Movies Serious Movie Discussion

Vincent's performance in Witchfinder General, is really interesting -- in that he slices down on the usual ham and plays it much more restraint, introverted and psychologised. You get this sensation that deep down -- on some abstracted plane of thought -- he is fully knowlage about the evil that he's doing and that witchery is all a bunch of hogwash, but that he's inable to stop doing what he's doing since it fufills some base need within him to punish and hurt other human beings, especially women.

2336375_orig.jpg


And not to mention his thuggish henchman, the vile and wretched John Stearne played by Robert Russell! He's the absolute opposite of how Vincent Price plays it, basically the Id personifierad, a true animal and a real wretched unbridled scum. The way his raw sadism contrasts and plays with Price's more sinister and psychologised sadism is just a fantastic dynamic in the film.

Yeah that's a good way to put it, 'raw sadism' vs internalised religious sadism. Haven't seen Price in anything else to compare his performance here too, but I thought it was very good.


I never really got the "watching horror movies because they're scary" maxim, simply because the amount of horror movies that are scary could probably be counted on two hands, at least in adulthood. For me, it's more about the mood, atmosphere, or the thrill of seeing a story about death and survival. Or in the rare cases of a film that possesses the quality of Witchfinder General, the sheer psychological darkness in it.

Well, I've probably told you before I don't actually enjoy scary horror movies at all, so it certainly wasn't a criticism!

Can we talk about the ending? We need to talk about the ending.

Indeed, we can.

The ending just has psychological darkness up the wazzu.

I think Witchfinder General is one of the better "Revenge will Destroy you" narratives around.

Richard Marshall girlfriend -- the very person he set out to achieve vengence for -- has just been tortured right in front of him. His mates break into the prison and finish of Hopkins. Marshall goes crazy, tossing himself at Hopkins corpse, screaming at them for killing him so to deny him his vengence. All while his girlfriend is wallowing in her own misery.

In this critical moment, Marhsall has become so consumed with vengence that he cares more about killing Hopkins then the wellbeing of his girlfriend. His smoldering need for vengence has debased the earnest love he once had for Sara. So insterad of comforting Sara, protecting her, being there for her in her moment of need, reasussuring her that their love can conquer all -- all his thoughts are of Hopkins and his mad anger at being denied vengence. Instead of being a person dominated by his thoughts of love for Sara he is a person dominated by his loathing for Hopkins.

That virtues man who swore to deliver justice to Sara's father inside the church ain't there anymore. That's some dark, disturbing shit right there -- and Witchfinder General just plays this development sublimely.


Yes I did a bit of research after and the real Hopkins died in his best after a period of illness, but you can certainly see why they added the character of Marshall/love interest - it added a human aspect to the witch hunts through their relationship, and an element of Hopkins getting 'what he deserved' rather than just dying in bed, but as you say, it's certainly not a happy ending either. I agree the film did an excellent job of conveying the way he was consumed by the need for revenge, to the expense of everything else.
 
Haven't seen Price in anything else to compare his performance here too,

I now know what the Conquistadors felt like when the Indians told them that they had never heard of Jesus Christ.
 
Haven't seen Price in anything else to compare his performance here too, but I thought it was very good.
Check out Theatre of Blood
theatre_of_blood_poster_03_1_t800.jpg


It's legitimately one of the greatest Shakespearean films ever.
Well, I've probably told you before I don't actually enjoy scary horror movies at all, so it certainly wasn't a criticism!
Was there a film that really scared you in the past?

There were a couple of scenes in Inland Empire that scared the wits out of me.
 
Was there a film that really scared you in the past?

There were a couple of scenes in Inland Empire that scared the wits out of me.

Not really, just never liked watching them as a kid, was always a big scaredy cat lol.
 
You watched Michael Reeves/Vincent Price flick and didn't tell me about it in advance!!!?



Vincent Price, also known as; the pinnacle of western civilization.

Vincent's performance in Witchfinder General, is really interesting -- in that he slices down on the usual ham and plays it much more restraint, introverted and psychologised. You get this sensation that deep down -- on some abstracted plane of thought -- he is fully knowlage about the evil that he's doing and that witchery is all a bunch of hogwash, but that he's inable to stop doing what he's doing since it fufills some base need within him to punish and hurt other human beings, especially women.

2336375_orig.jpg


And not to mention his thuggish henchman, the vile and wretched John Stearne played by Robert Russell! He's the absolute opposite of how Vincent Price plays it, basically the Id personifierad, a true animal and a real wretched unbridled scum. The way his raw sadism contrasts and plays with Price's more sinister and psychologised sadism is just a fantastic dynamic in the film.



I never really got the "watching horror movies because they're scary" maxim, simply because the amount of horror movies that are scary could probably be counted on two hands, at least in adulthood. For me, it's more about the mood, atmosphere, or the thrill of seeing a story about death and survival. Or in the rare cases of a film that possesses the quality of Witchfinder General, the sheer psychological darkness in it.



Can we talk about the ending? We need to talk about the ending.

The ending just has psychological darkness up the wazzu.

I think Witchfinder General is one of the better "Revenge will Destroy you" narratives around.

Richard Marshall girlfriend -- the very person he set out to achieve vengence for -- has just been tortured right in front of him. His mates break into the prison and finish of Hopkins. Marshall goes crazy, tossing himself at Hopkins corpse, screaming at them for killing him so to deny him his vengence. All while his girlfriend is wallowing in her own misery.

In this critical moment, Marhsall has become so consumed with vengence that he cares more about killing Hopkins then the wellbeing of his girlfriend. His smoldering need for vengence has debased the earnest love he once had for Sara. So insterad of comforting Sara, protecting her, being there for her in her moment of need, reasussuring her that their love can conquer all -- all his thoughts are of Hopkins and his mad anger at being denied vengence. Instead of being a person dominated by his thoughts of love for Sara he is a person dominated by his loathing for Hopkins.

That virtues man who swore to deliver justice to Sara's father inside the church ain't there anymore. That's some dark, disturbing shit right there -- and Witchfinder General just plays this development sublimely.



I've always wondered what film people were describing when they talked about "pseudo-artistic pretentious bullshit", but after I saw A Field in England, I finally understood what film they were talking about. I felt like clawing out my own eyes watching that film.



It's good but I've always found it vastly overated. Audrey Hepburn never had the zest that people attribute to her.

To me, it seems that when people describe the quality of Roman Holiday, they talk about Hepburn's journey that is formative for her. She's this sweet, innocent girl whose having a fun adventure that is a growing-experience for her. It's like a tale of adolescence basically, growing as a person.

But I never got that sensation from her. She seems to child-like, somehow. It's less about seeing the growth of an adolescence than the growth of a child. It changes the whole dynamic.

Personally, I think that someone like Jean Seberg fufills this "adolescent formative story" waaay better in movies Breathless and Bonjour Tristesse than Hepburn ever even came close to in Roman Holiday (as well as being more beautiful, on top of that).

What horror movies are on that one scary hand?

The only movie that ever really scared me was the American version of The Ring.
 
Watched Sherdog favourite Hell and Highwater, definitely enjoyed it although I could also tell it came from the same writer as Sicario, It did for me share some of the weaknesses I found with that film in terms of being rather messy and generally reaching beyond its grasp although in this case this wasn't such an issue as the film had more in the way of character and a sense of fun(most obviously bridges, made by a fan of the Coens True Grit I guess?) to it rather than reaching for profundity who's presense was questionable.
 
Brigsby Bear.
Quietly one of the best Films of last year.
Really sympathetic lead performance by Kyle Mooney and Greg Kinnear.
It has a lot of nods to the great Sci Fi shows & Films, without ever going too Hipster.
I guess some critics might go after their portrayal of kidnapping, but thats not the Film's goal.
 
dtLhrar.jpg


Last night I watched Winstanley (1975), which I thought was absolutely brilliant! I really loved it, though I wouldn't say it's a film that everyone would enjoy.

It deals with Gerrard Winstanley and the 'Diggers', one of many radical religious groups that emerged in the aftermath of the English Civil War. From what I had read it was shot on a bit of a shoestring budget, with almost entirely amateur actors (the guy that played Winstanley himself was a schoolteacher), but as with a lot of films that do this (one that that come to my mind is The Tree of Wooden Clogs) it actually helps the film by resulting in much more naturalistic portrayals - which is very fitting considering the subject matter. The Diggers were a kind of proto-'communist'/'anarchist' group who thought that the land should be 'a common treasury for all', and so sought out to set up a kind of commune in 1649, cultivating the common land on St George's Hill, where - as you might expect - they faced significant hostility from the powers that be.

It was shot entirely in black-and-white (no doubt due to budget constraints), but it looked beautiful with lots of wonderful shots of the rolling English landscapes. There are indoor shots, but other than the Diggers huts there are hardly any scenes of buildings; the focus is very clearly on the land, and the Diggers working it -

critique-winstanley-brownlow-mollo2.jpg
critique-winstanley-brownlow-mollo7.jpg
critique-winstanley-brownlow-mollo6.jpg

critique-winstanley-brownlow-mollo4.jpg
critique-winstanley-brownlow-mollo11.jpg
critique-winstanley-brownlow-mollo5.jpg


For me it was also great to see how historically accurate/authentic it was; the costumes all look perfect, and the narration is taken from Winstanley's own pamphlets, apparently they even borrowed armour from the Tower of London and used rare breeds of animals which are true to the period! The film just looks and 'feels' right. If I had any criticism it's that in some ways it's too much a product of it's time (ie. the 70s) and there is perhaps an overemphasis on the quasi-marxist elements of Winstanley and the Diggers, and not enough on the intensely religious aspect of the movement. But obviously that was in vogue at the time and despite that criticism, I loved the film as a whole.

For anyone who isn't already interested in this period, they might find it a bit slow, and maybe even a bit dull, but for me it was a wonderful depiction of a fascinating moment in British history. I specialise in 17th century history, and find this particular period especially fascinating, so I can't help but wax lyrically about it lol.
 
ABeautifulDay-Banniere-800x445.jpg

Saw You Were Never Really Here last night. Phoenix, as always, puts in an outstanding performance. This time as a psychologically damaged hitman, who is actually somewhat nuanced - he's capable of extreme violence and is haunted by his experiences of childhood abuse, war etc. but he still lives with and cares for his mum. Won't talk about the plot too much as I don't wanna accidentally spoil anything; the general outline of a psychologically damaged individual who tries to rescue a young girl explains the Taxi Driver comparisons - one scene seemed to be a deliberate allusion - and in some ways it's not the most innovative plot, but the style of the film made it much more that the sum of it's parts (along with the excellent score by Johnny Greenwood). It also put me in mind of Ben Wheatley's Kill List. It's very sparse and doesn't spell everything out for you which I liked a lot, though it could be a little bit confusing at times.
On the whole...very strange and intense, and certainly a slow-burner, but I thought it was excellent; the sort of film that lingers with you for a while after you leave the cinema.
 
Watched Sherdog favourite Hell and Highwater, definitely enjoyed it although I could also tell it came from the same writer as Sicario, It did for me share some of the weaknesses I found with that film in terms of being rather messy and generally reaching beyond its grasp
Could you elaborate on that? For Sicario that is.
ABeautifulDay-Banniere-800x445.jpg

Saw You Were Never Really Here last night.
Why does the poster say A Beautiful Day?
along with the excellent score by Johnny Greenwood
Sold
It also put me in mind of Ben Wheatley's Kill List.
That movie started off creepy and became terrifying.
 
Why does the poster say A Beautiful Day?

That's what it's released as in France, but that's the best poster imo.

That movie started off creepy and became terrifying.

Yeah, very unsettling film. Not that YWNRH is quite like that, just certain stylistic elements, the hitman with PTSD angle etc.
 
Could you elaborate on that? For Sicario that is.

I'd actually like the same elaboration for Hell or High Water lol.

I felt like it was very well-contained, especially on the second viewing. Love the scene where the guys are escorting their herd away from the fire like "what year is this?"
 
Love the scene where the guys are escorting their herd away from the fire like "what year is this?"

I remember wondering if that was there to point out the theme of the film to the folks in the audience who still didn't get it. A bit on the nose in that way.
 
I remember wondering if that was there to point out the theme of the film to the folks in the audience who still didn't get it. A bit on the nose in that way.

It was absolutely (the film was guilty of that in a few places, especially with regard to the bank stuff and Bridges' whole character), but it was also captured in such an aesthetic way that I was able to reflect and attach a bunch of emotion to everything that was happening.

The world was passing by and what was left behind was going to stay true to itself, regretfully or otherwise, until the end.
 
Annihilation.
Definitely the best Film to come out in 2018 so far.
Sucks that it didn't come out on the big screen outside the US & China.
Natalie Portman & Jennifer Jason Leigh are the standouts in this.
Typically for an Alex Garland Film, it's visually gorgeous with some really creepy images & scenes that took me back to stuff like Alien (esp. the Alien spacecraft scene).
It's probably too nihilistic for general moviegoers,which is why the Producers wanted to change it.
It's hard to even find similar Films to this, probably something like Solaris,Stalker,2001 with a bit of Lovecraft.

I also saw Marked for Death, which is the last of Seagal's "good" movies i hadn't watched.
It might've been Seagal's most brutal Film although stuff like Out for Justice or Under Siege has better fight choreography.
The Jamaican Voodoo drug dealers were pretty fun.
Overall i think it's more raw than Seagal's other early stuff and this is what differentiates it from those.
 
I'm finally getting around to watching all the Best Picture nominees/winner. I saw Shape of Water in theatres last week - I thought it was very good, not great. I definitely saw better movies in 2017.

SPOILER ALERT FOR THREE BILLBOARDS OUTSIDE EBBING, MISSOURI

I watched Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri last night and WOW was I let down. I love Frances McDormand and am not disputing her best actress award because she did a great job in this, but wow I can't fathom how this won best screenplay and best picture at the Golden Globes. Some of the acting performances were comically bad - her son was HORRENDOUS to the point I laughed out loud. There were so many cheese-dick moments that made me cringe: the suicide notes were horribly cheesy, the attempts at humour were garbage (particularly the ex-husband's dumb girlfriend when she interrupts the family fight).

There's no consequences to any actions - the redneck cop nearly beats a man to death for no reason and simply gets fired. Mildred drills a hole through a dentist's thumb and the police chief just lets her go, despite the fact the dentist is pressing full charges. Mildred firebombs the police station from across the street, and when the police arrive they let her go because the local midget says she was with him - no investigation, despite the fact she obviously left a ton of evidence in the building across the street. It was such a stupid, stupid fucking script.

Maybe someone here who enjoyed it can tell me what I missed, because I was really disappointed.

So far I think Get Out should have won best picture, followed by Dunkirk. Darkest Hour and Shape of Water were very good. Three Billboards was abysmal. Haven't seen the rest yet.
 
Could you elaborate on that? For Sicario that is.

Personal taste of course but I was just left feeling that film lacked the depth it seemed to think it had. The switch at the end really fell rather flat for me especially, simply not enough invested in Del Toro's character either personally or in his relationship with Blunt's.

I'd actually like the same elaboration for Hell or High Water lol.

I felt like it was very well-contained, especially on the second viewing. Love the scene where the guys are escorting their herd away from the fire like "what year is this?"

Again really the issue for me is that it didn't feel like it was progressing towards the story it was trying to tell that effectively. It was very entertaining turning its wheels and I'd watch Bridges play a gruff old un PC lawman endlessly but up against the obvious comparison in No Country For Old Men I didn't feel the same level of focus was there.

As far as the above comment on Three Billboards goes I personally think one of the more effective aspects of both McDonough brothers is that they don't shy away from playing up pathos in the way a lot of similar meta cinema does. Gives them rather more individuality than just Taraninto or Coen followers. As far as the comments on plotting goes I think its implied that there's a deliberate blind eye turned to offences reflecting the smalltown atmosphere plus of course the film as a whole does exist in a kind of elevated reality.
 
Last edited:
I'm finally getting around to watching all the Best Picture nominees/winner. I saw Shape of Water in theatres last week - I thought it was very good, not great. I definitely saw better movies in 2017.

SPOILER ALERT FOR THREE BILLBOARDS OUTSIDE EBBING, MISSOURI

I watched Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri last night and WOW was I let down. I love Frances McDormand and am not disputing her best actress award because she did a great job in this, but wow I can't fathom how this won best screenplay and best picture at the Golden Globes. Some of the acting performances were comically bad - her son was HORRENDOUS to the point I laughed out loud. There were so many cheese-dick moments that made me cringe: the suicide notes were horribly cheesy, the attempts at humour were garbage (particularly the ex-husband's dumb girlfriend when she interrupts the family fight).

There's no consequences to any actions - the redneck cop nearly beats a man to death for no reason and simply gets fired. Mildred drills a hole through a dentist's thumb and the police chief just lets her go, despite the fact the dentist is pressing full charges. Mildred firebombs the police station from across the street, and when the police arrive they let her go because the local midget says she was with him - no investigation, despite the fact she obviously left a ton of evidence in the building across the street. It was such a stupid, stupid fucking script.

Maybe someone here who enjoyed it can tell me what I missed, because I was really disappointed.

So far I think Get Out should have won best picture, followed by Dunkirk. Darkest Hour and Shape of Water were very good. Three Billboards was abysmal. Haven't seen the rest yet.

Yeah outside the performances 3 Billboards sucked.
 
You should all see Game Night. The most fun I've had in a theater since that one strange time years ago.
 
Back
Top