223 replies to this topic

[Darryl A. Armstrong]

Persona, on 17 December 2009 - 04:19 PM, said:

BMW, on 17 December 2009 - 04:05 PM, said:

Hi Everyone. Long time lurker, first time poster.

I'm sure I'm in good company here, but I always get blank stares from my friends whenever I mention that I can't stand a number of Adam Sander movies. Mainly Billy Madison and Big Daddy.

Welcome, BMW! I hate all Adam Sandler films, except for the one total exception to the rule: Punch Drunk Love, which is a sheer, unmitigated work of genius.

I rather like The Wedding Singer and don't mind Reign Over Me and for goofy fun, Airheads. I've yet to see Funny People or Spanglish - both of which look like I may not hate.

Now, I will ruin everyone's opinion of me:

I never much cared for The Wizard of Oz or the original Star Wars trilogy. I've never seen E.T. or Titanic and don't have any real desire to do so.

[Overstreet]

Quote

I've never seen E.T. or Titanic...

Wow. Congratulations, that's a feat in itself!

[BMW]

Thanks for the welcome, Persona! I suppose I'll qualify by saying that I do enjoy The Wedding Singer, and I view The Waterboy, Airheads and Happy Gilmore as guilty pleasures (some guiltier than others). And I love, Love, LOVE Punch-Drunk Love. But most of the other movies I've seen have either been simply unfunny, or ugly and unfunny. And the less we mention Anger Managment the better. Yikes!

On to the Wizard of Oz, though. I'll admit that it took me years (Years, I say!) to be able to work up the courage to be able to watch it all the way through without running away in terror. Nevertheless, I still second SDG's points regarding the film. How I love it so.

[Persona]

With all this talk about buttercups and love and hate, I can't tell the two threads apart anymore. You people have me utterly confused. Merry freakin' Christmas.

[MattPage]

Welcome BMW,

In addition to PDL, and the Wedding Singer, I also like 50 First Dates. As Peter said at the time, there'ds something about Drew Barrymore that brings out the best in him.

I only saw ET for the first time a few years ago. And I've also never seen Titanic.

Matt

[Rich Kennedy]

SDG, on 17 December 2009 - 10:24 AM, said:

quote name='Christian' date='17 December 2009 - 11:07 AM' timestamp='1261062470' post='211354']Now we know why Rich doesn't visit the Film threads very often.

Uh, yes. And few seem obsessed with what I like. 'S ok though.

Quote

He should be BANNED FOR LIFE!

OK, Doug. Easy now. Actually, he was quite solicitous of my film tastes, if not my apparantly abhorrant political views.

Quote

All he needs to do is add Welles and Kurosawa and he wrests thread bragging rights from Bowen (and everyone else). Forever.

Actually, while he is more gracious to Wizard than I am, I like Casablanca and Princess Bride, though I feel uncomfortable mentioning them in the same sentence. Welles? I like
most of what he did, Touch of Evil in particular (with all due genuflection to Citizen Kane's breathtaking, but now anachronistic innovation).
As to the Coen brothers, I forgot that Intolerable Cruelty was one of theirs. That makes two pleasantly watchable films of theirs, along with the usually slighted O Brother, Where
Art Thou?

[Nathaniel]

du Garbandier, on 17 December 2009 - 10:37 AM, said:

It may be due to the fact that I often have a hard time accepting time lapses in film. The power of film to create the illusion of being in real time and space--in a way that literature does not--can make it hard for me to really register a given time lapse. And so, it felt to me like the judgment and consciences of these eleven individuals were being steamrolled.

That's an interesting objection. I tend to love films that adhere to the three classical unities. But surely your criticism would have more force were the contrivances in Reginald Rose's screenplay any less inspired. From the outset, we can predict that

Spoiler

Fonda will win over the other eleven jurors, that his almost supernatural acumen will expose the weaknesses and prejudices in their arguments, and that his most aggressive opponents will be forced into rude epiphanies,

but we are never sure exactly how it will play out, and that unsureness provides a great deal of pleasurable suspense. (How's he gonna pull this off?) If Fonda's victory (an example of the American judicial system so triumphant it's no wonder schools like to show it) seems too cut-and-dried, too easily won, it's more a testament to Rose's focus and efficiency as a screenwriter (not an ounce of fat anywhere), Lumet's ruthlessly paced direction, and the brilliant ensemble cast, who make it all seem so effortless.

To put it more bluntly, who cares if it's steamrolled? The film is a Swiss watch, a metronome—it simply works.

The only nit I could possibly pick has more to do with your other objection. Fonda's character is perhaps too sanctimonious to pass certain smell tests. (He may in fact be, as Lee J. Cobb's character puts it, "a lousy bleeding heart.") But this knight-in-a-white-suit, this architect, is intriguing to me, and wonderfully humanized by Fonda.

At this point I think it's right to admit that I simply have a great deal of respect for this kind of hard-sell, '50s-liberal-conscience drama. Seeing my favorite film remade earlier this year (in Russian, no less!) was a thrill.

Edited by Nathaniel, 19 December 2009 - 02:25 AM.

[SDG]

Nathaniel, on 18 December 2009 - 11:53 PM, said:

but we are never sure exactly how it will play out, and that unsureness provides a great deal of pleasurable suspense. (How's he gonna pull this off?) If Fonda's victory (an example of the American judicial system so triumphant it's no wonder schools like to show it) seems too cut-and-dried, too easily won, it's more a testament to Rose's focus and efficiency as a screenwriter (not an ounce of fat anywhere), Lumet's ruthlessly paced direction, and the brilliant ensemble cast, who make it all seem so effortless.

To put it more bluntly, who cares if it's steamrolled? The film is a Swiss watch, a metronome—it simply works.

The only nit I could possibly pick has more to do with your other objection. Fonda's character is perhaps too sanctimonious to pass certain smell tests. (He may in fact be, as Lee J. Cobb's character puts it, "a lousy bleeding heart.") But this knight-in-a-white-suit, this architect, is intriguing to me, and wonderfully humanized by Fonda.

What Nathaniel said.

[du Garbandier]

Nathaniel, on 18 December 2009 - 11:53 PM, said:

To put it more bluntly, who cares if it's steamrolled? The film is a Swiss watch, a metronome—it simply works.

Well, I suppose one man's steamroller is another's Patek Philippe. Again, maybe I need a re-viewing--perhaps what I saw as steamrolling 10 years ago I would now recognize as the tick tick tick of a metronome.

Edited by du Garbandier, 19 December 2009 - 10:52 AM.

[Nathaniel]

du Garbandier, on 19 December 2009 - 10:51 AM, said:

Again, maybe I need a re-viewing--perhaps what I saw as steamrolling 10 years ago I would now recognize as the tick tick tick of a metronome.

Fair enough. Up to then you have my word I will not hound you, Fonda-like, until you change your vote to "not guilty."

[MattPage]

: If Fonda's victory (an example of the American judicial system so triumphant it's no wonder schools like to show it)

FWIW I'm never sure whether it is a triumphant example of the American judicial system, or whether it's a criticism of the American judicial system. Yes Fonda wins, but it's a desperately close thing, and Fonda's inital desire to take a closer look seems to come out of either a whim or a desire to play the contrarian. It's not hard to imagine that had he been in a different mood the defendant would have ended up in the electric chair.

Let's put it this way. It makes an interesting double bill with Anatomy of Murder, (or, I suppose, The Paradine Case)

Matt

[SDG]

MattPage, on 19 December 2009 - 05:16 PM, said:

: If Fonda's victory (an example of the American judicial system so triumphant it's no wonder schools like to show it)

FWIW I'm never sure whether it is a triumphant example of the American judicial system, or whether it's a criticism of the American judicial system. Yes Fonda wins, but it's a desperately close thing, and Fonda's inital desire to take a closer look seems to come out of either a whim or a desire to play the contrarian. It's not hard to imagine that had he been in a different mood the defendant would have ended up in the electric chair.

It should also be pointed out that it is far from clear in the end that the defendant is in fact innocent.

Yes, he is not guilty juridically because as we eventually see the evidence didn't prove his guilt, but no decisive bit of exculpatory evidence emerges either. The "triumph" of the outcome is that a defendant was not convicted on insufficient evidence. It is not that an innocent man was not wrongly convicted. Indeed, it is quite possible that a guilty man was set free. (In particular the knife remains a suggestive bit of circumstantial evidence.)

(This is in contrast to e.g. the 12 Angry Men episode of Happy Days, with the Fonz as Fonda as the one holdout voting "not guilty-amundo." The case involves a motorcycle purse-snatcher, and the Fonz is eventually able to more or less prove that the defendant could not have been the purse snatcher, because descriptions of the purse snatcher revving his bike as he drove away with the purse in his left hand were incompatible with the defendant's UK-made motorcycle.)

Still, it is a guiding assumption of the American justice system that it is better to err on the side of caution in letting the guilty go free rather than risk convicting the innocent. That is why the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than "the greater probability" or "the preponderance of evidence."

So the outcome of the trial is a triumph for the American system, though whether the film means to praise or to critique the way the system works in practice is another question.

Edited by SDG, 19 December 2009 - 06:53 PM.

[Anders]

SDG, on 19 December 2009 - 06:51 PM, said:

Still, it is a guiding assumption of the American justice system that it is better to err on the side of caution in letting the guilty go free rather than risk convicting the innocent. That is why the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than "the greater probability" or "the preponderance of evidence."

True, and this is also why I taught this film in my AS Thinking Skills class here in Thailand. It's an excellent example of reasoned thinking, uncovering our hidden assumptions, and standard of proof (here being "beyond a reasonable doubt"). A lot of my students have very little knowledge of the American judicial system, but they enjoyed the film nonetheless.

[Peter T Chattaway]

SDG wrote:
: (This is in contrast to e.g. the 12 Angry Men episode of Happy Days, with the Fonz as Fonda as the one holdout voting "not guilty-amundo."

Wow. Like, wow. I think I've seen only two or three episodes of Happy Days in my life, all of them over 20, 25 years ago ... and that was one of them.

[SDG]

Peter T Chattaway, on 19 December 2009 - 10:59 PM, said:

: (This is in contrast to e.g. the 12 Angry Men episode of Happy Days, with the Fonz as Fonda as the one holdout voting "not guilty-amundo."

Wow. Like, wow. I think I've seen only two or three episodes of Happy Days in my life, all of them over 20, 25 years ago ... and that was one of them.

This phenomenon has happened to me several times. When I was a boy, I saw exactly one episode of the animated "Hardy Boys" series ... and decades later, as an adult, I encountered the series again ... and it was the same episode.

BTW, I also haven't seen "Happy Days" in at least 25 years ... but I saw a lot more than two or three episodes.

"What kind of a name is Fonzerelli, anyway? Are you even an American?"
"Right down to my red white and blue socks!"

Yikes. So much of my childhood wasted. I'm glad my kids are getting a better media education than I did!

[Nathan Douglas]

To be honest, I didn't thrill to anything in Pulp Fiction until that final scene in the diner. I need to see it again, though. And I heartily echo those who don't care for Slumdog Millionaire.

I recently watched Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner, in class, and while I have great respect for it and its makers, I'm not over the moon for it, which it seems the entire Western critical establishment was back in 2002. I suspect this is partly because my class viewed a projected DVD image, not a film print, but even still, the praise heaped on it seems a bit much.

Last, and certainly least: The Boondock Saints. My generation has adopted this as one of its signature cult classics, which bothers me to no end. I loathe almost every second of this film, and it's been the source of many arguments between myself and good friends. It. Is. Rotten. And my peers love it. Heaven help us!

[Peter T Chattaway]

SDG wrote:
: "What kind of a name is Fonzerelli, anyway? Are you even an American?"
: "Right down to my red white and blue socks!"

I remember that line too!!

[Anders]

N.W. Douglas, on 20 December 2009 - 12:37 AM, said:

Last, and certainly least: The Boondock Saints. My generation has adopted this as one of its signature cult classics, which bothers me to no end. I loathe almost every second of this film, and it's been the source of many arguments between myself and good friends. It. Is. Rotten. And my peers love it. Heaven help us!

I wholeheartedly agree with you. BOONDOCK SAINTS is awful, yet so many of my peers love it. I remember wincing, back in my Blockbuster days, when a friend of mine put it on his "Staff Picks" at work. Horrible.

[Nathan Douglas]

Anders, on 20 December 2009 - 03:32 AM, said:

N.W. Douglas, on 20 December 2009 - 12:37 AM, said:

Last, and certainly least: The Boondock Saints. My generation has adopted this as one of its signature cult classics, which bothers me to no end. I loathe almost every second of this film, and it's been the source of many arguments between myself and good friends. It. Is. Rotten. And my peers love it. Heaven help us!

I remember wincing, back in my Blockbuster days, when a friend of mine put it on his "Staff Picks" at work. Horrible.

Though I didn't see Boondock until I after I left Blockbuster, I too had a co-worker who put it on his Staff Picks shelf. It's probably a good thing I didn't have to see it sitting there, recommended, once I knew how bad it was.

[Ryan H.]

FIGHT CLUB. Undoubtedly FIGHT CLUB has some very fine aspects as a film, but when one actually bothers to consider its intellectual content, FIGHT CLUB is as smart as a bag of rocks.