Darren Aronofsky

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Anyone else seen these two movies? They probably both rank in my top 20 favorites. Awesome stories and cinematography. Does anybody know if he's done any movies other than those? I haven't heard of any, but if they're out there, I want to see them, BAD.

[Guest Ozymandias]

No, those are it.

 

He was making a movie now called The Fountain, but it's just blown up in his face. The lead, Brad Pitt, walked off the movie after a disasterous rewrite and the studio, Warner Bros., is finally realizing they gave WAY too much money to Aronofsky -$70 million - so the movie is caught in development hell now.

[Guest EL BRUJ0]

I remember reading, somewhere, that he's supposedly working on the next Batman installment, with the movie being based on the Batman: Year One series.

 

Anybody know if this is true?

[Guest Ozymandias]

Yeah, there was talk of him co-writing a script with Frank Miller and then directing it, but it'll never REALLY happen. Warner Bros. still owns the rights to all things Batman (becausue Time Warner owns DC - CORPORATE SYNERGY~!) and this is the same company that is responsible for Batman & Robin and which hired talentless-hack McG to dierect Superman 5.

 

Don't hold your breath.

[Guest starvenger]

If Birds of Prey does well - relative to most WB programs and it's competition (UPN's Twilight Zone), that is - then we could see a new Batman movie.

 

In other words:

Don't hold your breath.

[Guest Lethargic]

If he doesn't get the Fountain back together than Batman: Year One will be next. Hopefully Fountain dies then. Since Batman vs Superman is pushed back WB wants them to hurry up and do Superman and Year One now.

 

Doesn't look like McG is doing Superman anymore. Looks like it's Brett Ratner's for the taking now.

[Guest Crucifixio Jones]

I'll have to be like Dr. Tom and shill my somewhat - dominant review of REQUIEM right here: http://thesmartmarks.com/artman/publish/ar...ticle_338.shtml

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I'll have to be like Dr. Tom and shill my somewhat - dominant review of REQUIEM right here: http://thesmartmarks.com/artman/publish/ar...ticle_338.shtml

Just read it. I agree that Burstyn turned in the best performance.

 

*****SPOILAH~!*****

 

 

 

 

Her transformation from lonely widow to lunatic in the subway was AMAZING. Another thing, did you notice what "WHHOOOA Number 3." was?

 

No orgasms.

 

Made the whole ending scene with "She'll come/No she won't." not to mention throwing up in the potatoes, the saw going into the arm, and the shock treatment, mean just that much more.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

I'll have to be like Dr. Tom and shill my somewhat - dominant review of REQUIEM right here: http://thesmartmarks.com/artman/publish/ar...ticle_338.shtml

!!!

 

How did I miss this one? One of my favorite movies reviewed by one of my favorite DVD reviewers!

 

Anyway, trying to stay on topic, what's the difference between NC-17 and X? It seems like movies don't get rated X anymore, it's either mentioned as "NC-17" or "unrated". Am I the only one who thinks "X" sounds cooler?

 

OK, since that didn't work for staying on topic, although I liked both films, I enjoyed Requiem more. I know I'm shooting myself in the foot for saying this, but although Pi had some brilliant scenes and score, it was too confusing for me. I don't mind movies that make you think, but I don't like movies that are too confusing, where you still don't "get it" after 2 or 3 viewings.

[Guest Lethargic]

Is there even an argument that Requiem is NOT the best of the two? If so, somebody's smoking pot.

[Guest godthedog]

*********SPOILER***********

 

 

 

 

 

actually, i think pi is the better one (even though ellen burstyn rules). the subject matter is different and more interesting, it's got a more claustrophobic feeling, and i LOVE that grainy high-contrast black-&-white look. it's totally unique. and best of all, no old men yelling, "ass to ass!" that almost ruined the ending for me, i laugh every time i think about it.

[Guest red_file]

Anyway, trying to stay on topic, what's the difference between NC-17 and X? It seems like movies don't get rated X anymore, it's either mentioned as "NC-17" or "unrated". Am I the only one who thinks "X" sounds cooler?

Basically "X" isn't a real rating. X-rated films might as well be labeled "unrated" as they haven't been submitted to the MPAA (a rather useless organization, but that's another discussion). If X-rated films were submitted to the MPAA they would get an NC-17 rating.

 

I think the MPAA used NC-17 to kinda say, "This is for adults, but it's not porn; it's a real movie, dammit!" Kinda pointless, really.

[Guest Ozymandias]

"X" WAS a rating until around 1990, then they changed it to "NC-17" to differentiate between porn, and regular movies.

[Guest red_file]

"X" WAS a rating until around 1990, then they changed it to "NC-17" to differentiate between porn, and regular movies.

While this is true, "X" was the only rating that the MPAA didn't trademark (which makes me wonder how you can trademark a letter) and therefore left it as something of an unofficial rating that anyone could give to their own movie if they didn't want to get a rating from the MPAA yet didn't want to leave the film unrated.

 

Henry and June was the first film rated NC-17. I wonder what type of ratings it would get today.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

It's funny how in the U.S., if a movie is rated NC-17, it's the kiss of death because no one under 17 can see the film.

 

Yet in Canada, if a movie is rated R, no one under 18 can see it, and movies with that rating do well anyway. So the Canadian R rating is worse than the dreaded NC-17 rating in the U.S.

[Guest Army Eye]

and best of all, no old men yelling, "ass to ass!"

********REQUIEM FOR A DREAM SPOILERS (sorta) **********

 

LOL. Thinking about that guy now does make me laugh, but in the context of the movie I didn't find it funny. I guess I was too caught up in the movie and that scene was just too depressing.

 

The one thing that DID bug me about that scene...

 

What in the HELL was the deal with the flashlights??!

[Guest El Satanico]

It's funny how in the U.S., if a movie is rated NC-17, it's the kiss of death because no one under 17 can see the film.

I think the image that a NC-17 rated movie gives off is the main reason theaters won't show them.

 

The no one under 17 thing wouldn't that big of a deal to chase theaters off. I mean no one under 17(or maybe 18) can get into a R rated movie without their "guardian". There just isn't that many kids going to the movies with their parents so NC17 wouldn't lose much of the R rated audience.

[Guest Crucifixio Jones]

Thanks for all the kind words about the review (those of you that bothered to read it). As a reward to those of you who were around during the OLD days, check out this thread from almost a YEAR ago:

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20011123045015/...picID=306.topic