Christian

Moderator
  • Content count

    11,443
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Christian

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    howmanydiscs@hotmail.com
  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Fairfax, VA
  • Interests
    Film, religion, jazz.

Previous Fields

  • Occupation
    Publications Manager
  • Favorite movies
    Dardennes brothers, Tarkovsky, Dreyer, Coens, De Palma, some Kubrick
  • Favorite music
    Hard-bop jazz.
  • Favorite creative writing
    Junot Diaz, Matt Labash, Marilynne Robinson

Recent Profile Visitors

1,828 profile views
  1. I appreciate you not wanting to bend the rules for any one film, but, unless I'm missing something, I don't see any groundswell saying we should move forward with a list without Silence being a factor. The wild card appears to be how many of us will be able to see it by the extended deadline (and will prioritize seeing it if given the chance). I'm confirmed now for the January 3 screening in my market, but I've already voted for the list and will have to read back over recent posts here to figure out how I'm going to be able to vote for / rate Silence. (By second-ballot request, I'm thinking.) Meanwhile, having already participated, I'm eager to see how the first-ballot vote on all the other nominees comes out.
  2. A D.C. screening was just announced today for January 3. I'm guessing I can make it, but I'm not sure. Even if I do, it bothers me that I'll have all of 48 hours, or whatever, to live with the film before our vote (assuming we delay it, which I'm open to but am not advocating), but that's always the case with one or two titles each year. (I've seen the Bayona.)
  3. I'll go ahead and second "Hidden Figures" so others will be encouraged to watch it - it's highly enjoyable, and I plan to view it with my wife and daughters soon - but I hadn't thought to nominate it for our jury. I made a loose case here last year for "McFarland, USA," which like "Figures" includes a strong Costner performance (the guy is piling them up in recent years), so it's not much of a stretch for me to see us considering "Figures" for our list. Also, to Ken: The strongest candidate among your choices for our list is "The Witch," but I'd almost rather you watch "Right Now, Wrong Then," just so someone else I know will have seen it.
  4. So that's a second, right? (Ah, just saw that Ken has already bolded the title in the nominee list on p. 1 of this thread.)
  5. I've been on a screener jag, which is just about to end, so please forgive the spate of nominations from me. But I have one more to add. I nominate Things to Come, which I saw only last night and immediately went to Twitter to gush over. There's a lot of philosophy and academic stuff in there - not my strong suit, although I would expect others at A&F to sink their teeth into it - but also some more direct interaction with Christianity and faith (which aren't separate from philosophy, of course, but are more directly dealt with in ways I could engage). I was overwhelmed by the film, but confess I'm not sure, exactly, what it has to say about faith. Not yet, not after one viewing. Like Jackie, it may take a skeptical view of faith, although if it does, it doesn't feel as overt as it does in the Larrain film. Overall, this movie was a feast. It nourished my soul, and that's why I'm nominating it. I haven't felt the way I felt after Things to Come since the end credits rolled on Summer Hours a few years back.
  6. I nominate Jackie, which, in addition to its superb central performance (YMMV, no doubt) and structure, includes a few significant stretches of dialogue between Jackie and a priest. Faith is treated skeptically by Jackie and isn't always as robustly defended by the priest as I might like, but I was riveted during those scenes - and pretty much by the rest of the movie as well.
  7. Seconded. I watched Tower last night, resistant at first to the rotoscoping and questioning as to why the story was being told the way it was. But those concerns slowly faded, then were transformed toward the end of the film, or maybe just subsumed by other, overriding impressions. I doubt anyone who starts Tower will want to bail on it, but just in case, be sure to stick with it until the end.
  8. I just noticed CEMETERY OF SPLENDOR hasn't been seconded, so I'm seconding it.
  9. Closing this out by reporting that with the 50% sale plus my Barnes & Noble member discount ($4), I was $4 over budget for the Three Colors trilogy Blu-ray. I bought it anyway.
  10. Thanks!
  11. Does anyone have the Criterion Blu of the Three Colors trilogy? I only recently realized that was available as a set. I may have a chance to buy it this weekend, but I'd like to know about the quality of the transfers. I know I can check DVD Beaver or some other sites, but wanted to ask here, knowing there are Kieslowski fans who would have had high expectations for the set. Also, I know we have dedicated threads for the separate movies and may have some scattered discussion on the individual Criterion titles. If we have a dedicated discussion specifically for this set, forgive this post.
  12. I saw it in D.C. last week and submitted a review that was posted but then taken down until Wednesday, closer to the film's release in D.C. Such is the life of D.C. critics: We aren't allowed to post reviews on sites with (inter)national reach until the movie opens in our particular market. There are exceptions made, sometimes, to this rule, but this wasn't one of them. FWIW, I'm much more favorable on the film than the colleagues I saw it with are. I wish I had seen it in 120 fps and 3D, but alas, I got neither and had to imagine how much more striking some of the character framings may be in 3D. They're nothing that's too out-of-the-box - just characters mainly centered in the wide frame - but you can sense how the individuals would "pop" in 3D even more than they do in 2D. YMMV, of course.