Serious Movie Discussion XLI

[Gambitpool]

Just had a strange experience at my theater. I went to watch Fight Club because I love it and had never seen it in theaters before. The theater was about halfway full which surprised me. After the film ended, this happened.

Nobody left for a good 5-6 minutes. Nobody said a word, made a sound, or even moved a muscle. Hell, no one even took their phones out. It's was like they were tranced by the film. Like it was the 1st time they'd seen it or finally understood the messages from the film.

I finally left after "Where is My Mind?" ended, but a little less than half still stayed. It was surreal. Has Project Mayhem grown past its own film?

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

^ transfixed by the cawk?

FUCK I'm gonna miss my last chance to see The Neon Demon in theater tomorrow for a soccer game. So lame.

If there is a sequel. Film was a flop, no?

I liked it. There was some really funny stuff, particularly from Gosling. I guess the mixing of genres was a bit jarring at times and I think the film definitely lost steam in the latter portions- around the point after which Basinger comes into play- but overall it was entertaining.

I thought bewildered Gosling and badass Crowe were a great pairing, but the writing and gags were lazy. The last scenes seemed to project a sequel moreso than the box office did, that's for sure.

A great contrast between a joke that landed (for me) and a joke that missed was when they were looking for Amelia at that big party. Placing on the cup on the women posing as a statue was a comedic usage of the kind bizarre spectacle you'd expect to find at those kinds of parties. Gosling jumping out of a suit to swim with the mermaids and then re-appearing back in the suit wasn't just forced and unfunny, it was actively disruptive.

 

[BAM]

caught some films the past few days...

Last of the Mohicans - I hadn't seen it before and had been wanting to since it came out in 1992. I recall walking past the posters when I was in the theatres as a little kid. Well, after about 25 years I got around to it. It was beautifully shot, but the narrative and Daniel Day Lewis's character were a bit bland and something that I have seen in plenty of other films. I'd say it was solid, but if you miss it no big deal.

Star Trek Beyond - Just came back from the theatre. It was what you would expect from an action flick - cheesy dialogue, big explosions, meta references, over the top action scenes. It was okay, it's what you would expect from a $150M+ budgeted action flick. It follows the same pacing and acting and character development you expect from franchises like Marvel, DC Comics, Transformers, etc.

 

[BAM]

watching Blue Ruin right now on stream.

 

[ufcfan4]

Excalibur was...odd. On the one hand, the film was visually awesome and had great atmosphere in many scenes. On the other hand, I didn't get any real sense of narrative flow. It was more like a collection of scenes sans any real momentum carrying the audience from one sequence to another. As such, it was really difficult to get on board with the plight of any of the characters. I feel like there have been iterations of the King Arthur legend that have done a better job of making the characters fleshed out or sympathetic.

At the same time, I thought it moved very briskly for a 2 hour and 20 minute film. I was never bored.

 

[Ricky13]

Mangold's The Wolverine (2013) was a pleasant surprise.

John Williams has done so many phenomenal scores that fit so well with the particular film. Superman has got to be one of the best.

Haven't seen the 78 movie in what feels like a decade and a half at the least. Definitely have to re-visit it.

The Williams score is so good.

I just love the tonal whackiness of the film. I'll sound like an old fart, but there's a lot of frustration these days with respect to a film "becoming another" at some point during its run-time. The complaint has little to do with you know, what's actually going on.

The positive response to modern superhero films is partly attributable to their mastering of tone - Marvel balances (the suggestion of) thematic heft with quippy comedy, and DC does mytho-poetic darkness. But the movies are often about one thing only to be about something else completely. It slips right past the viewer because they get what they came for. There's little by way of staying power.

It's just not the way of the greats. The Coens/Tarantino thrive on tonal imbalance. Joel's/Ethan's most "uneven" works enjoy revision as cult classics (The Big Lebowski, Burn After Reading, A Serious Man), because the good stuff is there - cause-and-effect via motivation etc. The Big Lebowski features almost no deviation from original script. All those mmms and awkward silences and likes are in there, unimprovised because they contribute.

That's how I feel about Superman (1978). I imagine it's unwatchable today. It's deadly serious at the start, killing off a whole civilisation. Next, it's a Norman Rockwell painting in Smallville. Then it turns slapstick with Clark. Followed by uplifting/inspirational with Superman. Wait a minute; a quippy romance.

But it works. The story shit is so damn good. Information is well delivered. The Krypton stuff with Brando is hammy as hell, but I understand petulant teenage Clark because of it. Then Pa Kent dies seconds after he imparts a core lesson. But that's it: you understand Supes right away. You know where he comes from. Who his father figures are, why he must do what he does. I'll bat for that guy forever. Even the romance is used to establish character ("Lois. I never lie.")

There's a certain kind of director that no longer works today, that is true genius in the wrong era - the Wachowskis are the best example. The utter tonal insanity just doesn't cut it now despite basic function being met and then some. The criticisms are always about the over-the-top cheese but that they make classic Campbellian myths is never noted. Tarantino and the Coens are the only ones still able to keep butts in seats, but even they struggle (OH NOES TUPAC SONG), and are running on reputation. It's the Fincher and Nolan era, really. And it's a pity because in my not-so-humble opinion, they don't come close to those guys because of this.

^ transfixed by the cawk?

I thought bewildered Gosling and badass Crowe were a great pairing, but the writing and gags were lazy. The last scenes seemed to project a sequel moreso than the box office did, that's for sure.

A great contrast between a joke that landed (for me) and a joke that missed was when they were looking for Amelia at that big party. Placing on the cup on the women posing as a statue was a comedic usage of the kind bizarre spectacle you'd expect to find at those kinds of parties. Gosling jumping out of a suit to swim with the mermaids and then re-appearing back in the suit wasn't just forced and unfunny, it was actively disruptive.

Surprised you didn't take to it actually. My cinema was laughing so hard parts of the film were inaudible. Comedy is an interesting thing, ya?

What did you think about the structure? Shane Black writes the most interesting scripts in the business. You should check them out. You probably noticed some things. With most (good) movies, something happens, hence because of that something else happens, but due to that last thing another thing happens. But Shane Black doesn't do this. Weird scenes will stew for the longest time for almost no reason, then suddenly there'll be a flashback which seems to have nothing do to with the story at all. But everything that was hinted at suddenly comes together despite every scene being tangential. He somehow keeps the central thrust intact. It's actually stupid hard to do. I like that aspect of his work even more than his comedy.

Also, the central message of his films more recently is quite pessimistic though noble. This idea that the world is fucked, and the kids are all that's innocent anymore (hence the 70s setting). Watch Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Guaranteed you'll laugh. Watch it with someone! ANYONE!

 

[europe1]

Have you ever seen the movie "Burn Hollywood Burn" aka "An Alan Smithee film"

Nope. Though I have watched several other Alan Smithee films.

The ballad of Hank McCain and Django are the only two Italian movie themes (with vocals)

The theme from The Big Gundown has vocals too. I guess you could count Navaho Joe and Death Rides a Horse also but those are more semi-examples due to how downplayed the vocals are in the context of the overall song.

EDIT: Though I guess this is a rather misguided statement. One of the peculiar features of Ennio's music is how the human voices and instrumental sounds just seems to blend together. The vocals are not some stand-alone entity parlaying a specific message -- they are part of the band, just another way of producing ear-pleasing sounds. He does not put emphasis on the lyrics, he puts emphasis on how the lyrics are pronounced in relation to the other pieces of instrumental sound.

Likewise, the three main Ringo tunes are accompanied with vocals -- and I think those are some of Ennio's best work.

The first Jet Li movie I ever saw was "Black Mask",

Haha. Me too. Even as a kid I remember thinking that that movie was quite terrible.

For example, Police Story came out here, then they skipped Police Story 2, so they released part 3 as "Supercop" since there was no part 2 in America it made no sense to make it a trilogy. Later they released Michelle Yeoh's Supercop, which they had to call Supercop 2 since Police Story 3 was already called Supercop.

Hong Kong title-naming is the hight of comedy.

These are the alternative titles that Yes, Madam had.

Karate Tiger
Super Cops (yes, another one)
Ultraforce 2
Super Cops: UltraForce 2
In the Line of Duty 2
Police Assassins
Police Assassins 2

So Yes, Madam's alternative titles included BOTH Police Assassin 1 and Police Assassin 2. That the sort of nonsensical nonsense that you can only get from Hong Kong.

Well, after about 25 years I got around to it. It was beautifully shot, but the narrative and Daniel Day Lewis's character were a bit bland and something that I have seen in plenty of other films. I'd say it was solid, but if you miss it no big deal.

I find The Last of the Mohawks to be just epic. Magua's bloodlust and thirst for the revenge does so much -- though I admit that on the pale-faced side there is some... blandness I guess you could call it. That ending with the pursuit on the mountain-side is some of the most rousing action ever composed.

Excalibur was...odd. On the one hand, the film was visually awesome and had great atmosphere in many scenes. On the other hand, I didn't get any real sense of narrative flow. It was more like a collection of scenes sans any real momentum carrying the audience from one sequence to another. As such, it was really difficult to get on board with the plight of any of the characters. I feel like there have been iterations of the King Arthur legend that have done a better job of making the characters fleshed out or sympathetic.

At the same time, I thought it moved very briskly for a 2 hour and 20 minute film. I was never bored.

Excalibur is one of those really idiosyncratic movies. On the storytelling front it's an absolute mess. At several points the movie just leaps decades into the future. Furthermore characters disappear-and-reappear out-of-the-blue. Characterization itself is incredibly wobbly. It's downright jarring to see Arthur being the kid of such valour that he can convince that Lord to knight him in the middle of combat -- and then in the very-next scene he's some pompous asshole that goes apeshit on Lancelot just because he's losing to him in a duel! How the hell did this shift happen? It makes no sense in conventional storytelling!


But the thing is, Excalibur is not a story, it's a myth. The difference between a myth and a story is that in a myth the surface narrative with all it's consistency and characterization is not the point of it all, it's the thematic undertones that matters.

Everything in Excalibur is a commentary on the Medieval concept of chivalry. That is to say, how the behavior of chivalry is intrinsically linked to the supernatural, and therefore the prosperity of the kingdom and individual people. All those oaths of loyalty and knightly norms are just not a social contract that governs the behavior in a feudal society, their existence has supernatural importance. This is the red-thread of the narrative.

Take the aforementioned scene where Arthur duels Lancelot and strikes him with Excalibur across the chest. Despite Arthur's victory the blade shatters -- signifying Arthur's loss of virtue in striking out of rage. Only when he repents to the Lady of the Lake is the sword returned to him. Likewise, take that much later scene where Lancelot and Guinevere become lovers and flee Camelot (breaking their feudal-oaths). The result is Arthur's depression and the land falling into despair, lawlessness and pestilence. Nature itself responds to the violation of knighthood. And somehow, finding the Holy Grail is going to fix all this? It's going to heal the land, Arthur and upturn the socio-economic downturn that followed Lancelot and Guinevere amorous exile?

Again, the link between such events make no sense in a conventional narrative. Yet they do in a mythical one. In Excalibur, the wellfare of the kingdom and individuals prosperity is based on divine providence, not "natural" ones. Incorrect knighthood, violating feudal norms, going against the divine order -- literally does make the world go dark and allows evil forces to encroach. And finding an holy object like the Holy Grail actually can restore balance to the force. It it's not the balance between people that must be restored, it's the balance between the supernatural and the world.

Arthur's jarring character-shift from bright-eyed youngster to pompous asshole in the shift of a scene is not of importance, becuse those two scenes are there to comment on the nature of Kingship -- when it's done right and when it's done wrong, and how divine beings react to such behavior.


This is the reason that I find Excalibur so fascinating. It is fiercely anti-modern in its sensibilities and structure. It's worldview, it's understanding of action-and-consequences and how characters should work in a story -- are squarely from the Medieval time period. That sort of wonky, inconsistent storytelling is exactly something you'd find in a Medieval story, since the point of them was always to touch on the theme of the story instead presenting consistent characterization and storylines.

 

[HenryFlower]

Saw the new Ghostbusters the other night. Despite an incredibly weak first half, there is admittedly something very brilliant about what Feig accomplished w/ this film in relation/response to the gender roles of conventional Hollywood cinema. I also enjoyed the big climax more than most contemporary Hollywood blockbusters. Right as I was about ready to walk out the film took a pretty major turnaround, so props to Feig. Dude is one sly lil bastard.

 

[ufcfan4]

Nope. Though I have watched several other Alan Smithee films.



The theme from The Big Gundown has vocals too. I guess you could count Navaho Joe and Death Rides a Horse also but those are more semi-examples due to how downplayed the vocals are in the context of the overall song.

Likewise, the three main Ringo tunes are accompanied with vocals -- and I think those are some of Ennio's best work.



Haha. Me too. Even as a kid I remember thinking that that movie was quite terrible.



Hong Kong title-naming is the hight of comedy.

These are the alternative titles that Yes, Madam had.

Karate Tiger
Super Cops (yes, another one)
Ultraforce 2
Super Cops: UltraForce 2
In the Line of Duty 2
Police Assassins
Police Assassins 2

So Yes, Madam's alternative titles included BOTH Police Assassin 1 and Police Assassin 2. That the sort of nonsensical nonsense that you can only get from Hong Kong.



I find The Last of the Mohawks to be just epic. Magua's bloodlust and thirst for the revenge does so much -- though I admit that on the pale-faced side there is some... blandness I guess you could call it. That ending with the pursuit on the mountain-side is some of the most rousing action ever composed.




Excalibur is one of those really idiosyncratic movies. On the storytelling front it's an absolute mess. At several points the movie just leaps decades into the future. Furthermore characters disappear-and-reappear out-of-the-blue. Characterization itself is incredibly wobbly. It's downright jarring to see Arthur being the kid of such valour that he can convince that Lord to knight him in the middle of combat -- and then in the very-next scene he's some pompous asshole that goes apeshit on Lancelot just because he's losing to him in a duel! How the hell did this shift happen? It makes no sense in conventional storytelling!


But the thing is, Excalibur is not a story, it's a myth. The difference between a myth and a story is that in a myth the surface narrative with all it's consistency and characterization is not the point of it all, it's the thematic undertones that matters.

Everything in Excalibur is a commentary on the Medieval concept of chivalry. That is to say, how the behavior of chivalry is intrinsically linked to the supernatural, and therefore the prosperity of the kingdom and individual people. All those oaths of loyalty and knightly norms are just not a social contract that governs the behavior in a feudal society, their existence has supernatural importance. This is the red-thread of the narrative.

Take the aforementioned scene where Arthur duels Lancelot and strikes him with Excalibur across the chest. Despite Arthur's victory the blade shatters -- signifying Arthur's loss of virtue in striking out of rage. Only when he repents to the Lady of the Lake is the sword returned to him. Likewise, take that much later scene where Lancelot and Guinevere become lovers and flee Camelot (breaking their feudal-oaths). The result is Arthur's depression and the land falling into despair, lawlessness and pestilence. Nature itself responds to the violation of knighthood. And somehow, finding the Holy Grail is going to fix all this? It's going to heal the land, Arthur and upturn the socio-economic downturn that followed Lancelot and Guinevere amorous exile?

Again, the link between such events make no sense in a conventional narrative. Yet they do in a mythical one. In Excalibur, the wellfare of the kingdom and individuals prosperity is based on divine providence, not "natural" ones. Incorrect knighthood, violating feudal norms, going against the divine order -- literally does make the world go dark and allows evil forces to encroach. And finding an holy object like the Holy Grail actually can restore balance to the force. It it's not the balance between people that must be restored, it's the balance between the supernatural and the world.

Arthur's jarring character-shift from bright-eyed youngster to pompous asshole in the shift of a scene is not of importance, becuse those two scenes are there to comment on the nature of Kingship -- when it's done right and when it's done wrong, and how divine beings react to such behavior.


This is the reason that I find Excalibur so fascinating. It is fiercely anti-modern in its sensibilities and structure. It's worldview, it's understanding of action-and-consequences and how characters should work in a story -- are squarely from the Medieval time period. That sort of wonky, inconsistent storytelling is exactly something you'd find in a Medieval story, since the point of them was always to touch on the theme of the story instead presenting consistent characterization and storylines.

Very well written and perceptive. Definitely makes me appreciate certain aspects of the film that had me thinking, "what the fuck?" as I was watching.

 

[ufcfan4]

Mangold's The Wolverine (2013) was a pleasant surprise.



The Williams score is so good.

I just love the tonal whackiness of the film. I'll sound like an old fart, but there's a lot of frustration these days with respect to a film "becoming another" at some point during its run-time. The complaint has little to do with you know, what's actually going on.

The positive response to modern superhero films is partly attributable to their mastering of tone - Marvel balances (the suggestion of) thematic heft with quippy comedy, and DC does mytho-poetic darkness. But the movies are often about one thing only to be about something else completely. It slips right past the viewer because they get what they came for. There's little by way of staying power.

It's just not the way of the greats. The Coens/Tarantino thrive on tonal imbalance. Joel's/Ethan's most "uneven" works enjoy revision as cult classics (The Big Lebowski, Burn After Reading, A Serious Man), because the good stuff is there - cause-and-effect via motivation etc. The Big Lebowski features almost no deviation from original script. All those mmms and awkward silences and likes are in there, unimprovised because they contribute.

That's how I feel about Superman (1978). I imagine it's unwatchable today. It's deadly serious at the start, killing off a whole civilisation. Next, it's a Norman Rockwell painting in Smallville. Then it turns slapstick with Clark. Followed by uplifting/inspirational with Superman. Wait a minute; a quippy romance.

But it works. The story shit is so damn good. Information is well delivered. The Krypton stuff with Brando is hammy as hell, but I understand petulant teenage Clark because of it. Then Pa Kent dies seconds after he imparts a core lesson. But that's it: you understand Supes right away. You know where he comes from. Who his father figures are, why he must do what he does. I'll bat for that guy forever. Even the romance is used to establish character ("Lois. I never lie.")

There's a certain kind of director that no longer works today, that is true genius in the wrong era - the Wachowskis are the best example. The utter tonal insanity just doesn't cut it now despite basic function being met and then some. The criticisms are always about the over-the-top cheese but that they make classic Campbellian myths is never noted. Tarantino and the Coens are the only ones still able to keep butts in seats, but even they struggle (OH NOES TUPAC SONG), and are running on reputation. It's the Fincher and Nolan era, really. And it's a pity because in my not-so-humble opinion, they don't come close to those guys because of this.



Surprised you didn't take to it actually. My cinema was laughing so hard parts of the film were inaudible. Comedy is an interesting thing, ya?

What did you think about the structure? Shane Black writes the most interesting scripts in the business. You should check them out. You probably noticed some things. With most (good) movies, something happens, hence because of that something else happens, but due to that last thing another thing happens. But Shane Black doesn't do this. Weird scenes will stew for the longest time for almost no reason, then suddenly there'll be a flashback which seems to have nothing do to with the story at all. But everything that was hinted at suddenly comes together despite every scene being tangential. He somehow keeps the central thrust intact. It's actually stupid hard to do. I like that aspect of his work even more than his comedy.

Also, the central message of his films more recently is quite pessimistic though noble. This idea that the world is fucked, and the kids are all that's innocent anymore (hence the 70s setting). Watch Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Guaranteed you'll laugh. Watch it with someone! ANYONE!

Great breakdown of Superman. I think of that movie fondly in the sense that it really was a pivotal moment in terms of film adaptations of comic book stories/characters. I can only image how off-the-charts the anticipation of and the positive response toward that film were when it came out.

 

[ufcfan4]

Saw the new Ghostbusters the other night. Despite an incredibly weak first half, there is admittedly something very brilliant about what Feig accomplished w/ this film in relation/response to the gender roles of conventional Hollywood cinema. I also enjoyed the big climax more than most contemporary Hollywood blockbusters. Right as I was about ready to walk out the film took a pretty major turnaround, so props to Feig. Dude is one sly lil bastard.

First few minutes when the tour guide in the 19th century mansion was dropping lines like, "construction of the anti-Irish fence," had me cringing thinking that the lame humor was going to really make this a shitshow. But, yes, it definitely did wind up being more entertaining than I expected it to be.

The only substantial complaint I have is that I think of Ghostbusters (and, to a lesser extent, Ghostbusters II) as hilarious films. While I thought this one had some moments of humor that really hit, I thought it was overall not nearly as funny as the originals.

It also was a bit jarring to see how badass the four protagonists were during the Times Square denoument. Part of the charm of Ghostbusters was that Venkman, Ray, Egon, and Winston were decidedly not badass. They were regular guys who just had the technology and the will to act. But they weren't murking ghosts left and right like some wild west show.

 

[europe1]

I knocked three other Hitchcock films off the list. Topaz, Spellbound and Shadow of a Doubt. Topaz was definitely substandard by the lofty Hitchy measurement. I got the feeling that many of those European actors simply couldn't get their game going while speaking the English tongue, including the main character. And the episodic, ensemble-cast approach -- resulted in a lot of up and downs in terms of quality. Those mad-looking, bearded Cubans definitely nailed it though. As well as the Cuban spy who brought the glamour.

Spellbound however was a movie in two parts. Hitchcock has always liked to play the psychologist game. But I think the first part of this movie, where the characters where at the institute and therefore took a more formal, professional approach towards their psychological discussions, was like Topaz rather week by Hitchcock measurements. Marnie was likewise another penis movie with a lot of psycho-sexual themes, yet the more alive, everyday environment centering on the dynamics of Marnie's relationship with James Bond gave it a verdant quality that the initial stiffness of Spellbound lacked. Fortunately, around the hour mark, the main-characters become outlaws and the movie becomes engaging and exciting. Said psychological discussions leaves the textbook format and finally starts fealing alive and involving. Likewise, it's just something off about seeing Ingrid Bergman playing a stiff, frigid woman -- since she is normally so full of life in her characters, which became unraveled in the second part. Lastly, that dream-scene was just a fantastic bit of expressionism.

Shadow of a Doubt nonetheless was just stuffed with Hitchcock delightfulness. Almost every scene had something going on beneath the surface. Joseph Cotton's acting was superb, and the possessive, downright incestiouss dispossition his character displayed towards his female relatives was a magnificent piece of film. Teresa Wright, likewise, fit the film very well. One funny theme in this movie is related to that of Cotton bringing evil to this innocent suburb. Everyone but Teresa seems to oblivious to his evil. The father and the neighbor chat endlessly about crime and murder yet never suspect Cotton of anything. The mother is charmed by her brothers guile. And even when Cotton is buried at the ending the priest talk about him like a saintly man. No-one in this suburb seems to be able to identify evil, except Teresa, who frightfully might be the one who has most in common with her uncle, in terms of wanderlust and feeling cognitively trapped by the restrictions of suburb-life.


Taking an illegal turn into boring-land, maaaan did Kramer vs Kramer suck until the final act. Jesus Christ did I roll my eyes at this movie. Maybe this says more about me as a person, or my inability to immerse myself in the timeperiod, but I just could not give a shit about Dustin Hoffman's child-rearing issues. All emotion I could muster for the issue was a callous "get over it.". On top of all this, I just don't think I like Dustin Hoffman as an actor. That said, the last part was a major upswing. Streep's tear-streaked performance was splendid and I actually got invested in her psychological issues. Even Hoffman brought his A-game in these scenes.

Grapes of Wrath hit me right in the feels though. John Ford has a penchance for terribly hokey melodrama so I did have some apprehension going in but by the Gods of classical Hollywood did he deliver. Henry Fonda might be the greatest actor of all time when it comes to giving humanistic performances, and the actress playing his mother was right there with him. On a final note, I must say that it's rather intresting that a self-professed conservative like John Ford would direct a movie with such overt socialist leanings.

Also watched Kwaidan, an episodic film about Japanese ghost stories. The stylistic quality Kobayashi gave it was really neat. Overall I'd have to proclaim the second and third story the supperior ones. Their scope was just grander and more mythic. Basically, they are the sort of ghost stories that makes your fantasy spring alive and feel stimulated while the first and fourth story as the kind of ghost story that keeps you invested for 30-minutes.

Oi! Bullitt68! Is The Last Man on Earth Vincet Price's best or worst performance? I can't decide. The entire movie left me feeling rather flabbergasted. I can't make head nor tail of it. It does any a certain something, that primal take on what would eventually evolve into zombies. And the ending where Price finally starts engaging with the evolved-vampires is rather intresting. But overall my impression was a cockeyed ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


On the more recent front, I finally caught Bridge of Spies. Opinion? Spielberg still is a Maestro! A great and touching story that makes a great anti-cynicism piece. It almost seems like Spielberg is railing against the cynical and policy-conscious attitude of modern government officials and wants to show how idealism and sticking to your values can be of temporary damnation but serve you well in the long run. Just an excellent made film that deals with some very rousing issues about our identity and values.
Lastly, I also catched The Witch. The people that have slandered this suck. This is a really good film. Yeah it's not scary (but few-if-any horror films are actually scary). Firstly, the immersion into the time period is just excellent and greatly aids the film. Secondly, something a lot of people seem to claim as a fundamental-criterium for achieving an effective horror film is that you need to care about the people being menanced by the monster! (personally I wouldn't subscribe to such a maxim but it is a fair guiding principle). Well The Witch definitively achieved that! This was one of those films where you deeply sympathize with the victims -- despite their puritan religious beliefs -- and want things to end up well for them. I actively found myself wishing for their safety when they were in peril. Great performances all around, even from the kids. Anya Taylor-Joy fit like an absolute glove in this movie, her expression alone doing so much of the thespian work.

 

[europe1]

Very well written and perceptive. Definitely makes me appreciate certain aspects of the film that had me thinking, "what the fuck?" as I was watching.

Haha. Thanks. While I was writing that I kept beating myself over the head wondering if I was remembering the movie correctly and if I was spelling out those themes in an understandable manner. Glad it turned out well.

 

[Ricky13]

I knocked three other Hitchcock films off the list. Topaz, Spellbound and Shadow of a Doubt. Topaz was definitely substandard by the lofty Hitchy measurement. I got the feeling that many of those European actors simply couldn't get their game going while speaking the English tongue, including the main character. And the episodic, ensemble-cast approach -- resulted in a lot of up and downs in terms of quality. Those mad-looking, bearded Cubans definitely nailed it though. As well as the Cuban spy who brought the glamour.

Spellbound however was a movie in two parts. Hitchcock has always liked to play the psychologist game. But I think the first part of this movie, where the characters where at the institute and therefore took a more formal, professional approach towards their psychological discussions, was like Topaz rather week by Hitchcock measurements. Marnie was likewise another penis movie with a lot of psycho-sexual themes, yet the more alive, everyday environment centering on the dynamics of Marnie's relationship with James Bond gave it a verdant quality that the initial stiffness of Spellbound lacked. Fortunately, around the hour mark, the main-characters become outlaws and the movie becomes engaging and exciting. Said psychological discussions leaves the textbook format and finally starts fealing alive and involving. Likewise, it's just something off about seeing Ingrid Bergman playing a stiff, frigid woman -- since she is normally so full of life in her characters, which became unraveled in the second part. Lastly, that dream-scene was just a fantastic bit of expressionism.

Shadow of a Doubt nonetheless was just stuffed with Hitchcock delightfulness. Almost every scene had something going on beneath the surface. Joseph Cotton's acting was superb, and the possessive, downright incestiouss dispossition his character displayed towards his female relatives was a magnificent piece of film. Teresa Wright, likewise, fit the film very well. One funny theme in this movie is related to that of Cotton bringing evil to this innocent suburb. Everyone but Teresa seems to oblivious to his evil. The father and the neighbor chat endlessly about crime and murder yet never suspect Cotton of anything. The mother is charmed by her brothers guile. And even when Cotton is buried at the ending the priest talk about him like a saintly man. No-one in this suburb seems to be able to identify evil, except Teresa, who frightfully might be the one who has most in common with her uncle, in terms of wanderlust and feeling cognitively trapped by the restrictions of suburb-life.


Taking an illegal turn into boring-land, maaaan did Kramer vs Kramer suck until the final act. Jesus Christ did I roll my eyes at this movie. Maybe this says more about me as a person, or my inability to immerse myself in the timeperiod, but I just could not give a shit about Dustin Hoffman's child-rearing issues. All emotion I could muster for the issue was a callous "get over it.". On top of all this, I just don't think I like Dustin Hoffman as an actor. That said, the last part was a major upswing. Streep's tear-streaked performance was splendid and I actually got invested in her psychological issues. Even Hoffman brought his A-game in these scenes.

Grapes of Wrath hit me right in the feels though. John Ford has a penchance for terribly hokey melodrama so I did have some apprehension going in but by the Gods of classical Hollywood did he deliver. Henry Fonda might be the greatest actor of all time when it comes to giving humanistic performances, and the actress playing his mother was right there with him. On a final note, I must say that it's rather intresting that a self-professed conservative like John Ford would direct a movie with such overt socialist leanings.

Also watched Kwaidan, an episodic film about Japanese ghost stories. The stylistic quality Kobayashi gave it was really neat. Overall I'd have to proclaim the second and third story the supperior ones. Their scope was just grander and more mythic. Basically, they are the sort of ghost stories that makes your fantasy spring alive and feel stimulated while the first and fourth story as the kind of ghost story that keeps you invested for 30-minutes.

Oi! Bullitt68! Is The Last Man on Earth Vincet Price's best or worst performance? I can't decide. The entire movie left me feeling rather flabbergasted. I can't make head nor tail of it. It does any a certain something, that primal take on what would eventually evolve into zombies. And the ending where Price finally starts engaging with the evolved-vampires is rather intresting. But overall my impression was a cockeyed ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


On the more recent front, I finally caught Bridge of Spies. Opinion? Spielberg still is a Maestro! A great and touching story that makes a great anti-cynicism piece. It almost seems like Spielberg is railing against the cynical and policy-conscious attitude of modern government officials and wants to show how idealism and sticking to your values can be of temporary damnation but serve you well in the long run. Just an excellent made film that deals with some very rousing issues about our identity and values.
Lastly, I also catched The Witch. The people that have slandered this suck. This is a really good film. Yeah it's not scary (but few-if-any horror films are actually scary). Firstly, the immersion into the time period is just excellent and greatly aids the film. Secondly, something a lot of people seem to claim as a fundamental-criterium for achieving an effective horror film is that you need to care about the people being menanced by the monster! (personally I wouldn't subscribe to such a maxim but it is a fair guiding principle). Well The Witch definitively achieved that! This was one of those films where you deeply sympathize with the victims -- despite their puritan religious beliefs -- and want things to end up well for them. I actively found myself wishing for their safety when they were in peril. Great performances all around, even from the kids. Anya Taylor-Joy fit like an absolute glove in this movie, her expression alone doing so much of the thespian work.

I like this post.

 

[Ricky13]

Though not seen Topaz.

I've heard Bridge of Spies being called lesser Spielberg. I disagree. I think it's just effortless Spielberg. Where a master is just channeling dat craft.

@HenryFlower - thanks for the Ghostbusters review. Need to catch it.

 

[europe1]

I like this post.

I nominate this post for governorship!

I've heard Bridge of Spies being called lesser Spielberg. I disagree. I think it's just effortless Spielberg. Where a master is just channeling dat craft.

Somehow I need to edit this paragraph into my own text and claim it as my own.

 

[Joseph Budden]

I thought the Nice Guys was really fun. Was worried when it first started it was going to try too hard to be clever in dialogue, but it became more natural and enjoyable.

 

[JonesBones]

The movie F for Fake.

Houdin was the greatest magician who ever lived. And do you know what he said? "A magician, he said, is just an actor-Just an actor playing the part of a magician."

I love that. The relationship between skeptics and magicians has always interested me. Magicians are some of the most famous skeptics. Houdini. Randi. Penn and Teller. Even Cris Angel.

To paraphrase Randi, it takes a con man to catch a con man. Honest and intelligent scientists are often fooled because they aren't used to dealing with deceptive agents. Randi knows all the tricks.

 

[NoGiRonin]

Just saw Lights Out over the weekend.

The film was quite good! Not a classic by any means, but FAR superior to most horror being released these days, especially the PG-13 horror stuff. The film starts out strong, showing the power and fury of the supernatural force. What I really liked was the use of mental illness inter-working with the supernatural element. To me, it gave the film the much needed depth to escape most of the cliches and nonsense of most supernatural films. While, I do believe the film felt a tad short, and extra time would have benefited the film, it all came together nicely at the end. No last minute crappy jump scares or openings for a sequel. Also, look out for the "boyfriend" in the film, the character of Brett. Dude was the best character in a horror film in quite awhile. Many of his scenes, especially near the end got tons of applause.

 

[Bullitt68]

Ok, this is going to be a mega post for the record books. I don't know that I've ever gone this long without posting in here, and of course, the one time it happens, you all go apeshit, with europe and his new BFF Beardo going on about B-movies, Flemmy and Joseph Budden throwing down over art movies, and Caveat watching some classics. But damn it, I'm going to go through it all.

To start, I should mention, going back to where I was the last time I posted about my ill-fated excursion into the filmography of Clint Eastwood, that, despite how terrible I find his movies and how lame I find him as a bad ass, Tightrope and The Rookie were both awesome.

Tightrope is the kind of movie I love. No name writer/director, Clint gives him a shot, and he fucking goes for it. The ending sort of got away from him, but everything leading up to it, while by no means flawless, was so ambitious and in large measure successful that I was totally along for the ride. The opening is one of my new favorites, just wickedly executed. I also loved Clint's character. He actually plays a dorky dad type, a homicide cop newly divorced and with custody of his two little daughters (and the eldest daughter was played by his real-life daughter, which was really cool). However, beyond the dorky dad exterior, on the inside, he's sprinting down a path of self-destruction, engaging in high-risk sex with the low-lifes he comes across on his beat. Tons of inspired little moments, and one extended sequence of suspense involving his real-life daughter that I was absolutely stunned by (whichever one of his wives was the mother, she was either remarkably understanding or remarkably well-compensated). This is the kind of hidden gem I was looking for in Eastwood's filmography.

The Rookie wasn't quite as good, but I still thoroughly enjoyed it. It was a bit of a curveball for me having so much of the running time following Charlie while Clint was kidnapped. I was hoping for more of a buddy cop dynamic than what I got. Still, what was there worked really well, and I loved Clint dialing up the cynicism and misanthropy to 11. I also loved the ending. At first, I had a bit of TDKR syndrome; I was initially bummed they didn't go for it, but when I considered what they did do, it worked tremendously and I was ultimately satisfied with the decision.

That's all the movie watching I did this past month. On the TV front, I finally started watching South Park. I watched it when it premiered (when I was the kids' age) and liked it. As I got older, I drifted away from it; as I got older still, it seemed too stupid and not as quick-witted as Family Guy, so I stayed away. At this point, I'm glad I've finally come back around to it. The movie is still fucking hilarious, and while I still think Family Guy is by far the funnier show, I have a much greater appreciation for the way Trey Parker and Matt Stone use the medium of animation for their outlandish, absurdist satires (I just watched the one that deals with the transgender [and transracial and transspecies] controversy ).

I also reupped with Fight Pass. They've finally put up a good chunk of the Pancrase library I was promised ages ago. It's not all there yet, and what's there is mostly the stuff I've already owned for years, but it's still sweet. I also spent some time (re)watching fights with Hughes, Franklin, Couture, and Liddell. They were the top dogs when I started watching MMA and it was cool not only reliving those old pre-and-post-TUF memories, but Fight Pass has also added a bunch of their older, pre-UFC fights. It was awesome seeing Hughes reffing one of Franklin's matches and Hughes himself participating in some goofy ass Battle Royal style match between the Miletich crew.

Anyway, that's what I've been up to. Now on to what you all have been up to...

How did the whole Brucesploitation episode blow over, btw?

I got too busy to do it. Enter the Fat Dragon thus remains on my to-see list.

Lamer than people like Steve Barkett?

I meant among the consensus GOATs.

Man Deadpool is just bad. It doesn't even feel like a Dirty Harry movie. A really spiritless closure to the series.

When I said it got my hopes up, that meant I was really liking it until the ending. For most of its running time, it was one of the stronger entries. Then they revealed the psycho and the whole thing came tumbling down.

Comparing M to Fury is actually rather interesting, since they both share a theme of mob mentality yet are on opposite ends in terms of storytelling and style. M is very experimental and eccentric, while Fury by Lang's standard was rather conventionally communicated.

What about M strikes you as "experimental and eccentric"? I've always found M to anticipate remarkably the style of the classical Hollywood thriller that he and Hitchcock would come to master.

Presently, I guess I'd rank them about the same. I suspect I'd have to re-watch M just to make my mind up. I'd say that Fury is a more consistently-superb affair though while some parts of M are definitely better than others.

M is too patchy, and the parts that don't work really don't work. Fury is solid all the way through, and with Tracy's performance as well, Fury is way out in front IMO.

I'm starting to think that you just don't like movies with downbeat endings.

Over the years, I've moved farther and farther away from making lists and focusing on rankings, and even while I was putting a lot of emphasis on it, my rankings would shift quite a bit, but what has still yet to change is my standard one-two punch of the greatest movies ever made: Citizen Kane and Raging Bull. And neither one is exactly full of sunshine and rainbows

I'll freely admit that I enjoy upbeat movies more than downbeat movies - and anyone who says otherwise has some psychological problems they should look into fixing - but just because a movie isn't a Randian triumph of the rational and the moral doesn't mean I'm incapable of appreciating/liking it.

Bonnie and Clyde, The Exorcist, The French Connection, Chinatown...those movies just suck.

Spoiler

Intresting. The local University has it. Might be doing a little reading this summer.

While my track record of getting people to watch classic movies has been pretty good, my track record of getting people to read film scholarship is fucking abysmal. You can break that streak, though, and if you do actually read it, I'm sure you'd get a lot out of it. It's a really shrewd look at one of the most awesomest of all movie genres.

can you say that Philip Marlowe has the same cynicalism?

Damn it, now that I'm thinking about it, The Big Sleep would kind of shoot a hole through my assertion. After all, what pisses Bogart off at the end of The Big Sleep is that such a young and innocent kid was heartlessly gunned down. His anger wasn't at the fact that the world is full of shitty people, which he is absolutely cynical enough to not bat an eye at, but rather at the fact that the small little pockets of the world that haven't been corrupted with people that aren't (yet?) morally bankrupt, are starting to get caught in the crossfire. So you could say that Bogart's Marlowe is actually very similar to Eastwood's Harry.

Back to the drawing board on that one.

I'm quite adamant in any assessment of these Marvel things that they should stand on their own [...] It started occurring to me when I was listing the must-watch MCU films for Flem or Chickenluver, worried they wouldn't "get" Civil War if they didn't see certain ones. Then went to see Civil War again and literally covered my face through half of it in embarrassment for both it and myself, and how I'd been so over-the-top with my first review. Realised at that point that doing a movie marathon prior ruins any chance you'll enjoy the damn thing by virtue of it actually being any good functionally, because it isn't.

Hmm. As I preface all of these remarks, I still haven't seen Civil War so I can't comment specifically with regard to that film. However, the general nature of your problem here strikes me as similar to saying stuff like, "If Semmy Schilt weren't so big, he wouldn't have done so well in K-1," or, "If De Niro wasn't in Raging Bull, then it would've have been such a good movie."

That kind of logic has always seemed weird to me inasmuch as it is reducible to "if things weren't the way they were, then they would've been different." You seem to be saying that, if the Marvel movies weren't there, then Civil War wouldn't work. Couldn't the same thing be said about Die Hard with a Vengeance, or Scream 3, or The Dark Knight Rises, or indeed any sequel/installment in a franchise (I just picked my favorites for examples; I'm sure you don't like any of them )?

I expected exploration, the consequences of such hard character work. But all we've got is rehashing and poor commitment to stakes instead of actual change in Phase 2, which is the death knell for function, and it's all because of the bottom fucking dollar.

They tease these serious issues without making anything happen, then return quickly to status quo. You know what would happen in a real story if Tony Stark created Ultron in such a careless manner, secondary to a cocktail of daddy issues and misapplied concern for the human race? He would die so the protagonists, The Avengers, reassess and implement real change. Think about how Whedon was willing to sacrifice Coulson in The Avengers and how that's what gets them all fucking fired up.

But what happens instead in Age of Ultron?

Tony does it again while Banner just stands there like a flaccid ballsack, so they can introduce another beloved comic character for the next movie. It's so transparent it hurts that I didn't see it.

I'm with you here on the failure of The Avengers 2. That was bad writing, pure and simple. However, I don't think he needed to die for the point that creating Ultron was a bad idea to be made. In fact, that change you're talking about not only doesn't require Tony's death, it doesn't even require a whole movie. At least it shouldn't. That change should've happened right there in The Avengers 2. That change should've been Tony's arc. To have gone that route would've meant no Vision, though, and going back to your thing on character introductions and asses in seats, that just wasn't an option.

Think about Winter Soldier [...] what a cool little allegory - government doing some shady shit in the name of "safety". So Cap dives down the rabbit hole to get down to the bottom of this, and he's totally right.

Oh wait no.

It was comic book nazis all along who had nothing to do with this story in any functional or thematic sense.

Now here I think you're being a little hard on The Winter Soldier. I actually think the Nazi tie-in works on a thematic level. Yes, it's conspicuously comicy, but the idea of America (embodied in Captain America) being pitted against the idea of Nazism (embodied in Hydra) and having that battle raging on in a 21st Century context is actually a clever little twist on the enduring (emphasis on the temporal) battle of good versus evil.

I've watched Blade 2 to some extent like 10x this week. Shit is always on.

I need to watch blade 1 again cause i don't remember liking it ever. I must though if i like 2 and 3.

That opening scene where the vampire chick lures the guy (Lem from The Shield) to the dance club behind the meat-packing plant, the blood starts coming down from the sprinklers in the ceiling- revealing the ravers are all vampires, and then Blade shows up to fuck the vamps shit up is worth the price of admission alone. Easily one of the coolest introductory scenes of a comic book character in a film that I can recall.

I haven't watched any of them in years, but when I was a kid, Blade was one of my favorite movies. I watched that movie so many times. Wesley Snipes at his most bad ass and my man Stephen Dorff as the villain. And hell yeah, ufcfan, that opening scene is one of the GOAT.

When Blade 2 came out, I was super stoked, but I initially thought it sucked. It was actually similar to what happened with the Mission: Impossible movies. I grew up fucking loving the first one, thought the second one sucked ass, and then just forgot about the whole series. I eventually wound up rewatching the second one and still thought it sucked, but I was surprised at how much I liked the third one.

It'd be interesting to see how I'd rate them all now. I can't imagine I'd do such a dramatic 180 on Blade 2, but at this point I don't even remember it.

That was one of my favorite things about Inception - which i think did an even more clever thing with it. You go through all the pre-mission stuff very comfortably until the end when Mal is like "you really sure that wasn't a dream too?" You think back and you are finally tuned into that possibility...and I'm actually taken for that ride every time i watch it.

I've reached a point in my PhD where what I'm going to write will either be all Bruce Lee (except that'll leave a lot of unexplored movie territory) or it'll be broader with just a chunk about Bruce (except that'll leave a lot of unexplored Bruce territory). Right now, I'm leaning towards the latter, and if that's what I end up doing, I'm for sure bringing in Inception. That movie has been on my mind a lot lately as like the ultimate cinematic response to skepticism. People have often bashed it as being pseudo-intellectual, but I think anyone who trots that out just proves that they're a pseudo-intellectual, because Inception is as seriously and profoundly intellectual as movies get.

Plus it's one of the coolest fucking movies ever.

I don't know if I was touched or offended when they recycled Eternal Sunshine... into a True Blood storyline. It was like masturbation- it felt good but really dirty and shameful at the same time.

Guys, did someone that's not me just bring up True Blood?

I only saw Eternal Sunshine once and I was pretty young, so that probably explains why it didn't land, but that True Blood storyline really landed. The scene where Hoyt asks Jessica to glamour him in Season 5 was powerful enough on its own, but then the way they brought that shit back in Season 7 was one of the few bright spots in that miserable series-capping season.

given all the interesting conflicts throughout the film the priest vs. psychopath one was a little too easy for me. Part of what made me (pleasantly) uncomfortable about the film in general was that each conflicting ideology had to manifest between real, complex citizens of a small town, which complicated any simple judgement. Throwing a psychopath in there made me a roll my eyes a little

The reason I love that scene so much is because of the formal brilliance of it. Even if I concede that it's "easier" than some of the other scenes, the aesthetic "difficulty" makes up for it by offering a different kind of complexity. If you watch that scene and consider the cinematography and the editing, the visuals are actually responding to the tenor of the conversation. The camera gets closer and closer as the conversation becomes more intimate, and any time psycho boy breaks the intimacy, the camera pulls back as if it, like the priest, has to start over and work back towards some kind of connection.

I did a comprehensive aesthetic breakdown of that scene for the students in a film class I taught on this past term, an exercise that really opened that scene up for me, and while I truly loved that film, that was really the only scene that was so aesthetically rich and rewarding, the only scene where there was that level of visual and thematic synchronicity. That's not a knock, though, because I've found that, in most movies these days, the conventions have been nailed down so thoroughly that there is very rarely that kind of formal ambitiousness and experimentation, so to see such an aesthetically brave and skillful sequence was a hell of a treat.

I feel more detached from movies when I watch them lately, like it's hard to immerse myself in it - I'm seeing actors act on a stage and it's fake. IDK. Part of it is that I'm changing and it's affecting every area of my life - well that's not part of it, that's all of it, lol.

Are you having trouble with new movies or are you having trouble with movies you used to never have trouble with?

I did watch Mulholland Drive a while ago though and I wanted to comment - I don't remember if I did or not, but it was around 6 weeks ago. I enjoyed the film, I feel like I should rewatch it. I was not sure at all what was happening, lol, but I liked it.

David Lynch is often more annoying than he is profound, but I've always dug that one.

Not enough Serious Movie thread posters seeing Neon Demon

No joke, dude, there's a store near me and the entire fucking outside wall is covered with like 8 full-size posters for that movie. You aren't on a world advertising tour for that movie, are you

I owed shadow a timely watch of a movie club movie

How's that movie club going? Are the discussions any good?

I hopped on board with Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and fucking loved it. The way @HUNTERMANIA goes crazy for Black Swan is how I feel about certain dialogue-heavy romances (Closer being a good example, with the stage-to-screen adaptation commonality here) and this shot up the list after the first watch.

Never been one of my favorites, but it's definitely a good one. I'm more intrigued about your comment regarding "dialogue-heavy romances." If you haven't seen any of these, you might like them:

It Happened One Night - A classic in the romantic comedy genre and it still holds up.

Alice Adams - Might feel a bit stiff and dated in places, but behind De Niro in Raging Bull, Katharine Hepburn turns in the single greatest screen performance ever. It's such an endearing story and she's such a heartbreakingly sweet character.

Libeled Lady - A bit under-the-radar, but one of my favorite of the early screwball-style romantic comedies. Fast-paced and a great ensemble cast.

Bringing Up Baby - One of the all-time greats, still fucking hilarious and anchored by two incredible performances from Hepburn and Cary Grant.

Holiday - More dramatic and with more heart than Bringing Up Baby, but another home run for Hepburn and Grant. From what I've gathered of your movie sensibilities, I'd pick this one to be pretty high up there for you.

The Philadelphia Story - Just one of the greatest scripts and greatest acting showcases in the history of film, and the last and IMO greatest outing for Hepburn and Grant.

His Girl Friday - @Sigh GunRanger will back me up on this one. Blistering dialogue.

Now, Voyager - A classic romance with Bette Davis at the top of her game.

Woman of the Year - Spencer Tracy takes over for Grant. Tracy and Hepburn are screen gold and the writing is superb.

State of the Union - The most underrated of the Tracy/Hepburn pairings. Wickedly smart and funny script.

Adam's Rib - The GOAT battle-of-the-sexes romantic comedy and arguably the best of the Tracy/Hepburn pairings.

It Should Happen to You - Judy Holliday is the most underrated comedienne of all-time and she's fantastic here paired with Jack Lemmon.

Phffft! - Even more underrated Holliday/Lemmon pairing, and even better IMO.