I don't see a review of the film "Society" in the movie house. It's not a 'bad' film like Habitat, but it's probably even stranger. (or, at least, creepier.) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098354/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
It's hard for me to review the film without giving anything away (hopefully Scoopy is better at that) but much of the film has a Parallax View feel to it.
There is also decent nudity from Devin DeVasquez, Heidi Kozak in a bikini and Patrice Jennings in a bit of an unusual shower scene.
The movie works at maintaining a paranoid feel to it, so, it's actually best to watch it without knowing anything about it.
"Gere is equally lifeless, just because he's Richard Gere. They never have anything interesting to talk about together. In fact, one of the biggest problems with the script is that no character ever says anything interesting to anyone else. The other main problem is that nothing happens in 99% of the movie. There are a bunch of people doing nothing in the present until they flash backward to a bunch of people doing nothing in the past."
I had read about that Pancho Villa war/movie story long before this film came out because it was one of the items in one of the editions in The Book of Lists.
What you mentioned for a remake of Prime Cut is obviously 'human trafficking.' There have been movies about that, but not necessarily one that could be considered a remake of Prime Cut.
Scoop, in light of the Trump Presidency and the battles between the 'Alt Right' and Antifa, I wonder if you've reconsidered your review of V for Vendetta.
I saw it again recently and I completely disagree with your review, either that it's 'high school level intellectual' (not your exact quote) or that it presents a simple black and white.
The key line in the film for me is when V says "violence can be used for good."
To be sure, the debate on this was one sided, but I thought the film did do a reasonable job of presenting the arguments and, more importantly, as unique as V was prior to his acts, I thought the movie showed the compromises and essentially soul destroying nature that a person has to commit to when they accept using violence as a method for fighting 'injustice.'
We have seen many examples of where dictators weren't stopped because the citizenry acquiesced, but, for instance, there is a view that one of the main reasons Oswald Mosley was marginalized was due to the Cable Street Riots.
It's impossible to engage in counter history, so who knows if present dictators like Duterte or Erdogan would have been forced to give up power had there been riots in the streets.
I should have made it clear in the above post, that Mosley was never Prime Minister in Britain yet alone the dictator.
One other thing with the discussion of radio and you mentioning the movie Logan's Run a couple times.
I also saw Logan's Run recently and I thought it was one of the stupidest movies I've ever seen. Spoiler alert: the concept of the movie as explained by one of the 'Sandmen' is 'one person comes in, another person goes out.' So, they had them killed, but the purpose of the Sandmen was to prevent the people from leaving the domed city. If they wanted to leave the city rather than get killed, what difference did it make to anybody?
Anyway, the movie and I presume the book is clearly stolen from a short story that was then stolen for a radio play, while the concept of every person getting killed at 30 is likely stolen from an Isaac Asimov novel that was turned into a radio play.
The Asimov novel and the Dimension X radio play are both called "Pebble in the Sky" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re4Fca7orBQ
The X-Minus One Radio Play is called "The Sense of Wonder" and it was apparently stolen from a Robert Heinlein short story named "Universe." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSQAB0wfrcU
This radio play is clearly meant to be a critique of dogmas, especially religious dogmas, but like most of these critiques, the radio play itself can be easily critiqued as a rather un-entertaining polemic.
One last radio play link. Another science fiction from X Minus One Called "The Vital Factor."
It's remarkable how much the businessperson in this radio play resembles Donald Trump. The only exception, and I don't think this is a real spoiler, is that "the vital factor' as referred to in the title is sentimentality, but the business tycoon in this radio program says "blast sentiment" while Trump himself is clearly something of a nostalgic sentimentalist.
The business tycoon in the episode even says something that Trump used to say frequently.
If anybody cares, I finally saw Brazil again. (I first saw it when I was around 16 years old and had no idea what was going on, though I think part of that was due to poor eyesight.)
I agree the film is a visual masterpiece and a masterpiece of individual expression, but I actually don't think the message of the film is as sophisticated as say 'V for Vendetta' is. (based on my non contextual interpretation of V for Vendetta.)
I also agree with Roger Ebert's criticism of Brazil, essentially that it can be indulgent. I thought this was increasingly the case as the sets seemed to get increasingly elaborate for no good reason that I could think of. (Maybe I missed the point of that.)
I think the main reason for the initial commercial failure of Brazil domestically (Canada and the U.S) was simply a matter of poor timing. Had the film come out from any point from say Nixon's impeachment or during the lead up to the time of Carter's 'Malaise Speech' up to the ending of the last 'great recession' in the Spring of 1983, I think Americans would have identified with the film a great deal more. However, when the film was released it was 'Morning Again in America' and so the obvious negative presentation of the world was no longer current.
Although certainly different films other than both are satires and have somewhat similar themes, I think the enormous success of the movie Network, which was released during the period I mentioned (1976) showed that Brazil could have been a success had it simply been made a few years earlier. I don't know where Terry Gilliam was at the time, but if only George Orwell had named his book '1974.'
In regards to my view that the overall message isn't actually all that sophisticated, I think it presents an unbalanced relentlessly negative outlook. In addition to the renewed positive spirit of the U.S countering the film in 1985, there was the singular example of Steve Jobs (with Steve Wozniak) and his Apple Computers showing that even in a bureaucratic world of mindless rules that one person with a drive and a vision could still succeed.
@AdamT - have to respectfully disagree re: Brazil. American's have not done well with cinematic surrealism on a large scale. Network is a particularly poor comparison. Regardless of the mild surrealism of Network's plot, it is by and large played completely straight, ergo not something that is even vaguely relatable to Brazil.
Brazil, IMHO, is an almost(?) entirely unique entry in the American film pantheon. I can't really think of another like it - a surrealist polisci-sociological-anthropological examination of dystopian possibility in the guise of a love story.
Yes, I don't disagree with that at all. Satire, dark comedy and science fiction generally don't do well with American film goers, and so it isn't all that comparable to Network.
However, in terms of presenting a bleak world view, Network was a major hit, whereas had it also come out in 1985, I doubt it would have been. Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome was probably the most successful 'bleak' movie of 1985 and it was a sequel as well as an action movie.
E-Rat took a movie role and does NOT appear naked? Considering her eagerness to appear naked, I'm sure she insisted on getting extra money to keep her clothes on.
But it's not really surprising that Dormer didn't write a nude scene for Emily. How many woman would willing appear naked in a film also featuring nudity from Ratajkowski? It would be a severe blow to her self-esteem.
There are on the set photographs of Vanessa Redgrave that show her breasts. It also seems she and her sister hated each other (that might be a bit extreme, but not much.)
I don't see a review of the film "Society" in the movie house. It's not a 'bad' film like Habitat, but it's probably even stranger. (or, at least, creepier.)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098354/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
It's hard for me to review the film without giving anything away (hopefully Scoopy is better at that) but much of the film has a Parallax View feel to it.
ReplyDeleteThere is also decent nudity from Devin DeVasquez, Heidi Kozak in a bikini and Patrice Jennings in a bit of an unusual shower scene.
The movie works at maintaining a paranoid feel to it, so, it's actually best to watch it without knowing anything about it.
"Gere is equally lifeless, just because he's Richard Gere. They never have anything interesting to talk about together. In fact, one of the biggest problems with the script is that no character ever says anything interesting to anyone else. The other main problem is that nothing happens in 99% of the movie. There are a bunch of people doing nothing in the present until they flash backward to a bunch of people doing nothing in the past."
ReplyDeleteThey needed the gerbil scene. :D
For some reason, Bob Dylan had a small role in Catchfire (Backtrack.)
ReplyDeleteI had read about that Pancho Villa war/movie story long before this film came out because it was one of the items in one of the editions in The Book of Lists.
ReplyDeleteWhat you mentioned for a remake of Prime Cut is obviously 'human trafficking.' There have been movies about that, but not necessarily one that could be considered a remake of Prime Cut.
ReplyDeleteScoop, in light of the Trump Presidency and the battles between the 'Alt Right' and Antifa, I wonder if you've reconsidered your review of V for Vendetta.
ReplyDeleteI saw it again recently and I completely disagree with your review, either that it's 'high school level intellectual' (not your exact quote) or that it presents a simple black and white.
The key line in the film for me is when V says "violence can be used for good."
To be sure, the debate on this was one sided, but I thought the film did do a reasonable job of presenting the arguments and, more importantly, as unique as V was prior to his acts, I thought the movie showed the compromises and essentially soul destroying nature that a person has to commit to when they accept using violence as a method for fighting 'injustice.'
We have seen many examples of where dictators weren't stopped because the citizenry acquiesced, but, for instance, there is a view that one of the main reasons Oswald Mosley was marginalized was due to the Cable Street Riots.
It's impossible to engage in counter history, so who knows if present dictators like Duterte or Erdogan would have been forced to give up power had there been riots in the streets.
I should have made it clear in the above post, that Mosley was never Prime Minister in Britain yet alone the dictator.
ReplyDeleteOne other thing with the discussion of radio and you mentioning the movie Logan's Run a couple times.
I also saw Logan's Run recently and I thought it was one of the stupidest movies I've ever seen. Spoiler alert: the concept of the movie as explained by one of the 'Sandmen' is 'one person comes in, another person goes out.' So, they had them killed, but the purpose of the Sandmen was to prevent the people from leaving the domed city. If they wanted to leave the city rather than get killed, what difference did it make to anybody?
Anyway, the movie and I presume the book is clearly stolen from a short story that was then stolen for a radio play, while the concept of every person getting killed at 30 is likely stolen from an Isaac Asimov novel that was turned into a radio play.
The Asimov novel and the Dimension X radio play are both called "Pebble in the Sky"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re4Fca7orBQ
The X-Minus One Radio Play is called "The Sense of Wonder" and it was apparently stolen from a Robert Heinlein short story named "Universe."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSQAB0wfrcU
This radio play is clearly meant to be a critique of dogmas, especially religious dogmas, but like most of these critiques, the radio play itself can be easily critiqued as a rather un-entertaining polemic.
One last radio play link. Another science fiction from X Minus One Called "The Vital Factor."
ReplyDeleteIt's remarkable how much the businessperson in this radio play resembles Donald Trump. The only exception, and I don't think this is a real spoiler, is that "the vital factor' as referred to in the title is sentimentality, but the business tycoon in this radio program says "blast sentiment" while Trump himself is clearly something of a nostalgic sentimentalist.
The business tycoon in the episode even says something that Trump used to say frequently.
Forgot to post the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htlUSYuMp3c
DeleteIf anybody cares, I finally saw Brazil again. (I first saw it when I was around 16 years old and had no idea what was going on, though I think part of that was due to poor eyesight.)
ReplyDeleteI agree the film is a visual masterpiece and a masterpiece of individual expression, but I actually don't think the message of the film is as sophisticated as say 'V for Vendetta' is. (based on my non contextual interpretation of V for Vendetta.)
I also agree with Roger Ebert's criticism of Brazil, essentially that it can be indulgent. I thought this was increasingly the case as the sets seemed to get increasingly elaborate for no good reason that I could think of. (Maybe I missed the point of that.)
I think the main reason for the initial commercial failure of Brazil domestically (Canada and the U.S) was simply a matter of poor timing. Had the film come out from any point from say Nixon's impeachment or during the lead up to the time of Carter's 'Malaise Speech' up to the ending of the last 'great recession' in the Spring of 1983, I think Americans would have identified with the film a great deal more. However, when the film was released it was 'Morning Again in America' and so the obvious negative presentation of the world was no longer current.
ReplyDeleteAlthough certainly different films other than both are satires and have somewhat similar themes, I think the enormous success of the movie Network, which was released during the period I mentioned (1976) showed that Brazil could have been a success had it simply been made a few years earlier. I don't know where Terry Gilliam was at the time, but if only George Orwell had named his book '1974.'
In regards to my view that the overall message isn't actually all that sophisticated, I think it presents an unbalanced relentlessly negative outlook. In addition to the renewed positive spirit of the U.S countering the film in 1985, there was the singular example of Steve Jobs (with Steve Wozniak) and his Apple Computers showing that even in a bureaucratic world of mindless rules that one person with a drive and a vision could still succeed.
@AdamT - have to respectfully disagree re: Brazil. American's have not done well with cinematic surrealism on a large scale. Network is a particularly poor comparison. Regardless of the mild surrealism of Network's plot, it is by and large played completely straight, ergo not something that is even vaguely relatable to Brazil.
ReplyDeleteBrazil, IMHO, is an almost(?) entirely unique entry in the American film pantheon. I can't really think of another like it - a surrealist polisci-sociological-anthropological examination of dystopian possibility in the guise of a love story.
Yes, I don't disagree with that at all. Satire, dark comedy and science fiction generally don't do well with American film goers, and so it isn't all that comparable to Network.
DeleteHowever, in terms of presenting a bleak world view, Network was a major hit, whereas had it also come out in 1985, I doubt it would have been. Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome was probably the most successful 'bleak' movie of 1985 and it was a sequel as well as an action movie.
TODAY: A brand new performance from Natalie Dormer - with plenty of nudity in a part she wrote for herself! More details on the page.
ReplyDeleteAnybody have a list of nude scenes that actresses wrote for themselves?
I think there was Lisa Enos in something. Anna Faris did the butt shot in a movie she produced or directed.
Should have said: anybody have a list of nude scenes in something that actresses wrote/produced/directed (whatever else) for themselves?
DeleteE-Rat took a movie role and does NOT appear naked? Considering her eagerness to appear naked, I'm sure she insisted on getting extra money to keep her clothes on.
ReplyDeleteBut it's not really surprising that Dormer didn't write a nude scene for Emily. How many woman would willing appear naked in a film also featuring nudity from Ratajkowski? It would be a severe blow to her self-esteem.
There are on the set photographs of Vanessa Redgrave that show her breasts. It also seems she and her sister hated each other (that might be a bit extreme, but not much.)
ReplyDeleteDiane Chambers in The Coed and the Zombie Stoner? So, that's what Shelley Long is up to now.
ReplyDelete