Which non-indian film u saw recently has made u post here???

**ajithfederer** · 3rd March 2011, 11:43 AM

SEeena town is a very good philum. Liked both nicholson and dunaway in the film.

**Google Adsense** · 3rd March 2011 11:43 AM

**ajithfederer** · 3rd March 2011, 11:50 AM

Venki appadi enna 90'sla irukku?

**kid-glove** · 3rd March 2011, 12:10 PM

One other aspect of Noir is "Everything is not as it seems"! And this is exactly how you'd describe the universe of Chinatown. By the same token as Kim Novak of Vertigo, the Dunaway character isn't a femme fatale as we're led to believe until the final third, she's a tragic figure. Much like Scottie, Jake creates a whole lot of danger than good as he's being lured into this delusive cesspool where morality is as blind as Funaway's shot-out eye in its denouement. I'm sure there are many more treasures to be found in this 70's masterpiece.

Among the best decades of Hollywood, 90's isn't one of its richest. 70's at least stakes a claim!
In fact, Asian cinema has caught up with Holly in 90's and 00's.

**groucho070** · 3rd March 2011, 02:29 PM

Excellent, Thilak.

Film Noir:
Doomed characters.
(as per Thilak's definition) Everything is not as it seems.
Protagonist who gets bounced like a bloody ping pong ball.
Feeling of being trapped (use of bars, fence, gate shadow falling on characters)
basically living in a rotten world.
Behind the already shrunken protagonist lies bigger, evil scheme that he's helpless to do anything about.
Helpless is the key word here.
Crime does not pay, especially if the protagonists involved in it.
There's lots of hate going on (re. some of Robert Mitchum's stuff)
Protagonist is not a happy dude at the climax. Leave that to the westerns.

**groucho070** · 3rd March 2011, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by ajithfederer

Venki appadi enna 90'sla irukku?

Athe....one of the worst's decade ever. And I was heavy movie watching during this decade.

**P_R** · 3rd March 2011, 03:06 PM

I have seen much less than a handful of films in this genre.Double Indemnity, The Third Man...avvaLavu yEn 'even' Big Sleep கூட ஒரு மாதிரி சுமாரா புடிக்கின்.
But not a big fan of Chinatavin.

Originally Posted by kid_glove

the Dunaway character isn't a femme fatale as we're led to believe until the final third, she's a tragic figure

this is perhaps as close to the possible reason why I think the film didn't work. I had 'eh?' reaction to the 'revelation'. Why Nicholson goes 'out of the way' on this case to begin with, their louss.....these didn't work for me at all.

**kid-glove** · 3rd March 2011, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by groucho070

Excellent, Thilak.

Film Noir:
Doomed characters.
(as per Thilak's definition) Everything is not as it seems.
Protagonist who gets bounced like a bloody ping pong ball.
Feeling of being trapped (use of bars, fence, gate shadow falling on characters)
basically living in a rotten world.
Behind the already shrunken protagonist lies bigger, evil scheme that he's helpless to do anything about.
Helpless is the key word here.
Crime does not pay, especially if the protagonists involved in it.
There's lots of hate going on (re. some of Robert Mitchum's stuff)
Protagonist is not a happy dude at the climax. Leave that to the westerns.

Even without going to its Noir conventions & subversion (that they end up calling it neo-noir), it's a fine, fine film.

P_R,
'lous' happen in a very 'plausible' manner, and not 'out of the way' at all. After the tumultuous encounter, the sexual intimacy is born out of the moment (& that's how it's shown). It's also part driven by vulnerability (characteristic soft-center of hard-boiled noir.) as Jakes slightly opens up to her (even while keeping it to 'sex' with the just-widow), she first uses this to surreptitiously dodge his advances to dig the actual truth as it's far too disgusting & painfull to reveal. And the audience, like Jakes, isn't quite assured too. Only later would we, by the way of Jakes, trail, peak, & dig it up. Both Nicholson & Dunaway play the characters as they should, each wanting to "read" each other. But neither is thinly drawn out to trust one another. Look at all their encounters until the tirade of slaps..

**P_R** · 3rd March 2011, 04:21 PM

I guess it's one of those films/books that you first ought to know the 'regular' movies of, so you appreciate when it is kinda 'turned on its head' etc.

It's one of my 'to revisit' list, not sure when I will.They keep showing it on UTV Waeld movies, I watch a few scenes and leave it: somehow never drawn in.

**kid-glove** · 3rd March 2011, 05:16 PM

It's a thoroughly entertaining watch. You should revisit it in one full sitting!

**Nerd** · 3rd March 2011, 10:40 PM

Chinatown is excellent but 70s is not the best decade for sure. Don't ask me which is, I don't know

127 hours - Good. The flashback scenes could have been written well. May be thats what happened in his life but they were sort of bland. The only thing which worked was his monologue of his life. But all the present scenes (incl the one with the ladees) were very well shot. The amputation scene was OK, but him sinking his face on a dirty pool of water made me cringe, not to the extent of the Trainspotting face sink followed by the swim. Rahman's score was brilliant in the last 20 mins starting with the continuum piece (Acid Darbari?) Franco was excellent. Boyle seems to be a totally different film maker based on his last 2 films.

Overall a good watch.