Comments on: Do It For Money

By: dirigible

dirigible — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:25:53 +0000

The contrast between Solaris and Stalker (also by Tarkovsky) is an even better illustration of this principle The latter is a much better bit of science fiction despite being little more than three men wandering around a field for several hours.

Not sure about downgrading 2001, though. It is rather good. I have a vague ambition to watch it stoned someday, in much the same way that I have a vague ambition to someday watch “Withnail and I” sober.

By: MJ

MJ — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:34:51 +0000

Artistic productions of all kinds are so often improved by a tight financial budget. I think the same could be said of a tight ‘intellectual budget’ as well. Films like BladeRunner or Alien manage to deliver a few genuinely interesting ideas within the practical constraints of the popular sci fi thriller. Films like 2001 and Solaris never justify their scale and pomposity.

Whilst we are on recommendations, if you have not already done, watch In Bruges. It is beautifully shot, with a very amusing Stoppardesque script, not at all the Guy Richie knockoff that it was advertised to be. Rent it if only to see a film in which Ralph Fiennes and Colin Farrel turn in good performances.

By: PooterGeek

PooterGeek — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:23:22 +0000

Yes, I have seen Enemy of the State and I'm sure I would have enjoyed it more if I'd seen The Conversation first. That business of "aging" and renaming a famous character from a previous film was also attempted with The Rock (the only Michael Bay production ever to get a "Fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes), in which Sean Connery is clearly meant to be a superannuated James Bond. Of course, some people would argue that Sean Connery has played a superannuated James Bond in every film he's made since 1980. While you're here, Skuds, thank you for recommending Respect Yourself: The Stax Story, which I downloaded from the BBC site have so far watched half of. Amazing stuff.

By: Skuds

Skuds — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:02:23 +0000

One of my favourite films - it is like a version of Blow Up for sound recording instead of photography. Why would anyone want to re-make it though? I can’t see it being improved.

Have you seen Enemy of the State? Gene Hackman plays a character who is not the same person (they deliberately give him a different name) but is is exactly what you would imagine Harry Caul becoming twenty years later - and when they pull up an old photo of him from his security files it is a still from The Conversation that they use.

Enemy of the State is a lot more fun to watch if you have seen The Conversation first.