country was really good but come on it was totally morbid and sadistic

twbb >>>> zodiac (which i liked a lot) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no country for old men (which is doomed to mediocrity by coens' unimaginative fidelity to mediocre source material)

and i love tommy lee jones that was one phoned-in cranky-old-sheriff routine.

BUT that was one, i mean

i dont like pt anderson but i wanna see there will be blood

yeah don't let PT hate stop you, it's not like any of his previous movies

Maybe it's a mediocre book, but I think it works really well cinematically. I can't imagine what you would want to change.

but what if I hate PTA and DDL both

boys lovin' morbid and sadistic

The Wind That Shakes the Barley >>>>>>> Zodiac = TWBB

I don't think TLJ's performance was any more phoned in than DDL's frankly (if we are talking about performances these guys can do in their sleep.)

these were my three favourite movies of the year. i tied them at #1.

Zodiac >> The Wind That Shakes the Barley > No Country for Old Men >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TWBB

the wind that shakes the barley was good but a little too earnest and on the nose for me.

I can't imagine what you would want to change.

caring what happens at any point to anyone?

xpost: disagree completely about tlj vs. ddl, i think ddl's been working on that performance for years and finally got to do it. (butcher bill was about halfway there.)

enough with the fuckin triangular brackets already.

^^^^^^

i mean i guess the point of no country is to do with fate and the persistence of evil in the world and the morally compromised nature of human existence and all that stuff mccarthy has done better in other books, but the story is really problematic. people do stupid shit all the way through it, and we're supposed to buy their bad ends as "fate"? i think mccarthy only committed to the genre halfway, he didn't let himself go all the way pulp, which leaves it as kind of po-faced pulp, just self-aware enough to be ineffectual. coens made the same mistake, even though they didn't have to -- they could have taken the ridiculous story and had fun with it. (i think the reason the road is a better book than no country is that mccarthy really does commit to the post-apocalyptic thing and for the most part does not clutter it with rumination. that will probably make it a better movie too, although probably armond white won't think so.)

the wind that shakes the barley was about as good as the best of the irish troubles flicks. reminded me of 'soldier of orange' for some reason. still not as good as zodiac or no country for old men (which is awesomely directed and acted if nothing else).

Armond taking Woody Allen, Dargis and AO Scott to the woodshed this week is funny stuff.

http://www.nypress.com/21/3/film/ArmondWhite.cfm

gimme Loach "earnestness" any day if you feel the cost of bloodletting in your throat.

i can understand the comparisons between there will be blood and no country, but i don't get exactly where zodiac ties into the equation. is the uniting thought that they are longish, auteurish pictures by established directors, primarily about crime in america?

i liked no country but i like it less & less the more i think about it

while i loved zodiac and love it more & more every day