Grizzly Man

That guy was a little nuts. No surprise he wound up getting devoured by a grizzly bear.
The sad thing was he convinced that woman to go out there with him, twice, and she got eaten because of his craziness.

Very well done.
See this movie!

Let the battle of the two "Now Playing - The Movie Version" threads commence. I vote for the first one.

me too

Hoodwinked
I didn't hate it
My 7 year old loved it

Watched Nobody Knows on Saturday. Beautifully acted by kids who were so natural on screen that you'd think they didn't know they were being filmed. The 12-year old has a career ahead of him, but the one that really stunned me was the 5-year old boy. He wasn't on screen as much, but he was so comfortable in his own skin. It was the antithesis of a performance like that little shit from Jerry Maguire.

Had 2046 from Netflix for a week, and couldn't muster enough desire to even give it a chance. Just sent it back so I can get Thumbsucker and Aristocrats earlier.

Does anyone know if cable TV movies count for the movie poll? If so, was The Life and Death of Peter Sellers in 2005? That might make my list. Masterfully directed and acted picture. Can't believe that wasn't a feature film.

Balseros---this movie follows around ten different cubans whom travel by homemade rafts to Miami. Their struggle as immigrants is documented from 1994 to 2004. An extremely well made documentary.

[attachmentid=15]

Don't know if it qualifies on the list, but we all had some discussion about this movie pre-crash. I believe it would have worked better as a 2-part miniseries. Rush was astounding and brave to take on the many personas. There's quite a bit of material on the DVD's deleted scenes that indicates it could have been a very different movie.

Disney's Cinderella. Definitely a step down from the level of storytelling in Snow White or Bambi, especially in it's reliance on cute anamorphic animals who wear clothes & talk. I wonder how many kids were bitten by mice after trying to dress them in doll's clothes & teach them to talk?

Watched the Woodsman over the weekend. Kevin Bacon is a convincing pedophile.

ooooo biggie...i saw that...creepy huh? kevin bacon did a good job!

just watched a documentary called la casa nostra about the ny mob

also the devils playground: documentary about the amish teens

and am now working my way through a documentary about the ny homeless who live in the train tunnels of penn station.

went documentary crazy on netflix...but i love it!

Heehee. The DVD docs discuss how Disney was going for broke in getting this one made, due to the box office failure of Pinochio and Fantasia. It's no wonder he decided to stick with tried and true formulas that Snow White proved would be successful. I find it a little more enjoyable than Sleeping Beauty--twice as weak in the storytelling, though elegantly drawn.

I plan on picking up Aristocrats today and perhaps the Cube trilogy.

Was released in Europe in 2004. HBO helped pay for it, they screeened it.

Saw this a couple weeks ago, one week after seeing Bambi. Very big dropoff. This was the point that Walt started making movies for kids, instead of movies for everyone

AMAZING.

Dark Days. Good stuff. Crazy to think people were living on rats.

Recommend: The Salesman 1969

Thanks, Luc!!

Hated it!

You know, the guy who wrote that used to be a promising filmmaker. Then he made that crappy Pacino flick and now this.

I kinda liked it. Not drop dead loved it, but it was a decent waste of an hour and half. The ending was pretty retarded, I must say.

Cage delivers in The Weatherman, though. That's a recent film of his I enjoyed.

Really? I may give that a try then. I was put off by the trailer, the jokes seemed dumb and the 'deep' lesson handed down Michael Caine felt like shallow shit even a pre-schooler would find condescending ("Do you know that the harder thing to do, and the right thing to do, are usually the same thing?" NO SHIT?)

What's interesting to me is that Caine (his father, a prize winning writer) feeds him all of these lines you speak of and the Cage character (the antithesis of his father) digests them, yet he is a born failure, unlike the typical heroine throughout hollywood films. Resulting is a kind of half baked struggle for Cage to get his life in order. It was original, yet quite a deflating film (though there is plenty of humor that pokes it's way through). I thought it was an unconventional film and for that reason only I recommend it.

Hmmm, maybe it's a cynical sense of humor instead of cheap sentiment. I'll have to see it, but maybe Caine's advice is supposed to be shallow.

I think Walt overextended himself with trying to release Pinoccio & Fantasia in the same year, he needed both of them to be hits to stay afloat. But Cinderella came a decade and 2 features later than that debacle.

I think part of the Problem with Disney animated features as the '30s & '40s was their reliance on Fairy Tale stories, Bambi was much stronger than Cinderella in strength of story. Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Lady & the Tramp, all non-Fairy Tales, all stronger stories than Cinderella.

Aggie, were you saying that Sleeping Beauty was a weaker story but elegantly drawn? I'd definitely agree with that, I love the hand painted backgrounds in Sleeping Beauty, but Melificent is a great Villianess and has a good death scene.

To your question, yes. And Maleficent is the creepiest villian in Disniana. The rest of the movie (especially the yak-yak of the fairy stepmothers and the 2 kings) is snoresville.

I don't recall Sleeping Beauty having much of a personality. I can't even recall her name.

Ceesed-out dialiogue and annyoing kid aside, this is a lot of fun. And the music rules.

Yep, gotta agree with you there.

I can only imagine how great the Disney ouvure could've been if he had started to use stories that had a more immediate connection to his audience's lives. I can understand the use of Fairy Tales & Children's "Classics" as the basis of his stories since they were making escapist movies, but what if they'd sunk their teeth into something a little more meaty? Like the slavery angle of Genie's connection to the lamp in Aladdin, it wasn't played up too much but it was critical to the emotionality of the ending. Or, on the opposite side, The Little Mermaid's cop out ending to keep it from being a tragedy.

For a good example, look for the original animated Animal Farm, based on Orwell's book, directed by Halas & Batchelor. You'll might be able to find it in the DVD $1 bins. It's quite effective, even with the tacked-on ending.

That's a great cartoon (the first ever British full length feature, commissioned by the CIA)

The reduction of the role of Moses always frustrated me more than the epilogue but I guess that's to be expected.

Saw "Lorenzo's Oil" last night. Good fucking movie, and a true story.

If you can forget about Nolte's accent, he's actually quite good in it.

A real tear-jerker, and a reminder that Susan Sarandon is pretty fucking great as well.

Holy shit! I need to know if anyone else has seen this movie. Paranoia that rivals Eyes wide shut. I had seen Roeg's Walkabout movie, and had no idea what to expect with this one. The ending truly creeped me out. I think I'm going to have to rent all of his movies, if they are at all like this one.

This has to be one of my favorite movies of all-time--actually the book is one of my favorite books of all-time. Billy Liar is probably, without a doubt, the second best John Schlesinger of all-time--behind A Kind of Loving. Anyways, I know what people are thinking: Marathon Man and Midnight Cowboy are much better than Billy Liar and A Kind of Loving. In my opinion, those movies are overrated. Schlesinger was more effective when directing movies like Billy Liar; he could relate to the subject matter.


I could watch this movie ten times a week. I love the characters--they seem so real, not contrived. It is probably the late Ted Demme's best movie--better than the Ref in my opinion--and features one of Timothy Hutton's most underrated performances.

Anytime I am feeling like shit, I just put this movie into the DVD player and everything is alright. It's the kind of movie, if it's on cable, I'll just stop everything and watch it in its entirety.

Good call. Amazingly, it was done by the people who brought us both the Mad Max and Babe the Pig movies.


Phenomenal movie. Seriously, if you haven't seen this, throw it in the queue next week. Julie Christie will eat your soul.

The Harold Washington library has a copy, FYI. If you have a library card, you can rent it free for a week.



Roeg makes disarming movies, to be sure. I love that sex scene ! Be sure to try "The Man Who Fell To Earth" with David Bowie as an alien (too perfect casting!). I haven't seen others, but want to.

Nolte got trashed for it, but I recall several experts (linguists I guess, I forget) submitting letters to different magazines and newspapers defending Nolte's work. How true is the research though? Was the treatment really that effective and does it hold up today?




He's made good ones since then, but for my money, the last fully-realized picture Scorsese has made.

Sympathy for Lady Vengeance (again)

Wow, those are some bad movies. [Cue Tony defending them]

My biggest suprise on seeing the film was discovering what a flake Grizzly Man was. All the promotional material led me to believe he was an admirable character.

I thought Werner underplayed Grizzly Man's narcissism. It was painfully obvious how studied and self-regarding his on camera theatrics were. While the deliberate inaccuracies and distortions of his own personal history were dutifully exposed, I thought Herzog was entirely too indulgent. I can understand that impulse to allow the myth to flourish. Obviously, you're not going to have much of a movie if you really rip the guy apart by laying him bare (no pun intended).

I found it a bit precious how Herzog did decide to intervene when his character's narrative diverged from his own worldview (which leads that little speech in the middle about how the world is really cruel and yaddayadda). It rang cheap. What was the point of this movie?

Man, I really have to disagree, Werner pointed out how this guy was basically starring in his "own movie" and as you mentioned, it seemed painfully obvious how studied and self-regarding his theatrics were. A good filmmaker doesn't narrate what he can simply show, and he was the one that cut this footage to make it all obvious. The best part is when Herzog mentions that Treadwell shot some beautiful moments even Treadwell would not have noticed, and the example Herzog picks is the one where Treadwell is trying to act like some fool action hero (he's trying to jump down this path like a commando).

I don't think it was a rosy picture of Treadwell. He comes off as flaky and damned by several commentators (with little if any retaliation), but at the same time, it's not condescending. What Herzog defends is Treadwell's filmed results, and knowing Herzog, you can totally understand. Hauling a boat up a mountain or making something like "Aguirre" is every bit as irrational as living with the grizzlies, and even though Herzog thinks of Treadwell as naive, he understands why he did what he did.

Which comes to the next point, I don't think Herzog's intervention was cheap at all (I'm not sure how you can think that's cheap). One of the great things about this picture is how Herzog re-interprets this mass of footage shot by an amateur, not just shaping a visually strong picture, but contrasting his own nihilistic view with Treadwell's naive flakiness. (Herzog released a documentary 20 years ago on the making of "Fitzcarraldo" - the 'boat film' with parallels to "Grizzly Man" - and gives a hilarious disgruntled monologue on how the jungle is not beautiful, just a mass of death and fornication.) You have Treadwell naming grizzlies, acting like they're pets...but you have to agree with Herzog, and Treadwell unwittingly provides him with the evidence - the cub remains, the bears' blank, indifferent stares captured on close-up.

I saw a chunk of it when I was, like, 10. Probably on some cable channel. Vague memories of it, but the beginning is still vivid. It's funny you mentioned this because I totally forgot about it and then about two or three weeks ago, a friend of mine mentioned it after seeing it. I didn't know what he was talking about until he started describing the girl. I gotta see this again.

Ok, so I haven't actually seen this but it looks kind of interesting. Just thought I'd post it here and see if anyone has anything to say about it. First movie I've really wanted to rent in a while. Is it worth it?

It's mandatory. Any breakdown would only hamper your enjoyment of it. I'll just say I had to watch it twice (then again, I'm not very bright) to wrap my head around it. It made my top 3 for 2004.

Seconded. It's the best movie I saw last year

So it's okay for him to make a tangential speech in regards to his pet theories on the world, but not when it comes to the defining the film's major character? It's inconsistant, that's the problem. If the film (and Treadwell's grizzly death--har har) can speak for itself, then let it. We saw another face of that tendency in the bit where we watch the woman watch Werner listen to the tape. What was up with that?

And, frankly, I think the film lacks any kind of narrative drive or suspense. Compared to Errol Morris, this is drab. I got bored and turned it off with 15 minutes to go. More than anything else, I felt like I was being asked to suffer a fool.

Two different approaches being used, but not in a way that justifies criticism of inconsistency. The film's already built around footage defining Treadwell, and it's pretty thorough. If Herzog dedicated anymore narration to that subject it would've been superfluous. I guess he could've shot new footage explaining his own point-of-view, but that's unnecessary because he's already found a more economical and interesting way of doing it. His tangential speech doesn't work well by itself, it works because he puts it over the footage Treadwell shot. Remember what Treadwell does in that footage, kissing the cub paw, etc.? The way Treadwell's actions conflict with Herzog's view does a good job, IMO, of outlining Herzog's 'pet theories' (going back to defining Treadwell's character, the same technique wouldn't work nearly as well if he was simply complimenting what we were seeing. Again, it would be superfluous.) BTW, do you have a problem with Herzog letting his cynicism be known? Normally, I don't like documentary filmmakers who impose themselves into their work (it's probably more common now thanks to Michael Moore), but I actually like the way it works here, especially considering Herzog's past fiction work.


You tell the average joe there's a documentary out about a guy who lived with bears only to get mauled and eaten, chances are, if they're interested, there's probably some desire to see footage or evidence of that guy getting eaten. Morbid, but hey, people used to visit the stockyards in Chicago just to see pigs slaughtered, even if it made them sick.

The scene defuses that. It's already made clear how the man dies, but Herzog has to deal with that because if a tape like that is known to exist (even if it is ultimately destroyed), people are curious what was on it. If he ignored it, people would be asking, "What about that tape?" But how can you play that shit? It's gross-out porn, there's no tasteful way of letting people hear a guy moan and scream in real agony. It's still a big tease, I can definitely see people having problems with that scene, but you still pretty much have the best possible idea of what's on there without actually hearing it.



Wow, I hear people file that same complaint about Morris. Not "Thin Blue Line" but "Gates of Heaven," (it's just a bunch of lonely, idiotic losers and weirdos with pets) and "Fog of War" (alright, I get the anti-Iraq messsage, so what? it's a glorified PBS interview) and "Fast, Cheap and Out of Control" (what's the fucking point? Just four interviews with guys with weird jobs). I don't agree with those sentiments either. Yeah, Treadwell's flaky and naive, but I don't think the point was ever to worship or love the guy, or make you think living with the grizzlies was a sensible idea. As for a point, it's a bit about why people would do something like this, but personally, I like it more for results, and not the ones Treadwell was going for (and I don't mean getting eaten). Like Herzog pointed out, he did capture some amazing, off-beat footage, which is what most documentaries try to do, take a snapshot of unstaged, real life and try to show it's every bit as interesting as the fiction films.

I hear you, and I realize this comes at the risk of sounding like an Academy member who will only vote Holocaust documentaries, but I still feel like I can't be bothered to care about this movie. The material in it feels like it merits about 5 to 10 minutes of presentation.

Are you asking the McNamera question rhetorically? How a thorough examination of the architect of "realist" foreign policy and the actuarial approach to warfare favored by an entire generation of warmakers could be seen as insignificant beyond how it speaks to the most current military adventure is, to me, an expression exactly the sort of overinterest in the current and immediate that typifies a lot of what's wrong with America (not to mention Hollywood). If it doesn't make our nipples quiver (PROTEST MOVIE!), why should we care. That's the message I hear all around me.

I don't mean to totally condemn Herzog's effort, I only said I thought it was a "bit precious" and that I felt the promotional materials sold me something more substantive than what I received.

Nah, if it's the material, than so be it. I liked this picture, but yeah, something like Capturing the Friedmans, the Power of Nightmares or Darwin's Nightmare is going to grab people a lot more. Anything about social justice or the times is going to seem more important than an obscure 'celebrity' with strange obsessions.

About "Fog of War," yeah, it was rhetorical. For the most part, the conservative, pro-war people I know who saw it did like it as a nice little history lesson, but dismissed any attempts to adapt it to today's war as promoting an agenda and were quick to say "well, Iraq isn't Vietnam, for this reason, etc., etc." They could see how someone would take that from the picture, but they weren't sold on it. Then those who weren't interested in politics didn't have any interest in paying $10 for a two hour interview, to them it was like paying to see the American Experience, so it was a DVD rental at best.

Mad Hot Ballroom. I thoroughly believe that America would have embraced it, if only those damn penguins had given it a chance. I still haven't seen Why We Fight.

I just watched this last night, and I must say it definitely suffered the same problem as the first Matrix - ie: a great idea in the first half ruined by a by-the-numbers-over-the-top-generic-action second half. Was totally engrossed by the unusual pacing and premise until it all fell apart. Shoulda kept with the post-apocalyptic theme and gone all out, but then I guess it woulda been a little too much like Logan's Run. Still, that first half was damn cool, even if it did look a lot like a Bally's workout video loaded with product placement (Puma? Cadillac? Reebok? Anyone?).

I'm always fascinated at the idea that we are not actually living our lives.. that we're all lying in some lab, somewhere, being programmed for reasons unknown. Maybe it's all that LSD I took years ago, but I can totally believe how easy it is to fool our minds with science, computers, and chemicals. So even bad films with this premise will almost always get a reaction out of me, epecially when it's tied into a post-apocalyptic thread.

But man, that second half was just a lot of unbelievable action sequences, equaling nothing. At least it was better than Matrix Reloaded.