After seeing Children of Men, I'd say Clive Owen. He was OK in Inside Man, but man I hate looking at him and that godawful nose of his. Arggh.

Ace wrote:

SecondEdition wrote:

Ace wrote:

SecondEdition wrote:You couldn't pay me to watch Salo. Call me a pussy, but an hour and a half or so of intensely simulated torture, coprophagia, sexual violation and death is NOT my idea of time well spent.

FYP (it is one of my greatest nightmares. i would rather die - seriously, i would rather die - than be into coprophagia)

I'm with you here. I absolutely love Pasolini, but I can't imagine myself sitting through this.

Thanks for the correction. I've never watched a Pasolini film precisely because of Salo's hideous reputation, but I think I'm probably being close-minded and that his other films aren't like this. Where's a good place to start?

Also, just to totally gross everyone out, from Wikipedia: Apparently the shit was made from marmalade and chocolate syrup. Reading about the plot alone is enough to freak the living shit out of me. I mean, I'm a huge early Swans fan and I can't take this.

Ha! Well, the film did get him killed, or at least that's the rumor.
My favorite Pasolini films are his whacked out, psychedelic poetic literary movies. My favorite is 'Oedipus Rex,' and 'Medea' is pretty good too (Maria Callas = one of the most beautiful, talented women ever. Bitchiest too). His early communist and neo-realist films are pretty good, if not pretentiously dense ("The Hawks and the Sparrows"); "Accatone" is the best of these. 'The Gospel According to Saint Matthew' is okay if you feel like sitting through it.

Call me archaic, but I believe in sociopathic ("evil") people, and Pasolini was one of them - he was a nasty pervert, that one. Talented and fascinating, though.

Mamma Roma is quite excellent too.

And Salo is a great film in my opinion.

mattw wrote:After seeing Children of Men, I'd say Clive Owen. He was OK in Inside Man, but man I hate looking at him and that godawful nose of his. Arggh.

Clive Owen fucking kicks ass. And he's a damn handsome bro, fella to fella here, if I do say so myself.

that damned fly wrote:

Ekkssvvppllott wrote:

Dr. O' Nothing wrote:Aren't they making a "Sex in the City" full-length feature? If so, yeah, that would qualify.

Yeah. That show is fucking horrid.

agreed. i can imagine the movie being about as wretched to watch as any internet gross out flick.

I have never understood the appeal of this fucking despicable show.

pirates of the caribbean
titanic
lord of the rings
harry potter
any modern disney movie (except I can handle the PIXAR stuff alright)

Kyle Motor wrote:

coach wrote:This movie was being played on a TV on a crappy ferry while crossing the Sea of Cortez during rough weather back in early '99, as the boat pitched from stormy weather. It was surreal (and morbidly hilarious) to watch the drawn-out sinking of the Titanic under these circumstances. Watching it helped stave off nausea from the motion.

Who would ever have thought that watching Titanic would stave off nausea?

That trumps the time that I saw Speed on a bus (I'm not kidding).

You and I need to get together for some beers.

Ace wrote:

SecondEdition wrote:

Ace wrote:

SecondEdition wrote:You couldn't pay me to watch Salo. Call me a pussy, but an hour and a half or so of intensely simulated torture, coprophagia, sexual violation and death is NOT my idea of time well spent.

FYP (it is one of my greatest nightmares. i would rather die - seriously, i would rather die - than be into coprophagia)

I'm with you here. I absolutely love Pasolini, but I can't imagine myself sitting through this.

Thanks for the correction. I've never watched a Pasolini film precisely because of Salo's hideous reputation, but I think I'm probably being close-minded and that his other films aren't like this. Where's a good place to start?

Also, just to totally gross everyone out, from Wikipedia: Apparently the shit was made from marmalade and chocolate syrup. Reading about the plot alone is enough to freak the living shit out of me. I mean, I'm a huge early Swans fan and I can't take this.

Ha! Well, the film did get him killed, or at least that's the rumor.
My favorite Pasolini films are his whacked out, psychedelic poetic literary movies. My favorite is 'Oedipus Rex,' and 'Medea' is pretty good too (Maria Callas = one of the most beautiful, talented women ever. Bitchiest too).

Sounds interesting. I certainly never knew Maria Callas ever starred in a film. (Agreed about her talent/beauty/bitchiness. She had all those qualities in spades. An unbelievable singer. No one sounds like her.)

Ace wrote: His early communist and neo-realist films are pretty good, if not pretentiously dense ("The Hawks and the Sparrows"); "Accatone" is the best of these. 'The Gospel According to Saint Matthew' is okay if you feel like sitting through it.

Call me archaic, but I believe in sociopathic ("evil") people, and Pasolini was one of them - he was a nasty pervert, that one. Talented and fascinating, though.

Funny, I thought "The Gospel According To Saint Matthew" was supposed to be one of Pasolini's finest works. Is it overrated?

Steve V. wrote:
Mamma Roma is quite excellent too.

And Salo is a great film in my opinion.

Well, I'm glad that you could take it and appreciate it for its' merits, which are probably there - the idea that the shit-eating scenes were meant as a critique of mass-produced foods is certainly interesting and trenchant in theory - but I know that I could not deal, mentally or physically, with a film that features such realistically simulated acts of cruelty.

SecondEdition wrote:Funny, I thought "The Gospel According To Saint Matthew" was supposed to be one of Pasolini's finest works. Is it overrated?

It is a great film, but it is the straight-up religious story. It's really an exercise in poetic filmmaking, but I've shown it to a lot of people who have very little patience with it. I found it beautiful.

I KNOW which Pasolini film you (and anyone remotely interested) should start with. I would start with a short film called "La Ricotta", starring none other than Orson Welles. Pasolini made it in 1963 for the RoGoPaG compilation, and in my opinion it's the best one. It combines his poetic, literary sense with his neo-realist roots.

The film is about a bunch of people making a passion film, and yet none of them seem to be taking it very seriously. All of it is under the direction of a considerably blasphemous Welles. Here's a clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHSmRFMm ... re=related

Maria Callas is a perfect Medea.

mr.arrison wrote:pirates of the caribbean
titanic
lord of the rings
harry potter
any modern disney movie (except I can handle the PIXAR stuff alright)

this list would suit me had i not already seen most of it.