good film

You've only seen 4 movies???

Memento
Requiem For A Dream
American Psycho
Ravenous
Frailty
The Usual Suspects
12 Monkeys
Ichi The Killer
The Happiness Of The Katakuris
Fudoh: The New Generation
Audition
Ringu
Visitor Q
Dead Or Alive
A Simple Plan
Mulholland Drive
etc
etc
etc

25th Hour - The Fuck You Scene is awesome
Passion Of Joan of Arc - best silent ever made
Equilibrium - fight scenes are revolutionary

American History X

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Cathatonix [/i]
[B]Give me some good suggestions of good films. (please)
[/B][/QUOTE]

As your cinematic background is so vast I merely mention the greatest films ever made ever in the history of ever...

Astro Zombies -Director: Ted Z. Mikels, 1967. This movie has a running time of 83 min., and is on video. There was not much said about this movie, except that John Carradine plays the monster.
Carnival of Souls - Director: Detkliarvey, 1962. This is on video. A girl is haunted by a menacing figure, after almost drowning. The movie has wonderful Photography.
Dawn of the Dead - Director: George Romeo, 1968. This movie is on video, with a running time of 140 min. Four people barricade themselves in a shopping mall to get away from man-eating zombies. This movie is packed with hard core blood and gore and is the sequel to Night of the Living Dead.
Day of the Dead - Director: George Romero, 1985. This movie is on video, with a running time of 100 min. A female scientist is trapped in an army bunker with sexists. She tries to study the zombies, but the men want them destroyed.
Dead Men Walk - Director: Sam Newfield, 1943. This movie is on video and has a running time of 67 min. Two brothers, one good, one evil, battle in this flick. Includes Vampires and zombies as well. It is in black and white.
The Fog - Director: John Carpenter, 1980. This movie is on video and has a running time of 91 min.
Eighteenth Century pirates come back from the dead to terrorize a fishing village. As the fog moves in, the people roll out dead. I have seen this one for myself, and it is not too bad.

White Zombie - Director: Victor Halperin, 1932. This movie is on video and has a running time of 73 min. " Now we understand each other a little better", says Bela Lugosi, as he turns his rival into one of his eerie slaves. This, by no means, is one of his more well-known lines from a movie; but after seeing this film, I am convinced that it has to be one of his most sinister quotes. Lugosi plays the evil overseer of a sugarmill, who turns his workers into zombies to do his dirty work. White Zombie is a wonderful low-budget flick, with wonderful background settings that add to the eeriness of the film. For the most part, the zombies are mindless creatures that would not have hurt anybody, if it had not been for Lugosi. So, they really do not add to any of the misconceptions that Americans have about Voodoo. The few Haitians we do see in the film are burying one of their dead. None of them ate depicted as being evil. The real big "misconception" in the film is a carved Voodoo doll. Iam under the impression that they do not exist. As one last note on the film; the way that Lugosi turned his victims into zombies, was to give them a special powder that would feign death. He would then go and get the body, giving it another concoction. Perhaps Victor Halperin was Wade Davis' "secret society." (Willey)
King of the Zombies - Director: Jean Yarborough, 194 1. This movie is on video and has a running time of 67 min. This is one of those mad scientist movies, only this time it adds Nazis on a tropical island.
Night of the Demons - 1983. This movie, unfortunately, is on video. Teenagers party in the wrong cemetery.
Night of the Living Dead - Director: George Romeo, 1968. This movie is on video. "Praying for church", says Johnny. Immediately you think to yourself, "you better pray." Johnny and Barbara, in the opening scene, are in the family cemetery putting flowers on the grave of their deceased father. Johnny's next line, "They're coming for you Barbara", is his last. He is intending to be teasing his sister about being in the graveyard, but what he does not realize, is that they really are coming to get her. After her brother gets killed by the Zombie, the girl runs off to an abandoned farm house, thus beginning her fight with the man-eating corpses.
As the movie progresses, six other people enter the farmhouse to get away from, what the news reports call, "unidentified assassins." This movie is jam-packed with stiff walking dead and the stereotypical screaming woman. The ending of the movie, I think, was supposed to be a social statement by George Romeo. (Willey)
"A government made chemical somehow gets into the air and brings the dead back to life. The effects are horrible, and unless you are a connoisseur it is hard to even sit through the whole hour and a half." Brook Turner.
Night of the Zombies - Director: Vincent Dawn, ?. This movie is on video. A very trashy movie with one long cannibal feast after another. (2, p.947)
Plague of the Zombies - Director: John Gilling, 1966. It is on video. This is a fairly intense story about a Voodoo cult in a Cornish village. Contains beautiful photography.
Return of the Living Dead - Director: Dan O'Bannon, 1985. This movie is on video and has a running time of 91 min. A spoof on George Romero's classic that consists of the dead rising after a chemical leak. These morbid creatures are after one thing: Brains!
"This was basically the same idea (as the return of the living dead) except in a more modern setting. The tanks containing some of the bodies of the living dead are now in a medical supply warehouse. The foreman is telling the story behind the living dead and asks if the boy wants to see the tanks. To make a long story short, the man hits the tank and it begins to leak the gas. Suddenly things begin to come alive in the warehouse including a cadaver. The gas leaks out into the graveyard and all of a sudden there is an angry mob of the living wanting "brains."

Return of the Living Dead II - Director: Ken Wiederhom, 1988. This movie is on video and has a running time of 89 min. The walking dead are once again in control and they want more brains!
(2, p.800)

Revenge of the Zombies - Director: Steve Sekely, 1943. This is not on video. The running time is 61 min.
Revolt of the Zombies - Director: Victor Halpetin, 1936. This film is on video, with a running time 65 min. This project lacks the style of White Zombie. Cambodian troops are turned into zombies.
(2, p.801)

The Serpent and the Rainbow - Director: Wes Craven, 1988. This project is on video, with a running time of 98 min. "In the legends of Voodoo, the serpent is a symbol of Earth, the rainbow is a symbol of heaven. Between the two, all creatures live and die. But because he has a goal, man can be trapped in a terrible place, where death is only the beginning."
I thought it pertinent to add this quote in my review, because from what I have learned, the concept was distorted. Distortion is probably the best word to describe the whole movie that this quote was taken from. The Serpent and The Rainbow is based on the Wade Davis book of the same title. From what I understand of what was taught to me, his account of Haiti is somewhat distorted as well. Hollywood, as everyone knows, has it's own little problem with distortion. So, the movie version is even less credible than Davis' book. Let's return to the quote, after all it's the first problem I saw in the movie. The serpent is probably a reference to the loa, Dumballah. He is, if anything, more of a father figure than an Earth figure. The Earth is a cruel place, and Dumballah is thought of as a protector. The Rainbow is probably a reference to Ayida, his wife. She is not the symbol of heaven, because the Haitians do not believe in Heaven, but the spirit world. Together they are the forces of human sexuality.

Basically, the movie is about an American scientist who goes to Haiti to find the powders that create zombies. For the most part, if one knows nothing about Haiti, this film would be rather hard. One should have some knowledge of the Duvaliers, the Ton Ton Macoute, and Houngans. (Willey)

Shock waves - Director: Ken Wiederhorn, 1975. Peter Cushing leads a brigade of Nazi zombies to power the 3 rd Reich's submarines. Watch it if you have to. Apparently, this movie is good for comic relief (1, p. 1095; 2, p.806)
Dr. Terrors House of Horrors - Director: Freddie Francis, 1965. A fortune-teller tells some terrible secrets. May or may not have zombies. This is on video, with a running time of 98 min.
Voodoo Dawn - Director: Steven Tierberg, 1990. Two college buddies visit a friend who is being turned into a zombie. (2, p.823)
"In this movie a bokor name Makoute goes around killing the Haitian migrant workers in a southern town. He then makes them into zombies and has them work in his fields. He then gets this idea to make a zombie man. He begins to gather bits and pieces of people to make up the man. When all is finally complete, Makoute slashes his wrist and lets the blood drip into the zombie man's mouth. In the meantime, the migrant workers, led by a mambo, decide to kill Makoute. They surround his house and when he comes out they attack him and get a piece of his clothing and use it for a Voodoo doll. With this doll, the Mambo kills Makoute and they burn his body. All seems to be well except for by this time the Voodoo man had come to life and was not very happy to see his master a clump of ashes. After a long battle between the Voodoo man and the hero, the Voodoo man loses his head, literally, and dies. However, for the grand finale, this demon thing looking like it came straight out of "Aliens" bursts out of the Voodoo man's stomach and tries to eat the hero. But the hero kills the demon thing too. So the hero and the pretty girl live happily ever after." Brooke Turner.
Voodoo Island - Director: Reginald LeBorg, 1957. Boris Karloff is a business man who goes to investigate strange happenings in Haiti. Very boring. This is not on video. It does have a running time of 76 min.
Voodoo Man - Director: William Beaudine, 1944. Lugosi has a zombie wife who he tries to cure, by experimenting on other women. This is not on video. Running time is 62 min. (1, p. 1325)
Voodoo Woman - Director: Edward L. Cahn, 1957. Englishmen are turned into monsters. This little dud is not on video. The running time is 77 min. (1, p. 1325)
I Walked With A Zombie - Director: Jacques Toumeur, 1943. A doctor is sent to a Caribbean Island to treat someone's zombie wife. This movie, believe it or not, is adapted from Jane Eyre. This movie is on video, with a running time of 69 min. (2, p. 603)
The Walking Dead - Director: Michael Curtiz, 1936. Not on video.
Zombie - Director: Lucio Fulci, 1979. This little beauty is rated X for gore and nudity. The tale is about a mad scientist who creates zombies that can only be killed with a bullet through the brain. It is on video, with a running time of 91 min. (1, p. 1400; 2, p. 827)
Zombies on Broadway - Director: Gordon Douglas, 1945. This movie is on video, with a running time of 68 min. Two men search for a zombie act to use in their nightclub. (1, p. 1400)
Zombie High - 1987. This dud is on video, with a running time of 93 min. An administration of a school lobotomizes it's students to keep themselves young. In England, this film is known as The School that Ate My Brain. (2, p.827)
"It takes place in a boarding school where the students are given a sort of lobotomy to turn the students into zombies. The professors, who are behind the operations, are taking tissue from the students' brains and replacing them with quartz crystals. With the tissue that is taken from the brain, the professors make a serum that will give them everlasting life, while the students remain zombies in a cheesy B rated flick." Brooke Turner.
Zombie Island Massacre - 1984. This film is on video, with a running time of 95 min- Corpses come alive on a Caribbean island.
"Strait to video. Never in theaters. In this movie you do not even see the zombies, they do all the killing behind the scenes. The plot is a group of tourists who go to the islands and watch a Voodoo service. During the service a lamb is sacrificed and the tourists are disgusted. When they reach the tour bus to leave it is broken down, what a coincidence. The tourists then decide to walk through a jungle towards a house they had seen earlier. Much to their surprise, they end up being picked off one by one by the zombies that you never see. It had horrible acting and special effects." Brooke Turner.
The Zombies of Mora Tau - Director: Edward L Cahn, 1957. This film is on video, with a running time of 70 min. All this does is show how dull movies were before Night of the Living Dead. (2, p.827)
Zombies of the Stratosphere - 1958. It is not on video, but has a running time of 70 min. Leonard Nimoy plays a Martian who saves the day. ( 1, p. 1400)
The Zombies of Sugar Hill - 1974. This film is not on video, but has a running time of 91 min. A woman tries to avenge her lover's death by conjuring black zombies. (2, p. 827)

Whoever started this thread is a zombie with no brain! Part 2:Electric Bugaloo. Directed by Brock Landers. Starring someone who can't think for themselves and has only seen four mediocre films, with mediocre being an objective term, hence the crap film list that follows said post. Produced by IP Freeley enterprises, 2003. All Rights Reserved.

Definitely American History X, and many others mentioned above.

As for 25th Hour, I think I may have liked it much more if it wasn't so... September 11th and NYC tribute. I know David Benioff wrote the screenplay as well, but I liked the story as it was in the book. I mean, the movie was great, fairly true to the book (after all Benioff is the author of the book) but ... the whole NYC tribute thing drew some attention away from the plotline itself. :-/

Other movies I'd like to include:
American Beauty
Run Lola Run
The Rocky Horror Picture Show (not necessarily a [I]great[/I] movie, but very [I]interesting[/I] movie. my absolute favorite)
Suicide Kings
Takedown (.. it's about Kevin Mitnick)
also just for a humor factor, I'd also like to include Office Space

I'm pretty sure there are more movies I'd like to include but .. my mind goes blank at the moment. Maybe I'll add some more later.

Just for including Mulholland Drive in this list The Adversary wins an all expense paid trip to the inside of the universe's asshole. It smells funny and you'll suffocate soon enough, but hey, it's warm.

Dark City (but Kiefer Sutherland sucks the big one)
Requiem for a dream
Dead poets society (Robin Williams is a funny asshole)
Runaway Train (story by Akira Kurosawa)
and that science fiction film from the 50s where big seeds falls from the sky and at night the transform into copys of people. They have no feelings, just like robots. Wow. An anticommunist propaganda film. Wonder if McCarthy had something to do about that film. Can't remember the name of it.

[URL=http://us.imdb.com/Title?0049366]Invasion of the Body Snatchers[/URL]

First of all, don’t listen to anyone’s suggestions! The general tendency with these kind of threads is, people always suggest films they think everyone else will think is cool and diverse, which in turn leads to the replier convincing themselves that they - by proxy - are cool too. Remember this; it’s just narcissistic choices spawned from the need to be accepted in a non-conformist society - and I don’t need to point out that that in it’s self is a contradiction in terms.
You’ll find that this public display of film self-importance usually falls into three major groups: The first being the Rarities group. The Rarities group will wax lyrical about some low-budget film the majority of audiences have never even heard about – and if were being honest here, it’s usually for a reason – which by in large are usually part funded by some local government organisation all because it was made by a black homosexual pig farmer who suffers from ADD and lives with his by-polar mother in a balsa wood cabin perched high on a idyllic cliff face over-looking an industrial city manufacturing capitalism for hungry twenty-something who are all the bastard son’s of consumerism (breath).
Then there are your conformists, who – by no fault of their own – follow a trend stemmed by some lowbrow hullabaloo they heard in forums similar to this. They tend to latch onto certain underground, or so called ‘cult’ films, as if they too had been there from the start. These sycophants generally use words like, ultra-cool, innovative, groundbreaking, and terms like, ‘Teh’ instead of ‘the’. Wannabe Holden Caulfields still tied to their mother’s apron strings, and with no real valid opinions of their own so tend to watch films like American History X, fight club etc so they can steal theirs.
Finally, there are the people who just love film. Who actually watch it and really enjoy it for what it is, and don’t watch it just because they feel the need to fit into some contrived little social group hell-bent on being different. For some it’s escapism, a two-hour excursion from their humdrum life, and a glimmer of hope that not all things in life are bad.
Follow the suggestions yes, but remember; they are just that. Don’t watch a film because there’s a thread about it on this site with about 650 replies! Watch a film because you want to! And if it’s not socially acceptable (weekend at Bernie’s), so what! It’s your film and nobody else’s!

Eh, before I got married, I used to go out and see just about anything that came out, 2 or 3 movies a week, and some of 'em just because I'd already seen everything else. Under that, I'd probably fit into your third category. However, even then there were certain types of movies, call them cultish if you want, that were always on my priority list. Now that I'm lucky to see one movie a month, maybe three if you count DVD rents, I gotta go by the choices of people with taste that I respect (sometimes the critics, but usually go with stuff I see mentioned around here and other such boards). So would that put me in your 2nd category? It's a rhetorical question, because the thing is, there aren't any damn categories unless you choose to put yourself or others into one.

I guess your right about categorising. I label people because that’s the social norm: to be given a word or term, so we can relate or disconnect?
I hate using analogies (it’s so corporate), but you do need good foundations before building a house, therefore, I had to put some people (not all) into categories so people like yourself can draw a parallel, or not as the case maybe, then build from that. My main problem is not people talking about a film they saw last night, or at the weekend, it’s how subjective it can be when suggesting that film to someone else. Sometimes (not all the time) you get the feeling that with sites like these, people drop in names of obscure films just so they sound trendy, when really, they saw that film and thought it was nothing more than two hours of ass-numbing self-importance. I love films, simple. Some are very personal and some are just like prozac and get through the day. But I used to be like that. I used to be like ‘I gotta watch everything that is different, because then I can hang around with that café society lot and get into deep and meaningful conversations about it.’ Bollocks! I spent five years watching home-grown and foreign shit for that very reason, and the only thing it taught me was how pretentious I could be.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Satanic Ooze [/i]
[B]and that science fiction film from the 50s where big seeds falls from the sky and at night the transform into copys of people. They have no feelings, just like robots. Wow. An anticommunist propaganda film. Wonder if McCarthy had something to do about that film.[/B][/QUOTE]
Yep. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the original) was about the Red Menace. I highly recommend it. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the inferior 70's Donald Sutherland remake) was about cocaine. Okay, not really, but it [b]should[/b] have been. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the 90's remake) was about 120 minutes too long.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Pooka [/i]
[B]First of all, don’t listen to anyone’s suggestions! The general tendency with these kind of threads is, people always suggest films they think everyone else will think is cool and diverse, which in turn leads to the replier convincing themselves that they - by proxy - are cool too. Remember this; it’s just narcissistic choices spawned from the need to be accepted in a non-conformist society - and I don’t need to point out that that in it’s self is a contradiction in terms.
You’ll find that this public display of film self-importance usually falls into three major groups: The first being the Rarities group. The Rarities group will wax lyrical about some low-budget film the majority of audiences have never even heard about – and if were being honest here, it’s usually for a reason – which by in large are usually part funded by some local government organisation all because it was made by a black homosexual pig farmer who suffers from ADD and lives with his by-polar mother in a balsa wood cabin perched high on a idyllic cliff face over-looking an industrial city manufacturing capitalism for hungry twenty-something who are all the bastard son’s of consumerism (breath).
Then there are your conformists, who – by no fault of their own – follow a trend stemmed by some lowbrow hullabaloo they heard in forums similar to this. They tend to latch onto certain underground, or so called ‘cult’ films, as if they too had been there from the start. These sycophants generally use words like, ultra-cool, innovative, groundbreaking, and terms like, ‘Teh’ instead of ‘the’. Wannabe Holden Caulfields still tied to their mother’s apron strings, and with no real valid opinions of their own so tend to watch films like American History X, fight club etc so they can steal theirs.
Finally, there are the people who just love film. Who actually watch it and really enjoy it for what it is, and don’t watch it just because they feel the need to fit into some contrived little social group hell-bent on being different. For some it’s escapism, a two-hour excursion from their humdrum life, and a glimmer of hope that not all things in life are bad.
Follow the suggestions yes, but remember; they are just that. Don’t watch a film because there’s a thread about it on this site with about 650 replies! Watch a film because you want to! And if it’s not socially acceptable (weekend at Bernie’s), so what! It’s your film and nobody else’s! [/B][/QUOTE]

This coming from the guy with withnail and I in his sig... then again I agree that suggestions are just suggestions, and I don't blame people who reply for being pretentious or what-not... I blame the people who ask for others opinions, as if they have none of their own...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Pooka [/i]
[B]"These sycophants generally use words like, ultra-cool, innovative, groundbreaking, and terms like, ‘Teh’ instead of ‘the’."[/B][/QUOTE]

I think that part was for you Tuffy...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Brock Landers [/i]
[B]This coming from the guy with withnail and I in his sig

It's a homage, and not a suggestion. There is a difference (althought Tarrintino wouldn't know it).

Let me first say, don't see Dark City, it's overrated junk, the only redeemed part of the movie is Kiefer Sutherland and Richard O'Brien.

But, do see A Clockwork Orange. A Classic, with a capital 'C.' Definitely one of the best films of all time.

Also, see Eraserhead, and Lost Highway, and mayyyybe Mulholland Drive and Blue Velvet. All David Lynch movies, all great, with the former two the best and most intriguing of those four. Not to saw the latter two aren't great as well.

See both Aronofsky films, Pi and Requiem for a Dream.

See all the Tarantino films, specifically Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction.

See Following, only if you liked Memento though. Also by Chris Nolan.

Un-see the Fifth Element. Craptastic film.

See more movies, man!

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Pooka [/i]
[B][QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Brock Landers [/i]
[B]This coming from the guy with withnail and I in his sig

It's a homage, and not a suggestion. There is a difference (althought Tarrintino wouldn't know it). [/B][/QUOTE]

Sure there's a difference, but talking about pretentious, it get no more pretentious than "Withnail & I", and believe me, I like the movie... but it's as cult and pretentious as they come...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by leonardshelby [/i]
[B]Let me first say, don't see Dark City, it's overrated junk, the only redeemed part of the movie is Kiefer Sutherland and Richard O'Brien.[/B][/QUOTE]

I hated Kiefer in that film and Jennifer Connoly was hot as the femme fatale... sure it's reminiscent of so many films like Nosferatu and Metropolis, but still better than most. Rufus Sewell made the film work...

[img]http://filmstills2.netfirms.com/darkcit1/darkc05.jpg[/img]

Plus this kid was fun...

[img]http://filmstills2.netfirms.com/darkcit1/darkc08.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Brock Landers [/i]
[B]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Pooka
"These sycophants generally use words like, ultra-cool, innovative, groundbreaking, and terms like, ‘Teh’ instead of ‘the’."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that part was for you Tuffy... [/B][/QUOTE]

Oh, right, like [i][b]I'm[/b][/i] the only one who ever called "The Fish That Saved Pittsburgh" [i]groundbreaking[/i]...

Who's flaming who here?

i hate internet terms

[img]http://www.helios-arts.com/tehawards/tehbrock2.jpg[/img] : Your input is totally unnecessary here, you simian-brained Canadian.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tuffy the Dump Truck [/i]
[B]Oh, right, like [i][b]I'm[/b][/i] the only one who ever called "The Fish That Saved Pittsburgh" [i]groundbreaking[/i]...

Who's flaming who here? [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually I was referring to the 'teh' remark, but yeah, point made...

[img]http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jaymoo/THE_FISH/Pictures/main_tools/logofunny.gif[/img]

Ok, so we all can be a little pretentious now and then (hell, we're [i]here[/i], right?), but at least we're pretentious about good shit for the most part.

So for my crack at it, anyone else here dig [i]Dream with the Fishes[/i]?... if I was really trying, I'd say something like Basquiat or Chuck and Buck, but I hated those movies.

Dream with the Fishes WAS a great film, and maybe pretentious if you're gonna say every artsy indie flick is pretentious, which they aren't. It was a moving flick, at least for me, and I identified with the characters and their problems and the drugs and the crazy times and the meandering story with no real plot and the people and the parents and the bowling and most of all the fish metaphor...

Basqiat wasn't pretentious... as it was based on the life of an artist who thrived in pretentious society, that is to say the art world... Geoffrey Wright was fantastic, and the assorted cast did well at portraying, not being pretentious as the people they played were pretentious people like Andy Warhol, etc...

Chuck and Buck was just a good/bad homsexual take on Clint Eastwood's "Play Misty For Me". The basic "Fatal Attraction" film theme played over and over again in with a different backdrop for psycho... namely a homosexual psycho... which if it is pretentious to twist genre's like that, then Martin Lawrence did the same thing with "A thin line between Love and Hate" which is basically a black Fatal Attraction or Chuck & Buck or Play Misty for me or any number of Miichael Douglas premised films like Disclosure or The Temp etc...

None of these pretentious, although they come from pretentious roots and can be deemed pretentious only through birthright via cinema-going filmophiliacs...

Yeah, I don't do pretentious very well (not sure how to feel about that). That, or it's easier being pretentious around a bunch of squids who couldn't spell cineaste, much less guess at its meaning. *pretentious sigh*

Anyway, the elaboration on those films... yeah, good stuff. How about Hugo Pool?

check out anything by pt anderson, or wes anderson. I really like todd solondz and niel labute( though I haven't seen nurse betty or passions yet). I know it's really pretentious to like woddy allen movies, but you know, guilty as charged (I'd check out annie hall, manhattan, and the sweet and lowdown first). As everyone else has said, requiem, and if you like that, pi. Memento is good, but the novalty wears off with repeat viewings. I really like jeunet films, if you don't mind subtitles, and if you do, then you make me sad, and shouldn't head any of my suggestions anyway. Oh, twykver is awesome. I watched heaven yesterday, and it was beautiful, though the end was a little disappointing. Roger avary's stuff is pretty good. I'm starting to get into the polish brothers, and of course, the coen brothers. Larry clark and harmony korine are good if you like documentary based film making. There's other shit I'm sure, but I'm sick of listing stuff.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by UnbelieverDjak [/i]
[B]Yeah, I don't do pretentious very well (not sure how to feel about that). That, or it's easier being pretentious around a bunch of squids who couldn't spell cineaste, much less guess at its meaning. *pretentious sigh*

Anyway, the elaboration on those films... yeah, good stuff. How about Hugo Pool? [/B][/QUOTE]

Hugo Pool... Hmmmm... Alyssa "Who's The Boss" Milano stars... great cast otherwise. Quirky story, if you wanna call it a story. Not bad. Not worth watching more than once, if it's on cable, or if you find a copy in the street... spend your time watching better films, not mediocre good ones...

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DogFromHell [/i]
[B]check out anything by pt anderson, or wes anderson. I really like todd solondz and niel labute( though I haven't seen nurse betty or passions yet). I know it's really pretentious to like woddy allen movies, but you know, guilty as charged (I'd check out annie hall, manhattan, and the sweet and lowdown first). As everyone else has said, requiem, and if you like that, pi. Memento is good, but the novalty wears off with repeat viewings. I really like jeunet films, if you don't mind subtitles, and if you do, then you make me sad, and shouldn't head any of my suggestions anyway. Oh, twykver is awesome. I watched heaven yesterday, and it was beautiful, though the end was a little disappointing. Roger avary's stuff is pretty good. I'm starting to get into the polish brothers, and of course, the coen brothers. Larry clark and harmony korine are good if you like documentary based film making. There's other shit I'm sure, but I'm sick of listing stuff. [/B][/QUOTE]

My faves from the above named... and not all their films, just my faves from what they've done...

p.t.anderson - Hard Eight aka Sydney, Boogie Nights, Punch Drunk Love, Magnolia...

tom twyker - Winter Sleepers, Run Lola Run, The Princess & The Warrior...

Woody Allen - Everything You always wanted to know about sex... but were afraid to ask, Annie Hall, Mighty Aphrodite, Metropolitan, Stardust Memories, Sweet & Lowdown...

Larry Clark - Another Day In Paradise, Bully...

Harmony Korine - Julien Donkey-Boy [starring Spud from Trainspotting and Chloe Sevigny]

Todd Solonz - Welcome to the Dollhouse, Happiness, Storytelling...

Neil Labute - In The Company of Men, Your Friends & Neighbors, Possession...

Requiem for a Dream was great, but as good as Pi was those damn silly ants drove me nuts....

Same with Memento. Great flick at the time, but I can't bear to watch it anymore. And Insomnia remake sucked. I hate Robin Williams no matter what he does. And Stellan Skarsgaard does a much better job in the original truly frightening version than Pacino could ever dream of. Pacino is great at doing Pacino, that's why I love him. He should not do anything but that...

Juenet, or as I am thinking of City of Lost Children is a fine film full of great imagery, but bored me to tears... Delicatessen was much better...

Roger Avary's Rules of Attraction was one of my favorite films of the past few years, but face it, as great as Killing Zoe is, it is pretty hack... no offense to Stoltz or Delpy... the whole premise has been done, and done better... but what can you expect from a video store clerk who hung around with Tarantino, [the king of derivative]...

Personally I didn't know the Polish brothers had more than one film out... I've only seen the one about the siamese twins and liked it, even though it was kind of a gimmicky slow art-fest with no reason to watch again, no real plot or anything to say I mean, and I'm saying this in a pretentious sort-of 'I love sex, lies & videotape' sort-of way...

Coen Brothers, Fargo was great, but another film I can't stand to watch any longer. Miler's Crossing is my fave of theirs, though they have lots of other great stuff like Barton Fink and the one with The Dude...

That would be The Big Lebowski.

I thought Pi was a great movie but everybody I know hated it. Stupid fucks with bad taste. (have to change friends)
I can't stand plain action without any intelligent story behind. It sucks. I can write down a couple of hundred titles but why bother? It's better just to forget those wasted hours of my life!

9th gate by Roman Polanski was pretty good too. With Johnny Depp, Lena Olin, Frank Langella

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Cathatonix [/i]
[B]9th gate by Roman Polanski was pretty good too. With Johnny Depp, Lena Olin, Frank Langella [/B][/QUOTE]

The most horrible movie ever made.

That's my pretentious ass opinion.

how can anything be worse than dare devil? Or Spiderman?

Two Words:

Eh, I'll concede to that.

Although I can at least take my girlfriend to go see Spiderman or Daredevil and she won't be bitching at me for having wasted her time by watching one of "my" movies ie: 9th Gate. Besides, I already go into those movies expecting to see a teeny bopper popcorn flick and know that its going to suck ass. I had some expectations with the 9th Gate.

Although I will say that seeing that one girls tits at the end was nice, but it didn't justify sitting through that whole peice of crap.

I'm with fucko on this one. Ninth Gate sucked. I mean, yeah, I'll watch it again maybe, just cause I like to see bespectacled Johnny Depp wandering around acting strange and smoking, which he does so well in every film, and really if I had homosexual tendencies, I'd say he was a robobabe. And it's actually not even a sexual thing. I just like watching his face on a screen. It's mesmerizing, and yeah, he can act and all that stuff, but I don't care. I watch Johnny Depp flicks to see Johnny Depp do his thing. They wanna put out a film that is nothing but Johnny Depp sitting in a chair smoking and staring into the camera, I'm so there. They wanna film him clipping his toenails or eating sandwich, I'm so there. Call me what you will, but he's one of the few actors I will see in any movie, no matter how lame the movie premise might be, and just put the name Johnny Depp on a piece of paper and stick it up on the wall, and say be here at 3:30 tomorrow to see Johnny Depp take a crap on the sidewalk, I'm there. He's that good...

Frailty was pretty good

I thought so too, Alex. Paxton was pretty good as the psychopathic father, and the kids weren't overly annoying. The ending was great, and he really captured small town Texas. Worth it for the pathology alone...

My review - Frailty: better than jamming hot pins under your eyelids, which is already more than you deserve 4 1/2 on five stars