Playground Film-Watching Festival (concept stage)

[Rutskarn]

Alright, this is kind of a vague idea, but maybe it'll catch on.

My idea was that we playgrounders will nominate a movie that is, in the opinion of the playgrounder, highly underrated. This should be, at worst, a PG-13 movie. After a cycle of voting, three movies will remain--movies that should hopefully have not been seen by most of the participants.

After the movies are selected, the participants in the festival will have something like one month to Netflix, rent, buy, or borrow these movies and watch them all. Afterwards, we can discuss the movies as a group. It's kind of like a book club, in some ways.

I acknowledge this pitch is a bit rough. If you have any interest in the idea, or any suggestions, feel free to pitch in. If we get some support, perhaps we can begin the nominations and start around the beginning of May.

[Brewdude]

Momento

Prince of Darkness

Blood of Heroes

[chiasaur11]

Hmm...

Probably films most of us have already seen, but hey, I don't know everyone, and they are pretty great.

Iron Giant

Casablanca

Kung Fu Hustle (admittedly R, but the violence is cartoony for most of it. Only one or two really nasty scenes.)

Buckaroo Banzai across the eighth Dimension.

The Dirty Dozen (Not rated, so, yeah. Also a bit buyer beware)

The Great Escape. (Also not rated. Sorry about that)

[Sneak]

Dammit. The only suggestion I have that's under R would be Cool Hand Luke.

If you're accepting R movies...

Adaptation.
The Big Lebowski
Garden State
Pan's Labyrinth
Thank You For Smoking

I'd really like to hear some playgrounders' opinions and thoughts on those. Especially Adaptation. What a brilliant movie.

[Eldan]

We could, of course, make 2 clubs, one with rated and one with unrated movies.

[chiasaur11]

Hmm...

Maybe. I'm all set either way. Got my three pics for rated, got three pics R or unrated...

Not sure about it, though.

[TheBST]

We could, of course, make 2 clubs, one with rated and one with unrated movies.

Maybe, maybe not. If we keep the rated films to things like 'The Godfather' rather than 'Straw Dogs' or 'I Spit on Your Grave', we should be fine.

Sign me up, chief.

For selecting the films, how many people are we aiming to have in this club? If it's single figures or up to, say, 13 people, we could probably just take turns selected a film with a two-week window to watch the flick.

[Rutskarn]

BST: Well, problem with that is that we should really have movies selected by a combination of democratic process and what people have seen. Having one person just be able to pick one might be too much.

More later--have to go for now.

[Tyrant]

I am curious as to why you feel the need to keep it PG 13 and under. I know there are some younger people on here, but (in my opinion anyway) a large number of the better movies out there are R rated so it seems kind of limiting. The way I see it (again, I could be wrong about this) R rated movies are more likely to be overlooked because of their rating. Fewer people tend to see them so fewer people are out there recommending them to friends and so on. Just something I would consider in this.

If my DVD collection is at all like anyone else's this is easy to see. My collection is easily 75% R rated or unrated movies. Now, I do like horror movies so this accounts for a number of them. However, the better movies I own (movies like Apocalypse Now) are R rated. To me anyway, the better movies are ones that don't pull punches and either make you think or have something to say about the human condition (or an important topic) and that usually requires the R rating to show how screwed up people and their actions really are.

I do not consider myself an expert on movies, so take this all however you want. I would like to believe I watch a lot of movies (I have seen a majority of the movies listed so far in this thread). Or at least I usually think that up until they announce Academy Award nominations and I try to figure out what I have been watching all year as a bunch of movies I have never heard of or that aren't anywhere within 100 miles of me get nominated. For instance this year the only movie I saw that was nominated for best picture was Benjamin Button.

As a general question, what are you considering underrated? Are we talking relatively unknown? Or are you meaning the general opinion isn't favorable of the movie and you feel it should be?

[Rutskarn]

Tyrant: I am definitely thinking we should have a R and a PG-13 and under list, but enough of our number are on the younger side that we can't just assume Pulp Fiction isn't a problem.

To the second question: relatively unknown/unseen, preferable to relatively disliked. The movie Cool Hand Luke, referenced earlier, is a good example--how many of us can claim to have seen that?

Anyway, here's how I think we should do this:

Each person can nominate a total of two movies for either the PG-13 or the R category. They should provide a basic summary of the movie, as well as a a few of the pros and cons of the movie.

Example:


True Stories (PG)

True Stories is a movie about...well, about people, and about songs, and about Virgil, Texas. David Byrne leads the viewers through a surreal, musical tour of the sparsely populated city as it prepares for it's Celebration of Special-ness. Meet the paranoid, conspiracy theorist preacher, the lying woman (who claims, among other things, to have been born with a tail, to have inside info on the Kennedy Assassination, and to have psychic powers). The search for love, the search for meaning...and a lot of songs by Talking Heads.

Pros: Awesome, surreal movie with great music.

Cons: Probably would be hard to find at a Blockbuster or Circuit City, film is a little too strange for some.

Any thoughts?

[chiasaur11]

Tyrant: I am definitely thinking we should have a R and a PG-13 and under list, but enough of our number are on the younger side that we can't just assume Pulp Fiction isn't a problem.

To the second question: relatively unknown/unseen, preferable to relatively disliked. The movie Cool Hand Luke, referenced earlier, is a good example--how many of us can claim to have seen that?

Anyway, here's how I think we should do this:

Each person can nominate a total of two movies for either the PG-13 or the R category. They should provide a basic summary of the movie, as well as a a few of the pros and cons of the movie.

Example:


Any thoughts?

Makes sense.

Two films requires a bit more thought, mind.

Which requires a question: How many people here have seen the Iron Giant?

[Tyrant]

Tyrant: I am definitely thinking we should have a R and a PG-13 and under list, but enough of our number are on the younger side that we can't just assume Pulp Fiction isn't a problem.
That could work as well. I wasn't sure how many here are on the younger side. It never really stopped me from watching R rated movies after a certain point. I saw the Terminator when I was 7 and I was 9 when I watched T2 in theaters, just as a for instance. I live in a fairly small town and my dad knew the guy who ran the video store. He basically told him when I 11 or 12 that he had no problem with me renting R rated movies as long as they weren't loaded with sex (violence was no problem though). The only movie the video store owner ever questioned me renting was Evil Dead 2 because it was unrated. So, my experience is probably different than others but I have had ready access to R rated movies for most of my life. I do see your point though.

To the second question: relatively unknown/unseen, preferable to relatively disliked. The movie Cool Hand Luke, referenced earlier, is a good example--how many of us can claim to have seen that?
Okay. I wasn't sure if you wanted unknown or misunderstood. Unknown works.

I'm curious to see where this goes. I have watched a few movies based on seeing people mention them here (Sunshine, which is actually one I would probably nominate as I don't think it's a widely watched movie and I thought it was quite good). The same goes for anime sometimes (like Death Note, the two DVD boxed sets were worth every penny) and even though I can't recall which book it was I know I have read at least one book metioned here based on someone's description of it. I finally read the LotR trilogy to know what people were talking about on here when trying to discuss Sauron. So, I am interested.

Edit to add:
Are there any other boundaries? For instance, should the movies be strictly English language films? I have no problem with foreign films, but I know others might. Also, are anime movies acceptable? If so, should they be stand alones that you don't really need the show's continuity (assuming there is a show) to really get? That probably goes for sequels as well. I would assume we should try to avoid things like recommending movies that require extrenal backstory to really get, but I figured I would ask to be clear.

Second edit:
One other question for clarity. Are we talking just "movies" or are we including things that are some type of stand alone on a single DVD with roughly a movie's running time? Family Guy Blue Harvest as an example of the second thing. I am assuming you are strictly meaning movies, but since a number of movies are straight to DVD or spun out of something else I just want to be clear.

[TheBST]

Edit to add:
Are there any other boundaries? For instance, should the movies be strictly English language films? I have no problem with foreign films, but I know others might. Also, are anime movies acceptable? If so, should they be stand alones that you don't really need the show's continuity (assuming there is a show) to really get? That probably goes for sequels as well. I would assume we should try to avoid things like recommending movies that require extrenal backstory to really get, but I figured I would ask to be clear.

'Boundaries' ? Don't think we need many, bar the obvious ones:

-No TV movies
-No porn
-No splatterhouse or exploitation flicks (I spit on your grave, Salo, etc.)

Simple enough, really.

When it comes to sequels, I don't think we should include any that rely on us all having seen the original. Same goes for condensed versions of long-form TV shows or anime- makes sense for us to aim for (with maybe one or two exceptions) flicks that had a theatrical release. Save 'em for when someone starts an Anime Club.:smallamused:

[Tyrant]

'Boundaries' ? Don't think we need many, bar the obvious ones:

-No TV movies
-No porn
-No splatterhouse or exploitation flicks (I spit on your grave, Salo, etc.)

I mostly understand the first one, though I don't agree with it. It would eliminate such movies as Duel (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067023/) (that's right, a TV movie by Steven Spielberg that is basically a horror movie). I would mostly be drawing a blank for many other recommendations but if it's available I don't see the point in limiting choices. The second one is understandable and is beyond R anyway. The third I would think would be voted out if they were nominated and they weren't what people are looking for, even though it seems kind of random if there is a seperate R rated category. There aren't any examples coming to mind that I would think to recommend, but again I don't see the point of limiting them just because some people don't like them. Some people don't like romcoms for instance, but I wouldn't ask them to not be included purely based on that.

When it comes to sequels, I don't think we should include any that rely on us all having seen the original. Same goes for condensed versions of long-form TV shows or anime- makes sense for us to aim for (with maybe one or two exceptions) flicks that had a theatrical release. Save 'em for when someone starts an Anime Club.:smallamused:
I avoided saying things with a theatrical release because that does limit us. Since the goal is apparently recommending lesser known movies, sticking entirely with theatrical releases already limits that goal somewhat. Anymore, there are very few movies that get a full release that can really be called unknown. It would quickly leave is with mostly older movies which would mean the main reason people haven't seen them is age. Not saying that's a bad thing (I expect it to happen quite a bit actually) but I would think everyone would at least want the option of diversity. As for anime, I see no reason why stand alone movies can't be included. Akira for example (which had a theatrical release). I would expect an anime club to talk about shows a lot more than movies.

[Rutskarn]

Well, we do have to draw a fine line between obscurity and availability, of course.

[Tyrant]

Well, we do have to draw a fine line between obscurity and availability, of course.
Of course. I assumed it was understood that whatever was recommended should actually be reasonably available. It would be counter productive otherwise. That's why I think it's a good idea to include direct to video movies because unless they are really obscure they should be available.

[TheBST]

No, no- Akira's fine. Just not things like End of Evangelion which are spin-offs of a long-form anime.

Plus, Duel did get a theatrical release as far as I know, but I said there are exceptions, anyway. The whole theatrical release thing is just to a rough guideline so we can be sure everyone can actually obtain a copy of the film.

But hey, if we pick the films by vote, then the majority'll decide whether or not a film's suitable for the group.

[Icewalker]

I like the idea, definitely. I'll be nominating and or voting for Memento and Buckaroo Bonzai at least, those were both awesome.

Muppet Treasure Island?

Fern Gully isn't bad, in a 'watch with your friends and laugh at it' kind of way, but a little better than some others in that category. Robin Williams as a schizophrenic bat is pretty awesome, especially considering that he gets a rap in the movie.

[Tyrant]

No, no- Akira's fine. Just not things like End of Evangelion which are spin-offs of a long-form anime.
Yeah I am meaning things along the same lines as Akira, not the spinoffs. I asked about them just to be clear.

But hey, if we pick the films by vote, then the majority'll decide whether or not a film's suitable for the group.
That's why I figured if we are voting we should keep restrictions to a minimum. Over enough time people would get an idea what other people are likely to vote for or against. So after enough rounds if everyone sees that most people don't want something (romcoms for instance) then most people will probably stop recommending those types of movies or at least not suggest them as often. Then again I suppose that could actually be totally counter to the goal of this idea.

[TheBST]

Well we could keep switching the genre of film that gets nominated, one week animated films only, one week thrillers, one week comedy and so on. Just to keep things fresh.

[Tyrant]

Well we could keep switching the genre of film that gets nominated, one week animated films only, one week thrillers, one week comedy and so on. Just to keep things fresh.
That is an idea definately worth considering.

Edit to add:
At the start however, I think we should either have it open or at least multiple categories so we can see how well things work out and don't alienate anyone before things actually have a chance to start.

[charl]

How about Dr. Strangelove? I think that's PG-13.

[Rutskarn]

I don't recall anything untoward in Dr. Strangelove.

[Neon Knight]

Oh, Oh, Six String Samurai!

[charl]

I don't recall anything untoward in Dr. Strangelove.

I really can't tell stuff like that myself. The lines for PG-13 don't seem very clear to me.

[chiasaur11]

I really can't tell stuff like that myself. The lines for PG-13 don't seem very clear to me.

As far as I can tell it was PG since PG-13 didn't exist yet.

Good movie.

So, I'll write up submissions soonish.

Problem will be narrowing it down to one.

[Rutskarn]

Alright, I think we're just about in the nominations stage.

I'll post mine shortly. Feel free to go first, you all.

[chiasaur11]

Right:

The Iron Giant (PG)

An excellent animated film set in the 50s by Pixar's Brad Bird, the Iron Giant is a movie about cold war paranoia, childhood, beatniks, and giant alien robots. Tragically under viewed on its initial release, the film has become something of a cult classic.

Pros: Giant robot, excellent character interaction, a heartwarming ending, and Vin Deisel's best performance ever.

Cons: I have no idea how many people here have seen it (Probably more than the national average, though), probably at least some other flaws I can't think of.


And for the R or unrated

The Dirty Dozen (unrated)

A war movie classic starring Lee Marvin and Charles Bronson, the prototype for the Suicide Squad and a fair deal of other "convicts turned loose on the enemy" works is a hard hitting WW2 action movie of the highest caliber. The government trains 12 men in military prison for a suicide mission against Nazi leadership, and it's up to Major John Reisman (Lee Marvin) to get them into shape for the mission. They just might kill the Nazis... if they don't kill each other first.

Pros: Good action, fairly tense, solid characterization
Cons: Takes a while to get to the action, and some of the characters are a mite unsympathetic. Not a real flaw, per se, but worth noting.

[Rutskarn]

</= PG-13 Nominations:



True Stories (PG)

True Stories is a movie about...well, about people, and about songs, and about Virgil, Texas. David Byrne leads the viewers through a surreal, musical tour of the sparsely populated city as it prepares for it's Celebration of Special-ness. Meet the paranoid, conspiracy theorist preacher, the lying woman (who claims, among other things, to have been born with a tail, to have inside info on the Kennedy Assassination, and to have psychic powers). The search for love, the search for meaning...and a lot of songs by Talking Heads.

Pros: Awesome, surreal movie with great music.

Cons: Probably would be hard to find at a Blockbuster or Circuit City, film is a little too strange for some.


The Blues Brothers (PG)

Another musical, starring John Belushi and Dan Ackroyd as a pair of black-suited, sunglass-wearing musicians trying to get a large sum of money, with which they can keep an orphanage open. In the process, they make about a thousand enemies, break about a thousand laws, and generally stride through the chaos and violence of the movie with a detached and aloof air.

Pros: Awesome, surreal movie with great music.

Cons: Some people have probably already seen it.

[chiasaur11]

I'd say even if we don't pick it, every who hasn't seen Blues Brothers needs to see it.

Sooner the better.

[Rutskarn]

I cannot, in good conscience, argue with that notion.

[Icewalker]

I'd like to nominate Muppet Treasure Island, but I can't write a recommendation that'll do it justice.

I'd also say Phantom of the Opera, but that had BETTER NOT count as relatively unknown. No, that's just a good movie.

I'll second Memento, but once again, let another write the recommendation.

[chiasaur11]

I'd like to nominate Muppet Treasure Island, but I can't write a recommendation that'll do it justice.


Rutskarn wrote up a recomendation for Blues Brothers.

Failure for words to do it justice is no excuse for laziness.

[rubakhin]

Stalker (PG) Andrei Tarkovsky, 1979

This is about ... look, you've all played the FPS, right? It's like that, but with no guns, and nobody gets shot.

Or, to be more serious, it's the 1979 adaptation of the Strugatsky novel Roadside Picnic, from which the video game was later adapted as well. It follows a man called the Stalker, who has no guns and does not get shot, whose job is to lead two men, called the Writer and the Professor respectively, who also do not have guns and do not get shot, from an unnamed Soviet city to a mysterious place called the Zone. Legend has it that anyone who gets to the heart of the Zone is granted their deepest wish, but this is a place where the laws of physics no longer apply, and where your innermost nature is stripped bare ...

Pros: It's brilliant. Tarkovsky is the patron saint of Russian cinema, and this is his most accessible and arguably most beautiful film. It was in the IMDb Top 250, although I think it's been bumped off the list now.
Cons: It's kind of ... deliberately paced, let's put it that way. One shot lasts so long a brief rainstorm comes and goes before the camera cuts away. It might be a bit much for our younger and/or Ritalin-addled members. :smallamused: And anybody who's expecting it to be like the FPS instead of an art film where a bunch of intellectuals sit around talking about their feelings for two hours.




Mysterious Skin (R) Gregg Araki, 2004

Small town Kansas, sometime in the late eighties. Neil McCormick and Brian Lackey - Neil a hypersexual rebel and Brian a geeky outcast - have nothing in common, aside from the fact that they were briefly members of the same Little League team as children.

One night, after practice, young Brian woke up beneath his porch with a nosebleed. He couldn't remember what happened. In the present day, nineteen-year-old Brian - still suffering from blackouts and nosebleeds - links his missing memories to symptoms of alien abduction, and seeks out Neil to discover the truth.

Meanwhile, Neil knows exactly what happened. (Which is: exactly what you would expect to happen if you put a guy with a pedostache in charge of your Little League team.) But even at nineteen he still believes that his encounter with Coach was a loving, positive experience, and continues to aggressively seek that kind of attention. He seems blind to how emotionally disturbed he is, and he's heading down a very destructive path ...

Pros: This is also a beautiful, beautiful movie. It's deep and complex and a fantastic coming-of-age film even if you're not dealing with the kids' issues yourself. It's got Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Buffy's cute kid sister in it. And it's one of the most accurate depictions I've ever seen of the long-term effects of childhood sexual abuse.
Cons: It's one of the most accurate depictions I've ever seen of the long-term effects of childhood sexual abuse. The film's actually kind of cheery and the tone isn't dark at all, but Neil and Brian both have layers and layers of denial to unwrap and when the disturbing stuff comes up, it's not pretty.


About where is the line drawn with content for our R-rated films? Mysterious Skin is great, but some scenes have got unsettling sexual content even though we don't really see anything.

[Rutskarn]

Hm. I think the exact degree will be decided by the voting committee--something with explicit content, if it's unsettling to some, will naturally fall out of the voting cycle.

[chiasaur11]

Hm. I think the exact degree will be decided by the voting committee--something with explicit content, if it's unsettling to some, will naturally fall out of the voting cycle.

Invisible hand of the market. Is there anything it can't do?

[Joran]

Hot Fuzz (2007) Rated R: A reverent take on all action movies from a British perspective. Nicholas Angel, the best cop in London, is sent to the pristine, crime-free town of Sandford as punishment for making the rest of the force look bad. However, he soon realizes that nothing is as it seems in the idyllic little town.

Absolutely hilarious British humor with over the top shoot-out scenes, the movie has fun with all of the tropes of action movies. It is also the sort of sequel to Shawn of the Dead.

Rated R for some gun violence, swearing, and bloody decapitations.

Stranger than Fiction (2006) Rated PG-13: A surrealist film about Harold Crick, an IRS auditor who goes about his life rather methodically until one day, he hears a voice start narrating every action he does. A huge annoyance suddenly becomes even more disturbing when the narrator announces that Harold Crick is going to die.

Starring an understated Will Ferrell, the movie has a subtle humor and is also touching.

Rated PG-13 for some sexual situations, disturbing scenes, and mild language

[TheBST]

Right:

The Apartment. PG.
1960, starring Jack Lemmon, Shirley McLaine, Fred MacMurray

Comedy about an office drone who leases his apartment to the firm's executives so they can carry out extra-marital affairs while his own life is going nowhere, partly because he's too scared to refuse them, partly to help himself climb the corporate ladder. Won Best Picture, Director and Screenplay.

Pros: It's a romantic comedy without the romance- quite bitter with some dark moments, really it's about loneliness and the emptiness of corporate ambition . Acting's top-notch, script's great. The film's almost like the starting point for quirk indie comedies like Little Miss Sunshine or Garden State, but it's as funny and poignant as those films wish they could be. A feel good film that stays ten miles away from sappiness.

Cons: Yeah, it's old and in black and white. Very cynical and the middle section of the film contains one fairly dark sequence I won't spoil here. Actors may talk too fast for some. More likely to make you smile than belly laugh.

Withnail and I 15 (R in America)

1986. Starring Paul McGann and Richard E Grant

Set in 1969, two alcoholic, unemployed aspiring actors try to escape from the squalor of Camden for a weekend in the country to recharge their batteries, where of course everything goes to pot as the meter on their friendship starts to run out.

Pros: It's unique. WIhtout being surreal, the film's sense of humour is so quirky if you can get it, you'll love the film to death. When I say 'quitable' the dialogue in this film is Lebowski quotable. The acting's great- Grant probably does the best raging alcoholic I've ever seen on film. Hysterically funny, but also has some really bittersweet moments.

Cons: Not a lot happens. The film's humour, apart from a few set-pieces, is mostly dialogue-based. Lot's of swearing, could be quite depressing, and if you've never been a either a student, broke, a drinker, lived in squalor or had self-destructive friends, there won't be much in the film you can relate to.