Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

VENICE FILM FESTIVAL! Mastidon Reviews Brian De Palma’s REDACTED And Clooney’s MICHAEL CLAYTON!

Well-written and concise reviews by Ditch Brodie	Sep 2nd, 2007 01:10:44 AM
That includes the Blade Runner review. Thanks, Mastidon!
Oooo he hurt his credibility with the Crash praise by IndustryKiller!	Sep 2nd, 2007 01:32:47 AM
I was so close to believing him about Redacted that De Palma, a filmmaker I usually abhor, had made something good for the first time in like 15 years. But if he is a Crash fan then politically correct bullshit might just be his M.O. And in that case he will like In the Valley of Elah, because it just about is HALF as good as Crash.
crash by kooky little elephant on beer	Sep 2nd, 2007 01:45:59 AM
crash was a horrible piece of shit!!! it did not deserve best pic and the acting was shit. im tired of people who liked crash. de palma doing untouchables 2 give me a break. these 2 films u reviewed sound good.
Redacted... by Tenguman	Sep 2nd, 2007 02:03:58 AM
"If you think its a good idea we should be in Iraq, or that we have a clue and know what we are doing, then you need to see this movie." What? A recount of a single horrific event in the Iraq war is supposed to make us believe the whole war is immoral? (And yes, that's basically what DePalma himself said) What the hell kind of retarded logic is that? I'm not going to judge the rest of the troops or the war as a whole based on the disgusting and reprehensible actions of a few. You're flat out ignorant if you think that all the soldiers do over there is rape and kill innocent Iraqis. Let's be honest, if that's what you believe, you're probably not capable of holding intelligent conversations in the first place, let alone capable of debating the war rationally. Let's put it this way: What if someone made a film about the worst act you ever committed (obviously, the incident would vary in intensity depending on the person)? Are we supposed to judge you based entirely on that movie? Or, if you will, if a few students at a high school rape and murder someone, is the whole school supposed to be shut down? You're naive to think that this movie would influence anyone who actually takes the time to read and learn about the war. If you hated the war to begin with, you're going to embrace this movie as further evidence of your beliefs. If, however, you support the war, then this movie will hardly budge your opinion of it as a whole. You'll decry the acts of those few contemptible soldiers and continue on. The only people who would really change their stance on the war based on a movie probably don't pay much attention to world events in the first place... and therefore, the rest of us (regardless of our stance on the war) don't take their opinions seriously to begin with.
Umm we really dont need conservative help here... by IndustryKiller!	Sep 2nd, 2007 02:11:19 AM
to shoot down De Palma's credibility. In fact by going on a pro war rant it actually helps the movie. Plus filmmakers dont make a single movie thinking its going to change everyones stance, they do it to add to the current unending need for dissent. Who know, a movie, on top of all the facts as to what a horrible corrupt failure the war actually is, could be enough to open a few eyes. or inspire someone to vote differently or any of a million different actions. Thats what art does. Diminishing this is not only naive, but makes you look like a Republican shill.
you'll notice, industry, that... by rabidbothan	Sep 2nd, 2007 02:28:50 AM
he never said anything about being pro war in his post (although it's easy to assume he is). he's just pointing out a rather ridiculous statement made in the review of the movie. you said, "Plus filmmakers dont make a single movie thinking its going to change everyones stance, they do it to add to the current unending need for dissent." de palma has already said that pictures changed peoples' minds about vietnam and that he hopes that this movie does the same for iraq, soooo yeah. regarding the films: the buzz on redacted has been amazing (from more than just this guy), so i'm psyched for that & michael clayton sounds like a disappointment coming from the guy who made good night & good luck. oh well, lets hope MC doesn't bomb so we have to sit through ocean's 14.
rabidbothan by IndustryKiller!	Sep 2nd, 2007 03:00:18 AM
First of all, love the nick. Secondly no he doesnt come out and say he's pro-war but lets call a spade a spade here. Second of all I think De Palma meant he wants to change SOME minds, as many minds as possible that are close enough to changing their stance on the war that a movie might be the thing that does it. After all he is right about film and Vietnam. its not the only thing that changed hearts and minds, but it certainly helped. Take a look at Brokeback Mountain. Im sure there is more than a few people who werent fond of homosexuality that, presented with a very human portrayal on the subject matter, looked maybe a little deeper into their souls (and used a little common sense) next time they thought about whether homosexuality is a choice. All I'm saying is dont diminish the role of art on the landscape of human thought patterns. Some people still believe in "soul mates" after all....thanks romantic comedy.
Why not include the reviewers pictures in the post? by Evil Hobbit	Sep 2nd, 2007 03:39:50 AM
It's 2007 ya know :P
Tenguman by Andy Warhol Jr	Sep 2nd, 2007 05:05:05 AM
"A recount of a single horrific event in the Iraq war is supposed to make us believe the whole war is immoral?" - a war is immoral by definition.
Andy by Holy Hell	Sep 2nd, 2007 08:00:46 AM
What definition of war are you referring to? There is alot of thoughtful arguments describing "necessary" or "moral" wars. Many point to WW2, fought against a genocidal Nazi regime, as a "necessary" war. Are you suggesting that it shouldn't have been fought because it's a "war"? How about the American Civil War, which enforced the prohibition of slavery in America? Immoral because it's war? I'm not calling foul; I'm just curious as to the depth of your opinion. I hope it's challenging instead of polemic.
Andy by Holy Hell	Sep 2nd, 2007 08:00:47 AM
What definition of war are you referring to? There is alot of thoughtful arguments describing "necessary" or "moral" wars. Many point to WW2, fought against a genocidal Nazi regime, as a "necessary" war. Are you suggesting that it shouldn't have been fought because it's a "war"? How about the American Civil War, which enforced the prohibition of slavery in America? Immoral because it's war? I'm not calling foul; I'm just curious as to the depth of your opinion. I hope it's challenging instead of polemic.
Sorry about the double by Holy Hell	Sep 2nd, 2007 08:01:39 AM
Sorry about the double post-coffee's too strong this morning.
Redacted's purpose... by am14eu	Sep 2nd, 2007 09:41:03 AM
Look, everyone knows that De Palma is extremely anti-war, and I'm sure he does hope that his film will have an impact in stopping the Iraq war. I just don't understand how everyone always goes immediately to "he hates the troops" or that he's saying that all U.S. troops in Iraq are rapists and murderers. To me, I think he's trying to tell the viewer, "Look what happens when we send our young kids over to a place like this." It sounds from most reviews I've read that by the time the rape/murder actually takes place in the film, De Palma has you really sympathizing for the soldiers involved. Maybe he's just trying to say that if the war hadn't happened in the first place, this incident (and whatever others like it there might be) would have never happened. Maybe I'm just crazy, though, and Brian De Palma really does hate the troops and believe that every single one of them is a murderer...
Purpose by sharki	Sep 2nd, 2007 10:26:00 AM
First I'd like to know where they got those 2,000 dead at one checkpoint statistic, that seems impossibly high. Second DePalma has made his intent perfectly clear, "show the real war that the media doesn't want you to see." In other words to DePalma, our troops raping and murdering innocent people is the real war and is happening all the time the media just covers it up. It's the title of the film for crying out loud. This movie won't change any minds because the only people who will see it are people who are already anti-war. The only thing that will come from this movie is a bunch of Hollywood back padding and another unsuccessful movie to add to DePalam's long list of recent flops. Aanyone remember "Mission to Mars"?
I Thought He Commited Suicide by skoobyx	Sep 2nd, 2007 10:36:05 AM
After seeing the completed 'Black Dahlia' I almost did. Sure, why couldn't Josh Hartnett be a police detective?
Level of Debate = Raised by am14eu	Sep 2nd, 2007 11:58:45 AM
I love how instead of making an argument against De Palma's film, which not many could do since it hasn't been released yet, people just decide to say "Yeah, well look what a horrible filmmaker De Palma is." That really helps your side of the argument, so keep it up...
DePalma's Golden Age (1973 - 1993)... by BGDAWES	Sep 2nd, 2007 12:33:47 PM
DePalma is one of my favorite directors, aside from a few outliers below (The Bonfire of the Vanities) DePalma made great films for a solid 30 years. Blow Out would be the best of his films listed below. So what the hell happened to him? I don't give a shit if his next film is political or not, I just wish he finally makes another movie even close to the same caliber of movies he made during his prime. Carlito's Way (1993) Raising Cain (1992) The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990) Casualties of War (1989) The Untouchables (1987) Wise Guys (1986) Body Double (1984) Scarface (1983) Blow Out (1981) Dressed to Kill (1980) Home Movies (1980) The Fury (1978) Carrie (1976) Obsession (1976) Phantom of the Paradise (1974) Sisters (1973)
Spitting on the Soldiers by MarkWhittington	Sep 2nd, 2007 02:22:51 PM
I guess De Palma didn't get the message that the anti war left ought not to spit on soldiers any longer. Sad, but at least honest.
Crash? by larryg	Sep 2nd, 2007 02:43:17 PM
Half as good as Crash? What is that, some variation of Xeno's Paradox where it can be logically proven that no matter how bad a movie is, it will always be possible to find one 50% worse?
High hopes for REDACTED by Blue Meanie 1138	Sep 2nd, 2007 02:59:22 PM
Hopefully an antidote to all the bad work DePalma's done the past few years. Not unheard of a filmmaker to flounder around for a while, then connect with a particular story that brings out the best in him. Believe this was happening to Eastwood before he did UNFORGIVEN, which wiped away all memories of movies like THE ROOKIE.
Larryg by IndustryKiller!	Sep 2nd, 2007 03:08:11 PM
I saw In the Valley of Elah and the answer to your question is YES.
rabidbothan by sharki	Sep 2nd, 2007 04:14:43 PM
Of course this movie is getting "good buzz" it's an anti-war movie and in today's Hollywood climate you could make the worst movie ever made and still get heaps of praise just for making an anti-war film. The Dixie Chicks are a perfect example. Prior to becoming a rally point for the anti-war movement, no one outside of the country music scene gave two shits about the Dixie Chicks. But as soon as they became anti-war they became the greatest thing to ever happen to country music and started receiving all kinds of awards and praise despite rapidly dimensioning sales and the complete lose of their core audience.
I wish they made anti-American films during WWII... by Smash Drama	Sep 2nd, 2007 04:30:49 PM
Because today we'd all be posting on the "Ist es nicht Vunderbar Nachrichten" website. Well, except for you Jewish and/or non-Aryan folks...because we'd be all dead. Sorry.
I'm glad about the buzz for Redacted by CherryValance	Sep 2nd, 2007 06:00:53 PM
I didn't read the spoilers though. I am a fan of De Palma so I'd rather see it without knowing. It's interesting that he would go after the Iraq war since the heroes in his films who try to expose corruption usually don't fare too well. Can't wait to see it.
Smash Drama and Sharki by IndustryKiller!	Sep 2nd, 2007 06:23:58 PM
That post was brilliant. Brilliant in showing the absolute ridiculousness and negligent stupidity of a side of the political debate who is incapable of telling the difference between the the war in Iraq and Nazi Germany. That post was made ironically.....right? And sharki I'm sure the already obscenely rich Dixie Chicks (musical talent or lack thereof notwithstanding) are really smarting over the loss of fans of country "music", who are about one step above caveman on the evolutionary ladder.
Its been almost two years... by SenatorJeffersonSmith	Sep 2nd, 2007 06:38:56 PM
Can we please get over the whole "Crash" stole the Oscar thing. I thought it was a hundred times better than "Brokeback", and better than anything else that came out that year...I can see how some people could not like it as much, or even hate it, but "Crash" won, and its time to move on. I can't believe people still talk about it like its fucking Marisa Tomei.
Sharki et al by Holy Hell	Sep 2nd, 2007 07:11:22 PM
The Dixie Chicks were HUGE, transcending demographics (such as "country music listeners"), LONG before the talked smack about W. Look it up on Billboard. People who think this movie is great, before they see it, have a slight edge in rational discourse over their counterparts: those who despise it before they've seen it. It may be polemical nonsense, shot like Romper Room and edited together like Frankenstein, but at least it's intent is to challenge, rather than to reinforce. It may suck, but it's confrontational posture to authority endows it with a fresher scent than the unknown potential of a devotional project. Speaking truth to the corrupt or inept elements of civilization, the only valuable ethic of any artform, can only happen if artists first try to speak it. To spend time praising the status quo is not nearly as important.
IndustryKiller! by polyh3dron	Sep 2nd, 2007 07:29:57 PM
Apparently you didn't see In The Valley of Elah in Venice last night, because it got a 10 minute standing ovation.
Which is not to say that ANY by Holy Hell	Sep 2nd, 2007 07:44:40 PM
Which is not to say that ANY movie which attempts to challenge authority is automatically better than EVERY movie which reinforces authority. It's just to say that the IMPULSE behind challenging authority is more important than the IMPULSE to buttress it. Some narratives work to strengthen POSITIVE elements in power structures, and those, I contend, are challenges to the authority to always remember their better nature and to be always vigilant about forgetting that nature if favor of baser impulses (greed, violence, manipulation, etc.). A film, such as DePalma's, which attempts to challenge the system's(s') baser instincts AND/OR exault its/their positive qualities, is fundamentally HIGHER than a film which uses uncritical pride toward the almighty superorganism to which its makers belong (nationalism, religious fundamentalism, etc) to inspire the unreflective viewer toward similar irrational loyalty. Although, to repeat, such an IMPULSE does not guarantee artistic success, anymore than loving lasagna makes you a decent cook.
Brian De Palma Tribute Show by pacino33	Sep 2nd, 2007 08:13:23 PM
Great REDACTED review! Can't wait...De Palma is one the greatest, yet most polarizing figures in film...You can hear a discussion about REDCATED and all of De Palma's works, in a special 2 hour tribute on internet radio. There are lots of great guests who have worked with De Palma throughout the years. Go to: http://blogtalkradio.com/hostp age.aspx?show_id=34402 to listen in!
Industry killer by playboater18	Sep 2nd, 2007 08:41:55 PM
It doesn't matter what Tengumen's personal stance is. You say we should call a spade a spade right? Fair enough he may be. But that's irrelevant to the fact that he made a solid argument. People forget that like any fictional film made about a particular event, you cannot simply make a judgement on the event due to what you saw. Sure it may be horiffic and true to a few particular instances, but like the poster said, you cannot judge the whole based on the actions of a few. You take away from the argument by drawing attention to the poster's personal stance. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is his argument and any rational person should see the truth in the argument. I love Platoon and while a film like that and this may be excellent for drawing attention to the need to be more conscious of certain issues and problems, such as miscommunication, it is not and cannot be a substitute for a real understanding of a situation. Whatever the truth or what we think the truth is in Iraq, we cannot act like this film "tells it like it is". All we can hope for is it to show but a glimpse into a very complex and difficult situation. Don't be so quick to make judgements based off of the two hours you spent sitting on your ass one day.
Eggcorn of the Week winner: Sharki by irritable	Sep 2nd, 2007 09:57:13 PM
"Rapidly dimensioning sales". How do people dream this stuff up?
Why is it that anytime I hear someone spouting "TRUTH" by JackRabbitSlim	Sep 3rd, 2007 09:56:43 AM
i feel just as nauseated as the bible thumper prattling on about his oh-so-precious God. TRUTH (lets all chant a thousand hosannahs to its glorious name) has a strange quality of being just malleable enough to be anything you want it to be.
If "truth" cannot stand up by Holy Hell	Sep 3rd, 2007 11:14:00 AM
If "truth" cannot stand up to rational criticisms, it fails. "Truth" is the result of individuals in conversation dedicated to honest research, faithful debate, and a genuine willingness to follow the argument to it's conclusion, regardless of its position to the earlier "truth".
If individuals discussing by Holy Hell	Sep 3rd, 2007 11:25:50 AM
If individuals discussing "truth" are not devoted to correct data and a transparent process of discourse (where-in latent bias can be pointed out/uncovered and fear of the unknown can be assuaged) than the discussion is not concerned with "truth" at all, merely the fortification of one's own position, which often serves as an important component of one's identity. That is to say that those who "identify" themselves with a position (anti-war, pro-Bush, anti-Semitic, etc) rather than with an honest process with which to develop a position (ie. reasoned conversation) do net enter into discussions in pursuit of truth at all; they merely wish to defend themSELVES, which they equate with a fixed position, from assault. Fear of losing one's own identity is terrifying. Thus, fear of adhering to an incorrect position is terrifying to many.
Which is why the by Holy Hell	Sep 3rd, 2007 11:35:41 AM
Which is why the "correctness" of one's position is often a notion left un-entertained. It's too scary to the stupid, left, right, or center. Nutshell: no artist should assume her/his conclusion(s) are "true", he/she most only attempt to ensure that the PROCESS is honest, rather than polemic, and founded upon research and reason (vs. bias). It must inspire the conversation to continue, not conclude, and be open to revision. "Truth" should never nauseate. If it does, it's rotten and should be tossed out.
So... by Tourist	Sep 3rd, 2007 05:46:52 PM
...Let me get this straight. You are disgusted by Depalma not supporting the troops, and, as you say, spitting on them. Well, I find it a little strange to support child rapists and murderers, and really don't care if they get a little saliva on them. Before you start wailing that not all troops commit these crimes, this film is not about all troops. Its about THESE troops. If you don't like his selective focus, there are countless other media sources you can turn to for an alternative view. Sure, most of them may not be as well crafted as Depalma, but thats only because the alternative view seems to attract half brainers.
Not quite.... by Drozo5	Sep 3rd, 2007 11:13:28 PM
“The movie is an attempt to bring the reality of what is happening in Iraq to the American people[ ]“these horrible things things that are happening, this horrible war that I am financing as an American citizen.” Brian De Palma This movie is much more than a focused look at "THESE troops". It goes far beyond this horrible crime that was commited by these soldiers who are now in jail. This movie will be an effort to take these incidents and present it as a daily occurance that happens thousands of times by all those that serve. That is the version of "reality" that he wants to present.
Oh brother... by Drozo5	Sep 3rd, 2007 11:20:42 PM
No-one on here supports child rapists and murders, that is a dumb thing to say. These soldiers broke the law and were punished.Period. So please, don't play niave and think this movie is just about those troops. Like I said above it is a blatant effort to paint the entire military as a pack of barbarian hordes that rape and pillage and again, that is his admited goal. That is the "reality" he wishes to present and to change peoples minds. He is a piece of shit hack, but at least his is an honest piece of shit hack.
Drozo by Holy Hell	Sep 4th, 2007 02:18:17 PM
War, as covered by the mainstream media (however genuine their suspected "liberal" bias), is not shown to be a thing which allows, perhaps even cultivates, the darker demons of human nature. As a result, many, perhaps most, Americans fail to appreciate the real, unavoidable horror of war. You cannot wage a war unless you can tolerate the vilest aspects of human nature climbing up over the walls and creating atrocity. It may not be the general character of war's daily behavior, but this devilish reality is certainly an assured by-product of even the most "civil" war. The pitch of the inhumanity war breeds should be explored, so that the cost/benefit ratio of waging war can be more honestly and effectively explored. Some wars should probably still be waged (The US Civil War, WW2, a theoretical invasion of Sudan) but some should certainly not (ineptly waged wars founded on misleading premises). Stories that show the horrible reality of war, however incidental to the war's general character, are fundamentally educational efforts.
Liberal's are the craziest examples of hypocracy today. by jae683	Sep 7th, 2007 07:52:16 AM
They want truth as long as it's their version of truth. Heaven help you if you have a differing opinion. I used to think they were misguided socialists, but I was wrong. Every since George junior got into office (who I think as a terrible president, though not the great unholy evil they want him to be) they've kind of lost their minds and morphed into fascists. Prime example, those idiot kids who stormed the YTC Immigration rally a while back. Didn’t like the message, so they thought they had the right to shut them up. http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=4XwEW0mhi4I&mode=related&sea rch= Yeah, real progressive there; really living by that ‘live and let live’ motto. Sig Hiel Hitler.
If you think the Iraq war is bad... by gorydon	Sep 7th, 2007 10:43:25 AM
You should learn what about Sherman's march to the sea during the Civil War. Rape, pillaging, razing of entire towns, and killing children. These horrible actions of Sherman's men helped the North win the war. But, the atrocities of the Civil War were so great that the war should never have been fought and black people should have just had to put up with slavery. I mean, at least there was some order to the South with the slave system. The North just ruined all that. No no. Bad war, verwey verwey bad war!
I will pass on Redacted..sorry by vintagecrow	Sep 12th, 2007 04:24:27 PM
I read an article that it is a "fictionalized account" that De Palma scripted it through blogs and such in other words he cherry picked what he wanted to use to convey his point. It is his response to the media white washing of the war... hmmmm... sounds like he is being as manipulative as those he accuses. Nawwww...sorry, besides trying to save a sagging career, I lost faith in De Palma long ago...

Talkbacks

VENICE FILM FESTIVAL! Mastidon Reviews Brian De Palma’s REDACTED And Clooney’s MICHAEL CLAYTON!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks