Chomsky is a genuine academic in his field, I can't deny that, but he is prone to extreme and irrational outbursts that would shame even Moore.

I don't want to bore you jabbering on about 20th conflicts and American foreign policy but there are shocking examples of what can only be described as lies told by Chomsky on matters including but not limited to WWII, Mao's China and the Cold War.

For what's it's worth I think America does have a problem with guns. As a typical Englishman I've never even seen a gun in the flesh and to watch the Columbine murderers larking around with uzis on their home videos was surreal and disturbing in equal measure.

Well they had Tec-9s but I take your point.

I congratulate both gentlemen for their excellent analysis. Aliens is cool and all, but the original is just so much better.



Newt, Ripley and their relationship is my single biggest complaint about Aliens. I do not for one second buy the maternal bond Ripley creates with this irritating child. I would have left her on the planet.

'We Need to Talk About Kevin' (Ramsay, 2011) ** out of ****
Tilda Swinton truly did deliver one of the great performances of last year with her work here in Lynne Ramsay's adaptation of Lionel Shriver's novel, but a few aspects of excellence cannot save We Need to Talk About Kevin from being quite simply not a good film. Ramsay may be acclaimed for her previous work but her direction here reeks of art house pretension unfortunately coupled with a film school students sensibilities and high school students grasp of subtlety. If you thought American Beauty was heavy-handed then I suggest you stray far away from this beast, its color scheme and musical cues are as easy to read as the motifs in Ethan Frome (take its glib use of James Taylor's Everyday, "Every day it's getting closer/Going faster than a roller coaster/A love like yours would surely come my way"). Ramsay is never sure enough of herself to let the film speak for itself as Van Sant did in Elephant with similar material, and no single aspect of the film is developed enough to compensate for her weaknesses. There is nothing in the film to support the idea of an unreliable narrator, which contributes to questions regarding nature versus nurture remaining consistently muddled, If, as I have come to understand, it is implied Eva is an unreliable source, then its lack of inclusion simply marks another mistake on Ramsay's part. The film also feels the need to have Kevin's victims families demonize Eva for having raised such a beast, yet in reality the parents of children who have enacted this type of violence are viewed more with pity; this seems to be another aspect of the film lost in the translation from novel to screen. However, the most egregious fault of the film lies both on Ramsay and Shriver's source material: the ending. There are many fascinating things to ponder from We Need to Talk About Kevin, and despite its flaws it almost begs to be returned to, but its not to the advantage of its director or the screenplay you feel the pull. Plenty of films are able to beg difficult questions about horrible subjects, but that doesn't mean its because the film did a good job at presenting and backing up this questions. One of the most thought provoking and intriguing films of last year, there is still no getting around We Need to Talk About Kevin's muddled and unfocused narrative, slipshod direction and disdainful sensationalism.

The Last Temptation of Christ: This movie wasn't shown in Oklahoma when it first came out and video chains wouldn't carry it, so this is my first chance to see it, and I'm pleased to say I like it a lot. This interpretation emphasizes the human side of Jesus, full of fear, doubts, lust, and vulnerability to temptation, and his overcoming of them. The last temptation is the most insidious, because it hits Jesus at the moment he is most vulnerable and terrified, on the cross, and it's not obvious to him that he's even being tempted.

Scorsese and Schrader (and Kazantzakis, of course) have done a fine job in creating a plausible 1st century Palestine and an intelligent portrayal of Jesus's ministry. Sometimes they go with traditions that aren't in the Bible, such as Mary Magdalene being a prostitute (rather explicitly, as she entertains a long line of clients), or Judas being a redhead (which I'm really pleased to see, since it makes him easy to pick out in a crowd). Sometimes there are mild alterations; for example, Magdalene is also the woman who was to be stoned, and Jesus rescues her partly because she is a childhood friend who he feels he has wronged. Jesus's words here and in the Sermon on the Mount differ from those in the Bible, partly as a conscious effort to avoid this being Jesus's Greatest Hits; my theory is that these are the Beta Test version which were perfected in the half-century or so it took to produce the gospels. It works, too. The stoning scene and the Sermon on the Mount are two of the best scenes in the movie.

Despite its controversial reputation, this isn't really a radical reinterpretation of the Gospels; Jesus is indeed the son of God, produces miracles, heals the sick, chastises the money changers, and is, in short, the Messiah. But which Messiah? Is he to lead a revolt against Rome, or a revolution in men's souls? Is his kingdom to be on Earth or in Heaven? The answer is shattering and moving.

Supposedly the big controversy is that it portrays Jesus tempted to live a fully human life, fathering children on his wives (yes, plural), and thus having sex. This ignores some other controversial aspects, such as St. Paul being quite willing to accept a lie as the foundation of his religion (since Jesus in his alternate reality didn't die on the cross), or the Apostles (other than Judas Iscariot) behaving like squabbling teenagers.

But the most interesting and subversive aspect is Judas himself, who is not the arch-traitor here, but Jesus's closest, strongest and most devoted disciple. Judas is a Zealot sent to kill Jesus but instead becomes a follower, under the condition that if Jesus strays from the path of revolution, Judas will have to fulfill his original mission and kill Jesus. When Jesus realizes that he'll have to sacrifice himself on the cross to fulfill his mission, he holds Judas to his promise. Harvey Keitel is Judas, and he's outstanding. As good as Defoe is as Jesus and Barbara Hershey as Mary Magdalene, Keitel is the standout in the movie.

8.5 of 10 and that's being very conservative.

Newt, Ripley and their relationship is my single biggest complaint about Aliens. I do not for one second buy the maternal bond Ripley creates with this irritating child. I would have left her on the planet.[/quote]

Wow I think you're literally the only person I've ever heard feel this way. You say you don't buy it for a second, but I think they set it up really well. First of all, we know she's the type of person who would go back for her cat in the first film. Then there's the fact that her daughter died of old age and she feels guilty about her leaving her. Then there's the fact that Newt's mostly adorable, mostly.

To be fair, the scene where Ripley learned that her daughter died of old age wasn't in the original theatrical release of the film, and that would have provided the explanation for Ripley's maternal dynamic with Newt later in the film.

True. I haven't watched the theatrical cut in years, but you're absolutely right.

In my understanding, they did not want to do a straight rendition of the King James verses, because these men were not Shakespearean actors and they did not speak like poets. They were regular, working-class people. It makes more sense to have Jesus angrily bark "Which of you has never sinned?" instead of calmy recite "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

(Flash fact: that's Irvin "The Empire Strikes Back" Kershner as Zebede in that scene.)

In my opinion, this movie is Scorsese's #3 masterpiece. I have no doubt that this is due largely to the collaboration of Scorsese and Schrader. As two artistic filmmakers preoccupied with Chrisianity--Scorsese the Catholic and Schrader the Dutch Calvinist--they are uniquely suited to this material. Plus, they're like Lennon and McCartney: they don't always get along, but they're at their best when they're together.

Also, I absolutely agree. Keitel is a powerhouse in this movie.

Things do tie up nicely in Mysteries of Lisbon, which is in a way a series of short stories about people involved in the life of young Pedro de Silva, who at first is a fifteen year old boy known as Joao, parentage unknown, who has been taken in by the kindly priest Father Dinis. We come to find out that Joao was born out of wedlock to the second son of a count and the second child of a Marquis; since they are second children, they are basically poor, and the lady's father refuses the suitor, and, when the child is to be born, sends a ruffian to kill him and, with the child's existence hidden, improve his daughter's chances of finding a rich suitor, which she does at the price of a cruel torture of a marriage for both wife and husband.

It seems that every character having a substantial part in Pedro's life has a back story, which we get to hear at length. At the beginning of the second half, a friar who we met in passing earlier insists Dinis hear his story at full length, and I groaned.

The movie has a pattern of various loves, from the relative innocence of Pedro's parents, to an adulterous love affair that ends in death, to a cruel toying with love that leaves one of the lovers with nothing to live for but vengeance. It's all a long convoluted trip through grand passions and decades of flashbacks, presented in two halves, of which the first is by far the more compelling. It's also one of the most beautiful films ever made. There are whole scenes where any frame would make a classic painting.

If the four and a half hour running time seems daunting, consider there is also a six hour television miniseries expansion of the movie that ran on Portuguese television.

Director is the late Raoul Ruiz, who fled Chile in 1973 and seems to have made most of his films in Europe, including Portugal. He made 115 films, and you read that this is his last, but that doesn't seem to be true; La noche de enfrente has a 2012 release date, and he's one of two directors listed for the upcoming Linhas de Wellington. Those 115 films also include both versions of Mysteries of Lisbon.

9 of 10 for first half, 6.5 for second.

Taking cue for Johnny, I decided to sit down and watch a double feature of Alien and Aliens in anticipation for Prometheus. Now... wait for it... This is the first time I've watched both films. Yes, you can sue me. And yes, I suck. But they've been on my to-watch list for a long time and what better time to watch them than now, eh!

I do agree with the people that say they're both films from different genres and as such cannot be compared with each other. I think both directors had different visions and both executed it perfectly. My preference stems due to my preference in general for the genre, but I am in everyone's boat that these two films put together are indisputably classics.

Alien (1979) - ***1/2 out of ****

First off, the best aspect of Alien was the verisimilitude. Right from the beginning with the brilliant sequence shot covering the entire ship, this film nails the atmosphere. And that goes a long way to making the viewers enjoy not only this film but the sequel as well. I thought the characterization was great as well. Ripley is, as has been discussed everywhere, one of the best female protagonists to grace the screen. The other characters were also nicely written but obviously don't come across with the same depth as she does. I also felt the truth behind Ian Holm's character was a pretty neat surprise to put into the film.

The Xenomorph design has of course laid the foundations for many subsequent science-fiction films. What I especially enjoyed was the thought put into the physiology as well; how it demonstrated survival of the fittest, the creature's ability to adapt and evolve. Of course, this has nothing to do with the film's enjoyment per se, but being a science nerd, I did enjoy the alien design in both films.

The film's horror aspects were what made it so good for me. Having seen recent films that rely on so-called cheap scares, watching where it all started and how Alien did it was great. I didn't find many boo moments or moments that are inserted basically to shock me. Each of the heart-in-the-mouth moments in the film were as a result of me caring for the fate's of the characters and were true edge-of-the-seat moments. Truly scary stuff.

All in all, Alien was a truly great film. I cannot find many faults with it. I really can't say why I dropped the half star, maybe it didn't have the same effect on me as the next film did.

Aliens (1986) - **** out of ****

I am a sucker for perfect action films. The Die Hard Series, The Rock, Face Off, Con Air (ok, I will give you that this one is not perfect). These are films that I absolutely love and have watched countless times over the years. With my first viewing of Aliens, I will add it to the list as well and it will probably come out right near the top. However, I felt that watching Alien was critical to this film's enjoyment. Not many idiots are going to see this without watching the original first, but did feel it was a necessity.

Borrowing from JB's review of the film, relentless is the only word I will use to describe Aliens. It really doesn't give you time to catch your breath. The first half an hour with Ripley's return to reality and being reinstated are the only slow moments and even they move and a pretty decent clip. But once the crew lands on the rock, I don't know what happened. It almost felt like no time had passed between that and the credits rolling. The film moved at such a fast pace.

Unlike Ed, I did enjoy the relationship between Ripley and Newt. I also saw the Special Edition which meant I got the following.

The spoiler really made it easy to understand their relationship and made the fact that Ripley's maternal instincts kicked in for Newt very real. And I also felt that Newt didn't come off as one of those whiny little kids from other films. She was pretty smart. She survived in the ventilation shafts for many days till the crew came along. And towards the end she even helps Ripley find the exit as well. The only times she screamed in the film were when she saw the Xenomorphs, and I would scream like hell in her shoes as well.

The ambiguity about Bishop's character was another aspect I enjoyed. Yes, I never for once doubted the outcome, especially with what happens in the first film. However, the way the ambiguity is presented, the director made sure it is always in the back of our minds, though most keen viewers will be able to sort of guess what's coming.

Action is where the film is at. And here's where James Cameron has delivered in spades time and again. I felt every action sequence was perfectly choreographer and there was always a level of believability to the whole thing. There was never a time where I felt these guys will just blow through everything. The film makes sure to remind us at every step that we know they're always outnumbered, and that this isn't a fair fight. Although we always know that Ripley and Newt will survive, the film puts enough doubt in our minds about who will make it and whether anyone will make it out all. That obviously added a lot of emotional heft to every action sequence and once again had me at the edge of my seat.

Overall, I think Aliens will be pretty high on my list of favorite films of all time. And you know what I thought when I saw this film, "they don't make em like they used to". Action films nowadays forego character development in favor of big-budget special effects. Aliens is a solid of example of what happens when you make the viewers care for the people fighting. The intensity, excitement, and enjoyment of the film increases tenfold and makes for one helluva action flick.

Initial reports suggests that I wouldn't want to go in to Prometheus with the same expectations. I am catching it tomorrow, so hopefully it'll turn out good as well.

Prometheus - *** out of *****

It was a good film, but disappointing in the end for me. I put more detailed thoughts into the review thread on the film. Suffice it to say: this is a film that I wouldn't go out of my way to watch again if I can help it.

Broadway Danny Rose (1984) ***1/2

I make sure to watch at least one Woody Allen and Hitchcock film per year for tradition purposes, but noticed I hadn't watched an Allen film yet this year. With time running out--my lists follow school year patterns and end in August--and a big trip planned for summer, I decided to watch one this morning.

The only reason I watched this one in particular is because it was on Netflix Instant and short, but it ended up being really good. It starts as a pure comedy but by the end of it I found myself quite moved by the quiet pathos of Woody Allen's buffoonish lead, Danny Rose. The beginning of a very fertile period for Allen that led to classics Purple Rose of Cairo and Hannah and Her Sisters, it's worth checking out.

Woody's 80s period is just masterful. Have you seen Zelig? He made that one in '83 and, to me, was the beginning of his strongest period of consistently great work (ending in '89 with Crimes and Misdemeanors, although I know you don't agree with that one).

I think I like this one so much because it's one of the few characters played by Allen that's entirely likeable for the most part. Danny Rose is someone who seems to genuinely care about his clients, probably to his detriment as an agent. It's rare to see show business portrayed that way. Plus, it's really funny and Mia Farrow is probably even better than Allen in the film.

Zelig is solid, but doesn't have the human aspect that (for me) marks Woody at his best. I felt he had a funny premise that he could have done more with. Danny Rose, meanwhile, is just delightful. And I agree with you about the niceness of his character being rare. Especially compared to the other notable film about such people, Jerry Maguire

North by Northwest

Okay, it's official, I am the only person on the planet who doesn't get Hitchcock's brilliance. Was the plot revolutionary for the time period? Did Hitchcock use advanced techniques that are commonplace now? Am I missing something?

The best part I thought were the performances, but the plot felt silly to me and really contrived and I'm still not getting why Hitchcock is revered. Psycho and Rear Window both had sequences with suberb direction but I would be hard pressed to pick any out here. Well actually, there are some nice shots of the UN and some nice shots of Mount Rushmore but still, really good cinematography is not a mark of directorial genius for me.



-Jeremy

You're putting way too much thought into North By Northwest. It primarily exists as a fun vehicle in order for Hitch to put Cary Grant in all sorts of unrealistic but perilous situations. The plot? I dunno...I've seen the movie three times and couldn't tell you what it's about. But it's so much fun to watch, and it's one of my all time favorite Hitchcock films.

I loved Zelig for how he ties it in to the rise of facism and Hitler. The idea that assimilating yourself into whatever society or group of people you're currently around will inevitably lead to the worst kinds of people and ideas becoming prevalent is really smart, I think. You're right though, it's much more of an idea driven film than a character driven one.



Hitchcock was notorious (see what I did there?) for not caring much for plausibility in his movies. For the most part most people stick to plot and character analysis when they talk about movies. For that reason, I've always been amazed at how well liked he is in mainstream culture and how successful his movies were when released. I feel like more people would feel how you do, but instead he's almost universally loved.

He's very much a director's director in that his greatness is apparent in the way he constructs scenes, mostly through camerawork and editing. The phrase "economy of film" was practically invented for someone like Hitchcock. Seeing as how he began in silent films where meaning was creating solely through the images you placed on screen in relation to one another, it makes sense that his biggest strength was his ability to tell a story visually without much wasted motion. North by Northwest has about a hundred examples of his excellence as a director. If you're interested in it, pick up a copy of Hitchcock/Truffaut where he goes into pretty extensive detail about why certain sequences and scenes were shot the specific way they were shot. It's a great read.

Scott Evil: "You have a time machine. Why not just go back in time and shoot Austin Powers while he's sitting on the crapper?"

Where's the adventure in that? Where's the visual? Where's the movie?

Prometheus (2012) - ***1/2 out of ****

I fail to see why this film is getting such a bad rap from everywhere. From what I've been reading, people are highlighting some really valid complaints that they have with this film. However, these complaints are also valid for both Alien films and people never seem to talk about those in the same vein.

The first complaint I heard is that the other characters apart from Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) aren't really well developed. And I think, well, that was true of both those films as well. There weren't really any well-rounded characters apart from Ellen Ripley. And that didn't deter people from calling both those classics which they are. The second complaint is that people do stupid things in this film. Well, I've seen people do stupid things in both Alien films.

But I don't see people complaining about such scenes, of which there are many, from both those films. I personally believe that those complaints are valid. However, if people are going to be up in arms about that from Prometheus, then they shouldn't give the Aliens films any leeway because they also have the same problems. But I digress.

Coming to Prometheus, I loved it. I am someone who is fascinated in general by what's out there. I refuse to believe that Earth is the only habitable planet and that human beings are the only intelligent life form in the known universe which is nearly 100 million light years wide. So, any film that explores what's out there with some competency is one I am really going to enjoy. And Prometheus really pulls that off well. In terms of triggering my intellectual curiosity, it is one of the films that has really pulled it off.

In terms of characterization, I felt that was secondary to this film. Rapace's character is really well-written and is the focal point of the whole story. But this film isn't really bothered about the characters as it is about exploring the birth of humanity and where we go from here. In that sense, I felt Ridley Scott had borrowed a lot from 2001: A Space Odyssey which was similar. In that film as well, the characters were really weak and secondary to the film's true purpose which was to provide us with an examination of our evolution.

One other complaint I read is that people really failed to understand the first scene.

That is one of the reasons why I loved Prometheus. It has so much scope for such interpretations. It just didn't blindly throw some nonsensical sci-fi at me. Each aspect of the film's science-fiction was carefully thought and placed into the film. This film is about learning and discovery. And therefore I felt the pacing was deliberate and slow in keeping up with that.

Another couple of complaints I read were the following.

As for the acting, there isn't really a weak link to be found anywhere. I've always thought Rapace to be a terrific actress with a really strong presence and great emoting skill. Prometheus is further proof of that. She is the driving force behind the film and really the only fully-developed character in the cast and she does complete justice to the role. As for Fassbender, obviously, if it wasn't known already, he's just awesome. I love the unique qualities that he brings to each role. It is as if once I've seen him in a particular role, it is difficult for me to see anyone else for that role. The rest of the cast is solid all around.

I really enjoyed the 3D as well. Obviously, this film is not better seen in 3D because I don't think anything will be lost seeing this without the extra dimension, unlike Avatar. But the 3D was really well done and did serve an added purpose in a few scenes, but I can't say that it is the definitive version of the film to see.

Overall, Prometheus is definitely a film that I want to see again. I really do believe that multiple viewings will do it justice in increasing my understanding of what Ridley Scott has tried to achieve with this film and really I just want to know more about the new sci-fi world that Scott has created with this film.