Lounge of Tomorrow - Miscellaneous Movie Musings the Sequel

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)

- Beatnik (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=9)

- - Miscellaneous Movie Musings the Sequel (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=10093)

Just started watching the series Mad Men on DVD. I love this show! It's got the swank and nostalgia with all the reality thrown in there too to show the not quite so pretty things that also went on (that we seem to forget sometimes when we look back.)

Brian of Mark and Brian (on the radio) has mentioned this series over and over. Now I'm totally hooked!

Could they possibly smoke more? LOL - even in dish gloves with one hand doing the dishes for goodness sake!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex (Post 324735)

À bout de souffle (aka Breathless) - 50th anniversary. I watch it because it is one of those films you're supposed to acknowledge is brilliant to show off how smart you are. I don't really see it, but I like to think I'm smart so I'll pretend it is brilliant.

Quel sacrilège, Alexandre. Next you'll be saying you don't worship the genius that is Jerry Lewis.

I quite enjoy some of Jerry Lewis's movies.

As for Breathless, I'm not saying it was a bad movie, it isn't. I just don't quite get what was so brilliant about it but that may just be because I've not got the proper sense of the world into which it was released. Also, as one reflection I read recently said "it doesn't hurt that it has to two of the sexiest people ever on screen" and for neither one do I find that to be the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex (Post 325994)

As for Breathless, I'm not saying it was a bad movie, it isn't. I just don't quite get what was so brilliant about it but that may just be because I've not got the proper sense of the world into which it was released. Also, as one reflection I read recently said "it doesn't hurt that it has to two of the sexiest people ever on screen" and for neither one do I find that to be the case.

Did you happen to catch the NY Times piece about this very thing a few weeks ago?.

Quote:

“Breathless” was there first. Which is to say that it was already late. Seen from its most unflattering angle, it is a thin and derivative film noir. A generic tough guy steals a car, shoots a policeman, sweet-talks a series of women, hobnobs with his underworld pals and tries to stay a step ahead of the dogged detectives on his trail. His poses and attitudes seem borrowed, arising less from any social or psychological condition or biographical facts than from a desire to be as cool as the guys in the movies.

The wonder is that he surpasses them, and that “Breathless,” quoting from so many other movies (and shuffling together cultural references that include Faulkner, Jean Renoir, Mozart and Bach as well as Hollywood movies), still feels entirely original. It still, that is, has the power to defy conventional expectations about what a movie should be while providing an utterly captivating moviegoing experience. A coherent plot, strong and credible emotions and motivations, convincing performances, visual continuity — all of these things are missing from “Breathless,” disregarded with a cavalier insouciance that feels like liberation. You are free, in other words, to revel in the beauty of Paris and Jean Seberg, the exquisite sangfroid of Jean-Paul Belmondo, and the restless velocity of Mr. Godard’s shooting style. And style, for those 90 minutes, is — to phrase it in the absolute, hyperbolic terms Mr. Godard has always favored — everything.

Yes, and I can accept that it was original, just not that this means it was brilliant. Being first is noteworthy but it isn't necessarily best.

Essentially, I guess I disagree with:

Quote:

It still, that is, has the power to defy conventional expectations about what a movie should be while providing an utterly captivating moviegoing experience.

It was a fine movie, completely watchable and entertaining. I've found the discussion of its cultural significance quite compelling and I don't disagree with any of that. I just didn't find it, when taken completely on its own as a movie, an exceptional thing.

It may have been original, but for me it no longer feels original.

Maybe I'm late to the party, but there's a documentary about Winnebago Man.
Language makes this NSFW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer (Post 325985)

Really enjoyed The A-Team and judging by the laughter throughout and applause at the end we weren't the only ones.

It was more

Spoiler:

and a great tribute to the original series.

Cool! I like that idea!

We just saw "Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs" - cute! Neil Patrick Harris as Steve the monkey- brilliant!!! :)

The A-Team is seriously flawed but in the end I was mostly won over. It had the right tone and just went to the ridiculous with no sense of shame. Decent actors helped.

Well, they do specialize in the ridiculous.

The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning towards buying it. The DVD will probably be cheaper than going to see it in the theater again too.

Has anyone seen anything of Chomet's L'Illusionniste? Here's a youtube video for a Russian trailer.

Roger Ebert wrote about it here. In response, Jacques Tati's Grandson sent Ebert this letter and the producers responded here.

Here's another youtube video with an interview with Chomet and some gorgeous animation.

It looks LOVELY and I want to see it.