Movies Serious Movie Discussion

[El Chimpo]

You Were Never Really Here was quite the experience

 

[moreorless87]

You Were Never Really Here was quite the experience

Just picked up the Bluray, will probably watch it tonight,

Had a Kubrick vs Scott runoff watching Barry Lyndon and The Duelists back to back, result inconclusive. Most obviously visually there often covering similar ground, I actually think Scott has an edge in terms of sheer beauty of compositions, the first 45 mins and the last 15 mins really do look like a series of landscape and interior paintings. Unlike Alien and Blade Runner though I do feel he falls a little into the meer picturesque at points were as Kubrick is arguably more striking, especially the infamous candle scenes with the Zeiss/Nasa 50mm F/0.7 lenses that look like almost nothing else.

Dramatically you could argue there the opposites I spose, Scott's film conventionally stronger with an excellent performance from Keitel, Kurbick having a kind of grim impersonal inevitability about events. In that respect I don't really find fault with Ryan O'Neil as whilst no its not a eye catching performance its never intended to be. Even get the two duels at the end give arguably the opposite results or idneed the intension of the duels themselves, Scotts I think some of the best sword fighting in a a US films pre Rob Roy.

Overall story two perhaps the same thing from different angles, the lower class individual who will never be accepted to the nobility, as the protagonist in one story and the antagonist in the other.

 

[Bullitt68]

Had a Kubrick vs Scott runoff watching Barry Lyndon and The Duelists back to back, result inconclusive.

I actually think Scott has an edge in terms of sheer beauty of compositions

Your blasphemy has me wanting to demand satisfaction...

I don't really find fault with Ryan O'Neil as whilst no its not a eye catching performance its never intended to be.

If by not "eye catching" you mean he doesn't have any standout scenes, then I've got to point out that gut-wrenching scene with him at his son's deathbed recounting his favorite war story for him, trying to do it with the same jubilant gusto but failing to keep his profound sadness at bay. Nobody was taking the Best Actor Oscar away from Jack that year, but on the strength of that scene, O'Neal at least deserved a nomination. Plus, his non-verbal acting was on point from start to finish. I love that pathetically dejected shot of him watching Nora dancing with Captain Quin. And he also non-verballed the fuck out of that duel scene with Bullingdon at the end.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

Just rewatched Ordinary People to see if it holds up.
Everybody is really good. Strong performances. A somewhat standard tragic-death/survivor's guilt story, elevated by the dialogue and small, impactful moments of characterization.
Mary Tyler Moore and Donald Sutherland are incredible as a couple whose marriage is crumbling. Hutton is believable as a psychologically tormented teen.
Judd Hirsch is excellent as a therapist.

The story and character arcs are all well defined and clear without hitting you over the head with messaging; it leaves each character's morality and state of mind in turmoil.

 

[moreorless87]

Your blasphemy has me wanting to demand satisfaction...

If by not "eye catching" you mean he doesn't have any standout scenes, then I've got to point out that gut-wrenching scene with him at his son's deathbed recounting his favorite war story for him, trying to do it with the same jubilant gusto but failing to keep his profound sadness at bay. Nobody was taking the Best Actor Oscar away from Jack that year, but on the strength of that scene, O'Neal at least deserved a nomination. Plus, his non-verbal acting was on point from start to finish. I love that pathetically dejected shot of him watching Nora dancing with Captain Quin. And he also non-verballed the fuck out of that duel scene with Bullingdon at the end.

More beautiful doesn't automatically mean "better" of course, I think Scott was more successful in terms of picturesque atmosphere than Kubrick who's naturally inclined more towards striking and minimalist compositions/lighting. Where I think the duellists does suffer a little is around the hour mark(Russia and afterwards) were I think you can see the more limited budget, visually things become a bit more standard for awhile until the end.



Professional interest on the subject I admit, my recent career has been selling rural landscape photography in the UK, pretty much doing the above but with a camera rather than pistols.

I wouldn't say its just subtle performance from O'Neil(although I'd agree he's very effective when needed) so much as the film deliberately makes him hard to root for and often rather unknowable. Kubrick is never shy of black comedy and to me the whole thing basically feels like its often playing against the drama of the story, highlighting the vaguries of fate and the irrelevance of events in the grand scheme of history(as highlighted by the epiloge). The final duel actually merges the two quite well IMHO, having drama but also poking fun as the rediculasness of standing still and taking turns to shoot.

If you really had to push me I might go with Kubrick if only because the films more individual and doesn't have the aforementioned section showing up limits in budget.

 

[europe1]

Had a Kubrick vs Scott runoff watching Barry Lyndon and The Duelists back to back, result inconclusive

I'm with Kubi. One of his definitive masterpieces.

Though Duelists is a splendid film as well.

the first 45 mins and the last 15 mins really do look like a series of landscape and interior paintings

I would levy this stronger against Barry, though obviously, it's a fitting description for both movies.

(an actual painting or a still from Barry Lyndon? The answer may shock you!)

Kubrick is arguably more striking

with an excellent performance from Keitel, Kurbick having a kind of grim impersonal inevitability about events. In that respect I don't really find fault with Ryan O'Neil as whilst no its not a eye catching performance its never intended to be.

Quit beating around the bush, moreorless. We all know who the true Oscar winner in both those films were.

Spoiler

The horny horse who was determined to upstage Carradine performance

Dramatically you could argue there the opposites I spose, Scott's film conventionally stronger

This seems more like a more clear-cut win for Kubrick for me. Scott's film never reaches the dramatic heights Barry plays at. When Barry junior dies and everything afterward until the movie ends are some of the finest pieces of forlorn emotions ever put on screen. In comparison, you don't feel the same sort of sadness when Carradine has to leave his family and duel Keitel for one last time. (though in Duelists, the emotional punch is more Keitel's reaction to finally losing and forced to live by the terms Carradine sets down).

Also, from memory, I would also say that the Duelists don't exactly a bullseye with the execution of some of its story-moments. I'm thinking primarily of when Carradine goes to argue for Keitel being released. You sort of get the impression that he's doing this out of his own compulsions of honor, bringing a new dimension to the very concept. Keitel is the one who hounds after it -- who savagely demands satisfaction, ever forgetting about the cause of their original dispute and is merely being driven by the mad addiction of holding a vendetta. Carradine, however, acts as if he's opposed to all this. However, when he finds out Keitel is imprisoned and set for execution, he finds himself compelled to pull the strings. It shows that -- in a certain manner -- he's entrenched in this vendetta just as much as Keitel is, forced by own his honor to honor their rivalry even as he sees its madness and futility.

This is what I get Scott was going for. However, the emotions land rather haphazardly. It's not a perfect execution, not a perfect communication. Or that's what I remember thinking from watching the film 5 years ago.

Scotts I think some of the best sword fighting

It has the strange honor of possessing maybe the only realistic sword fighting scene in the history of film.

 

[Rimbaud82]

On Friday I watched

Calibre (2018)

Something fucked up happens to two lads on a hunting trip in a remote area of the Scottish Highlands, leading to some extremely tense situations... Don't want to give anything specific away, and it's not the most innovative film ever made anyway, but despite the somewhat predictable plot, the strong performances from the two leads and effective use of mood and tone meant that it was actually a very good film. I just stumbled on to it on Netflix, big fan of Martin McCann and it sounded intriguing so gave it a go. Recommend you guys do the same!

 

[moreorless87]

I'm with Kubi. One of his definitive masterpieces.

Though Duelists is a splendid film as well.

I would levy this stronger against Barry, though obviously, it's a fitting description for both movies.

(an actual painting or a still from Barry Lyndon? The answer may shock you!)

I think you see what I'm saying, Kubrick's compositions are naturally more modern and dramatic, shooting the barn down the centre line, having the leading line with Barry looking down to the approaching horsemen so clear and dominant.

Whilst you have similar subject matter I think the way its delt with is rather different, Scott follows romantic painting of the era rather more closely and the impact comes from the divide between these beautiful relaxing locations and the brutal violence delt out in them. Kubrick I think naturally takes his modern modern eye and turns it to the subject matter of the era making everything feel typically cold and impersonal obviously mirroring the story being told.

Quit beating around the bush, moreorless. We all know who the true Oscar winner in both those films were.

The horny horse who was determined to upstage Carradine performance

I'd forgotten that bit until last night, actually the best part of the romance sub plot.

This seems more like a more clear-cut win for Kubrick for me. Scott's film never reaches the dramatic heights Barry plays at. When Barry junior dies and everything afterward until the movie ends are some of the finest pieces of forlorn emotions ever put on screen. In comparison, you don't feel the same sort of sadness when Carradine has to leave his family and duel Keitel for one last time. (though in Duelists, the emotional punch is more Keitel's reaction to finally losing and forced to live by the terms Carradine sets down).

Also, from memory, I would also say that the Duelists don't exactly a bullseye with the execution of some of its story-moments. I'm thinking primarily of when Carradine goes to argue for Keitel being released. You sort of get the impression that he's doing this out of his own compulsions of honor, bringing a new dimension to the very concept. Keitel is the one who hounds after it -- who savagely demands satisfaction, ever forgetting about the cause of their original dispute and is merely being driven by the mad addiction of holding a vendetta. Carradine, however, acts as if he's opposed to all this. However, when he finds out Keitel is imprisoned and set for execution, he finds himself compelled to pull the strings. It shows that -- in a certain manner -- he's entrenched in this vendetta just as much as Keitel is, forced by own his honor to honor their rivalry even as he sees its madness and futility.

This is what I get Scott was going for. However, the emotions land rather haphazardly. It's not a perfect execution, not a perfect communication. Or that's what I remember thinking from watching the film 5 years ago.

I would say that Keitels motivation is deliberately kept vague so we experience it in the way Carradine does before finally realising that its mostly pure ego(actually the performance always reminds me rather of Daniel Plainview) and all he has left by the end.

Barry definitely does have some dramatic drive by the end but it takes over 2 hours to get there, again not to have that automatically as a negative its just not what I think the film is focusing on.

It has the strange honor of possessing maybe the only realistic sword fighting scene in the history of film.

Which one would you say there? the second duel that ends really quickly/unexpectly or the exhausted big sabres?

Its actually the hand held camera work that I think really sells the duels, I'm guessing strongly influenced by the boxing scene in Barry but I think takes things even further making them more dramatic sticking tighter to the 3rd person view.

 

[Sigh GunRanger]

@Bullitt68 Season 2 of Hannibal has been one of the best dramas Ive seen. I think the last episode I watched, Shiizakana, mightve been its best so far.

I really think Mads might be the new definitive Hannibal

 

[moreorless87]

You Were Never Really Here was quite the experience

Yeah just watched it and I suspect given a few more months to filter down its going to become a Sherdoggish favourite as a kind of mirror to Drive. That film was all expensive bright LA long takes and this one is all dark confined Newyork shots, rather than Goslings nice guy with moments of extreme darkness Phoneix is more dark side with hints of nice guy.

As with Drive as well I'd disagree with the style of substance talk, I think it ends up as a very effective drama indeed albeit obviously heavily dependant on the visuals for a lot of the tone. I mean it maybe asks a bit more of the viewer than Drive does in terms of piecing together the character but I think it still makes sense and arguably has more depth to him.

 

[moreorless87]

Picked up the newer Criterion version of Stalker on BR as well and watching the start dam that is a massive upgrade in video quality, I'm not normally that big of a videophile but this feels more like moving from VHS to Bluray, biggest upgrade I can remember recently next to Suspiria.

I spose you could argue the grungy look of the old DVD version was a bit like people getting used to an old master painting darkened by dirt playing into the atmosphere of the film somewhat but seeing it so clearly is a very different more striking experience.

 

[europe1]

Which one would you say there? the second duel that ends really quickly/unexpectly

Yup, that one. That's how unarmored sword duels tend to go.

Except someone losing a finger, of course.

 

[moreorless87]

The degree of variety to each of the duels also helps sustain the film a good deal I'd say, as well filmed as each of them are the same thing repeated 3-4 times wouldn't have the same impact.

Looking up the budget really its pretty amazing how good it looks, the entire film was only $900K, that's $3.7 million with inflation. Again I think the Russia and romance section suffers a little but the first hour or so and the end really don't trail behind Barry for me despite having 1/10th the budget.

 

[ufcfan4]

Just rewatched Ordinary People to see if it holds up.
Everybody is really good. Strong performances. A somewhat standard tragic-death/survivor's guilt story, elevated by the dialogue and small, impactful moments of characterization.
Mary Tyler Moore and Donald Sutherland are incredible as a couple whose marriage is crumbling. Hutton is believable as a psychologically tormented teen.
Judd Hirsch is excellent as a therapist.

The story and character arcs are all well defined and clear without hitting you over the head with messaging; it leaves each character's morality and state of mind in turmoil.

It's really an acting showcase at its core but it's also an emotionally impacting film. As you said, the performances of all four of those lead actors were phenomenal. Mary Tyler Moore is extremely impressive in that because if you've ever watched reruns of Dick Van Dyke Show or Mary Tyler Moore show, the persona she typically played was nothing like the character she embodies in Ordinary People. Much is asked of her in that role and she delivers. It's also a tough one because it's a character that ends up outraging the viewer to an extent while you have to also empathize with her and understand the nature of what she is going through.

Hutton is great. The scenes between Hutton and Hirsch (such an awesome actor) are among my favorite scenes in the film. This one particularly brings the feels.



I remember reading some critic's assessment of Hirsch where he said that the guy went from theater to TV to film and accolades would follow wherever he went. I'm a big fan of Taxi and Hirsch is a legend as far as I'm concerned. Glad he's still around and still acting.

Sutherland, in turn, is terrific in that film. There's a lot of subtle suffering and nuance to his performance. Always found it odd he was the only one not nominated for an academy award.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

It's really an acting showcase at its core but it's also an emotionally impacting film. As you said, the performances of all four of those lead actors were phenomenal. Mary Tyler Moore is extremely impressive in that because if you've ever watched reruns of Dick Van Dyke Show or Mary Tyler Moore show, the persona she typically played was nothing like the character she embodies in Ordinary People. Much is asked of her in that role and she delivers. It's also a tough one because it's a character that ends up outraging the viewer to an extent while you have to also empathize with her and understand the nature of what she is going through.

Hutton is great. The scenes between Hutton and Hirsch (such an awesome actor) are among my favorite scenes in the film. This one particularly brings the feels.



I remember reading some critic's assessment of Hirsch where he said that the guy went from theater to TV to film and accolades would follow wherever he went. I'm a big fan of Taxi and Hirsch is a legend as far as I'm concerned. Glad he's still around and still acting.

Sutherland, in turn, is terrific in that film. There's a lot of subtle suffering and nuance to his performance. Always found it odd he was the only one not nominated for an academy award.

Moore's performance is so immersive. She really captures masking pain with distant coldness.
Sutherland nails the defeated, helpless husband. His speech to her about how he hardly knows her and isn't sure he loves her anymore is devastating, because both of them are devastated by it.

Incredibly well written. Broad, practical psychology on display.
"I just realized who can't forgive who." (It isn't that his mother can't forgive him, it's that he can't forgive himself.)

 

[Sigh GunRanger]

To Kill A Mockingbird was an odd movie. It spends so much time with the kids, and is tonally so different than its reputation. And just when you think it might be about how children perceive race relations, it abandons that thread when the trial starts. The trial is short and then Tom is dead without any moment encapsulating the unfairness. The actual finale is so awful I had to turn it off before the credits.

 

[HenryFlower]

and of course, my perennial hatefuck, @HenryFlower.

you were always my favorite fuck, @Ricky13.

 

[moreorless87]

To make it a three way historical epic I finally got around to watching Andrei Rublev. In one respect I was actually quite supprised by the scale of the thing, I'm used to Tarkovsky films being a handful of people but this really is an epic in scale at points, I spose a testament to how far every ruble went in terms of sets and extras in the USSR. I can't say I'm familiar with the exact history but the theme of national suffering is pretty familiar and easy to pick up on, some of the artistic points perhaps need a bit more digestion compared to his 70's work.

I do have to say in visuals Tarkovsky has both western rival beat here for me, maybe the monochrome photographer in me taking(especially for a lot of the woodland scenes) but this might have a strong case for being the best looking film I'v ever seen, a great deal of variety on display as well from stark Russian landscape to magical pagan woodland to the chaos of the Tartar raid to the oldschool Hollywood grandeur of the bell casting. To have the sense of scale of the latter scenes epeically combined with the complexity and impact of the compositions really is something to see.

Most youtube clips aren't of great quality but this trailer is...

 

[punkmother]

Watched a bunch of stuff last night in virtually random order. I rewatched Step Brothers, and @ufcfan4, I'm still not crazy about it. The laughs are sporadic and they're not very hard. Obviously, I love them watching Above the Law, which gets it a ton of bonus points, but it just doesn't have the hilarity of Anchorman or Talledega Nights. Lower tier Ferrell for sure.

I also rewatched Big Daddy. That's a pretty damn good movie. It doesn't have the hilarity of Happy Gilmore or The Waterboy, but it's very funny and it's got a lot of heart. And fucking hell Leslie Mann was (and, to be fair, still is) hot as shit. The cleavage game was on point in that movie.

I finally got around to watching The Intern. De Niro is the fucking man, obviously, but I was surprised at the quality level of that movie. No masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but De Niro's character was well-conceived and well-written (that he was well-acted goes without saying), he and Anne Hathaway worked well together, and the story wasn't half bad even though it kind of fizzled out by the time it got to the lame (non-)ending.

And then I ended the night with a rewatch of the always and forever awesome Road Trip. From the second I saw the first trailer for that movie, I knew that I'd love it, and I still do. Tom Green killed it ("Unleash the fury!"), Seann William Scott killed it ("Did I say two fingers? Better make it three"), Andy Dick killed it ("Would you like a fresh towel? Maybe you could roll that up and smoke it"), and holy shit did Fred "The GOAT Angry Dad" Ward kill it. On the strength of Secret Admirer and Road Trip, Fred Ward is the Fedor of angry movie dads. And his delivery of the line "I'm not mad" is one of my favorite line deliveries, both on its own and in context, in any movie ever

i agree with everything in this post.

on will ferrell, i can only tolerate him as a supporting character. for my money, his best movie roles were in "wedding crashers" and "old school." when he appeared out of the shadows in "wedding crashers" i was legit excited. you put him in lead and you get a handful of very good scenes but he tires me out after about 8 minutes of absurdity.

i watched "the intern" on a lark in a hotel and enjoyed every minute of it. liked it way more than i would have expected. i really liked deniro's relationship with hathaway.

 

[europe1]

I spose a testament to how far every ruble

but the theme of national suffering is pretty familiar and easy to pick up on

Oh definitively, it's like Tarkovsky started reading a history book and said "Wow this artist went through exactly what I went through! And he even has my first name!"

I do have to say in visuals Tarkovsky has both western rival beat here for me, maybe the monochrome photographer in me taking(especially for a lot of the woodland scenes)

I probably prefer his visuals in stuff like Solaris and especially Stalker.

(Not a monochrome photographer)

Thought I can't remember the exact details as to why, I thought the Woodland parts were the worst parts of the film. Thematically weak, I think?

oldschool Hollywood grandeur of the bell casting

That's my favorite part. I just love how it's basically one big epilogue for the film, and even though it doesn't have anything to do with what has happened on the surface level, it thematically ties the film together.