― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:22 (eighteen years ago) link
― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:23 (eighteen years ago) link
― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:24 (eighteen years ago) link
but that doesn't explain Rush.
― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:25 (eighteen years ago) link
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 (eighteen years ago) link
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 (eighteen years ago) link
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 (eighteen years ago) link
Although the bloody faces were cool.
― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:33 (eighteen years ago) link
― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:34 (eighteen years ago) link
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.
-- @d@ml (nordi
― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:35 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:36 (eighteen years ago) link
I think we were stoned, though.
― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:37 (eighteen years ago) link
and Sarah Polley is! I think. Anyway I like that movie as well.
― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:37 (eighteen years ago) link
― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:38 (eighteen years ago) link
YOU LIKE EXISTENZ
― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:38 (eighteen years ago) link
― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:39 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:41 (eighteen years ago) link
― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:41 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:44 (eighteen years ago) link
― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:45 (eighteen years ago) link
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 (eighteen years ago) link
― 400% Nice (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:49 (eighteen years ago) link
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 (eighteen years ago) link
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 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 21:55 (eighteen years ago) link
IN WHAT FUCKED UP WORLD DOES THE FORMER TRUMP THE LATTER?
― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 22:13 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 22:18 (eighteen years ago) link
― walter kranz (walterkranz), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 22:18 (eighteen years ago) link
― milton parker (Jon L), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 22:23 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 22:28 (eighteen years ago) link
― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 22:30 (eighteen years ago) link
yeah Calendar just kills me.
― milton parker (Jon L), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 22:33 (eighteen years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 23:09 (eighteen years ago) link
― latebloomer (latebloomer), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 23:26 (eighteen years ago) link
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 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Tuesday, 4 October 2005 23:45 (eighteen years ago) link
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 (eighteen years ago) link
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 (eighteen years ago) link
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 (eighteen years ago) link
otm!
― latebloomer (latebloomer), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 00:31 (eighteen years ago) link
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 (eighteen years ago) link
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 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alfred Soto (Alfred Soto), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 00:53 (eighteen years ago) link
― fratboy slim (latebloomer), Wednesday, 5 October 2005 00:54 (eighteen years ago) link