Movie/film thread: resurrected

I'm tired of asking folks to turn off their phones, not the noise, the bright light.

At theatres in Brisbane, when the big screen notice comes comes up telling people to turn off their phones, they do it. Perhaps they have seen we old farts sitting there scowling at them BEFORE that instruction appears. I have seen a few people jump up and leave the theatre to answer what must be a vibrating phone. I notice that we are seeing more Asians coming to the theatre, but there are no problems. I promise you DD that I would get them thrown out if they turned on phones or talked too much.

What's strange is that they're not talking, they are either texting or playing games. Either way, it's the bright light that is annoying. They talk to each other constantly. The phones get shut down, but not their mouths. At that point the g/f and I just start screaming in English. They usually get the message.

Day Dreamer, that is the reason why I do not go to the cinema at all. Not in China, not in Denmark. Phones and chatter.

I recently watched "Last Stand" with good ol' Arnold. It was actually good, if all you want is Die Hard-esque one-liners and lots of violence. This is not a movie I would recommend for intricacy of plot, depth of character or dialogue, but for a fun, relaxed evening, it will do the trick. 

I don't go to the cinema very often here, maybe once or twice a year, but it seems to me that since the first time in 2005, people's behavior has actually become more considerate. Instead of talking at normal levels in the middle of the film, people who apparently just have to take that call (we're all of us so important these days, like doctors or movie stars), jump up and run out of the theater. Also, people who have their little smartphones/computers on for texting frequently make an effort to cover it or hold it at a downward angle. Of course, I am also going to the newer theaters in Guangzhou and Hong Kong and perhaps they attract a slightly different demographic.

http://c15065204.r4.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/f250bestmoviesmap_HQ.jpg?ba1df0

Interesting way to display someone's list of the 250 best movies.

That is totally awesome!! Kudos to whoever made that map, I love it. Lots of great films on that list. Wonder if the same person chose them all? I don't know many of those 50's films, but other than that I see a clear pattern in what's chosen: mainstream, high quality films. Not much anti-establishment I can see besides "Paths of Glory". Maybe others there I don't know about.

For an example of an anti-establishment film with a name, I would give "Burn!" (1969) with Marlon Brando. The director is not US/UK mainstream, but that was Brando in his absolute prime and the film's a total masterpiece with high production quality. That director's films are truly anti-establishment, not something like "Footloose" LOL, or some allegedly "anti-war" film, like some on the list of 250.

Can also see the typical acceptance of demoralizing and degrading films with choices like "Old Boy" and "American Beauty". This kind of mainstream taste usually appreciates production quality, but does not analyze the inclusion of both positive and negative messages in the film.

He's got the 70's Coppola masterpieces (except THX-1138) and an interesting choice about having Godfather 1 and 2 on separate lines. For mainstream, well known stuff, he is missing Hal Ashby films from the 70's, which were as good as Coppola 70's, but lower budget: "The Landlord", "Last Detail", "Bound for Glory", "Coming Home" and "Being There".

Pretty much every Kubrick film is on there and he's even got "The Killing" right next to that hack Turpentino's "Reservoir Dogs" that copied it. Should have sandwiched it in with one of the other films Turpentino copied to make Dogs, "Charley Varrick" (1973), which is also a vastly superior heist film by Don Siegel, starring Walter Matthau. Of course, the one he copied most was Hong Kong cinema film "City on Fire" (1987). Turpentino is such a hack.

Lots of Jimmy Stewart, which is cool, but doesn't have an "end of the world" genre where he could have put the original and fantastically good "Flight of the Phoenix" (1966). Probably the most satisfying of all survival genre films in terms of psychologically consistent characterization.

This is just so cool 'cause I love movies and I love maps. Fantastic combination!

Oh, I saw on the source web site that the 250 were those voted by IMDB in June 2009, and not an individual choice. So IMDB is not anti-establishment. No surprise there.

No, not heavy on anti-establishment, but I would include:
William Wyler's "The Best Years of Our Lives"
"Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"  (If marriage and sanity are "the establishment")
"Bonnie and Clyde"
"Cool Hand Luke"
"Butch Cassidy" (Yeah, I know it's not a heavy-weight)
"The Wild Bunch"
"The Graduate"
"Harold and Maude"
"The Apartment"  (Big Business and corporate captains)
"In The Heat of the Night" (Established, southern racism)
"Sweet Smell of Success"
"Dr. Strangelove" (Given that all humans die in the end)
"Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (maybe this is really a re-establishment movie)
"Apocalypse Now" (It at least exposes the phoniness of the establishment)
"Battle of Algiers"
"Braveheart"
"A Clockwork Orange"
"Fight Club"
"American Beauty"
"Glory"

Oh yeah, Battle of Algiers is anti-establishment and by the same director who made Burn!, Gillo Pontecorvo. I think Apocalypse Now is an honest movie about war, which is extremely rare, although it fails to make the connection of how the establishment uses war in order to control society, whereas I think Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" did make the connection, at least by showing the profit motive of commerce being alongside the higher motive of racism/superiority.

Dr. Strangelove is a mixed bag for me. It's a great film, but it doesn't reveal much that an observant person would have been surprised to learn at the time, although I'm not old enough to appreciate how everyone reacted. However, the film's portrayal of the top of the US and Soviet command structure is definitely anti-establishment and I can't think of any other prominent film that showed US/USSR as equally insane and incompetent. Usually it would be something like "We're great and they're the bad guys." Finally, Strangelove delivered one other message at a particularly critical time in US history that is troubling to me, but that's an involved discussion that gets off on some controversial topics.

BTW, if you like Strangelove, you need to take a quick look at the wiki page for Operation Paperclip and for Werner Braun in order to appreciate who and what that Strangelove character represents, and why he was played so well by Sellers.

And one last thing, Strangelove is a black comedy about the insane policy of mutually assured destruction, for which the acronym M.A.D. is perfectly appropriate. In the same year another film on exactly the same topic was released, but it was done as a straight thriller/drama. It's called "Fail-Safe" (1964). My favorite part is that Walter Matthau has a serious role at the film's opening.

The Graduate, IMO, is not anti-establishment. It's simply a bit comical, with enjoyable music, but overall it's demoralizing, which is the most obvious purpose of Hollywood/mainstream films, TV, media, etc. The hypocrisy-of-the-older-generation theme is just whining meant to deliver the message that you "shouldn't trust anyone over 30", which emphasizes the generation gap, separates younger people from the actual wisdom and knowledge of their elders, and helps categorize old people as useless. The isolation metaphor when Hoffman's character is forced to demonstrate his new scuba suit for the benefit of his parents' showing off to their social circle is hilarious, but it is also a way to reinforce mistrust of the older generation.

It is incorrect to blame working parents for the evils of the system simply they de facto believe in, participate in, benefit from, etc. The older generation of the film are portrayed as fools, but just because they believe in the system doesn't mean they are actually responsible for it or have any power to change it, although we see them as benefiting directly from it in their

[condescending Soviet accent = ON]
decadent, Americanisch, opulent lifestyles.
[accent = OFF}

Realistically speaking, what alternatives do they have? Colonize the island of Catalina and build a utopia? LOL The film condemns the parents from an immature and singular point of view of their spoiled kids, which is inherently more hypocritical than the behavior of the parents. It's not really an interesting or developed social commentary, IMO, which is proven by the impotence of the actual youth of that era utterly failing to change the system in real life, and most of them eventually sold out by their own standards. Should the youth of the 60's be condemned the way the movie condemns the older generation of the film?

You mention Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf?, which is also directed by Mike Nichols and one I've never seen. I'll take a look because I consider his other early films "Catch-22" and "Carnal Knowledge" to be very demoralizing. Would like to see about his first film as well. My favorite film of his is "Wolf" (1994). Hmmn, a repetition of a word in a title. I think in his director commentary on "Catch-22" he tells you exactly what he thinks of morality.

I don't get Harold and Maude the way I love all other Hal Ashby films of the 70's, "Shampoo" being least on the list of some great movies. Is H&M really anti-establishment or is it just whiny and naive? Or is Ashby making fun of naive and whiny people, especially with the over-the-top Cat Stevens soundtrack? No offense meant to Mister Islam

I would like to watch In The Heat of the Night again. Haven't seen it in such a long time.

Sweet Smell of Success is one that I don't know about. Will check some info. Hey, Burt Lancaster, I'm there. Will see if I can get it.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is one I've never seen. I get turned off by the cheesy tone of a lot of older films, but I'll give this one a try.

A Clockwork Orange is another Kubrick entry that is a great film and deserves close analysis in order to interpret the various messages. I don't consider it anti-establishment in any way, in fact I really think it's very much pro-establishment and shows what Kubrick probably thought about humanity in general. I think he comes off as an elitist.

Clockwork poses the question of how to control society: by allowing freedom of choice and individual morality as some kind of right, or by using science, such as the Ludeveko technique, to absolutely control people. It goes on to show the absurdity of the political system, but that's not exactly front page news, and it doesn't offer any solutions or important revelations, so I can't call it anti-establishment in that regard.

Considering how much screen time is devoted to demonstrating that the social problems of crime and sexual promiscuity are completely failed by the penal system, the politicians, the parents, the church, etc., I don't think the film's message is anti-establishment. On the contrary, I think it is suggesting that the establishment be given greater power to control people, but only to control certain people, in order to deal with the problem of individual choice and free will that the "wrong" people currently have.

American Beauty is probably the most demoralizing film to be praised and promoted so much. It is a perfect example of mainstream media combining a few conscious-level positive messages, especially the Happy Hollywood Ending, in this case done in a sort of necrophiliac manner, with a continuous barrage of negative and disgusting messages. It is basically a later version of The Graduate, told from the young people's point of view, its premise revealing the changes in what is socially acceptable from 1967 to 1999. Look at "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" from 1975 and something like "The Breakfast Club" from 1986 to see how the stepping stones of changing social mores seem to bridge from one decade to the next.

The gradual degradation of society is not anti-establishment. Degradation of the masses does not affect the power, influence, or prestige of those in power, those who control society, but is in fact a way for the establishment to exercise control through manipulation of society into a condition of moral ambiguity, which is done primarily via media, so that people will be more amenable to policies that take away civil rights in disregard of human dignity, allowing for greater freedom of establishment institutions, such as corporations, to maintain dominance without being inhibited by individuals asserting their rights and power to not do morally objectionable things or object to being treated as slaves and machines.

Some of the demoralizing themes of A.B. are: Sexual fantasy about young girls is the first step in changing from a loser to a winner. Drugs are the second step to becoming a winner and being happy, although in the film they're actually an example of irresponsible behavior when used as a constant escape from reality. Money you don’t earn, but steal or get through blackmail will bring the most happiness. Avoiding family responsibility and loyalty will bring happiness. Self-satisfaction is preferable to self-sacrifice (love) for family. Voyeurism is preferable to engaging in reality. Death is beautiful. Women are bad. Traditional role models are bad, from parental role models to sexual role models since the only apparently happy people are the homosexuals next door. The closet homosexual (Ricky's father) is the worst person in the film, implying that if he were honest and came out his life would be better.

I watched the movie "Sin City" (2005) because it had such a good write up in the TV magazine. I must admit that I forced myself to sit through the 2hr movie just to see if there was something wrong with me. I looked it up on the Internet and I still can't understand how actors like Bruce Willis played in it. What am I missing Guys?

I watched the movie "Sin City" (2005) because it had such a good write up in the TV magazine. I must admit that I forced myself to sit through the 2hr movie just to see if there was something wrong with me. I looked it up on the Internet and I still can't understand how actors like Bruce Willis played in it. What am I missing Guys?

Different strokes for different folks.

Just watched "Jayne Mansfield's Car" last night,starring Billy Bob Thornton and a few other big names and thought it was pretty good. Great Southern accents, 1960s cars and the tensions of that era well portrayed.Throw in a few pompous Brits and there you have it.

I watched the movie "Sin City" (2005) because it had such a good write up in the TV magazine. I must admit that I forced myself to sit through the 2hr movie just to see if there was something wrong with me. I looked it up on the Internet and I still can't understand how actors like Bruce Willis played in it. What am I missing Guys?

You ain't missing nothin', ma'am. This is kind of a tame example of what passes for "entertainment" in the 21st century of mainstream cinema. It's obviously created by people who are absolutely trying to create the most bizarre scenarios of extremely violent and psychopathic visual imagery and display them to the widest audience possible in order to make such fare more and more "normal". So the psychopaths won't feel so isolated, perhaps? The other director in that film, Robert Rodriguez, is even a bit more extreme than Turpentino.

Although I have nothing against Bruce Willis, and generally actors have the least control over what is written, filmed, edited and finally presented in a film, I learned long ago there are very few actors working today (can only think of 2 who've been in the news, neither are A list) who have any qualms about anything they're asked to do for the camera.

If you like Bruce Willis and sci-fi, I can suggest "Surrogates" (2009) as something that isn't too violent and has an interesting premise. Knowing who the star is then you know how the plot will be resolved, but it's fairly interesting along the way. If you're over 40 and didn't grow up with a cell phone attached surgically to your ear, the basic idea of the movie can provide a good chuckle within minutes of exiting the theater and dodge the gadget addicts.

Again...different strokes.  It's certainly not hour grandfather's action movie. But then, its story and look are taken from a graphic novel and, even though I don't read comic books, I loved the look and feel of this one. The end of Roger Ebert's review tells us a lot:

Which brings us, finally, to the question of the movie's period. Skylines suggest the movie is set today. The cars range from the late 1930s through the 1950s to a recent Ferrari.The costumes are from the trench coat and G-string era. I don't think "Sin City" really has a period, because it doesn't really tell a story set in time and space. It's a visualization of the pulp noir imagination, uncompromising and extreme.

I think the look and feel of Sin City was very skillful and made the film visually distinctive and perhaps a bit more palatable and surreal.

The following year, Richard Linklater, who is based in the same city as Rodriguez (Austin, Texas) released "A Scanner Darkly", based closely on the Phillip K. Dick novel. This film is rotoscoped and has a very surreal, distinctive look and feel to go along with its excellent story. Did you catch that one, A-Train? Robert Downing, Jr. makes the movie very re-watchable.