avclub-8848b3fc851279ae66f0f479d1da97d1--disqus
Pandemic Dodger
avclub-8848b3fc851279ae66f0f479d1da97d1--disqus

I showed this film to a few friends of mine back in college and one of them observed that there is a very appealing roughness to it. Nearly ten years later I still think he's right. What makes "Excalibur" work for me is the lack of implausible gracefulness to the many sword fights and battles (you won't find

I showed this film to a few friends of mine back in college and one of them observed that there is a very appealing roughness to it. Nearly ten years later I still think he's right. What makes "Excalibur" work for me is the lack of implausible gracefulness to the many sword fights and battles (you won't find

"Sheesh, where the bloody hell did I park?"

"Sheesh, where the bloody hell did I park?"

The great avant-garde filmmaker Stan Brakhage made his final film, the "Chinese Series," on his deathbed, scratching the film strip with his own nails and spit - as it was the case with several of his works, he made it without a camera, working directly on celluloid with the materials at hand. He did not get to edit

The great avant-garde filmmaker Stan Brakhage made his final film, the "Chinese Series," on his deathbed, scratching the film strip with his own nails and spit - as it was the case with several of his works, he made it without a camera, working directly on celluloid with the materials at hand. He did not get to edit

I've wondered about that too. There have been so many opportunities for a pairing like that throughout his career: David Lynch, Spike Jonze (it seems Cage will reteam with Charlie Kaufman in *Frank or Francis*), and now Herzog. He also made two movies with John Woo (*Face/Off*, which mostly worked with Cage's style,

I've wondered about that too. There have been so many opportunities for a pairing like that throughout his career: David Lynch, Spike Jonze (it seems Cage will reteam with Charlie Kaufman in *Frank or Francis*), and now Herzog. He also made two movies with John Woo (*Face/Off*, which mostly worked with Cage's style,

The reviews have pointed out how the show relies too heavily on hostage situations, and here, we have two: Miles holding Julia at swordpoint and Monroe threatening the Matheson kids (the show even commented on it when Monroe says: "Miles was right. Having the right hostage works every time" or words to that effect).

The reviews have pointed out how the show relies too heavily on hostage situations, and here, we have two: Miles holding Julia at swordpoint and Monroe threatening the Matheson kids (the show even commented on it when Monroe says: "Miles was right. Having the right hostage works every time" or words to that effect).

Is this kind of writing a recent, hip form of aversion therapy, I wonder?

Is this kind of writing a recent, hip form of aversion therapy, I wonder?

Something that always interested me about *Martin* is how well it handles suspense. A central set-piece involving Martin's stalking of the house of a future victim is as carefully plotted and executed as a heist sequence from a Jean-Pierre Melville film, which doesn't so much undercut the otherworldy element of

Something that always interested me about *Martin* is how well it handles suspense. A central set-piece involving Martin's stalking of the house of a future victim is as carefully plotted and executed as a heist sequence from a Jean-Pierre Melville film, which doesn't so much undercut the otherworldy element of

I'm curious: what makes you say music is way more subjective/divisive than film? I think we can point out to a few developments that might account for that perception (like the success of certain publications and journals, like the ones you mention and *Cahiers du cinéma* in France) in establishing a canon in film, a

I'm curious: what makes you say music is way more subjective/divisive than film? I think we can point out to a few developments that might account for that perception (like the success of certain publications and journals, like the ones you mention and *Cahiers du cinéma* in France) in establishing a canon in film, a

OK. Perhaps what I meant was more that his idea of history is still a "top-down" vision where the point is to find major players, whether full of shit or not. In other words, I wonder if revealing certain key figures as frauds or as people who are portrayed in misleading, inaccurate ways doesn't still place them as

OK. Perhaps what I meant was more that his idea of history is still a "top-down" vision where the point is to find major players, whether full of shit or not. In other words, I wonder if revealing certain key figures as frauds or as people who are portrayed in misleading, inaccurate ways doesn't still place them as

Just from this description, it seems that Stone is not so much going against the "'great man' theory of history" than simply transferring it to different great men. So his goal appears to be to question the role of the United States in several historical developments and place that country as an ensemble player rather

Just from this description, it seems that Stone is not so much going against the "'great man' theory of history" than simply transferring it to different great men. So his goal appears to be to question the role of the United States in several historical developments and place that country as an ensemble player rather