A plea for Good Movies to watch.

[Paelos]

Yep, Cronenberg is a psycho. I've watched about 4 of his movies and they all have come off like he's trying to make an artistic point, but it's fails to achieve any sort of real poignancy. That, and some of movies just show how messed up his mind is, but not in a good way like Kubrick. He's basically trying too hard to be Kubrick.

ExistenZ was probably his best, imo. It was about games though so it sort of made more sense to me.

[Dundee]

Amelie (2001)
American Beauty (1999)
Blood Simple (1984)
The Boondock Saints (1999)
Bound (1996)
Crime Spree (2003)
The Devil's Backbone (2001)
Equilibrium (2002)
The Fisher King (1991)
Freeway (1996)
Go (1999)
In America (2002)
LA Story (1991)
Lawn Dogs (1997)
The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)
May (2003)
Memento (2000)
Miranda (2002)
The Salton Sea (2002)
Secretary (2002)
Sexy Beast (2001)
Snatch (2000)
The Station Agent (2003)
Suicide Kings (1997)
Swimming with Sharks (1994)

Also watch Unforgiven again, since it is the best movie ever made.

[stray]

He's basically trying too hard to be Kubrick.

Hate Cronenberg all you want, but at least say something that makes sense. Kubrick made two thriller and/or horror films that were nothing like Cronenberg films either in content or just sense of cinematographic scope. One was a Stephen King book and the other a study in dystopia and delinquency (which was a Burgess story, not Kubrick's).

Kubrick is also the guy who gave us Spartacus, Paths of Glory, 2001, and Barry Lyndon. A string of epic or period films that outnumber anything that dabbled with horror or psychosis. Cronenberg hasn't done anything resembling an epic.

Cronenberg has cited Samuel Beckett and William Burroughs as his main influences, and if you had firsthand familiarity with them, you would see that he's robbing them. Not Kubrick.

[ahoythematey]

Eh...every aspiring and existing filmmaker would be wise to rob from the cinematic touches of Kubrick and Kurosawa.  Where they get the written material is a different matter.  Great artists steal and all that...

Fargull: Zodiac kind of bothered me, as it had a habit of setting up a laugh and then turning point and becoming very grisly.  Probably more of an aside about how disturbed I am or something, but all the same it affected me.  I enjoyed it regardless, but damn did it seem lengthy, and I love slow movies most times(4hour cuts get my rocks off).

[Riggswolfe]

Yep, Cronenberg is a psycho. I've watched about 4 of his movies and they all have come off like he's trying to make an artistic point, but it's fails to achieve any sort of real poignancy. That, and some of movies just show how messed up his mind is, but not in a good way like Kubrick. He's basically trying too hard to be Kubrick.

ExistenZ was probably his best, imo. It was about games though so it sort of made more sense to me.

You're shitting me right?

The Fly is a classic horror movie and like John Carpenter's The Thing, is a case of a remake that is far superior to the original.
Videodrome is almost prophetic in its underlying message and was way ahead of its time.
ExistenZ is basically Videodrome 2 and has a very similiar underlying message.
Scanners at least is a great guilty pleasure movie.
The Dead Zone is one of the better Stephen King adaptions out there.
Now through in Dead Ringers, Crash (for some people), and Spider and you have a man whose work is 100X more interesting and subversive than most film makers out there.

A History of Violence was ok. I found the story simplistic but that wasn't his fault. I also feel it was a commercial movie he made to finance more pet projects. I consider it disappointing by Cronenberg standards.

But seriously dude, if you don't recognize good film making when you see it just shut the fuck up and don't spout from your ass.

[Ironwood]

I liked A History of Violence.  Until this thread I neither knew nor cared that it was Cronenberg, a guy who's work gets a distinct 'meh' from me.

It was a good film which I really enjoyed.  Anything else is just dick-waving on teh net.

[stray]

Besides all this, some of you guys are treating this like I said the History of Violence was teh greatest movie ever or something. That original list I made (4 movies) were just a few recent films that I thought were good and that came off the top of my head. It wasn't my definitive best of list for all time or anything. So just chill out. Be happy that we're not all clones, and move on.

[Paelos]

Yep, Cronenberg is a psycho. I've watched about 4 of his movies and they all have come off like he's trying to make an artistic point, but it's fails to achieve any sort of real poignancy. That, and some of movies just show how messed up his mind is, but not in a good way like Kubrick. He's basically trying too hard to be Kubrick.

ExistenZ was probably his best, imo. It was about games though so it sort of made more sense to me.

You're shitting me right?

The Fly is a classic horror movie and like John Carpenter's The Thing, is a case of a remake that is far superior to the original.
Videodrome is almost prophetic in its underlying message and was way ahead of its time.
ExistenZ is basically Videodrome 2 and has a very similiar underlying message.
Scanners at least is a great guilty pleasure movie.
The Dead Zone is one of the better Stephen King adaptions out there.
Now through in Dead Ringers, Crash (for some people), and Spider and you have a man whose work is 100X more interesting and subversive than most film makers out there.

A History of Violence was ok. I found the story simplistic but that wasn't his fault. I also feel it was a commercial movie he made to finance more pet projects. I consider it disappointing by Cronenberg standards.

But seriously dude, if you don't recognize good film making when you see it just shut the fuck up and don't spout from your ass.

Never saw Videodrome, so I can't speak to it. I've seen Dead Zone, ExistenZ, Naked Lunch, and the Fly. You make a good point about the Fly, and I didn't really think about that at the time, but it is his most acclaimed film and won an Oscar for makeup or effects or something. I don't have the affinity for the film that some do, but that's a personal taste in genres.

Naked Lunch is ridiculously bizarre, and hardly anyone could argue that it's pretty perverted. I walked away thinking that the director was a sicko. It's that kind of stuff where I take the "he's a psycho" thing. Having read the Dead Zone by King, I absolutely hated what Cronenberg did with the adaptation, so we differ hugely there. It's like Cronenberg wanted to suck all the life out of the characters and leave a cold shell on the screen. It was terrible. Out of those 4, ExistenZ was the one I personally liked the best, and the one that sort of had me thinking about the movie later because I could actually relate to the material as a roleplaying gamer, and it made a decent point about virtual existances with newer technology.

Some people don't like certain styles, and I'm not really impressed with his pacing or his ability to tell a story. And before you get all hissyfit about stories, that's what a movie is to me. I don't go to the movies to see a fucking "portrait piece" or whatever artistic label they put on things that don't have descernable plotlines. I'm not an "art student" or even a cinema buff. Nor is the majority of the movie-going population. We simply like what we like and hate what we hate. I don't like weird for the sake of weird, and that was what I pulled from a few of his later films.

Anyway, he's a volatile guy as a director. There are few who are lukewarm on his work. He's either a complete genius or a complete nutball. To you, genius. To me, nutball.

[HaemishM]

Naked Lunch is ridiculously bizarre, and hardly anyone could argue that it's pretty perverted. I walked away thinking that the director was a sicko.

Just a quibble, but Naked Lunch was based off of the book of the same name by William Burroughs. If you haven't read it, you should. The movie actually took maybe 15 or 20 pages from the book, and wrote a story around that, and if you read the book (or even a few pieces) you'll understand why. The book is written by a drug-addled dope fiend, writing while smashed, taking all the pieces and pages and tossing them in the air. Whatever way they land, that's how they got put together as a book. I thought the movie did quite well making a cogent story out of it, especially with the additional of biographical stuff put in to mirror the Beat Generation writers Burroughs, Kerouac and Ginsberg.

Yes, Cronenberg is sick and twisted, but not because of that movie. That's all Burroughs there, Cronenberg just gave it cinematic form. I'm not a huge fan of his stuff, but what he did with that work was pretty good.

[Paelos]

He's basically trying too hard to be Kubrick.

Hate Cronenberg all you want, but at least say something that makes sense. Kubrick made two thriller and/or horror films that were nothing like Cronenberg films either in content or just sense of cinematographic scope. One was a Stephen King book and the other a study in dystopia and delinquency (which was a Burgess story, not Kubrick's).

Kubrick is also the guy who gave us Spartacus, Paths of Glory, 2001, and Barry Lyndon. A string of epic or period films that outnumber anything that dabbled with horror or psychosis. Cronenberg hasn't done anything resembling an epic.

Cronenberg has cited Samuel Beckett and William Burroughs as his main influences, and if you had firsthand familiarity with them, you would see that he's robbing them. Not Kubrick.

All good points. I made the reference as an offhand remark and it's a stretch I admit. It's not a direct comparison of their work, just how one director has a bizarre vision and pulls it off, while another's vision falls flat on the screen. However, they do have a common link in that they both did King adaptations. Kubrick did The Shining. Cronenberg did The Dead Zone. One is considered to be among the best horror films of all-time. The other is The Dead Zone.

[Paelos]

Yes, Cronenberg is sick and twisted, but not because of that movie. That's all Burroughs there, Cronenberg just gave it cinematic form. I'm not a huge fan of his stuff, but what he did with that work was pretty good.

Yeah, I haven't read the book and it would probably give some perspective on the movie. But you still have to ask yourself why a director would choose such material in the first place?

[HaemishM]

Because he is a huge fan of William Burroughs.

[stray]

One is considered to be among the best horror films of all-time. The other is The Dead Zone.

Heh. Fair enough. Dead Zone isn't on my list of Cronenberg favorites.

[Riggswolfe]

One is considered to be among the best horror films of all-time. The other is The Dead Zone.

Heh. Fair enough. Dead Zone isn't on my list of Cronenberg favorites.

Christopher Walken.

 I *pause* rest *pause* my *pause* case.

Damn his voice is impossible to do in text.

[stray]

Yeah, Chris Walken is a badass and all that, but that movie hasn't held up well for me. Besides that, it's just nothing typical of Cronenberg really.

[EDIT] Y'know, I'm wrong about that. It's actually very typical. He made the Dead Zone story touch upon all his usual themes (i.e. "body horror" -- metamorphosis, mutation, existentialism, struggling with identity/inner demons, etc..).

So I'll just say that I don't like it that much...Just because.  I used to though.

[Zetleft]

In no particular order:
Jacbos Ladder
They Live - Get your bubblegum ready, its a damn classic
In The Mouth of Madness
The Madness of King George
Leon The Professional
Hard Boiled  /  The Killers  (John Woo at his best, before Hollywood got their hands on him)
True Romance
Night Watch (1st part of a Russian Trilogy, the next 2 are not available yet)
Once Upon a Time in the West
Better Off Dead
Dark City
Immortal Beloved
Chinatown
Brazil
Time Bandits
Evil Dead II
Highlander (there were no sequels in my mind)

[Furiously]

Highlander (there were no sequels in my mind)

The version with the WWII flashbacks is such a more touching film.

[Engels]

El Espinazo del Diablo

Good flick. Its commonly called Devil's Backbone. Its Guillermo Del Toro's first really sucessful flick. He also wrote the screenplay for Hellboy and his latest directorial hit is Pan's Laberynth. He's sorta a latter day Cronenberg, but with talent.

[stray]

Huh? He's never done one thing that has touched upon Cronenberg's themes. If anything, Tsukamoto is the latter day Cronenberg.

[Riggswolfe]

Huh? He's never done one thing that has touched upon Cronenberg's themes. If anything, Tsukamoto is the latter day Cronenberg.

I've noticed that people who don't like Cronenberg usually don't "get" his themes. His movies are his philosophy IMO.

[stray]

I don't even care if someone likes him or not. To each his own. I just wish they'd provide some better reasons. Saying Del Toro is Cronenberg with more talent doesn't even make sense. Del Toro is not body horror. Comparing him with Kubrick doesn't make sense either (at least not in any particular sense, even though Kubrick is very influential to everyone).

Want a post-Cronenberg film that outdoes Cronenberg himself? It's called Tetsuo.

Want a pre-Cronenberg film that outdoes Cronenberg himself? It's called Rosemary's Baby.


Any other suggestions are superficial at best (though another director who's hitting Cronenberg territory is Christophe Gans).

[EDIT]

I think the best example to illustrate the difference between him and Del Toro is.....Hellboy.

Decent flick and all, but the fact that he even picked a character like Hellboy for a comic based feature is something Cronenberg would never do. If Cronenberg made a superhero or comic based flick, he'd deal with someone who got their powers by mutation, debilitation, or invasion. And most especially, someone who's running away from those manifestations. Something along those lines. Say, Jesse Custer or the Hulk -- Those are Cronenberg heroes right there.

Hellboy, otoh, was born a demon. His story has nothing to do with metamorphosis, transformation, mind-against-body-body-against-mind, self inflicted turmoil, disease, or the like.

As for other things, Del Toro is only similar to Cronenberg in his ultra-realistic depiction of violence and mutiliation -- but that's only half of what Cronenberg is about.

[Dundee]

I have had Netflix for about 4 years now and I have honestly reached a point where I am having a hard time finding movies that I haven't seen that look good.

Does anyone have any good recommendations.


I mean I rented The Marine I need help people.

So I'm curious... assuming you're omitting the movies you've already seen, what's the final list of movies you took away from this thread?

Also, what have you learned about Cronenberg?

[schild]

This thread needs more Neil LaBute.

Specifically:
In the Company of Men
The Shape of Things
Your Friends & Neighbors
Nurse Betty

In that order, ignore the rest of his work. It's total dick.

Jesus guys. Cronenberg and Kubrick in the same thread? Really? I'm surprised a wormhole didn't open and eat every last one of you. BTW, Stephen King adaptations? Stand by Me and Shawshank Redemption are better than The Shining. Also, when you talk about great Horror adaptations, you talk about Silence of the Lambs and Exorcist, and Ringu. It's hard to even put The Shining in there.

I'd like to add that Kubrick is my favorite director and Clockwork Orange is, in a vacuum, my favorite movie of all time. That's not to say I could watch it a thousand times (like The Rock or Shawshank), but it is my favorite movie. It pains me to say it, but The Shining is overrated. Way overrated. I think we should compare Paul Verhoeven to Kubrick now. Oh oh, and then we can do Wim Wenders.

[stray]

Just to mention, Cronenberg isn't even on my top 20 list of directors. He probably barely makes it at 50 even.

I was just trying to make sense out of the weird Kubrick and Del Toro comparisons.

[Llava]

[Sairon]

I'l add a bunch I can think of from the top of my head.

Twin Warriors
The Shawshank Redemption
Matchstick Men
The Green Mile
Ben Hur
K-PAX
Roger Dodger
Lord of War

[schild]

K-PAX is a stretch. I put it in the same sort of schlocky guilty pleasure bin as Hearts in Atlantis.

[Ironwood]

K-Pax is wondrous.

[Baldrake]

I just remembered another "must see": Walk on Water. It's an Israeli movie about a Mossad agent dealing with the inconsistencies of his hatred of Germans vs his own attitudes towards Palestinians. Very highly recommended. Just remember that I was one of the guys who loved "History of Violence."

[schild]

Speaking of Jews....

Everything is Illuminated was great.

I can't believe I didn't mention Walk on Water. Well played, Baldrake, well played.

[Merusk]

I tossed Invader Zim on my list and just got done watching the last disc.  Goddamn funny and bizarre cartoon.  I'll recommend that if you're man enough to admit to watching 'kiddie stuff.'

[Murgos]

I saw The Salton Sea mentioned above.  It's a good choice for an overlooked movie that's worth watching.

[Lt.Dan]

K-PAX is a stretch. I put it in the same sort of schlocky guilty pleasure bin as Hearts in Atlantis.

When I read Hearts in Atlantis I was afeared that the old man was going to be a child molester.  I'd vacillate between "they'd never publish it if it was" and "welllll, it is Stephen King".

[Llava]

I tossed Invader Zim on my list and just got done watching the last disc.  Goddamn funny and bizarre cartoon.  I'll recommend that if you're man enough to admit to watching 'kiddie stuff.'

I went to a meet and greet thing with Jhonen Vasquez where he was talking about his experience working on Zim, and a lot of the bizarre stuff makes sense when you understand the circumstances through which they arose.

For instance, if you remember the episode with Iggins, the kid who stole the last game console from Gaz, you may recall that he is defeated at the end of the episode when Gaz disconnects his elevator and causes it to crash.  At the very end, the camera returns to the pile of wreckage that buried Iggins, when he busts out and flies into the sky, accompanied by wailing guitar and a singer screaming "IGGIIIIINS!"

The reason for that last shot was that Nickelodeon demanded that they show that Iggins was alright.  It was a kids' show, they couldn't kill a character like that.  So they added that.  Jhonen's logic was, "He's better than okay.  He's superhuman!"

I asked him why the hell Nickelodeon thought, after reading Johnny the Homicidal Maniac, that he'd make a great children's cartoon.  He said it was very illustrative of the the entire ordeal.

Also, if you saw the Christmas episode, you might remember one of the kids asking the snowman a question like "What is Zim's motivation anyways?  Why does he want to conquer the world so badly?  What does he have to gain, or to lose?"  The snowman lifts the kid by the head and slides him underneath the bed.  That question was, word for word, what a Nickelodeon exec asked during one of the passes on that episode.

[Riggswolfe]

Also, if you saw the Christmas episode, you might remember one of the kids asking the snowman a question like "What is Zim's motivation anyways?  Why does he want to conquer the world so badly?  What does he have to gain, or to lose?"  The snowman lifts the kid by the head and slides him underneath the bed.  That question was, word for word, what a Nickelodeon exec asked during one of the passes on that episode.

I'm not familiar with Invader Zim so ummm..why is this a bad question to ask?