Roman Polanski, or pardon me but your poll is in my neck.

Concluded Allen: "They should take the money they spent on the Polanski case and go after drug dealers and rapists."

yeah did he really say this????????????

http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b181271_cannes_notebook_woody_allen_on_polanski.html

ugh
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/19/media-lynch-mob-roman-polanski

I know Polanski well, as we recently collaborated on a film of my novel, The Ghost.

I think it's pretty clear who's the guilty party who put her anus around Mr. Polanski's penis.

A free man. So back to your regularly scheduled overrating of Chinatown.

the fact that i've seen less than half of these should probably invalidates my vote (if ieven voted at all in this) for Chinatown. also, I do want to give Death and the Maiden a shout out. definitely worth your time iirc..

I always thought Sigourney was shrill in "DatM," to the point of camp.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/CRIME/07/12/switzerland.polanski.extradition/story.polanski.file.gi.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPJcI7v40DY

i love christoph waltz and would potentially like to see this movie, but you know, unrepentant child rapist

r kelly already occupies that space in my life

lol, good thing I can dismiss sexasaurii for good movies

trailer makes the movie like a prettier-lookin neil labute joint

Holy shit, I have zero interest in this film. Such a strange, strange decision.

◄ Polanski Unauthorized (2009) Did You Know?
TriviaGoofs
Showing one item
Factual errors
In one scene a Nazi officer tells Polanski's mother isn't a Jew because in her maternal lineage her mother and grandmother were not Jewish. The maternal lineage is used in Jewish law. The Nazi laws on how to classify someone a Jewish were different from the Jewish law. Share this Hide options

Just saw, Carnage, it was... quite okay. Top-notch acting from everyone, especially from Jodie Foster and Cristoph Waltz, who did a nice job with characters in the polar opposites of the idealistic-cynical axis. Kate Winslet's drunken ranting felt a bit forced, but she and John Reilly were good too. The biggest problem was with the script, IMO. It tried to juggle all these IMPORTANT ISSUES, but in the end refused to deal with them in any particularly deep or original way. The story just ended abruptly while all the balls wall still in the air. The final scene was great though.

Am I the only one who felt the film was more than a little similar to Hitchcock's Rope? Both of them last 80 minutes, both take place in real time and inside one apartment, except for an outdoor opening/closing shots, both tackle the issues of nihilism and "man's animal nature". Carnage even had a Hitchcock style cameo from Polanski.

i had an expectation going in of where the movie would head, and i thought it ended up not having much of an edge. the speechifying in the third act felt forced to me, and reilly was miscast. i liked the puking though. where was polanski's cameo?? are you sure about that?

did anyone see his Oliver Twist? any good?

Polanski was the neighbour peeking through his door, or at least I think so. He wasn't credited or anything.

I think you're maybe right that Reilly was miscast. His mellow duded act in the beginning was more credible than his "true" self revealed later on. Waltz was much more believable as a nihilist.

I have to say though, that Carnage was pretty funny. The "facade of bourgeois civility dropping" idea wasn't very original, and they didn't go very far with it, but at least they got some entertaining shit out of it.

Jodie was depressingly limited here

i wonder how many dinner parties really end with everyone shell-shocked after a dark night of the soul and one person repeating an ambiguous phrase

i actually don't know if polanski uses that device but the play sure did

Jodie was depressingly limited here

― Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Monday, February 13, 2012 2:51 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark

i think its the movie's (polanski's) conception of her character that was limited

the scene where waltz gives his god of carnage speech is when i had the 'a-ha' moment re: what drew polanski to the material

croupier otm

I think you're maybe right that Reilly was miscast. His mellow duded act in the beginning was more credible than his "true" self revealed later on. Waltz was much more believable as a nihilist.

― Tuomas, Monday, February 13, 2012 2:08 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

yeah it felt like reilly's character was meant to emerge as a bullying creep but he kept playing him as a buffoon

This film didn't really work for me. At first I found it quite difficult to get into because it was like having two couples raging in your front room. Then I got more into the performances, though I didn't really think Reilly or Waltz's characters were very well drawn and both had blackberry/telephone scenes that were too repetitive. Finally, just as I was getting into it, the film ended too abruptly.

saw frantic last night and really, really enjoyed it. definitely a minor work and not surprised by half of the posts itt being dismissive, but i had a blast watching it. tuomas' post upthread about the killer premise is otm; simple concept and a very natural, deliberate unfolding of evidence and plot advancement, always just enough for him to go on searching, like there's never any moment when harrison ford just wallows in despair or loses any momentum, he's always taking a cab to the club advertised on that pack of matches he found in his wife's luggage, taking keys of coke in a bathroom stall in order to bribe the drug dealer for a tip. and he's a total square, too, despite some creepy slow-panning camerawork in scenes before the wife disappears there's no hint of any turmoil or vice. anyways yeah cool movie

Rosemary's locations:

http://www.scoutingny.com/?p=1135

Promised myself that I was retiring Rosemary after my last viewing, but somebody bought me the Criterion for Christmas, so I felt I should watch it again. Haven't looked at the extra disc yet.

Afterwards, I went online to see if All of Them Witches was a real book, and if I could get hold of a decently priced copy. I'm not the first person to do so--Google Autotype kicked in before I finished. Turns out it's not--it's on Wikipedia's list of fictional guide books found in movies. Very convincing.

Anyway, before long, I found this for sale on AbeBooks: Woody Allen's first edition copy of the novel, with a personal inscription from Ira Levin. Only $795 (plus shipping):

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=5859005428&searchurl=sortby%3D1%26tn%3Drosemary%2527s%2Bbaby

The '60s.

There is a two-month BFI retrospective. I don't get why there is a need for this? The sixties stuff gets a fair odd screening, and its not like anyone needs to see fkn Chinatown again.

i've not seen chinatown on the big screen before, so am tempted by that (though i chose to go see Nothing Sacred there last night instead). i'd imagine its going to sell a bunch of tickets, and finance their more obscure projects.

No doubt it will sell tickets, but part of the point of public subsidy is to not have to worry about bums on seats all the time.

I'm not saying "two month Vertov groups screenings" plz. However Polanski is p/well known. I'm sure Chinatown could get the odd screening as part of the 'Passport to Cinema' series.

i agree, but i've not doubt that even with the public subsidy that bums on seats is still a big issue (especially since i'd imagine that public subsidy has shrunk in the last two and a half years). and something as relatively mainstream as a polanski season (or, specifically, an extended run of chinatown) will also serve to draw in cinemagoers who perhaps aren't aware of the BFI and all that it does - a gateway drug, if you will.

I'm going to see quite a few of these and saw chinatown on fri for the first time in the cinema having seen it many times before and I enjoyed it more than ever and was affected by it more even than the first time I saw it despite now being v familiar with its plot and action and maybe there's something about it being newly restored (they're showing it at curzons and maybe elsewhere as well as bfi) so maybe that was part of the spur for the season oh and I saw his tess of the d'urbervilles in the film festival and that was newly restored too so I'm happy they're doing it and excited to see more because I like them.

the collection of polanski posters at the NFT is really excellent and well worth a look

I recently came across this in an old Playboy:

http://s.ecrater.com/stores/54333/4b848bf86c0f5_54333n.jpg

Product placement in regards to the ad Cassavettes appears in within RB.

While I agree w/ xyzzzz to some extent - Polanski's films are not that difficult to see, and maybe the BFI should be funding more obscure or deserving revivals - the new digital print of CHINATOWN does look absolutely stunning. Seen on the big screen, Polanski's constant use of over-the-shoulders shots really amplifies the film's sense of paranoia - of not being in full possession of the facts - even tho' as an actual mystery it's kind of a bust (who doesn't guess that John Huston is the bad guy p much as soon as he appears, esp as there are no real other suspects)

but how is he the bad guy is in the unraveling.

I'm just fine w/ seeing a 35mm print on the big screen anyhoo. #dinosaur

The unraveling is not just how he is the bad guy, but that the bad guy wins. With ease and confidence and disconcerting jolliness.

meh he's not that jolly when whatshername gets her head blown off

He's practically licking his slobbery chops.

whenever I see an old film w/ one of Huston's wives, Evelyn Keyes, I think of him saying "Evelyn, pleeeeease."

I'm just fine w/ seeing a 35mm print on the big screen anyhoo. #dinosaur

i'm w/ you - when the print is good condition and the projectionist knows what they're doing, there's something very rich and warm about big-screen film projection. but, in my primarily London-based revival cinema experience, those two conditions are rarely met. given the choice, wld def opt for a new digital print over a bashed-up old film version with scratches, splices, sound drop-outs etc. i suspect that the digital restoration of La Grande Illusion that the BFI toured last year was the best that that film has EVER looked - and it made it seem stunningly 'present' and alive.

there's nothing worse, however, than seeing a DVD projected on a very big screen.

but how is he the bad guy is in the unraveling.

^^^

What's Tess like anybody - three hours, Nastassia Kinski, etc.?

https://whatson.bfi.org.uk/ArticleMedia/Images/WhatsOn%20images/February%202013/Roman%20Polanski/tess_01.jpg

Haven't seen it since I was a senior in H.S. I remember thinking it was gorgeous but kind of dull.

Yeah I'm thinking this is just the kind of one-off this season was for really (would zone out if it was on TV), also on a sat afternoon - might be what I need.

haven't seen it since i was 16 or 17 and gorgeous but slow as hell covers my memory of it. having said that i've a lot of time for slow as hell so

Yeah, I'm pretty sure my H.S. senior self would not have sat still for Bela Tarr.