criterionforum.org

Sorry, I didn't mean 'content,' I meant controvery (or controversial content, if you will). (The horrors of urban youth stuff that hooked Ebert.)

I saw Kids once when I was 15 or 16, didn't care, watched it again when I was 22 and loved it. All I remembered from back in the day was the reception, the transgressive stuff that so enthralls teenage punks, but it turned out to be a small, honest film that didn't want to be controversial. Clarke didn't depict the events of Kids to shock or appall, he just depicted them. I feel a kinship to that kind of 'clean' filmmaking.

I got a pretty strong impression both times I saw Kids that I was watching a film that was being controversial for the sake of being controversial. At the very least, I never got even a glimpse of anything I would call "honest" filmmaking.

miloauckerman wrote:Clarke didn't depict the events of Kids to shock or appall, he just depicted them. I feel a kinship to that kind of 'clean' filmmaking.

I feel the same way (albeit, I'm in the vast minority) about Harmony Korine and Gummo - one of my picks for a majorly underrated film.

-Toilet Dcuk

I posted my thoughts on Kids some time back:

Well, as for me personally, Kids is probably the worst film I've ever seen. I know it was a big hit with the critics at the time of its release, but I found it to be nothing more than exploitation pretending to be something more. The film seems to glorify what Telly and his chums do rather than condemn it; Clark wants to shock you with the outrageous behaviour of these teens, sure enough, but he wants to have fun while he's doing it. No thanks.

A side note: I found the character of Telly to be a little unconvincing. I couldn't appreciate the concept of a kid as butt-ugly and stupid as he was getting laid on a regular basis, if at all.

My opinion hasn't changed. I have yet to see Clarke's other films, but judging from Kids, I'm in no big hurry to.

Brad Renfro and Nick Stahl are a lot easier to believe as frequent sex participants in Bully

I agreed with your assessment of Fitzpatrick, and that film, at the time and still do.

I didn't feel like it was worth starting a new thread for this, but I am interested in seeing it: the director's cut of Verhoeven's Hollow Man is coming out October 16. There was a notorious amount of studio meddling on this picture, so a director's cut is very welcome.

I just saw Undisputed a few weeks ago on cable, and was a little bit impressed with it. I was also nursing a terribly twisted ankle at the time too, so my judgment may have been a little blind-sided.

Matt wrote:I didn't feel like it was worth starting a new thread for this, but I am interested in seeing it: the director's cut of Verhoeven's Hollow Man is coming out October 16. There was a notorious amount of studio meddling on this picture, so a director's cut is very welcome.

I wouldn't hold my breath..I think it's part of the shameful sony's policy to reissue films by adding previously available deleted scenes without consulting the director.
Funny how studios always push for trims before a theatrical release,and then they want to put as much stuff as they can back to sell it on video.
Brilliant

Clockers and Crooklyn are definitely under-rated films. Man in the Moon too. Bringing Out the Dead I think is grossly over-looked since it was sandwiched in between Casino and Gangs of New York. Same goes for Kingpin.

shirobamba wrote:There´s a very amusing article in Cinema Scope concerning under- or overrating a filmmakers work: in this case Uchida, Tomo

It's "amusing" enough -- but full of malarkey.

Michael Kerpan wrote:

shirobamba wrote:There´s a very amusing article in Cinema Scope concerning under- or overrating a filmmakers work: in this case Uchida, Tomo

It's "amusing" enough -- but full of malarkey.

Thankfully, I will be able to judge for myself soon. The Pacific Film Archives at U.C. Berkeley, California will be showing 9 films of Uchida between September 8 and September 29, 2007. See link for details.

I have never seen a film by Uchida but The Outsiders looked interesting to me when someone posted some screen captures on this board earlier this year. As I live in Sacramento it is too much for me to go every weekend of the retrospective so I am planning on going to see The Outsiders and The Master Spearman on Saturday, September 22. Anyone else on this board in the San Francisco Bay area planning on attending? Would you want to meet up before the showing?

Michael Kerpan wrote:It's "amusing" enough -- but full of malarkey.

And relies heavily on the perfection of a static canon (and conventional auteurist orthodoxy). "We" already know who the truly important filmmakers are, so why should "we" ever question our assumptions? Not a tenable position for anyone who likes Ozu or Naruse.

zedz wrote:And relies heavily on the perfection of a static canon (and conventional auteurist orthodoxy). "We" already know who the truly important filmmakers are, so why should "we" ever question our assumptions? Not a tenable position for anyone who likes Ozu or Naruse.

Agreed. As a fan of classical music, I have noticed also that this line of argument appears frequently there. (No doubt there are other examples). "Why should we even listen to and consider composer X's music. Live performances should be devoted to the accepted masters." I find this ironic when it is said by someone who views Mahler's compositions as the epitome of classical music - given that his stature as a member of the canon did not occur until well after his death and promotion by conductors such as Bernstein in the late 50's and early 60's.

I found this reviewer's inclusion of Naruse among the canon an especially odd choice, because Naruse's elevation has only been within recent times. It is not until a wider audience has seen retrospectives of these lesser known directors that we can even begin to assess their talent.

I haven't seen enough of Uchida's work (alas, not even nine films yet) to judge the entirety of his output, but have certainly seen enough to decide he is not a "minor" (and insignificant) film maker. Even if he lacks the "perfection" (as if such thing exists) of the very top tier, the best of the films I've seen by him are very good (and interesting).

Glad to see Zero Effect on that list. Very very underrated film that many people have all but forgotten.

I feel the same way (albeit, I'm in the vast minority) about Harmony Korine and Gummo - one of my picks for a majorly underrated film.

Your not the only one. I think that compared to Kids, which I used to love when I was a teenager, but now can't stand, or even Julian Donkey-Boy, which just started to grow on me, that Gummo is Korine's masterpiece. I don't know what it is about Gummo, maybe it's that it was way a head of it's time with a case of style over substance that hooks you in or it doesn't that you have to see with an open mind to what Korine is doing.