Movie Tab II [Archive] - Page 107

aronisred

05-29-18, 12:27 AM

The Martian

4

An astronaut is stranded on mars due to natural occurrence thought to be dead but using his skills and personality he tries to survive and reconnect with Earth.

Matt Damon is an interesting actor. He is the only actor who is the closest to Dicaprio in terms of career and high profile nature than any other actor. Someone like Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt are famous due to their looks and high profile celebrity that they have created. Johnny Depp kind of became a default movie star in early/late 90s when there is no one else to occupy that vacuum and Brad Pitt had some celebrity but it sort of blew up with his marriage to Angelina Jolie. Its really Matt Damon and DiCaprio who are popular because of movies and not just because of celebrity. Even George Clooney is famous among Hollywood circles for transition from Tv to movies. So his Tv friends would rather root for him than some movie star who got lucky with Titanic.But he is not this major box office draw. He is celebrity famous. You gotta be handsome and do perfume ads in Europe to be famous.

Matt Damon has worked with all the high profile directors like Spielberg, Scorsese, Nolan , Gilliam etc. His career sort of rivals that of DiCaprio but there are two problems. 1) Matt Damon doesn't have a titanic in his resume 2) His acting skills are not suited for epic filmmaking. This heavily handicapped his consistency. You will not be hired by Innaritu to make Revenant if you look like Matt Damon. Because no one will believe him as a frontiersman because he shows up at Jimmy Kimmel shows and dances on Ellen. I can understand the need for him to do that because lot of people don't know this but Bourne identity sort of made Matt Damon relevant and his career was on a downward spiral up until that movie.

Then why does Matt Damon has only 170K tagged pictures on instagram where as DiCaprio has 2 million tags on instagram ? whats wrong with this picture ? well machismo, misogynistic roles and association with top directors consistently is whats missing. Matt Damon just doesn't fit in period roles. Especially 19th century or early 20th century roles.More over he does not have a manly screen presence required for dramas like DDL or Bale. So it sort of puts him completely in a different plateau than DiCaprio. He doesn't have a single role like Patrick Bateman or Jordan Belfort. I think the more important point is that he cannot be an anti hero with his screen presence and dialogue delivery.

I clearly remember during the 2014/15 Oscars this movie and revenant are being campaigned for by 20th century fox. Martian sadly was considered more as a well done commercial movie with positive message and revenant was an unflinching prestige picture.So even fox kinda given this movie second priority and of course having a commercial director like Ridley Scott doesn't help.All this points aside this movie is well done space drama with burst of positiveness. This movie is much more about the personality of astronaut played by Damon and teamwork to get one man safely back to earth. Its well done with no risks except jumping right into the story rather than setting it up. By the time the movie starts we are moments away from taking off and its pretty refreshing to see a movie not taking time of introduce the characters.

It always surprises me to see how accurate the executives in Hollywood are. They know whom to attribute the success of a movie to. For example, they know that the success of Logan has everything to do with James Mangold, so fox gave him reigns to make ford v Ferrari with 2 of the biggest stars right now. They know that Mad max success has nothing to do with Tom Hardy and everything to do with direction and visuals of the movie. So he wasn't being offered 100 million dollar epics.He had to either hop on the anti hero superhero band wagon with venom or make interesting projects. He started doing both. Think about it, a guy who had revenant and mad max in the same year, is doing a movie with Josh Trank. How crazy is that ? They know that the box office success of aviator/gangs of New York/ departed/ inception/shutter island/wolf of Wallstreet/revenant is solely due to Dicaprio. So, for the most part if a project is being made of the scale of these I don't think studios would even wanna give it to anybody. They either wait for DiCaprio or shelve the project. So actors like Matt Damon/Christian bale are right behind him in the pecking order and they get leftovers. So, they either have to choose to wait for projects he has turned down or go in a completely different direction. Luckily Damon doesn't suite most of those parts. But Bale suits them but Bale decided to pursue a thespian career with sprinkles of prestige risky movies. Damon, since he is not a thespian is doing movies with well written scripts and action movies in between.All these sort of handicapped him from being consistent. I think it is absolutely possible to be as successful as DiCaprio without having titanic under your belt. Will smith between 1997 and 2010 is the prime example.Its just that hollywood is too scared to take chances in establishing stars through auteur route and instead choose to put them in giant popcorn movies like battlefield/John Carter/King Arthur and see what sticks.

So all in all its a good movie with heartwarming scenes and perfect casting in Matt Damon. But it doesn't take much risks.Its performance at 2015 oscars aside the message of team work and ignoring the differences is well conveyed. Supporting cast on space has nothing much to do but the cast on earth is very good. A simple way to explain this movie even though its a blockbuster is martian is like a fruit juice where as movies like the dark knight or wolf of wall street or revenant are more like drugs. You know they are bad for you but you can't help yourself but use them.And also something like frozen movie gives you happiness or a well made comedy.But you get the same thing by chatting with old friends or eating your favorite food or visiting a new place. Where as a cocktail of misogyny + masculinity + thrill + criminal behavior mix is something very rare. You can't get that in a Disney ride. You need something that only some movies can give.

aronisred

05-29-18, 02:25 PM

Sahara(2005)

2

A pair of adventure seeking and treasure hunting brothers get mixed up with a UN doctor treating a plague in rural Africa and are pitted against a warlord in Africa.

There are few interesting articles about this movie because of its budget and box office performance.Its widely considered as one of biggest flops of all time and it kinda deserves that moniker.I am always dumbfounded at some of these movies and can't understand why someone would green-light movies like this/Stealth/Battleship. So why was this movie made? Well in 2005 studios still have no idea of what makes blockbuster money. So they hired a good looking male movie star for American audience and a European actress for European audience. It’s the ideal romantic pair from business point of view. The main goal of these movies is to make them for big budget and expect them to rake in 400-500 million dollars.Similar to the mummy or San Andreas or Rampage.They were never aiming for something much more than that. So they need journey men directors aka fixers to run the machine that completes this movie. Which means the movie's inception is riddled with so many unsavory ambitions that its hard to get a great movie at the other end of it .Add to that all the investors wanting to be cooks in the kitchen and you have a recipe for disaster.

That's the main difference between movie like this and something like The revenant. The investors in this movie know that it has to be a hit on its own commercial value. Whereas investors of the revenant know that the movie need help from academy to be a commercial hit.If the revenant was released in summer, I seriously doubt it would have made so much money. Because at that time the movie had to work on its own merit without all the bells and whistles of Oscar glory.

This movie has the structure of an adventure movie with exotic locations and remote places which are not used as a backdrop for films ever before. But the plot is so thin and actors did not help it as well. Its a B movie with 150 million budget. So all these locations don't work. Africa as a backdrop doesn't quite work if its doesn't take place in Egypt.Adventure movies need some amount of obsession in its lead characters and the reveal of the mcguffin has to be worth it. There has to be certain amount of gloom/ risk and danger to it.Leads characters with no obsession and end up stumbling upon locations doesn't make for a great adventure. It cant be like a hobbit movie with gruff stars like McConaughey attached to it . You need guys who know what they are doing. All these are important aspects needed for a movie to work.

So thats the main difference between a DiCaprio movie and movies like these. Its hard for Innaritu to make a revenant with someone like channing tatum because there is no gurantee that his movies will make money and his public image doesnt render itself to something like revenant. With Dicaprio he kept himself open for different kinds of roles and box office is strong. Even actors like Matt Damon and christian bale have to settle with James Mangold because these auteurs that dicaprio keeps making movies with make two kinds of movies a medium budget passion project or a big budget passion project...for medium budget they could hire the best guys for the role. For big budget they can hire box office guarantee dicaprio..so why do they need actors 2,3..on the list when they can get 1. So you are left with ambitious projects with certain amount of risk that are developed at a studio and for the most part are not interesting to auteurs , who develop their own projects. So studios kind of are on the look for directors that are above journey men directors and below Auteurs who recently delivered a good movie hit and then pair them up with writers of this script that have been doing it for quite sometime. And they hire actors 2,3 on the list like Damon and Bale and mount a production of around 100 million. Auteurs don't want studio shepherding on their scripts. They want to develop their own scripts or morph the script to their sensibilities. The Revenant is kind of like this but it veered way off into auteur film making territory. So ultimately a movie cannot be tied in a neat little bow for it to be considered a risky movie.
All these qualities are absent in Sahara. Its not a thrill ride at all. Villain is like a bond villain.

During the promotion for the movie, mcconaughey tirelessly promoted to the key demographics for this movie by appearing at daytona auto race and other locations. But this proves that unless people get hooked on the movie's theme and trailers no promotion by anyone will get them to the theatre. Thats the most unique thing. There is a considerably large movie going audience that are ready to give the movie a shot during oscar season. Those are the one's that will nurture a project and elevate it to a classic status. During summer , most moviegoers want fun. The cast in the movie is neutral.So this movie deserves its financial failure. Its not a blatant cash grab but its not made by passionate talented people.One of those 2 adjectives is missing in the filmmakers of this movie.

aronisred

05-29-18, 11:02 PM

Titanic

3

A movie about a big ship that sinks.

This is where it all began.Until this movie Steven Spielberg was a beloved director in Hollywood and he is the king of Hollywood blockbusters. So, everything worked out. Audience and Hollywood insiders agree that Spielberg is the king of Hollywood.They decided to crown Spielberg with best director Oscar for Schindler's list the same year Jurassic park was released.So they decided that Spielberg can make both kind of movies. But when Titanic came out James Cameron was a rebel director who against all odds and bad publicity delivered with Titanic.The movie was very impactful emotionally. Until then all the blockbusters were children themed, in the sense that children can watch them. But this is the first time a blockbuster was adult themed. Moreover the script of the movie was very weak. Its the scale and directorial achievement that made this movie what it is.

There is certain amount of voyeuristic angle to the way Cameron covers the love story between the leads in this movie. You watch two strangers fall in love in-front of you and they are extremely good looking.You watch the girl being the one taking control of intimacy and there is certain amount of wish fulfillment to the love story. An average Joe is made to feel like a rock-star. But even rock-stars don't get these kind of girls. Here is the thing about rock-stars , the women who throw themselves at rock-stars are mainly attracted to fame and success. They are as easily attracted to a more popular star as they are attracted to him. And also women who sell their self worth for fame and money are also after rock-stars.The wish fulfillment part comes when a respectable well to do non-slutty woman is the one being aggressive in an intimate scenario with a average Joe who seduces her by showing the freedom of life. That's the dream of any guy. No guy feels masculine if he is paying money to have sex with someone , he feels masculine if he is being pursued by women and its even better if those women are decent women as opposed to gold diggers.The chemistry between the leads has certain tragic quality to it because you know the ship is gonna sink. So there is this brooding love story like the brooding character of the dark knight.Its more impressive because this movie was able to achieve this connection over the course of one movie.So you have a tragedy waiting to happen for this intensely passionate lovers.This is one of the reasons why the movie worked so well. This type of love story connects to almost all demographics. All the characters in this movie cover all the demographics of audience.

So what is the impact of this movie ? well , It's a movie that is hated by auteurs but liked by masses. Auteurs hate the simplicity of the movie. But masses like it for what it is.Its a theatrical experience. This movie is reason why I am not a big fan of Leonardo DiCaprio. Until this point in his career he was growing up to be a good adult actor. But after this movie he realized that he struck gold and he changed his course of his career into becoming this superstar who is trying to make movies that are epic and prestigious but also trying to get Oscar for himself and his movies and maintain his box office draw. Because he has seen what happened to Titanic. Even though certain auteurs and their fans hated the movie. For the most part majority of film going public liked it and more people remember it than any other movie from that decade.From that point in his career, he started replicating titanic in terms of Oscar voter appeal and box office success. He succeeded for the most part. How do you get fans of Scorsese on your side ? do a movie with Scorsese. How do you get fans of Tarantino movie on your side ? do a Tarantino movie. How do you get fans of Nolan on your side ? do a Nolan movie. So when a DiCaprio movie is coming out , you have all these fans awaiting his movie . Of course its not like they are directors for hire but he is in a position to take risky roles but he doesn't want to jeopardize his star power for the sake of few challenging roles. So he stuck with the formula that worked. Make the projects as high profile as possible so you get all the attention and then since a great director is at helm, there is no way in hell the movie is gonna disappoint. Thats the key. There is difference when people are excited for a movie like Suicide squad and for a movie like the revenant. In the former example people are excited due to the characters but in the latter they are excited for filmmakers. The reason I hate him so much is because he is eating up lot of roles that otherwise would have gone to other more suitable actors. He is denying others of that opportunity. I for one truly believe that without titanic DiCaprio would not be where he is today. There is no chance in hell he will have such popularity without Titanic.

This movie is worth a watch for the epic scale. It does leave you with a somber mood.But in the end as a movie fan for me it did more harm than good. If it weren't for this movie we wouldn't be talking about DiCaprio the way we are. He would more likely have stuck to Indie movies and occasional big budget movies.

UpgradeYourDad

05-29-18, 11:26 PM

44770
4
The direction, editing and dialogue is great. It's pretty funny. Mr. Smith is a brilliant character, he's a shy young man who can not be subverted from his morals. It's very poignant and inspirational, even to someone who isn't American. Still relevant today

How’d you feel on the ending here? I always thought this movie felt a little short and just sort of ended without much resolution. Obviously Stewart’s passionate speech is great, but it just kinda ended with flat for me.

HashtagBrownies

05-30-18, 05:05 AM

How’d you feel on the ending here? I always thought this movie felt a little short and just sort of ended without much resolution. Obviously Stewart’s passionate speech is great, but it just kinda ended with flat for me.

Yeah I did feel that, very sudden.

Mr Minio

05-30-18, 08:34 AM

Stone (1974) - rating_3_5

https://movieblort.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/69uzgsdh9r9bvmsqhack4e5lfvt.jpg

An Australian Satanist Biker on drugs (sic!) is a witness to a political killing. Now every biker in their pack faces mortal danger! Good ole times of Ozploitation. I still have to find my personal Ozploitation masterpiece, though.

Friends of Eddie Coyle (1973) - rating_3_5

http://basementrejects.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/friends-of-eddie-coyle-1973-robert-mitchum-bar-review.jpg

Jaded rat Robert Mitchum plays a dangerous game with cops and robbers. Rightly cold and unrelenting, but also devoid of greatness.

Egg (2007) - rating_4

http://www.altcine.com/moviesphotos/photo/Yumurta%203.jpg

It took me several years to finish the trilogy (ironically enough this is the first part). Surprisingly heart-warming.

Citizen X (1995) - rating_4

https://cinemaclassico.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/cidadaox2.png

Without much exploitation the film manages to portray such terrible murders, and such hard investigation. Max von Sydow appears in only two scenes yet he steals the show.

Spider (1991) - rating_4

https://davidheslin.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/spider.png

Borowczyk gone horror with stellar cinematography and exquisitely looking heroine.

Burnt by the Sun (1994) - rating_4_5

https://i2.wp.com/todiscoverrussia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Burnt-by-the-Sun-2.jpg

In the past I started the film only to turn it off within the first ten minutes at least twice. This time I watched the whole thing. It is a masterpiece.

The Woman in the Rumor (1954) - rating_4

https://i.imgur.com/iCsOlZ7.jpg

The fact Mizoguchi directed Sansho the Bailiff, The Crucified Lovers and this (not as splendid, but still pretty good) movie in the same year is mindblowing! Not to mention the year before he made A Geisha and Ugetsu! This one might be his most feminist film.

The White Reindeer (1952) - rating_3_5

http://notcoming.com/images/reviews/l/thewhitereindeer.jpg

One of the Finnish golden classics. Could've been better!

True Story of Woman Condemned Continues (1975) - rating_3_5
New True Story of Woman Condemned to Hell (1976) - rating_3_5

KINKY

Pretty much the same as the first one. If you watch a film like this, you pretty much know what to expect. The entire trilogy is highly enjoyable. I especially liked the main theme.

The Owl's Legacy (1989) - rating_4

http://www.thecine-files.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Warner-figure-4.jpg

A miniseries by Chris Marker on the impact Ancient Greek culture, language, and art had on the rest of the world. A couple of surprising remarks from the talking heads. Marker's style is a little bit dormant here, but his favourite (after a cat) animal reigns in this film!

Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017) - rating_4

https://fsmedia.imgix.net/0f/cf/74/19/5624/417c/bbdf/9fb18dbf4210/star-wars-the-last-jedi-2017.gif

Hype! Hype! Hype! Finally a modern sci-fi/action for popcorn eaters I love (ofc I loved Force Awakens too). People nitpicking about plot contrivances are probably the same people who hated a film, because they coudn't "relate to the characters". LOL.

Heroic Trio 2: Executioners (1993) - rating_4

https://i0.wp.com/omegaunderground.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/yeoh_michelle1.jpg?resize=640%2C360&ssl=1

I'm not sure if this was as good as the first one. For one, the first part was much crazier, if memory serves. But who cares, this is LEGIT cinema. Anita Mui carving her new mask out of a dinner plate > anything from Marvel I saw.

Red Spell Spells Red (1983) - rating_3_5

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iS-EiCdfPk4/U7pR9GNinAI/AAAAAAAAGF4/FjOHWsh_OsI/s1600/RED+SPELL+SPELLS+RED_screen+grab+1.tif

Ah, them good ole CAT III black magic flicks. This was not as hideous as Centipede Horror, but still full of scorpions and gore!

Lost Souls (1980) - rating_4

http://s07.radikal.ru/i180/1209/e1/f459c1bb59f4.png

That was really freakin' sick, my brother! I'll never be the same!
From the director of Man Behind the Sun comes this sleazefest masterpiece! Not for the weak of heart!

School on Fire (1988) - rating_4

https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/w1280/avbMXqkSQWruEdiMgvz6ukrIDxU.jpg

The last in Ringo Lam's On Fire trilogy and a proof you can make a great film on teenagers/college students (take lessons, Lady Bird!).

Split of the Spirit (1987) - rating_3_5

https://i.imgur.com/q4wAxgu.jpg?1

A very nice unsleazy HK horror movie. It's nothing particularly amazing, but very enjoyable.

From the Pole to the Equator (1987) - rating_4

https://d1tyf8b78tco2j.cloudfront.net/3d16c62a/cea14667/images/4983f583cf9dcbe19d8ece83647e28ede35faaaa.1000.jpg

Legit trance! What a wonderful hypnosis! A film made up of bits of pieces of archival footage took all around the world set to minimalist music.

Day for Night (1973) - rating_3_5

https://medialifecrisis.com/files/images/articles/201508-Popgap/Day-for-Night-1973/Day-For-Night-1973-00-26-05.jpg

A pretty kewl film, but Godard did it 10 years before.

Poem of the Sea (1958) - rating_3_5

http://rowereviews.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/3/2/12321416/5149051.png?736

The color cinematography looks beautiful. The comparison to the films of Powell & Pressburger is not a complete miss, mind you. However, the film hasn't got enough dream sequences (I blame Socialist Realism, they've still been given more freeway given the thaw after Stalin's death), and the realistic sequences are only alright.

Anna (1994) - rating_4

https://i.imgur.com/KFJTvUG.jpg

It's great to see a person grow as time passes. And it's interesting to see a piece of history of a country.

The Last Train (2003) - rating_4_5

https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/w1280/6MEI26Pcv1NzZOFJ43x3iOu1lzX.jpg

A pretty gnarly, horrifying, monochrome, foggy anti-war film that tries to find beauty in places and situations so devoid of beauty and hope. The death is portrayed as realistically as possible, and the very ending might be the most moving ending title in the history of cinema.

aronisred

05-30-18, 12:38 PM

The Mummy(1999)

4

An ancient curse is unleashed by a group of treasure hunters in Egypt and they must send it back to the underworld to prevent the extinction of human civilization.

The Mummy has a very distinct tone for a monster movie. There is fun to the movie but at the same time there is dread and real possibility of characters dying. Sahara from 2005 must have taken some notes from this movie on how to make an adventure movie. Brendan Fraser is the perfect fit for the tone the movie was going for. He is handsome and funny at the same time. He kind of captured the know it all guy who you can feel safe around. His character has certain warmth to him.Thrills of the movie strike the right balance of scary and funny. There is no gloom and doom feel to the movie. Its a fun adventure movie.

In a much more serious note the effect this movie had on Brendan Fraser's career is positive and little tragic at the same time. On the positive side, it helped him become a house hold name in US and he did make few Action adventure comedies after this movie. One a tragic note the stunts he performed in this movie and few others had lasting injuries on his body and forced him to be on medication and in turn make fewer movies.

Here is the thing about celebrities and Hollywood. When an actor like Tom Cruise first comes to Los Angeles, he has zero power. He needs to be hired for roles. If he gets a big break, even then to make quality films with quality filmmakers he needs to be hired by them. If he just wanna bank in on his success and work with people he can boss around , then he can pick people. But his career will be dead before he know it because the people that are available to be picked by him are not great filmmakers. So there is always a certain amount of "mentor-ship" or "has to be picked/hired" need for every actor in Hollywood. Even someone like Tom Cruise at this point in his career cannot boss around and ask Christopher Nolan or Scorsese or Spielberg or Tarantino to work with him. He can only speak with them and have a normal conversation where he can suggest working with them but he cannot force them to work with him. They will smile for photos but behind the scenes Nolan might never wanna work with Tom Cruise.

So when Brendan Fraser accused HFPA president of sexual harassment in 2003 it might be shocking for a layman. I mean he starred in a 500 million grossing movie just a year before. So its not like he is some newbie that is being take advantage of . Then how can this be possible. But if you read by above paragraph then you would know that the name of the game is "being chosen or being picked". Its not like a stand up comedian. If you are good at making people laugh you are hired. But it says more about the power structure in Hollywood and how a group of foreign based reporters can influence the star-power of Hollywood and promote stars overseas. HFPA has more influence than you would imagine. Some of the roles for movies are offered to stars with Golden Globe nomination as part of the deal. I wont be surprised if DiCaprio was offered the role in once upon a time in Hollywood with the caveat of a golden globe nomination for his performance by default even before the a single shot of the movie was filmed. Just like nominations for Hugh Jackman in greatest showman or will smith in concussion. They are built into the contract. Some studios launch their Oscar campaign for an actor with golden globe nominations as the starting point.

So this is a peek into the seedy underbelly of Hollywood and how even a star like Brendan Fraser can't escape from the abuses.That being said , if you can leave all this baggage at the door, you most certainly will have a fun time at this movie and it has a very impressive production design.

UpgradeYourDad

05-30-18, 12:48 PM

Yeah I did feel that, very sudden.

Also I’m like 78% sure we saw child murder in that film.

HashtagBrownies

05-30-18, 02:34 PM

Also I’m like 78% sure we saw child murder in that film.

OMG that scene was so funny!

UpgradeYourDad

05-30-18, 06:54 PM

44826
LOGAN (Mangold, 2017)

A Marvel movie that isn’t just a set up to the next Marvel movie. Hugh Jackman and Dafne Keen play off each other. Boyd Holbrook is charismatic enough to provide fodder for the pair. The action scenes are shot with both Wolverines (Wolverinis?) moving as fluid and violently as possible; the stakes are certainly raised. I liked it a little less this time due to a bit of clumsy dialogue but I’ll certainly echo everyone else and say it’s definitely worth your time.

4.

44827
SOLO: A Star Wars Story (Howard, 2018)

Ron Howard is the most okay-iest director in Hollywood, this film is no different. Are you getting anything bad? Nah. Are you getting anything memorable? Nah. If you’re into Star Wars, you’re probably going to be into it. It’s fun enough for a Saturday afternoon flick, especially with the behind-the-scenes drama we kept hearing about. I have a few more thoughts, but pretty much all of them can summed up by saying: eh, it’s alright.

2.5+.

Chypmunk

05-31-18, 01:26 PM

May (pt ii):

4+
Frankenstein (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021884/?ref_=nv_sr_6) (James Whale, 1931)
Hak se wui yi wo wai kwai (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0491244/?ref_=tt_rec_tt) [Election 2] (Johnnie To, 2006)

4
Good Night, And Good Luck (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433383/?ref_=nv_sr_6) (George Clooney, 2005)
Inception (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1375666/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (Christopher Nolan, 2010)
Mädchen in Uniform (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022183/?ref_=nv_sr_2) [Maidens In Uniform] (Leontine Sagan & Carl Froelich, 1931)

3.5+
Ai no mukidashi (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1128075/?ref_=nv_sr_1) [Love Exposure] (Sion Sono, 2008)
Casino (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112641/?ref_=nv_sr_2) (Martin Scorsese, 1995)
Que Horas Ela Volta? (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3742378/?ref_=nv_sr_1) [The Second Mother] (Anna Muylaert, 2015)
Tumultes (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0146327/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (Robert Siodmak, 1932)

3.5
78/52 (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4372240/?ref_=nv_sr_1) aka 78/52: Hitchcock's Shower Scene (Alexandre O. Philippe, 2017)
Ask A Policeman (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031058/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (Marcel Varnel, 1939)
Bridge Of Spies (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3682448/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (Steven Spielberg, 2015)
Hak se wui (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434008/?ref_=nv_sr_3) [Election] (Johnnie To, 2005)
Mænd & høns (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3877674/?ref_=nv_sr_1) [Men & Chicken] (Anders Thomas Jensen, 2015)
Stretch And Bobbito: Radio That Changed Lives (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4974396/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (Bobbito Garcia, 2015)
This Is My Affair (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029662/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (William A. Seiter, 1937)

3+
Adventure In Manhattan (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027258/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (Edward Ludwig, 1936)
Eve's Bayou (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119080/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (Kasi Lemmons, 1997)
Kim Bok-nam salinsageonui jeonmal (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1646959/?ref_=nv_sr_2) [Bedevilled] (Cheol-soo Jang, 2010)
Putyovka v zhizn (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022289/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) [Road To Life] (Nikolai Ekk, 1931)
Sauna (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1124394/?ref_=fn_tt_tt_1) aka Evil Rising (Antti-Jussi Annila, 2008)
Seventh Heaven (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029539/?ref_=fn_al_tt_3) (Henry King, 1937)

3
Always Goodbye (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029861/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (Sidney Lanfield, 1938)
Danger On The Air (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0030037/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (Otis Garrett, 1938)
Dina (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6333058/?ref_=nv_sr_5) (Antonio Santini & Dan Sickles, 2017)
Potiche (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1521848/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (François Ozon, 2010)
The Animal Kingdom (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022628/?ref_=nv_sr_4) (Edward H. Griffith & George Cukor, 1932)
The Sessions (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1866249/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (Ben Lewin, 2012)
We Bought A Zoo (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1389137/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (Cameron Crowe, 2011)

2.5+
Creepshow (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083767/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (George A. Romero, 1982)
I Take This Woman (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021988/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (Marion Gering, 1931)

2.5
The Old Dark House (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023293/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (James Whale, 1932)

2+
Under Western Stars (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0030910/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (Joseph Kane, 1938)
Way Down South (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032114/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (Leslie Goodwins & Bernard Vorhaus, 1939)

2
Double Harness (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023960/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (John Cromwell, 1933)
Funland (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091094/?ref_=nv_sr_2) (Michael A. Simpson, 1987)
Lucky Them (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1885299/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (Megan Griffiths, 2013)
Squibs (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027037/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (Henry Edwards, 1935)
Three Legionnaires (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029666/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (Hamilton McFadden, 1937)

1.5
Cell (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0775440/?ref_=nv_sr_3) (Tod Williams, 2016)
Nightmare Wedding (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6104992/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (Jose Montesinos, 2016)

1+
Extract (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1225822/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (Mike Judge, 2009)
Nihon bundan: Heru doraibâ (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1653913/?ref_=nv_sr_1) [Helldriver] original vsn (Yoshihiro Nishimura, 2010)
Sleepaway Camp (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086320/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (Robert Hiltzig, 1983)

Iroquois

05-31-18, 01:35 PM

Deadpool 2 (David Leitch, 2018) - 2

There were shreds of potential within the not-as-clever-or-inventive-as-it-thinks original that I'd hoped would be developed further in a follow-up, but even the promise of moderately competent action sequences and an expanded scope in just about every aspect ultimately makes very little difference to how things play out a second time around.

Night on Earth (Jim Jarmusch, 1991) - 4

Jarmusch delivers another anthology film - this time about five different taxi rides simultaneously taking place in different cities around the world - that juggles a variety of tones across its segments without totally losing consistency (the "Rome" story might be the only weak point if only because of Benigni's sheer obnoxiousness, and even that starts to improve as the story progresses).

Undercover Brother (Malcolm D. Lee, 2002) - 3

This rapid-fire parody of both blaxploitation and spy movies ends up proving one of the funnier movies I've seen in recent memory, packing a remarkable amount of laughs into its brief runtime and ageing much better than you'd think a comedy of this vintage would.

On Body and Soul (Ildikó Enyedi, 2017) - 2.5

A passable romantic drama about two slaughterhouse workers who slowly realise that they keep having the same dream every night. There are some decent moments in the mix that help to sell the story, but nothing that makes it genuinely special.

Down by Law (Jim Jarmusch, 1986) - 4

I thought this was just okay when I first saw it about a decade ago but I've since warmed up to Jarmusch's distinctive sensibilities and now find it a lot more appreciable.

The Great Gatsby (Baz Luhrmann, 2013) - 1.5

I feel like there's an uncanny valley that can set in when a period piece intersects way too hard with ultra-modern filmmaking (Public Enemies being the main example I think of) and this film falls into it hard with Luhrmann's love of hyper-stylised visuals and anachronic musical choices (which reminded me of Speed Racer except in a bad way). Shame since there are a couple of decent performances in the mix.

Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982) - 5

At this rate, I probably should write something at length about this but I'm not doing it today. Needless to say, I still dig it.

Reversal of Fortune (Barbet Schroeder, 1990) - 3

A perfectly serviceable based-on-a-true-story legal drama about the seemingly open-and-shut case of a millionaire who allegedly put his wife into a coma. My main interest was in seeing the always-watchable Jeremy Irons in his Oscar-winning role as said millionaire, but I was especially surprised by how good Ron Silver is as his conflicted attorney.

The Omega Man (Boris Sagal, 1971) - 2.5

Having read I Am Legend recently, I found this an interesting enough adaptation that stays remarkably faithful in some regards while also making some rather goofy changes in order to build a really pulpy excuse for an Apes-era Charlton Heston to gun and laugh his way through the apocalypse.

Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982) - 5

Yeah, I watched it again. Deal with it.

HashtagBrownies

05-31-18, 08:54 PM

Seen in May Pt.3/3

44836
3.5
A real fun watch. I loved watching the dynamic between Bogart and Hepburn as they slowly become more friendly with each other and crack more jokes. I really feel like going off on a s*itty boat down to Africa with my friends after seeing this.

44837
BTW the fact that a fan made a 'Buried' style poster for Deadpool just because they both star Ryan Reynolds just makes my night.
3.5
Pure, unfiltered popcorn fun. I'm just an absolute sucker for all those self-referential/fourth wall etc. jokes. The plot was definitely better than the first one. The action is pretty fun and I really liked all the characters.

44838
4.5- [RE-WATCH]
Watched it again as I felt the need for some adrenaline. Still scares the absolute badonkles out of me (My heart actually started to feel strange after one of the scares, that's probably not good). A complete opposite to my other found-footage darling The Blair Witch Project, most of the film uses shock and jumpscares to keep the audience in a state of terror. That might sound really s*it, but they're more like 'Oh Jesus I can't breathe plz send a doctor!!!' jumpscares than ones that mildly startle you and make you groan with annoyance. I'd suggest you watch this as a standalone film, as the sequel feels very unnecessary and messes with the first one's brilliant ending.

cricket

05-31-18, 09:57 PM

May, 2018 movies watched-

The Post (2017) 2+ I expect more from Spielberg, Streep, and Hanks.

The Age of Shadows (2016) 3- There ends up being some good action and violence, but it was a pretty good wait to get there.

Le Jour se Leve (1939) 3.5 From the noirs list, and I'd definitely recommend it for the 30's countdown.

Destry Rides Again (1939) 3.5 Very enjoyable western with Jimmy Stewart and Marlene Dietrich.

Fury (1936) 3+ Fritz Lang directs Spencer Tracy. A couple of things I didn't care for but it's a pretty good flick.

She Done Him Wrong (1933) 2.5- From the laughs list, watch it if you love Mae West.

Out of the Blue (1980) Repeat viewing 4.5 A movie that haunts me with one of my favorite endings.

Horse Feathers (1932) 4 It's a comedy, and I laughed a lot.

The Lady Vanishes (1938) Repeat viewing 3 Like the story and performances, the humor not so much.

Morocco (1930) 2.5 Ok thanks to Marlene Dietrich.

I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932) 4- A 30's movie that definitely suits my taste.

I'm Not There (2007) 3 Plenty of positives even if it were a bit of a struggle for me.

The Scarlet Empress (1934) 4+ Marlene Dietrich is a goddess who helps turn this historical epic into part sex comedy.

Sons of the Desert (1933) 2.5 An amusing 65 minutes with Laurel and Hardy.

Female Vampire (1973) 1.5 A hot vampire but otherwise pretty insignificant.

Frances Ha (2012) 3.5 I liked it more than I expected to considering I don't like slackers.

Three Monkeys (2008) 3.5+ Intense Turkish movie with great performances.

Scarface (1932) 3+ Pretty entertaining.

Thelma (2017) 4- One of the best horrors I've seen from the last couple of years.

Topper (1937) 3 From the laughs list, I would call it an average good movie from the 30's.

Den of Thieves (2018) 3 Nothing great but still a relief to see a movie with some machismo these days.

The Leopard (1963) Repeat viewing 4 Long, slow, and the dubbing bothered me. It's still magnificent filmmaking.

The Thin Man (1934) 3.5 Funny and entertaining murder mystery.

Giallo A Venezia (1979) 2- Not good, but quite nasty and sleazy.

3:10 to Yuma (2007) 3.5- An entertaining western that I found superior to the original.

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006) 2.5 Well made but too fantastical for my taste.

Total May viewings-26
Total 2018 viewings-132

aronisred

06-01-18, 01:27 AM

The Hateful Eight

4

A bounty hunter in charge of escorting a criminal to hang is stuck in a motel in the middle of a deadly blizzard. He must wait out the blizzard and everything in the motel is not what it seems.

Quentin Tarantino is a director whose films are equivalent to drugs like cocaine or heroine. Yes, both in terms of the addictive nature and the harm they do to the recipient. But they are excellent pieces of work.Why do you think movies like Stronger or Hostiles or Southpaw or black-mass or out of the furnace or concussion and many other feel good/"important" movies are shut out of the Oscars ? whats the difference between a movie about journalists on lifetime channel and spotlight ? well the number 1 rule about Oscar movies for the most part is nuance and entertainment value of the movies. Movies should never feel like history lessons or preachy. So Tarantino movies check most of the boxes an academy voter would look for in a movie. Entertainment value , Well developed characters, Character driven story line, risky subject matters, casting actors for their talent rather than their star power (for the most part) or identifying obscure actors and pushing them in to stardom or reinvigorating actor's careers.All these are things that the academy loves so much .They love original content that is not based on an IP.But at the same time the movie should not be apologetic for its vision. Something like wolf of wall street was never apologetic for showing the debauchery of the characters. Even at the end they show how white collar criminals are treated in prison and society is always willing to hire them to learn from white collar criminals. Nice little bows at the end of the movie are not welcome. Audience need to feel the punch of the movie. Even Tarantino movies are highly stylized , so his nice little bows are also stylized and has a certain amount of parody to them.

There is room for social commentary to be had when discussing the fans of his movies. After leaving Weinstein company Quentin Tarantino was "wooed" by various studio heads to buy the distribution rights for his movie.So what does that say about his status. Facts tell us that his movies gross between 100 to 500 million dollar. They have huge fan following. You have a 15 yr old girl from France is as excited for his movie as a 20 yr guy from Russia and a 17 yr old guy from India and 18 yr old from Germany. His movies are most likely not going to win best pictures.So whats the appeal ? well the combination of 100-500 million dollar box office + 8-10 Oscar nominations with couple of wins + huge fan following that are passionate and will talk about the movie for years to come is a rare thing to guarantee. With out even shooting a single frame of a movie you can guarantee that any Tarantino movie will have most of these checkboxes covered. Often times you either get a forgettable billion dollar hit or obscure Oscar nominees but rarely do you get movies with such anticipation and meet the anticipation because you want that drug and your body is willing to morph even less potent drug into something you like. You don't have to feed a starving person a world class steak to make him happy. You can just give him an under cooked steak and as long as its steak he will be happy.

So the key word here is "bro-code". Thats a terms which means a lot of things to lot of people.For a loner, its this obscure thing which he lacks and he either learns to vilify that concept or feel incredibly insecure about themselves because they lack it. For a person with an active life and a healthy relationship with fellow humans its this cut throat code which starts with "we against them" - gender wise and every man for himself when stuff hits the fan but till then we back each other up. Why am I saying this ? well, this mainly applies to guys hitting their puberty. This "bro-code" is magnified at their age.Everywhere they see, they see girls vying for the popular guy or guys out macho-ing each other in-front of girls. over course of time by early to mid 20s it will all cool down. But that 10 years "bro-code" is a major part. They start looking for a mating partner but at the same time they realize the need to be tough and be a man. Obviously every person watches movies. So the internal and social changes at this age group will effect the viewing habits. And Tarantino/ Nolan/Dicaprio movies fall into that category. They are not kid movies like Marvel /Disney and they are not adult fair like kings speech. They are attracted to movies which are full of contradictions. Smart movie yet full of expositions and explaining. Realistic but hyper realistic with need for suspension of disbelief. Male ambiguity and brood and anti heroes. Moral dilemma and yet they do the right thing. They are innovative but only as long as they have male lead. Movies like Annihilation has every right to be in the same conversation as Inception. But for some reason since it doesn't have the bells and whistles it doesn't get the same attention.The crazy part of it all is that this group are some of the most regular movie goers ever. If you can tap into the psyche of these guys at this age..you have essential got them for another 2 decades. As long as you don't disappoint them and give them a reason to come to theaters as opposed to watching it at home, you have their money. 15-20 age group of people are desperately looking for an idol . Most of the times they want an Idol that is so far up their reach and so successful. And Nolan/Tarantino/Dicaprio is their answer. They don't want realistic idols who failed a couple of times and eventually succeeded by learning from their failures.They want consistent masterpieces from the get go. And the sad part of it all is that most of these fanboys end up having failures and eventual success or very minimal success in life. The ones who actual go on to achieve the same heights as their idols are not obsessed with their idols. Their idols are their case studies and not their god.So a guy who watched DiCaprio movie in theater for 40 yrs straight in the movies has a higher probability of being an average Joe than a exceptional genius. May be they need much more practical Idols ?

I will let you ruminate on that thought. But getting back to this movie , its a great movie with "who done it" style of plot. But the punches don't land. The mystery of it doesn't work. One of the segment in quite unnecessary except to show how professional criminals stage a criminal act.We have seen that in tons of thriller/crime films.It almost felt like Tarantino is much more impressed with his own dialogue than audience. I think the phrase is "full of himself". Performances are decent but the leads Kurt Russell , Jennifer Jason Leigh and Walton goggins are good. Samuel l Jackson is the same guy he is in every movie but with very good dialogue. I think I started realizing Tarantino is so full of himself during Django Unchained when there is this dialogue " I am curious what makes you so curious". That to me is very basic dialogue that I have heard a million times but for some reason Tarantino couldn't pick it up. This movie has few such lines. There are lot of bad guys and boy do they do socially reprehensible stuff and the kind of stuff that movie buffs from France , Germany , Russia , Italy and India fall head over heals for because of a combination of American dream and English not being their first language, that makes them feel the dialogues are much more resonant and awesome than they are.BTW I do think he was rightfully not nominated for Oscar for screenwriting.Give it a go and the best time is in December snow.

honeykid

06-01-18, 09:13 AM

I was especially surprised by how good Ron Silver is as his conflicted attorney.
IroquoisDo you mean in this role in particular? For me, Ron Silver is one of those actors who always makes me feel better about a film just because he's there. Much like Brian Dennehy.

Iroquois

06-01-18, 09:21 AM

A bit, yeah. I've liked him in the other films I've seen him in, but this stands out because he's more than holding his own against Jeremy Irons as opposed to outshining actors like JCVD or Charlie Sheen.

aronisred

06-01-18, 02:10 PM

Batman Begins

5

The movie deals with the origins of Batman in a way that is unique to the character and has much more depth than any other superhero movie.

I am a Nolan fanboy. But I do know that he is overrated. On a scale of 1 to 10 if his skill set is a 7, his fan following makes it out to be 11. But in all honesty this is my favorite superhero movie of all time. The first half of the movie is some of the best cinema of all time. It juggles lot of concepts and themes. Loss, pain,survivors guilt,rage,aimlessness and whole lot of themes. All while making it epic in scope. In my opinion, this is one of the earliest movies in 21st century which made an epic that appeals to repeat moviegoers and also its scope has more to do with exotic locations. Something like gladiator is epic. But the kind of people who are more inclined to like those type of movies are sword and scandal fans. Those movies clearly do not hit all the demographics of movie audience. Some people will watch because it is epic in scale, some will watch because of Oscars, some will watch because they liked the trailer. You can't get someone who liked Gladiator to watch every movie Russell Crowe is in. The overlap of fans of sword and scandals and fans of Russell Crowe is not much. But with something like Batman Begins, Nolan made it his own. There is also this period piece disconnect with movies like Gladiator. But something like Batman Begins deals with male emotions on this grand realistic settings. Snowy mountains or Dark city structures.Its much more from the mind of Christopher Nolan and his sensibilities than Gladiator is from the mind of Ridley Scott. Epic battle scenes can be seen in Lord of the rings as well. Its not something from the mind of Ridley Scott. But a man loosing his direction and ending up in prison as way to fight criminals and be closer to criminals is a stroke of genius. How crazy should a person be to go into jail for the purpose of beating up actual criminals. Its representation of the bad-ass phrase - "I am not locked in here with you..you are locked in here with me". Add to that the fact that Bruce Wayne is doing these things. You have a potent mix for masculine orgasm on screen. That is much more masculine than any army commander leading his men into battle. Because there is some anti-heroic sinister quality to becoming a criminal to fight crime. All these make for a potent drug of a movie that you want more of. I don't care if its a war movie , if its dipped in this drug I want it.

The first half of the movie outweighs the flaws in second half of the movie. Once he starts becoming batman, you fall into genre tropes of super villain and stuff. But even in that , there are moments of genius where in the villain was his mentor and inclusion of references to misplaced sense of anger and all those masculine concepts is masterfully done.

Nolan's movies are all thrillers. There is something anti-establishment waiting to happen. Even a space movie like interstellar has moments of cowardice and disobeying rules in situations of life and death. I think this is one sub-genre Nolan shares with Tarantino, thriller.
That aspect of their movies are highly commercial. Thrillers are commercial genres. You are waiting to see something that you don't see in everyday life.Because we are all wild animals that are controlled by social boundaries. Any chance we get to be wild without harming our existence, we go for it. They say that the chemical reactions in body doesn't know if it is real or you are watching a movie. I think that is his biggest flaw I can find. His foundations are genre based. However artistic the house is , its still rooted in genre. Thats a handicap.

So I would recommend this movie over any other superhero movie out there. Purely for the first half of it. The speech by Liam Neeson in prison is one of the best motivational speeches given by a stranger and the soundtrack Lasiurus from its score is awesome as it enhances the scenes.

Joel

06-01-18, 07:42 PM

THE LAST MOVIE STAR (2018)
dir Adam Rifkin

3

Not a very good movie but Reynolds is great. It puts way too much confidence in the co-stars who are all just basically out of their league with no real engaging business of their own. Seems very half baked, which is unfortunate.

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 2 (1986)
dir: Tobe Hooper

2

Has lunacy and comedy and atmosphere, but is just nasty and gross and I could not stomach it. Not anymore.

DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS (1988)
dir: Frank Oz

2.5

Not nearly as good as I had hoped. I'd seen this several times since its release. Kind of bland and dated. Nothing too exciting. Very predictable. Good cast, but didn't hold up well for my taste.

MARRIED TO THE MOB (1988)
dir: Jonathan Demme

3.5

I have to compare this to "Something Wild". It doesn't have the tonal shift of that film (this stays comedy), but it has adventurous tidbits that are fun to watch. Very well made and entertaining. I dug it quite a bit. Demme has done better work but this is still worth watching.

THE HOUSE ON SORORITY ROW (1983)
dir: Mark Rosman

3

Surprisingly competent slasher film. Shot really nicely, with great lighting and tight editing. This film knows what it's doing, but still kind of falls flat due to a routine scenario ala' Black Christmas and every other one out there. Well made and nicely acted but nothing too special unless you are a complete slasher junkie, in which case this is a special film. It is.

ELECTION (1999)
dir: Alexander Pyne

4

Skillfully written and very funny. I really, really enjoy this film every time I watch it. Never lets me down. Nothing bad to say about it. Solid.

BACK TO SCHOOL (1986)
dir: Alan Metter

3.5

I love this movie even though I have seen it dozens of times since 1986. If you like Rodney, this is the film to see. Also, Arnold Cunningham is in it, and he's out of control!

honeykid

06-02-18, 11:10 AM

JoelAgree with you about House On Sorority Row. As a slasher fan, I really like that film.

Daniel M

06-02-18, 11:20 AM

Crooked House (Gilles Paquet-Brenner, 2017) 0.5

Watched this Agatha Christie adaptation with my mum and it was a mess. I have found that I have become increasingly aware and critical of poor directing, especially over the last year, and struggle to get any time of enjoyment out of previously "mediocre" films as I once did. This is the perfect example of why. The direction is just awful, it's all over the place, there is no attention to the camera, no thought in any shots, just weird zooms. The acting was not convincing either, even biggish names like Gillian Anderson and Christina Hendricks are laughable in bizarre roles.

Anatomy of a Murder (Otto Preminger, 1959) 4.5

Frustrated at how poor Crooked House was, I decided it was time to pick a "classic" film that I had not yet seen. I definitely made the right choice, this is what cinema is all about. A slow burning atmospheric plot is brought to life by the direction. Here facts, plot and dialogue are simply minor elements that are elevated by a master behind the camera, capturing everything perfectly. This is a masterclass in how film directors should use their camera and skills to tell stories. Every scene is a joy to behold.

thracian dawg

06-02-18, 04:25 PM

★½
Mrs Harris (2005) - Nagy
Despite a cast bursting with talent; the director got hopelessly tangled up in the telling of his story. The lack of budget was really evident in certain scenes. The film includes two different reconstructions of the crime (a woman murders her jerk husband) but incredibly blows the film by beginning with the wrong one.

★★

La Petite Lili (2003) - Miller
An aspiring actress crashes the summer retreat of a cinema family; she jumps from starring in the black and white experimental film of the painfully idealistic son of a famous actress, to the mainstream films of her successful husband-director. The film then re-tells that same summer years later with another effort by the son; this time he has gone embarrassingly mainstream. All the actors get a moment to completely reveal their characters---save for the ingénue who never once shows her cold bloodedness to sacrifice everyone and everything to her movie career.

We Live Again (1934) - Mamoulian
A bit didactic and the character arc is unbelievable where a debauched Russian prince gives all his possessions and wealth away for socialist ideals, which include following a former summer fling’s conviction to a forced labour camp in the Siberian gulag.

Love, Simon (2018) - Berlanti
This is an epistolary film; all the character growth and the plot points are signalled with e-mails. The mother, despite being a professional therapist or a psychologist is unable to read the clues her son bats for the opposing team. The filmmakers err completely by constantly stressing how unimportant and mundane their story really is. This is just a boring teen romance you’ve seen a thousand times before, no reason to get excited, move along people. I flashed on the ten best high school teachers characters in film after some of the heavy mugging in the film---none of them can even approach Ms. Perky from 10 things I hate about you.

Bad Samaritan (2018) - Devlin
This includes the stock cliché of a Mensa level serial killer (aided by scary state of the art technology) who has been on a decades-long killing spree but never wonders for a second why he is such a nut-bar. The film depends on the audience swallowing a major hunk of cheese (along with several smaller bites) when a small time hood finds a woman tortured and chained inside a locked room while robbing the house, but he can’t be bothered to get involved---not once, but twice.

★★½

Grand Hotel (1932) - Goulding
A bit dated but some nice acting bits still resonate. This was the first use of the galaxy of stars as a marketing device for a film. What caught my eye here was a certain fetching, doe-eyed beauty playing the stenographer; who turned out to be the same hardened old bitty from What Ever Happened to Baby Jane. Wow, what a vamp! She was dazzling as a young actress.

… And the pursuit of happiness (1986) - Malle
A documentary about immigrants in America; not an exhaustive effort but a nice array of people making a new start in America; some poor people are fleeing injustice while other rich dudes are avoiding justice. He interviews people who made it big; astronauts; writers, and just normal people whose only dream is to make a better life. As always---whatever their political stripe, the director lets his subjects speak their minds.

Purgatorio: a journey into the heart of the border (2013) - Reyes
This is a documentary about the area around the US /Mexican border with various snapshots of Mexican social reality. Little vignettes like the old American doffer on the other side of the border who goes out on the week-ends to cleans up the trails, thinking every empty water bottle or candy wrapper is a trail maker directly orientating a marching mariachi band to his doorstep. Anything he can do to make sure these people die from exposure at mile 999 of a thousand mile journey is all fair and well. There is a painfully obvious observation that a poor country doesn’t have the financial resources to compete with the quality of life of a rich nation. The film could have been stronger had there been a deeper thematic connections between the slice of life scenes the director selected.

The Cow and I (1959) - Verneuil
A POW’s escape from Nazi Germany is simple; he’ll simply walk to France with a cow in hand, telling the Germans he meets that he is just bringing her to the farm down the road. There is a lot gentile humour here, like when he says goodbye to the farmer next door. He spends all day walking only to unexpectedly cross paths with him again at the end of the day, who good naturedly loads up him and his cow in his U-haul and drives him all the way back to where he started out in the morning.

Tully (2019) - Reitman
This is three different versions of the same woman. The first section is about the trials and tribulations of a woman in her third trimester who maintains the family household with two young children (one with special needs) while hubby comes home after a long day at work then plays video games all night. Is she dog-tired and a little frazzled? Cue the Frances McDormand voice: You betcha! The second part is a celebration of female friendship. The film is a little neat and tidy; she is always placed alongside pencil thin younger women to exaggerate the monstrosity she has become. Charlize Theron gained 50 pounds to play this character---this is method acting at its absolute worst, you can bet your mortgage payment she skipped over any dedicated research and preparation for the third story.

Murmur of the Heart (1971) - Malle
All the adults here are hypocrites or deeply flawed in this coming-of-age story; like the priest who takes a keen interest in our hero’s intellectual development, all the while groping his thighs during confession, His mother (who could be an older sister) is openly having an affair. The middle aged father is distant. In the background France is getting it’s ass handed to them at Dien Bien Phu and is about to pull out of Vietnam.

At first this seems like total anarchy, his two older brothers are like the spawns of hell about to be loosed onto an unsuspecting world. However this brief rebellion against their great privilege will soon evaporate once they realize they are going to inherit all that lucre. In a couple of years, they will be two bespectacled, balding men who spend their days sitting quietly behind desks as the financial advisers to the family fortune.

★★★

Vive le tour (1962) - Malle
A very energetic short documentary of the Tour de France bicycle race; beginning on the sidelines with the spectators of each village and town turning out to watch the pageantry. The camera then gets mobile and joins the race up close and personal, focusing on several facets; keeping the energy up; crack-ups; doping. I liked the mountain portion with the close-ups on their faces, the sweat literally pouring down their faces inrivulets intercut with little flashes of themselves imagining standing victorious on the podium.

Mistress America (2015) - Baumbach
Tracy makes a friend. A freshman college student calls up the older woman living downtown who is about to become her sister-in-law. This is filled with snappy dialogue and crackling one-liners. So much so, at times they appear to be one of those cell phone couples walking down the street elbow to elbow in animated conversation then at a stop light, they turn and reveal they both have ear phones and are not even aware of each other’s existence. Mistress America has a great introduction, descending the stairs like a bad-ass diva but she is clearly anxious about stumbling and doing a face plant in public. The timeline (a couple of weeks) is too short and the director fails to commit to whatever story he was telling, it’s kind of a cheat he doesn’t supply the tragic beats contained within this tale.

Game Night (2018) - Daley & Goldstein
Comedy is all about setting up the premise and exploiting it mercilessly. I thought this was really well constructed, you can see the gags being set-up; the incoming punch-lines; then a twist to the original joke; then the double twist; like the next door neighbour, they are not going to sneak a single thing by his vigilance and the humour becomes the futility of even trying. Or the player who always loses game night because he brings a bimbo with him---so he finally breaks down and brings in a ringer and he becomes the bimbo. Visual gags, like the monopoly game pieces are actual items in the film; or throwaways like the woman walking her dog at night and she glances down an alleyway then quickly hurries on.

The Rider (2017) - Zhao
Brady Blackburn is an up and coming rodeo star and kind of a horse whisperer, although he is the only one who doesn’t seem to know his rodeo career is over when a bucking bronc puts a metal plate in his head. But cowboys never quit; they saddle up and ride through the pain; he has to accept the bitter truth and let go of all his dreams. He has a permanent side effect from the head injury where his left hand suddenly clamps up uncontrollably and he has to pry open his fist, finger to finger to let go … metaphorically. There is a strong documentary vibe to this; the family in the film is a family in real life. His best friend in the film who suffered the catastrophic rodeo injury is confined to a wheelchair in real life.

The Lovers (1958) - Malle
There is a really great bait and switch here, setting up a confrontation then simply side-stepping the whole affair with something much more intriguing; which was done with a hitchhike, a haunting midnight stroll and a “boat ride”. I loved how the stranger was just idly commenting on her life, and when they pull into the driveway, it is the exact tableau of what he sketched out earlier is there in all its glory, but rather than weeping, she bursts out in uncontrollable laughter.

If you were young: rage (1970) - Fukasaku
When their factory closes, five guys decide, instead of getting picked off one by one, they should pool their meager resources and fight collectively for a decent future. Their plan is to buy one dump truck and over time, add another one and over time create an entire fleet. There is an exuberant mise en scene with freeze frames, skewed angles, and micro flash backs supplying the back stories. Needless to say, the system conspires against them, knocking them down and out one by one, until only two remain standing.

Place de la République (1974) - Malle
A very simple premise---for about 10 days around a Parisian park, Louis Malle simply accosts people in the street to see they will talk to him. Since the people inside the stores never come out, the street vendors, the older people who populate the benches and the unemployed become the natural cast of the film. The lady who sells lottery tickets from the open air kiosk says people share their most intimate thoughts and feelings because they are bored and unhappy, and we get a few examples of this, when people just pore out their life stories with a simple greeting. On one hand, this is brutally mundane; on the other hand, some people do have dramatic stories.

God’s Country (1985) - Malle
This documentary is major step up from Place de la République, where each passerby only had a moment to continue walking on or reveal themselves---invited into the comfort of their own homes in this farming community; the subjects of his film completely spill the beans about their lives in Glencoe, Minnesota. There is a kind of epilogue to this small town portrait when Malle returns five years later reconnecting with a few of the people during a strong economic downturn and the bitterness of the once optimistic farmers is shocking. No one wants their children to grow up to be farmers.

Human, too human (1974) - Malle
The film consists of short vignettes of assembly line work in an automobile plant. Everyone is aware of the film crew; and the workers fall into three neat categories: the main group are workers who can look at the camera while working, or if the pace is too swift, steal a glance while fixing a twist of wires, punching a precise hole or securing bolts. Another group of workers are those stuck in mind numbingly repetitive abstractions, pushing something into the maw of the machine or simply turning over a metallic shield---these people don’t even dare to look at the camera, it’ s almost as if they were embarrassed to be caught doing this. The best scenes are the ones where the job demands real skill, and the thing they are working either looks vaguely or exactly like a car. They become like dancers in a ballet that never ends. At times it gets a little hypnotic; you begin to wonder about their day dreams, and imagine the untold other half of their lives.

Elevator to the Gallows * (1958) - Malle
This was Louis Malle’s first film. He cleverly puts the murder right up front which creates an entire new dynamic for the story. The guy commits the perfect murder---except for one minor error. He dashes back to fix it, leaving the keys in the ignition; and ends up getting trapped in an elevator when they turn off the power for the night. When he gets out, a young thug has gone on a crime spree using his identity. He can’t alibi out of a major crime without volunteering for another---talk about being between a rock and a hard place. Best thing about this film was Jeanne Moreau who was waiting for him. She sees his car streak by in the street with a beauty in the passenger side and assumes, not only has he chickened out on the plan to kill her husband; but he has dumped her and simply gone off with a younger woman. She walks the street at night revisiting all their old familiar haunts, slightly crazed and desperate, accompanied by Miles Davis’ wailing trumpet---this is so detached from the story it feels like it belongs to another film.

★★★½

Love at First Fight (2014) - Calley
This is a sly mediation about climate disruption with romance, depending on your tastes, either in the foreground or background. France’s decline is indicated where the only job options available for young people are fast food franchises (the zero hour business model) or the army (muscle for overseas investments). The young woman dropped out of her university program (and a very lucrative future) of future analysis and marketing trends when it occurred to her, hanging a diploma on the wall stating she could see the future was too absurd to even contemplate. Her career goal now is prepare for the apocalypse by making it into one of the army’s elite special force units. The guy has no interest in the army and follows her into the summer orientation program just to be around her. He of course, is a blue ribbon candidate who accumulates promotions in whatever he does, while she begins to collect demerit points. She is way too intelligent; pointing out the fly in the ointment to every training exercise. It begins to dawn on her, if she wants any future in the army she is going to have to ask for the regulation lobotomy---Sir!

You’re sleeping, Nicole (2014) - Lafleur
With her parents on vacation Nicole has the whole house all to herself and nothing really to do except hang out with her best friend after work. A couple of years out of high school and she is still unsure what she wants to do for the rest of her life. A heat wave makes it impossible for her to sleep, so she wanders around her tree-lined neighbourhood at night. The black and white photography really captures how exquisite the air conditioned evening feels after an unbearably hot and sticky day. Unfortunately, her older brother also profits from their parents absence to move in his band and turn the house into a recording studio; placing the only interesting guy within miles behind the drum kit in the living room. This is cute and poetic.

A touch of sin (2013) - Zhangke
This could also be called corruption city. This is four heartbreak stories from the precariat. The violent economic system we live with that ennobles thugs and promotes thuggery is not the problem; capitalism is only a problem when the poorest of the poor are driven to despair and use same violence that is visited daily upon them---only then do we get moral outrage about criminality.

One story has a villager slowly losing it. He embarrasses a multi-millionaire (someone he went to village school with) with a question at a photo-op (he pocketed the village mine free of charge and now travels with a private jet) the reaction is immediate, after the welcoming crowd disperses, one of his bodyguards beats him unconscious with a ceremonial ground breaking spade, forever giving him the comical new moniker of Mr. Golf. There are a couple of instances of sketchy CGI in the film, but lots of languid compositions and unhurried scenes that are a joy to savour.

★★★★

My dinner with Andre (1981) - Malle
When Wally was a kid, he rode around in checkered cabs and dreamt of making great art---as an adult, he only grubs for money. He gets wrangled into a dinner with a former hot shot theatre director who has fallen into obscurity. He has been avoiding him like the plague but since he gave him his start in the business, he is somewhat obligated to accept. His goal is just to endure the evening. He comes equipped with a secret weapon, during any lull in the conversation he’ll just pepper him with question the dinner will be over in no time.

However, sometime after the main course, he realizes Andre’s kooky avant-garde experiments actually serve a purpose, to discover authentic living representations of life and to chip aggressively away at the pretense. Some of the open absurdities that Andre points out strike a chord with Wally. The obligation of each individual is to live your life and not just endure it. Long after the thrills are gone, you continue to inhale and exhale from bad habit. This moment is signalled by a three-shot: Andre’s deepest self appears in the mirror behind him and Wally is actually having a genuine one to one connection.

Disobedience (2017) - Lelio
I was pretty much hooked within the opening minutes: a frail Rabbi is giving a sermon about angels (someone who accepts his wisdom) and beasts (someone who rejects his great erudition) then he collapses on the pulpit. Cut to a photography studio with a woman taking pictures of another kind of holy man (and rebel) all his talismans are tattooed on his body. She is interrupted by a phone call; has anonymous sex with someone she just met in a bar; goes for an ice skate; sits down on a bench then tears her sweater … a Hasidic gesture of mourning, meaning the old man has died and she was connected to him in some way. This also signals a woman with an extraordinary life journey. This is a very subtle film with repressed body language, small lightning and musical cues; listen to the way the people wish her a long life at the beginning of the film (why the hell are YOU here?) and listen to McAdams say goodbye at the end.

Joel

06-02-18, 04:58 PM

[COLOR=black][FONT=Georgia]My dinner with Andre (1981) - Malle
When Wally was a kid, he rode around in checkered cabs and dreamt of making great art---as an adult, he only grubs for money. He gets wrangled into a dinner with a former hot shot theatre director who has fallen into obscurity. He has been avoiding him like the plague but since he gave him his start in the business, he is somewhat obligated to accept. His goal is just to endure the evening. He comes equipped with a secret weapon, during any lull in the conversation he’ll just pepper him with question the dinner will be over in no time.

However, sometime after the main course, he realizes Andre’s kooky avant-garde experiments actually serve a purpose, to discover authentic living representations of life and to chip aggressively away at the pretense. Some of the open absurdities that Andre points out strike a chord with Wally. The obligation of each individual is to live your life and not just endure it. Long after the thrills are gone, you continue to inhale and exhale from bad habit. This moment is signalled by a three-shot: Andre’s deepest self appears in the mirror behind him and Wally is actually having a genuine one to one connection.

I just watched this again last night and agree with you here. It's a great film, and the dialog is so well put across, as if it's a bedtime story. A thing I noticed was Wally's slightly curious distraction with the waiter, and Gregory's very attentive smile towards anything Wally has to say, even if it's a rebuttal. Such a class movie.

aronisred

06-02-18, 05:55 PM

the big short

4

A group of outsiders find out that the housing market is about to crash and tries to bet on its failure. But its not all fun for them having predicted the doomsday rightfully.

How to make an Oscar movie that is genuinely a contender ? I am talking about the movies that could have a strong presence in the big five categories aka picture, director, actor, actress and screenplay and not Oscar baits. The relatively easiest way is to make a period movie set in early to late 20th century and it should focus on some important events but most importantly it should realize that time period well. The more budget put into it the more chances are that the movie will be nominated for more oscars. The more modern you get with your movies the harder it is for academy to reward the movie in a major way. Because the modern you get the normal the production design , the costumes etc. becomes. So the stories and performances have to bear all the weight. The concept of prestige filmmaking is very interesting. The terms prestige and money and risk go hand in hand. Because prestige projects are highly ambitious and more often than not they fail. Most of the times prestige projects when they fail are commercial bombs. Thats when you get a DiCaprio movie. There was this term called Tom Cruise movie. Which is essentially a result of brand development. You have a certain type of audience and to keep them coming back to your movies you give them what they want. Tom cruise played himself in different settings. Maybe thats because he is not that good of an actor. But DiCaprio is cleverer and a better actor. So he plays himself but with different costumes and make up and most importantly he collaborates only with top tier directors. He waits if they are not available. But not every actor can afford to wait because their box office draw and star power drops with each year they don't make a movie and most importantly the director wouldn't wanna work with them or the producers. Jake Gyllenhaal can't wait for Nolan to hire him because if he doesn't do other movies he might not be a best choice when Nolan did want to hire him. But the exception to the rule is DiCaprio. Who until now is able to maintain his star power just based on his name. He knows his boundaries as an actor and as a bankable star and he is using it. The investors of Tarantino's next movie are not dumb to invest 100 million based on DiCaprio/Pitt name if they don't have concrete evidence that people will show up to the movie.

But what do you do if your name is bankable with certain uncertainty and not all top directors want to work with you. A director like Innaritu could have gotten a similar performance from Bale but when he has DiCaprio, a guaranteed box office draw waiting to work with him ,why would he risk a box office failure and hire bale ? For all we know it could turn into a surprise hit like life of pi or gravity but it might not.

Christian bale has a 100 million price tag attached to him. Given the right subject matter and public appeal, a studio is willing to spend money with him as lead. But the only problem here is that a top tier director need to be available. Steven Spielberg is not gonna be a hired gun just because a studio finds the project appealing. He will check all his criteria and see if the movie meets them. Exodus was stuck with Spielberg for a long time before Ridley Scott directed it . Ridley Scott is much more loose with his choices and he payed the price.So Christian bale knows that just because he is worth 100 million doesn't mean he should ruin his bankability by working with subpar directors on subpar scripts.Because all it takes for his price tag to plummet is two 100 million dollar movies to bomb badly and make 40 million each that are commercially aimed.

Thats how we end up with movies like the big short. If they couldn't find someone to play Michael burry I am not sure how the movie could have worked. The brilliance of Christian bale career choices is that he is choosing ambitious projects with low budget and projects with free money. The promise is a movie with 100 million attached to it. They are willing to burn the money so they could tell the story of Armenian genocide in a epic way. But to sell the movie to distributers to put in theaters they need a star. So only for that purpose christian bale chose to make the movie. Thats just nuts. Thats crazy. Especially in an industry like Hollywood where every movie you make effects your brand for better or worse.But he does it anyway. He does however is in my opinion in top 5 box office stars. Because, even brad Pitt couldn't sell a movie like Allied and Matt Damon bombed with suburbicon and Downsizing. So its not like all other stars are succeeding continuously. He still has some gas left in his tank in terms of box office appeal.

This movie is what wolf of wall street should have been. There is moral compass through out the movie where as WOWS is an endorsement for debauchery , anarchy and anti social behavior.

One more thing to point out in this movie is that when christian bale was nominated for Oscar for this performance I heard two opposing points of view. One of them is well he is not in it for long and he just looks sad and so they are basically attacking his screen time and performance. The other view is Steve carrell is the most memorable character in the movie.

Here is the thing, any moron can scream and shout in every scene with funny dialogues. But only very few actors can play a character that is as challenging as his performance in the big short. There is no vanity in the role. What he is doing is the complete dismantling of star image and celebrity. A movie star is playing a role where in you can't even recognize him. Very very few actors can do what he is doing. None of the movie stars can do what he is doing. What this does is give the control over performance to actor and not rely too much on script and director. Good script and director are not part of your biology. They are part of your privilege. Its your position that is allowing you to collaborate with them. Just because Steve Carrell is the voice of reason and outrage in the movie doesn't mean his performance is great.

Here is the thing, its not Oscar for best written role or role with most heart or actor who used his bankability to make a prestige movie a box office success or actor who is not good looking. It is Oscar for best performance. As for this movie I highly recommend it to people with brain and people who wanna see wolf of wall street with some real balls. Wolf of wall street falls exactly into where Wall Street wants general public to think about them. A place of greed, excess , sex and drugs and debauchery. But that doesn't help anyone. The real stuff which they don't want you to know is in the big short. Wall street will laugh at you if you see WOWS and think now I know the greed in wall street.Because you are at exactly the same place where you are before watching the movie. But the big short actually works.

donniedarko

06-02-18, 11:36 PM

http://i.cdn.turner.com/v5cache/TCM/Images/Dynamic/i366/MonkeyBusiness1931.83860_061820150445.jpg
Monkey Business (McLeod,1931)
I first came across Marx Brothers around 2013 when I watched Duck Soup, which instantly became my favorite comedy and remains such to this day. I've enjoyed many other laughs through their other films- Horse Feathers, Night at The Opera, A Night in Casablanca, Animal Crackers, Coconuts, but Monkey Business is the next best thing. Jam packed with laughs- Grucho is at his best and the puppet stunt with Harpo had me dying. Even the side story with Zeppo was decent enough when surrounded by the other antics. 2nd best Marx Brothers film
4

https://media.giphy.com/media/xT9Igx3hw9KjyZZVQs/giphy.gif
The Disaster Artist (Franco, 2017)
The three stand out points for this film:
1. Constant Entertainment Value
2. James Franco's Heartfelt performance as Tommy Wiseau
3. The Brilliant Adapted Screenplay
All this alongside a star studded cast, perfectly casted down to the supporting roles, created a great high energy biopic (kinda). I say kinda since the film does feel like it's equally focused on Greg and his evolution through different stages of his relationship with Tommy. By the end it feels like you know the characters and their motives well, despite the ominous and never revealed background of Tommy. This is probably my 4th favorite of 2017, however I feel like this film and It will be the longest remembered.
3.5

Also great post thracian dawg, thoroughly enjoyed reading your thoughts on those films

UpgradeYourDad

06-03-18, 03:09 PM

44969
Mystic River (Eastwood, 03)

Let’s get this out of the way first: Eastwood’s filmography isn’t great. For every Unforgiven (‘92) there’s three The Trouble with the Curve (‘12). He’s definitely a quantity over quality kind of guy. However, Mystic River is definitely in his top five.

At its core, the film is an interesting character study on trauma. Davey (Robbins) deals with childhood abuse, Jimmy (Penn) deals with his daughter’s murder, and Sean (Bacon) deals with his wife leaving him.

Based off the Dennis Lehane novel of the same name, the emotion really works. We’re thrown into this Northeast town that feels real. Sean Penn is the star of the show doing some of the best work of his career. Not to be outdone, both Robbins and Gay Harden deliver outstanding performances with such muted idiosyncrasies, they completely disappear. A particularly big shout out however must go to Tom Stern (The Changeling) for beautifully capturing everything. This is Eastwood’s most visually memorable film, no matter how lazily edited the final film becomes.

This is compounded by the fact that Mystic River’s biggest flaw is there’s too much of it. It’s great that this film opens with the main flashback and doesn’t sporadically cut to it throughout, however it still tries to force feed you information multiple times. The last ten minutes are totally redundant and not needed. If you’ve watched this recently, you’ll understand when I say: it should have just ended on the sidewalk.

Despite this, it’s still well worth your time. It’s a solid Northeast crime story, and what can I say? I’m a sucker for it.

4-

aronisred

06-03-18, 04:51 PM

Dunkirk

4

During world war 2 ,British army was sent to help the allied forces into France. But once France was flooded with germans British army decided to retreat back into England to protect their island nation. Germans took advantage of this situation and started attacking the retreating enemy using air strike on the beaches of Dunkirk. This story follows a young soldier's journey through this extraordinary circumstances.

What makes Christopher Nolan different from other directors is that his movies have just the right amount of smartness to let the audience in on the secret and make them think he is clever. There are tons of movies which are very hard to get into and which are very smart. But if the audience are not in on the smartness of the movie, they feel dumb and left out.A friend of mine compared it to this question " by drawing a single line, make this equation true 1+1+1 = 142"...the answer to that is make one of "+" number 4 and you make the equation true. This question if you have never heard before will make you feel smart and in exactly the same way you like Nolan for making you feel that way. The key here is its not too complicated. Even for a person with no college degree, this thing is super simple. You do that enough times and then you make a movie like interstellar and try and break it down with examples, so that layman can understand and people will be willing to take the ride with you. Thats a gift. Its not something a director can come up with in fluke. Something like Annihilation has much less action and motion and kinetic energy to it that even the high concepts sort of make people not want to watch it in cinema.

I have never had any hope that any other filmmaker can occupy the same space as Nolan in terms of pushing those emotional buttons with their movies that Nolan does so often, until I saw Logan by James Mangold. Even though it lacked in perceived complexity of a typical Nolan film, nonetheless it is a very impressive piece of filmmaking.Some themes that kind of reminded me of a Nolan film are the dementia of professor X or the dour dark mental state of Logan. All those are extremely reminiscent of a Nolan film but not too much to the point of copying a Nolan film. Thats very important because critics can easily sniff out if a filmmaker is inspired by or copying or doing his own thing with a movie. Thats the very reason I am super excited for the ford v Ferrari movie by James Mangold because its a movie about winning at the expense of lives. People die left and right until Ford is able to make the fastest car that can beat Ferrari. The pure nature of racing doesn't leave any room for faking the victory. So the cerebral quality that the story lends itself to need a strong hand at helm to direct the movie and I think James Mangold can do it.

Coming back to Dunkirk , the most fascinating thing about it is there is a sense of gloom and fear and real horror that is captured in the movie. The sight of thousands of soldiers on the beach knowing that its not a drill and all of them know that its not safe for them there is kind of interesting cinematically. People say that the movie is about war and that it captured the essence of what its like being in war and its not about characters to the point of some people mocking saving private saying "you don't have long speeches of soldiers telling about their kids back home" but the there has to be a different way in sync with the tone of this movie to convey those emotions. Lot of movies ask you to care for characters just by showing the position they are in with no character background but for some reason we don't give them a pass where as we do for a movie by Christopher Nolan. How about this , don't give me character backgrounds but at least make me care for them. Thats your duty as director to do that and if you don't like back ground sob stories. But there is too much chaos in the movie that is not cinematic. Audience are selling themselves and their logic the movie by rationalizing. As a cherry on top Nolan puts his time intercutting style mesh on the movie , so it doesn't feel like Nolan is pandering to Oscar voters for an Oscar. He still stuck to his signature directing style . All in all its a good movie but not great and this is the first time the time intercutting felt like a gimmick as opposed to many of his other movies where it was much more cohesive.

aronisred

06-03-18, 11:23 PM

The invitation

4

A man is on his way to the house of his ex-wife living in Los Angeles hills with some wealthy person and his current girlfriend is accompanying him to that house. One key concern or oddity the man has regarding this invitation is that its out of the blue. The last communication they had was several years ago. So the man feels weird about it. All his ex-wife's and his friends were invited as well to the party. As the movie goes it becomes more and more interesting.

I think the key aspect of this movie that is so appealing to me is the somber tone. There is certain melancholy to it along with dread.It all builds up to a finale that is just so worth it.

Spoilers

So the protagonist breaks up with his wife because their son drowns due to negligence . This effects them differently. He tries to meet new women and start a relationship and try and stay as normal as possible. But the wife on the other hand meets some guy and they go off to South America / Mexico and joins a cult. Any cult is weird in the sense they want people to follow what they preach. Someone who is the head of a cult has certain desire to have power over others and the weak usually want someone who they can follow. So this supply and demand sort of fits perfectly. So basically this cult that they join has a leader whose preachings are slowly uncovered in the movie. Not the actual person per se but what his ex-wife learned from the cult. Initially we see through a footage shown to the guests on a laptop that the cult makes people acquainted with the idea of death and normality of death and then when the protagonist sneaks through the house he comes across a laptop that shows him how the cult leader sort of preaches more about death. So it appears that the cult destroys the will to live in their followers. Over the course of the movie we find out that the two other guests at the party are in fact members of the same cult and they lost someone. One is a middle aged widower and the other is a emotionally and mentally unstable woman. So the final and main reveal is that all this cult members in order to let go of their pain decide to sacrifice all the guests and kill themselves as well. I am not sure about the last part but killing the guests is certainly their main reason behind inviting them . They feed them like guinea pigs and try and sacrifice them.

The genius in direction is the way the story unravels.The protagonist having known his ex-wife and the things that happen earlier in the movie including a bizarre scene where the female member of the cult propositions him in a weird way sort of smells something is wrong. He can't quite figure out what it is but during the final moments before the planned sacrifice all his instincts forces him to act. The way the story interweaves grief , sorrow and oddity of the circumstances is brilliant and all this culminates in a horror sequence. I didn't like the reveal of all the houses in Los Angeles hills taking part in this sacrifice. But up until that point it is very well done and interesting.

aronisred

06-04-18, 03:44 PM

The prestige

5

What starts as a professional curiosity between two budding magicians turns into a deadly rivalry when the wife of one magician is accidentally killed during a live performance .

The setting of the movie is very gloomy. Its set in 19th century. What about 19th century is unique ? People have become much more civilized by that point and there is lot of innovation happening left and right. From tiny spoons all the way to automobiles. Some innovations that are temporary and some that are still being used right now. The interesting thing about this time period is that people can be what they want to be but society is much more harsher to anyone who tries to be famous but doesn't earn it. That's where we enter into the novel by Christopher priest based upon which the movie was made. This is the perfect line of work that encompasses the time period. Magicians need to come up with some tricks and audience don't wanna know their tricks but as long as the act is interesting enough audience will appreciate and if it sucks the feedback is quite quick. Audience will shout at you. Audience don't wanna believe that the act is fake and are willing to give into the magic.

The question would be,if the time period is so volatile and elemental and tribal in terms of innovation then why do we even need a conflict between two people to tell this story ? well, without the conflict between two specific characters there would be a mass conflict which would ultimately be a chaos. You don't want multiple characters fighting with each other. That's chaos. So the conflict at the core of the story is very reminiscent of conflict between Tesla and Edison but since Edison has lot of goons working for him that wouldn't make for a more pointed conflict if its exactly like that . The most pointed conflict is one on one. And also a conflict that is between two up and comers rather than between an establishment and an individual. Is there a Nolan spin to the story ? I would say no. This in my opinion is the most distinct story Nolan has ever told. Most of the his other movies have a very strong stamp of Nolan on them. But the prestige is the only one which was able to transcend that. The time period sort of made it impossible for Nolan to put his stamp on it. It almost becomes science fiction at the end but the through line of sacrifice for the sake of art and glory is very evident. That is the crux of the story.

The characters of angier and borden are very similar to hugh jackman and christian bale. Bale is more talented than Jackman but Jakckman is a showman and he sings and dances and kind of presents himself very well compared to bale who doesn't do much interviews. That's why they are so different from each other. Its a very impressive movie. I think it is one of the few movies which was able to deconstruct ambition along with Black Swan. Because a lot of people forget this but people who achieve glory always have incredible number of hours of preparation behind them. They never start from scratch at 30 yrs. This movie shows that both angier and borden are doing apprenticeship at various magicians and trying to make a name for themselves..so its not an unbelievable leap to having their own shows. these guys have amassed lot of tricks over the years. Its definitely worth a watch.

Mr Minio

06-05-18, 12:51 PM

Terrifying Girls' High School: Animal Courage (1973) - 4

https://i.imgur.com/uSyWVvO.jpg

I'm so REKT! This was sooo good. Schoolgirls are taking off their clothes, fencing (there's even a Medieval sword fight!) and creating school gangs, while a domina-teacher with a whip, school's perverted headmaster, and a priest mob rapist use them, and shiiiiiz. LEGITTTT. On a more serious note, the subversiveness is really strong in this one. The school and teachers are portrayed as extremely useless, and at the end all this institutional oppression is brutally exposed! PS: The spaghetti-like music slays!

Terrifying Girls High School: Delinquent Convulsion Group (1973) - 4

https://i.imgur.com/N9Ua7Cz.png

Don't fug with Reiko Ike or you're gonna have some BULLETZ FOR DINNA BEEYOTCH!

Terrifying Girls' High School: Women's Violent Classroom (1972) - 4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GJOWpF4iA8

Miki Sugimoto versus Reiko Ike! A duel of the decade! Norifumi Suzuki always delivers the sleaziest shizz, and it's not any different this time. I need more of this shizz in my life. At last finished the series. Phenomenal! 8/10! Would watch again.

Thief of Reality (2001) - 4.5

https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/w533_and_h300_bestv2/nk2QhI22EgtWX7WOqxpL43fKL4C.jpg

Sinister Greek mythos meet contemporary art. The effect is, as expected, outstanding.

Belladonna of Sadness (1973) - 3.5

https://i.imgur.com/Ju6EIf0.jpg

I don't know, man. The animation was trippy and psychedelic and stuff, but that's all.

Legend of the Mountain (1979) - 4.5

https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/images/newsite/legend-of-the-mountain_600.jpg

The first two hours were the droney Zen metaphysics I always fought for, but then the last hour came and it was just decent. I mean, it had some elements and ideas that were explored better in other films like Chinese Ghost Story (I'm a sucker for this kinda sh*t, muddafugga), and so many subplots, characters, ideas and it was so chaotic. Gimme my beloved ghost lady back, gimme that music, I want a A Touch of Zen-like ending, not this chaos, bleough!

Hanging Garden (2005) - 4

https://i.imgur.com/p9HfAQU.png

A little bit frustrating at first, but I got into it. A lot of unconventional camera angles.

The Sun and the Moon (2008) - 3

https://i.imgur.com/RyvFM06.png

An okayish experimental film. Expected much more from it given its place on the list of best movies of the decade on some hipster site.

They Came to a City (1944) - 3

https://i.imgur.com/U0ixutK.png

A very interesting concept, but wasn't a fan of the exalted monologues, and felt it all could've been done much, much better.

You Were Never Really Here (2017) - 3.5

https://cdn.pastemagazine.com/www/articles/YouWereNeverReallyHere633x356.png

Pretty good. It's as heavy as it should, and that atmosphere... I can see a trend in American cinema, and I like it.

I haven't seen anything for two days now, but I'm already catching up... watching another pinku eiga!

re93animator

06-05-18, 02:26 PM

Annihilation (2018) – 2.5
Probably not quite as visually stunning as it was meant to be, and the characters are a draaag, but it’s still ambitious and pretty.

Split (2016) – 2.5
Eh. Entertaining at times; silly at times; not totally run of the mill. Maybe I'm being too harsh. :/

The Woman in Black (2012) – 3
Atmosphere is expectedly good and murky, though there are a few too many OTT bits and predictable jump clichés for it to remain effective for very long. Perhaps just me, but dancing monkey toy shaking maracas isn’t too unsettling (was very entertained though).

The Babadook (2014) – 3
A cool metaphorical horror mystery unraveling around a powerhouse of a lead.

Don’t Breathe (2016) – 3.5
Really loved the ‘villain,’ and the plot lends itself to a lot of simple Hitchcockian tension (minus the silly dog in the car scene).

The Witch (2015) – 4
A unique atmosphere with a really authentic period feel, beautifully written dialogue, and a great eerie score. It’s bound to get even better with rewatches.

Ultraviolence

06-05-18, 02:39 PM

Beduino 2016 Directed by Júlio Bressane ★★★★

Black Mass 2015 Directed by Scott Cooper ★★

Dark Crimes 2016 Directed by Alexandros Avranas ★★★★

Elite Squad 2007 ‘Tropa de Elite’ Directed by José Padilha ★★
Elite Squad: The Enemy Within 2010 ‘Tropa de Elite 2’ Directed by José Padilha ★★★

Cries and Whispers 1972 ‘Viskningar och rop’ Directed by Ingmar Bergman ★★★★★
Scenes from a Marriage 1973 ‘Scener ur ett äktenskap’ Directed by Ingmar Bergman ★★★★★
Saraband 2003 Directed by Ingmar Bergman ★★★★★

Beyond the Hills 2012 ‘După dealuri’ Directed by Cristian Mungiu ★★★★★
4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days 2007 ‘4 luni, 3 săptămîni și 2 zile’ Directed by Cristian Mungiu ★★★★

Atomic Blonde 2017 Directed by David Leitch ★★

Once Upon a Time in Anatolia 2011 ‘Bir zamanlar Anadolu'da’ Directed by Nuri Bilge Ceylan ★★★★★
Winter Sleep 2014 ‘Kış Uykusu’ Directed by Nuri Bilge Ceylan ★★★★★

Crimson Peak 2015 Directed by Guillermo del Toro ◘

Toy Story of Terror! 2013 Directed by Angus MacLane ★★

La Haine 1995 Directed by Mathieu Kassovitz ★★★★

Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters 1985 Directed by Paul Schrader
★★★★

Werckmeister Harmonies 2000 ‘Werckmeister harmóniák’ Directed by Béla Tarr ★★★★★
The Turin Horse 2011 ‘A torinói ló’ Directed by Béla Tarr ★★★★★

Sidewalls 2011 ‘Medianeras’ Directed by Gustavo Taretto ★

The Sea of Trees 2015 Directed by Gus Van Sant ★★

My Voyage to Italy 1999 ‘Il mio viaggio in Italia’ Directed by Martin Scorsese ★★★★★

◘ Atrocity
★ Very Bad
★★ Bad (Sometimes interesting)
★★★ Good
★★★★ Very Good
★★★★★ Great
★★★★★ Masterpiece

-Unfortunately I'm not having time this week to write about the movies. :(

aronisred

06-06-18, 02:30 AM

Mad Max Fury road

4

Lately I have been following google trends websites to see which movies are most searched. I am pretty sure they don't share the whole data and probably its not exactly correct. But i do think that a 100% searched topic will not be shown as 2 % searched topic and 1% searched topic will not be shown as a 100% searched topic. Search trends for actors are a little different because that's celebrity.It is not correlated to box office. Trends of Justin bieber are incredibly high but if he stars in a movie its not make 200 million.So all that out of the way, the search trends were interesting to look at. For revenant and wolf of wall street, the spikes were incredibly high around the release date and that obviously contributes to box office as that shows excitement.On the other hand for a movie like Mad max fury road even with all that epic scale trailers that are unbelievable and out of this world the spikes are not that much high. Its just half the size of those other movies. What exactly does it mean ? MM:FR is one of the very few non-superhero movie of the last decade that actually looks and feels like it could give DiCaprio tent pole movies a run for their money. But for some reason the movie didn't catch much steam at worldwide box office.There might be some strong cult following overseas for the movie and tom hardy but all in all the studio did consider the movie as barely a hit.

The reason I am stressing this is because these are the movies that will make actors superstars and legends. No one remembers the lead of some comedy drama that won best picture at Oscars. Even something like broke back mountain is very niche in its appeal and international appeal for the movie is very minimal.In my opinion the longest an actor can be remembered from a generation is if he can appeal to a 19 yr old Russian male. Because that movie will have enormous effect on the guy. At that age he is shedding boyhood and becoming a man. So all the silly movies no longer appeal to him and this movie appeals to him in his formative years. It proves that this movie transcended language and culture. The feel towards a movie is very important. Forrest Gump is incredibly dated and for a 19 yr guy with raising hormones , he doesn't wanna see a guy like Forrest gump he need someone like Jordan belfort or something like inception to invoke the emotions of relationship with father and people ambitiously working on a mission with high stakes.A movie like blue jasmine will be watched by a niche audience and even they will forget about it. Its the movies that hits a cord with audience that stick around for decades and centuries. Oceans 11 and 12 are movies that have entertaining audience as their sole motivation. The jokes don't land for international audience. A movie should be remembered as an epic and a masterpiece and not as a feel good movie or fun movie. Because the latter kind are dime a dozen. Same thing with paint by numbers action movies lie mission impossible with great stunts. They make for good you tube videos or mountain due ads, but to be considered greatest or to inspire or be copied by other filmmakers you need something original.

This movie is a single non stop chase with 99% outdoor shots. It never lets up. So,from that perspective its a masterpiece. When you set up pressure based explosives in the middle of a street in Detroit that is something we have seen in tons of movies, but when the same explosives are placed in the middle of a desert with blue filtered shots at night now that's something you have never seen. So thats the shtick of the movie. Shots are well compositioned and there is not much to the story other than technical excellence and editing.

So in my opinion this movie sort of made the notion that only DiCaprio can pull audience into the movie even though the movie is not pandering to the audience and is just an artistic endeavor more stronger. Because this movie had every quality of a DiCaprio movie. It will stand hand in hand with revenant in terms of memorability in history of cinema. But still the fact that it made less than terminator genesis and the mummy from 2017 sort of makes me think that "is there no other actor who can do what DiCaprio has been doing for almost every movie " ? I mean not just once ? It think one more closest example was blade runner 2049...even though it had the baggage of the first but it also must have have had the advantage of being a sequel. Because that movie was getting rave reviews just like a DiCaprio movie and it also had epic scale and out of this world cinematography in trailers and reviews were good but all the hype by studio sort of crumbled when reality hits. Because the only wrong piece in the puzzle is Ryan Gosling. Its r rated just like wolf of wall street and revenant but for some reason it just bombed in US by 120 million short of revenant.

So is there a formula of replicating DiCaprio's success without Titanic and Scorsese under their belt ? even Matthew McConaughey became internet famous almost comparable to DiCaprio level during mcconaissance but that was just internet famous not box office. Its comparable to harambe the gorilla viral video. People read articles and feel good about it and move on. When his next movie is coming they don't even think about going to see it.His career has been in toilet after interstellar and even that was Christopher Nolan star powered movie. It has nothing to do with Mcconaughey. From then on he made sea of trees, free state of jones, gold , dark tower and 3 other movies that are anxiously waiting to jump into toilet which are white boy rick and beach bum and serenity. I think there is a way though. Tom hanks is not hot, so he couldn't be that famous internationally especially in macho markets where men want manly movie stars..DiCaprio isn't macho either but he got that movie star look like Paul Newman or Steve McQueen. DiCaprio level star power has been displayed twice and thats with Tom Hanks for close to 2 decades between 1990s and 2010s almost all his movie has same amount of box office pull to them and but most closest to it was Russell Crowe for two movies the gladiator and beautiful mind...those two movies commercial success is DiCaprio level because it his name selling those movies.

So I think the way to go is make a movie that has some thematic appeal to mass audience and make it a major Oscar player...hire some great director and release it in awards season with Oscar buzz and that is good especially for an epic with huge budget. So the end result should be something like this..the movie should sweep at Oscars with best picture and best actor and it should make close to 500 million $ and the guy should be hot or handsome. So basically you get an international exposure to the lead of the movie and from then on the guy should either stick to a single director or only work with top directors. Because his incredible brand thats created then should be maintained. But Russell Crowe couldn't maintain it. Because the problem here is that its hard for an actor from Australia to get into the inner circles of hollywood. The way in for someone like christian bale , who isn't an american but a brit is working with someone like Terrence Malick or David o Russell or being handpicked by Spielberg at an young age or Michael Mann . Because these are the directors that have some clout. So for DiCaprio getting into inner circles of oscars is through someone like Scorsese. Auteurs more than anything want freedom both financially and artistically. Scorsese seems to be of the same type. In Hollywood you can't force studio executives to fund your movie.It just has to happen. So DiCaprio gave Scorsese financial security and in return asked him to make great movie. So an actor has to develop this kind of bond with a commercially viable auteur and not someone like Paul Thomas Anderson whose movies have zero commercial appeal and will only show up on some obscure best picture list which no one will even remember. But this has to happen after they won best actor in a best picture winner for a mass appealing blockbuster. It all has to start at oscars. Because a DiCaprio movie always shows up to play. Its rarely a dud. So for example there is a movie that is being made right now with christian bale and matt damon about Le Mans race of 1966 and rivalry between ford and Ferrari. The movie is basically a mission movie and the mission is to build the fastest car to beat the reigning champion Ferrari. So a team built a car from scratch that would rival and defeat the reigning champion. So if this were a DiCaprio movie then it would be up for sound categories, production design,editing, screenplay and may be an acting or directing or even best picture Oscar. No matter what it would most certainly win sound awards because the fricking movie has that as a key factor. It will be a cerebral thriller because its really life or death for these test engineers because they have to push the cars to their extreme. I want that from a Bale/Damon movie and not some period drama. The moment the movie tries to make it about period drama the movie looses the quality of wonder and uniqueness. Mission movies need to be built around the mission. It can never be about some drama. Because we have all seen those movies of inspiration a million times now. We need a movie that essentially building towards that race. Everything anyone has ever done should all bring them to this moment. Otherwise its not a DiCaprio movie. Because by looking at the type of movies he is making lately this is exactly what he wants to make.

Even mad max is like that. This movie is bare bone action. No fat at all. In the process of all that action story is told. I agree that its incredibly risky. For all we know this could have turned into a blade runner 2049 type bomb but luckily they broke even. I think it is in situations like these that we need a director like Scorsese or Tarantino or Nolan. Because they will deliver on the promise of the story. Otherwise the movie is going to disappoint. I think James Mangold has made enough great movies to be considered dependable.

Monkeypunch

06-06-18, 08:12 PM

Solo: A Star Wars Story - This was just fun from beginning to end. A fast, funny sci-fi heist movie that gives us a glimpse of Han Solo before he became a known scoundrel and smuggler, and how he went from extreme poverty to the rebel scum we know and love. Alden Ehrenreich (yeah, I don't even know if that's spelt right) wisely does not imitate Harrison Ford, instead he gets the overall feel correct, and captures the rough and tumble, slightly inept, comedic nature of the character. Donald Glover is so amazing as Lando I'd go see a whole movie of just him. 4

aronisred

06-07-18, 09:31 PM

Black Mass

2

Life of James Whitey Bulgar and his alliances and betrayals.

The life of Whitey is not particularly an interesting one. He has friends in high places and he formed an alliance with FBI to help them eradicate other mobs all while increasing his own power. Even the mob genre is not ripe for retelling. All the classic mob movies are still fresh in our memory. So is there a room for a mob movie ? well, there is room for one but it has to have a very distinct style and be very fresh in its view.

This movie was the fake Oscar material from warner bros. for 2015/16 oscars. Studio thought this was the Oscar material and put all their support behind it. But ultimately they realized that it was a fugazi. I covered my hate for director Scott Cooper in reviews for his other movies. But this movie deserves its own treatment.

This is the career of Scott cooper

He made a movie with washed up Jeff bridges, an actor who is well respected and overdue. Luckily the movie caught fire and he won an Oscar. Some people confused it with his direction skills.

Then he made a movie with christian bale which would never have happened had bale not said yes.The thing about bale’s career up until that point is that he has two choices after the dark knight trilogy wrapped. He can either make studio based popcorn cash grabbers or work with relatively unknown to good directors. He ain’t gonna be able to make either prestige pictures on epic scale at studios or be picked by auteur. For two reason respectively , one is that he is not that huge of a box office draw for epic prestige movies because Hollywood knows that batman is a box office draw and not christian bale and the other is that it almost feels like auteurs don’t think he is that good of an actor and he is just a serviceable actor in their opinion. Paul Thomas Anderson would rather hire Joaquin Phoenix and make the movie less commercially viable than hire someone like Bale who is clearly willing to take chances and risks in making complicated stories. There is certain amount of perversion to auteurs. They are inherently rebellious to system. It is evident in Scorsese making cape fear the way he wanted and warning Spielberg ahead of time that the movie is not going to be commercial fare or Paul Thomas Anderson risking his credibility by hiring Adam Sandler for a drama during both of their heydays or Tarantino hiring John Travolta instead of Daniel Day Lewis against all odds or David o Russell hiring spike Jonze instead of studio recommended christian bale for 3 kings. All these are directors with incredible hold on their vision and have something unique to bring to the table. They make movies with singular artistic voice and all the royalty of Hollywood who vote at oscars appreciate that. They appreciate that the hateful eight has no movie stars. They cherish the fact that everyone talks about how DiCaprio bled his hand while shooting Django unchained but the actual best performer and Oscar winner for the movie is Christoph waltz.The whole DiCaprio talk is a movie star attention and if he were any less attractive and average looking all that would disappear . But the performances that impress the royalty in Hollywood is the actual great acting. So all this leaves no choice to Christian Bale except to team up with a new comer with potential and a voice of his own and take the risk of him being a one hit wonder. That could turn out to be Damien Chezelle or Scott Cooper.

Then Cooper was hired by Warner bros to rewrite the script of Black mass and direct it. Since its a serious drama with Johnny Depp that makes it ear marked for Oscar campaign. Johnny Depp is very carefree about his career choices. He is someone who believes in his individuality and his choices reflect that. He is not known for his movie star performances. He is more into character building and creation. So Johnny Depp being cast in black mass directed by Scott Cooper doesn’t say nothing about the projects quality. For all we know thats the only straight character he was offered. Because drama is a genre which is hard to appeal to younger demographic or for that matter no demographic. All audience wanna to be watching thrillers or feel good movies. No one wants multiple complex emotions from a movie. So black mass with Johnny Depp is never gonna be a blockbuster. So all of a sudden his casting is not gonna give more credibility to the movie. Rightfully the project was campaigned for oscars and around the time of golden globes , Warner bros realized that they bet on the wrong horse and changed their focus to creed.

Here is the thing about Scott Cooper. Until now he is trying to be an auteur by taking on ambitious projects, but his talent is not enough to make a great movie. So in the end all his movies comes across as a little try hard and flat and thin plotted. Take something like revenant, the story is so thin, but the director is able to capture the depth of circumstance and plight of character in almost a transcendental manner. Try hard is where you end up if an ambitious project fails. But all his movies get prime Oscar release date by studios because of the stars in the movie. They get Oscar campaign screenings and December releases. It almost feels like cry wolf. For his every mediocre movie if there are awards screenings then when he actually makes an awards worthy movie, no one will be interested in him.

I think his ideal career choice is to stick to genre filmmaking or wait for 5 years and write his own script and get it picked up by a big distributor and then hire actors. Studios should pick up the script purely based on its quality and not the star power of cast. That is the key. Other wise he will just work with actors who wants to work with him and schmooze them to work with him again and again so that he could get financing for his movies. If 3 of your movies in a row are failed Oscar baits then I don’t think you should stick to making those movies. Either make a big hit in other genre or prove that you have audience pulse or just go away. I remember listening to his interview for Hostiles where he says “christian bale is the greatest actor working today” and I thought “of course you will say that, he is getting your movies funded with 40 million dollars and you deliver a thin plotted weakly directed movie that wastes its incredible talent ?” Shame on you dude..shame on you.

With that out of the way. This movie really is very superficial. Just because you had 50 million to shoot at various real locations, doesn’t mean you made a great movie. Someone changing into people who they meet often from different line of work is not much of a shock in movies. That trope is done 100 times. Its very mediocre in its tone and story. Just because there is a character in mob doesn’t mean they need a movie. I wouldn’t even recommend watching it. This movie falls apart so fast. All the tension based scenes fall flat or feel like copies and not imitations or inspirations , they feel like directly lifted from other movies. Look at something like wolf of wall street. DiCaprio wanted to make the drug overdose scene like a movie with in a movie. He wanted it to feel like some parts of goodfellas , that doesn’t mean they copied from it..no one looks at the drug overdoes scene from wolf and recollect any scene from any movie. But the dinner scene here is like a copy from goodfellas. Thats not inspirational , thats just copying or lifting scenes. The more I talk about Scott Cooper and this movie or out of the furnace the more I like dislike them. These are huge errors in scripts and lazy lazy screenwriting. I am shocked these stars are working with him and financiers are giving him money to make the movie.

aronisred

06-08-18, 05:19 PM

Inglourious Basterds

4

Two parallel plots to kill Hitler in Nazi Occupied France culminates in a satisfying ending.

For a longtime i used to think that how is it possible that an auteur like Tarantino has so much box office draw. Auteurs generally tend to have strong fans inside film industry and a small fan base outside industry. Usually the fan base inside industry helps get the movie awards nominations and that sort of pushes the box office for a movie. Think no country for old man or true grit. But I think certainty is highly valuable in Hollywood. Hits like the Martian or Gravity are unpredictable and they have more to do with luck than the filmmakers. I think if a filmmaker is known to make great movies or movies that are entertaining in a dark way and the movie is guaranteed to make anywhere between 150 to 200 million then I would say that the filmmaker is highly in demand. In an industry like Hollywood, where film making is highly volatile and no one knows how a movie will turn out, consistency and certainty is gold.Its like 150 million in the bank even before the movie is green lit. That's probably the reason why his next project currently is getting so much attention. You can't say that about very many directors.

The interesting thing about a Quentin Tarantino movie is that its basically a genre picture that's covered in Tarantino flavor. The same way a quiet place makes 300 million $ , a Tarantino movie makes 300 million $. But can the director of quiet place make a movie like quiet place 3 times in a row with equal success ? can audience connect with the director of quiet place the same way they do for Tarantino in terms of reliability to entertain them ? that's what sets him apart from other directors. His movies have his own flavor and academy respects him for that. Entertaining value of a movie trumps the unoriginal nature for the most part. If your movie is set in a modern suburban setting and its entertaining, then it mostly is a movie made for that purpose. But if it is set in 19th or early 20th century then immediately the question why pops up. If you just wanna entertain audience then why do you have to make the movie in that time period. All these peeks the curiosity of audience and if the curiosity is met with a great entertaining movie then they are okay. But if the movie is using the setting to smuggle some message and if its not tactile then the cards starts falling off. If you are not entertaining me then at-least move me emotionally. So that's the crux of his bank-ability. He is a commercial director but his commercial aspect is his own signature , so it makes money and gets awards attention at the same time. Most of the times if a movie is Oscar material, it has to deal with truth and honesty and that cuts off its box office by a large number. That's the sad part. You are either appealing to 60+ audience or to a niche. Both are not repeat customers and highly unpredictable. But the customers of a drug most certainly are.

This movie has some great scenes. The basement rendezvous scene is one of the best in his movies. The opening scene is great. The SS general is well played in the movie. Re-visioning world war 2 is something Hollywood will not allow if not for Quentin Tarantino. The interesting thing about Hollywood is that lets say a director like peter berg wants to tell a revisionist story about world war 2 the problem is no one will give him money to make that movie. Studio executives will not want him to make the movie.Stars will not sign on to make the movie. So the project will not even movie an inch if he is at helm. The problem is that if Peter Berg is making a movie , Spielberg is not excited to see the movie or Scorsese or Paul Thomas Anderson. So the movie has to be big with critics and even then these auteurs will look at his career and see that he has done lot of commercial movies and then they will avoid even doing Q & A with him. But when a movie of QT comes up, all those guys are interested in seeing his movies and they clearly love his career because not one of his movies is a studio product. The problem here is perception of people effects the way your movie is treated if studio executives allow you to make a prestige picture that's a revisionist. PTA interviewed Adam McKay for the big short because all of Adam McKay movies are his signature style movies. He in a weird way is an auteur. So PTA considers him worthy of interviewing. You never see PTA interviewing some new comer. Because that's too much. He doesn't want him. If PTA likes your movie then there is every chance that it will be liked by elite Hollywood voters for awards consideration.

Its his most entertaining movie yet.Quentin Tarantino did successfully prevent any other filmmaker from trying out interesting dialogue or strong deep misogyny in their movies because people will immediately call them out that. That's a very sad state of affairs. Bad times at El Royale looks like an awesome movie from the trailer but people feel like its a Tarantino movie and that's a disgrace and an insult to the filmmakers behind the movie. However the silver lining here is that lately Tarantino is liking his dialogues more than audience. So that's a good thing. Look , all these actors are puppets. They will play a 2 minute part just to be in Tarantino movie.So I wouldn't put much stock in a movie just because all the actors are lining up to be in his movie. Give this movie a go.

donniedarko

06-08-18, 05:40 PM

https://media.gq.com/photos/59dd3e17d1ca75341d3c513d/3:2/w_880/florida-project.jpg
The Florida Project
Sean Baker's The Florida Project is an innovative film, brilliantly bringing the audience into the lives of the poor American. This ain't a blue collar film, or one of the working class, this film portrays the no collar. A minor, but aesthetically familiar, subgroup of American culture. However the film is effectively portrayed through a lens that's the any person has seen life through, regardless of class, the innocent perspective of a young child. There's no overbearing message the film tries to push on the audience, but there's a key lesson to take away on simplifying people. Moonee's mom, Halley, really fits the look of an irresponsible impoverished single mother who whores herself out. And she is, she's hotheaded, self-centered entitled, petty,a poor role model, and edges negligent. On the other hand she's social, appreciative, a hustler, and she cares about those close to her. She's no supermom but it's clear that she loves her daughter. Baker doesn't care about the poor decisions Halley undoubtedly made to get in this position, or the unfair outstanding circumstances in her life. The film looks at none of this, it's truly just a glimpse in the life of Halley and her daughter through a hot Florida summer.

Brilliantly the film puts as much focus, and same style, on the significant moments and the daily events surrounding the summer. A house burning down and 3 kids getting ice cream gets the same attention, and focus on detail. It's shot- well like, life itself. No unnecessary dramatization. Similarly Baker didn't follow a trend that's common in realism works like this one. The film covers many dark topics and their consequences, but none of these are glamorized with graphic on screen sex, or abuse, or violence. It's all in the implications, and the subtle human emotion surrounding these events.

I reckon most audience members relate most to Bobby, brilliantly portrayed by WIlliam Dafoe, since most audience members are Bobby. A caring observer with only so much power. Baker doesn't ask you to judge, or critique, or understand the characters. Just like Bobby this film drags you in to the lives of these characters as an observer, who will smile, laugh, and maybe cry with them. And just when you feel like you've known these people your whole life, poof their gone, their story will continue out of your sight (Just like with Bobby).

A uniquely human piece, that accomplishes so much while doing so little.

4.5

donniedarko

06-08-18, 05:45 PM

https://i.gifer.com/IoZR.gif

Other Viewings:
Modern Times (Chaplin, 1936)- 3.5-
They Shoot Horses, Don't They (Pollack, 1969)- 2.5
S Legkim Parom! (Ryazanov, 1975)- 2+
Snatched (Levine, 2017)- 2

Iroquois

06-09-18, 01:30 PM

Point Blank (John Boorman, 1967) - 3.5

Second time around and I'm still not totally on board with this wildly inconsistent (for better and for worse) neo-noir that takes a classic revenge plot and drags it down an existential rabbit hole with some very 1960s visuals to go along with it, but there's still plenty going on that makes me think of it as remarkable. Still not over its one extremely-dated shot of a guy falling off a building, though.

The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980) - 4.5

Yeah, you know what it is. My only two comments: one, that I'm reluctant to give out and maintain 4.5s because I'm either acknowledging that a film's not good enough to be a 5 or constantly questioning what really makes it better than a 4 (the latter of which definitely applies here). Two, they really need to home-release the full 144-minute version over here at some point becuase I haven't seen that in about 15 years (on free-to-air television, no less!) and yet every other viewing (including two separate theatrical viewings) has been the 115-minute "European" version. Baffling, really, even though one could genuinely question exactly how much of worth gets lost as a result of the trimming.

Solo: A Star Wars Story (Ron Howard, 2018) - 2

The weakest of the Disney Star Wars films by some distance and definitely in the running for the weakest overall. Pacing is all over the place, action is frequently underwhelming, characters are under-cooked, and what little substance is on display here actually has a chance at being worse than no substance at all.

Super Mario Bros. (Annabel Jankel and Rocky Morton, 1993) - 2.5

What initially became a childhood fave off the back of a rather flimsy association with Mario has now revealed itself to be an oddly fascinating curio thanks to its bizarre mixture of jaunty family-film antics with gritty cyberpunk aesthetics. As a result, I don't think I can ever actually bring myself to hate it.

O Lucky Man! (Lindsay Anderson, 1973) - 4

The sequel to if... is very much my kind of movie as it sees Malcolm McDowell go on a series of Candide-esque misadventures through a somewhat surreal depiction of early-'70s Britain. Long and disjointed, but its satirical elements hold up far more often than not.

Un flic (Jean-Pierre Melville, 1972) - 3

Melville's final film sees him pit Alain Delon's cop against Richard Crenna's robber in a film that, despite the title translating to "a cop", is much more concerned (and all the better) with detailing the criminal side of things. It still ends up being a decent heist film, but nothing more.

City Lights (Charlie Chaplin, 1931) - 3

I've realised now that I appreciate Chaplin films a little more when I stop expecting them to be the most gut-busting comedies I'm ever likely to watch and instead end up observing the technique on an academic level and getting wrapped up in the fundamentally simple but nevertheless resonant tales of humanism at their very core.

Ocean's Twelve (Steven Soderbergh, 2004) - 0.5

I originally called this one of the worst movies I'd ever seen and, after so many more years and terrible movies, I don't think that opinion has changed in any significant fashion. It's still obnoxious as all hell in just about every regard (except maybe when it comes to the cinematography and editing - even Soderbergh at his absolute worst is still capable of making me sit up and notice his technique, albeit in an extremely grudging manner).

Pioneers of Ingolstadt (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1971) - 2.5

Going back on a Fassbinder kick with yet another one of his flawed but interesting exercises in examining the love between people and its seemingly inevitable intersection with unfortunate power dynamics, here represented through the relationships between a Nazi occupying force (euphemistically referred to as "pioneers") and the townsfolk who are caught between embracing or rejecting their presence.

I Only Want You To Love Me (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1976) - 2.5

A problem I have with Fassbinder's prolific filmography is that, at the staggering rate he churned out films, too often they can overlap thematically and come across as repetitive exercises on themes he was a little too good at picking clean (the fact that he does this by design doesn't help matters too much). In this case, the tale of an emotionally needy young man struggling to make his way in the world is familiar territory for Fassbinder but he mixes it up just enough to be halfway-worthwhile.

aronisred

06-10-18, 12:26 PM

Only the brave

2

A story about firemen who put out forest fires.

I am in a quest to find the kind of movies that will stand the test of time and why many good movies get lost as time passes.What do you expect in a movie that deals with firemen in forest ? you expect to see their hardships , you see camaraderie , great visuals of forest being burnt or after burnt etc. and you get all those in this movie. But here is the thing about movies like these.It always starts with getting the budget to tell these stories. The investors need to see commercial viability of projects and they need proof that projects like these have worked. When I say projects like these I mean either this concept or this director or this actor or this sub-genre. If the sub-genre is not commercially viable, then the filmmakers will be asked to include elements of the movies that actually worked. Either its that or the director's psyche itself so morphed by his own movie watching experiences that he came up with those elements. I get that the lifestyle of firefighters in rural Arizona could be that of a stereotypical middle America but that doesn't mean you have to make it that way. Because the problem with this movie is that its so damn conventional.Its very episodic. You can take and pick apart the movie beat by beat. The unfortunate thing is that even the most surreal part of the movie which is when Josh Brolin compares himself to a burning bear running in the forrest. Get it ? its meant to be a metaphor.But I think more than anything the movie is a very interesting case study on how certain well made movies are not good.The director of this movie is a very visual director but thats about it.

The main problem here is that we are dealing with filmmakers of varying talent. If a school teacher made a hollywood movie anyone can say thats a piece of garbage. But if a guy who did some exceptional work in film industry behind the camera and is making his debut because most of his collaborators thought that he is talented enough to do it made a movie then you run into complex feelings about the movie. The emotional through line is what people will be looking for in the movie or the "wow" factor in a proper way. Getting movie under budget and in schedule is a rare art that so many filmmakers can't do. The few who do will stick around as journey men directors with no vision of their but just looking for scripts to adapt. I am sure the producers for this movie felt that Josh brolin is better for this movie because of no country for old men. So everyone kind of feels like this will make a decent movie and the director is passable and so this is gonna make for a passable movie thats not reviled.

My only thought going through this movie is that there are some really breath taking shots in the movie either real or CG. There are some shots like forest on fire seen from a distance at night or the aftermath of a forest fire with lots of ashes or the scenes of CG bear running through the forest which is haunting to some extent or the shots of burning trees on the edge of a cliff falling into the fog and disappearing. All those are good. Then why doesn't this movie get any attention where as a movie like Revenant gets so much attention.

I think the answer is multi-layered. Its the high profile nature of people involved. The stakes of the movie are so high. A movie like revenant is made for 150 million $ and its made by Innaritu whom many directors admire purely based on craft. There is a certain amount of comraderee between directors because all of them wants to get their vision up on the screen by fighting with many people. I think its the respect that not many directors can get from fellow directors. You can be friends or acquaintances but to truly get respect from some directors who you haven't even met but they just know you from your movies, you need to have movies that are your own vision and not be a shill for studios. If all your movies are studio movies then you don't have any idea how hard it is to get financing. For some reason certain directors just are not respected. Someone like Peter Berg is a bro director, his movie are all semi-gritty action movies with fake emotions but the whole selling point of the movie is guns and explosions and action. I don't expect a director like Paul Thomas Anderson to respect Peter Berg. Its just that prestige movies or scripts are not offered to journey men directors. They are offered to top dogs like Spielberg or Nolan or DiCaprio ( who in turn finds a director to make it for him). I am talking about scripts that are just gold. Studios don't wanna afford letting them fall into wrong hands. Best example in ready player one. That movie was a cash cow. If it sucked it will make 100 million less or even more.So they need Spielberg brand not just for quality but also for name value. So all this forces either journey men directors to write their own scripts or stick with studio movies. Some one like Adam McKay is an auteur in the sense that his movies has his political views as undertones. He is not just this director making comedies for middle aged women or action movies with no view.

The intricacies are very interesting because Hollywood is a very small industry. So you can't fight with someone and then go make movie with someone else. There are just 5 major studios and a whole lot of independent filmmaking world that makes movies that no one sees. So to actually make it, you need to be in a studio picture. Thats what I always think, the hardest part for movie stars after no. 1 position aka 2,3,4,.... is that they have to work with what is left by no.1 movie star which right now is DiCaprio. He is gonna jam any great project or script if he thinks has potential to be an oscars movie and appeal to foreign audience.So they either do that or try and risk their reputation by working with new directors or directors they already worked with. It a very tricky business . Because Paul Thomas Anderson is not going to hire some movie star if he is not fit for the role. He will hire someone who he thinks fits the role well. The auteurs are usually very spot on, in terms of casting.

All this puts this movie at a very high disadvantage of getting any sort of prestige exposure. It was never made as a directors vision anyway it was made by people who want to tell a good story in a non risky way with some symbolism thrown in to make audience feel familiar and happy. I can't recommend it , because the story has to be much deeper than this beat by beat product and the end has to be earned.

aronisred

06-11-18, 12:23 PM

Ready Player One

3

A virtual reality game occupies the conscious being of human race and its consequences.

Steven Spielberg is the only director who feels commercial and auteury at the same time. Most of the times an auteur is someone who has a common theme and vision and point of view running across his movies. Nolan has obsessed character grappling with demons as his lead in almost all his movies. Tarantino cleverly has genre pictures smuggled through his auteur vision. Spielberg has parent's divorce as common theme. But I think Spielberg is the only one among these three whose movies feel like commercial when he is making blockbusters. They are more about clever ideas and concepts that are well made and so, they can avoid the stink of generic blockbusters. His movies have character scenes and he is given the levity by directors just so he could push them through the blockbuster product. Its only recently that I realized Leonardo DiCaprio found the key to maintain his fan base. It is the "WOW" - factor. Audience have accustomed to watching dramas and well made movies in laptop. So to make them go to the movies they need 2 things. One is they need to have a cerebral experience and the other is they need to know the movie is good. They might not want to know the beat for beat plot but they do want to know what the movie is about and that its one of the best movies of the year. Around 50% of movie going audience don't care about critics. But these are the one's that are hard to predict if they are gonna come to a movie or not. Most of the time they go to superhero movies or franchises or movies by some stars. But its the other 50% who checkout critics that can be seduced into coming to a movie with glowing reviews. DiCaprio realized somewhere around Inception that he should stop making movies like revolutionary road or J.Edgar and start making movies like The great Gatsby. Its a one two punch of pleasing the audience by giving them the "wow" factor and pleasing the industry by getting movies like those made which are not being made at the moment. So when ever your movie is up for Oscar, its not just your performance that deserves praise but it is your willingness to lend your star power to get the vision of the director upon screen for a 100 million $ budget. But the sad part is as long as audience flock to see a movie by a star or director like mindless sheep there will be no risk taken by those filmmakers.Spielberg is now boxed into making only movies for families or elderly. He can't make outrageous bloody movies because he is too afraid to fail. DiCaprio cannot play an overweight bald buy because his 15-25 yr old fans want him to be this macho force of nature they see themselves in. A white guy can't relate themselves to Django in Django Unchained but they can relate themselves to this charming rich and macho looking plantation owner up until his death because even though the hero gets the last laugh in the movie for the most part the villain has many scene stealing moments...uncovering the heroes plot or forcing them to listen to his evil psychology. Those are qualities of this character. His death is very minute part of his arc, so audience will erase that from their memory and will only think about his performance. It's the damn 15-25 yr old demographic man. That's the age group where anything masculine with perfect human specimens is the greatest thing. They laugh at a 50+ old man like Liam Neeson fighting bad guys but they are wowed by how a dad bodied DiCaprio is invincible in the role of Hugh Glass.

So all these changes in the audience preference kind of made Spielberg dated in the current generation. He does have his own core group of old people who grew up with jaws and ET. They will show up as long he makes movies like the post and bridge of spies for old people. But the moment he makes anything not in their wheel house, he looses them. He will have to rely on foreign audience from china and japan for movie like ready player one because those the kind of people that would cause a traffic jam to catch pikachu. They live in locker room sized rooms for months and years together just to work and make money and play video games.So his movies are targeting markets to make money. One might ask, if Spielberg movies are so by the numbers, then why would his movies get nominated for so many Oscars up until last years the post ? You see, that's where the internal politics of Oscars comes into play. Look, a studio will not launch an Oscar campaign for a movie they think is crap. Spielberg with all his talent won't be making a crap unless he makes a swords and scandals movie as long as he stays in his safe zone.From then on the campaign starts with something like this "the guy who helped you at different times in your career to either get the movie made or to tell an actor to be in your movie is making a decent to good movie.So, will you vote for him or not ?" the answer to this is mostly yes. There are 10 slots for best picture , can't they allocate something for the guy who helped them make money and get lot of their projects in the right track and pull some strings ? of course they can. Its easy to get Oscar nomination for a movie if it is the flagship movie from a big studio. Its all the behind the scenes stuff. If you are part of something that's doing greater good, then people will praise you for it. All this is within the condition that the movie should be good but need not be great.

The movie didn't use the concept to its full potential. Its missing the mystery and the edge needed for movies like these. Instead it just wants us to be in awe of this world and go along with ride and come out with a half baked hypocritical message about digital age. Go into it for visuals and some interesting nostalgia. Its not that great.

Iroquois

06-12-18, 10:10 AM

Fear of Fear (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1975) - 3

Fassbinder does a woman-on-the-verge movie starring Petra von Kant lead Margit Carstensen as a housewife who constantly worries that she is going insane. Broadly familiar territory for Fassbinder, though at least it's executed sharply enough and features one of his better lead performers in Carstensen.

Effi Briest (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1974) - 2.5

Fassbinder does a period romance, a genre for which I express a certain indifference that isn't exactly defied by this film. It certainly has its moments and picks up as it moves along, but I don't think of it as being especially great.

The Tin Drum (Volker Schlöndorff, 1979) - 4

An exceptionally twisted WWII-era drama that hinges on a fantastic premise - a young boy deliberately stunting his growth so he effectively never has to grow up - to serve as a throughline for a gut-churning odyssey through the rise of Nazism and all the horrors it either brings or permits.

Children of a Lesser God (Randa Haines, 1986) - 2.5

A pretty passable romantic drama about the relationship that develops between a hearing teacher at a school for the deaf and the school's deaf janitor. While it has its moments and you can definitely see why Marlee Matlin earned that Oscar, I don't think it's anything too special either.

Reservoir Dogs (Quentin Tarantino, 1992) - 4.5

As with The Shining, another old favourite where the 4.5 at once seems like a vestigial reminder of a time when I barely knew anything about movies and yet is still completely earned by such a strong film that lives up to its recognisable influences while forging a unique identity in the process.

Croupier (Mike Hodges, 1998) - 2

The more I think about this casino-themed neo-noir, the less I like it. It starts off promisingly as Clive Owen's wow-he-really-could've-been-a-good-Bond writer-turned-croupier smoothly explains himself and his industry but things deteriorate before too long (invoking quite a few writer-based clichés in the process like novel-as-confessional) and as such I don't find much use for it.

Tenderness of the Wolves (Ulli Lommel, 1973) - 1

Unsurprisingly, this based-on-a-true-story tale of a serial killer that preys on runaway teens and gets away with it by ratting his fellow crooks out to the local police is not a particularly pleasant watch by any measure, but what really damns it is its sheer tedium and vacuity in this regard.

Fox and his Friends (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1974) - 4

Fassbinder does a rags-to-riches melodrama. Trying to watch Fassbinder's sizeable filmography means watching a lot of meh-to-okay entries, so it's good to actually watch one of his films that's genuinely great and actually offers an inventive twist on his usual preoccupations with toxic romance and class warfare while also having style to spare.

The Right Stuff (Philip Kaufman, 1983) - 3.5

An appreciably solid biopic about the early history of the space race and the various pilots who contributed to its slow but ultimately successful development. A strong ensemble and remarkable technical work are definitely able to carry it for its sizeable three-hour runtime, as is the way in which it tempers the potentially jingoistic notion of competing with "the Russkies" by framing every aspect of the Americans' process through a charmingly satirical lens.

The Tragedy of Othello, The Moor of Venice (Orson Welles, 1951) - 3

I'm not too familiar with the original play beyond a few superficial details, but Chimes at Midnight had already made me hopeful for seeing a different example of Welles taking on Shakespeare. Unfortunately, this result doesn't quite reach those heights and still feels a bit sluggish even at 90 minutes, but it's still decent enough on its own merits.

aronisred

06-12-18, 12:47 PM

Zodiac

4

A story that chronicles the hunt for Zodiac killer.

David Fincher knows how to direct mystery and suspense. He is not good with thrilling but he can create the sense of terror and creepiness in his movies. After burning his hands at a studio directing a sequel he realized that he needed fully autonomy in the movies he make.Initially he got it through Brad Pitt, who was in desperate need of an auteur. After having some quality and successful films under his belt he started using his clout to make movies he wanted. Nonetheless he needed stars for his movies.

One common thing general public forget and to be honest don't care is that people like genre pictures. They like horror/thriller/mystery/adventure etc. movies. Having a single tone for the entire movie.People want to see what they like rewarded.If they like Django Unchained then they want it to win Oscars. Same with the dark knight. Most of the times the movies people like are very explicitly genre pictures.Die hard or it follows or avengers. So people can understand why those particular movies are not rewarded at Oscars because of the deep genre roots the movies have. But once in a while a director comes and makes movies that are just too awesome and original that people throw the genre filter out of the window and root for the movie as if its a drama. But the common pattern among these high art genre pictures is that they blend reality with fiction seamlessly that it feels those movies have transcended genres. But in reality those movies are still genre pictures and they fall apart if the genre element is taken out of the movie. Those movies offer the possibility of fantasy. They show the potential for something supernatural.

Zodiac is one of those movies where the technique of inter cutting murders with investigation used by Fincher sort of gives the feel of omnipresence of the killer. They show an extremely intimate setting of the killings and then the extremely intimate settings of the investigations. The ultimate bummer ending is made up for over the course of the film. Its pretty evident that director has done a lot of research and stayed close to the reality over the course of the movie. After panic room made so much money he was given insane amount of money to make the movie he wanted. He made this extremely well documented movie. But this is a masterly crafted movie because a movie made from a Wikipedia page lacks the magic and tone of this movie. But this has all of those all while being extremely meticulous. The police investigation even though it is not hot on heels of the killer still manages to have the sense of urgency and dread. It is a very rare feat for a filmmaker to be doing those things.

He is not up there with Tarantino or Nolan in terms of box office draw because his directing style is easy to copy and not be called out for it. If you try and make a Tarantino style movie critics will call you out on it. Not so much for Nolan but its hard for directors to commercially and intellectually replicate his movies. You need a lot of dough to replicate cinematography of Nolan. But the cost of replicating the style and expenses of a Fincher movie are not that huge.I do believe that he is an auteur and he is probably in the bucket list of directors to work with of DiCaprio. He is extremely consistent. But I am glad he works repeatedly with Brad Pitt and not be a shill for DiCaprio. Brad Pitt is a much more honest artist than DiCaprio because he is willing to be in movies where he doesn't have a showy role and take on roles that fit him rather than take on roles that have awards potential and somehow make them a different version of him and completely tarnish the identity of the characters he is playing.

A meticulous movie with surprising amount of tension and dread for its 180 minutes long running time.That in of itself is a huge accomplishment considering there are no explosions or action chases.

aronisred

06-13-18, 12:34 PM

Hereditary

3

The death of mother starts a chain reaction which leads a woman to spiral out of control and effect her whole family in unexpected ways.

My summary doesn't make it out to be a horror movie but it is. I liked the unsettling tone of the movie.By this point I am able to pick up on the directorial choices in this genre. The tone of a movie is essential. Certain examples of tone are the poor neighborhood of Detroit in don't breathe or the 1980's feel to Detroit in IT follows or the period feel to conjuring or the ancient look of the witch. The tone takes you into the lives of the characters. The second trope I noticed in the movie and that is the disturbing third act. More specifically the second part of third act. So it is the part leading up to the climax. The third trope is the psychological degradation of characters.The delusions and reality converging to make characters not trust what they see.

All these are in this movie.This is better than most movies which belong in this genre. The atmospheric nature is much more subtle as opposed to lot of other films. The surroundings blend into the background without asking for attention. The creep factor picks up towards the end and its more unsettling than anything.

Spoilers

The story starts with the funeral of an old woman, the mother of our main female character(x) who has been secretive her whole life.From X we learn that she is extremely manipulative and taken a liking to her grand daughter from infancy. X decides to not have a son because she didn't want a son in the house for her own sanity but nonetheless she has a son. The whole family of X has some kind of mental diseases that eventually lead to their demise. Even X survived some sort of mental disease. The daughter raised by dead woman has some kind of syndrome to begin with. I do think there is certain amount of make up to her. All those made her pretty weird to begin with. But as we go along we realize that she isn't a harm to anyone in the family but she just is not normal. All that comes to an end during an auto accident that decapitates the girl. This accelerates the plot in unexpected ways. Firstly this further breaks down X who is already distraught at her mother's death. Then she confides in a fellow support group member. The support group member reveals her a method on how to speak with dead people and she in turn uses it to speak with her daughter and that sort of invites her spirit into the house. From then on the reveals keep hitting. Firstly in an earlier scene it is revealed the death of brother of X is because of an apparent suicide he committed after complaining that their mother tried to put in bodies inside him. X's father killed himself through starvation. So basically everyone around the dead grandmother is killed one after another. The reveal is, she is part of a coven. The coven's mission is to find a human host especially male to be possessed by some hell god. When the old woman was able bodied, she tried doing that to her son but he killed himself. So she put it in her grand daughter. I think the plan is to wait till the boy is able bodied and then place the hell god spirit in them. Since the grand mother dies before that and she knew she didn't have very many days she placed the spirit in the grand daughter, so she could somehow transfer it to the son. But her decapitation sort of accelerates the process as the host is dead and they need at-least the spirit of the host to be invited back into the house so it could transfer spirit of hell god into the son. So it all culminates in a horrifying finale where in the son becomes possessed by spirit of king of hell. And also as part of this coven's ritual they needed the decapitated dead body of the old woman and its in the house attic for a while. All the moving parts are different pieces of puzzle needed for the ritual to be complete.In the end, unbeknownst to X her mother makes her part of the ritual because they are part of same hereditary. So she is a unwitting member of the ritual.But when the son kills himself by jumping through the window of the attic, his body becomes a perfect vessel for hell god to possess and is crowned as their king.

This has disturbing imagery and believably troubled performances.The switcheroo of making the daughter look creepy but her not being the antagonist is very smart. She acted like a disturbed child raised by a witch but at no point does she act more than just like a child. There is also this sense of inevitability and doom looming over the family wherever the family member is. Its almost like a families fate is fixed.like watching a family leading upto the day all of them gets massacred.That's the best part of it.

Monkeypunch

06-13-18, 05:54 PM

Mr. Vampire - 1986 Hong Kong flick about a mortician and his dimwitted assistants battling a hopping vampire, a sexy ghost, and a walking corpse. It's ridiculous and fun. There's a TON of sequels, too. Can't wait to watch those. 3.5

Chypmunk

06-15-18, 04:03 PM

June (pt i):

4
Eye Of God (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116261/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (Tim Blake Nelson, 1997)
Otona no miru ehon - Umarete wa mita keredo (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023634/?ref_=nv_sr_1) [I Was Born, But...] (Yasujirô Ozu, 1932)

3.5+
Brooklyn (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2381111/?ref_=nv_sr_3) (John Crowley, 2015)
Stanley And Livingstone (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031973/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (Henry King & Otto Brower, 1939)
The Count Of Monte Cristo (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0025004/?ref_=fn_al_tt_3) (Rowland V. Lee, 1934)
They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065088/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (Sidney Pollack, 1969)
Tsumetai nettaigyo (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1632547/?ref_=nv_sr_1) [Cold Fish] (Sion Sono, 2010)

3.5
Joe (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2382396/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (David Gordon Green, 2013)
The Adventures Of Robin Hood (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029843/?ref_=nv_sr_3) (Michael Curtiz & William Keighley, 1939)
Theodora Goes Wild (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028355/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (Richard Boleslawski, 1936)

3+
Back Street (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022651/?ref_=nv_sr_4) (John M. Stahl, 1932)
Hawking (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395571/?ref_=nv_sr_2) (Philip Martin, 2004)
Mediterranea (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3486542/?ref_=nv_sr_4) (Jonas Carpignano, 2015)
The Black Doll (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029918/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (Otis Garrett, 1938)
The Dressmaker (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2910904/?ref_=nv_sr_2) (Jocelyn Moorhouse, 2015)
Where's That Fire? (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032125/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (Marcel Varnel, 1939)

3
Kiseki (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1650453/?ref_=nv_sr_2) [I Wish] (Hirokazu Koreeda, 2011)
M'Liss (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027921/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (George Nichols Jr., 1936)
Mononoke-hime (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119698/?ref_=nv_sr_1) [Princess Mononoke] (Hayao Miyazaki, 1997)
Secrets Of A Secretary (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022359/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (George Abbott, 1931)

2.5+
The Baroness And The Butler (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029899/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (Walter Lang, 1938)
The Look of Love (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951216/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (Michael Winterbottom, 2013)

2.5
Arthur And Mike (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1930546/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) aka Arthur Newman (Dante Ariola, 2012)
Boy (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1560139/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (Taika Waititi, 2010)
Dare To Be Wild (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2989350/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (Vivienne De Courcy, 2015)
The Benson Murder Case (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0020679/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_54) (Frank Tuttle, 1930)
The Canary Murder Case (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0019745/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (Malcolm St. Clair & Frank Tutlle, 1929)

2+
Dracula Untold (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0829150/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (Gary Shore, 2014)
Sailor's Luck (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024518/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (Raoul Walsh, 1933)

2
Strawberry Summer (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2188926/?ref_=nv_sr_1) cut vsn (Kevin Conor, 2012)

1.5+
Kept Husbands (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022021/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (Lloyd Bacon, 1931)
Klondike (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023096/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) (Phil Rosen, 1932)

1.5
The Greasy Strangler (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4381236/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (Jim Hosking, 2016)

1
Project Almanac (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2436386/?ref_=nv_sr_1) (Dean Israelite, 2015)

Mr Minio

06-15-18, 05:11 PM

Mr. Vampire My favourite is III, then I, then II, then IV, but all of them are super fun!

Mr Minio

06-15-18, 07:20 PM

Nympho Diver: G-String Festival (1981) - 3

https://i.imgur.com/nhCf096.jpg

A decent enough comedic pinku eiga which is basically just a series of sex vignettes. Nothing too great, but the titular G-String festival wasn't bad. :P

Japanese Summer: Double Suicide (1967) - 4.5

https://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/janus_stills/1679-/23955id_1475_023_Primary_w1600.jpg

Yet another Oshima masterpiece, and a pretty symbolism-heavy, mind-boggling film with a Targets-esque fourth act.

Pretty Village, Pretty Flame (1996) - 4

http://www.kviff.com/en/image/fancybox/photo-web/46/493/6155-pretty-village-pretty-flame.jpg

I never liked Balkanic sense of humour, but I think the movie is fairly impartial by showing its presumed heroes in satirical light, and also (deliberately) in a very Hollywoodish way. I believe these tools were used to strengthen the film's anti-war message.

Horny Diver: Tight Shellfish (1985) - 3

https://i.imgur.com/3L6emUR.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ppTxYWV.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/f6w1nlm.jpg

I'm in for more fish! Again a decent offering with a lot of (mainly vanilla) sex. Kinda lacks variety but the girls weren't bad, you know.

Purple Noon (1960) - 4

http://42l9x93l42oi2vqtshg3va1s.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/637_image_03_WEB.jpg

A Hitchcockian neo-noir crime in sunlit Italy whose initial boating sequence was no doubt a great inspiration for Polański's Knife in the Water! Wonderful use of color and shameless Delonsploitation!

Martha (1974) - 4

https://media.giphy.com/media/9pDSrhVe1BUpG/giphy.gif

A travesty! A Sirkan melodrama becomes a cruel grotesque. A snobish vampire-sadist trains his obedient panicky wife taking great pleasure in hurting her psychologically in most cruel ways imaginable. Great camerawork and baroque scenography!

The Moon Has Risen (1955) - 4

https://ireallyhavenothingtosaybutiwanttosayitallthesame.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/moon-has-risen-still.jpg?w=800&h=340&crop=1

Simply delightful! Written by Ozu, but directed by Tanaka, and therefore devoid of Ozu's meticulous approach but not quality. The matchmaking was so cute! A fairly simple film but one that I enjoyed most of all 4s I watched.

Another Girl, Another Planet (1992) - 3.5

http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/AGAP.jpg

Shot on a toy camera, and about some meaningless relationships. A little bit similar to the movies of Hal Hartley but not as good.

Touki Bouki (1973) - 3.5

http://metrograph.com/uploads/films/OLD_AND_IMPROVED_touki_bouki-1455821449-726x388.jpg

Inspired by French New Wave. Great colours and framing. Great use of music. Didn't win my heart, though.

Sexy Battle Girls (1986) - 4

https://i.imgur.com/ii04Ecr.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/vxAooMR.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/xGQ3GWE.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/khqXAdA.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/HngV6jY.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/7YlIAps.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/4uzPS3B.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/rHfjn3H.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Y8uk43D.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/MFuXbFI.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/sdVe4wn.jpg

Soo good. Sooo sleazy. This contains one of the most explicit sex scenes I've ever seen in a pinku eiga. But... it's also so entertaining! A spoof on Sukeban Deka with the girls fighting each other using weird sex weapons! This inspired me to watch the actual Sukeban Deka series, but I failed miserably. Despite having Yuki Saito <3 it was quite terrible and I gave up after two episodes! Oh, I took a lot of screenshots from this film because it's fun.

Lovers Are Wet (1973) - 3

https://i.imgur.com/DRPWARc.jpg

I literally have nothing to say about it. It's okay but Woods are Wet is sooo much better.

Mr Minio

06-15-18, 07:20 PM

CONTINUED (image limit)

The Fetist (1998) - 3

https://i.imgur.com/fLQMT5W.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/z6O9X3d.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/nYPzwgK.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/xhKduxu.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/41eLJ70.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/aGZR1Y7.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/NR3O5kg.jpg

Sato being Sato, but this is a gay pinku eiga, so I don't think I'm the target audience. Then again, this also contains hetero BDSM sex (probably they were afraid non-homo viewers will get bored or something so they added something that will make them happy too), and some nice bloodshed at the end. If you think about it, there are only 2 or 3 gay sex scenes.

XX: Beautiful Beast (1995) - 3

https://i.imgur.com/iLEqjfH.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/0Uhlknm.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/uE6Re4r.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/50NGGz1.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/OJklX1x.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/vlZSriI.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/R17QU7J.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/3FcyJ31.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/8lTZ0tF.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ROPzMk6.jpg

Pretty lousy! :) The worst kind of boring erotic/action thrillers aired on dubious TV stations at 3 AM. Me gusta! Okay, it wasn't that bad! Some okayish shots from time to time and nice atmosphere built mainly by the music.

Time Regained (1999) - 4

http://sensesofcinema.com/assets/uploads/2012/08/time-regained1.jpg

Ruiz is the master of surrealism and he wonderfully plays with time and the viewer in this adaptation of Proust's magnum opus. At times I couldn't believe my eyes - a woman in red crossing the frame twice. I had to rewind, and yes - she did cross it twice! Nice mindf*ck, Ruiz!

HashtagBrownies

06-15-18, 07:31 PM

Seen in June Pt.1

45354
3.5+
What the actual hell was wrong with our main character? His performance was really bad! Ironside’s performance was great though. The pacing is very strange, something doesn’t feel quite right about it. The scenes where the scanners were doing stuff were really cool and ‘that’ scene was in another realm of awesome. The gore effects are great too. Excited to see more Cronenberg films now.

45355
4.5+
I think I watched the 2010 Disney dub. Oh my God I just loved this! I loved all of the characters, humour and animation. The music was amazing, very Legend of Zelda-esque. The film perfectly pulls off the scenery of a quaint town that you’d probably spend a vacation at. Some absolutely gorgeous shots of the town. It was way better than Totoro, I preferred the fact that it actually had a structured plot and didn’t have an ending that felt anticlimactic. My only real problem at the end JIJI CAN’T TALK ANYMORE OMG IT’S SO SAD!!!

45356
3.5
My thought on each story...
1: Whatever
2: Thought bubble scenes were funny but nothing much else.
3: Great. Very spooky combined with the thought of being buried alive.
4: Loved the scenes under the stairs as they're shot really well: quick cuts, close ups etc.
5: Loved the sense of isolation and phobia.

45357
4
Review: https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1907483-they-shoot-horses-dont-they.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om2_LWg0cu4
4
The lady who made this is ‘Possibly in-Sane!'. Awesome music and use of creepy imagery.

45358
3.5+
At the start I expected to not like it due to its presentation and plot but I started to love it when it got to the murder plot. It's crazy how fast they speak in this movie, I don't remember anything they said! The only thing that's putting this down a bit is the blatant disrespect they have to the new husband near the end, I mean how would the screenwriter feel if he was about to get married and the lady suddenly threw him away like dirt?

45359
4
Very funny and quotable. Probably the only mockumentary that could trick you into thinking it's real.

45360
4-
Really enjoyed it. I liked the dynamic between Marlo and Tully. The way their scenes are shot feel extremely erotic yet nothing sexual is happening on screen, very strange. Liked all the subtle foreshadowing. Realistic performances. Unique to see a film that doesn't portray motherhood as the ultimate 'happily ever after'.

45361
3.5-
The animation is great, lots of beautiful shots of the scenic landscapes. Beautiful soundtrack, with some of it being piano, orchestral and Lord of the Rings-esque. What puts down the film for me personally is the whole 'hating humans' aspect. San hate humans throughout the entire film yet our main character seems totally ok with it and still wants to help her, even in situations where he could be helping his fellow humans against the samurai. I dunno, that element of the film just made me really uncomfortable. It's like if a movie about racism had the racist character learn nothing by the end and they portrayed it as a happy ending.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OHnC24Qx8k
5
I don't know what to say, it's just a total trip.

Iroquois

06-16-18, 08:32 AM

Eddie Murphy Delirious (Bruce Gowers, 1983) - 3

This is more or less on par with Raw - there's more than a few instances of jokes ageing badly (e.g. a rather homophobic opening routine) that threaten to sink the whole thing, but fortunately they are balanced out a bit by Murphy finding better targets for his foul-mouthed mockery.

In the Realm of the Senses (Nagisa Oshima, 1976) - 2

For whatever it's worth, this notoriously twisted and graphic can-you-even-really-call-this-erotic drama about one increasingly hedonistic and sadomasochistic love affair is at least actively challenging me to find some greater point or aesthetic brilliance to its relentless displays of raw sexuality - as such, I don't think it's particularly successful in that regard.

Sabotage (Alfred Hitchcock, 1936) - 2

Not overly impressed by this early piece of Hitchcock's. Starts off on the dull side and at least manages to get a little watchable towards the end, but ultimately feels more like a sign of things to come from the man himself than something good in its own right.

Empire of Passion (Nagisa Oshima, 1978) - 3

This tale of two lovers who murder the woman's husband only to be haunted by his restless ghost reminded me of Kobayashi's Kwaidan for better (it's a sufficiently unsettling and atmospheric ghost story) and worse (it seems like it could do with being considerably shorter, almost to the point of being a better anthology segment than standalone feature).

The Best Years of our Lives (William Wyler, 1946) - 3.5

It's always good to see a Best Picture winner that actually comes across as a worthy contender for the title (though I'm not sure I'd call it my favourite film of 1946 anyway). Still, there's a lot to be said for how this post-WWII drama about returning soldiers coming to grips with how everything has changed for them has aged well even as its humanistic approach can seem a little vague at times.

Jurassic Park (Steven Spielberg, 1993) - 4

Another old favourite, but this time I think a 4 is about as high as I can go for this bad boy (used to be top 100, but now it's more like the top 500). At this point I'm paying more attention to the craftsmanship than anything else, which I'll admit is a bit of a backhanded compliment but as far as films of this kind go you can hardly accept any substitutes.

Fruits of Passion (Shuji Terayama, 1981) - 1

Another day, another graphically sadomasochistic French-Japanese co-production courtesy of MUBI. While this one at least has the sense to keep it short and add a somewhat engaging sub-plot about Chinese rebels to the proceedings, too often it settles for just showing off a bunch of bondage scenes that vary quite wildly in tone and makes me wish it would end already.

Gomorrah (Matteo Garrone, 2008) - 2

A blunt attempt at a multi-narrative ensemble drama about Mafia-dominated slums and the people who are caught up in the resulting power struggles. Not totally ineffective in terms of illustrating the seriousness of the issues it's concerned with but even then it's hardly worth watching.

Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (Chantal Akerman, 1975) - 4

In some regards, this actually plays better on a second viewing - a film that's as focused on minutiae as this one is can only benefit from a viewer being able to absorb as much of it as possible (and see how it all ends up serving as extremely subtle foreshadowing).

Mother Küsters Goes To Heaven (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1975) - 3

Fassbinder does another woman-on-the-verge movie with a dash of class-conscious commentary thrown into the mix as it tells the story of how a factory worker's murder-suicide of his boss (and the resultant media attention) affects his struggling widow. A variety of sub-groups get targeted - tabloid journalists, armchair leftists, violent anarchists - but it never loses sight of the wounded woman at the heart of the proceedings. May actually be better than I'm giving it credit for.

Mr Minio

06-20-18, 08:53 AM

A Bride for Rip Van Winkle (2016) - rating_4_5

http://ilarge.lisimg.com/image/12957281/912full-rippu-van-winkuru-no-hanayome-screenshot.jpg

A tremendous achievement in filmmaking - director's best since All About Lily Chou-Chou. A film that weirdly mixes realism with fairy tale. The trails and tribulations of Nanami feel like taken out of Cinderella but at the same time maintain high level of realism. Inducing a wide range of emotions from frustration, to bliss, to sadness. The movie has more twists than most thrillers, and some of them elicit really strong emotions. The post-bridal sequence one comes to mind. Nanami's not perfect but she's shy, good, cute... :3 Sadly, also used by others. :( I was tempted to rate it 5 stars but I dunno.

Minnie and Moskowitz (1971) - rating_4

http://www.longpauses.com/wp-content/uploads/2003/10/minnie.jpg

Cassavetes' cinema verite style is on display again as two unlikely lovers (one of them played by Cassavete's wife - Gena Rowlands) meet in strange circumstances and seem to fancy in each other. What really struck me was Cassell's violence both towards Minnie and also random men he seemed to provoke to fight him. A very bad match for a woman who just finished her relationship with a woman-beater. That being said, I thought the ending was somewhat an ironic one, especially the "what's gonna happen in a couple of years" addendum. A very bad relationship and a very bad idea to stay together. Unless you believe in omnia vincit amor that was hard to believe given the realism of the picture.

Mad Love (1985) - rating_2_5

http://www.leffatykki.com/static/content/image/f5b017b8312fa5756b9159941b7018e8.jpg

Żuławski takes his hiper-expressionist style to its extremes. Actors' animalistic, mad behaviour is almost unbearable. Dostoyevsky is brutally raped! Even sexy, angel face teen Sophie Marceau, Robbe-Grillet-esque kitschy crime film aesthetics, and riveting Tati-referencing scenography do not save the film.

Let the Corpses Tan (2017) - rating_3_5

https://www.dreadcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Laissez-Bronzer-Les-Cadavres.jpeg

The third film of the acclaimed Belgian duo is perhaps their weakest offering. A mix of Poliziotteschi (or just Euro Crime), Spaghetti Western, and trademark eye-popping visual extravaganza is a fetishized, unrelenting tour de force which, similarly to their two neo-gialli, pushes aside the story and draws attention to its visuals. Inventive camera angles exhibit i.a. almost unrecognizable Elina Löwensohn, and the sound design intensifies sounds of i.a. leather police uniforms. Not much to chew on here - just genuine fun and playing with the convention.

Murmur of the Heart (1971) - rating_4

https://medialifecrisis.com/files/images/articles/201705-Popgap/Murmur-of-the-Heart-1971/Murmur-of-the-Heart-1971-01-37-16.jpg

An Indonesian war era coming-of-age film. Innocent and natural love for a mother twists and turns into weird, morally dubious thing as the young protagonist discovers the world of sex. A lot of very natural feelings here (including jealousy) but that ending was really unexpected.

Call Me by Your Name (2017) - rating_3

http://lwlcdn.lwlies.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/call-ne-by-your-name-timothee-chalamet-1108x0-c-default.jpg

Basically a contemporary ROHoMoER. Penalty points for lack of originality. Kudos for shooting on film. I thought the whole thing's going to be platonic but it turned out to be quite carnal. Good acting and a great speech from a dad towards the end. The highly praised end credits scene did nothing for me.

Women in Heat Behind Bars (1987) - rating_3_5

KINKY

*Pink film connoisseur mode on.*

With the advent of hardcore pornography in the 80s, major studios (like Nikkatsu) had to produce much lewder films in order to compete with the fast-growing AV market.

*Pink film connoisseur mode off.*

Naah, this is just your regular pinku WIP film with maybe one strong almost-pornographic scene. These Nikkatsu-funded flicks had decent budgets, so the film is also nicely shot.

Introspection Tower (1941) - rating_4_5

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DK5lV4Pyc5g/TZUDwWMr2XI/AAAAAAAAAdo/T3nM_7uhtjk/s1600/vlcsnap-2011-03-31-18h37m41s226.png

Yet another one of Shimizu's children pictures he was so good at. The film takes place in a reformatory school, and whereas plotwise its first part was much superior to the pro-government second part, the atmosphere and visuals were great all throughout. I especially loved the out-of-focus, blurred backgrounds (distortion lens?) filled with trees, and trolley shots of these tree-populated areas. A great place, by the way. This is poetic filmmaking.

Forest of Bliss (1986) - rating_4

http://bufilm.blogs.bucknell.edu/files/2014/12/adepression01.jpg

Beautiful colors but the world of India is extremely hard to accustom to. The theme of death prevalent in the film means many brutal images.

aronisred

06-20-18, 04:31 PM

Behind the enemy lines

3

A Reconnaissance aircraft flying over Bosnian territory gets shot down into the jungle. Having recorded some sensitive information , the pilot(Owen Wilson) becomes the target of a shoot on sight manhunt by Bosnian rebels.

An interesting thing happened with this movie.I remember it being good a long time ago when i watched it the first time. So when i re watched it now, I did like it a lot. But then when i looked up the review for it by Roeper and Ebert, I could find the flaws in the movie. This movie has lot of things going for it. The production values , the topic of the movie and gene Hackman. But once you look closer you will notice that it has lot of commercial elements that make it untruthful. The production value is very good, they shot in European locations and it shows on camera. The gritty look is there. But the direction is not good and very commercial. Quick takes or fast camera movement is included so audience can get the visceral feeling and not through actual directing skills. I think this is one of those movies that explains the difference between commercial movies and artistic movies. It was so close to being an artistic endeavor but ultimately it ends up as commercial movie. You can tell that from the shots of Owen Wilson on top of a hill in the middle of nowhere when he is escaping from enemies.On the face value this looks like a cool shot that has to be included in a big budget survival movie. But it doesn't make any sense. Why would he go to the top of a hill when being hunted as it would make him easier to spot. During a village attack we can see that the protagonist manages to walk past the antagonist dressed in Bosnian soldier outfit and it is sort of a cool hero moment and the scene ends with him revealing his face to audience as he silently escapes so audience know that the character whose back is being followed by camera for the past 7 seconds is the protagonist . But from logical point of view there is no need for him to do that and it would increase his chances of getting caught. All these are commercial elements. There is also a scene involving pile of dead bodies underneath whom the protagonist hides. Its was well shot but it was too obvious. The scene is the most basic thing anyone could have done given the scenario. There was nothing new to it. He hides and they pokes and shots at dead bodies to make sure he wasn't hiding as one of them. But they miss him and he survives. All these are plot holes that are easily ripped apart by critics. People also criticized its portrayal of Bosnians with thick accent as all bad guys.

Now , a comparison could easily be made to the recent movie the revenant. Why was it given the highest number of Oscar nominations the year it was released and something like behind enemy lines is far less successful in every way imaginable. Well , the answer is multi fold. The things to understand here are , its made for 100+ million dollars. It is directed by Innaritu and it stars DiCaprio. That is what I call a high profile project. The admiration for the movie comes in multi fold as well. You have fans of Innaritu in the industry that applaud the movie. If there is one thing that has never happened in Hollywood before and that would be that a commercial director for a studio making a prestige picture being embraced by Oscars. That has never happened. A hired gun by studio never gets to make a prestige project. Ambitious projects take years of experience to pull off. Studio movies have skeletons laid down as to what the story beats need to be to make money. Moreover , established movie stars and actors don't want to take such huge risks with this unproven director. They always fear that their credibility will be misused by these directors to start off as a prestige movie and end up as a commercial movie. So getting to a place like Innaritu is close to impossible.Then you have DiCaprio. One of the most interesting things about Hollywood is that vast majority of actors want to be famous. Yes, they want to work for their craft and make a living and take risks. But in the end they always want to be famous in kick ass movies that are not paint by numbers. A biker going to bar and getting into fights is not appealing but the same fight if it takes place in a wall-street building in a movie done by Martin Scorsese , then its awesome , because people usually don't come to movies to see guys in their office room settings no matter what they do.So the fact that this movie is interweaving office setting with crime and attracting audience surprises people. America is a movie star culture. If an actor can merge that with quality movies then you get both a critical darling and a crowd-pleaser. DiCaprio falls into that category. He is someone who never fails because he wait for the perfect script and when he gets it he finds the perfect director to make that movie. Its a match made in heaven. He is going for making classics with each outing as an actor. Thats only possible if you only work with top directors. Just like Matt Damon wants to work with Steven soderberg, DiCaprio works with Scorsese. But the only difference is , Scorsese is an icon and soderberg is not. Their movies tend to be different in terms of memorability. Lighthearted movies are not memorable. And then the budget, through out the history of Hollywood when a movie is made for more than 100 million dollars the reaction is very polarizing almost all the time. Its either a very good(the dark knight , titanic or avatar) or its the worst movie of the year(water-world, king Arthur, battleship). There is no middle ground for 100 million $ blockbusters. So the pressure on the movies is incredibly high. The interesting thing is they will get publicity. Good or bad. So all these push revenant over the edge and not behind the enemy lines.

Behind enemy lines on the other hand is one of those movies that is very realistic to a point but the camera tricks and the thin story lines and character development sort of wastes all the realism achieved by production budget. The ending scene set piece is barely used and I could easily figure out the miniatures of the climax set used for close ups and Ariel shots in the movie.Which i figured were used while editing the movie when they thought they needed some set up shots. If you can just watch it for fun you will be entertained because the story itself has a cat and mouse structure to it. But the actual film making is very dry. For fellow filmmakers its easy to figure out the flaws but for audience its serviceable. This is probably where most directors end up being if they try their hands at epic scale film making and do a good job . The truly great ones excel and make much better movies. But the rest end up in this semi commercial stuff.Its fun, but that's about it.The appearances by coca cola is really cheesy but that's for american crowd who need to feel that there is familiarity to them even in Bosnia.

aronisred

06-20-18, 11:28 PM

The Dark knight

5

Batman saga continues with joker as his foe.

I can't say anything more about this movie that hasn't been said already.So the rest of this review will contain an answer to the question - how did this movie impact Hollywood ? well the best way to summarize the answer is in using a quote by joker from the movie which goes as "Nobody panics when the expected people gets killed. Nobody panics when things go according to plan, even if the plan is horrifying.If I tell the press that tomorrow a gangbanger will get shot or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics because it’s all part of the plan.But when I say that one little old mayor will die, everybody lose their minds." This movie is not part of the plan. There has always been this unspoken rule in Hollywood about the demarcation between prestige pictures and popular commercial movies. Popular commercial movies are considered low art. Prestige movies can be box office hits but they shouldn't have certain elements that are commercial in their most superficial sense like action scenes in cityscape or based on IP. All the great actors traditionally are picked from prestige filmmaking arena and all the movie stars that are just money making machines for studios are second tier actors used to present awards and show up at events. No one can makes a peep. If you try and veer off course like Jim Carrey, your head will be cut out. He wasn't even nominated for Oscar for Truman show and man on the moon, which I think has more to do with his performance but far subpar performances have been recognized by academy.

So how is this movie not part of the plan ? its not part of the plan in terms of the people involved , the career boosts they got from this movie and the legendary status this movie has got. As a simple example, when Denis Villeneuve was starting out in Hollywood he could only get Jake Gyllenhaal or Hugh Jackman but after the success of Arrival he was able to get Ryan Gosling for blade runner and a 200 million $ budget. Its a step up. The funny thing was no one knew that Nolan was a genius when making batman begins. Even after that movie people still felt that Nolan was a good director on par with some commercial directors. So he could only get Hugh Jackman and Christian bale for the prestige. It was only after this movie aka the dark knight that Nolan was stepped up to work with DiCaprio. So the reality is, according to Hollywood had they known his talent way before the dark knight he wouldn't even be allowed to work with an actor like Christian bale.They would have asked bigger stars to work with him. So the collaboration between director of talent like Nolan and actor of the popularity of christian bale was never part of the plan to being with. And the career boost a commercial director like Nolan got ,to the point of making his own passion projects like Interstellar and Dunkirk is not part of the plan. Even more surprising is the star power increase of christian bale to the point of being able to make movies with his name brand. All these are not part of the plan. He according to Hollywood machine is supposed to be making commercial action movies for studios and make third rate period movies and end his career.But when you are lead in a billion dollar franchise and you are in a movie star role, then things won't be the same again and emphasis has to be given to "movie star role" because Elijah wood can't sell a ticket outside Lord of the rings and even in that he is worthless as a box office draw. Because, at the heart of this whole thing there is a contradiction between movie star role and disappearing into character.If you disappear into roles, you can't actually be a box office draw because audience are not identifying you as a movie star. But if you are not doing that then you are playing yourself. So the more you disappear into your roles you are not becoming a box office draw. The content of the movie needs to draw you in. That means your movie needs Oscar buzz. And finally in terms of the movie itself, an action movie is never part of Hollywood's plan to be considered a classic. But in IMDB which is the most visited movie based site on the planet this is among the very best rated movies of all time and according to various polls , it is among the greatest movies every made. So thats not part of the plan.

So all these set this movie apart. it is a gentle reminder that taking risk beyond prestige filmmaking and making other genre movies but make them great to the point of transcending the genre altogether are risks worth taking because you never know, there could be dark knight in the making.

One more important thing to understand is, great actor or best actor of the generation is a moniker that is passed along generations. You can't be called a great actor of your generation if you are not approved by auteurs or legends of previous generation of actors and directors. Academy award wins is one way to do that. But also the collaborations with directors of previous generations. The funny thing about movie stars in commercial fair is that they are always considered as lone sharks. They are as good as money they bring in. But when you are a box office draw in a prestige picture setting, then you supported by industry to stay as box office draw using awards buzz and awards. So the other day I was listening to this interview after screening of a movie with Robert De Niro. The interviewer is is in his 40s or 50s or 60s with a British accent and he is asking De Niro who the best actor of current generation is and he is feeding names to him like DiCaprio or Matt Damon. The problem is , even though De Niro thinks someone else is better he can't say because Matt Damon starred in Good Shepherd and helped De Niro finance his movie and DiCaprio is collaborating with Scorsese and keeping his career alive. So he is in this weird circle. Moreover he played the father of Bradley Cooper , who seems very savvy in terms to maintaining Hollywood connections and doing and getting favors. So he is this weird spot where he can't passover the crown to another chameleon like christian bale because it appears to me that Christian bale is kind of a recluse and only interacts with people that he needs to. He is not someone who shows up to others premieres or works with others may be because thats the best way he works. There are two ways of getting to the top in Hollywood. One is to be extremely talented and keep proving that you are and the other is to get and do favors with decent talent. Actors like Daniel day Lewis and bale fall into the former category and actors like Bradley Cooper and Damon fall into latter category. So the reality is , Warner bros. had they knew the talent of Nolan would have forced him to make batman with Bradley Cooper or someone but the fact that he was allowed to make a movie with Bale whose biggest solo hit was 20 million $ in American psycho is not part of the plan.

So all in all this movie is masterpiece and it really helped improve the star power of some of the most valuable artists in Hollywood like Nolan and Bale.

aronisred

06-21-18, 12:43 PM

Magnolia

3

A series of unrelated events which collectively help build the tension of life.

Paul Thomas Anderson is considered a great director by his peers. This bleeds into critics community. Critics crave freshness and they have a knack for spotting commercial beats in a movie, which isn't that hard to find. So any movie that can pass these test is already on the good side of critics. Add to that a good pace and an energy in direction, you have a perfect movie for critics. PTA and directors like Spike Jonze or Andy Kaufman are the pioneers of independent film making community. They struggled like all others and through their talent and being able to connect to audience they became high profile. So all independent artists look forward to their movies and often times are soft on their movies. This is the summary for another of PTA's movie Inherent vice on rotten tomatoes - "Inherent Vice may prove frustrating for viewers who demand absolute coherence, but it does justice to its acclaimed source material -- and should satisfy fans of director P.T. Anderson." Tell me where the negative elements are highlighted ? nowhere.Compare this to a movie by Scott Cooper called hostiles and here is the summary - " Hostiles benefits from stunning visuals and a solid central performance from Christian Bale, both of which help elevate its uneven story."Here the critics have already made up their mind that the director has made a sub-par movie and they totally got his movie and they are fully qualified to judge his movie. So this is the difference between an auteur and a sub-par director.People assume he must be right just because he made some great movies and it their own fault that they didn't get the movie. Critics are like that. Since they all know that he is a director who came from indie background and is a voice for independent cinema and has made some great movies they feel like he is honest filmmaker and so they don't have to make fun of him and his self important attitude.

All these opinions and attitudes are very important if you want to build a consensus to win an Oscar. Your movie should be challenging and at the same time shouldn't be self important. It should be entertaining but not pandering to audience.This movie has different people in different stages of their lives and the director uses all their plights to create this coherent emotional arc in a way of trying to make sense of life and world. It doesn't do anything magical but its just the first of its kind.

So the major take away from the movie is that its funny and interesting.But the circumstances surrounding the reaction to this movie sort of gives us an insight into auteur worship culture which is very much based in Los Angeles and they have a huge microphone and reach. So its attracts similar kind into the orbit of this culture.

Joel

06-23-18, 11:54 AM

pahaK

06-23-18, 12:07 PM

Yeah but, how can you say this is a good movie, but only give a sub par rating based on audience/critic reaction? That makes zero sense. Inherent Vice makes more sense than that, lol.

Or write a long review of a film without saying almost anything about it?

Iroquois

06-23-18, 12:15 PM

Baal (Volker Schlöndorff, 1970) - 1.5

A collaboration between New German contemporaries Schlöndorff and Fassbinder sees the former directing the latter in a Brecht adaptation that has some aggressively freewheeling counter-cultural energy behind it that makes it feel like an obnoxious, interminable mess more than anything.

As Good As It Gets (James L. Brooks, 1997) - 2.5

While this tale of a crotchety obsessive-compulsive author slowly warming up to the people in his life starts off somewhat promisingly and has a few decent performances in it, it definitely wears out its welcome by the time it's over.

Wall Street (Oliver Stone, 1987) - 2.5

I think I can consider this an example of a film with a broadly agreeable mission statement (capitalism is bad) that's a little let down by some strangely lacklustre execution, which is saying something considering Stone's knack for punchy directing. Even Michael Douglas's Oscar-winning turn just seems...okay.

Mouchette (Robert Bresson, 1967) - 4

I've found Bresson to be a pretty consistent director so far and this story about the various trials of a young girl living a hard life in a small village may lack the relative levels of excitement one would associate with the likes of A Man Escaped or Pickpocket but it still provides an experience that is emotionally compelling even in its external mundanity.

Chinese Roulette (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1976) - 3

Fassbinder does a chamber drama about a teenager setting up a twisted parlour game at an isolated mansion between her parents, their lovers, and the help. It starts off a little slow and even the way that the eponymous game unfolds isn't exactly perfect, but as far as Fassbinder's second-tier films goes it's definitely alright.

Satan's Brew (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1976) - 2

Fassbinder does an especially absurdist comedy about a deranged poet whose struggles with both writer's block and a dysfunctional home life start off at fever pitch and only escalate from there. While it unfortunately ends up drifting into the area where the absurdism becomes too numbing to have any affect (comedic or otherwise), I can't fault it too hard in this regard.

Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (Jeff Burr, 1990) - 2

Because the only thing worse than a sequel that plays like a weak retread of the original is a threequel that plays like a weak retread of the original (though I guess there was nowhere else to go after the second one's over-the-top '80s trashiness). There are a couple of nice touches (Viggo Mortensen and Ken Foree are obvious highlights) and it doesn't do too badly at finding its own balance between the vastly different tones of its predecessors, but it's still only a halfway-watchable excuse for a horror movie.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation (Kim Henkel, 1994) - 0.5

On second thought, maybe I was too harsh on Part III. This especially heinous sequel once again opts to retread the same basic plot of cannibals terrorising youths but somehow manages to be the worst of all worlds as it somehow takes the franchise's trademark capacity for ugly backwoods insanity into a whole new area that somehow manages to be aggressively dull and also insultingly inane.

The Third Generation (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1979) - 3.5

Fassbinder does a terrorist thriller, albeit one laced with his trademark capacity for self-effacing satire and interpersonal dysfunction. I'm also starting to wonder if there's an unspoken Hays Code-like requirement where movies about leftists also have to criticise their ideology to some extent, though I suppose it's fair if it's for the sake of outlining said flaws so that left-leaning audiences can address them and do better rather than just being out of a cynical lack of conviction (and I think Fassbinder leans towards the former, though it does get a little hard to tell at times).

In a Year with 13 Moons (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1978) - 4

Fassbinder does what I guess you could consider a classically archetypal Fassbinder film that deals in the twisted intersection of class, romance, and the ways in which power imbalances can pervert and undermine the two. The key difference with this one is that it involves the subject of gender reassignment surgery in such a way that at once provides a remarkable change-up to the Fassbinder formula while also threatening to tear the entire film down through the more questionable aspects of its application.

aronisred

06-23-18, 01:22 PM

Or write a long review of a film without saying almost anything about it?

there is nothing to spoil in the story...its the point of the view thats important to highlight and its not a comment ..its a review....you are spoilt by regular reviews where they give in the whole plot..Jesus

aronisred

06-23-18, 01:23 PM

Yeah but, how can you say this is a good movie, but only give a sub par rating based on audience/critic reaction? That makes zero sense. Inherent Vice makes more sense than that, lol.

3 is not that bad IMO...it is good to keep your mind occupied but not blow your socks off

Joel

06-23-18, 02:05 PM

3 is not that bad IMO...it is good to keep your mind occupied but not blow your socks off

I just think it's funny, the overall reaction to this film outside the realm of critical consensus. Most people love glossing this one over and discounting it...and then some of these same people praise Altman and his pioneering work. But this stays shoulder to shoulder with the obvious Alman influences..as well as Scorsese, and to me, entertains and pulls off the emotional manipulation as well or much better than any Spielberg confection of the past.

I mean, how can someone watch this movie and just be like "eh, it's ok.."?

It's like an acne ridden nerd criticizing a supermodel for not having big enough breasts when they're already a D cup.

No one is worthy until they make something better, or at least land a date with a girl that isn't wearing a flea collar.

Iroquois

06-23-18, 02:10 PM

You can be the tastiest peach in the world and there will still be people who hate peaches.

Swan

06-23-18, 02:22 PM

Magnolia is the least tasty peach in PTA's oeuvre.

Iroquois

06-23-18, 02:26 PM

I don't think I'd describe any of his films as "tasty" in the first place, though.

aronisred

06-23-18, 03:12 PM

I just think it's funny, the overall reaction to this film outside the realm of critical consensus. Most people love glossing this one over and discounting it...and then some of these same people praise Altman and his pioneering work. But this stays shoulder to shoulder with the obvious Alman influences..as well as Scorsese, and to me, entertains and pulls off the emotional manipulation as well or much better than any Spielberg confection of the past.

I mean, how can someone watch this movie and just be like "eh, it's ok.."?

It's like an acne ridden nerd criticizing a supermodel for not having big enough breasts when they're already a D cup.

No one is worthy until they make something better, or at least land a date with a girl that isn't wearing a flea collar.

it has this compound emotional effect...agree on Scorsese and Spielberg points. Opinions are always subjective. A marketing genius may not get this movie but that doesn't mean they are worthless. Movies are still entertainment. There is reason why people still watch fast and furious movies. Absolute geniuses in other fields want to turn their brain off and enjoy movies. So to them fast and furious is much more engaging that a PTA movie.

Joel

06-23-18, 03:38 PM

I prefer PTA's earlier films because they went from A to B and were pretty straightforward while still showcasing some real artistic flair with all the mechanics that make a good script even better with visuals and sound, editing, etc.

The abstract later stuff of PTA lost me, though I did reappraise TWBB and really, really like it now. It's damn near perfect.

Anyway, Magnolia..I guess it really annoys some people or underwhelms. Some films scream at the top of theuir lungs "I'M AN ART FILM!"..Magnoliadid this a little bit but was wrapped inside of a typical picture with a ..ok enough.

pahaK

06-23-18, 07:33 PM

there is nothing to spoil in the story...its the point of the view thats important to highlight and its not a comment ..its a review....you are spoilt by regular reviews where they give in the whole plot..Jesus

I don't mean a need to spoil the story but the fact that without the movie's name and pop corns at the top I wouldn't have a clue it's about Magnolia or even a review of something. But it's not really my business so carry on as you wish.

UpgradeYourDad

06-23-18, 11:49 PM

Part I:

45557
Gone Baby Gone (Affleck, 2007)

I’m all for the Ben Affleck-iasance that this movie launched. Almost all of the chances taken pay off big time. Everything from the way he showcases a police raid without showing the police, to knowing when to lean into younger brother Casey’s performance exemplifies Ben’s confidence.

Gone Baby Gone isnt flawless. It’s certainly got some wasted characters with Michael K Jordan’s Dev and Slaine’s Bubba pretty much amounting to NPCs in a video game. It still doesn’t take away the fact that this is the best Dennis Lehane adaptation with a moral quandary you’ll want to discuss well after the credits.

4.5+

45558
Drive (Refn, 2011)

Look, I love neo-noir (see above). Put a gun to my head and ask my favorite film, I’ll more than likely answer with any number of crime movies. Refn's Drive will certainly be among that roster.

Damn near perfectly shot, it’s slow and lets you linger in its universe. We’re introduced to Gosling’s unassuming character only referred to as “the driver”. To make ends meet, he’s a stuntman by day, getaway driver by night. He’s the best at what he does, but what happens when he goes on the wrong heist?

Answer? He tracks down the mobsters responsible. The pair (Rob Perlman and Albert Brooks) do competent enough, but ultimately feel like wasted characters. We hardly get their motivations, but the glimpses we do get makes me yearn to know more about them.

But don’t worry, there’s enough payoff in this shockingly violent masterpiece to be worthy of your time.

4.5

45559
Freaks (Browning, 1932)

This was my most nervous rewatch. Let’s admit it, sometimes films from the past don’t age well (especially those that are over 80 years old and have titles like Freaks). However, Browning’s masterpiece provides a surprisingly humane treatment and is infinitely entertaining.

Once called the most terrifying film, you don’t get much scares in this. Instead, we get a slice of life with a “mess with one, mess with all” code.

3.5

45560
An American Crime (O’Haver, 2007)

Ugh.

1

45561
Big Fan (Siegel, 2009)

Certainly an interesting dramatic turn for Patton Oswalt. The story is engaging enough, and Oswalt brings life into the sad loser role. All I can really say is that it’s alright.

3

45562
Election (Payne, 1999)

Everything a smart high school comedy should be. Well written, well shot, well performed. It’s just very well done.

4

UpgradeYourDad

06-23-18, 11:55 PM

Part ii:

45563
My Friend Dahmer (Meyers, 2017)

All I really care about saying regarding this movie: Slow-moving, bloated and boring. The more I think about it, the more I dislike it.

2

45564
Hereditary (Aster, 2018)

WOW WOW WOW. This is horror done right. Aster’s debut is one for the books. The way they play with your expectations is nothing short of perfection. If I was in the academy, both Collette and Wolff would have genuine consideration in their categories.

4.5+

45565
The Incredibles (Bird, 2004)

Pixar at its best. I love the real-world stakes of everything. Its probably my most listened to film score. It’s Watchmen under a family dynamic and a delight all around.

5

45566
The Incredibles 2 (Bird, 2018)

A superb sequel proving Brad Bird can really do no wrong. I was nervous under the weight of 14 years of hype but it is certainly a fantastic follow up.

It does everything a sequel should: it explores our characters into new areas and builds upon their world. While we get a less interesting villain, I really loved every second of this.

4+

45567
House (Obayashi, 1977)

One of the only films that gave me a genuine “what” reaction. I really don’t know how I feel. It’s stylish, but tonally all over the place. I think I disliked it? But I’m genuinely confounded.

2.5

donniedarko

06-24-18, 12:11 AM

I mean, how can someone watch this movie and just be like "eh, it's ok.."?

It's like an acne ridden nerd criticizing a supermodel for not having big enough breasts when they're already a D cup.

No one is worthy until they make something better, or at least land a date with a girl that isn't wearing a flea collar.

https://media.giphy.com/media/53lN577WPCFGM/giphy.gif

donniedarko

06-24-18, 12:12 AM

I'm with aronisred here- people rate films to highly and take 2.5-3 as a snub. Also reviews aren't supposed to be a synopsis

Joel

06-24-18, 12:16 AM

UpgradeYourDad

06-24-18, 12:38 AM

I'm with aronisred here- people rate films to highly and take 2.5-3 as a snub. Also reviews aren't supposed to be a synopsis

Eh, I think 0.5 is a F1.5 is a D 2.5 is average, 3.5 being a B, 4.5 being an A; 5 being perfection.

That’s at least how I view it.

pahaK

06-24-18, 01:03 AM

I'm with aronisred here- people rate films to highly and take 2.5-3 as a snub. Also reviews aren't supposed to be a synopsis

Yes. 2.5 - 3 is an average, or OK, movie. That I agree completely. I also agree that reviews aren't supposed to be synopsis but it would be really nice if one could connect the review with the movie in ways other than checking the name above the review. A review should (in my opinion at least) somehow explain the rating given and have some relation to the film.

aronisred

06-24-18, 07:21 PM

American Made

3

The life story of pilot Barry Seal.

Tom cruise is the movie star. He was famous before the whole tabloid culture. He was famous around the time when lot of his peers were pushed to be famous along with him. But none of them stuck except him. So to a certain extent he is even more of a genuine movie star than Brad Pitt. Pitt used his marriage with Angelina Jolie to increase his profile and collaborated with George Clooney on Oceans 11 and in a way increasing his profile. But Tom Cruise is tom Cruise. He helped others increase their profile but never did it turn the other way around. Even will smith was forced to do commercial blockbusters. But tom cruise is putting out movies like Valkyrie and Last Samurai , which are essentially prestige ambitious movies and they make 400 million $. So thats the power of tom cruise.

The life story of Barry seal is very interesting and there is lot of dense material in his life. Lot of stuff happened. So the first thing I noticed about this movie is that it pulls no punches in terms of creating the atmosphere. You never see a city scape like New York or any familiar urban feel.Its all centered around his character. This guy basically lived in Rural America and in South America and government offices. They make sure that the movie is not made audience friendly by giving them some levity. This movie is also bit of a downer. You can see that all the people Barry Seal is interacting with are sharks. Any wrong movie and you are dead. The aerial shots are in tune with both Barry seal and tom cruises aesthetics. Both are pilots and the story central character is a pilot and the movie doesn't back down from the aerial shots. All the drama in the movie and the tensions and plot points in the movie are in real life. So nothing can be left to imagination. I liked the fact that tom cruise took chances and help make this movie.

I recently noticed a trend in Hollywood which should be attributed to Christopher Nolan. Somewhere around the time of the dark knight and inception he jolted Hollywood into an era of this dark, gritty, epic, ambitious and quite frankly transcendental filmmaking. In a way his movie sort of establish how fake and superficial marvel universe is. You can see the impact of his films in movies like fantastic four , DCEU, amazing spider man, dredd, robo cop, the great gatsby,exodus gods and kings and many other dark retellings of those stories. All these are failed attempts. But there were successful attempts as well. The huge budget for Inglourious Basterds , Django Unchained, Wolf of wall street, revenant, Logan and upcoming Ford V Ferrari and Once upon a time in Hollywood with budgets of up to 100 million are all the residual effects of Chris Nolan. Somewhere around the time of Inception DiCaprio noticed that he can make movies like that and people will come see this epic scale movies as long as they are well made. Studios took a wrong cue from it and they hired indie directors to make big budget movies which are not really the stories they wanted to tell. They just took them so they could get a head start in Hollywood like Colin Trevorrow and J A Beyona. But DiCaprio just gave the directors free reign but made sure that those are the best possible directors anyone could ever get. I mean no one can get a better director than the one's he got. The reason I am bringing this up is because this phenomenon in Hollywood made Tom Cruise slightly obsolete. Even his movies in early 2000's with Spielberg and others pale in comparison to the dark moody tone of movies like Nolan's , Logan , wolf of wall street, revenant etc. The modern epics need to have certain sense of perverse sickness to them. Chummy movies are not what audience want. Epic scale need to have certain doom and death attached to them.

So the problem with this movie is except for the fact that the circumstances in which the protagonist finds himself are deadly and more played out like fish out of water the movie has is no emotional punch or core. True story is cinematic but this movie comes in the long line of American dream based movies like gold, wolf of wall street, war dogs and so on where in people are trying to chase money and gold and it just doesn't cut it for a movie in 2017 to be just a series of unbelievable true story events. A suggestion would be to have a scene where his plane crashes in jungle and make a remarkable sub story there. By looking at wolf of wall street and revenant, I noticed that one of the more formulaic ways in the epic scale ambitious filmmaking is to have memorable and bonkers sub stories with in stories like the over dosed scene in wolf of wall street or bear attack or inside horse sleeping scenes in revenant. Audience need to have some memorable scenes to talk about after coming out of the movie rather than just the whole movie being a blur. I suggest having some sequences in the movie that are unlike anything else and make them for 10 million or 4 million.

So the 60 million $ budget shows on the screen. The fact that South Americans talk in non-english shows the balls of the filmmakers not to dumb down the story.The sweaty jungles and rural America are excellently portrayed. The whole cloudy atmosphere is very interesting choice for the story that is told. The pace of the movie is an interesting commercial choice by the director. To keep audience attentive, he can't make the story drag. But to really have a emotional undertone, you need to either weave the pace with emotion or establish it with few scenes.Its just lacking what I call the Chris Nolan flavor. Wow factor is very hard to get in a movie set in South America. Because jungle alone can't render themselves to that.

HashtagBrownies

06-24-18, 09:36 PM

Seen in June Pt.2

45571
4
Something about the premise and camera quality makes the film seem like it’s gonna be a crappy Tv film, but it is most certainly not. The performances are brilliant, and Blethyn’s is utterly outstanding. The dialogue is very engaging and realistic. The wonderful direction really shows us that this isn’t a Tv movie: The long-shot in the café is just fantastic.

45572
4
There's one gay joke that hasn't aged too well, but apart from that it's a solid-ass comedy. Some bits were soooooooo funny (Them sneaking into the train-car for example). Eddie Murphy gave off his signature fast-talking joker performance again. Very intense final scene.

45573
4-
Personally I don't feel that the film has enough suspenseful scenes to be considered a thriller or horror. Very cool to see a film from this period depict a dangerous, mentally ill main character with substance, instead of just labeling him a 'loony'. Brilliant use of lighting and colours. The scene on the filmset is extremely intense, you have no clue what's gonna happen or what our main character has up his sleeve. At first I didn't understand why their was an outrage upon the film's release, as the critically lauded Psycho was released the same year and was much more violent; but then I realized the film deals with very heavy topics that would've been unheard of back in the day (Child abuse, fetishism, sadomasochism etc.). Also it was the first British film to show BOOBIES!

45575
5+++++++++
Where the actual hell was this film my entire life, IT'S F*CKING PERFECT! That's all I have to say, every second you don't watch this film is a second of your life wasted.

45576
3.5
I liked it, a fairly solid Hitchcock. One shot in the courtroom is very clever. The last bit of the movie after he leaves the courtroom felt like studio meddling: If it ended before that it would've given us a great ambiguous ending.

45577
4+
The marketing is a bit misleading (like every A24 horror), but the shot in the trailer of Toni Collette's screaming being blocked out by blaring gave me goosebumps.

The film itself feels more like a very dark drama with supernatural horror elements than a horror film. Toni Collette gives an absolutely awe-inspiring performance, and Gabriel Byrne's performance is great also. Very effective use of music and disturbing imagery. A good chunk of the horror comes from tragedies that effect multiple families. Has one of the most effective jumpscares in a horror movie to date. Some shots give the appearance of looking into a dollhouse.

The death of the young girl is genius. The marketing makes her out to be some creepy-Damien-Omen child, so you are 105% caught off guard when she gets decapitated.

45578
3+
I was expecting to not enjoy this that much as I can't stand Westerns, but this was a pleasant surprise. It wasn't half bad. Both of our leads were written and performed very well (Bale's character was really interesting). The action was pretty good (Especially at the ending). While alot of people are praising the scenery, something about it seems a little grey and boring to me. I much preferred the scenery of Mangold's Logan, which takes place primarily in the desert also.

45579
4
Extremely similar to 'The Dirties'; It's more realistic than 'The Dirties' but I'm not too sure which film is better. It's very realistic, what with the subtle dialogue that hints at the main character's mental illnesses and isolation and a character randomly sneezing (Probably the first time I've seen that in a film!). I feel like the starting and ending credits REALLY don't fit with the tone of the film. The last 15 minutes are very horrific and disturbing: It's possibly amplified by the fact that you've possibly gotten to kinda like the characters through-out the course of the film, and you forget the fact that they are heartless people capable of pointless murder.

The film also has alot to say about the nature of school shootings. The main characters have an extremely detailed plan of what they want to do, saying they don't want to repeat the actions of 'attention seeking' shooters; But ultimately everything they didn't want to happen happens, making you wonder if this may have been the mentality of other shooters in the past.

45580
4
For a comedy, it's actually a very disturbing view into the life of a stalker. It has one of the greatest final shots I have seen in a very long time: It provokes a ton of questions and has one little subtlety that could entirely change ones view on the film.

45581
3.5+
Danny Boyle is a very strange director, his films all feel like they come from completely different directors with completely different styles. The stakes are pretty good. The soundtrack is quite beautiful. You know you're a good director when you can make an everyday object like the sun look beautiful. Very effective use of creepy, single-frame imagery a la The Exorcist. Liked the way in which the villain was depicted. I will agree that the second half didn't feel as good as the first, but it was still great.

Monkeypunch

06-25-18, 08:20 PM

Deadpool 2 - Funnier and more story-driven than the original, Deadpool 2 sends up superhero flicks while also adhering to the tropes of the genre quite faithfully. Ryan Reynolds brings the laughs and bloody ultraviolence as the indestructible mercenary, this time on a mission to save a plus sized mutant called "Firefist" from the time travelling bad ass, Cable. Hilarious, inappropriate, and insanely action packed. 4

Mr. Vampire II - another sequel, this time to a nutty Chinese comedy flick about hopping vampires. Mr. Vampire II is crazier, sillier, and weirder than the original, this time a trio of treasure hunters unearths a vampire family who are set loose on the streets of Hong Kong. The child vampire's adventure with a pair of cute children is the weirdo highlight of this one. It's like a Chinese version of E.T. except E.T. wasn't going to drink anyone's blood. 3.5

Deuce Bigalow Male Gigolo - Despite it's subject matter, "man-whoring," this Rob Schneider flick is a lot sweeter than it sounds. In the end, it's all about accepting others for their quirks, and how kindness is the biggest aphrodisiac of them all. Plus it's stupidly funny. Great supporting parts from Eddie Griffin and Amy Pohler. 3.5

Deuce Bigalow European Gigolo - A sequel nobody asked for, but it's actually funnier than the original. Rob Schneider's hapless He-Bitch returns to man-whoring to clear the name of his former pimp (Eddie Griffin), accused of the murders of Amsterdam's most famous man-whores. The sequel amps up the gross, scatological humor, really earns it's R rating, and still manages to be a pretty harmless comedy. 4

Mr Minio

06-28-18, 02:28 AM

The Man Who Had His Hair Cut Short (1966) - rating_3_5

http://old.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/images/issue/420/man-who-had-his-hair-cut-short_420.jpg

A Dutch classic. Polish actress Beata Tyszkiewicz plays a graduating pupil of a love-struck, deranged teacher. The pace is very slow but things get intense towards the end!

Mother (1952) - rating_4_5

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-r-JcvRr5ZQQ/WY3x26MXyjI/AAAAAAAAGJQ/HPUlQ0jrFUc9tO1aZy7lF-eRm0kum8gbQCLcBGAs/s1600/mother.jpg

One of Naruse's best! A paean to a mother. Any and every mother in this world in general, and Kinuyo Tanaka's character in particular. A woman who is able to live the lives of all her children at the same time. Also Kyoko Kagawa in this traditional wedding dress. *.*

Casino (1995) - rating_4

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-D7ptYFmDx-M/T16-VodHrSI/AAAAAAAAEGk/VR0xAHorDe8/s1600/Casino+3.jpg

Was ready to hate it but ended up really liking it. I loved the free-flowing narration in this. I found the violence extremely explicit and truly disturbing. Time to rewatch Goodfellas?

The Chase (1966) - rating_4

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-m2ka1H-vrKE/VN2SK8YvK4I/AAAAAAAANP0/6Gu6gxD5mGI/s1600/The%2BChase%2B3.jpg

The first hour is a little bit torpid but then they beat the sh*t out of Brando and things start getting interesting with an electrifying finale to boot!

Mikey and Nicky (1976) - rating_4

https://nyblueprint.com/sites/default/files/styles/flexslider_full/public/18776837_0.jpg?itok=NK539-rh

Surprisingly enough, this was not directed by Cassavetes but still is as Cassavetian as a film can be. Great performances from Cassavetes and Falk.

Notes of an Itinerant Performer (1941) - rating_3_5

https://78.media.tumblr.com/adca00c0d66fa25b831fae3f8ab0dc87/tumblr_nw1h2zUJR51t1d159o1_500.png

Shimizu's weakest out of three of his 1941 films I've seen but still a pretty good film.

The Adventures of God (2000) - rating_4_5

http://www.c1n3.org/s/subiela01e/Images/2000%20Las%20aventuras%20de%20Dios%20(foto)%2001.jpg

Now that's what I call surrealism. A majestic work of art from the Argentinian director. Hitchhiking Jesus > life.

The Possessed (1965) - rating_3_5

https://podcastingthemsoftly.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/vlcsnap-2017-09-23-14h18m57s205.png?w=474

Quality proto-giallo with splendid cinematography. The plot weighs it down but still more than a worthy film.

Frost (1997) - rating_4

https://i.imgur.com/d8kTWjQ.png

3,5 hours of pathology with an underlying layer of misery porn. Long takes are really impressive at first but quickly wear thin. The scene in the mist is outstanding.

Man Facing Southeast (1986) - rating_4

https://i.imgur.com/pQVkD40.png

Another movie from the director of The Adventures of God. Not as great and much more Christian but offers an interesting parable about an alien Christ.

The Long Farewell (1971) - rating_4

http://www.kviff.com/en/image/fancybox/photo-web/42/314/9b1f-a-long-goodbye.jpg

My second Muratova. A great film that makes me confused. I don't know if I should be moved by bonds or annoyed by manipulation. The scene of letter writing is weirdly moving and I don't know why.

Utamaro and His Five Women (1946) - rating_4_5

https://i.imgur.com/QHNtvv7.png

A visual masterpiece. Even though it might no be the level of Ugetsu, Sansho or Yuki, I'm still dumbfounded by how well Mizoguchi's eye composes shots. The blocking is impeccable, camera movement sublime, mise en scene breathtaking. Plotwise the movie is thick. It's about an artist and his love for his art. It's about brushes winning over swords. It's about the passion for art that is as strong as the passion for love. When watching Mizoguchi films I have a feeling I'm watching something important, something truly great.

Icarus XB 1 (1963) - rating_3_5

https://i.imgur.com/Hlsl8hB.png

A solid Czechoslovak sci-fi! I found the ending anticlimactic.

Brothers and Sisters of the Toda Family (1941) - rating_3_5

https://i.imgur.com/aAvy6Ny.png

If we don't count his early silent flops, this is one of Ozu's weakest. Still a good film.

Iroquois

06-28-18, 12:03 PM

Paddington (Paul King, 2014) - 3.5

Still a charming little movie about a talking bear, though a second viewing does confirm that it's ever-so-slightly inferior to its sequel.

Ocean Waves (Tomomo Mochizuki, 1993) - 2.5

Probably the weakest Ghibli film I've seen yet, if only because its slight and mundane tale doesn't do all that much to work even by the modest standards it sets for itself. I'm still hoping it'll grow on me, though.

Reds (Warren Beatty, 1981) - 3

For a vanity project from the ass-end of the New Hollywood era, this one's actually rather remarkable in how it manages to pull off a rather decent (if lengthy) story that affords some predictably complicated sympathies to various 20th-century communists in a film that is shot through with Storaro's usual capacity for great cinematography.

Boar (Chris Sun, 2017) - 1

I remember not thinking too fondly of that other "giant Australian killer pig" movie Razorback when I first saw it, but I think I owe it a second chance after seeing this charmless attempt at rehashing it with a few Ozploitation icons old and new (plus a weirdly normal-looking Bill Moseley) thrown in for good measure. At least the practical effects look good.

Despair (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1978) - 2.5

Fassbinder does a somewhat absurd psychological drama about a businessman's gradual mental breakdown in the last days of the Weimar Republic. There's something that's ultimately a little one-note about its take on fractured identity, but as with the bulk of Fassbinder's filmography it remains passable.

Lili Marleen (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1981) - 3

Fassbinder does a wartime romance that is interesting mainly because of how utterly conventional it is compared to virtually every other film of his that I've seen, though it's still got enough of his fingerprints all over it to help it stand out from other films of its ilk.

Mala noche (Gus Van Sant, 1985) - 2.5

I've always considered Van Sant a more or less okay director and his debut, a ramshackle black-and-white indie about a gay slacker and his tumultuous acquaintance with a pair of Mexican immigrants, does nothing to dispel that notion in one way or another.

Let the Right One In (Tomas Alfredson, 2008) - 4

First time re-watching this since release. It holds up well and some things play even better on re-watch.

Querelle (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1982) - 3.5

Fassbinder does an exceptionally overblown story about the homoerotic misadventures of a sailor and the various individuals he encounters during shore leave. While not a deliberate attempt to create one, it is a remarkable swansong for Fassbinder that offers new twists on his favourite themes and subjects that are all wrapped in a lavishly-visualised package.

Twilight Zone: The Movie (John Landis/Steven Spielberg/Joe Dante/George Miller, 1983) - 2

I probably shouldn't have gone into this expecting it to be particularly scary (the lacklustre "wanna see something really scary?" bit at the start really should've been the tip-off). The segments themselves are pretty whatever as well - Landis's coasts on production value more than anything else, Spielberg's is so saccharine that it makes E.T. seem like Schinder's List, Dante's is an appreciably manic live-action cartoon, and Miller's is only just freaky enough to not count as boring. It probably doesn't help that I already saw the latter two segments as Treehouse of Horror episodes first, though.

Joel

06-28-18, 01:27 PM

I'm with aronisred here- people rate films to highly and take 2.5-3 as a snub. Also reviews aren't supposed to be a synopsis

Not a synopsis. But they should be about the film and not the general public or industry.

aronisred

06-29-18, 10:21 AM

Not a synopsis. But they should be about the film and not the general public or industry.

films are made by the industry and watched by public...movies are green lit based on those things

Joel

06-29-18, 03:15 PM

Not a synopsis. But they should be about the film and not the general public or industry.

films are made by the industry and watched by public...movies are green lit based on those things

Right.

I hated Blade Runner because of the on set tension between american and british crews.

There ya go lol

aronisred

06-29-18, 03:17 PM

Right.

I hated Blade Runner because of the on set tension between american and british crews.

There ya go lol

As long as you are happy

Joel

06-29-18, 07:10 PM

As long as you are happy

Blade Runner is one of my favorite films. I was just joking. Just trying to illustrate my point a little. Same advice to you, I guess. Peace.

aronisred

06-30-18, 08:58 PM

Blade Runner is one of my favorite films. I was just joking. Just trying to illustrate my point a little. Same advice to you, I guess. Peace.

okay...I need an advice from you then...I heard that blade runner 2049 is very well received..so if I want to fully enjoy it which version of original blade runner do I need to watch ? apparently there are 100 versions.

Iroquois

06-30-18, 10:04 PM

My recommendation would be the 2007 "Final Cut" (which is also the most widely available one anyway since Scott decided that, as the name implies, it would serve as the definitive version). The key difference is between the 1982 theatrical cut (which had serious studio interference that made it a lesser film) and the 1992 director's cut, which got refined into the Final Cut.

Joel

07-01-18, 03:24 AM

okay...I need an advice from you then...I heard that blade runner 2049 is very well received..so if I want to fully enjoy it which version of original blade runner do I need to watch ? apparently there are 100 versions.

I'd say go with the final cut...but that might be misleading. I started with the theatrical, and I got hooked from there. I'm not a dumb person, and the elements of the theatrical cut are seen as dumb and supposed for dumb people. I didn't get that from the original US cut at all. I saw a film so powerful that...with a detective voice over narration..it acted as a balancing agent that diluted a bit of the overwhelming visuals, which are mind blowing.

The music, too.

Of course, this is 2018, and everyone has seen everything now. Nothing impresses anyone anymore, so...

Just pick a version and watch it. With a film like Blade Runner, if you can't get the power from any version, you'll never get it. It's a matter of preference.

cricket

07-01-18, 08:44 AM

June, 2018 movies watched-

Annhilation (2018) 3 It's good but I prefer the director's Ex-Machina.

Combat Shock (1984) 2.5 Pretty good for a Troma film.

Waterloo Bridge (1931) 3.5 Not sure which I like more between this and the 1940 version.

A Night at the Opera (1935) 3.5+ My second Marx Brothers movie, and I'd rank it slightly behind Horse Feathers.

Terrifier (2017) 2 Nothing special but worth watching for slasher fans.

The Petrified Forest (1936) 3 Enjoyable thriller with early roles from Bogart and Bette Davis.

Atomic Blonde (2017) 3+ Good fun with a couple of hot girls.

Two-Lane Blacktop (1971) 4 As far as road and car movies go, this is a new favorite.

42nd Street (1933) 3.5- Not necessarily my taste, but extremely well made.

Jezebel (1938) 4 Director William Wyler strikes again.

Mr. Freedom (1968) 3 Something different, and mostly successful. I just thought it started to wear thin.

Red Sparrow (2018) 3 I thought it was ridiculous for awhile until it grew on me.

Pygmalion (1938) 3.5 Great performances from Leslie Howard and Wendy Hiller, I liked it much more than My Fair Lady.

Death Wish (2018) 2.5+ Pretty run of the mill yet still plenty entertaining.

Shogun's Sadism: The Joys of Torture 2 (1976) 2+ Split into 2 stories, both with plenty of shocks.

Pixote (1981) 4.5 A look at juvenile delinquents in Brazil, and it's not pretty.

Hotel Du Nord (1938) 3 Good flick even if I couldn't get totally into it.

Klass (2007) 4- Unpleasant story of school bullying and violence.

Entrails of a Virgin (1986) 1.5 Easy to watch with a few decent moments, but overall a lousy movie.

Game Night (2018) 3.5- Good fun with a good cast.

The Green Elephant (1999) 2.5 Low budget Russian shocker that is filthy, raw, and sickening.

The Killer is Still Among Us (1986) 2- Not a bad Giallo, but just not nearly enough action.

Electra Glide in Blue (1973) 2.5+ A mixed bag with a lot of cool elements for a movie that was sometimes a bore.

The Saragossa Manuscript (1965) 4 A very unique movie that has even more to offer than what I got out of it.

The Blue Angel (1930) 4 A jarring turn of events made this movie one I'll remember.

The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) Repeat viewing 3.5 I would rather not have the comedic element even though it works well much of the time.

Wait Until Dark (1967) Repeat viewing 3.5+ Fabulously entertaining even if I also think it has plenty of stupidity.

Poison for the Fairies (1984) 2.5 No real negatives or positives, just ok.

Total June viewings-28
Total 2018 viewings-160

thracian dawg

07-01-18, 03:20 PM

★

Requiem for a Killer (2011) Le Gris
She is a state of the art contract killer specializing in poisons (she botches every attempt) coaxed out of retirement for one last job. He is a burnt-out a secret agent pulled out of an administrative leave (he has a tendency to shoot first then ask questions later) to protect the famous baritone targeted for assassination. Both killers can double as world class musicians and are programmed as headliners at a classical music festival; she shrieks on stage and he strums beside her, while they play their mouse and cat game back stage … Sheesh.

On Chesil Beach (2017) - Cooke
A 110 minute PSA why sex education should be a mandatory high school course.

★½ (http://www.filmsufi.com/search/label/*%C2%BD)

Hotel Artemis (2018) - Pearce
The logic of the film quickly crumbles where the rules of the hotel (and film) are plastered all over the walls then are immediately broken by the very personnel who posted them. There is something really odd about having the foresight to keep your premiums paid up on a clandestine state-of the art trauma center for GSW’s (the hotel advertises itself prominently in the Los Angeles skyline) then engaging in behaviors that will get you riddled with bullets. Jodie Foster was nice here as a weary, alcoholic nurse with a heart of bronze.

★★ (http://www.filmsufi.com/search/label/**)

In Your Eyes (2014) Hill
This is romantic comedy? Essentially this is two characters that giggle and engage in long conversations with themselves in public for the entire film. The film hides this by cross-cutting and avoiding any establishing shots. The truth is that their lives were completely ruined by this psychic connection. This same idea would have worked much better as paranoid horror film where two schizophrenic patients begin to understand the voices in their heads are actually real; because at the end of the movie, that’s where they are. He is going back to prison for a very long time and she is going back the looney bin as a violent inmate with some very serious chemical restraints.

The Seagull (2018) - Mayers
The key moment in the film is when the famous writer looks at the ingénue then jots down in his notebook: She will rue the day. The film quickly dissolves to two years later when her ruin is complete but she still follows him around begging for a crumb of affection. Maybe her suffering was justified because she was a skanky little home wrecker way back when this was written, but certainly not now. I would have thrown out everything in the source material but kept the dissolve, that’s the movie; then got James Toback to direct and Harvey Weinstein to produce this tale of radiant, sadistic misogyny.

★★½ (http://www.filmsufi.com/search/label/**%C2%BD)

In another Country (2012) Sang-soo Hong
This is three light variations of the same basic story of four or five characters meeting and interacting at a sea-side resort. There’s a delicious moment when Isabelle Huppert (playing a movie director) stops by a road and does this strange yodel, then cuts to the couple of perplexed goats in a field. She’s so ba-d-d-d-d. On the other hand, the whole thing could be just the scribbles of a chambermaid writing a scenario in her spare time.

First Reformed (2017) - Schrader
This seems less about a character making choices about his life, but simply laying the losing hand he has been dealt over the last couple of years. At the beginning of Schrader’s career god’s angry man was a taxi-driver looking for trouble, now he is a holy man who stands at the pulpit in an almost empty church simply mouthing the words no one will hear, no longer believing in anything and decides to go out in a blaze of glory as a renegade priest clearing the church of the money changers.

Gauguin: voyage in Tahiti (2017) - Deluc
Vincent Cassel has the perfect face, lined and creased with worries to play a permanent marginal in the world; the artist living only to follow his lonely bliss (to be ironically commodified after his death and turned into gold---his tribulations becoming the selling points), His last hurrah is escaping to a tropical paradise; itself in the process of being dismantled and destroyed, The natives are slowly losing their way of life and their minds are being colonized; the greatest dream for his young beauty is to afford the white dress for the parade to and from church on Sunday. At the end, he becomes what he despises most, a petty bourgeois locking away his greatest possessions.

Voyage of the damned (1976) Rosenberg
The escaping ship is merely a floating PR exercise for the Nazi’s who know in advance the steamship is going to be rejected in every port and eventually return to Germany. Hope is cruelly dangled before the passengers; the cruise then becomes an elegant pressure cooker as certain people slowly understand the horror of their situation. Malcolm McDowell is probably the oldest cabin boy in history.

High Hopes (1988) Leigh
Larger than Bleak Moments, Leigh’s second theatrical release (17 years later) has more moving parts than his first. Thatcher has cleaved British society into the haves and the have-nots. An elderly lady still lives in the flat she grew up in, but she’s about to be pushed out by the sky rocketing rents by Yuppies snapping up prime real estate for a song. The film is doesn’t seem to be constructed with plot points but works through comparison; revealing how the different couples and characters interact, relate and contrast to the various situations.

Take out (2012) Baker & Tsou
Little bit of a hump to get over the first act, because getting information from our hero is like pulling teeth. But you begin to root for him once the second delivery guy shows him how to goose his tips with a nice thank-you and a beaming smile, then watch painfully as he doesn’t even meet their eyes or even mumble an audible goodbye to his customers. The second delivery man senses he needs to make some serious bread, so he takes a sick day and volunteers all the rainy day deliveries he can handle to help out. A film simply following a recent immigrant delivering Chinese food in downtown New York becomes strangely compelling; what is going to be on the other side of those doors?

Neighbour no. 13 (2005) Inoue
Although the cover art makes this manga inspired story look like a slasher film, this is actually a keen mediation on the ripple effects of violence. A young boy is being ruthlessly bullied at school, and we see the moment when his psyche splits off a vengeful wraith who will take over his body later as an adult when the world begins to overwhelm him. This is interesting in that it establishes sympathy for the victim and hatred for the bully then, over the course of the film slowly tries to reverse this identification. The climax of the film is one of breath-taking simplicity.

Spring (2014) Benson & Moorhead
This is a nice romance in an Italian village with a dash of science fiction /horror. I liked that the young woman wasn’t identifiable as a movie type---she has her own specific pathology to her … evolutionary fits. There’s a nice open ended conclusion---especially if you favor the guy’s point of view as a penniless fugitive (who won’t be missed) hooking up with gorgeous, million dollar girlfriend. That she actually cares about him is shown how she goes out of her way to offer him endless outs. Although this is clearly the praying mantis romance … the odds on him keeping his head after the wedding night are pretty slim.

Last Four Songs (2007) – Joseph
Another film that benefits from a great location; a Mediterranean island where you sleep naked under the stairs, tool around the village on a Vespa, and play piano at night in a sea-side restaurant. Larry’s mid-life crisis forms around the idea of orchestrating a tribute concert to the island’s most famous resident, the world class composer who lived in the villa up the hill. Although his crotchety widow has always refused these concerts in the past, she agrees to it when he gives her complete veto power over everything. The film shows the different kinds of love. Plus, they play the hell out of Beim Schlafengehen.

★★★ (http://www.filmsufi.com/search/label/***)

Bound * (1996) - Wachowski
The best thing about this Film Noir is that they actually leave the film before the final sequence, and it’s still all happily ever after and lovely-dovey between one of cinema’s most photogenic lesbian couples. There is inspired type casting for Jennifer Tilly as Violet, she usually plays dim witted, baby talking bombshells---here she suggests Machiavellian depths. Her bedroom is just on the other side of a thin wall and Corky can hear her boisterous fakery each time she beds a different Mafioso. Of course, on this side of the wall Violet is totally monogamous and totally in love with her. The guy who stole the 2,176 million dollars was waiting for Violet to say yes and run away with him but then this hot chick started renovating the apartment next to hers, and a neon sign went on over Violet’s head. The happy ending is impossibility in a Film Noir and Corky is the classic fall guy who will never imagine Violet simply tying up all the loose ends ( as a femme fatale is wont to do) until it’s too late.

I am Love * (2009) Guadagnino
The first time I saw this, I thought Tilda Swinton was the matriarch of this great industrial family risking it all on love, but this time, I was struck how out of place and marginal she was in that great mausoleum of a house, an outsider merely pretending to be the trophy wife and how she didn’t really belong there.

3:10 to Yuma (1956) Daves
Out on the frontier, Justice is still a vague abstraction and life is one of pragmatic practicality---so if you stumble across a robbery in progress, you count the guns and join the right side or you put a chaw of tobacco in and wait for it to be over. Although once life becomes more than just a matter of survival, Justice will become the foundation of any healthy community. A nice little reverse about capital punishment sending a clear message to the miscreants, here the outlaws are the ones broadcasting their message to the town’s folk. Glen Ford was a great silver tongued villain born just a little too early, a few years later he would have been the sheriff.

Maggie’s plan (2015) Miller
Miller’s films tend to be dramatic slogs, so I wasn’t expecting this quirky comedy / romance. The director has a nice, visual shorthand like where a sperm donor gives his lady to be, a jar full of pickles, or the story shifts to Canada with the an insert of a moose head---oh yeah! We are now in the wilds of Canada where life grinds to a halt with a couple of snowflakes. Gerwig and Hawke are good, but I think Julianne Moore steals the film as the neurotic intellectual with an outrageous Scandinavian accent.

Lucid (20o5) Garrity
Things are kind of off from the outset, the shaky single parent and therapist looks like he belongs with his patients instead of leading the group session on the road to better mental health. I kind of liked how their individual problems are slowly revealed all to be related to PTSD then converge on the single traumatic event.

Love & Friendship (2016) Stillman
We are a long way from the powerless Jane Austen’s heroines struggling to survive in a man’s world; Lady Susan Vernon pursues and attains her goals reckless abandon. She may also be a kind of unreliable narrator; the action at hand is never really what is going on. Like when her daughter is expelled from school---not because of anything she did, but Lady Susan doesn’t think she has to pay her daughter’s school fees. She always excuses her bad behavior with mental gymnastics, like how she justifies not paying her servant because it would be loathsome for the both of them. Her husband is a delightful loon.

What have I done to deserve this? (1984) – Almodovar
This is a black comedy about a much put upon, addicted to caffeine pills, overworked and underpaid charwoman. The film begins at one of her endless part-time jobs; a Kendo dojo and watching them train, she fantasizes about taking a big stick to her own problems. Cleaning the changing rooms moments later, a naked hunk invites her into his shower stall (she is also loved starved---her taxi driver husband’s only demand is that his food be ready on the table when he arrives home). Unfortunately, the stud has an equipment malfunction and their bout of lovemaking quickly fizzles out. Almodovar throws the kitchen sink at this---it would take three more paragraphs just to describe all the sub- plots.

★★★½ (http://www.filmsufi.com/search/label/***%C2%BD)

Frantic * (1988) – Polanski
This is a black comedy disguised as a thriller. There is something absurd about an action hero at every turn has to immediately turn and ask someone: uh, could you translate what he just said to me? Plus he really takes a beating in the film. This is certainly a double spoof on the Parisian dream vacation; the romantic couple’s getaway and the debauched executive version of the same stay, like when he wanders into the hotel lobby in the morning completely pooped and barefoot with a black leather mini skirt in tow young enough to be his daughter—not a random occurrence at this swanky hotel. I remember re-watching Payne’s Election not too long ago and I though the garbage trucks were overdone, but here the same visual motif is just right, the seedy underbelly of the Paris has to have garbage men cleaning up every morning, otherwise the stink would become too much. Industry wide surveillance now standard, a film like this would be impossible to make now.

Dead Man’s Bluff (2005) – Balabanov
In a phrase, this Russian gangster spoof would be Reservoir Dogs meets Dumb and Dumber. The title is another name for Russian roulette.

HashtagBrownies

07-01-18, 09:49 PM

Seen in June Pt.3/3

45768
4-
A very interesting look into the roles of women in Japan. I was all in this for the nasty scenes at the end but I gotta say, the sense of mystery and drama during the first part was very enjoyable. The nasty scenes at the end did their job very well, I couldn't stop cringing. I’m not sure if it’s me or not but I thought the film had fairly bad lighting: It was hard to make out a lot of stuff. I was very confused near the end when our main character starts drifting in and out of hallucinating and seeing events that are actually occurring without being near those locations at the end. It could be interpreted as people’s paranoia’s of their new partner’s dark secrets, or it could just be a mistake.

45769
3.5
Quite nice. I liked the theme of a boy born in post WWII seeing colours in a bleak landscape. That being said, the colours are lovely aswell. I liked the relationship between the boy and the balloon and all of the balloons human-like traits. Really nice music. I felt there were too many scenes of the balloon trying to enter buildings. One of two scenes would’ve been fine, but leaving out the rest would’ve allowed the audience to get to know the boy and the balloon more.

45771
4
Goofy B-movie fun. The scene where they have the door very well barricaded and the monster just casually opens it because it’s a ‘pull’ door was just hilarious. Really liked how they went to the effort of having real cold breath. Haven’t seen the remake in quite some time so I should probably do that.

45772
4
One of the weirdest films I have ever seen (And I enjoyed every second of the weirdness). I went in expecting a serious film, then five minutes later I see a group of posh 19th century men singing Nirvana. After that I settled myself in for a goofy romance, but then it gets completely serious and sad during the second half. STOP PLAYING WITH MY EMOTIONS! Ewan McGregor has the most amazing singing voice, please give him more singing roles Hollywood: I’ll be SO EXCITED, I WILL LOUDLY STOMP AND CHEER! SO EXCITING, I WON’T STOP DANCING FOR FIFTY YEARS!

45773
4
I have to thank my friend for introducing me to this legend. Ip Man is so awesome, every time he did something cool my friends and me would go ‘Gwan Ip Man!’. The action is awesome and Ip Man is a brilliant character. Donnie Yen gives the character so much likability.

45774
4
Even better than the first one! Possibly due to being more lighthearted. I will say that the British people were hilariously bad actors.

aronisred

07-02-18, 12:04 AM

Rush

2

This movie is about F1 racing rivalry between James Hunt and Nikki Lauda and how the rivalry helped them to be better drivers.

I was watching this movie only to see and anticipate how James Mangold's Ford V Ferrari movie will differ from and be superior to it.Race movies are far few in-between.The reason is simply because they don't make lot of money in the US. It has decent international market but nothing blockbuster level. This movie was made for 50 million and it made around 26 million US and 70 million abroad. So there is international audience for the movie.The movie starts with voice over exposition that introduces lead characters. This is where the movie lost some of its points. Ron Howard is what I call a journey men director. He is a middling director. His movies are just average.One movie which kind of worked is a beautiful mind and that's because he is dealing with an obsessive character.So the problem with exposition is that its a safe choice. People have gotten smarter to the trick.Director doesn't have the balls to take a bolder approach to film making and so he uses exposition at the beginning to establish how dangerous the sport is , what kind of people get into it, what kind of person Nikki Lauda is and how he got into auto racing sport. After sometime we have voice over by James Hunt doing the same from his point of view.These things pissed me off.

Race movies have some challenges they need to get across like making laymen interested in something they don't know. The problem with these types of movies that take place in different worlds is that you can either take an approach that dumbs it down or take a much more complicated approach to it. The other challenges are that the concept of race is much more interesting than race itself. You get to see the exciting races live, then why need a movie to show. As the movie went along , some of the directorial decisions helped with it. Director uses the forward momentum of race to tell the story. So speed and progress in car race also progresses the story. Depicting the personalities of the racers is where the director falters. They are just a little deeper than cardboard cut outs. This is where Ron Howard falls way short. He has no distinct voice. He is just servicing the story and the end product could very well be made by any other director. It just felt like a little expensive race movie. I can clearly believe why the movie was not appreciated by Oscars at all. Because there is no risk in the movie. Absolutely zero risk. The movie is entertaining but not extraordinary. Not even good. This kind of movies pisses me off. The approach of the director is by and large very cheap. The director wants to try something different than what he has done before. He is too afraid to fail. So he follows the safe route and then all of a sudden tries to jump the sharks in the safe route and tries to act like the movie is risky. But its not. The race scenes get boring after a while. Camera can't follow cars that are moving at 200 miles per hour. So you either get fast cuts or long shots with wide frames.Director tries to make them interesting by either changing the locations of the racing which is follow the true story and by changing the weather of the races altering between rain and sunny. Even those are based on true story. So there is nothing the director has brought to the table that is his own vision in terms of distinguishing the race. The director leaned into the sex life of James hunt which is okay. Among the racers , One is a hard partier and the other is meticulous.

If I let my imagination run wild, then one of the ways the director can make a movie about racing interesting is to bring in different points of view. Making it an ensemble piece. Caricatures are not accepted.This movie has tons of those. Men with long hair and side split hairstyle. Champagne cocks popping after each win. But I think the movie has to be more character oriented. The tone has to be cerebral. Nothing on screen has to feel safe. When they are not on track, this movie falls into all the cliches it can think of. People dissing one another or family troubles or self doubts in the most cliche manner. One of the things the movie is lacking, is the ticking clock. Each race feels like just a race. Over the course of 10 races the championship is determined, so each race has no urgency cinematic-ally. The movie needs to make them cerebral. I think the director needs to capture the uncertainty of the risk involved in race. No one watching the race is safe. That's the tone the director needs to capture. I think the upcoming Ford V Ferrari movie can do that more effectively because safety was still an issue when the movie takes place, which is 60s. This movie takes place in the 70s when safety was enforced.

The worst aspect of the movie is cinematography. What kind of lifeless Spielberg lens flare inspired cinematography is this ? That's just awful. The whole movie has this glossy look to it. Shinny or raining. The supporting characters are stereotypes for the most part. The unstable wife or many women hunt gets it on with or the calm loving and understanding wife of Nikki lauda. There is painfully cringe-worthy scene where Nikki Lauda meets his future wife and then they meet few locals who happens to recognize him. That scene is supposed to bring the badassness of calm, by the book,methodical Nikki Lauda to the surface. But its just a very stereotypical portrayal of Europeans.Director seems to think he is clever by using news reporting to progress the story. But none of them add up-to the auteur-ship and skill set needed for a epic and cerebral racing movie.

If you had asked me half a decade ago as to how should this movie be, I wouldn't have had an answer. But after seeing wolf of wall street and the revenant, I have a clear idea of how a movie like this should be. You see, critics generally expect a movie to have some levity and some emotional punches and some well thought out story-lines. This movie have those and it got 90% critics rating. But, take the aforementioned movies, they had less than 90% on rotten tomatoes. After 5 decades, no one will remember rush but the chances of remembering those 2 are high. So, how to make a timeless masterpiece at the same time pleasing critics to a certain extent. You don't want 90% + critics rating but you need somewhere between 75 and 90. Well, the first thing is to spend a lot of money.Upwards of 100 million $. The second thing is that, this kinds of movies can be green lit by only 5 actors in Hollywood. DiCaprio, Brad Pitt , christian bale , Tom Cruise and Matt Damon. Johnny Depp is out of the question because of his poor career choices. Now, the main thing is the kind of movie. I am a male. I am not interested in La la land. I remember God father , Goodfellas, taxi driver more vividly than any woody Allen movie. I don't remember singing in the rain but I do remember psycho or vertigo or rear window or north by northwest or ben-hur. In order to take the male bias out of this judgement lets look at few movies loved by female audience. I am not talking about garbage like fifty shades because for every garbage that females love, there is also fast and furious that males love. Something like Terms of endearment is loved by females but no one remembers it like goodfellas or godfather or even French connection. The reason being, female voice in film preservation community is very low. If the critics doesn't promote a movie for generations, then the movie will be forgotten. Every decade or so when mostly film buffs or film critic community puts out list of movies, a movie should be in that list. If not it will be forgotten. Or make a movie with legendary filmmaker and his boxset should contain your movie. Fortunately or unfortunately , highest grossing movies are always about masculinity. Avatar or The dark knight are about maleness. Wolf of wall street or revenant or any Quentin Tarantino movie is about maleness.

So, you need a movie that has masculine element and also the movie need stakes. People need strong stakes to connect with characters. Audience need a reason to see the movie in theater. Scale of the movie is very crucial. One of the key elements is to have a believable scale. Scale can be massive but it needs to be believable. In Rush there are scenes where it feels fake. There are long overview shots to races with name and score of the race displayed graphically on screen which just takes the audience out of the movie. You don't need any of those. All you need is just to let audience know where they are in the movie and even that sort of takes them out if you use it a ton of times. Rush had f1 races in different parts of the world. Ron Howard used the lame way of displaying the name of the place and who won it on screen graphically.That is dumb. Imagine in inception if when each character appears on the screen there is a text saying this is so and so. Audience should be on a need to know basis. One of the better ways is to just shoot in those countries with shots very unique to them. France means Eiffel Tower or something like that. One of the reasons inception did so well internationally is because its partially shot in Europe with its architectural marvels. So if you want a movie to do good internationally at box office then shoot it in Europe. Because that news will spread like wildlife in that country.

Keeping it real and giving audience something never before seen but at the same time having a seal of approval that the movie is good and worth audience time is really important. One of the colossal mistakes of blade runner 2049 is that it just overestimated the size of blade runner's fanbase. People not interested in the first one are not going to go see the second one. Oscar nomination is a Seal of approval that can never be beaten. As your movie is rolling out into theaters and all the news articles are praising the movie and reporting about its Oscar nominations then that a damn good seal of approval. Because, during Oscar season there is a billion dollars of market involved. Audience all over the world are willing to spend a collective billion dollars. If everyone is telling that your movie is the one, then that will be what audience will be watching. Until recently I have thought DiCaprio has a posse of directors he goes back to. But from what I see , its somewhere around the time of 1997 that older generation and studio heads in Hollywood decided that the next generation will be ruled by Matt Damon and DiCaprio. Because one emerged as a very good actor in good will hunting and the other is this unstoppable box office superstar. But Mira max couldn't land matt damon as a movie star and then he had a life support in terms of Bourne identity and the one two punch of that and oceans series sort of set matt damon as a box office draw. Then you have DiCaprio who is loved by studio executives and share holders because of the money. He made a deal with Scorsese which helped him immensely. Scorsese didn't want to be bogged down by budget and here he has this offer to cast this actor and make the movie however he wanted. So he agreed to work with DiCaprio. So the biggest challenge for any actor right now is to find that director who can really deliver and then make him consistent. The only reason we are excited for a Tarantino movie and not a William Fredkin movie is because only one is consistent. I think among the existing directors the only ones who are available are James Mangold , Denis Villeneuve and David Fincher.
Villeneuve taking a cue from Nolan tried to create his own little fanbase that will get addicted to his filmmaking style and thought he can carry them around to his other movies through Blade Runner.With it bombing lets see how it will turn out. The only way you can cultivate a fanbase is by attracting fans of franchise to your movies. Nolan morphed a batman movie into his movie and that impressed fans so much that they just followed him into his other movies for the directorial style. To give me nightmares, a Nolan-DiCaprio collaboration is waiting to happen. Because I can see Nolan matching exactly what DiCaprio needs in terms of budget and box office and meeting audience expectations. So he is taken. Same with Fincher. He is held hostage by Brad pitt. Spielberg is scrambling for a epic size commercial success and he will either cast tom hanks or DiCaprio for that. So, for an actor like Christian Bale, the only choice he has got is to work with either David O Russell or Adam McKay or James Mangold or Michael Mann or he has to right for a role in a movie directed by Nolan or Scorsese or Spielberg or Tarantino or Fincher . It is really hard for the latter group to cast christian bale if christian bale doesn't prove that he is a box office draw. At this point those legends like tarantino/scorsese/spielberg/Fincher are not looking for just securing the budget which casting christian bale can easily provide . They are looking for getting a hit movie. The quality of the movie is long decided even before they roll camera. Thats how good they are.They don't want the movie to be a flop at box office. That forces these directors to work with DiCaprio. This is such an unknown secret to audience but its the contrary in Hollywood. Everyone knows it. That is precisely the reason why Oscars are hard on movie stars. Because 9 out of 10 times they are cast because of the box office draw. And also one of the thing that pisses me off about the passion projects of movie stars is that they say "I have been working on this for 8 years" but the reality is that they are doing other movies when poor screenwriters have been spending months drafting the scripts. One more way to get an auteur reaction by a normal collaboration is to get lucky by working with a consistent director on his passion project. Bale in a way launched David O Russell and Adam McKay into auteur level because he worked on their passion project. Right now the stocks of them are sky high.

So all in all this review points out the inferiority of this movie as an art and also gives an insight into how an actor that is a movie star but not in marriage with an auteur can achieve the same result but in a round about fashion.

Larry

07-04-18, 07:24 AM

Finally found this thread!

Ultraviolence

07-04-18, 08:31 AM

The Body 2012 ‘El cuerpo’ Directed by Oriol Paulo ★★★

Samsara 2001 Directed by Pan Nalin ★★★

To the Wonder 2012 Directed by Terrence Malick ★★★★

Knight of Cups 2015 Directed by Terrence Malick ★★★★★

A Walk in the Clouds 1995 Directed by Alfonso Aráu ★★★★

Girl, Interrupted 1999 Directed by James Mangold ★★

The Woman of Rumor 1954 ‘噂の女’ Directed by Kenji Mizoguchi ★★★★★

Graduation 2016 ‘Bacalaureat’ Directed by Cristian Mungiu ★★★★

The Eyes of My Mother 2016 Directed by Nicolas Pesce ★★

Scooby-Doo on Zombie Island 1998 Directed by Hiroshi Aoyama [and others] ★★★

Cosmopolis 2012 Directed by David Cronenberg ★★★★★

The Hairdresser’s Husband 1990 ‘Le mari de la coiffeuse’ Directed by Patrice Leconte ★★★

Phoenix 2014 Directed by Christian Petzold ★★★

Pan’s Labyrinth 2006 ‘El laberinto del fauno’ Directed by Guillermo del Toro ★★★

The Terminator 1984 Directed by James Cameron ★★★★★
Terminator 2: Judgment Day 1991 Directed by James Cameron ★★★★

The Hourglass Sanatorium 1973 ‘Sanatorium pod klepsydrą’ Directed by Wojciech Has ★★★★

The Wolf of Wall Street 2013 Directed by Martin Scorsese ★★

Carrie 1976 Directed by Brian De Palma ★★★★

Good Time 2017 Directed by Benny Safdie, Josh Safdie ★★★★★

Asura: The City of Madness 2016 ‘아수라’ Directed by Kim Sung-su ★★★★

The Virgin Spring 1960 ‘Jungfrukällan’ Directed by Ingmar Bergman ★★★★★

On the Beach at Night Alone 2017 ‘밤의 해변에서 혼자’ Directed by Hong Sang-soo ★★★★

Taipei Story 1985 ‘青梅竹馬’ Directed by Edward Yang ★★★★★
That Day, on the Beach 1983 ‘海灘的一天’ Directed by Edward Yang ★★★★★

First Blood 1982 Directed by Ted Kotcheff ★★★★
Rambo: First Blood Part II 1985 Directed by George P. Cosmatos ★★★
Rambo III 1988 Directed by Peter MacDonald ★★★
Rambo 2008 Directed by Sylvester Stallone ★★★

Total 2018 viewings: 255 (rewatches not included)

◘ Atrocity
★ Very Bad
★★ Bad (Sometimes interesting)
★★★ Good
★★★★ Very Good
★★★★★ Great
★★★★★ Masterpiece

Mr Minio

07-05-18, 03:51 AM

The 47 Ronin (1941) - rating_3

https://cinematalk.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/4.jpg

Subpar Mizoguchi! A great disappointment. The movie is pretty bland, prolix and simply tedious. Mise en scene and camerawork are fantastic as always but Mizoguchi's overreliance on uninteresting theatrical conversations is going too far. Impossible to contemplate due to lots of talking as well. This is a propaganda film ordered by Japanese military, so totally omiting action scenes might be read as a subversive move from the director but the final outcome is a mediocre film anyway.

Heremias: Book One – The Legend of the Lizard Princess (2006) - rating_4_5

https://jojud265nia2bj9sy4ah9b61-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Lav-1600x900-c-default.jpg

Clocking in at 9 hours this is yet another behemoth of a film by Lav Diaz. If Tsai Ming-liang and Sarunas Bartas make slow cinema, then Lav Diaz makes ultra slow cinema. This film contains a one hour long (!) POV mastershot of the protagonist observing a bunch of hooligans having a party with noise music playing in the backgorund (!). One of the best scenes I've seen lately! The funny thing is the movie contains minimalist plot that could be condensed into 60 minutes but Lav Diaz does not make his films so long because he has to but because he wants to.

Autohystoria (2007) - rating_4

https://i.imgur.com/PEvTdrR.jpg

I started watching this slow cinema from Philippines right after I'd finished Heremias, so it was harder to watch than it would normally be. Again an ultra-slow political film criticizing the government etc. A pretty subersive one, showing that the contemporary political situation doesn't really differ much from one back when the country was fighting for its independence and was under Spain's iron fist rule.

The White Meadows (2009) - rating_4

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ygM8CmLMk6c/VPXs1XQfoqI/AAAAAAAAYIw/uFmgBlWEFlQ/s1600/The%2BWhite%2BMeadows%2B3.JPG

Poetic cinema from Iran. The director and editor of this film were sentenced to jail for anti-government message of the film. This fact only strengthens the message. The film contains one of the most beautiful portraits of government censoring and limiting an artist I've seen in cinema. It's portrayed as a tragically brutal assault on artist's right to freedom of expression. This freedom of expression is being taken away from many artists in Iran. The White Meadows is a touching reminder of this.

The Milky Way (1969) - rating_4

https://images.justwatch.com/backdrop/38110714/s1440/the-milky-way-1969

I've grown to love Bunuel. I've learnt to delight in his works, his sense of humour, his surrealistic traits. This is yet another film on the topic he was obsessed with - Catholic Church.

Strip Nude for Your Killer (1975) - rating_2_5

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/36/65/07/366507b496f63eb6ac60d1acd0608baa.jpg

A pretty lousy lewd giallo. I expected much more fun from the director of Burial Ground but Fenech in short hair is still passable and that fat guy has the funniest dubbing.

Sins of Sister Lucia (1978) - rating_4

https://ishootthepictures.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/vlcsnap-2013-03-27-20h54m23s234.jpg

I'm starting an Ohara binge! Best pinku eiga I've seen in a long time. Unadulterated and unashamed nunsploitation! Nuns and a priest enjoy each others' company and humililate a new-comer Lucia but when two Yakuza prison escapees arrive at the convent, Lucia decides to retaliate, and rapefest begins!

Wet & Rope (1979) - rating_3_5

KINKY

A much worse offering from the same director! Nunsploitation again! And some BDSM for a change! But... the overall outcome is only good, not great. That sheep costume, though. 10/10!

A Light in the Fog (2008) - rating_4

https://www.asiapacificscreenawards.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/light-in-the-fog-1280x720.jpg

Iranian slow cinema. A very short film and generally not much to chew on here but the atmosphere is as thick as the ever-present fog, and some of the shots are breathtakingly beautiful.

Lady Caligula in Tokyo (1981) - rating_3

https://i.imgur.com/hOgpGOZ.png

I'm on Ohara binge! An okayish pinku eiga, this one. A prude wife that can't enjoy sex and fulfill her huband's desires sets out on a not-so-consensual adventure down the BDSM line - from a black man, to a hobo, to a domina all the way down to an orgy.

Sexual Parasite (2004) - rating_3_5

http://wipfilms.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/vlcsnap-2013-11-22-14h17m47s33.jpg

Superbad and super low-budget best worst movie ever made! The second part of the title is Killer Pussy, so that should give you enough ideas. And the girls are fiiinneeee.

Flame of My Love (1949) - rating_4_5

https://i.imgur.com/CqXvpQ5.png

Men are sexist pigs! Liberate women! Women have the right to equality! So many heart-wrenching scenes. Welcome back, Mizoguchi.

Cairo Station (1958) - rating_4_5

https://itpworld.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/cairostation8.jpg

Fatal effects of NoFap... The movie is surprisingly erotic given the country and time it was made.

Ultraviolence

07-05-18, 08:25 AM

Mr Minio

07-05-18, 01:05 PM

This is one of my favorite Mizoguchi film! Watch more.

Iroquois

07-05-18, 01:05 PM

Veronika Voss (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1982) - 3.5

Fassbinder does a Sunset Blvd.-esque tale of a fading movie actress and the journalist who gets drawn into her decaying orbit. An appropriately downbeat (yet strangely opulent in its own starkly monochromatic way) mix of his disdain for authority figures and pained sympathy for human tragedies.

The Marriage of Maria Braun (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1979) - 3.5

Fassbinder does a post-WWII melodrama about the eponymous bride and her attempts to make a better life for herself by any means necessary. A little overwrought at times, but still a generally worthwhile piece that - as with all the best Fassbinders - provides a noteworthy variation on his usual preoccupations while also being elevated by Hanna Schygulla in what may be her best of many strong collaborations with the man.

The Night Porter (Luciana Cavani, 1974) - 1.5

Not a Fassbinder, but a twisted erotic drama about the sadomasochistic relationship between an ex-Nazi and a Holocaust survivor seems like it'd be a good set-up for one of his films. That being said, I question if he really could have done much better with it than Cavani's largely sluggish and monotonous exercise in toxicity.

Hereditary (Ari Aster, 2018) - 2.5

A24's forays into the horror genre can be quite hit-and-miss - I do wonder if this will prove a grower like The VVitch did, but my first impression is that it squanders a few promising elements (Collette's all-out performance being the main one), doesn't ramp up so much as peter out, and leans so hard on its recognisable influences that it makes me wish I'd watched or re-watched one of those films instead.

Breakfast at Tiffany's (Blake Edwards, 1961) - 1.5

Oh, man, I just could not get into this one. Even if you left aside the cringe-worthy Mr. Yunioshi stuff (which would undermine many otherwise good movies on its own), it's such a slog with two protagonists that aren't particularly likeable and don't really earn the changes they go through by the time "The End" flashes on-screen. Guess this is as good a time as any to revisit Charade.

Payback (Brian Helgeland, 1999) - 1.5

What if you took Point Blank and stripped out most (if not all) of the things that made it good (or at least interesting)? Maybe the director's cut improves things a little, but as it is this is an aggressively pedestrian revenge movie.

Travel Songs (Jonas Mekas, 1981) - 3.5

Mekas doing a short avant-garde collage of home movies definitely serves as a welcome antidote to the last few movies I watched. Between this and As I Moved Ahead... I'm thinking that I need to seek out more of these kinds of movies.

Mamma Mia! (Phyllidia Lloyd, 2008) - 1.5

Yeah, yeah, I know. I do have to wonder if it's almost too easy to criticise this unapologetically campy and frivolous jukebox musical that knows its core demographic and plays to it with gusto. At least ABBA is far from the worst band you could base an entire musical around.

Diner (Barry Levinson, 1982) - 3.5

Still a solid coming-of-age piece where the characters are obnoxious and immature but never in a way that threatens to ruin the film as it builds an ensemble dramedy that definitely earns its emotional honesty.

Wolf Creek (Greg MacLean, 2005) - 1

The concept of an outback serial killer is scary enough in its own right to make me think twice about ever travelling out there, but can that really compensate for this film's otherwise lacklustre execution? After multiple viewings, I'm still inclined to say no and judge this as a dull, irritating, and vacuous exercise in sadistic horror.

MijaFrost

07-06-18, 02:44 AM

Cairo Station (1958) - rating_4_5

https://itpworld.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/cairostation8.jpg

Fatal effects of NoFap... The movie is surprisingly erotic given the country and time it was made.

Wow, I had just heard about this title the other day when I was researching Egyptian films. It's funny to see that you had watched it recently.

Mr Minio

07-06-18, 11:52 AM

Wow, I had just heard about this title the other day when I was researching Egyptian films. It's funny to see that you had watched it recently. This is not a coincidence. I was spying on you. :)

Sedai

07-06-18, 01:07 PM

Out of the Past (Tourneur, 1947) 5 - An old Favorite. That's one nasty dame!

North by Northwest (Hitchcock, 1959) 4_5 - Another classic and another old favorite.

Vertigo (Hitchcock, 1958) 4_5 - Yet another old favorite of mine.

Dark Passage (Daves, 1947) 4 - They don't make em like they used to, pal.

Notorious (with commentary) (Hitchcock, 1946) 5 - Flawless film. Really interesting commentary, as well.

Strangers on a Train (Hitchcock, 1951) 4 - Not my favorite Hitch, but still damned good.

A Quiet Place (Krasinski, 2018) 3 - Not the instant classic some are claiming, but I liked it pretty well.

The Revenant (Iñárritu, 2015) 4_5 - I have seen this several times, and am pretty much over the moon for it. El Chivo at his best on camera.

Babel (Iñárritu, 2006) 3 - Iñárritu again, but this time sans El Chivo. Decent, but not great. Pitt annoyed me a bit in this one.

Mr Minio

07-09-18, 01:05 PM

The Whispering Star (2015) - 5

http://www.spoon-tamago.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/sion-sono-whispering-star.jpg

Sion Sono just proved to me he is amongst the all-time greats. A man who can direct films like Love Exposure, Antiporno and The Whispering Star and make all of them masterpieces is a genius. Period. I feel like this is the best film I've seen in years. Monotonous and slow-paced, trance-inducing moments on a spaceship are juxtaposed to outburts of emotions accompanying all out-of-the-ship scenes. Every single step out of the ship means yet another encounter with a human. Yet another speck of cognition. Protagonist's incomprehension of human nature starts to fade away. Human's impracticality seems to get more and more justifiable. Giant heaps of human sadness hit as strong as waves against the shoreline, but sadness does not wash away. It stays. And it leads to understanding. Every encounter leaves a memento. Every encounter is important. A belated parcel, delivered to a villa with ever-present glowing lights containing all the sadness of Veronika Voss. A brief walk, a bike excursion through a dead city, a window onto the old world, a heartbreaking reminder of mortality, a crushed can attached to a shoe. And the culmination - an elegy of shadows - shadows of humanity, shadows of the past. Even a little detail like protagonist's sporadic sneeze is touching in all infinity of cosmos. This is a film that really portrays what it is to be human. It's not only bigger than life but also bigger than death. The film had ended but I was still crying. Even if Sono ceases to exist, this film never will. It will stay here for eternity.

The River Fuefuki (1960) - 4

https://i.imgur.com/vuzCgwO.png

Kino****a's life-spanning treatise on the life of Japanese peasants in 16th century. Peaceful and bucolic yet hard life is made even harder when war starts. Peasants become warriors, people kill each other's kin and hold grudges. All of this leads to a devastating finale! Kino****a loved to incorporate original visual techniques and this film is no different with splashes of color slapped onto black and white pictures and occasional tinting of entire screens!

Crime Wave (1954) - 3.5

https://78.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhjuwmmiZo1qe6mn3o1_500.gif

A solid cheap film-noir. Not much to say about it. It's just quite good.

Himizu (2011) - 4

https://tobedamit.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/himizu.gif

The guns of Chekhov, the stones of Keiko. Sono in his element. Over-the-top absurdist exaltation and quirky approach to serious topics. I need a Keiko in my life. <3

Konets Veka (2001) - 4

https://i.imgur.com/Tz6RNOR.png

Lopushansky's last I hadn't seen (if we don't count his brand-new 2018 film). Generally a weaker film compared to his masterpieces but the hypnosis scenes are good ole Lopushansky. Depressing ending.

Love Letter (1953) - 4

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a59/mkerpan/koibumi/koibumi08.png

Tanaka's debut as a director, and even though I liked two of her other films I saw more, this is still a film with a lot in it to love. Very melodramatic (written by Kino****a!), and Mori's character was a rampallian of sorts during the first meeting after years scene, and he got (rightfully) rebuked for this by a friend later in the movie. I thought the depiction of prostitutes was too negative. We are supposed to believe that girl was the only inherently good one that had to do it to survive (or maybe did this out of genuine love). The other girls are first portrayed as deceitful (letters), and then as mean (the metting at the park). I think introducing another character like the protagonist would make the film work better.

The Exterminating Angel (1962) - 4 - REWATCH

https://78.media.tumblr.com/344bb4127a68d79c83417c882e5209c1/tumblr_ozuv64V9nv1wquytko6_400.gif

Saw this in 2012 and hated it. Bunuel has grown on me since then, and now I think this is a really great film and also one of his best. I'm not suprised I didn't like it years ago. I watched it back when I was discovering the greatest masters of cinema who made movies that were entirely along my way (Tarr, Tarkovsky, Bergman, Angelopoulos) and dismissed anything that didn't elicit the same kind of feeling.

The Red Thread (1993) - 4

https://i.imgur.com/t0Urdmr.png

A part of trilogy. This is some vintage-porn-made-abstract film. The kinky parts are most often indistinguishable and hidden under layers of abstract hues of colors that attack the viewer. The soundtrack is Diamanda Galás' satanic shrieks and soliloquys!

Pervert Ward: S&M Clinic (1989) - 3.5

https://i.imgur.com/QLthJCf.png

Nothing like watching Sato at 2AM. This one doesn't belong to his best, and the story is of minor importance even for Sato's standards. A lot of very explicit and graphical BDSM sex scenes (Sato makes some of the kinkiest/most depraved pinku eiga) but the way it's shot combined with music and the overall dark mood won me over.

The Misfits (1961) - 3.5

https://78.media.tumblr.com/4f74065338620b822eed798de3ec397a/tumblr_p1wm9kdHIH1wzvt9qo1_400.gif

Still not sure if it was Monroe herself or the way her character was written that was irritating. The first half was amazing but the second one (with obnoxious horse hunting third act) disappointed me. Wonderful cinematography. Not enough Thelma Ritter! She was a blast!

A Snake of June (2002) - 4

https://i.imgur.com/4et1uvl.jpg

Despite my rating the film did feel lackluster. I felt it wasn't lewd, sexy, obscene enough. The pluvial, blue-tinted setting was perfect, though, and Tsukamoto's more style-defining moments really heightened it.

Female Leopard (1985) - 4

https://i.imgur.com/eSp6eWH.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/xS1HoJb.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/AXAeTqd.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/8hpSDJK.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/p3MHXJf.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/fC0heCB.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/h251kjT.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/NU9Vodh.jpg

Obviously, the minimalist story is ridiculous, but oh man, what aesthetics! What a feast of colors! Those slow-motion shots with cheesy 80s music were to die for. One of Ohara's best!

Wow, looks like the censorship on this forum doesn't like Keisuke Kinosheeta(ee=i) and censors his name!

Iroquois

07-10-18, 11:04 PM

Dheepan (Jacques Audiard, 2015) - 3.5

Pretty decent Palme d'Or winner about Sri Lankan refugees pretending to be a family in order to hold onto a home in a gangster-populated apartment block. May or may not go down a bit, but I generally appreciated it.

Fassbinder: To Love Without Demands (Christian Braad Thomsen, 2015) - 3

While this covers much of the same ground as Fassbinder did, it manages to be somewhat distinct thanks to the director having been a long-time friend of the man himself.

Lola (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1981) - 3

Fassbinder does another film about post-war Germany, this time a tale of small-town corruption that centres around the eponymous nightclub singer and the hard-working official who is torn between his duties and his passions. Probably the weakest of his BRD trilogy but still a colourful and engaging piece (and there's something about that ending that I just find quietly brilliant).

2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968) - 5

50th anniversary 70mm restoration theatrical viewing, baby!

Krull (Peter Yates, 1983) - 2

An aggressively generic slice of 1980s rescue-princess-from-dark-lord high fantasy that's enjoyable to a certain degree with its colourful aesthetics and fanciful tale but it's definitely enough to make me think twice about seeking out any more films of its ilk.

Limelight (Charles Chaplin, 1952) - 4

I think I prefer this to most of Chaplin's more beloved classics because it leans a little harder into the melancholy that tends to bubble under the surface and it's okay to not find it all that funny when Chaplin's old-clown protagonist is played more for tragedy than straight comedy.

Mission to Mars (Brian DePalma, 2000) - 3

One of the more curious additions to DePalma's already eclectic filmography in that it sees him take the rather out-of-character subject of interplanetary sci-fi (often in ways that unapologetically riff on 2001) and deliver something that has mixed results but at least in a way that's strangely engaging.

Upgrade (Leigh Whannell, 2018) - 3

The familiar B-movie premise - man left paralysed after attack receives computerised implant that allows him to take revenge on his attackers - at least features a decent spin on the material that results in a lean and mean execution that I enjoyed more often than not.

Ant-Man (Peyton Reed, 2015) - 3

Original review found here (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1369938-ant-man.html). Second impression is about the same as the first - it's lightweight in a number of good and bad ways and its various novelties are undermined by how fundamentally stock it tends to be, but it's still moderately fun to watch.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park (Steven Spielberg, 1997) - 3

Original review found here (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1327290-the-lost-world-jurassic-park.html). I daresay my opinion of this has improved significantly.

bluedeed

07-11-18, 08:20 PM

Been working a ton but managed to watch these in the past 2 weeks:

Western (2017) by Valeska Grisebach

https://fgmxi4acxur9qbg31y9s3a15-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/05/thumb_51961_film_film_big.jpg

Follows the mold of a lot of recent European art films in tone and style. It's always confused me because these movies which pay homage to old Hollywood myths seem to totally forget the rhythm and tone that these movies used. At the same time, this is a decent bit of modern mythmaking.

3.5

Ready Player One (2018) by Steven Spielberg

https://thenerdsofcolor.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/ready-player-one-2.jpg?w=1200

Gets credit for actually making an honest effort at trying to understand why people like playing competitive games and hanging out on the internet without being dismissal of the idea. At the same time, the slog of the narrative wore on me quite a bit over time.

2.5

Sudden Impact (1983) by Clint Eastwood

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZTInxdsRKgc/TUekfXGzxUI/AAAAAAAACpY/R-LUj3TrmR8/s1600/Sudden+Impact+2.jpg

What starts as a standard crime movie about a vigilante cop turns into a twisted mirror story not concerned with the morality of Harry Callahan's actions, but questioning the roots of his character and entire onscreen personality.

3.5

Marnie (1964) by Alfred Hitchcock

https://dwgyu36up6iuz.cloudfront.net/heru80fdn/image/upload/c_fill,d_placeholder_thenewyorker.png,fl_progressive,g_face,h_450,q_80,w_800/v1403653554/thenewyorker_marnie.jpg

A film that feels both totally resolved and unresolved at the same time. The typical condensing someone's entire psychology to one moment in their childhood is ever present and ever annoying here. At the same time, that collapsing of all of the films issues within a few minutes and a passing conversation only draws my attention to sean connery's character's total blandness in a way that may be more interesting than I originally found the film.

3

The Castle of Cagliostro (1970) by Hayao Miyazaki

https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/the-castle-of-cagliostro.png?w=780

This film took itself just the right amount of serious, leading it to total mania at many points no knowing what the next zany and ludicrous thing would happen. A nice way to spend a few hours.

3.5

Bronco Billy (1980) by Clint Eastwood

https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/coHe3V8DKgy2aMhcCnZYDg--~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAw/http://magazines.zenfs.com/resizer/original/ip-mA0to73mkpQs1yJGLuv5L5f4

The holy grail of Eastwood so far. A complete deconstruction of his onscreen persona, it's like a Limelight remake with Chaplin levels of self critique and an odd, euphoric ending.

4.5

HashtagBrownies

07-11-18, 08:45 PM

Seen in July Pt.1

46019
[RE-WATCH]
4.5-
A blast. Definitely Edgar Wight’s best film. I forgot how funny this film and Nick Frost in the role was. There’s so many bloody details about the film that I only noticed on a second viewing (Ex. The man behind Shaun when he goes to the shop is the one-armed zombie that enters his house), it just shows how much Wright cares about the art of filmmaking.

46020
3.5
One of the stupidest films I’ve ever seen and I kinda liked it because of that. The effects are totally bogus. Doesn’t hold a candle to the original. The bits in the afterlife start to slog a bit.

46021
3.5
Quite liked the friendship between our main characters. I loved the solitary confinement scene of the film, it really shows how dreadful it is. Too bad the film starts to drag after their first escape. Also the blood looks like ketchup lol.

46023
3.5+
I think now I’m starting to realise that silent comedy just isn’t my thing. What makes me laugh is hearing and seeing peoples reactions to getting violently hurt (Demonstrated wonderfully by Laurel and Hardy) which the silent films just can’t show. I still prefer Keaton miles over Chaplin, since his films have a lot of badass stunts, effects and action. This film has a lot of that. The motorcycle chase was awesome and very funny.

46024
2.5
Look, I know my friend's dad’s friend made this but I’m sorry, it is SO BORING! The film has this routine where it will show them arriving at a new town, show a few clips of them talking with the locals or talking about their trip, then show them leaving the town. Doesn’t sound bad right? Well they repeat this formula about 15 TIMES! I guess a plus was seeing Glen Hansard from The Commitments and Once in it, swearing his way through.

46025
3.5
Very good. I liked the characters of the girls and seeing what they got up to. The way in which the blonde girl constantly manipulates the other into doing things she doesn't want to do makes me think this film is an allegory for abusive relationships. It was pretty cool how they didn't show the growp-up's faces. I loved that blunt as hell ending and its ambiguity: Was she REALLY a witch or was she pretending? I only have a few criticisms: I don't really see why it's labelled a horror when the only threatening scenes are the dream sequences. The section where they're simply just getting the recipe items was a little tiring. Something about the audio through most of the film seemed very badly dubbed, or maybe just bad quality sound.

46026
4
That animation is awesome, it’s very creative, childlike and expressive. It highly reminds me of the animated segments on Monty Python. It’s also very funny, with the Beatle’s cheeky banter. Got to see it on the big screen as an anniversary screening so that was a major plus.

46027
[RE-WATCH]
4.5+
People who don't like this film are going to face my wrath.

46028
4.5-
Damn, this movie is heavy as hell. It had me shooketh. It’s a very strange example of ‘misery porn’. Usually films of that type are miserable due to the bad guys destroying the lives of the good guys, yet this film plays it the complete opposite way round and you still feel devastated. From the same director as 'The Hunt'. It’s nowhere near as good as it, but it’s difficult to compete with my Top 10 Favourites! As this is my first Dogme 95 film, I can say that it’s a really good idea. It forces films to rely on brilliant performances and script rather than something cheap. The handheld camera with the on-set lighting gives the film an appearance of those old VHS tapes you have of old family get-togethers, which makes the film all the more disturbing. As stated above, the script and performances are outstanding. I will say that I didn’t enjoy it as much when it got to the nighttime segment, but that only a little burn on a wonderful chocolate cake of a film.

46029
4-
The script and pacing are pretty much perfect, it’s impossible to get bored. It’s very weird seeing Vincent Price in a non-horror role. The romance bit at the end really pissed me off, YOU’VE ONLY KNOWN HIM FOR 24 HOURS WHAT ARE YOU DOING?!

Monkeypunch

07-11-18, 09:11 PM

Incredibles 2 - This surprised me with how dark it was. The bits with the main villain, Screenslaver, were pretty terrifying for a Disney film. The parts with Jack Jack and Dash played incredibly well (yes, I know) with my 7 year old nephew, but the rest of the film was excellent as well. Funny, action packed, and thrilling. Marvel might wanna hire Brad Bird to make one of their flicks...maybe Fantastic Four? I think that'd be great. 5

Ant Man and The Wasp - After Infinity war and it's major, heavy storyline, this breezy, hilarious superhero rom com is very welcome. Paul Rudd is very funny and charming as Scott lang, ex-Con, single dad, and somewhat competent superhero, and Evangeline Lilly is great as Hope Van Dyne, the daughter of the original Wasp and all around ass kicker. Much needed levity. 4

Mr Minio

07-13-18, 03:39 AM

Zoom Up: Rape Site (1979) - rating_3

KINKY

One of the best known pinkus I still hadn't seen and yet quite a disappointment. Nice tribute to gialli at the beginning but the rest was quite unimpressive. Hopefully a sort-of-a-sequel directed by another director Zoom Up: Rape Apartments will be better! Oh, and my Ohara binge ends here. A fine pink film director!

La France (2007) - rating_3_5

https://www.nysun.com/pics/5679.jpg

Quite a weird film that sometimes denies, for lack of a better word, common sense. It's pretty solid and the musical numbers are an astonishingly feel good addition.

Routine Holiday (2008) - rating_4

http://i.imgur.com/nL8KMN5.jpg?1

One of the slowest films I've seen. Masterfully directed in a way that prevents contemplation. With clock ticking in the background to emphasize the passage of time. BY SITTING AT HOME YOU'RE GRADUALLY KILLING YOURSELF!!! A top notch satire.

Les Enfants Terribles (1950) - rating_4

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Z8w8vfG-ZZU/WEiGM2hRnaI/AAAAAAAAHkc/GhGWtDnGadQ3R0WCsmdoF8xfQBRVPM69ACLcB/s1600/Les%2BEnfants%2BTerribles%2B12.jpg

Melville's follow-up to his wonderful debut, shot on a shoestring budget, with an outstanding finale. Cocteau's influence is tangible - he wrote the screenplay and also narrates the film.

The Longest Nite (1998) - rating_4

https://alchetron.com/cdn/the-longest-nite-d8926ba2-8759-45e7-8b70-44309af544e-resize-750.jpg

One of To's best! Might not be as poetic as Exiled or Running Out of Time and a little bit rough around the edges at times, but its brief 80 minutes running time has been used wonderfully with perfect pacing and wonderfully-fitting thumping music in the background. The final duel was amazing, and the very ending hard-hitting!

re93animator

07-15-18, 10:08 PM

Of Unknown Origin (1983) – 2.5
Peter Weller goes mad hunting a super rat. Stupid, but not that boring. There’s even a training montage of him prepping for the showdown. Made all the more silly because you know it’s bound to end with him bloodied and heaving with clothes torn and melee weapon in hand.

https://i.imgur.com/mc4ddjK.png?1
https://i.imgur.com/GcyDBp7.png?1

Baskin (2015) – 3
Simple, twisted, colorful, violent, annoying, excessive. All elements magnified by 10.

A Quiet Place (2018) – 3
A family tries to protect itself from supersensory monsters. Feels quite a bit like The Last of Us. The setting is mostly a turn off, and the monsters are... eh, but the suspense is almost perpetual. All admirably squeezed out of a very minimal and secluded story.

Mark of the Vampire (1935) – 2.5
Largely just a rehash of Drac with more amusement. Acceptable if you’re a fan.
https://i.imgur.com/gyT0QE1.gif

Iroquois

07-16-18, 09:09 AM

Assault on Precinct 13 (Jean-François Richet, 2005) - 2

The original Assault, for all its strengths, unapologetically copied siege movies like Rio Bravo and Night of the Living Dead. This straight-up remake dilutes the matter even further where some potentially interesting touches (e.g. snowy Detroit replacing sun-baked California) get lost in the shuffle of a largely pedestrian excuse for an action thriller.

Jurassic Park III (Joe Johnston, 2001) - 1.5

Original review found here (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1329071-jurassic-park-iii.html). Unlike The Lost World, a second viewing does not significantly improve my opinion of it as it still ends up being a largely unimpressive piece that may embrace the B-movie elements of the franchise's premise the most but also shows the true limits of that approach.

Tony Manero (Pablo Larraín, 2008) - 2.5

A sporadically interesting portrait of a middle-aged Saturday Night Fever fan whose increasingly violent obsession plays out against the backdrop of Pinochet-era Chile. Has its moments of dark brilliance but they are few and far between.

Rang De Basanti (Rakeysh Omprakash Mehra, 2006) - 2.5

A mixed bag of a Bollywood movie where an Englishwoman's attempt to dramatise turn-of-the-century Indian rebels inspires the students she casts in the roles to become more engaging in their own political actions. It's a little on the long side and a bit of a mess, but it's got enough heart to make up for its flaws.

Hannah Gadsby: Nanette (Madeline Parry and Jon Olb, 2018) - 3.5

What starts off as a seemingly conventional stand-up special soon veers into deliberately uncomfortable realness that sets a new standard for stand-up as raw emotional catharsis. Relatively low rating aside, I'd be willing to consider this essential viewing.

Mr. Deeds Goes To Town (Frank Capra, 1936) - 3.5

Having already seen the Adam Sandler version of this story, I was pleasantly surprised to see that the original holds up well enough as a warm and amusing comedy that also manages to make some incisive (and still relevant) sociopolitical commentary while it's at it.

Bao (Domee Shi, 2018) - 3

Perhaps the platonic ideal for the Pixar short in telling yet another tale about an anthropomorphised object (this time about the eponymous foodstuff and the woman that creates it) that manages to take you all over the emotional spectrum in less than 10 minutes. Definitely solid.

Incredibles 2 (Brad Bird, 2018) - 3

Eh, it's okay, I guess.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (Chad Stahelski, 2017) - 4

Getting more than a little subjective with this rating, but whatever, this is my kind of movie.

Intouchables (Olivier Nakache/Éric Toledano, 2011) - 3

This almost feels Pixar-like in its extremely conventional odd-couple narrative that's bolstered a bit by having decent chemistry between its leads and popping in a few decent scenes, but it hasn't left much of an impression.

Mr Minio

07-16-18, 11:44 AM

Assault on Precinct 13 - 2 IM TRIGGERRRRRR....
2005 Oh, okay. Sure, yeah. I see.

Ultraviolence

07-16-18, 01:28 PM

The Longest Nite (1998) - rating_4

https://alchetron.com/cdn/the-longest-nite-d8926ba2-8759-45e7-8b70-44309af544e-resize-750.jpg

One of To's best! Might not be as poetic as Exiled or Running Out of Time and a little bit rough around the edges at times, but its brief 80 minutes running time has been used wonderfully with perfect pacing and wonderfully-fitting thumping music in the background. The final duel was amazing, and the very ending hard-hitting!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD4Ks_EMQBY

I love this movie.

aronisred

07-17-18, 09:37 AM

Reservoir Dogs

4

A group of bank robbers tries to identify the rat in their team after a botched robbery where they were surprised by cops.

This is the first mainstream Quentin Tarantino movie. The unique voice in the DNA of this movie comes from the vulgarity in the dialogue and at the same time the freshness of dialogues.The vulgarity is in the topics and the point of view of characters. One of the key aspects of Tarantino is that he walks the talk. All the controversies before his movies are met with commercial and critical success.Controversy makes a movie memorable in the history of Hollywood , but only after its a successful movie. A controversial bomb is bound to be forgotten. Similar to James Cameron. When you are spending 500 million $ on avatar , you better deliver and he does time and again. Same with Tarantino.He is cocky but he backs it up with goods.

So the story-line comprises of present and flashbacks which introduces the relationship between characters. The flashbacks are not to introduce each and every character. They are there to introduce key relationships that are essential for the story. Harvey Keitel's white is the "good" guy among the bunch. His relationship with Tim Roth is the crux of the movie. This movie also highlights Tarantino's love for gore. Here is the thing with gore and blood. It has to be earned. The movie has to be awesome without them and these elements should enhance its awesomeness. Most amateur directors kind of use violence and gore as selling point of the movie and that is not good.

For example, a movie like Hostiles starts off with violence. So the director is using violence to get the attention of audience. Which is a cheap technique. From then on, the movie is very episodic. The risk in that movie is the fact that it has zero commercial appeal. But there is no brilliance in terms of story telling. Reservoir dogs is a talky movie with guns. Its never a blockbuster material.But the fact that the dialogues have so much uniqueness is what's appealing. Eureka moments should not come out of blue. You make a point and then there has to be an undertone of that point through out the story. So, in a murder investigation plot the reveal can't be in such a way that a guy who has been there all along is the culprit out of the blue. We need to be in on the reveal but the way the events unfold has to be unique. Shock and suspense is not the answer. However, since it is the first film of Tarantino, the story points are still not gelling together. You can see the inner workings of the writer through the movie.

Audience are introduced to Tarantino violence. It is The kind of violence which makes audience enjoy the violence because both parties deserve the violence. From a criminal perspective, the cop deserves to be hurt and from the cop's perspective he was gonna do the same with criminal. Speaking of the heart of the movie, the way Tim Roth gets himself involved in the gang is by telling a story. Its a very good resume. He, step by step convincingly tells how he got out of a tough spot. Surprise in a normal movie feels like a gimmick. But if your whole movie is on a heightened plane, then the surprise adds to the momentum of the movie. So that's where the brilliance of Tarantino shines bright. Now , the movie might feel dated. But then, the movie was revolutionary in terms of dialogues.

The ending did not land that strong for me. The betrayal of Harvey Keitel's trust by Tim Roth landed 95% but not full 100% in terms of intended effect. But the tough spot Tim Roth is in is very interesting. He is an under cover cop that gets shots on job and the decision by Harvey Keitel not to take him to a doctor is very understandable as he may rat. The choice to make the son of the guy who set up the robbery a character in the movie is a very interesting concept. It is because of him a three way Mexican stand off happens in the movie.All in all, the movie is very indicative of the way Tarantino makes movies to come. He melds the story the way he wants. Consequences are often ignored. Criminals have codes and rules. Loose canons are more often treated as real human loose canons as opposed to someone who is unhinged from the get go. One of the looser ends of the movie is the decision by Tim Roth to shoot Michael Madsen when he is torturing the cop. He gains nothing by doing that other than doing it out of kinship for his fellow cop. Luckily Tarantino doesn't dwell on the mystery of why he shot him because his cover is blown immediately. That reminds us again what the focus of the movie is and that is the bond between Keitel and Tim Roth. From the get go Keitel was vouching for Tim Roth and saving his life and that gives ownership over Tim Roth's life to Keitel. He can choose whatever he wants to do with his life. So, in the end when Tim Roth really does have a chance to survive the whole ordeal it is taken away by Keitel after learning of his betrayal.

The thing about this movie is that it makes you care for fictional characters for no other reason except their circumstances.Even these guy are robbers.So that gives us a little insight into the kind of movies Tarantino wants to make. For him its all about actions. The consequences are taken care by him. He soften's the blow of the consequences by exaggerating it and making it feel inconsequential. So audience will only remember the actions from the movie. The whole consequence of robbing a jewel store is dealt with such an entertaining manner that no one watching the movie feels the horrible situation these guys are in. Hope is kept alive till the last frame. Its a great debut.

Iroquois

07-17-18, 09:58 AM

IM TRIGGERRRRRR....
Oh, okay. Sure, yeah. I see.

Did you really think the guy with the Escape From L.A. avatar would talk sh*t about the original?

aronisred

07-17-18, 12:19 PM

Beirut

2

A ex-government diplomat must go to Beirut to negotiate the release of an american intelligence agent.

I will point out what the movie does right. It sets up the Israel-Palestine conflict very well. Its got the locations. The look and feel of the time period and region. It plays out like a high concept thriller as opposed to a cheap action thriller. It deals with complex political Jargon rather than simple dialogue for the convenience of audience. So in a way it forces audience to keep up. Lead is decent enough for the movie. The feel of multiple nationalities working together in foreign land is made clear. The quiet uncertainty and danger of the land is well displayed.Brooding lead is well set up.

But then what's the problem one might ask.You run into a problem with movies like these if, the director is just happy he gets to make a movie. The actors are just happy they were cast in this movie. The directors job is to make a decent thriller all while satisfying the financiers. All these are red flags that the movie will be mediocre at best. You know what you are getting and most often thats what you get. The worst part is your expectations are at a very low bar. That's exactly the problem with this movie. You know that the script and production behind this movie is cheap when you have Jon Hamm as lead. If the script was excellent you would be getting Matt Damon in the lead with Paul Greengrass directing. The relationship between Jon Hamm and the kid from his past is just badly written. This is one of those movies where the director is concerned about not making a bad commercial movie ended up making a safe boring movie. The thing about movies set in middle east is that I have seen only 5-6 movies set in middle east but for some reason it feels like I have seen 100 movies. That means each and every shot is seen somewhere in some political thriller set in middle east. Guy with guns on the roads. Unattended children turning to living a criminal life. Shady american diplomats doing the dirty work to keep things under check. All these are tired movie tropes.

This movie is the very definition of mediocrity. I can see why the actors chose to be in it. Because they don't have very many great opportunities. Most of the times actors choose from the options they have. If all the options are crap then what they choose is the better crap.But its still crap. I don't have any advice for the actors because I empathize with their situation. Not everyone is offered the role of Bruce Wayne. But directors need to do better. This movie is begging to be forgotten. Its saying to audience - "forget me as soon as you get out of the movies ". It doesn't know what it wants to be a political awareness movie or a fictional story in real world with something to say. Stakes are not high enough. I can't give a pass to movies like these. Because this is playing it safe from the get go. Subtle differences from traditional story telling is never a good thing. You have to take 180 from the get go. That's when movies become memorable.

Mr Minio

07-17-18, 02:39 PM

Did you really think the guy with the Escape From L.A. avatar would talk sh*t about the original? I've seen people doing much less understandable things. :)

aronisred

07-17-18, 03:43 PM

The Thing(1982)

5

An American research camp in Antarctica receives a dog that is being hunted by a neighboring Norwegian team members. The ensuing hassle leads to both of Norwegians getting killed. What follows is a fight for survival.

This movie is one of the best horror/thrillers ever made. Its premise if very intriguing. Even the execution is very good. So an alien life form capable of imitation any earthly life form is found in Antarctica after the Norwegians dig it and its space ship from the ground . Until then it was Frozen and lay dormant due to cold weather . We don't know the origin of the Alien nor its purpose. We do know its primal because its actions are very methodical and system with no remorse. One of the best things about the movie is it pace. The structure of the story involves characters to go to two different identical places to piece together similar information. The Norwegian camp to find out what happened there and what they have done and the Alien ship site to find out what Norwegians have done. But the escalating events in the movie sort of make those two trips cohesive with the story.

The thing itself is very mysterious and the story plays off the fear of unknown. Characters in the movie are fully fleshed without exposition. The way they interact implicitly tells about them. At no point in the movie do we feel that its dragging. Events ramp up at a good pace starting with all the commotion with Norwegians shooting at the dog to the reveal of alien in the dog shelter to the visit to Norwegian camp site and alien site. Usually in cabin based movies the victims can trust each other but in this case due to the imitation capability of alien that aspect is lost. The movie plays with that quite a bit. The death of characters is not uniform and that increases the intrigue in the movie. One of the best parts of the story is when Kurt Russell is zeroing in on the alien it tries to frame him as the alien and almost succeed until Kurt Russell finally takes control of the situation and finally kills one of the members to gain control of the situation. What follows is a tense and suspenseful scene to ruling out which member is not the alien. This scene ends with more members being killed.Until 4 members and the main scientist are left. Even at this point the story has a very good pace. After loosing majority of team. They try and find the lead scientist to check if he is an alien or not through blood test but he is converted by alien and he attacks them one by one. The reveal of alien trying to build a spaceship to get out of the place also adds to the urgency of the situation.

The ending is ambiguous but the right kind of ambiguous. Some movies have ambiguous endings but they are too ambiguous and they kill the tension built by the rest of the story.Tension built has to be preserved in case of ambiguous endings or the resolution needs to be effective enough in case of definitive endings. This movie has the right amount of everything in its conclusion.The cinematography of the movie is awesome. The different colors emitted during various scenes is well done. But in the end pacing is the king in this movie. We know in movies like these there is an escalation. But the escalation should be measured. It can never be abrupt on continuous. You need pondering scenes before the next escalation. Gripes with this movie are minor. However at no point did I feel that the characters are acting dumb. There is also escalation in the way the alien tries to survive. Initially it tries to imitate all the dogs in the barn. But the process is too loud to ignore. So its process is revealed to the crew. Then it becomes a human and through the crews visit to alien ship and Norwegian camp they know that it can imitate humans. Then it tries to frame Kurt Russell and take down the leader of the pack. That doesn't work. Then it tries to build space ship because as soon as the lead scientist finds out the potential of this creature he cuts off all communication with outside world both physical and electronic. After that ship blows up, it tries to hibernate and wait for it to be discovered. But he cleverness in direction is the way in which certain aspects of its plan are revealed as certain aspects of its plan are kept from audience. So you are made to imagine what its whole plan would be. That adds to the ambiguity. The plans of alien foiled by Kurt Russell at just the right time also makes him a worthy opponent. All these make the movie intriguing and exhilarating. Even the production design is top notch. Its of course a big budget movie at that time. Its budget is 15 million. To put that in perceptive budgets of Jaws, Alien and ET are less than this movie.

Mr Minio

07-17-18, 04:11 PM

Capone Cries a Lot (1985) - 4.5

https://jojud265nia2bj9sy4ah9b61-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/caponecriesalot2-1600x900-c-default.jpg

Me too. What a striking extravaganza from Mr. Suzuki! The guy had been given absolute artistic freedom and came up with a film so bizzare, ludicrous but at the same time poetic, poignant. I loved every little part and idea, and impersonating Chaplin's pantomime to express sadness was genius. When his wife returns the weird poetry of balancing on a giant ball is more touching than any of modern tearjerker. Yuko Tanaka was such a cutie pie in this.

Black God, White Devil (1964) - 4.5

https://thehandgrenade.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/deus2.png

Black, white and the light. Masters exploiting farmers, a false prophet, a hired killer, bandits, Lampiao. Cinema novo inferno!

The Brothers Skladanowsky (1995) - 3.5

https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/landscape_928x523/2015/09/tricks_of_the_light_still.jpg

A simple docudrama from Wim Wenders. Nothing too great, and his trademark the-other-world-is-in-black-and-white trick felt like a cheap gimmick in this case, but Udo Kier's moustache sold me.

Providence (1977) - 3.5

http://www.deep13movies.com/assets/images/movie%20images/providence_3.jpg

Bogarde + Gielgud = Britishness overload, my old chap! Bourgeoisie with ribald sense of humour! Interesting narration.

The Lusty Men (1952) - 4

https://criticsroundup.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/the-lusty-men-still2-526x295.jpg

Nicholas Ray, you auteur, you! Quite a simple film, but how it's made, oh how it's made!

Elegy of the North (1957) - 3

https://i.imgur.com/hejLsoE.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/iGcPGSX.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/vFXdGpQ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/WBJqW1z.jpg
Yoshiko Kuga is after your ass, Swan! Watch out!

Gosho's worst from what I saw! Maudlin Sirkian shallowness. Too bad, because the relations between the protagonists' triangle (and at times even a quadrangle!) are very interesting.

Video Letter (1983) - 3.5

https://78.media.tumblr.com/90c31e12a520b7216e6d0fd852a16004/tumblr_mq8ws2GIOi1rpkhl9o3_1280.jpg

Video conversations between two poets. Terayama's segments are considerably superior. Has great moments.

The Wicked City (1992) - 4

https://i1.wp.com/vuviphim.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Thanh-Pho-Yeu-Thu-The-Wicked-City-1992-1.jpg?resize=750%2C433&ssl=1

Chinese Monster Story! Wow! A HK film based on Japanese manga. This couldn't fail! These colours, this craziness, this lady's face shot to cheesy nostalgic music. Freakin' lovers in the rain - *.*. 1960 - Nakadai kisses Setsuko Hara. 1992 - Nakadai kisses Michelle Reis. A legend.

Meet Me in St. Louis (1944) - 1.5

https://zippy.gfycat.com/ImportantMixedAcouchi.gif
That sound she made in this scene ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

No.

Zoom In: Rape Apartments (1980) - 3.5

https://i.imgur.com/ElCwA4P.jpg

Much better than Ohara's film! The giallo parts are more prevalent, and the film is super brutal with the killer raping and then burning his victims alive! Frightful cult of fire! A very solid contribution to the genre.

Rape! (1976) - 3.5

https://i.imgur.com/pIKJW50.jpg

A catchy title, isn't it? The director made some other flicks of this kind whose titles were mainly various forms of the word. I will be watching them soon. :) This one is a really nice and kinky one. Despite the title there is more consent than force here. There is a double action scene, too. Surely a weird transgression of a rape and revenge film! A nice cameo from Naomi Tani!

Rope Cosmetology (1978) - 4

https://i.imgur.com/piiBFzL.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/A8GvIw1.jpg

Naomi Tani = CLASS. A wonderful offering from Nikkatsu's BDSM roman poruno series. Really hardcore and kinky (zoophilia, urophilia are amongst the attractions!), but contrary to many other pink films, everything here is consensual.

The Love of Sumako the Actress (1947) - 4.5

http://rarefilm.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Joyu-Sumako-no-koi-1947-4.jpg

Mizoguchi is a 4.5 director, I guess. Yet another superb film from him. And Tanaka's performance in this was specially phenomenal!

Once Upon a Time There Was a Singing Blackbird (1970) - 4

https://criticsroundup.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/once-upon-a-time-there-was-a-singing-blackbird-still-526x295.png

A pretty good Soviet New Wave flick. Erbarme dich sound cues were quite weird, though.

Ultraviolence

07-17-18, 04:35 PM

Black God, White Devil (1964) - rating_4_5

https://thehandgrenade.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/deus2.png

Black, white and the light. Masters exploiting farmers, a false prophet, a hired killer, bandits, Lampiao. Cinema novo inferno!

The Wicked City (1992) - rating_4

https://i1.wp.com/vuviphim.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Thanh-Pho-Yeu-Thu-The-Wicked-City-1992-1.jpg?resize=750%2C433&ssl=1

Chinese Monster Story! Wow! A HK film based on Japanese manga. This couldn't fail! These colours, this craziness, this lady's face shot to cheesy nostalgic music. Freakin' lovers in the rain - *.*. 1960 - Nakadai kisses Setsuko Hara. 1992 - Nakadai kisses Michelle Reis. A legend.

Wow, Glauber Rocha!! :yup:👍👍👍👍👍👍

Never watched this live action of Wicked City, but I really like the anime version directed by Yoshiaki Kawajiri (Ninja Scroll). I'll watch this one! Looks really good.

Mr Minio

07-17-18, 04:54 PM

Never watched this live action of Wicked City It has Nakadai on top of an airplane trying a 9/11 sham! What a film!

aronisred

07-18-18, 11:21 PM

Predator(1987)

5

A rescue team in South American jungles becomes the prey for an extra terrestrial predator which is advanced in every way.

John McTiernan is one of those directors that is right in between commercial directors and auteurs. His movies have strong directorial feel to them but at the same time they satisfy the share holders of the movies.The movie starts at a costal base of the army that is right at the edge of the jungle. So we do not see any cityscapes at all. That is a very good decision by the director. In movies like these its is always better to stick to a landscape throughout the movie. Any drastic change in the location lessens the impact of the movie. I noticed a similar thing in avatar by James Cameron. In the collectors edition there were some scenes in the beginning that take place on a blade runner-esque Earth. But Cameron started off in the spaceship. Even that is a wise decision. You don't start with the jungle or with a cityscape. You start with a location that can carry the build up to the destination. City has a life and feel of its own that has zero resemblence to that of a harsh jungle. But a costal military base is the ideal spot to lead up into jungle. I did feel that the attack on the South American rebel camp was a bit of a weak point in the movie. Because it was just a lead up into the rest of the movie. But I do feel that the win at the camp made them a worthy opponent.

Testosterone is a huge part in the movie. Even though most of them are wearing outfits that reveal their muscles ,for the most part it doesn't contribute to the Testosterone in the movie. It has more to do with a species dominating another species. Its the concept of hunter vs hunted that adds to the masculinity in the movie. The intention of the filmmakers is to create an air of mystery and legend around the creature. So they use the local woman to tell them stories about the predator from her past. From what we can gather we realize that the creature or someone like it comes to the jungles during hot summers to hunt. It can be interpreted as an alien species proving dominance over humans by hunting them. Like a man-hunter. During my initial viewing I felt that these guys were acting like idiots trying to face the creature. Because from early on they see the actions of the creature without knowing who did it. But the moment the creature kills one of the members, they more or less connect the dots. At that point I thought they would be quick. But after a while the movie presents a much more simple reason why are fighting back and that is in the worlds of Arnold himself - "there won't be anyone left to be rescued if we don't take a stand". A much more deeper answer would be that these men in a way are predators , so a predator don't like to be prey. It will try and reclaim its position as the hunter. That deeper thought process embedded in the DNA of these guys kind of explains every decision they make. Because , this is not something that is taking place in a city where a bunch of misfits are escaping this creature. All these men are trained killers. So its in their DNA to fight and kill. The prospect of being the hunted doesn't sit well with them.

The final 20 or so minutes in the movie is very gripping. The weakness of the alien is revealed in a clever way. Most of the climax is dependent on the director. There isn't much dialogue on plot structure. Its just hunting.The final fist fight makes it clear what the intentions of the predator were. It could have killed him at will. But the fact that it wanted him to fight proves that its a game for it and not an attack. The pacing of the movie is good. The structure in which they see the attack of the predator before the gun battle at the camp and later the fight for survival with predator increased the tension in the movie. Initially they chalk it up to some militia but then they realize the dead bodies from earlier are not done by a man. On the face value this movie feel like a generic action movie for people who haven't seen it. But it is a movie that has a very primal core and solid plot built around it. It's theme is universal.

Sedai

07-23-18, 12:15 PM

The Bad News Bears
(Ritchie, 1976)

4

http://nickyarborough.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/BadNewsBears.jpg

I am not completely certain, but I think this was perhaps the first flick I saw in theaters when I was just a wee lil guy. I remember watching this film wide-eyed, and thrill of watching the team go from a collection of bumbling goons to a half-decent ball club. These days, it;s still a ton of fun. Yes, it was made in a different time, and a couple of the kids spew racist terms like it's just OK to do so. Alas, I am able to look past it's anachronisms and enjoy it for what it is - one of the best underdog films ever made.

The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia
Maxwell, 1981

2_5

https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/w1280/qevK3CHxXCFYbB5CE7tFkJHJCo6.jpg

After I watched The Bad News Bears, I starting reminiscing about some of the films I used to watch when I was a kid. For some reason, this one popped into my head. It never made it to DVD, let alone Blu-Ray, so I fired up a copy that was kicking around on YouTube. It was 4:3 ratio and the quality was pretty rough, but that seemed to add to the nostalgia, as it sort of felt like I had been transported through time back to 1982, when I used to catch this in American Super Channel or HBO whatever service it played on back then. Although the film has some good old-fashioned story telling aspects, it's pretty rough. The story of a washed-up one hit wonder and his little sister never really gets off the ground. The duo end up in the wrong town, on the wrong end of some hick justice. The music numbers are almost good, but McNicol's voice isn't quite up to the task, and the awkward romance between her 16-year old character and Mark Hamill's state trooper doesn't quite work for a couple of reasons. Still, I had fun revisiting a film from my youth. I probably won't go back to Garnet, Georgia, but I am glad I stopped by to visit one last time.

Over the Edge
Kaplan, 1979

3_5

http://montclairfilm.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Over-The-Edge-WEB.jpg

Another classic from my youth! Before Dazed and Confused, before Heathers, Before Pump Up the Volume, there was this fairly unknown story of youth gone wild. It's the most realistic look at what it was like to be a teenager back then, as all the other films I just listed have hyper-real or heavily stylized elements. At least, until the end of the flick, which is cranked up to 11 in an effort to be shocking. I remember around this time, there was this fear among society that the kids of the time were all going to go wild and run amok in society, Films like this and Class of 1984 portrayed groups of vicious teens freaking out and becoming sociopaths. Pretty sure this one started that trend.

Death Wish
Roth, 2018

3

http://conversationsabouther.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/deathwish.jpg

I hadn't really payed any attention to this one when it hit theaters. I was aware it had been made, but I had written it off as another recycled remake that was an obvious cash grab. That still applies, but a friend of mine had purchased the Blu-Ray, and he tend to ignore the online/ultraviolet/MoviesAnywhere stuff, so he stopped by for a visit and gave me his code for the movie. I had loaded into my MoviesAnywhere, and my wife and I were scrolling through looking for something watch, when she remarked "18% on RT? Yikes, that must be terrible." I quickly called up the RT page and noticed an audience score of 75% Fresh. Woah! I don't think I have seen a disparity like that in my entire time of using Rotten Tomatoes. Now I was curious.

Hey, it's a pretty decent action flick. Definitely derivative, certainly nothing special, but I had to head back to RT to figure out why the thing got killed by the critics. After reading excerpts from a few reviews, things quickly clarified. It seems critics no longer judge films for their actual quality. Every single review I clicked on slayed the film politically, while only briefly discussing the film itself. To me it was clear why it got roundly panned, which can be summed up in a couple of bullet points:

- The film is pro 2nd Amendment: The film isn't just gun-centric, there is actual discussion about a person's right to self-reliance when it comes to defending one's self and one's family. There is also a television commercial shown in the film that portrays the same idea in a positive light.

- There are some pro-Christian elements, which most critics seem to dislike in this day and age. Willis' character is described as a "Guardian Angel" by some folks that he rescues. His character also reads The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe to his daughter while she is in a coma. These books are widely known to be Christian allegory.

- The film is absolutely ZERO instances of identity politics in its narrative. This was incredibly refreshing, btw. Personally, I have grown weary of having this stuff dropped on my head like so many anvils when I watch films. It's fine that it is in some films, but it's also nice when it isn't.

So yea, there you have it. This film flies in the face of the current Hollywood agenda, so in turn it got destroyed by critics. I think this is pretty clear evidence of the political bias of today's film critics. The audience score is probably a more accurate metric to go by for fans of the genre, even of the film is your standard, run-of-the-mill action flick - Dumb, loud, and fairly entertaining.

The political bias of critics is probably food for a larger discussion in another thread, but I did want to point it out.

Mr Minio

07-24-18, 02:29 AM

The Lady of Musashino (1951) - rating_4_5

https://cinematalk.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/1.jpg

A very simple love story, but Mizoguchi's aesthetics are to die for. Tanaka is to die for, too. How is it even possible that Mizoguchi takes such a banal, simple story and elevates it to the rank of a masterpiece? Maybe this is his mystery everybody's talking about.

Los Muertos (2004) - rating_4

https://bilbaoarte.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/muertos-2004-04-g.jpg

New Argentinian Cinema. It's funny how this film felt like an action movie after I had watched a couple of Lav Diaz films and got used to their super-slow pace!

Female Gym Coach: Jump and Straddle (1981) - rating_2_5

KINKY

Remember when I said I'd finished my Ohara binge? I LIED. :cool: Quite a lousy pinku, though. Leotards are fine, but the girls were mediocre, and the entire gay thing lame.

Behindert (1974) - rating_4

https://brooklynrail.org/article_image/image/10748/nelson-web1.jpg

A perceptive experimental film that feels immensely intimate and personal. Dwoskin manages to say a lot using extreme close-ups of a woman's face. Both plot and dialogues are minimal, but not scarce. The sound is atmospheric, often hypnotic.

Toute une nuit (1982) - rating_4

https://d3i6li5p17fo2k.cloudfront.net/en/rimage/ftmd_square_576/image/2646/feaf2cdee521a716288b656ed696c610

Akerman's an observer in this film. And so is the viewer by contemplating various people's nocturnal rendez-vous and amorous exultations that often end with falling into each other's arms (beautiful and relatable). All that being said, the Japanese extreme film All Night Long is better! Take that, Akerman!

Temptation of the Mask (1987) - rating_2_5

KINKY

Now that I've seen all of his widely-available films I'm trying to track down and watch some of Hisayasu Sato's more obscure, hard-to-get efforts. This one seems to be based on Mishima's work (although given the director you can be sure this is a very loose adaptation) which initially made me only more excited for this. But (and this is a male butt) the film has way too many gay sex scenes and too little atmosphere to go wtih it. The other two Sato's gay pinkus I've seen were better!

Léon Morin, Priest (1961) - rating_4

http://www.cliomuse.com/uploads/9/2/4/6/9246605/237265.jpg?606

Melville at his most religious. The religion debates in the first part reminded me of Melville's debut film. The second part is more centered on the feelings with subtle elements of sacrilege (that dream!). All in all, a very Christian film that unveils paradoxes of Christian doggedness, but at the same time exposes human weakness while still treating its protagonists in a very human way. Clothes do not make the man. Too bad secondary themes had to be cut down - they're pretty interesting too. Emmanuelle Riva is a babe.

I Knew Her Well (1965) - rating_3_5

http://www.anelnoath.com/knewherwell1.jpg

An amalgamation of everything that had been hip and good in Italian cinema in the past 10 years. Countless cinematic quotes show genuine fascination with Italian cinema of the time. However, although citing its great predecessors, the film never reaches their level making the director a great albeit still an epigone.

The Saga of Gosta Berling (1924) - rating_4

https://78.media.tumblr.com/cc940b6f8fe42f122cd0105b7bf36b52/tumblr_mx9d4hZhX81rtpnyio1_500.png

The pride of Sweden's window to the world, and yet another proof of how powerful silent cinema can be. A humongous three hours long saga on the life of a defrocked priest shot with beauty and grace never seen (in this form) in contemporary cinema.

Wait and See (1998) - rating_4

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Pjr0d2ge4Qo/VowKkUdvidI/AAAAAAAAJmY/E2Sa58q3KHA/s1600/vlcsnap-2015-12-31-14h26m53s237.jpg

This might not be an essential Somai, and the film could pass off as a little bit more frantic Koreeda. Still, the mixture of seriousness and quirky humour coupled with the vivisection of Japanese family bonds is enough to get really interested in it. The homeless band is poetic. Yuki Saito is still game albeit her hairstyle was hideous.

Blue Monet (2006) - rating_4

ARTSY

An eye-poking abstract film built of two adjacing screens both projecting footage that had been subjected to some wild alchemy. Not for the weak!

The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972) - rating_3_5 - REWATCH

http://66.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6be6ttGx11qfhre5o1_500.gif

Another Bunuel film I hated in 2012. I surely enjoyed it much more this time around, but I still think it's one of his weakest. The matrioshka dream structure indeed adds to the experience, though.

City Zero (1989) - rating_4

https://i0.wp.com/24fpsverite.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/gorod-zero-1.jpg

Bunuel rapes Kafka and goes to the East! The criticism of the Soviet Union surely works better for me than the critique of bourgeoisie. Some unforgettable sequences (head cake), eerie synth music and absurdist comedy moments!

The Lady Eve (1941) - rating_4

https://theblondeatthefilm.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/the-lady-eve-stanwyck-fonda-055.jpg

Incredibly suggestive and erotic, although it might not have been that surprising anymore in the 40s with Lubitsch blowing up the 30s. In the first couple of minutes Henry Fonda imitating Cary Grant (?) becomes intoxicated with lady's perfumes and kneels down to take her shoes off!!! And that's just the beginning. What happens next? In short: Fonda shows her his snake and she runs away screaming. :) One could say his snake was roaming freely. :)

honeykid

07-24-18, 11:27 AM

Over the Edge
Kaplan, 1979

3_5

http://montclairfilm.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Over-The-Edge-WEB.jpg

Another classic from my youth! Before Dazed and Confused, before Heathers, Before Pump Up the Volume, there was this fairly unknown story of youth gone wild. It's the most realistic look at what it was like to be a teenager back then, as all the other films I just listed have hyper-real or heavily stylized elements. At least, until the end of the flick, which is cranked up to 11 in an effort to be shocking. I remember around this time, there was this fear among society that the kids of the time were all going to go wild and run amok in society, Films like this and Class of 1984 portrayed groups of vicious teens freaking out and becoming sociopaths. Pretty sure this one started that trend.
Nice to see a positive review of this. I love this film so much.

Ultraviolence

07-24-18, 12:55 PM

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNGQxMmFiY2ItMWYxMi00OGI2LTkwMTMtYmI4NDNmYTAxNDE3XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjkzMzEyNjQ@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,66 6,1000_AL_.jpg
★★★★★

Good old days, when the movies didn't have the need to explain everything. The cinematographic language was much better.

Sedai

07-24-18, 01:51 PM

The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972) - rating_3_5 - REWATCH

http://66.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6be6ttGx11qfhre5o1_500.gif

Another Bunuel film I hated in 2012. I surely enjoyed it much more this time around, but I still think it's one of his weakest. The matrioshka dream structure indeed adds to the experience, though.

I watched something a while back that featured characters that were obsessed with this film, but I can't recall what it was that I watched!

Ultraviolence

07-24-18, 02:01 PM

★★★★★

Good old days, when the movies didn't have the need to explain everything. The cinematographic language was much better.

I just realised that I posted in the wrong thread. That was slow...

Mr Minio

07-24-18, 02:57 PM

I watched something a while back that featured characters that were obsessed with this film, but I can't recall what it was that I watched! Cool. Make sure to let me know once you remembered.
I just realised that I posted in the wrong thread. That was slow... No. You did good. Stick to it!

HashtagBrownies

07-25-18, 08:15 AM

Seen in July Pt.2

46369
4-
This film was PAINFUL!!!...but in a good way. The film did its job by truly disturbing me and making me think about the afterlife. It's too bad that the first half is kinda 'eh' and drags a bit.

46370
4

Wow. Wow. Wow. Going into this I expected an entertaining thriller and nothing more, but it was so much more than that.

The film has the feeling of a fairy tale. The things that contribute to that are the music, narration and plot. The music is so good. It's beautiful and has that slight feeling of sadness to it. John Hurt is a wonderful narrator with his calm expression. The setting and subject matter are very ugly and dark, which most fairy tales were before being adapted into Disney films.

It was a very good idea to adapt this book, as the concept is really original. The story is super engaging and you don't feel the long run-time at all. Bright colours are used very well to amplify smells. I don't think I've ever seen a film that depicts smells so expressively which is great as cinema is not a smelling medium (Unless you're a fan of buttery popcorn). Seeing all the liquids swishing around make you even want to drink them. Also noticed the film had some REALLY dark comedy. I usually don't like the visuals of films set in these ugly, mucky areas, but something about the entertainment I had with the film made me love the imagery.

I would not be describing this film in such detail if it wasn't for that ending (Or last 15 minutes I'm not sure), oh God that ending. It was one of the most unexpected endings to a movie I have ever seen and my love for it is probably amplified by that. Some of the movie twists that people bring up in conversation have nothing on this ending.
The totally unexpected fantasy element being introduced and the defeating feeling of the villain winning just really impacted me.
Those are some reasons why I adored the ending but it's kind of impossible to describe its beauty in full (Like any good art).

46371
3.5
Cute, funny, great characters, emotional: What else can I really say about a Pixar short?

46372
4
It may not have the depth of the original but I'm just so damn happy to see these characters again. I loved them, I loved the action and I loved the comedy.

46373
3.5-
Cheesy as f*ck. The story just isn't there and its message of 'changing yourself completely to be with your loved one' is very problematic, but you can't not love the songs and dancing (Travolta's voice can make anyone wet).

46374
4+
Oh man I loved this movie! It's a very unique and hilarious subversion of the horror genre. Our main characters are so sweet!

46375
3.5-
Was definitely not expecting to hear that song from Futurama in this (That scene was pretty emotional). Some lovely colours in this. The main characters are likeable and you want to see them make it out ok. That final scene is very emotional. However I think something is holding the film back and I'm not sure what it is: Is it due to how slow it is?, is it the fact that the singing gets grating after awhile? I'm not sure.

46380
4-
Billy Wilder is certainly a director who likes to defy common troupes and clichés, and I think this film does that a bit. Sadly it doesn't have nearly as much comedy as Some Like it Hot, but there are still some good moments (The suicide story, 'you need a new refrigerator'). Lemmon's performance and character are great. The most interesting scenes for me were the ones where Lemmon was talking with Shirley MacLaine in his apartment. That scene with the razor blades destroyed me. The ending is so sweet. Possibly my least favourite Wilder film but I'm not too sure yet.

46379
RE-WATCH
4.5-
Brilliant. Just, brilliant. I was worried about re-watching this as sometimes a film can get worse that way, but I think that made the film even better! The performances are all perfect and I couldn't imagine anyone else playing Damien Karras but Jason Miller. The atmosphere of this film is downright perfect: I can't really describe it (Apart from that freezing, vapor-filled exorcism scene). The minimal use of music worked really well. The use of swearing for horror was very unique. The element of the film which I found the scariest was how professionally the priests carry out the exorcism, there's just something about that that's feels very powerful and says alot about their faith. I think the reason the Exorcist has held up so well is that you can still enjoy it even if you're not scared by it.

46378
3
It appears that Mr. Freedom uses irony and hypocrisy to get across its message about extreme patriotism. Examples: The 'freedom' chant sounds like 'Sieg Heil', a pink KKK member at the Freedom speech, Freedom mocks the Reds yet is uniform is mainly red, freedom means 'freedom of speech' yet Mr. Freedom kills anyone who disagrees with him: And so on and so forth. It also has quick quips at over-sexualization of women and commercialism. My favourite moment was probably Donald Pleasence's elevator monologue; There was just something about the visuals and his delivery that felt very...nice. I liked the cartoonish elements of it (That dragon was awesome). Despite all that, the plot is as thin as my fingernail and isn't interesting in the slightest. You feel like you've watched a boring propaganda film instead of a thought-provoking comedy. Also the film had some godawful lip-syncing issues.

Iroquois

07-25-18, 09:49 AM

Ant-Man and the Wasp (Peyton Reed, 2018) - 3

A slight improvement on the origin story of its predecessor that maintains the lighter-and-softer heist-comedy vibe while fortifying it with the kind of advanced development common to Phase 3 Marvel movies. Still unsure if I enjoyed it enough to bump it to a 3.5 or not, though.

RoboCop (Paul Verhoeven, 1987) - 4.5

Still one of the finest examples of pulp art to ever come out of the '80s that's appreciable on multiple levels - straightforward action B-movie on one, relatively complex satire of capitalism and the troubling literalisation of one's loss of humanity under it on another.

The Inertia Variations (Johanna Saint Michaels, 2017) - 3

Out of all the bands to receive the late-period introspective documentary treatment, I think few as both as surprising and as deserving as The The and its main man Matt Johnson. The resulting film about his latest art project does decent enough service to the man and his music but I'm hard-pressed to say it's anything more than alright.

Jurassic World (Colin Trevorrow, 2015) - 1

Original review found here (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1354386-jurassic-world.html). While repeat viewings of the previous sequels made me more willing to acknowledge their strengths, a second viewing of this one only serves to underline its considerable weaknesses as both a Jurassic Park movie and as a high-concept blockbuster in general. It's not about to stop me checking out Fallen Kingdom at some point, though.

Friday the 13th (Sean S. Cunningham, 1980) - 3

I'm going to be running through this series in the foreseeable future - I'll still call it the best for offering a solid variation on Halloween (e.g. building off the point-of-view opening of Carpenter's film) that stands out enough in its own right and arguably does more to codify slasher tropes than Halloween does for better and for worse.

Friday the 13th Part II (Steve Miner, 1981) - 2.5

Now I'm getting into the sequels and the first one is a passable enough repeat that further refines the franchise's approach to its material into what now comes across as stereotypical slasher fare, though its biggest changes still don't totally compromise what made the original work.

Twin Peaks: The Return (David Lynch, 2017) - 4

Yeah, screw it, I'm going to count it. While the length works against it a little at times, the highs on display here are among some of the best of Lynch's career. Now I do just want to run through all the films of his that I haven't re-watched in a while.

Interstellar (Christopher Nolan, 2014) - 2.5

Original review found here (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1366926-interstellar.html). Maybe the most confounding Nolan movie less because of its dense approach to hard science and more because of how I've seen it three times now and I'm still unsure how much I actually like or dislike it (or maybe it really does inspire pure ambivalence). Must be some fifth-dimensional pull this movie has.

Friday the 13th Part III (Steve Miner, 1982) - 2.5

As with Nightmare on Elm Street, the third installment here seems a bit make-or-break for this franchise, but while Friday... can't help but go for more of the same (albeit with a 3-D gimmick thrown in that just looks silly on a 2-D screen), Miner's filmmaking has noticeably improved since the previous entry to the point where I'd give it the edge.

Galaxy Quest (Dean Parisot, 1999) - 3.5

Still my pick for the best "actors are forced to play their roles for real" movie that's able to provide a thoroughly satisfying, rewatchable, and affectionate Star Trek parody.

Ultraviolence

07-25-18, 01:27 PM

The Fugitive (1993) [Andrew Davis] ★★★★★
One of that childhood classics that still great after all this time. My favorite Ford film. The soundtrack rocks. This was my intro to Chicago.

Cobra (1986) [George P. Cosmatos] ★★
Cheesy stylish action with Sly. It looks like a Graphic Novel sometimes, The dialogs are pretty funny.

Get Carter (1971) [Mike Hodges] ★★★
Back in the days when Michael Caine wasn't the Nolan guy, good drama/action movie with lots of funny moments and some very hot girls. It reminds me Paul Schrader's Hardcore a little bit.

Get Carter (2000) [Stephen T. Kay] ★
Yep, they maded a remake... A bad one.

Red Sparrow (2018) [Francis Lawrence] ★
Not even Lawrence's breast could save this one. Bad script and terrible plot twist. Hated practically everything in this film.

Disobedience (2017) [Sebastián Lelio] ★★
Some good moments, but it tries so hard to be "important"... Both Rachel's was good. Alessandro Nivola speech at the ending was the best part. But the film is more of the same.

Entre Nos (2009) [Gloria La Morte, Paola Mendoza] ★★★
The Pursuit of Happyness with immigrants. Awful camerawork and editing but good acting and some good moments

Wings of Desire (1987) [Wim Wenders] ★★★★★
Masterpiece! I love this film!

Siberia (2018) [Matthew Ross] ★
Matt Ross sucks as a director, he should try another thing for living.

Jailbreak (2017) [Jimmy Henderson] ★
A fail. The old seasons of Power Ranger are more well made than this 'cambodia action/comedy movie'

Persona (1966) [Ingmar Bergman] ★★★★★
1966, a year of masterpieces! The Sword of Doom, Cash Calls Hell, Persona, Blow-Up, Andrei Rublev... Damn, what a year! Liv Ullman rocks, she can act even whitout talking anything. Bibi Anderson was great too.

Nostalgia (1983) [Andrei Tarkovsky] ★★★★★
One of my favorite films! -- One of my favorite directors!

Voyage in Time (1983) [Andrei Tarkovsky, Tonino Guerra] ★★★★
A very good documentary about the searching of locations for Nostalgia with some great conversations and music.

Autumn Sonata (1978) [Ingmar Bergman] ★★★★★
It looks like a play, and thats a great thing. It's cruel and very realistic. The final 'confrontation' between Ingrid and Liv it's spectacular!

Also, this is Visconti so far:
------Luchino Visconti------
1943 Obsession ★★★★
1948 The Earth Will Tremble ★★★★
1951 Bellissima ★★★★
1954 Senso ★★★★★
1957 White Nights ★★★★
1960 Rocco and His Brothers ★★★★★
1963 The Leopard ★★★★★
1965 Sandra ★★★★
1967 The Stranger ★★★
1969 The Damned ★★★★
1971 Death in Venice
1972 Ludwig
1974 Conversation Piece
1976 The Innocent

I was planning to watch Ludwig and Death in Venice last weekend, but my girlfriend wasn't feeling good (fever), so I spent my time with her.

◘ Atrocity
★ Very Bad
★★ Bad (Sometimes interesting)
★★★ Good
★★★★ Very Good
★★★★★ Great
★★★★★ Masterpiece

UpgradeYourDad

07-25-18, 04:27 PM

Haven’t been here for a while; anxiety is killer. Anyway, here’s some ratings of stuff:

RoboCop 1987 4.5

Got to catch this in the theater for the first time still love damn near every moment of this.

Yellow Submarine 1968 3.5

Ringo is the only one who knows he’s in a movie.

Akira 1988 4.5

Beautifully done animation, and the story works well. If you’re not an “anime person” check it out, it’ll be a great time I promise.

Sorry To Bother You 2018 3+

When it hits, it hits it well; when it misses, it misses very hard.

The Friends of Eddie Coyle 1973 4

I’ll probably flesh out more thoughts on this, but I can see the inspiration for pretty much all of my favorite movies here and I’m down with that.

aronisred

07-25-18, 11:56 PM

Avatar

5

A disabled army vet gets a chance to take his dead twin's position to travel to a moon in a distant solar system. The ex-vet gets a chance to drive the remotely controlled bodies called avatar which are scientifically developed bodies that are made from DNA of native population of the planet and resemble them.

So the description sounds complicated but the director does a great job of conveying it with ease.Hollywood has been against James Cameron from the moment he won Oscar for Titanic and it swept the Oscar season of that year. James Cameron movies have two things in their foundations that are at odds with each other . The concept and execution of his movies are of the highest quality. But the script and dialogue is clunky. There is always this battle in his movies. Which is between making a kick ass movie vs an intellectual movie. Movies like the rock or die hard can easily be considered as well made but dumb action movies that appeals to masses. But , the difference between James Cameron and tons of other action commercial directors of all time is that his canvas is different.He operates with subject matters and concepts that has never been dealt with before. For example, his movies like Terminator and Abyss operate with killer robot and underwater creatures. There has never been concepts like that in movies before.So there is no scale for critics to compare it with. If you make a gangster movie then people will compare it with godfather or goodfellas. If you make a western then people will compare it with unforgiven. For superhero movies its the dark knight. But the moment you zone in on a very specific type of movie then people have to deal with it as a movie of its own kind. James Cameron did it with almost all his movies. Even a sequel like Aliens was made as an action movie as opposed to a suspense horror original alien.

The story is very famously considered as a rip off and a copy of lots of other movies. Its the tried and tested formula of "understanding the ways of others" plot line. But the way in which his imagination or derivation or whatever you wanna call it enhances the movie experience by combining science fiction with tried and tested formula is spectacular. It blows the plot line out of the water. Forget about the plot line and just look at the awesome planet that is created is the subtext here. Avatar is a case study about how to make an epic that is remembered for ages. Every filmmaker wants to make a movie that stands the test of time. But if the movie is an epic, then it will be remembered even more fondly. So you have to throw lot of money at it. But, studios won't throw lot of money at a movie if they can't guarantee box office. Only very few directors can get that kind of cash without a star attached. But often times in such cases the financiers are being tricked into thinking that the box office success of movies is due to directors. A movie like Hugo had a budget of 200 million only because the financiers were tricked into thinking that Scorsese has something to do with box office of movies like the departed , shutter island etc. But in reality its the star of those movies that's responsible for its financial success. Immediately after financial failure of Hugo they realized that it wasn't Scorsese that's the draw. So he had to go and make wolf of wall street. After that he struggled to get financing for his next two movies and settle with foreign investors and Netflix. This is the usual trajectory of auteurs if they wanna make ambitious prestigious epics with the intention of standing the test of time. You either need an unusually large fan base or you need a movie star with unusually large fan base in your movie. The movie of course should demand theater viewing. Cinematography and scale of the movie are vital in peeking the interest of audience to the point of going to the movies as opposed to seeing it on computer screens.

One of the other important things is the hype and anticipation for the movie. How does it work ? There is good hype which comes from the fact that the people involved in the project have already delivered a great movie before. Then there is cautious hype. Which is mostly a bad hype because no one knows how good the movie will be or any good. DiCaprio is trying to use the former technique with his movies. He refused to make any movie if it is not directed by Legendary directors or would be legends. Sure, that might not get him an Oscar win again. But the contrary to that could be failure. So, he is trying to retain the goodwill from Revenant and wolf of wall street and Django and use it to propel once upon a time in Hollywood into a hit.But this whole thing is very hard to replicate unless you have "it". Its like building a wall. You can't build the 10th layer if your 1st layer is not built. But the obvious handicap he has is the directors. If Scorsese is dead then I don't think there are very many directors who will make the kind of movies his testosterone filled machismo seeking fan base craves for. Paul Thomas Anderson is not his kind of director. So is David O Russell. Because they don't make movies that ooze machismo.

Back to avatar. The movie is an out of body experience. The effects in the movie has that lived in feel to it. They feel very real. You are being told that what you see is real. And your mind buys into it. That's something that's never been done before. Most of it is possible because of the skin texture of Navi and the way they communicate with humans feels real.One primary trapping this movie avoids is the pacing issues. Most of the times when a movie takes place outdoors, directors become obsessed with the landscapes in the movie. And they tend to include lots of boring shots and scenes in the movie that drag the pace. For a director who has been obsessed with this movie for years, all these might be interesting. But for a person who is not involved in the making of the movie all these make it boring. Director looses sense of being self critical. So from his point of view he thinks "this is good" but in reality it is not. And also epic scale film making should avoid the trappings of feeling simple.You can't complicate the plot when hundreds of millions are riding on the movie. At the same time you can't make it too simple. The only way to achieve this is the mechanics of the movie needs to be complicated yet interesting but the overall story of the movie has to be simple. For example if the story of a movie is A need to kill B. But A needs to meet experts in various fields to develop plans to kill B, that is a good movie. The overall act of the movie is simple like A kills B. But the steps taken are complicated enough to make the movie interesting. But if the plot of the movie is complicated then its not gonna make its money back.Something like A doesn't wanna kill B but he wanna teach a lesson to B and at that point the story starts getting complicated and its a bad business idea.

This movie has a very simple plot. But the dose of sci-fi makes it interesting. The movie time frame makes it interesting. It takes place years into the expedition. But few years into Navi program. So instead of starting the movie at the beginning of expedition the director gave it sometime to have room for emotion. In the beginning it would have been all about primal instinct of survival and war. But as time went by, it becomes much more nuanced. So James Cameron wanted that time entry point.The creature design is heavily based on earth life form. But that's another key aspect in the movie. You can't make alien life form un-relatable. You should feel their emotions. So the aliens just look different but feel the same. The aliens are different to a point. Beyond that, they are the same. One unique thing about aliens is the actual physical bonds they need to make at a certain point. With the animals or trees or when mating. All these make the aliens feel primitive yet wise. They live with bare necessities.Even the way they choose their flying creature is very primal and tests the skill of rider with no room for failure. All these makes the movie a pleasant watch with epic scope and awe.

Even though James Cameron has done the best he could to make this movie everything anyone ever wanted which is a commercial critical ambitious awards-celebrated epic which will be remembered more than most movies ever will be, I do think the movie's goal to appeal to wide range of audience forced Cameron to soften some rough edges and make the movie smoother. Consequences of actions are softened. Heroic moments are overplayed and heightened. Stereotypes are exploited. If these aspects are rectified then the movie probably wouldn't have made 2.8 billion. So thats a catch-22. But in the end this movie is really a lesson on how to make ambitious epics. Because of its structure. Make the movie a theater experience. Something audience should see in the movies. Make it in a very specific sub genre , so audience or critics can't really measure it against any other movies. Even though this is a dance with wolves kinda movie, this has sci-fi environmental colonialism messages in it. Thats not dealt with in movies like dances with wolves or last samurai etc. So thats very specific. Other similar examples include spaghetti western Django unchained, which can't really be compared to either unforgiven or 12 years a slave because its in its own plane. Movies like hostiles(2018) become easy targets because the narrative and everything screams conventional and even the subject matter is conventional .So, even though the film maker promotes it as a psychological western, audience can't really see the reason not to compare it with traditional westerns like unforgiven. So the movie ends up being butchered by critics. Something like revenant is playing on a whole different plane. Its a frontier western but a survival epic set in snow as opposed to deserts of the typical westerns. So critics really can't compare it with traditional westerns. same with wolf of wall street. There are far too few wall street movies and even then this movie is so crazy as opposed to them that it can't be compared. Critics are always on the hunt for a movie that can't be compared to other movies. If they are able to compare then the movie better be good. Otherwise they will use the movie as a dart board to tear it into pieces. Lastly ,of course the movie has to be well made along with good pace. Audience don't wanna linger on shots that they can get in their backyard or by going outside their house. They wanna linger on shots they can't even dream about or they can't see in their surroundings ever. All these point to production budget. But the interesting thing about big budget movies is that the critical response is much more sharp. Love or hate. Its not going to be a mediocre and middling response and thats really a good thing. It will either be remembered as postman or as the dark knight.I most certainly can say that except movie snobs no one will remember hurt locker. But far too many people will remember avatar. Its become cool now to hate on it but if box office history is any indication then international box office always increases for sequels. Avatar's box office most certainly will increase.

Iroquois

07-26-18, 10:57 AM

Conan the Destroyer (Richard Fleischer, 1984) - 2.5

While it never stops feeling like a lesser variation on ...Barbarian, it's still got a fair chunk of novelty (e.g. Grace Jones and Wilt Chamberlain showing up as two of Conan's companions) that make its rather rote sword-and-sorcery tale a bit more enjoyable.

Venom and Eternity (Isidore Isou, 1951) - 4

An enjoyably anarchic work of art that plays around with the cinematic art form (telling its narrative through sound over largely unrelated images) that delivers charmingly arrogant polemics about the state of contemporary art and society while also giving us a classically dickish French protagonist and some infectiously repetitive background score.

A Bag of Fleas (Věra Chytilová, 1963) - 2.5

A watchable enough short about a group of teenage girls who have to work in a cotton mill. An obviously slight and early work, but it certainly shows the untapped potential that Chytilová would better realise with...

Daisies (Věra Chytilová, 1966) - 3.5

An extraordinarily surreal piece of Czech craziness about a pair of sisters running wild in defiance of any kind of established order, be it social, political, or cinematic. The brief length keeps it from getting exhausting and there's something about its relentless sense of anarchy that makes it a remarkable watch.

Leviathan (Lucien Castaing-Taylor and Véréna Paravel, 2012) - 4

A documentary about a fishing trawler that opts to eschew conventions like talking heads or narration in favour of abstract displays of light and sound that aim to create an overwhelming sense of the harsh conditions that these people must operate in instead of merely explaining it, the process of which mostly works up until the point at which one wonders if this isn't just empty aestheticisation. Either way, I don't think I gave Dead Slow Ahead enough credit for doing similar work.

Amer (Hélène Cattet and Bruno Forzani, 2009) - 2.5

A giallo-influenced anthology that all centre on the same woman undergoing terrifying experiences at various ages. While the first segment creates a strong impression through a Suspiria-esque fever dream, the second only serves as underwhelming build-up for a third act that barely does anything with the promise of the first. Still, the sheer level of audio-visual flair on display certainly makes it an eye-popping watch.

We Need To Talk About Kevin (Lynne Ramsay, 2011) - 4

Finally getting around to watching a Ramsay film and this was a hell of a place to start as her use of anachronic storytelling, focus on unsettling minutiae, and audiovisual dissonance all create an incredibly raw and evocative experience.

Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (Joseph Zito, 1984) - 2.5

Still going with this series and part four shows a few notable variations on the formula that don't make it significantly better but keep it from getting significantly worse as well - introducing Corey Feldman as the annoying kid down the road seems like it would ruin the movie but it ends up being one of its greatest strengths.

The Strange Colour of your Body's Tears (Hélène Cattet and Bruno Forzani, 2013) - 2.5

The Amer duo's sophomore effort sees them build a broadly conventional giallo pastiche where I don't doubt the affection that they have for their sources of inspiration that shows through their relentless recreation and reconfiguration of the genre's aesthetics even though the resulting film as a whole can't help but seem like it would've been one of the lesser entries in the genre's canon.

Zama (Lucrecia Martel, 2017) - 3

A darkly absurdist tale of the eponymous 18th-century Spanish bureaucrat in his quest to transfer away from his post in an Argentinian settlement and the various setbacks he faces in the process. It's solid enough in its criticism of colonialism while providing a sufficiently complicated character study.

Mr Minio

07-26-18, 12:39 PM

Venom and Eternity (Isidore Isou, 1951) - 4 I can't believe you actually watched it and liked it. It's one of my favourites of the 50s!!!

I love how even though Isou tries to turn cinema into a radio play, he still comes up with one of the most striking visuals of the 50s, namely to quote him:

From the point of view of photography, I'll smite the picture with sun rays. I'll take old stock shots and scratch them; I'll claw at them so that unknown beauty sees the light of day. I shall sculpt flowers upon the film stock.

This quote is one of the most powerful ever:

Your hissing and your booing make no impression on me, because from Victor Hugo's "Ernani" to Buñel's "The Age of Gold," Cannes Grand Prize winner, everything I have loved has always been hissed and booed at first. At the premiere of "The Age of Gold" the angry audience broke the theatre seats. What worse can happen to me, and how can that affect me? The seats do not belong to me.

Such a contrarian!!!

Make sure to watch another lettrist masterpiece Has the Film Already Started?. Sadly, no English subtitles are available, but I wrote a review of the movie here (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1868194-has-the-film-already-started.html).

Iroquois

07-26-18, 12:52 PM

What makes it so unbelievable?

aronisred

07-26-18, 12:59 PM

Django Unchained

3

A slave is assisted by a German bounty hunter in pre civil war southern United States to recoup his wife from her evil owner. In the process he undergoes a transformation from a naive slave to a vigilante.

Quentin Tarantino after Pulp Fiction has realized that he cannot top the movie as long as his subsequent movies are set in modern time period. So he made kill bill movies in a hyper revenge filled setting, Inglourious Basterds set in world war 2 and this movie during slavery America. He is continuing to do that til date with all his movies. That obviously forces to increase the budget. Sets have to be built. So his movies have lately become more and more epic in scale. But still his storytelling is low budget. So you can always see all the money being spent on production budget but not in any other department.

One of the most frustrating things about the legacy of Tarantino is that his directorial style has prevented any other filmmaker from making any kind of controversial creative movies and get huge exposure during awards season. If the topic is controversial then filmmakers are forced to stay close to truth with very little creative liberties in story telling almost restricted to a documentary style filmmaking. Movies like Detroit , Zero dark Thirty , all Paul Green grass movies are examples of such movies. They almost feel like a text book brought to life. One might ask, why can't a director make a movie about Bill Clinton scandal and take creative choices in a cinematic way ? Well, he/she can do that but the the reception of the movie will be different and they must operate on a micro budget and the movie will be on the brink of releasing straight to VOD. So, forget about awards campaign its hard for the movies to even get a proper release. For example, there is movie coming up about Charles Manson called Charlie Says. Its made by a low profile filmmaker and the movie doesn't even have a release date and a distribution. So the odds of the movie making a splash at oscars is almost zero. It could be the quality of the movie but more often than not it does have something to do with the people involved. Its easy to convince an industry to rally behind a filmmaker with a unique voice than a filmmaker who made an awesome movie but somehow his/her style is not that unique. Industry is always inherently looking for unique voices.

Quentin Tarantino movies are always on the right side of controversy and that is the side that makes money off controversy. The other side looses money. People referred to this script as "hot potato" but I don't see it that way. Yes, the movie puts us right in the racist south. Yes, there are lot of curse words, but Tarantino takes each step with extreme caution in order not to make decisions that are insensitive. These are the main instances. He films black character's pain in a much more somber tone where as he enjoys racist white characters getting killed. He shows Klan members but portrays them as dumb illiterates. So, when they use offensive language we are more concerned with laughing at their stupidity and not even paying attention to the kind of language they use. So no one would look at Klan and think they are cool after watching this movie. Even the profession of Christoph Waltz character gives him cover and to Jamie Foxx Character to kill the bad people with no retaliation from people surrounding them. Because he is a bounty hunter. The movie is almost like a legend in pre-civil war south and will be told as camp fire or bed time stories to inspire slaves to rebel against their oppressors. The German bounty hunter sort of acts as a conduit for white guilt. Because , throughout the movie all the white people we witness are racists. So audience need a white person so that he has the social currency to take this slave into places where he otherwise would not be allowed.At the same time its a reminder to white people that their whole race is not racist and that its just the southern Americans that are racists. He is cleverly playing a logical and diplomatic tactic to not offend Oscar voters if he actually goes there.

The movie is basically following this weird tone in which it makes you laugh at bad guys when they say something offensive instead of laugh with them. That makes Tarantino go Scott free with all critics. The tone you set in a movie forces audience to re-calibrate their evaluation scale.As I pointed out earlier, the better scenes in the movie take place indoor. Most of the outdoor shots are either montages or violent scenes.The ruse in the movie mainly involves tricking a slave owner to give up his slave as a token of good faith for the future Mandingo sales business both parties might be involved in. I get that the slave owners would be pissed if they knew that their slave has a husband and that they are willingly giving her freedom. But the ruse to get her as a token of good faith for future businesses and not make a business deal then and there is kind of a weird logic to begin with. Django and his German bounty hunter friend were never gonna pay the ridiculous amount for the slave fighter. But they were gonna take the female slave first with them and then pay the whole sum once they get the mandingo fighter examined and see him fit which according to their plan is never going to happen. I am not sure why anyone would assume that that proposition don't give anyone pause. Even on a business level. You take the female slave with you only when you pay for the whole package. Even the way in which the ruse is exposed by the house slave is very circumstantial. Although giving credit where its due, the scene was meant to be much more demented than logical. Betraying your own kind or self hatred of your race or the idea of joining the enemy if you can't beat them on a morale level is brilliant multi-layered writing from Tarantino.

Let's talk about casting shall we. This movie made some news during casting when Will Smith turned down the lead role and Jamie Foxx was eventually replaced him. On a much more obtuse level this can be considered as an actor knowing his skill set or boundaries and not wanting to cross them just so he can rely on someone else's skill(aka Tarantino) to achieve success. Because at the end of the day the movie is as good as the director. So,even though you feel the part not right for your career/image just because director thinks you are fit for the role and the movie may be a success does not mean you need to take the role. After seeing the movie I can see that the character of Django comes to his own only at the end of the movie. Until then he is more a follower and silent learner , which is understandable. But the irony of the movie is the movie is about slavery and a legend and its title character is black. However at the end of the movie and during awards season, all you can notice is the white actors in the movie. Which is weird to be honest. Jamie foxx has nothing to chew on in the script. Most of the movie is revolving around the white characters. So , even though will smith exercised his ego in deciding whether or not to take on the role, I can see why he didn't take it ultimately. If he took on the role, he just had to let others chew scenery when he is on screen and see them walk away with awards. Let's speak about Christoph waltz role. His role is very weird in terms of its reception. It's basically an apologist role. It's there to give comfort to audience. This is one of those instances when an actor is just lucky that he was offered a role written for him and that fits him perfectly. Many times even though a director and writer says that they wrote a role for an actor it does not fit the actor. But Tarantino is too talented for that and he is a master at casting his roles. So Waltz won awards for being right fight for a very good role in a very good script. Compare that with McConaughey in Dallas buyers club or christian bale in any role. They have to work twice as hard to get the same amount of recognition for their work. Casting Samuel L Jackson is spot on. It had to be familiar yet evil. Someone who is so in denial of his own existence that he thinks he is white. Its a fascinating character and it sort of explores the mindset of some people irrespective of race who hate their own kind and have a misplaced sense of inspiration to be better. You don't have to hate your roots to be a better person. You need to accept yourself and build on it. Because your DNA is not going to change just because you hate yourself.

The least inspired casting in the movie is that of DiCaprio. He is cast because Tarantino needed 100 million $ budget to make this movie on an epic scope. There is no other tested and proven actor who can bring that kind of money to the project. Moreover he tries damn bloody hard. He chews on scenery in a rather awkward manner. He always reminds you that he is trying hard to make an impression. Trying hard to trick you into thinking that he is a great actor. Its a sense of desperation for approval. And since he is a sought after movie star he must have some gift and his gift seems to be an infinite supply of desperation to almost non-human levels. No person can put on an act to convince others to take him seriously like the way he does it for that long. His gift is not great acting, his gift is to create the illusion that he is a great actor. For a 15 yr old movie fan in Italy, what does he know what great acting is ? all he knows is if an extremely good looking movie star is screaming and shouting at the top his lungs and chewing scenery then that's great acting. Usually in a mediocre or bad movie by a little known director these kind of things will be called out by critics as overacting and the movies will be dismissed. But when you have directors like Scorsese or Nolan or Tarantino making awesome movies then even the most over the top performances are forgiven because the movies are just damn bloody good. In a world where mediocre performances are given awards just because they are well written in an awesome movie how are we to expect that a scenery chewing, approval seeking over acting performance will be called out ? it's never gonna happen. So, he has been camouflaging his inferior acting skills from criticism with his collaborations and box office star power post Titanic fame.

I would however give the movie a praise for its interesting script. It deals with a sensitive topic while pursuing a goal of achieving critical and financial success. In the end it achieves its goal.

Mr Minio

07-26-18, 01:08 PM

Gate of Hell (1953) - 4.5

https://i.imgur.com/bacokjO.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/heiXPsJ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/uENDmxu.png
https://i.imgur.com/Xgg6C3y.png
https://i.imgur.com/Oar5rne.png
https://i.imgur.com/hjT5dby.png

Machiko Kyo is the ideal of a Japanese woman. The colourful costumes (that won the movie an Oscar!) are almost as breathtaking as her. The film might seem retrograde by today's standards (after all it portrays 12th century!), but beautifully talks about love and sacrifice.

Toni Takitani (2004) - 4.5

https://wetalkaboutmovies.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/tony1.png

To paraphrase a classic (you won't get it anyway): A sad movie about sad people and their sad lives. The free-flowing form (my favourite!) really adds to the experience, with the calm voice of the narrator and Sakamoto's beautiful score. A heartbreaking study of loneliness.

Seisaku's Wife (1965) - 3.5

http://deeperintomovies.net/journal/image12/seisaku1.jpg

I had hoped I could follow those two masterpieces with another pair of exceptional films. I was wrong. To quote a RYM user: "Seisaku's Wife is sooo good yet sooo flawed.". The cinematography is very good, so is Ayako Wakao who's more beautiful than ever. The story is fine, but it has some dissonances in its melodramatism and failed to truly move me. I'm truly mad at myself for not liking it more.

The Straits of Love and Hate (1935) - 3

https://wondersinthedark.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/solah-1.png?w=500

A subpar Mizoguchi again, but this time it's forgivable given it's an earlier film. The feminist story might be progressive, but also annoying and not that interesting. His 1936 films were just as feminist and much better!

Mr Minio

07-26-18, 01:12 PM

What makes it so unbelievable? It's a relatively obscure and "hard to get" movie. It's avant-garde, experimental, abrasive....

Yoda

07-26-18, 01:28 PM

Minio trying to find a nice way to say "I'm impressed any time someone's taste is as good as mine." ;)

Mr Minio

07-26-18, 01:44 PM

Minio trying to find a nice way to say "I'm impressed any time someone's taste is as good as mine." ;) If this were true, then I couldn't be surprised at all. Ever. :cool:

Iroquois

07-27-18, 06:31 AM

I already like avant-garde stuff so this one wasn't so hard to get (if anything, it may well be a little too straightforward for its own good). I'm just disappointed that you assumed I wouldn't get it for whatever reason.

Loner

07-27-18, 10:58 PM

An Enemy of the People (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075993/) 0

That's right, zero stars. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. There is a reason this film was buried.

aronisred

07-28-18, 04:33 AM

Mission Impossible : Fall out

4

Let me catch my breathe before explaining the plot summary. A rogue group of international terrorists decide to release a nuclear bomb that wipes out some of the most densely populated countries in the world. The mission is to stop them while bringing the culprits to justice.An old enemy rises in the process.

A funny thing happened in January this year. I was made aware that Tom Cruise broke his ankle while doing stunts. Then I was told that its during shooting of mission impossible movie. Then it donned on me "ooh this is a marketing strategy". As release date approached sure enough the promotion revved up about the movie and the main selling point is Tom Cruise doing his stunts in fights , helicopters and jumps. Not one mention about the plot or acting. Of course no one comes to these movies for plots. But my point behind bringing all this stuff up is to highlight a new kind of marketing strategy for movies. You see, mission impossible is not a superhero franchise. Tom cruise is not as attractive or as much of a box office draw as he once was. Once upon a time even when he puts out movies like few good men or last samurai type ambitious movies, people would flock to the movies. Now he needs to rely on international audience who are loyal for most part. But even then, a movie with close to 200 million budget needs to rely partially on domestic audience.

One of the few kinds of movies that make money apart from franchise movies are prestige ambitious epics. There is no specific genre to them. They can be action movies or thriller or historical epics. But these kind of movies once in a few years or sometimes in the same year make between 300-600 million dollars.Examples are the Martian , the Revenant, Wolf of Wall Street, gravity,great Gastby, Dunkirk etc. The sales pitch for those movies often involves some kind of track record. If you like the movies from this actor or this genre or this director then come check this movie out. This is very hard to build or even next to impossible. Because you need at least 3 or 4 films under your belt that audience like and then you can use this sales pitch.A director who is in the process of achieving that status is Denis Villeneuve.With this movie's sales pitch more so that before it became obvious that tom cruise is pitching this movie more as an intense adrenaline filled theatrical experience as opposed to a fun action movie. Basically he is pitching this movie as a Nolan-Esque cerebral movies like Interstellar or inception with spy aspect played up. Because the film makers are too smart to realize that inception had dreams , interstellar has space travel and this movie should have spy aspect high lighted to distinguish itself. One disadvantage this movie have is that it can never be the ambitious never-before-seen experience most of the above movies were . We have seen even in the same franchise these kind of stunts. But Tom Cruise is trying to let audience know that he is giving what they are expecting from a tom cruise movie by leaps and bounds.

Coming back to the movie. The stunts in the movie are exceptional as usual. But most importantly the close ranges in which the camera was placed during action scenes highlights the craft and skill it took to pull those off. The Halo jump was shot up close because when the real actor is doing the stunt then why not make sure audience knows its him and sees it. Same with helicopter scenes. The movie had action set pieces at 3 main locations. One in France which has halo jump and building jumps ans street chases. The other two are in a snowy mountains and in a men's bathroom. The fights are bare knuckle and the stunts are realistic. One of the interesting aspects of the movie is its use of suspension of disbelief. Thats long been a staple in this franchise. People already have their guards down when it comes to mission impossible movies in terms of suspension of disbelief. One of which is "Tom Cruise never gets hurt no matter the fall or accident". In this movie at the end they address that to certain extent. But in almost all action scenes in the movie there is certain artificiality in the set up of those scenes. In a weird way it feels like the filmmakers started working on this movie with action set pieces and then came up with the script to connect those set pieces. They decided they needed a dark knight-esque action scene in the streets of Paris as opposed to Chicago in the dark knight and a helicopter chase in the snowy mountains. The women are all so ******* beautiful even a female cop who has a brief moment with tom cruise and not to be weird but she looks like a cop from a porn movie.So, there is certain amount of artificiality to all of this. It does play with multiple layered identity reveals and mask usage and all that.That is the third best aspect of the movie after set pieces. But the main twist falls flat and can be seen miles ahead.

The most impressive aspect of the movie that is very unique to this franchise is its cinematic representation of the "impossible". You see, in the spy genre that is mostly dominated by this and bond franchise there are some commonly used tropes namely seduction of women/beautiful women , exotic locations and lead character staying cool. They changed it up a little bit with Daniel Craig in bond franchise to give emotional depth. But his facial features , eye color and hair color sort of made his character hard to connect for audience. But Tom Cruise is a star for reason. His dark hair and looks make him attractive universally. So audience can empathize with his characters. From 4th movie in this franchise I started seeing scenes where Tom Cruise is relentless in getting some McGuffin and he acts like a guy who is just as confused and unsure of himself as the audience member but still tries his best to get it. Dialogues like "I don't know how to do it but I will figure it out" are indication of the vulnerable side of the spy that only Tom Cruise can bring out. There is a scene in this movie towards the end where the relentlessness of tom cruise's character in pursuit of something despite hurting himself and barely outdoing his opponent is the essence of this franchise. Tom cruise can sell the vulnerable side of bond more honestly than Daniel Craig.On another note the links with some characters from previous movies are brought up in this movie and the emotional weight of those scenes is missing. They tried to make this mission much more than it is by tying it up with other things from other movies and those elements felt out of place, But I was impressed with the movies decision to doubling down on the confusing plot of this franchise. Even the from first the movie with exception of 2 this franchise has been criticized for having over convoluted plots but I think its the decision of tom cruise to keep it as a signature element of this franchise despite criticism. Its almost like a heightened version of spy genre with double agents and stuff. The team members exist to brag about Tom cruise's character and are basically a representatives of audience in the movie.

So I would recommend this movie for set pieces and action and most importantly instant gratification of spy elements. You just have to enjoy a scene for what it is and then forget about it because next scene will be something similar. You can't try and connect the last scene with this scene and then the whole movie because its not meant for that kind of viewing. Thats breaks the logic of the movie. As much as I wanna say this is a dumb inconsequential action movie, this movie does have some very unique and awesome scenes and scenarios. It does suffer a little from action overload. There is just a little too much of action for me.

aronisred

07-30-18, 12:28 AM

American Hustle

4

A couple of con artists are forced by an FBI agent to trap politicians willings to take bribery in exchange for freedom. This movie is more about the various characters involved in the movie and less about the con itself.

This movie came into my radar during 2016 oscars when I realized that there was a similar competition between bale and DiCaprio's movies in 2014 oscars as well. Back in 2013-14 I was not much of a behind the scenes guy. I was a fan of Bale and DiCaprio. So like many of my friends,I went to the movies and saw wolf of wall street and enjoyed it. I felt bad for him that he went to jail. Ironically I did not watch American hustle until 2016.So I had to watch the movie first and then browse the internet and went through the news articles and videos of awards and interviews and think pieces to get an idea of what it must have been during that season. After getting a gauge of audience and critical response here is what I found. The critical community very much liked the movie in general. But as it started dominating the nominations and winning ensemble awards at critics choice and screen actors guild awards the movie slowly went mainstream. People started talking about it in the same breath as wolf of wall street. A movie with awards nominations and 50 million gross worldwide is not a mainstream movie. Most people don't tune into oscars season to see what movies were nominated. They tune into to see if the movie they liked or anticipating is nominated for an Oscar or winning it. Occasionally some movies catch fire during the season but if your movie don't catch fire during the season then the Oscar night is not going to give you a 100 million $ bump. So American Hustle went mainstream as a cool movie. Since it made more money domestically than wolf of wall street, its treated as a heavy weight. Reaction from certain mainstream critics and fanboy critics is that the movie is a mild Scorsese ripoff and it doesn't pack any punch. So by the end of the season people who loved it stay loving it. But people who were skeptical about the buzz but watched it to see for themselves or people who didn't like it ,branded it as overrated. If this was a movie aiming at 60 yr olds or it made 40 million worldwide no one would have cared.

So what is the reason behind this backlash from a certain group of audience ? The answer to this question will work as review for the movie. The movie is very layered. Every character has multiple motivations and is selfish. No character in the movie is this all-intelligent and charismatic leader. So the consequences are not life or death. No person you root for is going to jail. You are not even rooting for the lead characters. Christian bale character is the living example of sleazy. He is not attractive to young teenage movie going audience. Amy Adams is not hot enough. Jennifer Lawrence is not exactly popular with teenage or younger male audience. Her fans are teenage girls who look themselves in her because of their own insecurities. Bradley Cooper is also partially repugnant in his desperation and stupidity. So, audience have no one to root for. Compare that to fanboy sensation wolf of Wall Street. It is very elemental. It is a story that travels internationally. Its a success story. This is a guy who starts with nothing and suddenly starts building company and he knows what to say to people and others are amazed by his skills. Which young 15 yr old wouldn't want to be the popular kid in college ? He steals other guys girlfriend and who doesn't want to do that. Moreover the consequences are very very exaggerated. Whenever sex or nudity or drugs or blood or cops or jail time is involved the audience get this adrenaline rush. But all these has to be elemental. The characters have to be two dimensional to sell the movie. You can't have a guy regretting doing drugs in the middle of doing drugs. All these are fanboy stuff. Fanboys love badass roles. Thats the reason people felt deeply about this movie. Its the staying power of the movie. If everyone goes about their lives and one guy doesn't get what he wants but he is still a freeman then where is the fun in that ? if a guys uses drugs and takes his daughter away and crashes his car and bleeds, then that stays with you.

And then we have critics, mostly older than 50 yr old critics who are not hip and buttoned up mostly British. They come into a movie with lot of preconceived notions. They go to a Scorsese movie to praise him and they go to a non-auteur movie to try and identify which styles they copied from auteurs. Its like blood bath during awards season. They try and deny the glory of the movie to filmmakers. I just wish they are more open minded to adding more directors to their "auteur " list. In the end the movie works. The threats feel much more real and less cinematic. This filmmaking is harder to do than Scorsese did with wolf of Wall Street. There is this sense of over acting and over doing to get a reaction. If I kill a baby on screen, I can get a reaction but that doesn't mean its earned. If killing a baby is your way of attracting audience attention then thats called cheap thrills. Christian bale's performance in this movie is far better than DiCaprio's in wolf of wall street. He just screams and shouts and overacts but christian bale gives a nuanced subdued performance. Basically Bale's role is to play an un-intimidating character. Someone who seems harmless and without any schemes. Compare that to the guy from American psycho or the fighter. It is a vastly different range. But one problem with bale is that he is not able to carry the whole movie. Something like there will be blood has Daniel day lewis carrying the whole movie. Even DiCaprio can't carry the whole movie except in wolf of wall street. So somehow bale has to be able to find roles where he can carry the whole movie. Because if anyone knows who christian bale is then one of if not the favorite movie performance of them would be American psycho. Thats one of the movies where he did carry the whole movie. It is interesting why he is not choosing roles where he can chew the scenery like DiCaprio. Because he will be crowd favorite during Oscar season if he does that. Because Oscar race is something where your performance should transcend the move you are in no matter what. Even if your movie is good, your performance should be better. Otherwise your performance will run out of gas the moment nominations are announced. People will start discrediting your performance for even worthy of a nomination, Its really disturbing how vile people can be during that Oscar season.

Jennifer Lawrence for some reason felt out of place and overacting. I am not really sure what critics like about her. Recently I heard an audio interview of Mel Gibson where in he explains the truth about Hollywood. In it he talks about how critics and industry insiders love fresh meat. They will pamper them with rewards and awards if they are directors or actresses or average looking male actors. Slowly things will take a turn because they are no longer fresh meat . DiCaprio is well aware of that. So is Christian bale. The slower the climb the harder to fall. The faster the climb the harder the fall. Thats the reason why actresses are washed up after 35 because their rise is too fast. I think David O Russell movies need to have real elemental and much more strong consequences in his movies. A break up is not something that will travel continents. But a drug overdose will travel continents. Movies need to be dark and funny. And most importantly the lead character needs to be charismatic and good looking. I think masses are attracted to charismatic leads than ugly leads in the movies. Even the drama going crowd. Screaming is great acting according to majority of movie fans. It is such a sad state of affairs. They mock transformations and makeup and period pieces because audience know nothing about skills needed to make movies.

This movie is awesome in the sense that its great entertainment. But the unfortunate thing is the movie never sticks with you. You don't feel emotional about any characters and even the set design in the movie is not something you wanna visit. It is a little cheap looking for its ambitions. The actresses are not bombshells. They are just good looking. Its lacking hyper realism. Its lacking the adrenaline filled rush that can appeal to 15 yr olds. You just have to appreciate christian bale for his weight gain but his character is not someone women wanna sleep with, he is more of a provider than a lover. He supports family. If christian bale looked like he did in The dark knight and the shouted and screamed a lot with full head of hair then the movie might have some teenage fanbase.

Mr Minio

07-30-18, 05:26 AM

Olive Kitteridge (2014) - rating_4

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lxFkVe3XSBM/VbJzvL3ctbI/AAAAAAAAFvY/Gic1zffwSB0/s1600/part04-09-1024.jpg

Not really a film, but a four part miniseries that would have been a film if it weren't built like a miniseries. It's the construction that doesn't make it a film. But semantics aside, the film starts in a somewhat goofy manner with an annoying sweet idiot character of Denise and seemingly predictable plot involving her and a mature husband of eponymous Olive - Henry. The film is unpredictable, though, and even though certain traits are easy to decipher or foretell, the final outcome always leaves you with something new. A new insight, or thought. Apparently McDormand is the most perfect actress for roles of rancorous, unyielding mature women.

Borinage (1933) - rating_3_5

https://www.moma.org/media/W1siZiIsIjExMzAyNCJdLFsicCIsImNvbnZlcnQiLCItcmVzaXplIDIwMDB4MjAwMFx1MDAzZSJdXQ.jpg?sha=51d8963eb1bb7 115

A short documentary about the misery of miners' lives in Belgium. Of course, capitalism if the root of all evil and the only salvation is Marxism. ;)

The Golem: How He Came Into the World (1920) - rating_4

https://i2.wp.com/horrorpedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/the-golem-1920.jpg?ssl=1

Been a while since I've seen a German Expressionism film, and even though this is nowhere near as good as the best in the movement, it's still a ravishing experience. The flower and final scenes are poetic!

Where the Wild Things Are (2009) - rating_2_5

https://filmgrab.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/27-wild-things.png

I wasn't sold on this. I get the meaning behind it, but I simply didn't care about all those weird creatures with ADHD. The film failed to grab me and I found it unappealing. I guess it was too fast-paced and hysterical for my taste.

71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance (1994) - rating_4

http://film.thedigitalfix.com/protectedimage.php?image=NoelMegahey/71fragments2.jpg_19072009&cachedimage=true&width=550

Slowly descending into the nihil! Deconstruction of a baleful day at the bank and everything that led to it. Cold observation with no answers. The fragments of the film are much easier to put together than several pieces that make up a cross, but the great unknown is what lies below.

Young and Innocent (1937) - rating_3

https://thegirlwhoknewtoomuch46.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/cars-with-detectives.gif?w=720

Subpar Hitchcock. So prolix the Polish reader had a hard time keeping up with actors' fast talking. Splendid tracking shot that ends on a blackface. :)

A Pure Formality (1994) - rating_4

http://www.crime-mystery.info/mysterymovies/a-pure-formality-1994.jpg

A chamber room film, a display of Depardieu's and Polański's acting artistry, a great exercise in atmosphere building, and finally - an impossible-to-predict ending.

Queen Kelly (1929) - rating_3_5

https://ajanelaencantada.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/picanos20queenkelly.jpg?w=529&h=362

Erich von Stroheim must've been one of the unluckiest directors ever. This is an unfinished film, and more than half of it had not been made, but what had been made is a madly well-shot harlequinesque melodrama starring the unbelievably charming Gloria Swanson. Norma Desmond was right. It's the pictures that got small.

Iroquois

07-30-18, 10:05 AM

Let the Corpses Tan (Hélène Cattet and Bruno Forzani, 2017) - 3.5

The fact that I liked this considerably more than Cattet and Forzani's last two features suggests one of two things - either they have just improved that much or that spaghetti/acid Western action is a better fit for their aggressively stylish approach than the giallo horror of their previous features. It could even be both. In any case, I enjoyed this quite a bit.

Friday the 13th: A New Beginning (Danny Steinmann, 1985) - 1.5

Finally hitting a noticeable low with this franchise that cranks up the original's POV-heavy angle to absurd new heights with very little to offer in the way of new variations.

The Rider (Chloé Zhao, 2017) - 3

A narratively uncomplicated but emotionally potent indie drama about a young rodeo rider as he deals with the aftermath of a potentially career-ending injury. The down-to-earth choices of amateurs playing fictionalised versions of themselves and focusing on the quietly devastating minutie of its protagonist's external and internal life both make for a solid piece of work.

Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI (Tom McLoughlin, 1986) - 3

I know there's not a whole lot of variation among Friday sequels but as of writing this is probably the best of the ones I've seen so far. A welcome upgrade from part five that creates a good mix of silly, nasty, and engaging.

Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (John Carl Buechler, 1988) - 2

Ehh, this is kinda enjoyable in that it adds a sufficiently crazy novelty in the form of a Carrie-like psychic girl who crosses paths with the latest round of Jason fodder, but yeah, I'm not exactly big on this one.

Winchester '73 (Anthony Mann, 1950) - 3.5

From what I've seen so far, Anthony Mann has proved a rather dependable director, especially in collaboration with James Stewart. This is no exception with its concise tale centred around the eponymous weapon changing hands for better or worse.

The Chaser (Na Hong-jin, 2008) - 2

A disappointingly rote race-against-the-clock thriller where an ex-cop must prove a serial killer's guilt while attempting to rescue his latest victim. Despite showcasing the kind of morally grey darkness one has come to expect from past couple of decades of Korean crime dramas, it's still an underwhelming piece of work.

You Were Never Really Here (Lynne Ramsay, 2017) - 4

The extremely archetypal story of a soldier-of-fortune rescuing defenceless victims from evil people gets a much-needed variation through a combination of both the material's subversive approach to such a tried-and-true subject, Ramsay's distinctive direction resulting in something much more than just simple power-fantasy catharsis, and Joaquin Phoenix turning in one of his better performances as a truly broken warrior.

Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (Rob Hedden, 1989) - 1.5

While there is the novelty of the (relatively brief) relocation of the action from Crystal Lake to Manhattan Island, this currently rivals part five for my least favourite Friday... so far.

Tampopo (Juzo Itami, 1985) - 4

Never watch this movie without some food nearby - such is the power of its food-centric Western parody that uses the classic lone-drifter-helps-town kind of plot as the backbone for a series of vignettes that all work to celebrate food in ways that are weird, wonderful, or both.

aronisred

07-30-18, 12:27 PM

Miami Vice

3

A Michael Mann-esque re-imagination of popular 80's TV show Miami Vice. Only now we have a wannabe huge blockbuster star and an actor coming off best actor Oscar win that the industry want to be a box office star.

Initially I gave it a 4 star rating but when I saw the budget of the movie to speak about box office performance I had to reduce the rating. Michael Mann was in his peak form in the 90s. Not with Oscars but in terms of making memorable to semi memorable movies. Last of the Mahicans , Heat, Man-hunter, insider and it even bled through into early 2000s in Ali and Collateral. For the most part his movies are about manly men doing manly things. But one of the things I like about his movies are that he most certainly is an auteur. There is no doubt about it. He is an auteur. He has a very specific style and an eye for shooting a movie and it not only transcends genres from corporate thriller to crime thrillers it also transcends time periods like in public enemies. That's a very hard thing to do even for some of the great directors. Because your directing style has to be so specific and strong for movie buffs to kinda remind them of you whenever they see particular scenes.

But the problem with Michael Mann from the get go is that he is not a commercially viable director. His style has two major disadvantages and both have to be opposite to each other in a successful business model of movie making. His style of directing is not commercial. Its very heightened reality but without the epic scope to it. He can't capture the epic scale of the movie with his directorial style. And the other disadvantage is that he need huge budgets. For him its all about trying to make unrealistic scenarios feel real. So his directorial style forces the epic scale of the movie to be underplayed. He basically doesn't wanna show off the budget of the movie. In this movie there are sets and shots in the movie that must have costed millions to realize but he just focuses on one character. So he just spend 10 million to realize a background that he is never gonna use. There is scene in this movie with a shipping container which takes place for couple of minutes. All they had to do to reduce the expenses is to shot it on a container that is anchored to the harbor. But the director needed few wide shots for fraction of seconds and and some establishing shots.That jumps the budget. There are long tracking shots of private jets transporting drugs traveling through the clouds , over the fields and landscapes. All these will cost pretty penny. But I don't think I have any movie where a flight have been shot like that. It almost feels like they drove a helicopter into the clouds and waited for the plane to fly by in the clouds to shoot it. The movie was low on action and high on style. The action when takes place is way too confusing and realistic. You feel the gun fires and you know that's the real sound an actual gun makes but for some reason you are not interested in the scene that much.

The plot basically starts with an undercover operation cover getting blown resulting in the death of the family of an undercover agent and himself. The teammates of the guy try to infiltrate the drug trade business as drug traffickers. Their secret identities were set up by government with fabricated track records of crime. The resulting story involves successfully transporting drugs into american border once and then a unsuccessful drug trade involving lot of causalities on both sides. The problem with the story is that they do way deep into drug trade way too fast. They meet the actual boss of the operation even before their first transaction. There is a love story between Colin Farrell character and an Asian business woman. Which obviously makes the things complicated but nonetheless she holds no emotions for him. The kidnap of Jamie Foxx girlfriend and the ensuing circumstances is well done but nothing exceptional. Nothing happens in the movie except few bad guys getting killed and few "tense" moments of men proving their guts. When you are spending 100+ million on a story it better be worth it. Its simple logic. If you want to spend 100 million on a movie then it has to be one of these a) It should have mass appeal or b) It should be a movie worthy of awards. When your movie is very realistic looking then you are going against point a and when you have sex scenes and gratuitous butt shots then you are dropping point b. Then who is this movie for ? Are you expecting Colin Farrell and Jamie foxx to put butts on seats ? they have no blockbuster track record. So this movie needed a miracle to recoup its 135 million $ budget even before production began. That is a very bad business decision by producers and the actors who signed on to the movie.This is not the first time Michael Mann has been through this. Except heat , collateral and last of Mahicans(to some extent) all his other movies have been financial disappointments. Insider and Ali can be considered bombs.These kind of movies can be considered as uncalculated and stupid risks. The movies should leave an impressive on audience if 135 million $ is thrown at them. Even if your auteur style is non commercial it will hurt the box office of the movie.

Having said all that, the movie does have a twist which is a surprise for characters in the movie but not for us.So I think the investment on this movie is a bad investment. It almost feels like a movie which is style over substance. The actors really are not doing much. So its not even a performance piece. Its just there. I hope movies like upcoming Ford v Ferrari by James Mangold takes a leaf from this movie on how to avoid the trappings of a genre or type of movie and give audience a cerebral experience. Audience don't just wanna see normal things and be forced to do work for themselves while watching a movie. They need the director to do stuff that is easy and complex at the same time. Creativity over attention to detail. Detail can be included but only till the point of making it look smart. You don't have to create controlled chaos with no fun. A lot of scenes in this movie are building up to something with no pay off. You need pay off. This movie could have been told for 40 million but director needed 135 million. He spent money on sets for shots that don't even last 5 seconds. Sets are not even building upon existing sets. They are completely new sets. All in all this movie is really a cautionary tale. This movie misses the cool factor and adrenaline factor. Audience will give you their attention for 5-10 in every scene. If the scene doesn't hook you up then you are lost. If there are 10 such scenes in a movie then the movie will not be liked ultimately. I think James Mangold is smarter in this area than Michael Mann because he knows what sells and what doesn't. Its just that his biggest success is based on comic book. So, will he transcend the genre like Nolan as a box office draw ? I don't know but we will have to wait and see.

Sedai

07-30-18, 12:52 PM

Excalibur
(1981, Boorman)

4_5

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KhI-Xs5YF3M/Tx8xh8vOzoI/AAAAAAAAAYE/srKqI_Arzbs/s1600/Excalibur.jpg

It had been quite some time since I had seen this old favorite. As a kid, I watched this thing constantly when it was on HBO etc. back in the early 80s. I recall being sort of let down by the initial DVD release back when it first came out, so I never really took the time to revisit it after the initial DVD viewing. It was sort of a rough transfer and the sound mix was off in some odd ways. This Saturday, I used VuDu's disc-to-digital service to upgrade my DVD to HDX in the cloud, and fired it up. This was probably the best level of quality at which I had ever seen this film. It was magnificent! This film is perfectly cast, and it maintains an aura of enchantment and magic for the entire run time. Nigel Terry is perfect as King Arthur, and Nicol Williamson's Merlin is the best version of the character, hands down. I had remembered the film fondly, but this viewing really brought home how timeless and excellent it really is. Sliding this into my favorites list, at least for a while.

Conan the Barbarian
Milius, 1982

3

https://nichegamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/conan-the-barbarian-12-17-15-2.png

This was another favorite back in the day, around the same time period. Sadly, although it is still fun, it hasn't held up as well over time, mostly due to a couple of poor actors, especially Sandahl Bergman as Valeria, rendering the movie sort of cringe-worthy and awkward in places. Some of the battle scenes seem rather quaint, as well. That said, the film still has plenty going for it, including the always-excellent thematic score and some strong cinematic story-telling.

Predator
McTiernan, 1987

4_5

https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/2016/06/predator_still.jpg

Continuing with the old favorites theme, I fired up this legendary Arnold classic. What a blast. This thing hasn't aged a day, and like Excalibur, the cast is pretty much perfect.Still the most bad-ass collection of ass-kickers in the genre, perhaps only rivaled by the Colonial Marines in Aliens, Predator delivers scene after scene of testosterone fueled action and one-liners, while simultaneously introducing one of the most iconic movie monsters of all time. This film works on all levels, and is entertaining from first frame to last. A couple of plot oddities do raise an eyebrow or two, but man, who cares! It;s all about Arnold and crew leveling jungle with gunfire, cracking wise all the way. Still one of the most bad-ass film experiences ever made.

aronisred

07-30-18, 03:28 PM

Jackie Brown

5

A middle aged money laundering African american airline stewardess plots to save herself from her boss and cops.

This movie is coming after the universal success of pulp fiction. A movie that invented lot of dialogues that we take for granted in English language today. So Tarantino tried to follow that up with much more silent subdued movie. This is a very good movie. It doesn't have blood at all.Except may be on car windows.It however does have a lot of guns.The movie's antagonist is an extremely evil guy played by Samuel L Jackson. His role is evil in a very calm and calculated manner. He is evil in the same way a CEO is evil. They can't really be rude with people but they do hit where it hurts. His character is an illegal gun seller. His money is stuck in some south american country. So he uses people to launder his money into US. One such person is our protagonist, Jackie Brown. We find our antagonist at a stage in his career where he wants to retire. Cops are closing in on him but they can't seem to get enough evidence to nail him for considerable prison time. They desperately want to send him to jail before he covers his tracks and disappears. That's when they get in touch with our protagonist.

The person who helps cops connect our antagonist with our protagonist is killed by our antagonist just to not have any loose ends in a pretty evil way. The greatest trait of our antagonist is to evaluate and deal with people. However over the course of the movie our desperate protagonist beat him at his own game. The characterization of our protagonist is very unique. She is what she looks like. A middle Aged African american air-hostess who seems to be on the last legs of her professional life with no savings. That forces her to take on all these odd criminal jobs and mix up with dangerous people. She is in a situation where she has to help cops catch her "boss" red handed, but her life is already in a ****ty position, so even if she got off by setting up her boss her life is still miserable. They depict that aspect of aging so well in this movie. The movie treats this whole situation as a blessing in disguise. At 44 yrs old to her it's doesn't matter what she has achieved. All that matters is if her future is secure.It is almost like she is made to take risks that has life and death consequences.This situation also brings out the street smart attitude in her. The supporting cast involves Robert Forster , Bridget Fonda, Michael Keaton and Robert De Niro. I think casting is one of the strong suites of Tarantino. He doesn't go after top actors unless he needs 100 million $ budget. Any budget between 30 and 50 million is something he can get just using his name value. So the casting in this movie for the most part excluding De Niro could be non-finance motivated. Even De Niro felt like he is at home in this role. Robert Forster plays an easy going guy who works for the law and this whole situation is his little risky adventure in his life. He seems to be an uptight guy with no shady stuff.Bridget Fonda plays a role that can only be described as a biatch. She is one of those girls who has all the attention her whole life from a very young age. Then she used her charms to travel the world by dating different guys and then in the end she ended up with the antagonist due to his financial security. De Niro plays a bum. He plays a role which is partially a bum and partially a loose canon. What you realize looking at him is that this guy is a fck-up but he also doesn't seem to have the social contract every human have to abide by. People get mad during lot of situations like break up , road rages , sports or in any other public places. But in all those places no one for the most part is gonna kill the other person because they abide by a social contract. But once in a while you see someone on news who breaks the contract and ends up in jail. The relationship between De Niro and Bridget Fonda is one such thing. It's a slow moving train wreck waiting to happen. She is nagging and he doesn't abide by social contract. So he is slowly getting more and more angry until the whole thing reaches to a deadly end.

The sting of getting antagonist caught redhanded at the same time making some money for herself on side that can set her up for life is very interesting. It's not complicated and its not simple. It's complicated to the point of interesting. That's where most directors fail. They make it complicated to the point of either appearing clever or serious. But Tarantino just makes it entertaining. Characters feel lived in. They feel like they have some baggage to them. Some criminal past. Only odd bit of casting which didn't really work out is Michael Keaton as ambitious cop. He doesn't fit the bill nor does he add much to the story. No one made use of Keaton's uniqueness in this movie. He is just this cop who wants to make a name for himself. Replace him with Tim Roth and it would have been the same. Although there is some amount of officialism to Keaton.He doesn't look like someone who would do well undercover. The weaknesses are that there is some looseness in the plot. Cops felt a little dumb. They were cheated way too often. Samuel L Jackson didn't react like a cat cornered in a room. He acted more calm and cool than he should. But in a way what that says is that everybody under estimated Jackie Brown. The cops thought she may steal some small sum of money from the sting. Samuel L Jackson thought she is too scared to make a deal with cops and she would just be stupid to steal the money, so he never anticipated a cop overseeing the trap. That part is brilliant. There is another brilliant thing that I caught which may or may not be intentional is that in the movie there is a scene involving Robert Forster which would be the first scene in the whole movie where his character is actually getting his hands dirty in criminal life that could potentially kill him. It involves going into a dressing room to pick up a bag. The set up for that moment is that the protagonist leaves a bag in the room for Robert Forster to pick up. But she informs to the lady at the cash counter that there is a bag someone left in the dressing room, so that it wouldn't be weird when Ben Forster walk's up to the lady at the counter and ask for his forgotten bag. That's a clever element in the story. To tie up some loose ends. But if he wished Tarantino could have made it more complicated than it is by making the counter lady doubt the bag or open the bag before Forster shows and see that there is something worthy in it. That could have thrown a wrench into Jackie Brown's plans because the moment she sees the money, cops would have been called. But the scene flows so smoothly that the counter lady doesn't even go to dressing room to check what Jackie told. She is just on her phone after Jackie mentions her about the bag. Even when Forster approaches about his forgotten bag, she wouldn't assist him into the dressing room, she just lets him go by himself and pick it up. That's very smooth and uncomplicated compared to the rest of the story. To me that scene is a metaphor to the statement "try your best and god will take care of the rest". This whole sting is a complicated plot with Jackie at the center of it and she could get killed at any moment. But she pulled off most of it and so the higher power kinda helped her by not creating the counter lady as an obstacle. May be I am reading too much into it but even she kinda looked like an angel in the middle of this mean , complicated , sleazy human beings. Angel who helped her enforce her plan casually. This sting also forces Forster to step up his game to risk his boring life for once to do something highly dangerous. In the end Jackie Brown proves to be much more dangerous and smart than rest of the characters in the movie.

Ultraviolence

07-30-18, 03:32 PM

The Chaser (Na Hong-jin, 2008) - rating_2

A disappointingly rote race-against-the-clock thriller where an ex-cop must prove a serial killer's guilt while attempting to rescue his latest victim. Despite showcasing the kind of morally grey darkness one has come to expect from past couple of decades of Korean crime dramas, it's still an underwhelming piece of work.

One of my favorites from South Korea!

aronisred

07-31-18, 10:24 AM

American Hustle

4

A couple of con artists are forced by an FBI agent to trap politicians willing to take bribery in exchange for freedom. This movie is more about the various characters involved in the movie and less about the con itself.

This movie came into my radar during 2016 oscars when I realized that there was a similar competition between bale and DiCaprio's movies in 2014 oscars as well. Back in 2013-14 I was not much of a behind the scenes guy. I was a fan of Bale and DiCaprio. So like many of my friends,I went to the movies and saw wolf of wall street and enjoyed it. I felt bad for him that he went to jail. Ironically I did not watch American hustle until 2016.So I had to watch the movie first and then browse the internet and went through the news articles and videos of awards and interviews and think pieces to get an idea of what it must have been during that season. After getting a gauge of audience and critical response here is what I found. The critical community very much liked the movie in general. But as it started dominating the nominations and winning ensemble awards at critics choice and screen actors guild awards the movie slowly went mainstream. People started talking about it in the same breath as wolf of wall street. A movie with awards nominations and 50 million gross worldwide is not a mainstream movie. Most people don't tune into oscars season to see what movies were nominated. They tune into to see if the movie they liked or anticipating is nominated for an Oscar or winning it. Occasionally some movies catch fire during the season but if your movie don't catch fire during the season then the Oscar night is not going to give you a 100 million $ bump. So American Hustle went mainstream as a cool movie. Since it made more money domestically than wolf of wall street, its treated as a heavy weight. Reaction from certain mainstream critics and fanboy critics is that the movie is a mild Scorsese ripoff and it doesn't pack any punch. So by the end of the season people who loved it stay loving it. But people who were skeptical about the buzz but watched it to see for themselves or people who didn't like it ,branded it as overrated. If this was a movie aiming at 60 yr olds or it made 40 million worldwide no one would have cared.

So what is the reason behind this backlash from a certain group of audience ? The answer to this question will work as review for the movie. The movie is very layered. Every character has multiple motivations and is selfish. No character in the movie is this all-intelligent and charismatic leader. So the consequences are not life or death. No person you root for is going to jail. You are not even rooting for the lead characters. Christian bale character is the living example of sleazy. He is not attractive to young teenage movie going audience. Amy Adams is not hot enough. Jennifer Lawrence is not exactly popular with teenage or younger male audience. Her fans are teenage girls who look themselves in her because of their own insecurities. Bradley Cooper is also partially repugnant in his desperation and stupidity. So, audience have no one to root for. Compare that to fanboy sensation wolf of Wall Street. It is very elemental. It is a story that travels internationally. Its a success story. This is a guy who starts with nothing and suddenly starts building company and he knows what to say to people and others are amazed by his skills. Which young 15 yr old wouldn't want to be the popular kid in college ? He steals other guys girlfriend and who doesn't want to do that. Moreover the consequences are very very exaggerated. Whenever sex or nudity or drugs or blood or cops or jail time is involved the audience get this adrenaline rush. But all these has to be elemental. The characters have to be two dimensional to sell the movie. You can't have a guy regretting doing drugs in the middle of doing drugs. All these are fanboy stuff. Fanboys love badass roles. Thats the reason people felt deeply about this movie. Its the staying power of the movie. If everyone goes about their lives and one guy doesn't get what he wants but he is still a freeman then where is the fun in that ? if a guys uses drugs and takes his daughter away and crashes his car and bleeds, then that stays with you.

And then we have critics, mostly older than 50 yr old critics who are not hip and buttoned up mostly British. They come into a movie with lot of preconceived notions. They go to a Scorsese movie to praise him and they go to a non-auteur movie to try and identify which styles they copied from auteurs. Its like blood bath during awards season. They try and deny the glory of the movie to filmmakers. I just wish they are more open minded to adding more directors to their "auteur " list. In the end the movie works. The threats feel much more real and less cinematic. This filmmaking is harder to do than Scorsese did with wolf of Wall Street. There is this sense of over acting and over doing to get a reaction. If I kill a baby on screen, I can get a reaction but that doesn't mean its earned. If killing a baby is your way of attracting audience attention then thats called cheap thrills. Christian bale's performance in this movie is far better than DiCaprio's in wolf of wall street. He just screams and shouts and overacts but christian bale gives a nuanced subdued performance. Basically Bale's role is to play an un-intimidating character. Someone who seems harmless and without any schemes. Compare that to the guy from American psycho or the fighter. It is a vastly different range. But one problem with bale is that he is not able to carry the whole movie. Something like there will be blood has Daniel day lewis carrying the whole movie. Even DiCaprio can't carry the whole movie except in wolf of wall street. So somehow bale has to be able to find roles where he can carry the whole movie. Because if anyone knows who christian bale is then one of if not the favorite movie performance of them would be American psycho. Thats one of the movies where he did carry the whole movie. It is interesting why he is not choosing roles where he can chew the scenery like DiCaprio. Because he will be crowd favorite during Oscar season if he does that. Because Oscar race is something where your performance should transcend the move you are in no matter what. Even if your movie is good, your performance should be better. Otherwise your performance will run out of gas the moment nominations are announced. People will start discrediting your performance for even worthy of a nomination, Its really disturbing how vile people can be during that Oscar season.

Jennifer Lawrence for some reason felt out of place and overacting. I am not really sure what critics like about her. Recently I heard an audio interview of Mel Gibson where in he explains the truth about Hollywood. In it he talks about how critics and industry insiders love fresh meat. They will pamper them with rewards and awards if they are directors or actresses or average looking male actors. Slowly things will take a turn because they are no longer fresh meat . DiCaprio is well aware of that. So is Christian bale. The slower the climb the harder to fall. The faster the climb the harder the fall. Thats the reason why actresses are washed up after 35 because their rise is too fast. I think David O Russell movies need to have real elemental and much more strong consequences in his movies. A break up is not something that will travel continents. But a drug overdose will travel continents. Movies need to be dark and funny. And most importantly the lead character needs to be charismatic and good looking. I think masses are attracted to charismatic leads than ugly leads in the movies. Even the drama going crowd. Screaming is great acting according to majority of movie fans. It is such a sad state of affairs. They mock transformations and makeup and period pieces because audience know nothing about skills needed to make movies.

This movie is awesome in the sense that its great entertainment. But the unfortunate thing is the movie never sticks with you. You don't feel emotional about any characters and even the set design in the movie is not something you wanna visit. It is a little cheap looking for its ambitions. The actresses are not bombshells. They are just good looking. Its lacking hyper realism. Its lacking the adrenaline filled rush that can appeal to 15 yr olds. You just have to appreciate christian bale for his weight gain but his character is not someone women wanna sleep with, he is more of a provider than a lover. He supports family. If christian bale looked like he did in The dark knight and the shouted and screamed a lot with full head of hair then the movie might have some teenage fanbase.

Iroquois

08-01-18, 12:03 AM

^not only did you post the review twice and fill it with the same stuff you've been complaining about since day one (which seems to happen quite a bit in your reviews), but what really gets me is that the final paragraph refers to it as a great movie that also "never sticks with you" and is a cheap-looking, unemotional experience.

One of my favorites from South Korea!

I'd have to double-check but it might actually be my least favourite of the South Korean films I've seen (but that's still not so bad).

Ultraviolence

08-01-18, 08:12 AM

American Hustle

rating_4

Django Unchained

rating_3

Mission Impossible : Fall out

rating_4

It's nice to see that you really enjoy to write reviews, but why you don't make a thead only for your reviews? Like "aronisred movie reviews". It's a good way to not flood the Movie Tab and you can have a better control of your reviews.

ScarletLion

08-01-18, 08:21 AM

^not only did you post the review twice and fill it with the same stuff you've been complaining about since day one (which seems to happen quite a bit in your reviews), but what really gets me is that the final paragraph refers to it as a great movie that also "never sticks with you" and is a cheap-looking, unemotional experience.

I'd have to double-check but it might actually be my least favourite of the South Korean films I've seen (but that's still not so bad).

I agree about The Chaser being underwhelming. It never really gripped me. The Yellow Sea by the same director is far better.

Ultraviolence

08-01-18, 08:39 AM

I agree about The Chaser being underwhelming. It never really gripped me. The Yellow Sea by the same director is far better.

I begin to think that I'm a Na Hong-Jin fanboy. I loved all of his work so far. The Yellow Sea is amazing, but my only problem was the shaky cam, The Chaser is a more solid movie, but I like both of them equally. The Wailing was my favorite movie of 2016!

ScarletLion

08-01-18, 08:40 AM

I begin to think that I'm a Na Hong-Jin fanboy. I loved all of his work so far. The Yellow Sea is amazing, but my only problem was the shaky cam, The Chaser is a more solid movie, but I like both of them equally. The Wailing was my favorite movie of 2016!

I've not seen the Wailing as I'm not a massive Horror fan, but I'm tempted to give it a go.

Ultraviolence

08-01-18, 08:43 AM

I've not seen the Wailing as I'm not a massive Horror fan, but I'm tempted to give it a go.

I see The Wailing as a Supernatural Thriller but IMDB doesn't agree with me.:)

TheUsualSuspect

08-01-18, 08:46 AM

Leviathan (Lucien Castaing-Taylor and Véréna Paravel, 2012) - 4
A documentary about a fishing trawler that opts to eschew conventions like talking heads or narration in favour of abstract displays of light and sound that aim to create an overwhelming sense of the harsh conditions that these people must operate in instead of merely explaining it, the process of which mostly works up until the point at which one wonders if this isn't just empty aestheticisation. Either way, I don't think I gave Dead Slow Ahead enough credit for doing similar work.

I saw a trailer for this and thought to myself....Iro would watch this and probably give it a 5 star review. You might have only given it a 4 star review, but I was close.

cricket

08-01-18, 08:51 AM

July, 2018 movies watched-

A Star is Born (1937) 3.5+ A nice surprise thanks mostly to Fredric March.

The Strangers: Prey at Night (2018) 3- I liked it more than the first.

Bachelor Mother (1939) 3 Enjoyable but very safe.

Shura (Demons) (1971) 4.5- Another new favorite out of Japan.

Samsara (2001) 2.5 Gentlemen's rating because I don't find fault, but it's not for me at all.

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936) 4 Capra and Cooper doing what Capra and Cooper do.

Pepe Le Moko (1937) 3.5+ A case in which the setting substantially elevates the rest of the movie.

The Baby of Macon (1993) 1.5 Very theatrical and mostly dull.

Blockers (2018) 3+ Simple and entertaining comedy.

Gunga Din (1939) 3 If you're looking for an old adventure film, this should fill your need.

Zero Day (2003) 3+ Yet another chilling school shooting movie.

Lost Souls (1980) 3 Sick fun.

Hard Romanticker (2011) 3 Japanese crime film that I thought needed more structure to be great.

The Informer (1935) 3.5 Very good noirish type from John Ford.

Child Bride (1938) 1.5- A bad film that never should have been made, but should be remade.

Funny Games (1997) Repeat viewing 3 I'd probably love it from a different director.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) Repeat viewing 2.5+ I wanted to love it but just didn't.

Bad Timing (1980) 3.5 Erotic psychological thriller from director Nicolas Roeg.

Pan's Labyrinth (2006) Repeat viewing 4 Guillermo del Toro is my only gateway to fantasy.

Come and See (1985) 4.5 Strong stuff.

Monkey Business (1931) 3.5 Typical Marx Brothers-very funny.

Beyond the Darkness (1979) 2 It has it's moments.

Anna Karenina (1935) 2.5 Not bad but I wasn't crazy about Greta Garbo and it felt rushed.

Naked (1993) Repeat viewing 4 I liked Johnny even more the second time around.

You Were Never Really Here (2017) 2.5 My kind of movie or else I would have hated it.

Make Way for Tomorrow (1937) 4 So simple yet so sad.

Humanity and Paper Balloons (1937) 3+ Pretty good Japanese film but I wanted more.

Of Mice and Men (1939) 4+ Great storytelling and characters.

I Was Born, But... (1932) 3.5 Very charming silent from director Ozu.

Wild Boys of the Road (1933) 3.5 Depression era drama that's well worth watching.

Boys Town (1938) 3 A good story and strong showings from Spencer Tracy and Mickey Rooney.

Cosmopolis (2012) 2- My least favorite David Cronenberg film.

Camille (1936) 3 Seemingly my type of tragic love story, yet something prevented me from being totally enchanted.

The Thin Man (1934) Repeat viewing 3.5 William Powell and Myrna Loy make for a brilliant husband and wife team.

Duck Soup (1933) 3 Entertaining, but I was shocked that this was my least favorite Marx Bros movie of the 4 I've now seen.

Humanity and Paper Balloons (1937) Repeat viewing 3+ A small improvement over my first viewing maybe.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931) Repeat viewing 4 So glad I watched this again.

Total July viewings-37
Total 2018 viewings-197

Iroquois

08-01-18, 09:00 AM

I saw a trailer for this and thought to myself....Iro would watch this and probably give it a 5 star review. You might have only given it a 4 star review, but I was close.

I rarely give out anything higher than a 4 on a first watch (especially not the full 5).

re93animator

08-01-18, 09:40 AM

Apartment Zero (1988) – 4
A mysterious tenant moves into an Argentinian flat and develops a homoerotic relationship with a neurotic film fanatic. Their neighbors are all shades of eccentric. My favorite kind. Dialogue feels very alien and unrealistic, but I still like it. The characters are odd enough to make the often-unnatural conversations seem fitting.

Blank City (2010) – 3
Documentary about no wave/post-punk/New York underground cinema predominantly in the early 80s. It’s a pretty cut and dry doc, and would probably only appease those that like the sleazy trash culture and nihilistic grit.

Coma (1978) – 2.5
A nurse investigates a hospital conspiracy that leaves patients comatose. It takes an hour or so to pick up, but it’s enjoyable once it turns into a tacky thriller.

Genesis (1998) – 3
A half hour horror film about a sculptor becoming a bit too attached to one of his works (one of many insufferably sarcastic ways I could’ve phrased that). It’s a dialogue-free one man show. Pretty good and nasty, and even at 30 minutes doesn’t rush itself.

Hamlet Goes Business (1987) – 3.5
A neo-noir about an extramarital-driven murder inciting a familial business feud and a Coen-esque chain of events. It has Kaurismaki’s hallmarks: deadpan wit and rock n roll. One the better ones I’ve seen from him.

Mr Minio

08-01-18, 11:01 AM

Lost Souls (1980) 3 Sick fun. I see I myself rate it four naked slave market merchandise for sale out of five.

aronisred

08-01-18, 04:27 PM

Invasion of the body snatchers(1978)

4

A group of people witness the Inevitable invasion of earth by an alien species.

We start the movie with an alien parasite entering Earth's atmosphere and ends up in the house of one of our protagonists. As she witness her husband becoming alien in his behavior she can't help but live in fear and uncertainty and ultimately teams up with her friends. The movie has a very paranoid atmosphere to it. The movie fed off the urban paranoia and cold war era fear among people during the time of making this movie. It is during 60s and 70s that most of the huge building we see today were built. So people at that time are still adjusting to these massive cities with dense populations where you don't know who the guy next you is from. There is certain paranoia to it. Even now, in cities like New York with dense populations, you have a dense group of people from varying backgrounds who come from varying lives that are forced to live close to each other.

So apart from taking inspiration from the time period what does the director add to the movie ? well, the most surprising aspect of the movie is the time it takes to set up the uneasiness of the environment. More than half way through the movie, our characters are unsure of whats happening in the movie. The movie tried to pull of a Marathon man/ Three days of condor type of thriller but the antagonist in the movie is so omnipresent that there is this sense of doom in the movie. Where as in those thrillers, you can reach a conclusive ending. Once the reveal happens in a sauna as to the process of how alien takes over human beings with each passing minutes we see the scope of the alien presence increase. So by the time the intense encounters happen, our protagonists have no other choice except to escape and hope nothing bad happens to them.

The practical effects of aliens are impressive. Donald Sutherland, the protagonist is a odd actor to portray leads. He doesn't have the looks of a guy whom audience want to follow into a movie. He has a very weird look. The movie asks us to follow him and root for him during this dire circumstances. But he doesn't look like the kind of guy you wanna follow. However the script helps us in that aspect. I wish the movie had some kind of satisfactory conclusion. May be not completely. But some kind of positive closure for our leads where in they escapes the part of land which is over run by aliens and has to figure out a way to fight than what we got. Which is basically everyone is doomed. The weirdness of the situations and plan of aliens to overtake the planet seems very practical. Its very much possible that you don't know who to trust in scenarios like that.At the same time the aliens would wanna overtake the earth as smoothly and with as little resistance as possible. So they are just easing people into it during their sleep. The movie also has corporate/capitalistic undertones to it, where in people are just following rules blindly and loosing their personal identity.

The movie is a solid thriller. With elements of horror to it. There is nothing ground breaking to it. The scenes and story lines are not meshed together smoothly. You can see the parts of the machine sticking out. Its not a fine tuned edited movie. I can clearly see why this movie didn't have a high profile cast. The movie is not character based, its plot based. The plot is stronger than characters.

Camo

08-01-18, 04:53 PM

July Watches:

The Conjuring 2 1
I Accuse My Parents* 0.5
A Night at the Opera 2.5
Murder! 2.5
Hugo 4.5
Liebelei 2.5+
Design for Living 5
Moneyball 4.5
Little Caesar 2
The Sandlot 2.5
Holiday 4.5
The Poughkeepsie Tapes 3.5
1408 1.5-
The Women 3+
Romancing The Stone 3-
Limite 3.5
Cold Fish 4-
Strange Circus 3
Contempt 4.5+
The Story of the Last Chrysanthemum 5
7 Days In Hell 3+
Osaka Elegy 3.5
14 Cameras 1
Without Bias 3
I Hate Christian Laettner 3.5-
Scarface 2.5
Fantastic Lies 3+
Winning Time 3.5
Tully 3.5-
You Can't Take It With You 2-
Gregory's Girl 3-
Ruggles of Red Gap 4-
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? 3.5+
The Nutty Professor 2.5
Blood 3.5+
La Chienne 4
Casa De Lava 3
Mr. Deeds Goes To Town 3.5
Fury 3.5-
Ossos 4-
Cabaret 3.5-
I Wish 3+
Like Father, Like Son 4.5+
Jezebel 3.5
Our Little Sister 3

* Watched the MST3K Episode of this, you see the whole movie though it's just like listening to a commentary with a bit of an obstructed screen and they are the only way i'd ever see those films.

Couldn't be bothered with directors and years, usually type them out in my Movie Log throughout the month so i just have to copy and paste but i haven't been around since May. Scarface is 30's, Nutty Professor is Jerry Lewis ftr.

July Watches: 46
2018 Watches: 280

Sedai

08-01-18, 04:54 PM

Invasion of the body snatchers(1978)

4
The practical effects of aliens are impressive. Donald Sutherland, the protagonist is a odd actor to portray leads. He doesn't have the looks of a guy whom audience want to follow into a movie. He has a very weird look. The movie asks us to follow him and root for him during this dire circumstances. But he doesn't look like the kind of guy you wanna follow. However the script helps us in that aspect. I wish the movie had some kind of satisfactory conclusion. May be not completely. But some kind of positive closure for our leads where in they escapes the part of land which is over run by aliens and has to figure out a way to fight than what we got. Which is basically everyone is doomed. The weirdness of the situations and plan of aliens to overtake the planet seems very practical. Its very much possible that you don't know who to trust in scenarios like that.At the same time the aliens would wanna overtake the earth as smoothly and with as little resistance as possible. So they are just easing people into it during their sleep. The movie also has corporate/capitalistic undertones to it, where in people are just following rules blindly and loosing their personal identity.

Agree on Sutherland, in that he is sort of an odd duck/strange choice in the lead role. I think he does a great job with the part, though. Meanwhile...the ending is awesome! Grim and unrelenting, I actually prefer this ending to that of the original. Totally bleak and the final shot of Sutherland is haunting - it scared the hell out of me when I first saw the film at a young age. There are a couple of other clunky aspects to this film, but the ending is perfect, IMO.

July Watches:
The Sandlot 2.5

Don't blaspheme in here! ;)

Camo

08-01-18, 04:57 PM

Don't blaspheme in here! ;)

Would have loved it as a kid and probably would still now, just saw it way too late.

Sedai

08-01-18, 05:05 PM

Would have loved it as a kid and probably would still now, just saw it way too late.

I saw it in theaters when it first came out, and although I was not a kid at the time, I loved how the film captured that whole "everything is bigger when we were kids" aspect. The dog seemed like a towering monster etc.. I always have fun watching this one.

Mr Minio

08-02-18, 04:05 AM

Night at the Crossroads (1932) - rating_3

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41XyI9ZZszL.jpg

A decent Renoir crime film. Interesting, but nothing great. What a spicy Danish dame, tho!

The traitress (1911) - rating_3_5

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fv8dIH4ntW0/TMuwUAN-27I/AAAAAAAAAa4/JU0naoTq8T0/s1600/verraeterin011.jpg

Another Urban Gad film with Asta Nielsen. They married a year later. Not as great as Afgrunden, but a solid film nevertheles!

Taira Clan Saga (1955) - rating_4

http://rarefilm.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Shin-Heike-monogatari-1955-1.jpg

Not as Mizoguchian as you'd expect. For one, it's not melodramatic enough, and besides it is shot in color - what is this sorcery? Otherwise an absorbing look into the Heian era of Japanese history. Back when Chinese influences were the strongest and samurai were disrespected.

Queen of Sports (1934) - rating_4

https://silentsplease.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/03-queen-of-sports-tiyu-huanghou-lili-li-climb.gif

Sure, this is a sports propaganda film enticing entire nation to pick up sport and do their best. It's formulaic yet highly enjoyable. However, the true beauty of the film is Lili Li. She is so stunning, marvelous, wonderful my heart had been stopping at times! Truly an outstanding diva of 30s Chinese cinema!

Little Toys (1933) - rating_3_5

http://silentfilm.blob.core.windows.net/assets/Standard/PAGE/1220/large/this_is_theLittleToys_original.jpg

Even more silly yet charming nationalistic propaganda. Quite understandable given Japan's aggresive expansion politics including occupation of a large part of the country. We're talking 1933 here and only four years later the Nankin Massacre took place. Propaganda aside, the film has some charming, beautiful scenes including one of Lili Li and her presumed boyfriend sitting together back-to-back on a river's bank while the rest of the cast peeps at them. Lingyu Ruan is outstanding as a tragic mother, and Lili Li has officially joined my crushes list.

A Girl Is a Gun (1971) - rating_4

http://rarefilm.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Une-aventure-de-Billy-The-Kid-1970-2.jpg

Probably inspired by El Topo and I wouldn't be surprised to find out it inspired Żuławski. The theme of vengeance so unoriginal in the context of the genre (western) had been used in a truly original and one-of-its-kind way. Leaud's the man!

the samoan lawyer

08-02-18, 09:48 AM

I see The Wailing as a Supernatural Thriller but IMDB doesn't agree with me.:)

I agree with you UV. Very good film but not a horror.

aronisred

08-02-18, 02:56 PM

Kill Bill: Vol 1

3

A retired assassin takes revenge on her former colleagues and boss who wronged her.

This is a movie which showed a different side of Quentin Tarantino to the movie buff world. The controversial side. The side that appeals to guys who think "getting away with unlawful stuff" is cool. Until this point in his career Tarantino made movies that are measured and quite frankly hard to pull off. Its hard to get a reaction from audience when you make a measured movie. The moment you take balls to the walls approach to the movie making process its easy to get a reaction from audience. Tarantino follows the McGuffin approach to movie making. You show something at an earlier point in the story and then use it later and that's the ah ha moment for audience. The moment you can surprise audience in a good way you got them for good.

The movie starts with our protagonist put to coma and in hospital where she is abused. The movie is a revenge story. Its revenge on people who wronged her every step along the way. Tarantino is much more interested in the concept of female rage rather than the skill of revenge or the revenge itself. Through out the whole saga her rage splatters across the movies. You buy into the fact the literal manifestation of the line from Batman begins "training is nothing, will is everything". However fantastical it is, Tarantino grounds it in a real way. Two of the common cliches this movie avoids is the way in which it plays with time. Usually in revenge movies there are two cliches on how the wronged person takes revenge. They either all of a sudden become clever and skilled enough to take revenge, which is highly uncharacteristic and unbelievable or there will be this huge training montage. But Tarantino sort of subverts it by establishing that she is an ex-assassin. Otherwise she wouldn't be in mix with the type of people who killed her. So, that's a change. And moreover audience are no longer left to wonder how she is so skilled.The movie is set up as a video game with two levels. One character even has a montage to establish her character background. The first opponent in level-1 is encountered in one to one fight. The director uses deception and disguise and toughness of these assassins to enhance the fight. The way the fight is made interesting is through realistic punches, blood, gore and characters struggling. Then the rest of the movie is used for level-2 or the second opponent. Her montage doesn't do anything special except mesh Japanese manga with an american movie. The whole part of the movie in Asia is more a style over substance exercise. The story doesn't move but the director is just taking his time to entertain audience. It really is a very weird way to tell the story. He is fetishizing Asian culture and camera movements and lead up to a blood bath. Dialogue is not that great. Every dialogue is set up to be punchline. Except it isn't. That's okay.So the entire third act is the fight. This can be considered as a fight oriented film making. Its Tarantino showing off that he is an action director. The movie leads into the next one almost directly.

So the reception for this movie is good. Since Kill Bill was the first Tarantino movie that went full on Blood and gore,people didn't embrace it as a awards heavy weight like Hateful eight was embraced. As I said in my avatar review, "if your movie is dealing in a whole new play ground then it is hard for critics to compare it to another movie". Kill Bill can't necessarily be compared to female driven movies like Thelma and Louise or Erin brokovich. Neither can it be compared to martial arts movie like jackie chan or bruce lee movies. It can't be compared to bloody movies or revenge movies or spy assassin movies. Its a hybrid of all those movies and it's on steroids. So the message to be taken from this movie is that if you can develop a niche and somehow try and force it to become mainstream, then you can create a unique voice for yourself and also you will have no competition and you can stay fresh. I think there is a new up and coming director who has that skill called Jeremy Saulnier. He just need to be able to go mainstream. Because I saw his two movies, blue ruin and green room.i can tell you that he most definitely is tapping into this weird niche. Its just that his niche is not popping out of the screen and in addition to that his movies feel like straight to video kind of movies. They are more middle america movies. And its not hard to copy the style. But I think that's the biggest take away from this movie. Until before this movie, if someone other than Tarantino directed Inglourious Basterds people wouldn't make a peep. But you can tell after kill Bill, that the guy who directed it is the same guy who did basterds , django and hateful. Thats a style cemented with this movie. Its like a saga. You are with this character the whole time and you sense her wrath the whole time.

Iroquois

08-05-18, 11:31 AM

Ulysses' Gaze (Theo Angelopoulos, 1995) - 3.5

I ran through a bunch of Angelopoulos' films a while back and liked them well enough but felt that a) I wasn't giving them that fair a shake and b) I still wanted to see more of them. This is about par for the course with its elaborately-staged long takes, eerily beautiful sense of environmental and spiritual desolation, and spellbinding path in and out of time and memory.

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (Juan Antonio Bayona, 2018) - 1.5

A significant step up from its predecessor as it moves away from aggressive blandness into something that may not be all that much better in the long run but at least makes some stabs at doing something genuinely new with the franchise and very occasionally gets it right.

La grande illusion (Jean Renoir, 1937) - 3

One of those instances where I can readily recognise its importance and influence on the prison genre (to say nothing of Renoir's craftsmanship), but on a personal level I found it a bit hard to truly get invested in.

Come and See (Elem Klimov, 1985) - 4.5

This film certainly does an astonishing job of earning its reputation as a serious war-is-hell film where the relentless and ever-present atrocity on display never does feel unearned or gratuitous.

Mission: Impossible (Brian DePalma, 1996) - 4

I really should write a new review, the old one is so bad I'm not even going to link to it (and you're wasting your time looking for it). In any case, I'll currently call this my favourite of the series due to its considerable rewatchability.

Mission: Impossible II (John Woo, 2000) - 3

Original review found here (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1363039-mission-impossible-ii.html). You know what, screw it, I'm just going to put this rating on the positive side. It's got some readily-observable flaws (pacing being a key one as that front half's quite sluggish) but at least I have some fun with it.

Mission: Impossible III (J.J. Abrams, 2006) - 1.5

Original review found here (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1362377-mission-impossible-iii.html). Yeah, this is still my least favourite of the bunch. A good point of comparison would be the fourth Fast and Furious movie, coming across as little more than dully utilitarian connective tissue between the rough but distinctive early installments and the refined formula of the later ones. If I plan another run-through of the series in the lead-up to the seventh Mission then there's actually a sizeable chance that I'll skip this one.

Morvern Callar (Lynne Ramsay, 2002) - 4

Third Ramsay film and it's at least a little less bleak (if not that much less) thanks to its appreciably existentialist tale of a woman dealing with the aftermath of her boyfriend's suicide. Now I just need to watch Ratcatcher.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (Brad Bird, 2011) - 3.5

Original review found here (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1377001-mission-impossibleghost-protocol.html). I'd say it holds up just fine and proves more re-watchable than I expected.

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (Christopher McQuarrie, 2015) - 3.5

Original review found here (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1363085-mission-impossible-%E2%80%93-rogue-nation.html). Still undecided as to whether or not to rank it higher than Ghost Protocol - it's a slightly more focused and singular entry, though it still has a few of the same flaws.

aronisred

08-06-18, 12:10 AM

The missing(2003)

1

A doctor looses her daughter to sex trafficking native Americans in late 1800s. The movie follows her journey to rejoin with her daughter all while navigating through racially divided America.

This movie takes place in a time when Europeans have claimed the land at the end of Indian wars. There are still Indian soldiers out for revenge on western settlers. So settles have to be on the watch while building cities. Its directed by Ron Howard. Who I have already said in my review for Rush is a journey men aka mediocre director. He has no directorial signature. The traditional way guys like these get to direct movies are , during the early stages of career they show promise in the way they work under pressure on movie sets. Like an assistant director or second unit director. If some executive notices it then they get a small movie to direct. Slowly they find scripts at a studio that they feel they can direct and that are commercially viable. If they succeed at that stage then they up the stars of the movie like Tom Hanks or Russell Crowe. Eventually the tastes of movie going audience change with generation. These directors can't catch up with that. They are still in late 90s style of movie making. Ron Howard is like that. Somewhere around this movie and cinderella man his style sort of died and stopped making relevance. This is one of his last really good movies.

The movie starts and you get a sense of what to come. Movies like these where the surroundings are overwhelming and vast should never bend the nature to be a showcase for actors' acting. Actors should bend to the surroundings. Cate Blanchett is one of those actresses who is not too pretty to be a model. So she fits the bill for a serious actress. Director wastes no time to inform the plight of this family. various characters are introduced in the family and you get a sense that the director is going for the "acting" part of it. I can almost sense his thought process while making it - "even though this is a period thriller, I might sneak in few acting Oscar nominations through this movie". This sense of "acting" only increases the moment Tommy Lee Jones shows up. I can feel him thinking about his performance more than plot or narrative. That does a great disservice to the movie. During the first half, the movie tries to be this Oscar type movie where characters are chewing scenery to win Oscar. Audience are left marking time for "the missing" to happen. Anyone who comes to this movie want to watch the missing part and the events following it. Audience might not have done that had they been given something more interesting leading up to the missing part but since its so boring audience are not hooked to it. So we get that Tommy Lee and Cate are related. The moment the missing happens the movie is more interested in socio political aspects of the story. The political climate at the time and what the government is forced to do and the Indians are forced to do. Government is more concerned with political order than individual safety and Indians are showing their hatred and anger for settlers through sex trafficking their young women.

In movies that take place in open land in wilderness, the best approach to make a movie is to make it feel different. You should get rid of the sameness. Even well known actor should look different. The nature should dictate how the scene feels as opposed to try and control it. The filmmakers start the movie in a snowy location and then take it to dry lands. It was meant to be a sweeping epic covering different terrains but the story telling didn't lend itself to that. Director tried to force the landscape change on us. You can feel the production of the movie choosing spots and shooting around that area and then moving on to the next location. It never felt like natural progression of land. During a chase that stars near tress , all of a sudden you end up in vast patches of sand in a matter of seconds. As I say the flaws in the film, I find it extremely hard to point out even a single positive thing about it. Three elements that fell flat on their face in the movie are the younger daughter , Tommy Lee Jones and misused Native American antagonist.

Younger daughter is speaking like an adult because the script said so and she is "acting" and its so off putting. Young actors for the most part are very reactionary. They react to the moment. Tommy Lee Jones is a hindrance to the movie and the story. Even in vast scenic locations he is doing his thing and its distracting. The movie is very try hard. There is a deus ex machina scene where in our protagonists are escaping from an inescapable hurdle and all of a sudden in their long journey he comes across some friendly Indians that happen to know Tommy lee jones. Thats when I lost interest in the movie. These are 1950s tropes. Director has to find a better way than that. Even the reason they get into trouble is because the little daughter does something that could have been avoided. So the reason I am bringing all these is because the movie has 2 things going for it. Epic scale possibility and opportunity to create something new. But it squandered both those chances. I think there is a way to depict long distance journey on screen. In the movie way way back they showed that. But since the whole movie is about journey they had much more time. But this movie had lot to cover. The movie looks and feels so fake.Even the antagonist as scary and mystic as he was always felt underused. In the end this movie is not recommended even on TV. The movie bombed commercially and critically and it earned that result.

Mr Minio

08-06-18, 06:51 AM

Song of the Fishermen (1934) - rating_2_5

http://silentfilm.blob.core.windows.net/assets/Standard/PAGE/10406/large/SongOfFishermenWEB.jpg

Renmei Wang was not only a splendid singer, but also a solid actress! One of her songs is used in this film to quite a pleasing effect! Sadly, the film itself is too melodramatic even for 30s Chinese standards and offers little in terms of artistic value. The film didn't survive in its entirety. :( Still worth it if you're deeply interested in early Chinese cinema.

Sweet Dream (1936) - rating_3_5

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_s9bZUCtws8c/SZezO3sN4TI/AAAAAAAAA7s/Si3wyczACZI/s400/Sweet+Dream.png

The earliest surviving Korean film might not be anything extraordinary in terms of the plot, but I really enjoyed the aesthetics and main actress' acting.

Kaili Blues (2015) - rating_4_5

https://theplaylist.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Kaili-Blues-1.jpg

Nothing prepared me for that 40 minutes long mastershot with the camera and actors literally travelling kilometers! Splendidly dream-like and impressive technically as well as inexplicably poetic and beautiful cinema.

The Flirting Scholar (1993) - rating_3_5

https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/original/wfTnsLfBBFeWSZCOiP7Oco8JCSK.jpg

So many torments to fulfill a dream - tap Li Gong's ass. It was worth it! :) A crazy, absurdist comedy with very silly humour. Li Gong is a goddess - everybody knows this, but Pei-pei Cheng was a nice addition as well.

The Shaolin Temple (1982) - rating_4

https://kiaikick.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/the_shaolin_temple.jpg

Hypocrite "don't kill unless he's a bad guy, then go ahead!" monks turn out to be not as pious as you'd expect. Splendid choreography and very young Jet Li!

Lady with a Sword (1971) - rating_4

https://picsfromflicks.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/ladywithasword09.jpg

Brutal start! Then Lily Ho's character is introduced and it gets even better! A serious wuxia film with lots of pain and bitterness, but still served in Shaw Brothers' entertaining kinda way. The kid's character was funny.

Twist (1995) - rating_4

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1c/a6/d1/1ca6d19e32c8781a76c751b0449f1569.jpg

Starts like a typical police procedural, but then the infinitely cool Simon Yam's character makes it a very fine erotic comedy. Up to the last 30 minutes that contain inventive tortures and are the real twist of the film. Whereas in most films of this kind the rapists and/or murderers that did terrible crimes are then roughed up by the police (most HK films show police beating suspects, so that's nothing new), in this case the suspects are "only" thieves who never hurt anybody, and police's methods are so brutal the final scene shocked even me. Hell, I still can't get it out of my head. I don't know why the more rape/torture stuff I watch, the more sensitive I become to it (shouldn't it be the other way around?).

Pituitary Hunter (1990) - rating_4

https://i2.wp.com/www.silveremulsion.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/pituitaryhunter.jpg

Total sleazefest! Somebody's killing people and stealing their pituitary glands! Who could that be? Absolutely cheap and of doubtful value, but how entertaining! That's the kind of cinema I did nothing for! That ending - I cri everytim (not really).

The Oily Maniac (1976) - rating_4

https://i0.wp.com/horrorpedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/oily-maniac-21.jpg?resize=400%2C250

Sooo good! I love the visuals and special effects in this. It's based on a legend, and it definitely plays like one with a morality tale finale! Oh, and it has boobies!

The Hours: A Square Film (1996) - rating_4_5

https://i.imgur.com/oejUudq.jpg

My third from the director and a third 4.5 rating. She has a really distinctive style, and a gift to build thick atmosphere. Quite an indecipherable film at that, mixing past and present, dreams and reality.

Misery Loves Company (1993) - rating_4_5

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_no_CVfXWeYg/SxBI0ZDOcJI/AAAAAAAAAGU/lVK5htWCFII/s640/Air+Air+Cries+Empty+Water+Poster++Waters+Edge+3.jpg

“Beauty is something that burns the hand when you touch it.” - Yukio Mishima

The best of the trilogy! A very intense abstract film.

Shuffle (1981) - rating_4

https://i.imgur.com/QfcC9Np.png

Vulgar and visceral! A mix of sweat and blood that spits on everything! Very fast-paced and riveting. Hard to believe it's from 1981.

Le Pont du Nord (1981) - rating_4

https://www.eurekavideo.co.uk/sites/default/files/le%20pont%20du%20nord7.jpg

One of Rivette's best from what I saw (admittedly not much). Love the free-roaming nature of it. It might be aimless, but it's not pointless.

A Lesson in Love (1954) - rating_4

https://larsmagne23.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/shot0006-png2.jpg

Bergman does romantic comedy. A couple of laugh-out-loud moments in this one! The rest is your typical Bergman with his thoughts on dilapidated marriages.

Crisis (1946) - rating_3

https://i.imgur.com/x4690G7.jpg

Bergman's directorial debut and sadly not a very good film! The character of Jack the Ripper is quite interesting and you can spot some hints of genius, but the film is only watchable overall.

HashtagBrownies

08-06-18, 09:49 AM

Mr Minio

08-06-18, 09:58 AM

I don't know much about girls ;)

aronisred

08-06-18, 02:29 PM

Mission: Impossible

3

A secret service team on a mission fails spectacularly when an unknown threat takes them down. The only survivor of the ordeal, Ethan Hunt must track down the culprit.

The movie is directed by Brian De Palma , who is the least talented among the movie brats. Nonetheless, he is an auteur. Movie brats comprises of Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola, George Lucas and De Palma. The most successful among the bunch is Spielberg and Scorsese. Spielberg career can be clearly divided into 3 stages. His early blockbuster career, his middle career defining part and his star driven later stages of his career. Through out his career, he was much more interested in making profitable crowd pleasing movies as opposed to singular vision based movies. Scorsese was good in his earlier career, but as De Niro got old Scorsese couldn't make movies he wanted with De Niro. He dabbled a little bit with Various lead actors in 90s with no commercial success. Until DiCaprio became a star in 90s and wanted some director who can make good movies with 100s of millions of dollars. I can see why industry as a whole doesn't care for his direction very much. His oscar for Departed was a pity Oscar. He never deserved an Oscar because he is not capable of working with different actors. His movie are 1 layered. There is no undercurrent to his movies. They are what they look like. He glamorizes crime. Coppola peaked around Godfather and Lucas around star wars. No matter how successful they are , all these guys have at-least a career defining work. But De Palma is the only one who doesn't have that movie. Even his most popular auteur non-action movie is a cult classic and not a mainstream milestone. Action movies should not be construed with directorial achievement. A bunch of good twists and set pieces are enough to make action movie work. So the movie does have certain specific style to it. I was surprised at how little action there is to it. Its a much more talky movie. Even the success of the movie has nothing to do with the fact De Palma directed it. Its a success because of Tom Cruise.

So, I always had a question about why Tom Cruise was rejected by Oscar voters where as DiCaprio was given an Oscar. You need to understand the difference between a nomination and a win. Nomination is much more easier to get. You need a successful non-commercial movie. The movie needs to be directed by a well respected director and studio shouldn't have a better prestige movie that year than this. Voila, studio pays for golden globe win. And since the movie is good it gets few critics groups nominations and a sag nomination and the movie gets nominated for Oscars. If the movie is centered around a star, then he is nominated for Oscar especially if its a character driven movie. All a movie needs to be is to be good enough for a major studio to have its full support behind the movie and voila it gets nominated. Because academy voters comprise of artists who are attached to movie studios and filmmakers. They basically earn their living because studios green light movies. Its their way of saying thank you to studio by nominating their movies. The more ambitious the movie and the more it works, the more it gets nominated. From then on, its up-to the people who has nothing to do with making of that movie but knows about movie making craft to decide if the nominated performance is worth it or not. So, Tom cruise was nominated for 3 Oscars. 2 lead and 1 supporting. The reason behind his lack of win can be attributed to his non-prestige movies. Almost all his non-oscar movies are highly commercial and that sort of forces people to not vote for him because he is still using his looks to get movies made as opposed to his acting skill.

I thought that was bull**** and I watched this movie. Then I realized I was wrong. The movie has very good action and a sense of paranoia in the first half of the movie. The first 20 or so minutes of the movie where the team is ambushed when completing their mission is genuinely eerie. European landscape of the movie is very helpful. But then I started noticing the commercial elements in the movie. There is teammate who is wife of another team member and there is tense scene between them with sexual underpinnings. There is an older woman who is portrayed more as a cougar and there is some sexual tension in that scene as well. All these are commercial elements in the movie where the lead is supposed to have women throwing themselves at him or flirting with him. Charm of Tom Cruise becomes a huge part of the movie. I know why they do that. These scenes where another mans' wife is attracted to tom cruise or an older woman flirts with tom cruise is to give relatability to audience. During 90s and early 20s tom cruise used to draw lot of female audience to the movies. Those involved older women or women in their 30s and 40s that are mostly married. So these sexual tensions involving this demographic of females is very commercial. Even the government agency chasing the lead speaks like he is praising tom cruise. He is hyping up the skill and ability of Tom Cruise. All these are commercial elements you don't see in a DiCaprio movie. DiCaprio cunningly follows show don't tell attitude to this aspect. His movies doesn't involve other characters hyping him up but the story beats and his characterization highlights his skill set. So, in a way its not so obvious and audience can be fooled into thinking that he is not acting like a movie star in his roles and not resorting to demagoguery. But they both totally are.

The action scenes are very 90s' based. The story is over complicated and which is one of few non commercial element about the movie. It later goes on to become the trade mark of the this franchise. Face masks and deception are also introduced here. Movie heavily plays on both cultural and thriller stereotypes. The weird French man. The calm and supportive african american. The femme fatale in distress whose heart hero changes. Only in movies like these does a man who looks like Jon Voight gets to be with woman who looks like his wife. Emilio Estavez and Kirstin Scott Thomas were wasted. The now famous rope hanging scene in the secure vault holds up but the way they enters the building is completely unrealistic given the importance of the building they are in. So this movie is one of those Tom Cruise movies where in he is the hero and other characters are there just to serve him. But nonetheless its a fun popcorn thriller that is better than most of the movies of this kind.

Derek Vinyard

08-07-18, 12:16 AM

The Poughkeepsie Tapes 3.5

:up::up::up: nice flick

Captain Spaulding

08-07-18, 12:33 AM

July Tab

https://78.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzon8reelw1qdau9mo1_500.gif
Paper Moon (Peter Bogdanovich, 1973) 5 [REWATCH]
Downsizing (Alexander Payne, 2017) 1.5
Follow the Fleet (Mark Sandrich, 1936) 2.5
The Edge of Seventeen (Kelly Fremon Craig, 2016) 4 [REWATCH]
Cutthroat Island (Renny Harlin, 1995) 2
G.I. Jane (Ridley Scott, 1997) 2.5 [REWATCH]
The Light Between Oceans (Derek Cianfrance, 2016) 2
Trouble Man (Ivan Dixon, 1972) 3
Joe Kidd (John Sturges, 1972) 3
Annihilation (Alex Garland, 2018) 3.5
Blue Ruin (Jeremy Saulnier, 2013) 3.5

http://cinetropolis.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/to-live-and-die-in-la-gif.gif
To Live and Die in L.A. (William Friedkin, 1985) 3.5
Pet (Carles Torrens, 2016) 2.5
The Naked Prey (Cornel Wilde, 1965) 3.5
National Lampoon's European Vacation (Amy Heckerling, 1985) 1.5
Roadie (Alan Rudolph, 1980) 2.5
Gold Diggers of 1935 (Busby Berkeley, 1935) 3
The Hallow (Corin Hardy, 2015) 2
Summer School (Carl Reiner, 1987) 2.5
The Hurricane Heist (Rob Cohen, 2018) 1.5
Fury (Fritz Lang, 1936) 2
Stripes (Ivan Reitman, 1981) 3

https://78.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m96yr2j3sZ1qicntr.gif
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (Rouben Mamoulian, 1931) 3
It Stains the Sands Red (Colin Minihan, 2016) 2.5
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (Frank Capra, 1939) 5 [REWATCH]
Romy and Michele's High School Reunion (David Mirkin, 1997) 2.5
The Lawnmower Man (Brett Leonard, 1992) 1.5
The Promise (Terry George, 2016) 3
The Big Clock (John Farrow, 1948) 3.5
Cat People (Paul Schrader, 1982) 3
Game Night (John Francis Daley & Jonathan M. Goldstein, 2018) 2.5
In a Lonely Place (Nicholas Ray, 1950) 4.5 [REWATCH]

http://awardswatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/moonlight-holland-rhodes.gif
Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016) 4
Hidden Figures (Theodore Melfi, 2016) 2.5
Tromeo and Juliet (Lloyd Kaufman, 1996) 1.5
Home Again (Hallie Meyers-Shyer, 2017) 0.5
Breakin' (Joel Silberg, 1984) 2
Red Sun (Terence Young, 1971) 3
Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (Frank Capra, 1936) 3
Night Nurse (William A. Wellman, 1931) 3
Captain Blood (Michael Curtiz, 1935) 3
Rush (Lili Fini Zanuck, 1991) 3

https://78.media.tumblr.com/6d7ef92ab8dfb60baa5640ff6e341ec5/tumblr_msbzeuDGzk1qzgwh4o1_500.gif
Red Dust (Victor Fleming, 1932) 3.5
Hombre (Martin Ritt, 1967) 4 [REWATCH]
Geostorm (Dean Devlin, 2017) 1.5
Hostiles (Scott Cooper, 2017) 3
The Funhouse Massacre (Andy Palmer, 2015) 3
Still Alice (Richard Glatzer & Wash Westmoreland, 2014) 3
Poltergeist II: The Other Side (Brian Gibson, 1986) 1.5
Poltergeist III (Gary Sherman, 1988) 1.5
Justice League (Zack Snyder, 2017) 1
Summer Rental (Carl Reiner, 1985) 3
Logan (James Mangold, 2017) 4.5 [REWATCH]

Monthly Total: 53
Yearly Total: 327

Chypmunk

08-07-18, 04:34 AM

Captain Spaulding

08-07-18, 06:26 AM

Hey there Cap'n, as always nice to see you :up:

Loads there that I've either not seen or it's been a long time since (like Paper Moon) so I'll plead the 5th on all those. I thought Blue Ruin was a pretty fun ride too and like you was rather underwhelmed by The Hallow. I watched Mr. Smith Goes To Washington at the arse-end of last year for the first ever time and enjoyed it even if Jimmy Stewart did irritate a little in it (I'm not his biggest fan).

I was pretty "meh" on Romy and Michelle's High School Reunion, not really my type of humour - think I only ever really watched that one as I liked both leads - The Lawnmower Man wasn't great but I enjoyed it a little more than you did even if it isn't dating well at all. If you swapped your ratings around for those two we'd be pretty much in agreement though :D

In A Lonely Place is a stone-cold classic and imo a great fillum so always nice to see love for that one. I rated Still Alice similarly to yourself and though I own them both am also not much of a fan of the Poltergeist sequels (II & III) - out of interest how do you rate the original .... gets a solid 8.5 from me even if it is a little cheesy and dated in places.

I see you've also been watching some of the same films that are in the second 30s HOF, looks like I enjoyed Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde a bit more than you but we're probably not miles apart on Red Dust. Are those pure coincidence or are you stalking from the shadows? Kinda hope it's the latter as I'd love to see what you make of some of the others in it after I've sent my ballot in.

I'm still hoping to get around to Mr. Deeds Goes To Town and Night Nurse in time for the countdown .... time seems to be slipping away quicker the nearer we get to the deadline though :eek:

Thanks for the reminder of The Naked Prey btw, been meaning to get back round to both that and The Naked Jungle for some time now - both films from my adolescence that I remember thoroughly enjoying. Really must kick my own arse into gear and try to find them once the 30's deadline zooms past.

Thank you kindly, sir. I know I normally include a few words on the films when I tab, but it takes long enough just to type out all the films and ratings and find a few .GIFs to include, and with my inability to be succinct with my thoughts, posting these tabs can become a chore, which is why I haven't done one in awhile. Then you come along and write a thoughtful response to my wall of ratings and make me feel like a lazy bastard. :p

Blue Ruin provided one of the better ruminations on revenge that I've seen. Strong, economical filmmaking. Had it featured a more talented actor in the lead, my rating would probably be even higher. I should've watched it long ago, but I'd put it on the backburner after finding the director's Green Room rather overhyped. As for The Hallow, its attempt at sustained tension just became tiresome after awhile, which is a shame because it had some cool ideas and a setting ripe for atmosphere.

Do you find James Stewart irritating because of his voice? I know that's a common complaint, although I personally find his voice (and presence) very comforting. He might be my favorite actor of all-time. Several years had passed since I'd last watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I was worried that my opinion of it might falter or that I'd now be annoyed by Capra's corniness as I am in some of his other films, but it was every bit the five-star film I remembered it to be. It will likely be getting the full 25 points from me come countdown time.

It's possible I would've hated Romy and Michelle back in the day, but watching it in 2018, I found it to be an amusing, nostalgic slice of 90's fluff. Kudrow and Sorvino made for a very believable pair of besties. And the loaded soundtrack full of recognizable, catchy pop hits helped boost the fun factor. Too bad nobody ever made a crossover film where Romy and Michelle hook up with Doug and Steve Butabi from Night at the Roxbury for some airheaded, dance-club hijinks.

I'd sooner re-watch The Lawnmower Man than plenty of other films I've rated that low. The heavily dated CGI has a certain charm to it. And all the stupidity on display keeps it from being boring, at least. (And I'm wondering if Jeff Fahey in the film provided the inspiration for Ben Stiller's "Simple Jack" in Tropic Thunder.) I'd forgotten how damn amazing In a Lonely Place is. It's up there with Treasure of the Sierra Madre as my favorite Bogie film/performance.

Still Alice was a rather pedestrian, unremarkable film made worthwhile singlehandedly on the strength of Julianne Moore's performance. I love the first Poltergeist and would rate it at least four stars, but I'm sure nostalgia plays a factor in that since I've seen the film numerous times going back to when I was super young. The sequels were just annoying. I had no idea that little Heather O'Rourke died before the release of the third film, so that was depressing as hell to learn.

I'm certainly guilty of stalking from the shadows (nice underwear, btw ;)), but I'd watched Red Dust and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde before the nominees were announced. I haven't actually paid much attention to the new 30's HOF yet, but I might jump in there with my thoughts soon. The Naked Prey was a very good chase film. I loved the lack of dialogue and the use of African tribal music. Also thought Cornel Wilde pulled impressive double duty with a physically demanding performance (although it's a bit annoying to see a 50+ year-old man in better shape that I've ever been or probably ever will be). Due to the racial elements, I doubt it's a film that could be made today. Haven't heard of The Naked Jungle. Pretty good porno? :p

Chypmunk

08-07-18, 07:21 AM

Thank you kindly, sir. I know I normally include a few words on the films when I tab, but it takes long enough just to type out all the films and ratings and find a few .GIFs to include, and with my inability to be succinct with my thoughts, posting these tabs can become a chore, which is why I haven't done one in awhile. Then you come along and write a thoughtful response to my wall of ratings and make me feel like a lazy bastard. :p
I'm the last to try and make anyone feel like 'a lazy bastard' - I don't even sum up my months watching in this thread or mention hardly any in RTLMYS anymore :D

Blue Ruin provided one of the better ruminations on violence that I've seen. Strong, economical filmmaking. Had it featured a more talented actor in the lead, my rating would probably be even higher. I should've watched it long ago, but I'd put it on the backburner after finding the director's Green Room rather overhyped. As for The Hallow, its attempt at sustained tension just became tiresome after awhile, which is a shame because it had some cool ideas and a setting ripe for atmosphere.
I've not yet seen Green Room, I'm usually a couple of years or more behind most, which combined with my short memory span actually doesn't work out that badly in terms of not being affected by 'hype' :D I'm sure I'll probably get round to it at some point. I found The Hallow to be far too by-the-numbers - do agree the setting had real potential though.

Do you find James Stewart irritating because of his voice? I know that's a common complaint, although I personally find his voice (and presence) very comforting. He might be my favorite actor of all-time. Several years had passed since I'd last watched Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I was worried that my opinion of it might falter or that I'd now be annoyed by Capra's corniness as I am in some of his other films, but it was every bit the five-star film I remembered it to be. It will likely be getting the full 25 points from me come countdown time.
Definitely his voice is part of that that yeah but also I don't really find that much range in his performances. Doesn't mean to say I can't thoroughly enjoy fillums in which he plays a sizeable part though - for instance I think quite highly of films such as Anatomy Of Murder, Rear Window and Vertigo not to mention having a healthy regard for 'slightly lesser offerings' such as Call Northside 777, Destry Rides Again and Winchester '73. At this point Mr. Smith Goes To Washington is certainly in with a shot of an appearance on my ballot.

It's possible I would've hated Romy and Michelle back in the day, but watching it in 2018, I found it to be an amusing, nostalgic slice of 90's fluff. Kudrow and Sorvino made for a very believable pair of besties. And the loaded soundtrack full of recognizable, catchy pop hits helped boost the fun factor. Too bad nobody ever made a crossover film where Romy and Michelle hook up with Doug and Steve Butabi from Night at the Roxbury for some airheaded, dance-club hijinks.
Hold on to yer face-paint ..... I've never seen Night At The Roxbury :eek: :D

I'd sooner re-watch The Lawnmower Man than plenty of other films I've rated that low. The heavily dated CGI has a certain charm to it. And all the stupidity on display keeps it from being boring, at least. (And I'm wondering if Jeff Fahey in the film provided the inspiration for Ben Stiller's "Simple Jack" in Tropic Thunder.) I'd forgotten how damn amazing In a Lonely Place is. It's up there with Treasure of the Sierra Madre as my favorite Bogie film/performance.
The hokiness of The Lawnmower Man certainly lends it a certain 'charm' in my eyes, can't comment on any potential inspiration to Tropic Thunder as although I know I watched that once (and I'm sure this will come as a shock) it wasn't really to my sense of humour :D Yep - Bogie rocks!!

Still Alice was a rather pedestrian, unremarkable film made worthwhile singlehandedly on the strength of Julianne Moore's performance. I love the first Poltergeist and would rate it at least four stars, but I'm sure nostalgia plays a factor in that since I've seen the film numerous times going back to when I was super young. The sequels were just annoying. I had no idea that little Heather O'Rourke died before the release of the third film, so that was depressing as hell to learn.
Agree on the Still Alice comment. Were you not aware of Heather's demise, I at least hope you didn't find out until after watching. So young - so tragic and sad :(

I'm certainly guilty of stalking from the shadows (nice underwear, btw ;)), but I'd watched Red Dust and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde before the nominees were announced. I haven't actually paid much attention to the new 30's HOF yet, but I might jump in there with my thoughts soon. The Naked Prey was a very good chase film. I loved the lack of dialogue and the use of African tribal music. Also thought Cornel Wilde pulled impressive double duty with a physically demanding performance (although it's a bit annoying to see a 50+ year-old man in better shape that I've ever been or probably ever will be). Due to the racial elements, I doubt it's a film that could be made today. Haven't heard of The Naked Jungle. Pretty good porno? :p
Cheers, I've always been a big Roadrunner fan ;) I would say what an amazing coincidence then ... but I guess it's slightly less so with the upcoming countdown. Give me a week or two to finish all the films and send my ballot in before commenting or we might get accused of being alts :D It's been donkey's years since I watched either but as I say I have fond childhood memories of both .... and yes I suppose The Naked Jungle could be regarded as porno .... ant-porno that is ;)

aronisred

08-07-18, 10:07 AM

Seen in July Pt.3/3

46667
4
I don’t think I’ve ever had so much fun in a three hour movie. It’s like a way better version of The Big Short, about an arsehole who becomes rich from scamming people. Leo performance of this truly awful man was excellent. It felt a bit too long though, maybe 20 minutes or so.

No,no just no. Liking this movie is your opinion but when people like you that compare this to the big short and say its better is exactly the reason why wall street ripping america. This is a cautionary tale but in the end you has "fun". After watching this movie, given the right circumstances you wish you were this guy in a heart beat. So much for a cautionary tale. Where is the caution in the story if you are falling head over heels for this character. This is a "bro code" movie. Locker room talk movie. Guys feeling manly by breaking the law and doing despicable things. Moreover from a filmmaking perspective this movie is way more easy to make than the big short. The big short is a much much more ambitious movie to make than this garbage. There is a reason why scorsese never won oscar until the departed which is a pity oscar for a remake. Because his movies are very superficial and he relies on shock value. booubes - shock value , sex - shock value, f word - shock value, punching people - shock value, orgy - shock value. Its easy to get a reaction from audience when you are showing obscene stuff on screen. What Adam Mckay did with the big short is more complicated and inventive than what scorsese has ever done. All his movies are about " macho men doing macho things" and scorsese himself is a midget. Seeing reactions like yours to this movie makes me think certain group of people in america do deserve to loose their homes and be ripped of by wall street (like in the big short) because seeing this movie this is all they can take from the movie. Moreover the big short makes fun of wolf of wallstreet for the exact same reason by casting margot robbie to explain stuff because thats what people took away from the movie. Margot robbie is hot. Boy, what a take away. As for dicaprio's acting. I take it that you are not an actor. So you wouldnt know what great acting. But what its not is screaming and shouting through the top of your lungs. Screaming is not acting. Screaming is screaming and shouting is shouting. I have dealt with this topic before but seeing how misguided people are sort of needs interference.

Iroquois

08-07-18, 10:09 AM

Don't ever change, aronisred.

aronisred

08-07-18, 10:23 AM

Don't ever change, aronisred.

he/she pushed the exact pressure points with their review.

Sedai

08-07-18, 10:45 AM

I take it that you are not an actor. So you wouldnt know what great acting.(sic)

Go ahead and list all the stuff we can watch your acting work in. I'd like to examine it before deciding on whether or not I should trust your opinion on any given actor's ability. It's your own rule, after all!

Thanks!

Gatsby

08-07-18, 11:03 AM

I read aron's post over the beat for 'My Name Is' and it was super fun. :D

HashtagBrownies

08-07-18, 11:22 AM

Don't ever change, aronisred.
Go ahead and list all the stuff we can watch your acting work in. I'd like to examine it before deciding on whether or not I should trust your opinion on any given actor's ability. It's your own rule, after all!

Thanks!
Should I...respond? Or is it considered petty to argue against stuff like that?

aronisred

08-07-18, 11:31 AM

Should I...respond? Or is it considered petty to argue against stuff like that?

if it makes you feel better to convince yourself that there is no opposition to your opinion then don't respond.

Iroquois

08-07-18, 11:31 AM

I wouldn't expect to change aronisred's mind on Leo as a performer and especially not in regards to this film - they've literally been complaining about that particular issue since they signed up and it (along with several other long-running complaints regarding certain high-profile stars) get repeated a lot in their Movie Tab posts regardless of how tangential or even relevant they end up being to the topic.

Joel

08-07-18, 04:19 PM

Camo

08-07-18, 04:34 PM

The only issue with what he is saying is that he does so in every post. Every one of his reviews in this thread are about Leo even if he's not in the film. I don't care as i don't read them but i can see why others are finding it tedious and odd.

aronisred

08-07-18, 04:40 PM

Camo

08-07-18, 04:44 PM

The reviews are not just about movies..they are partly think pieces along with opinion on the movie.

Why are they all about Leo? Do whatever you want of course i just find it odd that you devote so much time to someone you aren't a fan of.

Joel

08-07-18, 05:04 PM

Are*obnoxious. ' and another inserted '. My grammar is phone crippled.

aronisred

08-07-18, 05:08 PM

Why are they all about Leo? Do whatever you want of course i just find it odd that you devote so much time to someone you aren't a fan of.

considering he is being pushed by Hollywood as their biggest and iconic actor of current generation given the rooster of directors he is working with, its interesting to look at other movies and measure it up against his movies. He is the only actor in Hollywood who can do whatever movie in whatever genre he wants and he will get 100 million $ budget. So if those are the movies he is choosing to do then its interesting to compare it with other less fortunate actors and their choices.

aronisred

08-07-18, 05:09 PM

Are*obnoxious. ' and another inserted '. My grammar is phone crippled.

ignore if you want..no one is asking you to read..they are reviews, not discussion pieces

Joel

08-07-18, 07:34 PM

ignore if you want..no one is asking you to read..they are reviews, not discussion pieces

Was referring to your personal attack on hashtag, not your bloated and barely readable reviews.

aronisred

08-07-18, 08:04 PM

Was referring to your personal attack on hashtag, not your bloated and barely readable reviews.

what a hypocrite...turn your fingers to yourself

Joel

08-07-18, 08:30 PM

what a hypocrite...turn your fingers to yourself

I just did. I'm finger blasting myself in the bathroom. Feels damn good, too!

Toodles!

aronisred

08-07-18, 10:15 PM

I just did. I'm finger blasting myself in the bathroom. Feels damn good, too!

Toodles!

yuk

Sedai

08-08-18, 05:54 PM

The Outlaw Josey Wales
Eastwood, 1976

4_5

https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/original/svsAEILtq5qmGwqCECpYi5W7vDK.jpg

Still one of my favorite Eastwood flicks. Plenty of fun quotes that I annoy the **** out of my friends with, as well as some rootin', tootin' shootin'! Well directed with plenty of memorable performances from a great cast.

Foxes
Lyne, 1979

3

https://media.baselineresearch.com/images/227742/227742_full.jpg

I am a sucker for a coming-of-age flick, and this is no exception. Sadly, it's not a particularly exceptional film. It's cool to see Foster already flexing her acting muscles, even though she is still very young here. The rest of the players are a mixed bag. Scott Baio, Cherie Currie and the rest of the kids do just an adequate job, while Sally Kellerman is miscast, coming off as wooden in the scenes she shares with Foster, who upstages her at every turn. Still, a fun watch for fans of the genre, especially if you grew up in the era the film was made.

Would you Rather
Levy, 2012

1_5

http://www.weeatfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/would-you-rather-1024x576.jpg

No thanks, I would rather not.

Avengers : Infinity War
Russos, 2018

4

https://www.clickittefaq.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Avengers-Infinity-War-2.jpg

Still a whole ton of fun, even it suffers a bit on home screens. My theatrical viewing felt pretty epic, while the home viewing felt a bit less so. I watched this with a few people who had seen varying amounts of the material leading up to the film, and none of which had seen Infinity War yet. The guy who had only seen The first Avengers flick and I think the first Guardians of the Galaxy was pretty much lost, and didn't know who most of the characters were, so none of the emotional moments resonated with him, and he kept asking a lot of questions about who people were and why they were involved.

This is a good action flick, but you clearly need to be fairly invested in the MCU to get the most of the viewing experience, so on its own, probably not the best Marvel film. I like it whole lot, though, so I will through a 4 at it for now.

pahaK

08-08-18, 06:03 PM

Foxes
Lyne, 1979

3

https://media.baselineresearch.com/images/227742/227742_full.jpg

I am a sucker for a coming-of-age flick, and this is no exception. Sadly, it's not a particularly exceptional film. It's cool to see Foster already flexing her acting muscles, even though she is still very young here. The rest of the players are a mixed bag. Scott Baio, Cherie Currie and the rest of the kids do just an adequate job, while Sally Kellerman is miscast, coming off as wooden in the scenes she shares with Foster, who upstages her at every turn. Still, a fun watch for fans of the genre, especially if you grew up in the era the film was made.

How haven't I heard of this before? Coming-of-age, Jodie Foster, Cherie Currie and Lyne isn't too shabby director either - a definite addition to my watchlist.

aronisred

08-09-18, 11:28 AM

A Most Violent Year

3

An oil supplier tries to live a relatively clean life in a very corrupt and criminal landscape.

J.C Chandor is an interesting filmmaker. His movies are small scale but nonetheless they are well made. What is a well made movie ? a movie that is original to some extent. It has a directorial vision behind it. It is not a movie made by a group of executives. Actors are cast due to their talent and not attractiveness. The movie is very much a New York movie. Set in 80s. There is nothing heightened about it. The movie is very grounded. So my question has always been, why would a director choose to do a movie so low profile and so slow and moody and unmemorable. For starters the director can make only these kinds of movies. May be it has something to do with his skill set limitation or this is the budget he could get for the movie and this is the way to complete the movie at that budget. So the system is built to prevent untested director to make unmemorable, soon to be forgotten movies however good they are. The only way up is to make them uniquely good at that budget and increase the profile of the project by getting the projects recognized at various awards circuits. One of the hurdles these movies have is, directors at Chandor's level aren't given much leeway to make an edgy movie because it could easily fail miserably. There are safe Oscar movies like lady bird / the post and risky Oscar movies like Dunkirk / the big short. Risky movies are much easier to fail critically and financially if something goes wrong than safe movies. So, the producers don't want the movie to fail. They want a much more solid guarantee on a movie to get Oscar attention. These opposing challenges prevent new filmmakers from breaking into mainstream more often through these well made non risky movies. But in reality , not all these directors and most of them for that matter can't be the next Chris Nolan or next Tarantino. Most of them if given 100 million $ will fail miserably. So its a challenging task to find needle in hay stack.

The movies' protagonist Oscar Isaac is a calm non-confrontational character. The movie effectively portrays the life of a typical CEO of a company. Every waking day they have 10 challenges or things that needs their attention and all of them are important and risky. This movie's protagonist has 4 situations he has to deal with - a rival company waging a business war , a land deal to close, a looming investigation by law enforcement and a slightly unhinged wife with a criminal family. The director does a great job of dealing with complexities and nuances of these colliding situations and the character at the center of all this. Oscar Isaac effectively portrays a guy who never breaks. He is always calm and collected. Jessica Chastain portrays an unhinged wife who wants to involve her family, a mob family in this matters. David Oyelowo plays a law enforcement officer who is much more practical than idealistic. The oil supply war involves stealing the carrier tanks and taking away the oil by competitors. Its done very well. But the only weak link in the movie is a subplot involving a Person of Color whose life is destroyed amidst this oil war. It felt ham fisted. The movie was working without it but for some reason they felt the need to include it.
Its an example of how the little guy gets screwed over for others mistakes where as powerful just survive any challenge.

This movie was largely ignored during awards season of the year its released and I can see why. A movie needs certain kinetic energy to pull audience into it and show then a good time. This movie always keep them at a distance. It doesn't take advantage of some dramatic scenes as well. There is police raid at house but even that's played more as a example for "a decent guy forced to act unlawful due to circumstances" rather than a thrilling suspense building scene. I can see why director controlled the urge/trapping of having that kind of scene but nonetheless some of the scenes in movies are there for a reason. Road less traveled is less traveled for a reason. My biggest critique about the movie is that, even though a lot happens in the movie its feels to the audience that nothing happens. Our protagonist has no character progressions , he ends at exactly the same position where he began. It does have a directorial stamp but one that audience won't recognize because it doesn't feel that strong or distinct.

Ultraviolence

08-09-18, 11:33 AM

/ \ This movie has a terrible mistake in the beginning. Some guys stop the car in front of the truck, so they can hijack the truck. Once they are in the truck, the car disappears ... That sucks haha

aronisred

08-09-18, 02:43 PM

Shaun of the Dead

5

A mild mannered electronic salesman is forced to rise up-to the occasion during a zombie apocalypse.

I think Edgar Wright's British origins put him at a greater disadvantage to cultivate a bigger fan base. For me he is an auteur. His directorial style is very distinct. The way he works with his editor to cut shots and insert zooms is unique. But his style is very niche. It has that UK countryside feel to it. That makes the movie extremely hard to market internationally. The dialogue has a sense of uniqueness and flare to them that reminded me of Tarantino but in a good way. Since the tone of the movie is extremely comedic you can't really compare them with twisted movies of Tarantino. So he is unique in that aspect. Whats interesting about the film is that the circumstances and situations the characters in the movie are being put into are entertaining.

The movie starts of by showing the daily routine of characters. It makes a social commentary about the self important nature of society and how long it takes for people to realize something is wrong in the current society. It also explores how human relationships and priorities and quite frankly humanity forces people to veer of ideal mechanical plans and settings. The movie slowly descends into pretty dark stuff. The film forces humans in the movie to exhibit full range of emotions in the apocalyptic setting and not just survival as it happens with most of the movies from this genre. The apocalypse even forces the protagonist to be more committed to his family, girlfriend and most importantly be a leader.

The negatives are related to the directorial potential of Edgar Wright. His movies are extremely specific. Not just in geography but also style. I can't really imagine him doing a epic scale movie. His sensibilities are not weighty enough to carry the huge set pieces in a big budget movie like the way Tarantino does. Baby driver did show potential but it was still a thief movie. Unless he pull off a Spielberg. I don't really see him expand on the scale of his movies.

Iroquois

08-10-18, 12:33 PM

Mission: Impossible - Fallout (Christopher McQuarrie, 2018) - 3.5

Considering the sharp escalation of the last couple of installments, this is vaguely disappointing if only because it mostly manages to maintain the current standard rather than escalating it further. It's also a little hard to appreciate the effort that's gone into the action when it doesn't always get reflected so well on a visual level.

Jason Goes To Hell: The Final Friday (Adam Marcus, 1993) - 2.5

Nine films in and I'm still not sure how exactly to rate Friday the 13th movies - if nothing else, I do appreciate how it gets even more gory and batsh*t with its new lore involving demonic body-snatching that gives it an unlikely edge over any number of the franchise's repetitive camper-killing shenanigans.

The Incredible Shrinking Man (Jack Arnold, 1957) - 3

About as stock-standard as a '50s sci-fi can get with its title-as-high-concept, Atomic Age anxieties (both external and internal), and of course an excuse to include "giant" creatures for the hero to fight. Holds up just fine in terms of both special effects and storytelling.

Jason X (Jim Isaac, 2001) - 2.5

The One Where Jason Goes To Space only seems to confirm my theory that the weird Friday movies tend to have an edge on the more conventional ones and it certainly shows with this one that doesn't do too badly at leaning into its far-fetched high-concept.

Twilight (György Fehér, 1990) - 3

I'm in two minds over this bleak Tarr-adjacent murder mystery that layers on the atmosphere something fierce with its patient methods of building mise-en-scène through long slow takes and a thoroughly haunting leitmotif, though I question whether or not the core story might be a little too slight for its own good.

Mulholland Dr. (David Lynch, 2001) - 4.5

Still have to re-watch Blue Velvet before I can settle on a favourite Lynch, but something tells me it might not end up being this one. It's certainly Lynch's cinematic sensibilities at their most "refined" and it moves at a surprising clip for such a deliberately turgid mess of dream logic, though that may well be because it's comparatively easy to figure out the basic structure underneath the seemingly-random vignettes and twists.

Pink Flamingos (John Waters, 1972) - 3.5

After three viewings, I wonder if I might just cap my rating for this at 3.5 because, to quote Videodrome, "it has a philosophy" that lends it overt nastiness a strange sense of substance but perhaps not enough to make it hold up all that well on repeat viewings (cult following be damned). Still, we'll see how it holds up on viewing number four.

Quai des Orfèvres (Henri-Georges Clouzot, 1947) - 3.5

Quite the solid detective story that revolves around the rocky relationship between a pair of theatre players and how they end up being connected to the suspicious death of a wealthy patron.

Festen (Thomas Vinterberg, 1998) - 4

It's always interesting to see which films are worth re-watching whenever they pop up on MUBI and I'm glad that my choice to re-watch this was rewarded by it holding up exceptionally well.

The Flying Guillotine (Ho Meng-hua, 1975) - 3

I've fallen quite far behind on watching Shaw Brothers movies and I might as well get back to it with a rather distinctive (if not too amazing) entry involving the usual tales of romance and loyalty only with flying god-damn guillotines thrown into the mix.

Camo

08-10-18, 12:46 PM

Mulholland Drive is only 5th or something for me. Someone brought up that it was supposed to be a TV Pilot (or originally was or whatever) so it feels scatterbrained even for Lynch's fragmented way of telling stories, think i agree with that. Still great tho.

HashtagBrownies

08-10-18, 09:52 PM

Seen in August Pt.1

46816
3.5+
Pretty sure I’ve never watched a Looney Tunes short before (I didn’t really like them as a kid). It’s very creative in how it tries to mess with the concept of an animation. Mel Blanc really does add a lot of comedy to it with his voice.

46817
3.5
This film tells of the people who live in those very scummy areas of cities, people who are generally not very productive or have a shred of decency. I didn't entirely hate the character of Johnny like everyone else seems to. He has a nice air of sarcasm to him and his philosophical debates are very interesting. He is a total jerk though even with those qualities: He sexually harasses women, he thinks he's intellectually superior to everyone who doesn't agree with his opinions etc. The music is beautiful. The direction and writing from Mike Leigh is impeccable (Some scenes are really beautiful, the dialogue isn't boring etc.). The best scene was definitely Johnney talking about the apocalypse with the security guard.

46818
3.5+
You can never get enough of young Michael Caine. The first third of it was a bit boring, but they make up for it with a great heist. The joke involving doors was really funny. The chase scene was awesome and so was that cliff-hanger.

46819
4
This is our first surviving feature lengthen animated film? God it’s beautiful. I’ve never seen animation like this before, and to think it were all hand made by a small group of people. The silhouetting, the painted backgrounds, the score, the effects; It’s all utterly mesmerising. My only critique is that entire section dedicated to Aladdin’s backstory: It felt really pointless and messed with the film’s pacing.

46820
[RE-WATCH]
3.5+
Yup, it’s the Wizard of Oz. What can I really say?

46821
4+
A time travel movie set in one location with no effects and only 4 characters? Sounds like MY cup of tea! They take a relatively simple set of events and present them in the most interesting and mind-boggling of ways. I liked how the first third of the film kinda felt like a horror movie. I will say that there were a couple of sound issues (Stuff far away is completely audible sometimes) and that a character decision towards the end made me absolutely fuming with anger.

46822
3+
I think this might be my first Turkish film, and I liked it. The direction is pretty great, considering the abundance of lovely looking shots (Some of them silhouetted). I was expecting that the dirty-looking cinematography was going to bug me but it didn't, it added to the mood of the film. There's one thing that's really holding down the film for me thought and I can't put my finger on it: It's either the pacing or the length of the film. We have lots of scenes in the film where nothing is really happening (Or sometimes nothing is happening). I think that was a terrible idea, the nice visuals kept me from getting bored though. I think the abundance of those scenes actually lessened the impact of scenes necessary to the plot (That intense af scene in the car, the ending etc.). I could imagine enjoying this film a whole lot more if it was trimmed to a shorter running time.

46823
3-
Look guys, I’m not the guy to go around watching’ this kind of stuff. It was just one of those shorts that they show before the film.

46824
3.5
Silly out of 10. You could say that it’s a kiddie version of Deadpool, but the plot of this film is actually way more engaging than Deadpool’s (A lot of the meta jokes were better aswell). It’s really cool to see a 2D animated film again. While there are the titular fart jokes, they actually have some really dark ones that are really funny. The voice acting was very good, was very happy to hear Bojack Horseman as Slade. There were also a ton of catchy songs in it.

46825
3.5+
This film is a complete oddity. I had no interest whatsoever during the first half, utter apathetic and unfunny. The second half however? A blast. I was on the edge of my seat wondering if they would get out ok. Also I don't think I'll ever hear a policeman sing 'Old McDonald' that enthusiastically in my life ever again.

Joel

08-10-18, 10:23 PM

Shaun of the Dead

5

I love the movie. I agee with everything you say about it. Also, I apologize for being so snippy the other day. I could have handled it better. I have enjoyed your reviews. I was being a slut.

Iroquois

08-12-18, 02:28 PM

Bicycle Thieves (Vittorio DeSica, 1948) - 4

Another instance where I can respect its position as one of the greatest films ever made but am still a little hesitant to reflect that in my actual rating beyond the all-around greatness of a 4/5. You shouldn't need me to tell you how good it is, though.

Resident Evil: Vendetta (Takanori Tsujimoto, 2017) - 2.5

While I do realise that there is a limit to the appeal of watching the animated Resident Evil movies, I do think that this is at the very least a step up from 2012's Damnation and offers some outlandish action-horror shenanigans in the process.

Chariots of Fire (Hugh Hudson, 1981) - 2

Extremely dry even by the standards set by Best Picture winners. While there is an iconic (if anachronistic) Vangelis score in the mix and a half-decent story surrounding its leads and the trials they face on and off the running track, it's not a terribly engaging piece of work in the end.

Wolf Children (Mamoru Hosoda, 2012) - 4

What sounds like it could have been a messy trainwreck of a premise - a young woman falls in love with a werewolf and struggles to raise their unruly half-wolf/half-human children - actually manages to show significant emotional substance in Hosoda's capable hands as it effortlessly shifts back and forth from tragic to triumphant and any combination thereof.

Freddy vs. Jason (Ronny Yu, 2003) - 2

I wasn't expecting anything too great from this cross-over (and there are plenty of ways in which it may well be as terrible as it sounds on paper) but it's not completely devoid of entertainment value as it pits these fire-and-ice killers against one another and the group of teens who are not as bad as you'd expect.

The Triplets of Belleville (Sylvain Chomet, 2003) - 2.5

A noble attempt at building an off-beat, bittersweet tale that involves gangsters kidnapping cyclists and the old ladies who try to rescue them that does has its moments (the eponymous triplets performing musical numbers, for instance) but never coheres into something particularly great even across its brief, carefully-paced running time.

Play It Again, Sam (Herbert Ross, 1972) - 2

One of the many things I find irritating about Woody Allen is that he can come up with some genuinely promising high-concepts - in this case, a film critic taking life lessons from an imaginary Humphrey Bogart - and yet make notably poor use of them (though he arguably improves upon this concept with The Purple Rose of Cairo).

Bananas (Woody Allen, 1971) - 1.5

What starts off as a promising political satire where Allen's shiftless slacker goes on a series of misadventures in a Central American banana republic becomes a somewhat mirthless cavalcade of jokes. Its core subtext holds up, but the movie around it doesn't.

Tom Jones (Tony Richardson, 1963) - 2.5

Is it me or are the small handful of comedies that actually win Best Picture not all that funny in the first place? (Obviously, it's me - or is it?). In any case, this bawdy 18th-century farce is largely passable but ultimately not without its merits and thankfully improves as it progresses.

Wendy and Lucy (Kelly Reichardt, 2008) - 4

A short, effective feature about a woman living on the fringe of society who faces a series of escalating problems when she is stranded in a small town. While it probably didn't help that I already knew how it ended (a certain MoFo spoiled it in this very thread many years ago while giving it 1/5 - word of advice, everyone, don't do unmarked spoilers even if you hate the film), it's a testament to the film (and Michelle Williams in particular) that knowing that didn't hurt the film too much in the long run.

honeykid

08-13-18, 07:38 AM

Tom Jones (Tony Richardson, 1963) - 2.5

Is it me or are the small handful of comedies that actually win Best Picture not all that funny in the first place?

No, it's not you. But then, most comedy films aren't funny, so it's not that surprising.

Sedai

08-13-18, 12:23 PM

Deadpool 2
Leitch, 2018

3_5

https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/deadpool-1.jpg

Still fun, if perhaps not quite as fresh as the first. Reynolds carries the film, with most of the jokes landing pretty well. Not sure they can take this to three films before the vibe, but i am sure they will try.

Perfume : The Story of a Murderer
Tykwer, 2006

3_5

https://www.zastavki.com/pictures/originals/2014/Movies_Perfume__The_Story_of_a_Murderer_055152_.jpg

Twyker continues his approach he established in Lola Rent with aggressive editing and his continued obsession with redheads. ;) The film looks amazing, and the sound design is well done, but on a thematic and to a smaller extent a moral level, I wasn't as much on board. This film has been getting some buzz around the boards lately, and I am glad I watched it, but I am not as big a fan as some seem to be.

Calibre
Palmer, 2018

4

https://i0.wp.com/bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Calibre-c.jpg?resize=1000%2C563

Enjoyed this one quite a bit. An excellent little thriller that unfolds realistically in a tense and methodical way. Everything follows, and there are some great performances across the board.I liked the camerawork and sound design here, as well as the minimal score.

Scream 4
Craven, 2011

3

https://vinnieh.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/gale-weathers-scream-4.jpg

A pleasant surprise. I have always liked the first film, but gave up after the third in the series, as things had clearly run their course. Glad I decided to finally watch this, as it may be the most fun of the bunch. It keeps the tongue firmly planted in cheek for the entire run, and even drifts into Scary Movie parody at times, but for some reason, it all works. Clever and fun, but I doubt I would watch it again, as I think it's just a one-time ride.

The Endless
Benson & Moorhead, 2017

4

http://img1.looper.com/img/gallery/the-most-underappreciated-horror-movies-released-in-2018/the-endless-1524077382.jpg

MINOR SPOILERS

OK, I am now officially a fan of Benson and Moorhead. Before I watched this, I thought I had only seen one of their previous films, a little indie horror/romance called Spring. I had a nice surprise while I watched their latest, which is a science fiction film in which two men return to visit a UFO death cult they had escaped 10 years prior. Turns out I had seen another one of their films, which was another sci-fi horror genre blend from 2012, Resolution. That film feature two friends hunkering down in a cabin in the desert, as one friend attempts to help the other get clean from a severe drug addiction. It featured a couple of interesting twists, and established some cool concepts in the world of the movie. This latest film ended up paying homage to the 2012 picture in a really cool way, that gave my wife and I a really cool "Aha" moment, as everything clicked into place. The Endless is strong enough on its own, as these filmmakers deliver an interesting and thought-provoking science fiction blend once again on what appeared to be a minuscule budget. Still, it was really cool to see how these guys tied the two films together in a really interesting way that only served to enhance both films.

I definitely recommend catching both flicks in the order of their release.

Clear and Present Danger
Noyce, 1994

3

http://movie.info/movie/Clear_and_Present_Danger_1994_8.png

My wife hadn't seen the Jack Ryan stuff, so we have been watching them here and there. I think I like Patriot Games a bit more, even though this one cranks up the action a bit. The antagonists in the movie border on cartoonish at times, and Willem DaFoe always tend to pull me out of movies for whatever reason. Ford is good, as usual.

thracian dawg

08-13-18, 04:41 PM

★

Sliding Doors (1998) - Howitt
One wonders how a story exploring how life spins completely on chance could be so … utterly predictable and boring; a b-movie, break-up story with no life shattering consequences---even for the people involved. Way, way back in the day when Gwyneth Paltrow was the reigning movie queen with her posh British accent.

400 Days (2015) - Osterman
A private corporation wants to do a dry run for their first commercial trip to Mars with a deep flight simulation. Living in a weightless environment for 14 months would turn your body into complete jelly, and tasks like simply standing up would be impossible once you returned to earth However, they merely bury their astronauts 3 meters underground for the same amount of time, avoiding the entire problem and making it instead, a nonsensical isolation experiment. I couldn’t buy into the silliness.

★★ (http://www.filmsufi.com/search/label/**)

The Hippopotamus (2017) - Jencks
An ex-poet, soon to be ex-critic hits rock bottom is when he is sent to review a terrible Shakespeare play (cleared inspired by the film 300---sprayed on abdominals and cod-pieces) and begins to correct their diction aloud until the enraged actor/director leaps from the stage and charges him in the audience. This alcoholic curmudgeon doesn’t stay amongst unemployed for long and is immediately pressed into service as a debunker of miracles happening on an English Estate. Poetry equips you for this? The only attraction here is the bitchy dialogue.

Train to Busan (2016) - Yeon
This film explains the proliferation of Zombie films; they have completely devolved into paint by number affairs that can be churned out like sausages. The only real hitch is finding a producer willing to underwrite the next opus in special effects makeup. Case in point, a character in the film actually states the dramatic problem of the film: the hero is an amoral, financial flesh-eater making everyone around him totally miserable; late in the film it’s revealed his company was responsible for the outbreak, but other than that, there is not actual ounce of dramatic development on this front for the entire film. Merely subtracting characters from the plot simulates perfectly a satisfying, dramatic resolution of the story---which it isn’t.

★★½ (http://www.filmsufi.com/search/label/**%C2%BD)

Return of the Secaucus Seven (1979) - Sayles
The director takes some summer stock actors he was working with and slots them into a film about a group of former college students commemorating turning the big three-oh during a week-end retreat. This is kind of time capsule film. There are little touches of originality here and there, but John Sayles’ first film will be probably of little interest to anyone for other than that reason.

Last Flag Flying (2018) - Linklater
Linklater does some difficult things with this road movie; like jump starting a drama between some men who have no real connections with each other, apart from having spent a few months together when they were 21. It quite rightly points out the absurdity of murderers screaming the magical incantation that will automatically swing open the locked gates of paradise “Hallelujah! God is da bomb!” It’s not overt, but the film suggests that granting instant martyrdom to anyone who dies in an American military uniform is about the same level of tribal superstition. There’s some tradecraft here, the average Vietnam vet still alive today would be about 80 years old; so all those walkers and oxygen tanks disappear for cinematic purposes.

The Girl (2012) - Riker
A character study about an embittered young woman, working as a cashier in a big box store, living in a trailer park after her child (for legitimate reasons) was taken away from her by the Texas DFPS. She feels the world has a grudge against her; with a little scratch all her worries and wants would be over in a heartbeat. Then she meets some people with bigger problems then her own. This is a kind of a quiet, redemptive tale.

The Doll (1919) - Lubtisch
A lot of the double entendres still work in this hundred year old silent film, about a confirmed bachelor who marries a life-sized doll in order to win his inheritance.

Beyond the Clouds (1995) - Antonioni
Four stories about couples either falling into, or out of love---or not. The film doesn’t quite work for the most part, and I’ll be the first one to admit this is pretentious shight--- but it has its moments. Although debilitated from a massive stroke, 83 year old Antonioni’s grasp of the material or the glint in his eye was still present in certain scenes. Robbie Müller and Wim Wenders stood in the background ready to assist, just in case. The locations, the starlets and the sets were gorgeous.

Valmont (1989) - Forman
There is a totally different spin from tragedy of Dangerous Liaisons which notoriously came out of the gate ahead of this version and still overshadows it to this day. There is nothing remotely tragic at party central Paris, circa 1780. Valmont duels stumbling down drunk; a 14 year old (Fairuza Balk with her astonished eyes) comes straight from a religious convent and finds herself smack dab in the middle of Satyricon. This would have worked even better had it been taken even more in the direction of a bedroom farce.

★★★ (http://www.filmsufi.com/search/label/***)

Hearts beat loud (2018) - Haley
This father-daughter drama is interesting in what doesn’t happen, it kind of sets up and suggests all kinds of things, but the movie always goes sideways to the understated choice. This is kind of a golden hour film with things coming to an end one by one, in the summer before his daughter heads off to the UCLA on the road to becoming a doctor.

Man up (2015) - Palmer
There is a nice spin to this low-budget, British rom-com. The two leads are kind of sweet and totally desperate at the same time. When he walks up to her in the train station and says: are you my blind date? After a slight hesitation (she has actually met the annoying young woman who is the actual object of his intended affection) she says uh … yeah. She is replacing a 24 year old triathlete---she clearly doesn’t look it, but he doesn’t really press the matter---he is already off and running with his own agenda. And they almost make it through the date before the bottom falls out, but by then, there are enough entanglements and complications to keep them together for the romantic finish.

Irma Vep (1996) - Assayas
A Hong Kong action star gets astonishingly the lead role in a French re-make of an old silent film (Irma Vep is an anagram for the Vampires, a secret criminal organization) Everything is repeated to her in English, yet when she interacts with people in the street, she speaks French so she may be privy to everything that is deliberately being mistranslated for her. This is a troubled shoot from the start—with everyone is operating just below open panic. There is an active rumour mill and a lot of in-fighting and jealousy amongst the crew members. I couldn’t help smiling when Lou Castel showed up as an unemployed director; who would actually prefer spending his days in bistros and sidewalk cafés and keeping his unemployment checks rather than signing onto this train wreck. There are a lot of great movie making in-jokes here.

The Salt of the Earth (2014) - Wenders & Salgado
A portrait of the Brazilian social photographer Sebastião Salgado filmed by his son and Wim Wenders. Trained to be an economist, the photographer knows exactly where all the bodies are (about to be) buried and trains his lens on the invisible people who flee the torrents of (highly profitable) war and market plunder. The mass migrations (parades of anguish) of the poor, who are also citizens in the global economy, yet pay exclusively the full price for that great luxury; like watching their children wither away and die of starvation before their eyes.

Let the Sunshine in (2017) - Denis
This is a character study of the weepy, romantic tribulations of successful painter. She is a lion at the travelling exhibitions, vernissages and Art festivals; but in her personal life, she is definitely romantically challenged. When her marriage ends, she thinks she will simply trade-up to a more luxurious model, but discovers only slim pickings’ out there in the 50+ singles market. She staunchly defends her parade of serial lovers to her circle of friends when they attack how feeble her choices are, yet the next time she hooks up with them, inevitably she rejects her new boyfriends with those same criticisms.

Won’t you be my Neighbor? (2018) - Neville
“The most essential things in life are invisible to the eye.”
This is a portrait (some would say unabashed tearjerker) of the children’s program host, Fred Rogers. The same week he was about to become an ordained minister, a thing called television suddenly appeared and be thought instead of television being used to mangle innocent minds with sugary breakfast cereals and toys. A children’s program could be used instead to install a sense of well-being and a sense of being loved for its young audience. This might work better on the small screen; at times, the image was really grainy on the big screen.

Eye of God (1997) - Nelson
A small town crime film; the staggered time lines keeps the story moving forward towards its foretold conclusion. Martha Plimpton doesn’t do her usual chick schtick, but plays a young woman where treasured items like a little home and loving family with 2.4 kids and a scot terrier may be beyond her reach.

Gasman (1998) Ramsay
A daughter spends some quality time with her (estranged?) father in this 15 minute short film. Another little boy and girl join up with them at the train tracks and tag along with them to the Christmas party at the local pub. She is immediately displaced during the party when the other little girl goes to the men’s drinking table and crawls onto her father’s lap and calls him Daddy. There is a sense of gravitas--- that moment will irreparably affect her relationship with him for the rest of her life.

Personal Shopper (2016) - Assayas
The two parts of the story complement nicely one another. The story begins on the 93rd day since her brother’s death. They were both mediums---he being the more gifted, and he had promised, if he died first, he would send a clear sign to her from the afterlife. She is only hanging around Paris for that sign. This is contrasted with her wraith like presence in her day job, shopping for a super model no longer able to go out in public without causing a mob scene. Being arepresentation of the model, everyone wants to connect with her on the off chance they will eventually meet the star; but everyone who has actually spent any time with the model prefers dealing with her because the model is such a malefic witch in real life. The CGI is a little overdone; illustrating the plot points removes the mystery.

Neo Ned (2005) - Fischer
This tragic life story kind of works because our hero is a disneyfied version of the violent, deranged bigot--- he is merely excitable and energetic with good intentions. All the staff and social workers around him understand he is always acting out. Neo wouldn’t know a loving, healthy family environment if it goose-stepped up to him and kicked him in the ass. His life changes for the better when he strolls into the day room (court ordered stay) at his local mental health facility and there sits a dark haired beauty who believes der Führer has been reincarnated in her body.

Wasp (2003) Andrea Arnold
Gidget goes on a date. Our heroine doesn’t have a lot of options in this 26 minute short film. So when she bumps into someone with romantic potential from her past and no one to babysit her kids, she has little choice but to drag them along with her and do spot checks during her date at the local pub. Funny thing is, I don’t think she was a bad mother: she is doing all that is humanly possible. Where was the day care for this woman? Where was the invisible helping hand of society? You try caring for four young children all alone, and see how long you last; it’s only a matter of hours before you begin to pull your hair out.

Chicken with plums (2011) - Satrapi & Paronnaud
There is a definite Amelie vibe to this tale of unrequited love about a great musician, who returns home after a life-time of travelling the world as a violin virtuoso and bumps into the woman he has loved all his life (and forbidden to marry her as a young man) and discovers she doesn’t even remember his name and he decides right there, that life is no longer worth living. Despite being narrated by Azazel (the angel of death) this is kind of life affirming and cute.

★★★½ (http://www.filmsufi.com/search/label/***%C2%BD)

Floride (2015) - Le Guay
The film covers about the same territory as Still Alice, whereas that character was conscious of the point of no return and tried to prepare herself; he has shuffled past the red line in his pyjamas and is now merely eccentric and forgetful; the film catalogs his remaining moments of lucidity and confusion. The film is really difficult in that it never states its themes. There is a flashback where number two daughter appears briefly before heading off somewhere more important---clearly too busy in her own life to spare any time for him and he has misplaced the memory where she died about 9 years ago. Always focusing on her immanent return, she becomes the good daughter in his mind, not the ungrateful one always annoying him with her petty grievances. Late in the film we see him completely flummoxed by a sweater, then a reverse to his daughter down the driveway watching him fight that unexpected brain teaser. This reveals---although he is on-screen most of the time--- that she is the actual protagonist of the film; and in her undying filial devotion, she allows him these fleeting moments, sacrificing her own happiness and well-being in the process.

Somersault (2004) - Shortland
After a major bust-up with her mom, Heidi decides to run away from home. The only thing she has in a purse is a business card from a man who once gave her a brand new parka (for sex) and said, ‘Hey, if you’re ever in town babe, call me up.” She steps off the bus, only to have him tell her to never ever call him again, click. With nowhere else to go, and the last of her money gone, she decides to make a go of it alone in this tourist town. She leads with her heart and has a precocious sexuality that men can’t resist; she misreads attention for affection so true connections are a shimmering mirage. There are lots of poetic scenes but there is also a feeling of unease and menace here; the way this 16 year old skirts absolute tragedy, she definitely treads where angels fear to go.

★★★★ (http://www.filmsufi.com/search/label/****)

Paris, Texas * (1984) - Wenders
The open desert and the urban sprawl in this film seem to be mirror images of one another where aimless wandering (or aimless cruising) is the only possibility. Its evocative his brother sells billboard space, which disorient the travellers rather than pointing them towards the true treasures in their lives. In every single frame in the film one can actually see and measure the emotional distance between the characters, taking tentative baby steps towards or running away with great galloping strides.

Fish Tank * (2009) - Arnold
I liked the symbol of death in the riderless white horse; no escape is possible, no prince charming is ever going to touch her with a ten foot pole. This was informed by Arnold’s Wuthering Heights, where unavoidable tragedy is locked in from the outset. The hero there was not raised up, but laid low and crushed by hatred and brutality. The housing project here is just as forbidding as the rain-swept Moors. The deprivation and violence of poverty are born by the poor until they are crippled intellectually and emotionally; then blamed for their own despair and ignorance. It’s almost too horrible to contemplate, what a ticket to a modern dance recital or a ballet would have meant to this young woman, discovering another world out there would have changed her life; instead of trying to decipher a way out of dead-end situations from twerking fly girls on music videos.

Beast (2017) - Pearce
“You’re wounded … I can fix that”
There is a great backdrop to this emancipation story in this seaside town where just below the surface, everyone is quietly going bananas. Her younger sister steals the heroine’s thunder by announcing her engagement at her birthday party, but in the excitement and momentary confusion, she takes advantage to make her own great escape; a belated first night of clubbing (despite being in her mid-twenties) where she meets a person of interest. A young woman goes missing then is discovered buried in a shallow grave---and several other past cases are unearthed---with a serial killer on the loose, all the quiet chaos is brought to the surface. Anyone slightly odd or different is suspect. Any strange man accidently coming within a hundred meters of a playground is in danger of being beaten unconscious by self-appointed vigilantes. The cops are under enormous pressure to close the case yesterday, even if that means simply stitching up some totally innocent fool defenceless against the juggernaut of law and disorder.

cricket

08-13-18, 05:14 PM

46667
4
I don’t think I’ve ever had so much fun in a three hour movie. It’s like a way better version of The Big Short, about an arsehole who becomes rich from scamming people. Leo performance of this truly awful man was excellent. It felt a bit too long though, maybe 20 minutes or so.

Agree with every word, although I probably love it even more.:)

aronisred

08-14-18, 11:03 AM

Agree with every word, although I probably love it even more.:)

Noo does it have to be latest comment right when i open this thread.

aronisred

08-14-18, 12:33 PM

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

5

A story of two outlaws as they face the rise of capitalism, Oligarchy and the end of wild west.

George Roy Hill is one of the directors in 1960s who seems to have influenced the style of Quentin Tarantino. One of the major requirements of a successful movie is the need to entertain its audience. Without that a movie misses its point. After all its a piece of entertainment. So whatever subject matter Roy Hill deals with he is going to entertain the audience by influencing their mood with the songs he plays in the movie. Many directors use score to define the mood of a scene but both these directors use straight up song or at least in this film.

There is a very specific pattern followed by auteurs like George Roy Hill in this movie, Tarantino and Paul Thomas Anderson. That is to take a transition period in time and impose story on it. If you impose a serial killer during yuppie wall street culture you get American psycho. A Nazi assassin outfit in France during the end of world war 2 , you get Basterds. Same with Django. Phantom Thread and There will be blood. What this does is to give a uniqueness to the movie and the story. Firstly you can't compare it with other movies and most importantly there is an inherent momentum and movement to the story already. Its a very tricky balance act. You want the time period to effect the story but on a visceral level and not feel expository. Even a movie like Hostiles took place in a transition period in time but there was nothing going on in the movie. The movie is literally about the transition and its too thin of a story to make a movie from.

This movie is set in 1890s and is set during the same time period as hostiles where in the Indian wars have ended and the victorious Europeans are in the process of establishing order in the country. The funny thing about order is that most of people from Europe who came to North America are free spirited and who want to create their own destiny. But the Oligarchy system that is being set up keeps the rich and powerful at the top and the rest of immigrants at the bottom. That's when our outlaws Butch Cassidy and Sundance and the picture is set. Cassidy is the wise one and Sundance is young and aggressive one.These are the guys who are robbing as a way of protesting the establishment . Its inherent to them and is not something they are thinking about consciously. Its deep rooted in their subconscious and every once in a while comes out in their words. They used to rob banks and in the beginning of the movie we notice that banks have gotten smarter and are setting up tight security system. So they decide to rob money transported through rail transportation. Its a mode of transportation similar to any. So if it gets a bad rep that its being robbed constantly then people will loose trust in it. That kind of puts them at odds with the rail road company. So The movie inter weaved this story with 19th century cultural mile stones as long as they fit the story. So they showed bicycle invention. There are some light hearted moments with that as well as some heart breaking moments where our protagonists start realizing they are finding it hard to catch up to how quick the world is changing around them. Its like a metaphor for aging.

On a artistic level this movie is very well made. There is an inherent progression to the story. As I said, since this movie is set at the end of civil war where america is in the process of establishing government, the lawmen are forced to make an example out of any outlaws and bring order to society. The character played by leads , Paul Newman especially exudes a lot of charisma. He feels like a cunning , wise and yet tough guy. He is a man stuck in the cyclical habit of robbing and living a life debauchery and back to robbing. He apparently can't save up money. Redford has the personality of a fiery young man rebelling against the system and wanting to be lead by testosterone. They form a dynamic pair. I watched this a while ago without knowing its importance. But for some reason one long sequence in the movie stuck with me for a long time in a good way. It seems like the purpose of the sequence which lasts for like 20 minutes or so is to turn the motivation of the protagonists from being this active and prosperous robbers to wanting to escape America. In my opinion this is one of the greatest sequences in the movie history along with the interrogation scene in the dark knight. This sequence is the very definition of relentlessness. Its a metaphor for lot of things. The scene basically involves Cassidy and Sundance being pursued by 5 or 6 lawmen who have been tasked to bring them to justice and make an example out of them. This is especially shocking to our protagonists because in an earlier we see them hanging out at a hotel and the sheriff of the town gathers people to motivate them to join him in hunting down Cassidy and his gang of robbers. But the whole village is too scared to join him. So at a time when no one is courageous enough to hunt these outlaws these 5 people are chasing them. The sequence begins near a rail line and moves to the village mentioned earlier. Where they try and get rid of the pursuers. But they wont fall for that and from then it feels like a survival movie where in these are not left alone. They are pursued through desert , rocks and green planes and hills. Over the course of the chase protagonists realize who each of those guys could be. In the end they loose the tail by taking an impossible jump into a river and surviving the fall and swimming and find their way back to their home. It is then they realize that the rail company has hired most skilled lawmen in america to hunt our protagonists. They realize that it doesn't end as long as they are in north america.

The movie takes a turn when they reach Bolivia. Originally thought to be a place of gold rush and then they realize there is nothing in Bolivia. They decide to rob banks in Bolivia. What is so striking about all this is that these guys are a products of wild west. That era is coming to an end. But they don't want to accept it. Its classic scenario of individual trying to rebel against the changing times.Its an impossible scenario.You know what , coming to think of it, from the synopsis of once upon a time in Hollywood there is line in it that says Its an odyssey of a struggling western TV star and his stunt double navigating through a Hollywood they don't recognize anymore. Add to that Tarantino's statement of Pitt/DiCaprio being the most dynamic duo since Newman/Redford. I think we see references to this/the sting both directed by George Roy Hill in once upon a time in Hollywood. It would be interesting to see how they will treat the relationship between the leads considering Newman was older than Redford and it was easy to use him as the wise one and Redford as the young aggressive one. There can also be a sequence similar to this relentless chase by these lawman where they are chased by Charles Manson or something. So back to the movie, after they start robbing the unprepared Bolivian banks the news catches the wind of Lawmen in america and they come to Bolivia. That forces our leads to try an honest living and even that becomes too overbearing for them because when they act as lawman they are ambushed by local robbers. So the circumstances are so hard for these guys to make a honest living and their spirit is unwilling to live a normal life. Eventually their sins and actions catch up to them when they are surrounded by hundreds of armed lawmen in a overwhelming stand off for our protagonists. They have to choice between getting caught and hanged or going off in style. The movie gives them a heroes ending.

This is one of those movies that takes its time. Builds characters. Studies and reflects the time period its set in and the effect it has on the characters in the movie. Its very unique if you come to think of it. There is also a sequence in the movie about Bicycle invented at the time period and how it marks as an indicator of changing times. The chases has no music. It's just the sound of horses running. It poses a question to the viewer. What do you do if you realize that your talent is to be good at something that is deemed unlawful ? its raises further question as to who gives the right for others to decide what should or shouldn't be done. Why should people follow the rules ? A very deep yet utterly entertaining movie.

Iroquois

08-15-18, 09:14 AM

The Amityville Horror (Stuart Rosenberg, 1979) - 2.5

Half-decent haunted house movie that has its fair share of good moments scattered throughout a rather loose narrative. Very easy to think of this as a rough draft for The Shining.

Fast Food Nation (Richard Linklater, 2006) - 2.5

Perhaps Linklater's most overtly political film (at least out of the ones I've seen so far), this is a noble attempt at weaving together a number of storylines about the dark side of America's fast food industry that technically suffers for trying to spin a few too many plates at once even in the name of some agreeable sentiments.

The Purple Rose of Cairo (Woody Allen, 1985) - 3

Maybe the first time in a long time (if not ever) that I've actually enjoyed an Allen film, if only because it helps that he stays out of the picture and doesn't mess up the magical-realism high-concept of a movie character coming to life and romancing an unhappy housewife. It's taut, amusing, and actually earns its attempts at pathos, which make it something of an anomaly among the Allen films I've seen already.

The Rise and Fall of a Small Film Company (Jean-Luc Godard, 1986) - 2.5

Godard's enough of a wild card that I always at least try to watch any films I come across, which will undoubtedly lead to me watching notably lesser works like this made-for-TV obscurity that recently made its way onto MUBI. It's not bad, but I never could stop feeling like I'd rather be watching a different film he'd done.

From Dusk Till Dawn (Robert Rodriguez, 1996) - 2

After at least three viewings now I think I'm about ready to give up on ever trying to like this movie. The first half isn't so great that it makes the second half look so much worse in comparison (coming across as greater Tarantino self-parody than any of the films the man himself directed) and the second half still shows some developmental issues that reflect how it plays as an earnest but ultimately lesser attempt at paying homage to key influences like Assault on Precinct 13 or Evil Dead II. Still, it's a step up from when I used to consider this one of the worst movies I'd ever seen, I guess..

American Psycho II: All-American Girl (Morgan J. Freeman, 2002) - 0.5

Hoo boy, this is low even by the meager standards of the in-name-only sequel (trust me, it's better than treating its sole Patrick Bateman appearance as canon) about a college student trying to murder her way into being an FBI agent (yes, really). As if it's not bad enough that everything that's great about the original is either absent or distorted to the point of being nigh-unrecognisable, it's just an out-and-out terrible excuse for a blackly comic psychological thriller.

Mutiny on the Bounty (Frank Lloyd, 1935) - 2.5

Continuing my journey through Best Picture winners of yore brings me to this so-so historical drama centred around the eponymous event. Clark Gable's seeming inability to do a decent British accent is at least offset by Charles Laughton's theatrical braggadocio and it's still fairly watchable as an old-timey naval adventure, but that's about it.

Cimarron (Wesley Ruggles, 1931) - 2

Another lesser Best Picture winner with a how-the-West-was-won kind of premise that hasn't aged particularly well (yay for manifest destiny?) but is still passable enough as far as a grandstanding old-timey Western. At the very least, I'm not wholly dissuaded from checking out Anthony Mann's version.

Vampire's Kiss (Robert Bierman, 1989) - 1.5

This black comedy about an unhinged New York yuppie who may or may not have been turned into a vampire very clearly needs to be carried by Nicolas Cage's bugnuts performance and even then seeing him chew the scenery apropos of nothing isn't entertaining enough in its own right to make watching this film worth it (nor is its flimsy proto-American Psycho satire).

The Party (Blake Edwards, 1968) - 0.5

I've long since gone off the kind of comedy that Blake Edwards and Peter Sellers crafted together in the Pink Panther franchise and have repeated here with a feature-length dose of brownface thrown into the mix. Even the nominal catharsis of seeing a bunch of Hollywood snobs suffer Sellers' unwitting shenanigans is all but obliterated as a result and makes for a movie that is some extremely hot garbage.

aronisred

08-15-18, 11:34 AM

The Sting

5

A couple of con-artists orchestrate an elaborate con to rob half a million at the height of the great depression from a shady powerful businessman.

This is a good double feature with butch Cassidy and the sundance kid. Its directed by George Roy hill. These are some of the highest grossing movies and critically well received movies in film history. If you are someone who followed interviews of Quentin Tarantino around the time of promoting Django Unchained you can notice that he often talked about Old Hollywood vs New Hollywood. One of the catalyst for that change is a group of young talented filmmakers called the movie brats. They are talented enough to take the film making medium into a whole new direction. Blockbuster film-making and Italian american story and popcorn fare are the adjectives well suited for their movies. Old Hollywood is a very movie star based industry. Studios had deals with them and they cycled through directors to cast them in their movies. New Hollywood is much more director driven industry. Directors like Scorsese , Spielberg etc. are very much the stars of their movies. People went to their movies for the movies itself and not the movie stars. Of course there were anomalies but for the most part that's what it is. The transition can be seen over the course of a decade from 1965-75. Between new Hollywood movies godfather 1 and 2 an old Hollywood movie the sting won best picture.So the industry in a transition period and just as any change you go back and forth. If there is any relevance to it I think Tarantino is going to use this information in once upon a time in Hollywood I think its protagonist is very much a Paul Newman kind of movie star that is no longer valued in the post Manson murders. Because studios can no longer muscle directors to cast movie stars and use box office as a reason for that. ET and Jaws made hundreds of millions with no movie stars. There is always this battle between studios and directors on whom to cast. Concept based movies with lower to medium budgets can lend themselves to unknowns as long as they can show those movies will make a profit. Spielberg did that with his earlier movies.

The movie might seem for current audience because they have lot of its imitators over time. But the movie was groundbreaking at the time it came. The movie sort of became meta as it closed towards the end conning audience as well. Its a very classic sting operation. Character have a very traditional motivation of taking out the big guy. Our protagonists are underdogs and we root for them even more given the great depression because people don't have jobs and they are forced to live a street life which often times is unethical. Conning and cheating is common. The whole sting was set into motion because of an earlier sting that tarnished the reputation of a big wig. Even the big shots in those times have to live by their reputation most of the time. If its comes out that they are cheated or robbed or conned then it will make them look weak. One of the interesting aspects of the con is its ability of distract the subject and make him look closely at a different thing where the actual con is happening somewhere else. This is not a spoiler but the plot involves cheating the antagonist into betting a lot of money on a wrong horse in the race betting. He is forced to believe that a tipster he is getting his information from is legit. The con is two fold. The con by Redford and con by Newman. The con by Redford is inside the world of con by Newman. So all the while antagonist is busy checking for legitimacy of con by Redford he is not checking for legitimacy of con by Newman. Its like Truman show.

The movie took a more optimistic approach to great depression and sort of used it as an opportunity to play up the survival human spirit where in people don't stay still and die during depression, they hustle till their last breath to survive and live. This makes the movie entertaining rather than be in a depressed state. The relationship between police and crooks is also very odd. There is no clear demarcation between crooks and cops because both are corrupt. In a way each character in this movie has a con going on. They have secrets they are keeping from others. Paul Newman nonetheless protects Redford from his past deeds. He is on the run from a corrupt cop who is brought in by the FBI to get Paul new man . As in the movie prestige, no con is complete unless the magician gets away with it. It is not enough to con the antagonist what is even more essential is being able to get away with it. Protagonist's con also takes into account an exit strategy for everyone involved so that the big wig antagonist doesn't come after them.

All in all this is a worthy successor and kind of a spiritual sequel to butch Cassidy and sundance kid. It may be because of the time period or the tone of the movie but the former movie feels a little deep and darker than the sting. But nonetheless given the subject matter and time period it took place in i don't think you can capture depression era in a much more interesting way. After all its the movies.

Mr Minio

08-19-18, 03:52 PM

It took me several hours to complete this post. :O

野草閒花 [Wild Rose] (1932) - 3

http://silentfilm.blob.core.windows.net/assets/Standard/PAGE/2316/large/this_is_theWildRose_original.jpg

A peculiar mix of propaganda and melodrama, and as is often the case with Chinese films of the time the production quality is really rough around the edges at times. Still, I liked it and Renmei Wang is so sweet (much more than in Song of the Fishermen). The pseudo-happy ending is notable, too.

倩女幽魂 [The Enchanting Shadow] (1960) - 3.5

http://www.chinesefilms.cn/mmsource/images/2012/08/20/6b94ca440a104478a613f299c756c0ef.jpg

Trying to find a film similar to the Chinese Ghost Story trilogy and Green Snake I stumbled upon this early adaptation of the former. It's beautifully shot and very innocent compared to the later version. It's also quite different from the 1987 film. It's just as poetic, but in a more classicist way with poems literally recited on the screen. I felt something was missing to give it a four star rating.

生贄夫人 [A Wife to Be Sacrificed] (1974) - 3.5

https://i.imgur.com/v4wM8O9.png

Naomi Tani is on fire again, and the humiliation in this one is quite cruel and retrograde. It's your typical uneasy BDSM pinku with your usual set of kinks including the inevitable enema. The idea of unbreakable love is interesting, but quite ironic given how it all ends.

千面魔女 [Temptress of a Thousand Faces] (1969) - 3

http://www.hkcinemagic.com/en/images/movie/large/temptressofathousandfaces5_6e372fbacb45450a403d7c76f1cb934c.jpg

Quite a disappointment! A Hongkongese rip-off of the French hit series Fantomas is a dumb albeit entertaining comedy. Louis de Funès and Jean Marais both replaced by cute Chinese chicks was a good idea. Some points of the story were so silly and illogical that they irked even me, a person who rarely pays attention to such details. For some reason the ending in which two goofy policemen get Temptress' minion girls as their prize annoyed me more than girls actually getting tortured and raped in A Wife to Be Sacrificed. Maybe that's because it was played for laughs, but with an indication they will be groped at best and raped at worst.

迎春閣之風波 [The Fate of Lee Khan] (1973) - 4.5

https://i.imgur.com/iaNKPRG.png

King Hu. The "King" part is not accidental. This is a meticulously crafted game of suspense with a cornucopia of vivid characters. I love how at first you don't know who is on whose side, and just like the characters you suspect everybody of being a spy. Of course, it all ends in a bunchload of fights, which are, as always with Hu, wonderful. It lacks metaphysics of his magnum opus A Touch of Zen, but apart from that it's perfect.

無間道 [Infernal Affairs] (2002) - 3.5

https://www.showroomworkstation.org.uk/pictures/programme/1/5/7/.15755/~EDw4bjY5/Infernal_Affairs_2.jpg

Too mainstream! It's a good film, but it needed something special to get a higher rating, and it quite failed to provide this something. Obviously it's much superior to The Departed, but the way it was shot, the way it played out its melodramatic and action scenes just wasn't exactly my taste. Still a good film worth my time. I might watch the other two parts of the trilogy soon.

凶貓 [Evil Cat] (1987) - 4

https://universaldork.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/evil_cat_1987_movie_hong_kong.jpg?w=830

What a crazy film from Hongkong! People behaving like feral cats are bonkers, the guy with a bow hilariously badass! What a wonderful blast from the past! HK cinema is truly one of its kind!

紅色娘子軍 [The Red Detachment of Women] (1960) - 3.5

https://i.imgur.com/q7jI3qy.png

A Chinese propaganda film romanticizing the rise of the Chinese Communist Party and creation of the all-female batallion and its fight with the rich that exploited the poor proletariat. You know, all this Communist ballyhoo. All that being said, it's a really well made film that might not be on the level of Soviet Montage films of the 20s, but is still enjoyable to watch. As a side note, I can't get over how some people praise Lenin, Stalin and Mao, and think they only killed bad people and that the fact they were dictators and murderers is Imperialist propaganda. xDDDDDD I mean, you can praise your philosophers, live in your utopia, but championing murderers is beyond my cognition.

La dialectique peut-elle casser des briques ? [Can Dialectics Break Bricks?] (1973) - 2.5

https://radar.squat.net/sites/default/files/candialecticsbreakbricks2.jpg

A 90 minutes long YT poop made by French Marxists in the 70s. A couple of jokes land well, but the rest is rather meh, not to mention it's basically a redubbed kung fu film that probably is a better film overall than this reimagination of it.

Muriel, ou le temps d'un retour [Muriel, or the Time of Return] (1963) - 4

https://criticsroundup.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/muriel-or-the-time-of-return-still3-526x295.jpg

Resnais' follow-up to one of my favourite movies of all time is a very good film. The disjointed narrative serves its purpose rather well, and the film has this oneiric quality to it. It's not as visually striking as his previous two, and it also didn't make me madly fall in love with it, but it's still superb filmmaking.

おかえり [Welcome Home] (1996) - 4.5

https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/39043806_2102406396438589_4790027002021150720_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=f8fc5639eff62c7e5556217f87fd2ba1&oe=5C07896A
https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/39094234_2102404469772115_6652241104064217088_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=986e56a68a4ffc420c6c34eae18e80dc&oe=5C031446
https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/39074186_2102405149772047_5713611658341908480_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=31986c414f8ffd56d0e1f64598be45a4&oe=5BF5817C
https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/39068284_2102405249772037_4264521209141526528_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=5c578cff2f2f4e50cb65cba63c7bb30e&oe=5BFBD7C0
https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/39004192_2102405486438680_9087949278470471680_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=b8a98cf5d753c1446419d69272b48282&oe=5BF75C5F
https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/39044792_2102405693105326_7404323232309837824_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=740f6eb550afe0f63071bfac5471522d&oe=5C08EDB8
https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/39120554_2102406023105293_8745812973945094144_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=2b1c87f96b5ab6643f2e0be5acd362a7&oe=5C053341
https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/39044731_2102406243105271_388029752365023232_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=5e34224a6f75e821424eb3f88207f9b7&oe=5C0EED5E
https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/39000272_2102407089771853_2092430770084773888_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=2fab7da16c720fad742006cd4c9a09cc&oe=5BECE38E
https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/39032311_2102407209771841_763965491004833792_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=249c22c2d4c60b348d3c89f614568fc1&oe=5BF557C4

What a beautiful, sad, intimate film. Susumu Terajima is outstanding as always, but Miho Uemura is at least as amazing, and her performance is simply heart-breaking! The way she sobs, shows emotions, goes around as if in a trance, gazes into the infinite is impeccable. I was really sad to find out she did not star in anything else. I'd love to see this beautiful and talented woman in more movies. The film avoids cheap moralizing and shows real struggle of a couple that leads to the rediscovery of their needs.

性輪廻死にたい女 [The Woman Who Wanted to Die] (1970) - 4

http://nextprojection.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/womanbanner.jpg

Yet another one of those thought-provoking pink films by Wakamatsu. Made as a reaction to Mishima's suicide, it comments on the topic in a pretty irregular way.

妖怪都市 [Wizard's Curse] (1992) - 4

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5QJyEanVPHk/UNQRw4Y_mHI/AAAAAAAAAY0/QBG74jqly3s/s1600/wizardcurse2.jpg

Talk about bonkers! Lam Ching-Ying reprises his role of a Taoist Priest to fight an evil two-sex (a man and a woman at the same time!) vampire-monster-sorcerer-something! The final sex scene is freakin' bonkers with all these plastered limbs. Haha. Oh man!

지금은맞고그때는틀리다 [Right Now, Wrong Then] (2015) - 4

https://pmcvariety.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/right.jpeg?w=1000&h=563&crop=1

Watching more Hong Sang-soo, because I'm apparently not frustrated enough. This is a two-part film with the same situation played out in two different fashions - without and then with honesty. Honesty above all!

Mr Minio

08-19-18, 03:53 PM

CONTINUED (IMAGE LIMIT)

この窓は君のもの [This Window Is Yours] (1994) - 4

https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/39118153_2102408863105009_3011181067051728896_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=e6256eae4de44e11e910d0b8dd66a416&oe=5C38AC37
https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/39104736_2102409699771592_333637406060183552_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=783873e4ea7695ef2fa96a502acd2891&oe=5C057E34
https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/39060357_2102410393104856_307214187434606592_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=2267eb66dbfed75cd9a4520a1f8e96b6&oe=5BF94BE0
https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/39071441_2102410509771511_6625071841029390336_n.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=2cd6a4793c7df271fa48ffa93aaf5d90&oe=5BFAABD5

A wonderful, relatable cinema straight from the heart. I need this kind of feels in my life.

เรื่องรัก น้อยนิด มหาศาล [Last Life in the Universe] (2003) - 4.5

https://i2.netflixmovies.com/dibsl9ebc/image/upload/w_1920,h_800,c_fill,g_faces,q_62/q6zziixblfztn3suwqhp.jpg

An incredibly depressing, but also very beautiful love story. Perfectly distilled melancholy. When the film ended I thought it was very good. A couple of minutes after it had finished something clicked and I started crying. It takes a lot from Japanese cinema and it stars many Japanese actors. It has Yakuza, too. And quirky Japanese humour. A masterpiece.

五匹の紳士 [Cash Calls Hell] (1966) - 4

http://www.midcenturyproductions.com/img/may2017/still/CashCallsHell.jpg

Gosha does neo-noir morality tale! Superb 60s cinematography and Tatsuya Nakadai trying to redeem his sins! Very moving!

弾丸ランナー [Non-Stop] (1996) - 3.5

http://bullesdejapon.fr/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Dangan-Runner-5.jpg

AKA Dangan Runner. Sabu's debut in which you can already spot hints of genius, but it's not quite it yet. It's incredible how this guy is going to make his supreme masterpiece only a year after this! This film has some great scenes, too. Like the guys running and seeing a hot OL lady. Then, each one fantasizes about having sex with her. Each one in a different fashion. Or the euphoric laugh when they stopped their exhaustive marathon and ended up in a lock between two Yakuza groups and police!

ＯＬ連続レイプ　巨乳むさぼる [Office Lady Rape: Devouring the Giant ****] (1990) - 4

https://i.imgur.com/tWCzx0A.jpg

Watched without English subs. :( The main female protagonist (not the one in the pic) is simply a 10/10. She starred in only two other flicks. Both unavailable. DAMN IT.

ニッポン国古屋敷村 [A Japanese Village] (1982) - 4

https://i.imgur.com/oVztWVp.png

A very long documentary that makes seemingly uninteresting topics (like cultivation of rice) very interesting.

吉原炎上 [Tokyo Bordello] (1987) - 3.5

https://i.imgur.com/XjaGypb.jpg

A distressing and frustrating Gosha film that lies somewhere between Mikio Naruse and Douglas Sirk.

滿清禁宮奇案 [Sex and the Emperor] (1994) - 3

http://www.hkcinemagic.com/en/images/movie/large/sex-and-the-emperor-stuart-ong-bien-arme_60ccfa4d2ea2a1bbf2be904d58c59e7b.jpg

Not bad! A Chinese Torture Chamber Story-like flick with a mix of silly HK humor, boobs and more gruesome moments. Far from great, but recommended if you enjoy this kind of stuff.

Kaikan onanie: niizuma-hen [Pleasure Masturbation: New Wife Version] (1993) - 4

https://i.imgur.com/dwPoYYL.png

Again a Sato film with no English subtitles. Thankfully some good soul wrote a synopsis of the film on Letterboxd, so I wasn't completely lost. It depresses me I've watched all of his available films. I guess I will have to start rewatching his output I think I underrated the first time.

Bad Boy Bubby (1993) - 4

http://sensesofcinema.com/assets/uploads/2011/02/Bad-Boy-Bubby1.jpg

The only English-language film I watched during my nine-days-long vacation. It's pretty out there, but also beautiful and moving at times. The Nick Cave lookalike main hero is fascinating. It's touching how even if you're a total weirdo unfit for living in society, you can still find your place in the world and have a normal life. Then again, having a normal life is too mainstream!

屯門色魔 [The Rapist] (1994) - 3.5

https://i.imgur.com/N3LKcDj.png

Another CAT III flick! It has some exploitative scenes, but it's still realistic (it portrays real events!) and does not feel like some of its exploitation cinematic peers. It focuses on the work of a small police team that struggles to catch a rapist-turned-murderer. The female officer bait scene in the middle of the film is incredibly tense and no doubt the best part of the film! The third part of the film is a little bit weird and tries to underline some The Offence vibes with moderate success.

Hurlements en faveur de Sade [Howls for Sade] (1952) - 2.5

https://i.imgur.com/ZilmNXv.png

Debord was pretty lousy even before he left the Lettrists and created Situationism. This film alternates between a pitch-black screen with no sound whatsoever and white screen with absolutely random pieces of information recited by the narrator. Nowhere as close and exciting as Isou's film.

エンドレス・ワルツ [Endless Waltz] (1995) - 4

https://i.imgur.com/oYfkWRH.png

Wakamatsu's later work, and an incredibly depressing film. Abe was such a despicable human being, or not to play around he was a freakin' piece of sheet. He beat his wife including when she was pregnant. The film is more of a story about her misery than the musician himself. Reona Hirota is so beautiful. Keiji Haino cameo!!!

밤의 해변에서 혼자 [On the Beach at Night Alone] (2017) - 3.5

https://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/review/primary_image/reviews/on-the-beach-at-night-alone-2017/hero_Beach-Alone-2017.jpg

More Hong-Sang-soo, and a good but not great film this time! Kim Min-hee is a beautiful woman, but the fact she really had an extramarital romance with the director in real life was a little bit creepy (how close can cinema be to real life?). Of course, we shouldn't be judgemental. Blah blah blah.

우리 선희 [Our Sunhi] (2013) - 4

https://i.imgur.com/0ILc6c1.jpg

Another Hong Sang-soo. Sunhi is a pretty sweet girl, and this is one of the most relatable of his films. The scene with them touching each other's faces is perhaps the best thing Hong directed. AND OH MY GOD JUST HOW BEAUTIFUL AND CUTE CAN JUNG YU-MI BE?! I WAS ABSOLUTELY IN LOVE!!!

นางไม้ [Nymph] (2009) - 4

https://www.alternateending.com/images/2Gl0fehs7wEiy4rXrNDKghgd6Vu.jpg

A very original film from the director of Last Life in the Universe. Sure, it takes a lot from Weerasethakul, but I think it feels different from Apichatpong's films. It's a great horror film that is very scary when you deeply think about it. It has all these eerie myths on display, too.

天国はまだ遠い [Heaven Is Still Far Away] (2016) - 4.5

http://rarefilm.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Heaven-Is-Still-Far-Away-2016-2.jpg

A short film from Ryûsuke Hamaguchi - the director of the masterpiece Happy Hour. It's a wonderful film that accomplishes more in just 40 minutes than most films in 90 minutes or more! It touches many themes and really resonates strongly with me. Hyunri is so beautiful. ;3

Mr Minio

08-19-18, 03:53 PM

CONTINUED (IMAGE LIMIT)

現代好色伝テロルの季節 [Season of Terror] (1969) - 4.5

http://www.filmsinfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Season-of-Terror-1.jpg

One of Wakamatsu's best! A film in which seemingly nothing happens. A deserter hides in his haven and has a lot of fun with two girls at once (polygamy style!). Of couse, Wakamatsu always delivers, so it can't end on a positive, innocent note. Anyway, that color sequence towards the end with a flag of America and Japan and the orange-tinted images of the trio having sex, and then the sad, alienated face of the main hero are too strong.

地下鉄連続レイプ [Subway Serial Rape] (1985) - 3.5

http://mondoexploito.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ssr4.jpg

Having finished all available Sato films I'm desperately trying to find something similar. It's super hard, though and I had no success yet. :( This is yet another film that is not similar to Sato films. The subway scene is deeply shocking. The rest is your usual pinku fare.

옥희의 영화 [Oki's Movie] (2010) - 4

https://i.imgur.com/fxiiBVj.png

Another Hong Sang-soo. Jung Yu-mi again. <3 Quite honestly I started confusing it with Our Sunhi, so I decided to stop watching his films for some time. These are all just too much like each other!

不気味なものの肌に触れる [Touching the Skin of Eeriness] (2014) - 3

http://cdn01.loadshow.jp:60100/mainloadshow/films/8/01.1000x1000.jpg

Another Hamaguchi short. Apparently an unfinished film. Sadly, this one didn't work for me. Still okayish.

性賊セックスジャック [Sex Jack] (1970) - 3.5

http://p5.storage.canalblog.com/57/56/110219/46488853.png

A good Wakamatsu film. Very political even for his standards, and the color sequence once again is the highlight of the film.

デスパウダー [Death Powder] (1986) - 4

https://static.anarchivism.org/cyberpunkreview-archive/www.cyberpunkreview.com/images/deathpowder14.jpg

A cyberpunk masterpiece! Absolutely no concern about cohesive story. Just pure atmosphere and fun!

鏡心 [Mirrored Mind] (2005) - 4.5

https://i.imgur.com/jf6SxTo.jpg

A spiritual sequel to August in the Water! Alien ASMR vaporwave chronicle of a return! Metaphysical!

Amore, piombo e furore [China 9, Liberty 37] (1978) - 3.5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quNz4VWr4xw

A late spaghetti western that feels a lot like American westerns (no surprise - directed by an American). The main theme is heavenly!

괴물 [The Host] (2006) - 4.5

https://i.imgur.com/Q07kVnt.png

This film had no right to be as good as it was. Well, it was! I think the reason it worked was the human element. It focuses on people, not the monster.

花と蛇 [Flower and Snake] (2004) - 3.5

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zgfhLkD0vos/T89aa0qm23I/AAAAAAAAISs/P9YklW5rfCE/s1600/hanatohebi4.jpg

Ishii does a reboot of the legendary Nikkatsu series adding some hints of his style of the time (Yakuza movies, but no neons - what is this?!). The BDSM scenes are beautifully shot and save no detail, but are preceded by some really f*cked up stuff like a girl tortured to death, or a girl forced to do stuff or else somebody gets killed. The old geezer getting f*cked to death is hilarious, though. I don't think stuff like this will ever stop amusing me.

Ten Skies (2004) - 3.5

https://d1tyf8b78tco2j.cloudfront.net/3d16c62a/cea14667/images/2f93aeddd4e319ae16d2def21f932f1289d95d6d.1000.jpeg

One sky was boring.

金粉遊龍 [Matching Escort] (1982) - 4.5

http://www.sogoodreviews.com/reviews/matchingescort4.jpg

A forgotten wuxia masterpiece straight from Taiwan! Cheap, but made with big heart. And that music that sounds like taken straight from Xiao Feng Feng tapes. Chang Ling <3 She directed the film and stars in it! She's the female Godfrey Ho! This film should be the childhood favourite of every legit person!

温泉スッポン芸者 [Hot Springs Kiss Geisha] (1972) - 4

http://iv1.lisimg.com/image/1906026/704full-hot-springs-kiss-geisha-screenshot.jpg

Killer pussy, or Miki Sugimoto as the Queen of Penis Captivus who single-handedly (single-vaginally???) destroys the entire School of Unlimited Semen. Suzuki DELIVERS another great comedy pinku.

Ratu ilmu hitam [The Queen of Black Magic] (1981) - 3.5

https://drfreex.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/vlcsnap-2014-09-09-19h44m55s254.png

Basically an Indonesian take on Shaw Brothers' Black Magic movies. Quite okay, but inferior to HK films of this kind!

Worldly Desires (2005) - 3.5

https://i.imgur.com/3ekK4BQ.png

That song should never end.

This Side of Paradise: Fragments of an Unfinished Biography (1999) - 3

https://i.imgur.com/iNvv5Dn.png

A mediocre Mekas! Way too many epileptic moments!

Temetés [The Funeral] (1998) - 3.5

https://i.imgur.com/mCOI8s2.png

Slowly falling into the nihil!

アリエッタ [Arietta] (1989) - 3

https://i.imgur.com/Y3keXRo.png

AKA Please Abuse Me, Henrietta. I have a couple of problems with this film. Apparently we're supposed to feel great sympathy for the protagonist, but the film doesn't do a good job at eliciting this feeling plus it has this very bland, sterile video look. It also offers no surprise since the beginning of the film already shows the protagonist is dead. The sex scenes aren't really different from hardcore porn and are shot in a very titillating way which definitely does not help.

修道女ルナの告白 [Cloistered Nun: Runa's Confession] (1976) - 3.5

https://i.imgur.com/aF5n2rc.jpg

A fine nunsploitation film. Hell, I'm really overrating these pink films. :shrug:

乳首にピアスをした女 [Woman with Pierced Nipples] (1983) - 3.5

https://i.imgur.com/HQmjfqE.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/nueYKgH.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/zZ8iAUK.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Q3swjGu.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/aN2ik8j.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/L4jZQCf.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/v1r4Vy9.jpg

A pretty good BDSM pinku film. I wanted to rate it higher, but it doesn't really deserve it :shrug: I liked it more than Runa's Confession, though.

HashtagBrownies

08-19-18, 06:44 PM

A 90 minutes long YT poop made by French Marxists in the 70s.

I'm guessing you're a big fan of those? So am I. Got any particular favourites?

Mr Minio

08-20-18, 01:22 AM

I'm guessing you're a big fan of those? So am I. Got any particular favourites? All you had to do was rep my posts and stay silent, you fool!

HashtagBrownies

08-20-18, 05:49 AM

All you had to do was rep my posts and stay silent, you fool!

CRAP!

https://media.giphy.com/media/one2t6IVCI8RG/giphy.gif

Iroquois

08-20-18, 02:21 PM

The Greatest Show on Earth (Cecil B. DeMille, 1952) - 1.5

Yeah, I can definitely see how this has earned a reputation for being one of the worst Best Picture winners with its bloated combination of circus B-roll and thin melodrama, but at the same time there's just barely enough going on that I didn't totally hate it either. We'll see if I change my mind on that, though.

The Sixth Side of the Pentagon (Chris Marker and François Reichenbach, 1968) - 3

Another short Marker documentary, this time about a protest happening outside the Pentagon. Hippies, neo-Nazis, the National Guard, and many more gather for this event that is captured in about the same clinical (but not exactly indifferent) fashion as any other of the Marker shorts I've seen.

Around the World in Eighty Days (Michael Anderson, 1956) - 1.5

This might technically be better than The Greatest Show on Earth but in many ways it feels like it's cut from the same cloth as it tells a lengthy tale that emphasises empty spectacle above all else as its dapper protagonist is ferried from one exotic location to the next while occasionally encountering a celebrity cameo.

Radio Days (Woody Allen, 1987) - 3

Another surprisingly decent effort from Allen that interposes a series of coming-of-age vignettes with the unlikely journey of a would-be radio star in 1940s New York. Its structure means that it moves at a clip and doesn't ever sag, and while it's never particularly funny it doesn't lack for emotional resonance beneath its slice-of-life shenanigans.

Basic Instinct (Paul Verhoeven, 1992) - 2

Even going in with the understanding that Verhoeven's notoriously pulpy and sensationalist Hollywood movies usually have something more going on underneath their surfaces, I still found this one pretty boring (albeit not entirely bereft of either lurid thrills or seemingly subversive condemnations of the same).

Sex, Lies and Videotape (Steven Soderbergh, 1989) - 3.5

I'd have to watch and re-watch a few other Soderbergh films to be sure, but as of right now I'm inclined to think of this one as my favourite of his even as its tale of the bourgeois sexual politics that govern the lives of its four main characters now reads like stereotypically over-privileged nonsense on paper (which it thankfully isn't in execution, or at least not to the extent that the film itself is bad).

Killing Gunther (Taran Killam, 2017) - 1

A depressingly unfunny mockumentary about a hitman who hires a documentary crew to follow him and his ragtag team in a quest to kill Gunther, the greatest hitman in the world. Even the novelty value of seeing Arnold Schwarzenegger in the titular role is diminished by his severe lack of screentime (which I still can't tell is enough to truly keep this film from the dreaded 0.5) while the rest of the film plays like a cut-rate mix of Man Bites Dog and MacGruber.

Dumb and Dumber (Bobby Farrelly and Peter Farrelly, 1994) - 1

I don't necessarily mind watching lightweight comedies centred around complete fools, but this one doesn't hold up in the slightest for me. Maybe one chuckle, but otherwise this now plays like an endurance test where everything about it is either insufferable or has been done far better in other movies. As far as I'm concerned, Lloyd may just be one of the most annoying characters in film history.

Born Yesterday (George Cukor, 1950) - 2.5

A passable Pygmalion variation where a brutish businessman hires a journalist to teach his girlfriend not to be such a ditz. Could've been annoying (and maybe it really is - even now I'm considering whether or not to dock it half a point), but it's still reasonably functional. Still amazed that this took the Best Actress Oscar over the likes of All About Eve and Sunset Blvd., though.

Lincoln (Steven Spielberg, 2012) - 3

Original review found here (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1265968-lincoln.html). I daresay I liked it considerably more this time around, though it's strange to watch a film centred around passing the 13th amendment while being aware of how it's been criticised in recent years for technically allowing slavery to continue thanks to a punishment-for-a-crime loophole. It's still about as well-made as any of Spielberg's 21st-century prestige movies get (thanks in no small part to DDL headlining a great cast and delivering great lines) but there's no getting around that particular part.

aronisred

08-20-18, 11:03 PM

Sorcerer

5

A group of men from different walks of life desperate for freedom must work together on a deadly mission.

William Friedkin was at the height of his power in new Hollywood. He is making movies that are unconventional with controversial subject matters and yet they make lot of money. His movies never relied on star power for his 2 most successful movies. Its just his directorial talent that made them what they are. Any director at this point in their career will have two choices, either make a challenging movie or make a commercially safe movie.He chose to do the former one. Nonetheless he went to Steve McQueen to act in the movie and while this deal was in negotiations he went to other foreign movie stars to cast them in other roles. Some of them agreed. I mean,post Exorcist he was trying to assemble a huge A-list cast for a movie that is based on his vision of a story. But since Steve McQueen was newly wed, he wanted his wife to be cast in the movie or have a job in the movie so she can be with him during filming. Since Friedkin was at the peak of his career he didn't give in to the old Hollywood norm of bending to the will of movie stars and went new Hollywood route of casting a lesser known but powerful actor. Nonetheless the rest of the cast fell apart because foreign stars who were willing to play second fiddle to McQueen were not so keen on being that for Roy Scheider . So the whole cast kind of went from A list to A- list. The original wages of fear was a black and white movie. It lacked grit in the film making process or at-least in the film capturing process. All the grit in the movie was in the story and screenplay but not in cinematography or direction. So the movie doesn't feel gritty. The over blown budget of Sorcerer help it realize that on screen. So this helps the movie justify its existence. Without the overblown budget it would have just felt unnecessary.

One of the most engaging part of cat and mouse story-lines is the escape. If the mouse is caught, there is no fun to it. But the escape is the exciting part. Getting away with crimes is always interesting to watch. Because social norms force us to believe that anyone can be caught. But once in a while if movies can capture the escape properly, its magical. For example , shawshank redemption , escape from Alcatraz, breaking bad towards the end. All these are memorable for the way they deal with escape. Even the staging of escape is very memorable and interesting. It signifies human spirit. Spirit of being free and being able to do whatever we want. Its not so memorable if everyone does it. Its only memorable when only you can do it. The movie begins with an assassination in Mexico. The scene lingers on the assassin more so than the victim and it shows him walking into the crowd after the murder. Then we see a Palestinian terrorist blowing up a Jewish place in Jerusalem. When they try and make an escape after the incident they are outnumbered by Israeli army and one of them manages to escape while the others are caught. Their goal is to escape but due to this raid the rest of them were killed except one guy and the one who managed to escape looks at him from the crowd and realizes that he will disclose information about him. And then in Paris, a wealthy businessman makes a bad business decision that would put him in a position where he has to choose between paying back a huge sum of money that he doesn't have or going to jail all while damaging his families name and spending the rest of his life in jail. His family doesn't have that kind of money and his business partner whose father is wealthy couldn't get his father to help them financially by paying off. Pretty soon we realize that the friend is weak minded and the main guy is the one who is in charge and he will loose everything he has. After his partner kills himself after speaking with him , he is left with no other option except to flee the country mid lunch with his wife forever. So he basically plans on disappearing from his identity. And at last but not the least we meet our protagonist in New Jersey,he is part of Irish gang and we are introduced to them whey they are robbing gaming money from a rival gang and in the ensuing tussle they shoot one of the cashiers. The cashier happens to be the brother of the rival gang leader. During their escape the gang involves in a car accident that instantly kills some team members and one of them is taken in by medical service/cops. But our protagonist aka Roy Scheider knows that the moment medical assistance/cops rescues them from the accident with all the robbed money on them, they are in the hands of death. They will be tortured and killed by the rival gang. Its a pretty disturbing sight to look at a badly wounded and bloodied Roy Scheider limping away from the accident scene before people come to the scene. Its also shown in a very interesting way. He narrowly misses the people. He is on the other side of the car away from people and he slowly limps and falls and limps and slowly walks away, so from far it appears to people like he is normal person. His life would have been different had he made that choice a few seconds late because people would have caught up to him by then. A while later we see him meeting his friend , who tells him to disappear due to the heat on him. So what we have here is a group of men from very very different geographical locations who are all escaping the law. The movie doesn't cheap out by dressing up LA as Mexico/ Paris/ Jerusalem or New Jersey. They shot the movie in real locations with a lot of budget. The director uses wide shots and multiple shots to make the audience believe that these are real locations.

Once we realize that all the men are living in a remote poor Latin american village on a minimum wage as daily labors,we are left to connect the dots between all the scenes shown earlier because each of the person can have a movie of his own with his background. The village acts as an ideal spot because its impossible to guess they are in this place and secondly the local law enforcement doesn't have the resources to find out who these guys are. Given the corruption, its easy for them to make money by threatening these people of deporting. We notice that among these men, the french businessman and the assassin shown at the beginning of the movie are the ones that are living comparatively better life with a small room for themselves. The rest of them live a miserable life with common bed rooms. The circumstances in this village are beyond horrible with muddy roads and malaria inducing neighborhoods. The main source of income for this village is the jobs at an oil rig near by. But when the rig catches fire and blows up, the only way to stop it is to create another explosion with nitro glycerin. The only source of nitro glycerin is in a remote abandoned storage station. Once the management team goes there to inspect the state of the chemical and since its been unused for years, some of it is powdered with no way to use it but the rest of it is liquefied and seeped from the bags into the container . So there is considerable amount of nitro glycerin in the containers in a liquid state. After considering all modes of transportation, the management decides on road. But nonetheless its a suicide mission. Any small error could cause a deadly huge explosion. And that is where our protagonist enter the scenario. The oil company needs skillful yet expendable drivers that can take on this mission and its a do or die scenario for them. The situation of our protagonists at this point is , they don't have enough money to leave that place. Even if they leave they need to find a place that is safe for them. So they are desperate to get out of the place and are willing to do whatever it takes to get a safe life. After knowing the severity of the mission, they all negotiate the reward to be a citizen ship and money. From then on our characters are forced into heart of darkness on a perilous journey against harsh unforgiving landscapes with rains, bridges over rivers, mud and punishing forest. It kind of strengthens their will to survive and move forward.

The movie was a financial disasters and is one of those early movies that forced studios to reduce the control of directors over their films unless they have a long proven track record of commercial and critical success doing their own way. The last part is extremely important. If you are a director for hire who made successful movies doing studio template cookie cutter formula then you are not given leeway. You have to do the movie your own way like Logan , The dark knight , Dunkirk or even to some extent the wolverine and make it critically and financially successful. Its in part due to its timing and tone of the movie and the cast. But apart from the first part which is basically a business decision , the rest two are exactly the reason why this movie is so awesome. The tone of the movie is extremely bleak. It never holds carrot at the end of finish line for our protagonists. It never promises a paradise at the end of finish line. Not when they escape their fates in the beginning of the movie and certainly not when they seemingly overcame insurmountable odds to get the nitro glycerin to its destination. The adjectives the can be used to describe this movie can include unforgiving , harsh, bare knuckle, bad ass, bleak, haunting, depressing and manifestation of phrase "into the heart of darkness" or "if you look long into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you". The point of the movie is that there is no point to all this pain. The individual fates of the characters makes it clear that its all for nothing and yet the circumstances in which they are presented with forces them to make the decisions they made. That's a pretty bleak movie to watch.

One of negative criticism about this movie personally is the way they dealt with the volatility of nitro glycerin. The way they set up the boxes is by filling the floor of the trucks with sand and then placing them firmly in sand. So they can avoid minor bumps or tilts. We are never sure as to the specifications of the amount of pressure or vibrations or movement of the liquid that would lead to its explosion. Because there is constant contradiction between two things in this movie. First, the idea of transporting a volatile and highly dangerous liquid in these old vehicles is risky enough. Then add to that the route through the jungle which is extremely difficult to navigate even without the liquid. So the heightened danger of the route further increases the need to know the specifics of nature of the liquid and its limits. Because, in some of the sequences in the movie, the truck is shown driving downhill on a slant muddy route and it becomes hard to believe that the liquid hasn't exploded yet. Or in the scene involving crossing a partially destroyed wooden bridge. So it all feels a little script driven. it feels like the liquid explodes when the script says it to explode. I am torn a bit on the journey in the movie. The movie has few gritty set pieces. A muddy path through the harsh jungle, the infamous bridge over the river that is over flowing due to huge rain , the whole nasty village, the fallen tree trunk across their route and the whole forest around them. The trucks go through all these locations. I can understand that the trip will loose its danger if they encounter a village along their way. The goal is to not see another human as they take this treacherous path. The goal of the movie is to capture man vs nature without including all the animal attack or any such cliches. Its just the wind and rain and land that are enough to cause whole world of pain. I think the director traded ambitiousness for commercial accessibility. Steve McQueen star power could have helped it reach a wider audience the same way DiCaprio star power helped with The Revenant. But I do think academy buzz is needed. One another contradiction in the movie is that it has few scenes contradicting the tone of the movie. In a movie that is as white knuckle as this,there are some scenes that are little out of place like the characters talking about their families or even the contraption to blow up the tree trunk. Both felt a little bit tonally inconsistent. But that doesn't take away from the precision with which director has achieved his intended goal with the finished movie.

Nonetheless this movie is amazing. Its a tough watch for fictional reasons. I read somewhere that during the time The Exorcist has come, some religious people said the movie is cursed. But after watching this movie, I think this movie feels cursed. Its so evil in the way it treats the human characters in the movie. Its like a torture to the characters in the movie. Not just the mission but even before they came to South America. It feels like the line of profession these guys are in are filled with dangers. Its a must see for gritty realistic thriller buffs.

Ultraviolence

08-21-18, 10:00 AM

Visconti's Dossier:

Unfortunately, Visconti is no more. I finished his feature films. It was from Neorealism to Operatic Melodrama. Cruel, dazzling, romantic, realistic, fanciful! The artistic rigor will remain in my memory. The costume and the photogaphy: Divine! His two masterpieces for me were: Senso and The Leopard. The Opera in the form of drama. The recurring theme: Decadence, whether social, artistic or personal! A master!

Obsession (1943)
http://bartvanleeuwenphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Obsession.jpg
★★★★
This is where it all begins, the cradle of neo-realism, slaughtered by the Nazis during the war, was re-released and remastered, regaining the film's sensuality. A very good social commentary.

The Earth Will Tremble (1948)
https://static.mfah.com/app/images/082d1964-95d1-41f6-a8d8-ff8b251af23f.jpg?maxWidth=1600&maxHeight=1600&format=jpg&quality=90
★★★★
If in his first feature Visconti showed the beginning of Neorealism, in his second comes the confirmation, the essential, one of the highlights of the Golden Age. A portrait of the sad coditian of fishermen, filmed in an unforgettable way. I'm sure this movie will grow in a rewatch.

Bellissima (1951)
https://assets.mubi.com/images/film/3142/image-w856.jpg?1481542937
★★★★
Ah, the great Anna Magnani! At the time, Visconti was already considered a great director of operas and theater. Future directors Francesco Rosi and Franco Zeffirelli worked at Bellissima as assistants. It is wonderful how Magnani can move from Comedy to Drama.

Senso (1954)
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYTgyMzkwMjItNTQyNC00ZDNmLWE3MTEtNTY3NWZlMjhhOTk5XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTQxMTIxMTk@._V1_.jpg
★★★★★
The renaissance of Visconti, the abandonment of Neorealism, now going to the melodrama that follows the line of the Opera. Intensely erotic, romantic and tragic. His first masterpiece!

White Nights (1957)
https://assets.mubi.com/images/film/868/image-w1280.jpg?1481119474
★★★★
The wedding of theater and cinema! Here Visconti uses well-crafted scenarios (100% in studio) invoking a grand stage for the seemingly simplistic story, but which has a huge bitterness beneath the veils.

Rocco and His Brothers (1960)
https://criticsroundup.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/rocco-and-his-brothers-still-526x295.jpg
★★★★★
Powerful! This movie has grown a lot inside me with time, I imagine what a rewatch will be like. The whole cast is perfect. This is one of those films that pierce our souls, excite us, even above mere tears. Go straight to the heart. The climax of the neorealism!

The Leopard (1963)
https://snworksceo.imgix.net/jst/93425421-3715-4d42-bab6-3a514c69e705.sized-1000x1000.jpg
★★★★★
The Ultimate Melodrama!
Certainly one of the most well made films of all time, a perfection of art direction, costumes and photography! The young Alan Delon (also worked in Rocco) and Cardinale shine with beauty in a cast that also has the future stars: Hill, Gemma and Clémenti. One of my favorites films of all time.

This was my review at the great Foreign Hall of Fame:

-A mosaic of sensations:

The perception of decadence and the attempt to maintain power in the face of inevitable change is at the heart at first. Tancredi (Alain Delon), nephew of Don Fabrizio, the prince of Salina, becomes a revolutionary as soon as the Garibaldian Revolution lands in Sicily, - interesting to realize that the hero of the story, the main character, is not the active agent, but the nephew - not as an enthusiast, a dreamer, his intentions are clear: "if we want everything to remain as it is, everything must change", a phrase he utters to his uncle. It is evident from the opening built by Visconti - we see family members gathered in a room praying in terror of the revolution that germinated outside - that the aristocracy feared the loss of powers. For this not to happen everything needed to change, and to remain as before. The construction of the scene in question establishes a very rich imaginary capacity to conduct the feelings. The use of the plane where only the frightened aristocrats are shown excludes any external element from the image, but introduces them through the sound.

""On the "outside" the shots are heard, the presence is absent in the eyes, but perceptible to the frightened dominant agents in disbelief at their imminent disappearance as a class."" [P. Leão]

As brazilian critic S. Pendre said: ""Visconti is the other side of Prince Salinas's coin. Son of an aristocrat with a bourgeois, Visconti has one side in the toga, another in the mundane. Fabrizio, the prince lived by Burt Lancaster, is the nobleman who goes to a brothel, is the man who does not believe and does not trust the bourgeoisie, but supports the revolution promoted by them. ""

He knows that Sicily is a land of conservatives, of a people who do not accept changes. In the long dialogue with the emissary of the government of Turin and the refusal to a vacancy in the Senate, the explanation: the view is wonderful precisely because the access roads are bad. One thing is derived from the other. The compliment of the rustic, of the Sicilian soul, is what makes Fabrizio. Nothing further from Visconti, aristocrat of the north, but at the same time, nothing closer, in spirit. "

In "The Leopard" the opera style merges with realism, and there is still room for melodrama. In my favorite scene, the prince of Salinas is hiding from the crowds of the ball, there he faces a painting that represents death, so he starts to wonder about his own death. It's like a mirror for his own decay.

Eleven years before, in 1952, at some point in "Bellissima" Maddalena Cecconi (Anna Magnani) says: "This is Burt Lancaster, he has such a nice voice, he looks sympathetic", or something like that. Now, he's working with Visconti, I read quite a lot of complaints about Lancaster's dubbed voice, honestly I couldn't care less. His strong presence and beautiful performance transcends the absence of his own voice.

The third time I saw, I often paused the film to enjoy the image that looked more like a painting, like Barry Lyndon. Even the 'war scenario' is operatic and well filmed. Just as in Senso, where Visconti cuts to war as soon as we see Livia betray her country (as a way of showing us everything she turned her back on), in Leopard War is an essential part of the process. The melancholy, the decay of the aristocracy, the acting, the sceneries, the camera movements, Visconti directing... A masterpiece.

Original link: https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1924455#post1924455

Sandra (1965)
http://p5.storage.canalblog.com/53/90/110219/51881605.jpg
★★★★
One of the lesser known of Visconti. Film of great presence of Cardinale (Stunning like always), repeating the partnership after The Leopard. A camera work MASTER CLASS.

The Stranger (1967)
http://fgmxi4acxur9qbg31y9s3a15-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/06/Stranger-1012x1024.jpg
★★★
From Camus to the big screen, Visconti makes a rigorous adaptation of the book. Inconsistent in the first half, the film gains a powerful force in the second half. A stunning ending in one of the most beautiful and cruel film dialogues.
The Damned (1969)
http://emanuellevy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/the_damned_3_visconti.jpg
★★★★
Another rare piece in the director's filmography. With Ingrid Thurin in the cast, the film wins a lot. The film has scenes that would be unthinkable in today's cinema. Some difficult to digest sequence, a terrifying film.

Death in Venice (1971)
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/xsz7mmrE6iI/maxresdefault.jpg
★★★
A repetitive work. Just like The Stranger, is an inconsistent work, does not fail to have its moments of beauty tho. The decadence of the protagonist is great to accompany. The homosexual flirtations among the central characters are filmed in a magnificent way. Some may say that Björn Andrésen was too young for the role, I don't care, this added a higher 'forbidden content' in this impossible affair.

Ludwig (1972)
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c3/53/ea/c353ea9b715effacf01f4c05baca1d53.jpg
★★★★
The best performance by Helmut Berger, Romy Schneider was also great! Only the finest taste buds will be able to evaluate this excellent edition of a legendary film (and certainly impossible to do today). It's 235 min. of music, art and decay.

Conversation Piece (1974)
http://www.allfilmreviews.com/filmreviews/conversation-piece-2.jpg
★★★★
Lancaster is back!
A smaller movie, but of great beauty. It even has an Italian version of a song by Brazilian singer Roberto Carlos. Helmut Berger was very poor in his role, but as I said before, he was unable to overshadow the beautiful performance of Burt Lancaster - A great man, Lancaster had signed contract to finish the film (he had experience as director) if Visconti were unable.

The Innocent (1974)
http://rarefilm.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Linnocente-AKA-The-Innocent-1976-1.jpg
https://i0.wp.com/vulturehound.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/innocent01.jpg?resize=900%2C400
★★★★★
Very erotic! This movie was a beautiful surprise. The farewell of Visconti (already weakened, not even lived to see the final edition) is a stunning beauty. I watched a beautifully restored version, very proud to have bought it. Laura Antonelli is so beautiful, so flashy. A beauty to fill my eyes. The movie has a scene of incredible erotic intensity. It is also very raw, very cruel, very melodramatic. Giancarlo Giannini with his eyes full of tears is an image that will remain in my mind for a long time! The ending is the strongest of the entire filmography of Visconti, a film that deserves to be reviewed, deserves to be more appreciated. Misunderstood at its launch, give it a second chance! A remarkable farewell!

-----

I also watched some complementary documentaries:

Man of Three Worlds: Luchino Visconti ★★★★
A 1966 BBC program exploring Visconti’s cinema, theater, and opera direction. A rare opportunity to see Visconti directing actors in Opera!

Luchino Visconti: The Quest for the Impossible ★★★
A documentary about Visconti at the set of The Conversation Piece and some other things.

Final rating:
1943 Obsession ★★★★
1948 The Earth Will Tremble ★★★★
1951 Bellissima ★★★★
1954 Senso ★★★★★
1957 White Nights ★★★★
1960 Rocco and His Brothers ★★★★★
1963 The Leopard ★★★★★
1965 Sandra ★★★★
1967 The Stranger ★★★
1969 The Damned ★★★★
1971 Death in Venice ★★★
1972 Ludwig ★★★★
1974 Conversation Piece ★★★★
1976 The Innocent ★★★★★

My Top 10:
01) The Leopard
02) Senso
03) The Innocent
04) Rocco and His Brothers
05) Conversation Piece
06) The Earth Will Tremble
07) Ludwig
08) Sandra
09) White Nights
10) The Damned

Mr Minio

08-21-18, 04:03 PM

Senso is good, but not a masterpiece you make it be!

Death in Venice 2deep4u!!!

Camo

08-21-18, 04:06 PM

Conversation Piece is in your top ten twice, Ultraviolence.

Only see Ossessione so far, liked it quite a lot. Good post.

pahaK

08-21-18, 04:13 PM

That's certainly A+ post by Ultraviolence and his enthusiasm for Visconti has landed The Leopard on my watchlist. Have been waiting a proper mood to watch it, hopefully one will come soon.

matt72582

08-21-18, 04:35 PM

My Top 9
The Earth Will Tremble
Bellissima
Rocco and His Brothers
White Nights
The Leopard
Obsession
The Damned
The Stranger
Conversation Piece

Ultraviolence

08-22-18, 10:13 AM

Senso is good, but not a masterpiece you make it be!

Death in Venice 2deep4u!!!

http://altcitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/tumblr_mve9zwkM8I1skt3tzo1_500.gif
:)

Mr Minio

08-22-18, 01:50 PM

http://altcitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/tumblr_mve9zwkM8I1skt3tzo1_500.gif
:) Phew, at least you appreciate the decadence.

aronisred

08-22-18, 03:36 PM

The Game

3

A wealthy billionaire receives a gift from his troubled brother. It turns out to be a gift card for a program at customer recreational service. Initially hesitant to use it due to his busy lifestyle he eventually decides to give it a try. As part of registration he is asked to under go an extensive set of tests in wide variety of departments. Intellectual and biological. With a little uncertainty he is made aware that the game has begun.

The movie has a dark tone to it. Its funny how the movie doesn't have a sex scene because every aspect of the movie gives indication that there will be one at some point in the movie.The movie will be a little too predictable to anyone who is watching it for the first time now. You can see some twists coming from a mile away.But for 1997 crowd I think the twists might be a surprise. David Fincher is an auteur. But his directorial style is easy to copy and his auteur range is limited. His style quickly dissipates if he tries to do different kinds of movies. He is strong as long as he sticks with making movies about deviant people doing deviant things. Even a movie like Benjamin Button has a lot of mean characters.

The movie starts with a video recorder footage of Michael Douglas from his childhood. It highlights the strained relationship with his incredibly rich father. Eventually he kills himself. All this forms a very strong foundation to the personality of Michael D. He is the responsible on in his family and his brother is out there and is probably an addict running away from responsibilities. We meet Michael Douglas at a stage in his life when he is suffering from midlife crisis but his position of privilege forces him to suck it up and live a rich life. This is the first point of disconnect in this movie. Its very hard for audience to connect with and relate to a character who is super rich unless he is Bruce Wayne. So audience are left wondering why doesn't he just suck it up and live in a 100 million dollar building. What this does is it relegates the movie into a genre picture and doesn't emotionally resonate with audience. Audience from this point on are in it for thrills and scares and nothing else. With that out of the way. The movie has a city underbelly feel to it. Once our protagonist signs up to this shady company, his world starts changing. His privacy starts shrinking. Director captures that very well. Whats more interesting is the world of his high powered executive is already a shady world and add to that this organisation, it becomes increasingly clear that the guy is unprepared for whats coming. Its most definitely a 90s movie. You can see all the cheesiness in the movie. Douglas plays the role like he did wall street's Gordon Gekko. But with a little more compassion. Sean Penn is okay in the movie.

The movie does paranoia 90s style like JFK but little more heightened and simple. Its like Fincher said "The Sting on steroids". The resources of recreation center seem endless and vast. They set up and dismantle offices overnight. They own whole buildings. While signing up the company rep mentions that the service offers everything he doesn't have. As the movie goes on, one by one the checklist starts filling up. Initially the games offers him thrill. Slowly it seemingly takes away everything he has. Whats starts as petty becomes dangerous. The game never lets up. Its like an elaborate sting where in our character is always one step behind. It plays with deception very well. Whom you can trust and whom you cannot. There is a meta quality to it all. Movies are make believe and this film is showing movie within a movie. But its in Fincher style. The difference between this and something like the sting is that this movie hides its cards from us where as the stings shows all its cards. That's a problem because if you hide your cards, you are becoming a mystery thriller. You are forcing audience to figure out the mystery and not just be entertained by the film as a whole. Its like holding carrot at the end of dirty road. Audience don't bother that the road is dirty and will only focus on the carrot. The days and nights blend in the movie so well. The days are cloudy and nights are neon filled. But to me, the best part of the movie is the way game makes him realize his privilege. Loosing it all has a special meaning in the movie. There is a sequence in the movie where our character is kidnapped and placed in a graveyard in mexico I think. The movie has a very distinct color and cinematography to it. The character doesn't have any money on him in a foreign country. He is brought down to earth by his sudden poverty. He is humbled forcibly.The shots of Michael Douglas walking on the streets of mexico in in white dusty suit among the public and with that cinematography is breathtaking. It captures a man who lost everything and doesn't belong there. He is forced into situations and conversations that he never thought he would be. Begging an immigration officer for money.

All these are good ,but the movie falls into a repetitive cycle. As we go deep into the story everything our character gets involved in feels a little staged. Lot of things come at him at once. Apart from suspension of disbelief , the kind of unrealistic nature of these elaborate stings gives the illusion that anything is possible. Which is not a good thing. Perfect is never interesting. The movie should have had scenarios where Michael Douglas veers of planned path and the whole sting sort of morphs according to new parameters. This would have made the movie interesting. He just falls into the trap like a duck.Nonetheless the movie does play with the idea of perceived danger vs actual danger. By the third act most of 1997 audience would have been exactly where Fincher wanted them to be. That is a good thing. All these makes the movie a good genre movie instead of a good movie. Director plays the mystery card early on and doesn't let up. Its a cable watch movie.

aronisred

08-24-18, 11:40 AM

The Exorcist

4

An evil possess a teenage girl and the movie chronicles how that effects everyone around it and ultimately human faith.

William Fried-kin was just below Spielberg,Scorsese and Coppola in terms of popularity and impact on cinema in the 70s. He won an Oscar for French Connection. There are two kinds of bad-ass movies. Realistic Bad ass and heightened bad ass. Realistic bad ass is much more subtle like French Connection where as heightened bad ass is good fellas. Realistic bad ass holds a mirror to the time period its set in where as heightened bad ass can only be seen in cinemas. Its not that realistic. Its a fantasy. If you watch french connection, you would know that it plays like a horror thriller. Its a game of mind and wit. Who blinks their eye first kind of conflict. The trifecta of films he made in 70s french connection, exorcist and sorcerer share the same DNA.

That brings us to this movie. Anyone who knows the promotional material about this movie would assume that since its an american movie and is called exorcist the movie is heavily based on Christianity. But whats jarring and kind of unique about this movie is that when the title card is displayed on screen you would hear Urdu(language predominantly spoken by Muslims) prayers. So that kind of throws a wrench into conventional expectations. The movie opens in Iraq where a priest interested in excavating ruins comes across a demonic figurine. This is where a mild element of surrealism seeps into the movie. What you are seeing is not supernatural at this point. All you see is a guy being uneasy after looking at a small rock and then being uneasy where ever he goes that day. But later we find out that the priest comes across a demonic statue and realizes that he is needed somewhere else in the world and the figurine shown earlier belongs to the devil and their excavations unleashed the devil.One of the interesting things about the movie is its decision to leave things a little ambiguous. Its an adaptation but nonetheless movie has to be treated as his own and this movie leaves a lot of stuff to imagination. Its one of those rare instances where imagination works better than whats in the movie.

The movie then cuts to 1970s america. The movie has lot of themes going on without being overt. We see the main character is an actress. We see her shooting a scene. Its interesting how this movie decides to use the family of a celebrity as the victim. I think devil is choosing a victim who has most hope and promise in life. If the victim was a starving family in a remote village, the devil doesn't have much will power and life force to chew on. The family is already giving up on life. But if a well to do family in western country is chosen then there is lot of will power and life force that it can drain from its victim and its family. Another main character in the movie is a priest. He doesn't look like an ideal type for being a priest. He is an ex boxer and is pretty athletic. If you read my review for Sorcerer or seen that movie, you would know that Friedkin has a talent for setting a mood that permeates through the whole movie. No matter the location. In Sorcerer there is a dark brooding tone that lasted the whole movie and sustained across various locations and settings. In a similar way the evil in this movie is centered around the room of teenage daughter of the actress. But the sense of dread and horror due to this evil can be felt through the movie and by that I mean the streets of Washington, halls of church , the house of our priest, train station at night, iraq and even a park in middle of the day. All that credit goes to Friedkin. He masterfully was able to intertwine those elements. In most of these movies conventional medical treatment is given very little value. People go to doctor once and then they deal with the supernatural. But the movie spends considerable amount of time testing the subject. The movie almost makes you believe that there are certain things which cannot be understood by science. The movie doesn't make a big deal about how the child was possessed. The erratic behavior of the girl increases with time. What the filmmakers choose to highlight as evil is very interesting. Most of the times when one thinks of evil they go to murder or scares but this movie considers even the most seemingly harmless things as evil. A teenage girl using curse words is considered un-characteristic and evil. Lack of social manners is considered evil. The way the movie tries to depict possession is by displaying change in character traits of a teenager. At an age when a teenager is much more concerned with self image and insecurity, the last thing she wants to do is break social norms and attract attention for wrong reasons. Even cursing is like that. In the second act of the movie there is a murder. Which leads to an investigative story-line. A police officer investigates a murder and tries to connect the dots which could lead to the house of possession. But filmmakers are much more interested in the trauma this incident adds up-to and not a police procedural story line. Even the ambiguity surrounding the murder is masterfully done. We don't see the actual crime committed. If I were to imagine, the scene would involve the boyfriend of our lead who was babysitting the possessed girl is killed by the devil in her. The scene would involves him being pushed or thrown onto a set of stairs outside the house and he lands at the bottom of it. None of it is shown and we are left of fill in the blanks after only the aftermath is revealed. That's much more terrifying because we don't know the clear motive. The procedure of exorcism and the practical ways the church deals with exorcism is also odd and interesting. I mean, we got a girl acting all crazy and the church needs proof to approve a procedure called exorcism. The odd circumstances of this whole event is pretty weird. The young priest mentioned earlier plays a key role in the movie. The movie wants you to believe the practicality of a possession and the practicality of an exorcism. So, during the exorcism when a priest is told that the devil will try to play mind games , we know exactly what kind of impact it has on its victims. The movie doesn't have cheap scares.

During the final act, the movie re-introduces the priest we saw at the beginning of the movie. It a brilliant way to do it because the last time we saw him was when he was staring at a huge statue of devil. So he brings all that eeriness with him when he is re introduced for the first time. The actual exorcism is a much more mind game and is very interesting. The devil tries to curse , scare and use their guilt against them. The ending of the movie as abrupt as it is seems to fit the rest of the movie.

Negatives about the movies are very few but glaring. One of the things that bothered me about the movie is how brave everyone is. I mean, if I was living in places where possession is common then I wouldn't be bothered by all this but when I am someone living in city in America then if I was someone working in this house where there are loud noises and all this scary stuff happening all the time, then I wouldn't even go into the house.The casualness of it all is really unrealistic in the movie. At a certain point as the movie gets going, the girl literally looks like a demon. Even at that point, a servant in the house is going into her house midnight and checking out her belly. I mean, who does that ? I think by this point, people feel that the daughter may have killed her mothers boyfriend. Even the mother goes alone into room to check on her daughter. So, all this is effecting the movie in a negative way. The priests see that the girl is lifting beds and looking scary as hell and I can accept that during exorcism they are willing to stay in the room. But if I were them, I wouldn't go into the room alone.All this started stacking up as the movie went along. Even the way certain story-line intertwined didn't work that well. The investigative story-line is meant to be metaphor for something but that didn't make much sense.

There is a narrative weakness I found in the movie.In movies where director is choosing to show the progression of something, they usually use a narrative where in they keep coming back to the story line. A story line starts, they cuts to another story line and then after a while they cutback to the initial story line. If the original story line is not strong enough then this feels like a repetitive cycle. Sports movie has this all the time and since the effect is compounded in them it feels repetitive. In the main story line itself they have multiple games. So you have multiple start , play and end in one story line itself. Same with racing movies. You gotta show multiple games in the same movie. So the novelty of going into a race for the first time is already lost. So in this movie after a while the story follows a repetitive beat. The girl is little crazy , something else happens and then the girl gets crazier. The girl is crazier and then some other character is shown and then the girl gets even more crazier. That becomes evident.

Despite all these inconsistencies I was able to get the tight rope the movie is walking. It is trying to deal with exorcism and concept of possession as a real thing. What if it happened in real world. The ghost wouldn't fly into the sky and scare the whole city like ghost busters. It has its limits and it has its ways it kills people in ambiguous way. The atmospheric eeriness is the ultimate achievement of this movie. It was able to capture how evil can effect all the people involved in this exorcism where ever they are. So in a way the movie doesn't let up. Usually movies have time off scenes. Audience are left to take a break from tension. But not this one. So all in all its a great horror movie and it has managed to do something that Hollywood is getting around to doing it again and that would be to focus on characters more than the scares itself. Director takes lot of time on the effects all this has on the mother of the girl.

Iroquois

08-25-18, 11:12 AM

Gilda (Charles Vidor, 1946) - 2.5

I guess this is okay as far as noirs go, but it still doesn't feel particularly special.

Paycheck (John Woo, 2003) - 1.5

Maybe the worst Woo movie, if only he doesn't seem like a natural fit for the material that waters down Philip K. Dick into a vacuous (yet not entirely unwatchable) high-concept action thriller. In many ways, it does feel like the PG-13 remake of Total Recall a decade before said remake actually happened (and is arguably worse to boot).

Dirty Dancing (Emile Ardolino, 1987) - 2.5

I think this is about as good as I could've expected it to be given its seemingly vapid high concept about a naive young woman falling for a bad-boy dance instructor with a heart of gold.

Dragonball: Evolution (James Wong, 2009) - 0.5

I was never into Dragon Ball so I don't feel the same white-hot anger about this Hollywood adaptation that the average fan would, but even taken as a standalone cinematic experience it's pretty embarrassing to watch.

Slither (James Gunn, 2006) - 2.5

An alien-themed body horror that definitely shows off Gunn's background in Troma movies and reverence for '80s schlock - for better and for worse.

Cutter's Way (Ivan Passer, 1981) - 3

A decent enough neo-noir of sorts about odd-couple Vietnam veterans who become involved in a possible conspiracy surrounding a dead body and a high-ranking politician. An appreciably '70s example of mystery narrative as postwar existentialism that is at the very least worth watching for John Heard's scenery-chewing turn as the eponymous Cutter.

Windtalkers (John Woo, 2002) - 1.5

Woo's heroic bloodshed sensibilities (not just in terms of depicting actual bloodshed but also when it comes to the conflicted loyalties that emerge between on-screen warriors) are at once a good fit for this true story about Native American soldiers fighting alongside white ones in the Pacific theatre but also seem misplaced more often than not.

Hush, Hush...Sweet Charlotte (Robert Aldrich, 1964) - 4

The spiritual successor to Whatever Happned to Baby Jane? isn't quite on the same level but it still does a good job of replicating the same twisted and tragic sense of energy.

The Breadwinner (Nora Twomey, 2017) - 4

Each Cartoon Saloon feature seems to get better than the last, which is just as well considering how good Song of the Sea ended up being. This tale about the hardships of life under the Taliban experiments with style while delivering a tight and tense narrative that still knows when to let its audience breathe.

Innerspace (Joe Dante, 1987) - 2

The archetypal Fantastic Voyage premise has its already-high concept amplified in this Spielberg-produced caper that sets up a buddy comedy between the micronaut and his host. Some remarkable effects work and Dante's madcap sensibilities are undercut by some sluggish pacing and rough characterisation that definitely stop this being as fun as it should've been.

aronisred

08-25-18, 10:09 PM

The Grey

3

After a passenger plane carrying Alaskan oil company workers crashes , they must fight for survival against a pack of wolves that are relentlessly hunting them.

When the revenant was getting a lot of praise at 2016 Oscars, I always used the grey as an example to point out that it wasn't the only film that had to endure cold vicious winters to make a movie. After re-watching it recently I stand by the statement. But there are some very weak elements in the movie. To discuss it we need to delve into the origins of this kind of movies. By this kind , I mean movie that gets green-lit based on a name actor attached to them. Make no mistake, there would be no grey without Liam Neeson. The intentions behind a movie like grey stem from financiers and script. Most importantly its the script. If there is any indication that the script for a movie is Oscar material then financiers will try and get it from the writer even though he is the director and gives it to a more established director. Because there are infinite ways a script can be directed with varying results.

Great scripts are tough to come by so when a great script is written, its always best to save it from other influences and give it to the guy who can make the best movie out of it. Sometimes that involves even the writer himself. For example, script for revenant can be directed in 100 different ways but in the hands of innaritu it became Oscar material. How does that happen ? well, it depends on the type of movie you make out of it. The degree of difficulty with which you want to capture the words on the paper with camera lens. Most of it comes down to money but with a solid 50 million $ any script can be captured with decent enough scope. The narrative choices and the setting of the scenes and editing choices. All this can lead to 100 types of movies. But it always starts with the script. There a few directors who can deliver the best possible movie from a great script like Spielberg , Scorsese, Nolan, Innaritu etc. These guys are well liked and they do add some of their personal touches to the script. Rest of the directors either has to be good at writing their own script or have to work with second rate scripts or if the scripts are not in the wheel house of top legendary directors then the director have to be in the next tier to pick up the script and make a great movie.

So the problem with the grey is, the script is very weak. I don't understand the point of making such a hard movie if the script is not great. As the movie begins, we quickly realize that we are dealing with a psychological movie. The lead character is in a existential crisis mode. He has nothing to live for. And then as they are retreating to their homes after a season of work, a plane crash changes everything. Movie after the plane crash is the weakest part. The director has many story-lines he wants to hit. One involves guilt and regret all these characters feel. One involves the primal nature of man coming to the surface. The way they form their own pack as they are hunted by the wolves with Liam Neeson being the alpha among men. And then we have the team comradery that is being formed. Even they have a wild card in Frank Grillo whose motives are not clear. He is anti Liam Neeson but with no proper intentions. He is opposing Liam Neeson's authority but for no real goal. Eventually they make up. All these are very predictable. There is nothing more to this movie than these characters being sad and evading the wolves and being killed by wolves or the elements. In between we get a national geographic lesson about wolves through Liam Neeson. The cold chilly thrill of being pursued by Wolves is a good genre trope to keep audience attentive but nonetheless its a trope.What was most surprising about the movie is how nothing happens. They start at the crash site, walk into the trees near by, walk through trees, go to the edge of a cliff and then go to wolves' den. It hard to capture the scope of ice unless you build something on it. Something like a wooden house or something. So for all we know the movie must have taken place in a 2 miles radius or less. In a way that kind of explains 25 million $ budget.

The movie does the grounded approach to this surreal scenario much more palatable. This movie highlights the directorial limitations of some lesser known directors. If Michael Bay , Peter Berg, Anton Fuqua and Gavin O Connor are macho directors who make movies for Budweiser drinking, football watching crowd then there are other directors who are stuck right in the middle of it like John Hill-coat, Scott Cooper and Joe Cornahan. These guys are not commercial directors but they are not action directors either. Their movies are stuck right in the middle and their movies semi feel like Auteur work , but the content of the script and skill of director is not that good. At the same time since the movies are not commercial, they are more than likely to bomb. Those elements are very evident in the movie. The director when making this movie would be thinking that he is making a great icy thriller with mature themes but the end result is a very thin plotted movie which can't seem to excel and even the scope is not captured. The movie alternates between present and past. So there is this cycle in the movie which is it starts with present and then there will be danger lurking and then the dream and repeat. This happens for the whole movie. I think wind river did a much better job regarding icy thriller than this movie. There is only so much you can do about stalking wolves. I think the movie may be much more interesting if it may have taken the route of man trying to reclaim his position as being at the top of food chain than what we got.This movie required extremely strong director who can directed his way out of a weak screenplay but Joe Carnahan was not the guy and also this is movie is a January release so they were hoping for a more commercial movie than a prestige movie. Its such a shame that this plot line wasn't taken full advantage of.

But as I said, this movie is worth the watch. The premise lends itself to a chilly thriller and what we got is a decent watch.

aronisred

08-26-18, 11:37 PM

Predator 2

3

An alien hunts down people in 1990s Los Angeles.

I must agree that I went into this movie expecting a straight to video quality movie. But even though the movie is subpar to the first, the filmmakers of this movie got exactly what was appealing about the first movie. This movie makes it much more clear at the same time being subtle about the intentions of the predator.

We start off the movie with a shoot out in the streets of LA. This movie more so than the first captures the heat in the location. Nothing is hotter than a summer in LA. We recognize that the predator is watching a shoot out and this is a nod and a clear explanation of what a predator is looking for. It is looking for armed human that are essentially predators themselves. The shoot out harkens back to the jungle shoot out in the first. In that it picks on Arnolds team because they to be the better predators in the battle. My initial thought was that "how did this predator end up exactly in this place out of all the cities in the world ? couldn't it have stumbled upon a movie theater ? " and then I realized that it's not very often people carry guns with them at all. No one driving to their office carry a gun. So it makes perfect sense that it is exactly the right place for predator because not only guns are being carried but also being used in a shootout. Its a predator and it wants to fight people who are fighting and willing to fight. Not some guy working behind his desk or in a meeting with computer or book. In this shoot out our predator lays its eyes on our protagonist played by Donald Glover. He kind of takes control of the situation and single handedly saves lot of cops and proves to be the alpha of the winning team. So it has its eyes on Donald Glover and his team. But the predator kills the rest of the villain gang to prove to itself and Donald Glover indirectly that it is worthy of fighting him since both took out members from same gang.

This massacre of the rest of villain gang doesn't sit well with our hero because the deaths are similar to the first movie and souvenirs collected are odd and makes hero question who did this. That starts a chain reaction which pits each member of heroes team with the predator and it kills them one by one. The incident from the first movie has some consequences that bleed into this movie. And a secret government organization formed to capture and use the predator technology butts heads with our heroes team and is used as an expository plot device because they don't have much purpose other than help our hero catch up with the background of the predator. Nonetheless the movie plays with the urban paranoia and how that setting is affected by the presence of this alien. Thats a cool aspect.

The movie tries to do some innovative stuff but the need for quick pace and action takes the common sense out of the scenes and make them look stupid. The most interesting aspect about the movie is how consequential the story is. It never loses its steam. The movie starts and the game is on. The predator either comes in touch with the main characters or they go looking for it. There is never a parallel storyline that is running. It has single storyline through out. 'Its focused through out. Movie has an element of gangs and gangs violence in it. Which felt a little exaggerated. One thing I noticed about the movie is its African American and Latino heavy. I do think the studio must have seen the audience demographic for the first movie and realized that those audience are much more in number than caucasians and hence this movie is a little too overt in its diversity. Some parts felt a little too stereotypical.

So, even though the movie is a little boring, nonetheless the main positives about the movie is that it knows its audience, it got exactly what worked with the first one and the movie never lets up. I thought the predator would come in the story at the end of first act. But thats not the case. It is there in the movie from the get go. I do think changing the setting to a city is the only way for a sequel. They can't do it again in the jungle. I can't think of any better setting that builds upon the first and be expansive at the same time than what we got with this movie. Less stupid characters and strong story elements could have improved it.

Ultraviolence

08-27-18, 09:07 AM

Watched all this films this weekend! A very good weekend!!!! ;)

Aguirre: The Wrath of God [1972] ‘Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes’ by Werner Herzog
https://d1jo0zet24jmxt.cloudfront.net/content/17803/416f8c607e33496eb8ddbec54c0c4845_compressed.jpg
★★★★★
I don't get tired of this one! Mesmerizing.

A Visitor to a Museum [1989] ‘Посетитель музея’ by Konstantin Lopushanskiy
https://78.media.tumblr.com/6d2e14f4a7f3bfdd141f2a5efcb69fc7/tumblr_nc06miUya51tgkpruo3_r1_1280.png
★★★★★
This was INCREDIBLE! I need to hurry up and rewatch! Watched that ending four times in a row! Incredible! I need to write a review now! The real horror movie!

Hiroshima Mon Amour [1959] by Alain Resnais
https://assets.signature-reads.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/hiroshima-mon-amour-rialto.jpg
★★★★
Lovely, sad, deep and well made!
Hi-ro-shi-ma!

Hereditary [2018] by Ari Aster
https://i1.wp.com/storiesforghosts.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Heriditary4-1024x536.jpg?fit=676%2C354
★★★
I can understan why many people liked it more than me, but it really deserves all this fuzz around it? Not for me, just a well made supernatural horror movie. The best thing about it it's that it doesn't waste my brain with stupids jump scares! But it's not scary at all.

El Cid [1961] by Anthony Mann
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/WwbYJZJgQxc/maxresdefault.jpg
★★★★★
A great gem! How this film is 7.3 on IMDB while films like The Dark Knight are 9.0? Screw it! This is another proof that this sites are not trustable. The last sequence, when El Cid was in his horse, almost dead, running through the beach with Miklós Rózsa's organ playing in the background is one of the best moments in cinema history. You don't know what cinema is if you never watched this film.

The Asphalt Kiss [1981] ‘O Beijo no Asfalto’ by Bruno Barreto
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-amvwqTaJgSE/T5MugKNtinI/AAAAAAAAAUI/ZCSiu29chyU/s1600/62+-+scan.jpg
★★★
A good movie about intolerance and sensationalism. Barreto is a very good brazilian director! The last scene is beautiful!

Total Recall [1990] by Paul Verhoeven
http://theactionelite.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/recall-main-1864x1048.jpg
★★★★
One of the best Arnie movies, a very good sci-fi 'mindless' action movie with some of the best cheesy moments ever!

Hollow Man [2000] by Paul Verhoeven
https://bloodcrypt.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/hollowman.jpg

★★★
Yep, another Verhoeven movie, this film rises some very great questions like: What would you do if you knew you couldn't be seen? It becomes a slasher in the last 30 minutes, a nice one!

Showgirls [1995] by Paul Verhoeven
https://www.popoptiq.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/showgirls-191229l.jpg
★★★★
If people had paid more attention in the real intention about sexual abuse in the show business portrayed in this film, Weinstein wouldn't being a thing. In 1995 Verhoeven made this satire about the fade of the American Dream, the abuse of power in the showbusines, sexual abuse. It is overacted, over coreographed, everything it's over the top! And that was the ****ing point!
I respect Paul Verhoeven for disguising his films with a gargabe skin and putting so many efforts between the lines (like in Starship Troopers, a social satire)! I read somewhere that "if this was done by Paul Thomas Anderson, it would have been considered masterpiece." Well, I agree. It was made by a more competent director (Verhoeven >>>> PTA), and unfortunately was much criticized for the wrong reasons!

aronisred

08-27-18, 12:15 PM

The Wages of Fear

4

A group of daily labor stuck in a village that's middle of nowhere are given a lifeline when they are presented with a deadly job of carrying highly volatile nitro glycerin to a destination.

I watched it after Sorcerer. So the black and white treatment to this story caught me off guard. The way this movie differs from its re-imagination has both positives and negatives.The movie tries to describe the plight of its characters verbally in this movie where as in Sorcerer its visual. One look at that place and you know its doomed. One of the things that is crucial to explain in both these movies is that the characters come to this place because they are escaping law but they come here with very limited resources. After they get there their only way is to stay there for some time , keep low profile and then make enough money to get out of that place. But the conditions there are so bad that they can't make enough money to get out of the place to a urban place where there are jobs. That's the plight of the characters. Escaping to the village is only part of the plan. The rest is to make enough money to go to a decent place near that place and make a better life.

There is a very interesting sentence in the movie which can be paraphrased as " this place is like a prison, everyone welcomes you to come in but once you are here there is no way to get out". The movie has few unnecessary characters and unnecessary character conflicts. I think carrying those explosives creates lot of conflict in of itself. One of the main areas where the original diverts from the re-imagination is the time it spends on character dynamic. In this movie, the volatility of the explosives is not given much priority. At no point are we afraid that the liquid will explode. We are more afraid the vehicle will get into an accident. Most of the shots are focused on the driving compartment. So once you are locked into it you know nothing bad is gonna happen to the vehicle. Its only during wide shots of the truck are we afraid its gonna explode. Where as in Sorcerer the movie is much more practical about people will behave in this circumstances. When you got an explosive and 4 desperate men trying to achieve their goal you have no time to be petty or even joking for that matter. It will mostly be trying to be calm and collected. This movie tries to explore various facets of human emotions.

The four characters in the movie are of varying personalities. Since this is a 1950s movie, one of them is an elderly wise man with a past. Movie tries to show that the man in in-charge of the oil company and this old man are pals. But nonetheless he is a crook looking to make quick buck. The others include a smart , slick and skilled guy , a hard working every man and at last but not the least , a womanizing street smart and tough guy who happens to be our lead. All of them are put through tests to see how good of drivers they are.The movie plays with the notion that only when stuff hits the fan you really know who someone actually is. The journey starts and you quickly realize that the old man is not up for the task. The movie also makes a big deal about the distance the vehicles must be from each other. The slick guy and working man are less contradictory and much more of smooth pair than our heroes pair. Both of those guys seem to work of each other and complement each other in efforts. The path in this movie is treacherous in a more deserted way than Sorcerer. In Sorcerer its full of lush jungle. But here its empty lands and rocks and cliffs. The infamous tree scene Sorcerer is replace by blowing up a rock in this movie. I thought the tree scene in Sorcerer was original but oops its not. There is a oil swamp scene that is thrilling even with the limitations of that time period. The most interesting aspect of the movie and it almost feels realistic is how the heroism and masculinity of our protagonist emerges. Before the journey begins he is afraid and the old man is brave. But as the ride progresses he emerges as the hero. That's how it happens in real life. People don't walk around with hero badges on them. They emerge when going gets tough. The perseverance and determination of our lead is the key element to it all. He doesn't let up when his partner does. But his partner is too much of a chicken and that amplifies his bravery. I can only imagine how different it would have been if his partner was a brave man as well but hero is a slightly more brave and willing to go the extra risk. Because the actual partner almost feels comical with his cowardice.

So in conclusion the best thing about this movie is the way it deals with interpersonal conflict and human spirit during extremely dangerous times. And the best thing about Sorcerer is the way it deals with the sense of doom and guilt in one's self. Sorcerer is a journey inward where as the wages of fear is a journey outward. The ending however evokes the same feeling as Sorcerer. Despite being wildly different plot points the sense of "its all for nothing" is something both filmmakers want to evoke.

Spoiler

In both movies only one character makes it out alive at the end of this mission. But the filmmakers don't want to make you feel happy that he made it out alive. They spent the whole movie showing all this suffering , struggle and watching all these teammates die. So they weren't gonna let the protagonist and the audience off the hook by giving them a happy ending. That I think is a brilliant piece of film making by both filmmakers.

aronisred

08-27-18, 03:33 PM

The French Connection

5

A pair of NYC cops stumbles upon a huge drug deal that's being arranged in the city. This movie follows how they pursued these smugglers.

This is one of the defining movies of 1970s. Its culturally and aesthetically significant in its representation and portrayal of that time period. If anyone in the current time want to see how NY was in 60s and 70s , all they need to do is watch this movie. The mean streets of New York are never captured better. Its a police procedural with most of the movie about tailing. It feels so gritty and realistic. The movie stars Gene Hackman and Roy Scheider as two cops. One of them is inherently bad cop and aggressive one. The other is good cop and less aggressive. Gene Hackman's performance captures a cop who is a natural. He is born to be a cop. The way he is addicted to his job is pretty intense. The movie shows what it takes to be a cop at that time in NY. You can't be idealistic when you are dealing with criminals and crooks and lot of shady characters.

The plot revolves around a shady French entrepreneur. The movie starts with a French cop tailing this guy. Eventually the right hand henchman of the french man kills the cop. Back in Brooklyn, Popeye Doyle(Hackman) and Roy Scheider are doing their job busting bars predominantly in African american neighborhoods. But all they could get is the end product in the hands of consumers. Popeye always wants to get to the source but as a street cop he never gets the chance. During a night out which turns into an investigation they stumble upon a huge drug deal about to happen in future. What happens next is a game of cat and mouse until the very end.

The movie has lot of antagonists. All of whom are very shady and secretive. The best thing about the movie is its always on. The movie begins with the villain. So we know antagonist before protagonist and know that there is a looming problem in our hands.The plot moves fast. The movie merges Popeye's life with his job. He is so obsessed that whereever he goes, he sees job first. That is very evident in their first night out. He goes to a bar with Scheider. But in Popeye's mind he is there to look up people and see if anyone is shady. That's when they stumble upon one of the main contacts of our French man. The relentlessness of police pursuit is captured so well. Most of criminals who commit a crime with a plan often times think that they can get away with it. But in reality they can't, because police has lot of dormant resources that spring into action once a crime is committed. This movie shows what kind of people are behind that resources. Its people like Popeye who are 24/7 on the look out for someone who breaks law. It's not a job for everyone. Only few people can do the job. So, Popeye and him partner follows the guy from the bar. He is a small restaurant owner who happens to own 2 cars and uses one for his main job and the other for the shady job. For some reason a lot of people are surrounding him and falling over him at the bar. That's when our protagonist deduces there is something wrong with him.

The techniques used by smugglers to smuggle drugs into the country and the people involved are very clever. The French man is based on a real guy and his fate in the movie is very ambiguous. His traits on display in the movie sort of forecasts his fate. He is the brain behind the operation and is the only one who is much smarter and has outdone Popeye on one occasion. There is a scene when tailing the french man where in they go into a restaurant and Hackman has to keep an eye on them that is a love letter to law enforcement in a weird way. It shows the contrast between good and bad people in the society and how they are treated. The good cop is outside freezing and eating Brooklyn style pizza. Where as the criminal french man is inside eating a very large and delicious meal. The contrast in the scene must have a metaphoric meaning. The infamous train chase scene in the movie is a memorable piece of cinema. The danger in it makes it much more thrilling.

When I realized William Friedkin directed this movie I was looking for his signature and its all over the movie. There is sense of doom , gloom, despair and quite frankly "its all for nothing" feel to the movie. The end credits show that most of the people involved got out in less than 5 yrs. Which is a very sad note to end a movie on. The music choice in the end of the movie is the very indication of William Friedkin style. If you watched french connection and exorcist you can tell both were directed by the same guy. Its a new Hollywood movie. At this time you can still see traces of old Hollywood through some of the nominees that year and the win of a classic old Hollywood movie the sting a few years later. So the movie is a classic.