Movies Serious Movie Discussion

[moreorless87]

Spending endless hours shooting in woodland perhaps draws me towards that kind of scene, The scene with the nude pagans as well ontop of having at amazing atmosphere to it really seemed to set up the character as having self awareness beyond his religion. Compared to his 70's films though the focus seemed less obviously personal with a link between the character(who I'd guess is onscreen for what less than half the 3 hour runtime?) and society as a whole.

The Bell section I spose you could argue is long enough that it becomes its own narrative with the young Bell Smith's story.

As intelligent as his films often are as well I tend to think there actually not cinema you naturally have to think about strongly, they work mostly via tone.

 

[moreorless87]

Watched Cronenberg's Spider again and I stand by saying that' its one of the most underrated films of the 00's. Perhaps not as eye catching as his better know work but still very nicely filmed building up the depressing grungy east london atmosphere and terrifically acted, Rather than your typical Oscar bait turns Ralph Fiennes plays mental illness in a much more believable and understated fashion and the premis/twist is very nicely pulled off as well rather than being a manipulative rug pull. I would suggest this as a potential choice for the movie club thread as it IMHO has a lot of discussion potential.

As far as this thread goes I know its the easiest option but perhaps some kind of list direction to keep it alive? Rather than typical top 10's maybe yearly picks? 2-3 films per year can be interesting because it both moves beyond the typical favourites but is still narrow enough to make for some interesting choices.

 

[ufcfan4]

Any of you guys ever seen In The Bedroom. It was a well-made, compelling film, but I have to admit that I expected something different based on what I recalled about how the film was marketed, particularly during awards seasons. I thought it was basically going to focus on the dissolution of a marriage in the face of tragedy, as the husband and wife become increasingly vindictive and blame one another for what happened. In reality, it's more of a slow-burn film of those individual struggling to cope with horrible loss in different ways. There is only one memorable sequence where they lace into one another over perceived culpability and it's pretty scathing.

What I truly liked about the film were the performances. Wilkinson, Spacek, Tomei, and Stahl were all completely convincing. I do have a few issues though. One of the most notable would be the ending.

Spoiler

It is a pretty long, drawn out sequence and I'm not sure if it is meant to provide catharsis or to build suspense (ie is Wilkinson really going to go through with this or what. Ultimately, I was a bit unclear on what Fields was going for thematically. That is, the film seems to veer toward an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind type philosophy in the sense that Wilkinson seems riddled with uncertainty as to whether what he did was right. But, at the same time, the film made a compelling case of moral outrage over the notion that Mapother's character would not pay for his crime. I guess there is supposed to be an ambiguous tension there.

.

 

[El Chimpo]

Looking forward to Mandy

 

[Sigh GunRanger]

Jason Bourne was much better than Ive been led to believe. Ive never been a Greengrass supporter, or someone who thought the sequels matched Identity, so I wasnt expecting anything grand. I will say very few styles have aged worse than how Greengrass shoots action. It is incomprehensible, and dizzying at its worst. Still, the story is pretty engaging even if Vikander's arc and acting tried its hardest to bring the film down. Her accent was atrocious



Game Night was hilarious. Well shot, and short, it's one of the better comedies in a while

 

[Rimbaud82]

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...

Goddamn the SMD not being stickied, folks in here talking about Andrei Rublev and I didn't even see it

Andrei Rublev is incredible, visually especially:

I haven't watched it in a while but I absolutely love Andrei Rublev. The theme of national suffering is there for sure, which is surely one reason it was ever allowed to be released. In a sense that is the whole point of the film, exploring the creative tension between the artist and the times in which he lives. Of course there is also a deliberate allegory between the film/Rublev and Tarkovsky's own difficulties as an artist in soviet russia. I think it is particularly interesting precisely because it isn't a typical biographical film. It was the religious/artistic themes that really blew me away when I first watched it.

 

[Rimbaud82]

As intelligent as his films often are as well I tend to think there actually not cinema you naturally have to think about strongly, they work mostly via tone.

This is a very good point. I agree, Tarkovsky's films have philosophical/spiritual depth but it isn't because they have some complex plot. They can be difficult if you aren't used to them because they are slow and deliberate, but not because they are difficult to follow. In Andrei Rublev especially it is very much about tone, not to mention the visuals, both of which serve to induce some kind of ineffable feeling, partly as a means of getting at Rublev's inner-world, and partly as a method of inducing the viewer into this kind of experience. Particularly the bell scene, followed by the incredible ending, which serves as a kind of religious Epiphany. This approach is common in most, if not all, of his films and is what really sets Tarkovsky apart...despite the reputation they are not necessarily intellectual films, but emotional ones.

 

[KOQ24]

Game Night was hilarious. Well shot, and short, it's one of the better comedies in a while

yessir!
Loved the cinematography too

 

[moreorless87]

Goddamn the SMD not being stickied, folks in here talking about Andrei Rublev and I didn't even see it

Andrei Rublev is incredible, visually especially:

I haven't watched it in a while but I absolutely love Andrei Rublev. The theme of national suffering is there for sure, which is surely one reason it was ever allowed to be released. In a sense that is the whole point of the film, exploring the creative tension between the artist and the times in which he lives. Of course there is also a deliberate allegory between the film/Rublev and Tarkovsky's own difficulties as an artist in soviet russia. I think it is particularly interesting precisely because it isn't a typical biographical film. It was the religious/artistic themes that really blew me away when I first watched it.

I have actually watched it a second time since then and it would be in contention with Stalker as my favourite film of his and again I think a strong contender for the best looking film ever made. In a lot of respects I don't think its especially religious, a lot of its framed in that fashion due to the nature of the lead character but as you say can read perfectly well from a modern non religious viewpoint as well.

I would say though that whilst his career is often framed by antagonism to the Soviet authorities(I'm guessing often from higher up beyond those making funding decisions) you also need to consider that this was the environment that he emerged from and that funded much of his career. Would he have gotten the same chances in the profit motivated US system? personally I think its unlikely.

This is a very good point. I agree, Tarkovsky's films have philosophical/spiritual depth but it isn't because they have some complex plot. They can be difficult if you aren't used to them because they are slow and deliberate, but not because they are difficult to follow. In Andrei Rublev especially it is very much about tone, not to mention the visuals, both of which serve to induce some kind of ineffable feeling, partly as a means of getting at Rublev's inner-world, and partly as a method of inducing the viewer into this kind of experience. Particularly the bell scene, followed by the incredible ending, which serves as a kind of religious Epiphany. This approach is common in most, if not all, of his films and is what really sets Tarkovsky apart...despite the reputation they are not necessarily intellectual films, but emotional ones.

This did come up in the Movie Club thread comparing him to Kubrick who tends to work very strongly by subtext whilst Tarkovsky tends to work much more directly, themes are presented in a very clear fashion albeit often gotten across by tone. In that respect I think he's actually very unsuited for a lot of the kind of discussion that goes on here that focuses heavily on specifics. If you wanted to take that route looking at his work I actually think the best way to do it would be to analyse his compositions which I find he is almost unequalled(maybe Ridley Scott at his early peak?) in complexity and indeed how well he combines movement, your not just looking at shots that make great fixed images but ones that bring camera and subject movement heavily into play.

I think its very notable that he includes The Hunters in the Snow in Solaris as a representation of humanity/art as for Andrei Rublev espically I think such art it stands out as a clear influence.

Unlike Andrei I had seen it before but picking up Ivan's Childhood really does amaze still in just how strong his eye was right from the start, indeed I would say that film is probably the best intro to his work being somewhat more conventional in plot, albeit still depending very heavily on tone.

I'd say 1962 would have a strong claim for being the best looking year in cinema history with Ivan's Childhood, Lawrence of Arabia and A Knife In The Water released the same year. Going back to the above point as well I think you could argue that Polanski too benefited from a studio system with public funding linked more to artist ambition and strong links to his film school.

 

[moreorless87]

Whats everyones opinion on Rumble Fish? went back to it for the fist time in ages and honestly I still think its the last great thing Coppola did. I mean yeah you could tear down the self importance(the threat of street poetry never happens luckily) if you want to I spose but I think its got enough depth to get away with is, looks great and certainly isn't short of a sense of fun, Copelands soundtrack makes a nice change from what you might expect as well.

I spose you could kind of put it along side Blade Runner as the film who's failure marked the end of the New Wave, does make me want to punch ET in the face sometimes.

 

[moreorless87]

Watched Upstream Colour and I'm afraid to say I fall on the side that considers it mostly empty pretension. I mean yeah the details of the plot to just about make some vague sense but more in a kind of Matrix Sequels, who cares? fashion given the lack of weight behind them. That might be somewhat forgivable if the film really were the atmospheric visual extravaganza I'v heard it talked up as but honestly bar 1-2 shots in the woodland I didn't find it very impressive here at all, shadow depth of focus and lens flair do not genius make.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Just back from the cinema, where I saw:

First Reformed (2018)

First impressions are that it was incredible, a modern masterpiece for sure. The plot concerns Ernst Toller (Ethan Hawke), a middle-aged pastor at an small, old church in upstate New York and the crisis of faith he experiences. He is haunted by the death of his son in the Iraq War and suffers from physical ailments (which later appears to be cancer), worsened by his apparent alcoholism. Although the specifics are not immediately clear, almost immediately you are given the impression that this is a man struggling with his faith and "the sickness unto death" (Kierkegaard is quoted later in the film) despite his role as a pastor. He begins to keep a journal to help, which are given in the form if voice-overs. I don't want to spoil the film by going into too much detail about what actually causes his "dark night of the soul", but he is asked by one of the women (Amanda Seyfried) in his church to speak with her husband, a radical environmentalist who has recently been released from prison and who wants her to abort their child. He has lost all hope and she asks Toller to speak with him. Soon a number of events occur which have a profound impact on Toller - leading him to question his faith, and deal with issues like mans search for meaning, pollution and global warming, the spiritual and profane, and so on. It's a very powerful film, one that leaves you with lingering questions after you leave the cinema.

The first thing I said to my friend was that it was like Diary of a Country Priest crossed with Winter Light with some Taxi Driver thrown in. It is very much in the mould of the first two films, stylistically it is very austere, it treats it's subject matter with seriousness, and there are several plot points (mainly early on) which are undoubtedly supposed to refer the view back to Winter Light. I doubt it was accidental. The aspect ratio of 1.37:1 would also seem to call back to those films. In some sense it updates the religious films of Bresson, Bergman, and Dreyer as well, for our own time period. The element of a diary/journal in a film like this obviously invites comparison with Diary of a Country Priest. The fear of nuclear annihilation in Winter Light becomes fear of global warming and the destruction of planet earth. The film thus seems to suggest that although the context is different, the anxiety and despair is the same. Not to say it is an utterly hopeless film, it deals with these complex issues but it is, of course, never fully resolved. The ending is extremely dramatic as well, I imagine some viewers might be polarised by it...but I found it very refreshing. The sort of film I just love to see in the cinema.

 

[Sigh GunRanger]

@Bullitt68 what did you think of Silence?

 

[Rimbaud82]

@Bullitt68 what did you think of Silence?

What did you think?

 

[Bullitt68]

Sigh's posts brought me here, but while I'm here, I thought I should provide an update: I finally got to see Dunkirk and I loved it. I didn't love it the way I love Inception, but I still loved it. Nolan's always been a phenomenal filmmaker, but Dunkirk is craftsmanship on an almost Kubrickian OMG-everything-is-fucking-amazing level. The only thing that held it back IMO is the way that it basically unfolds like a documentary with fancier editing. Granted, that was what Nolan intended, but I think that's a stupid intention. I want more from a film than just, "Look at this." Why did Nolan want me to watch that movie? To know what happened? That's what Wikipedia is for. There wasn't any actual thematic investment, which left a rather hollowed-out cinematic experience. Still, though, a hollowed-out experience with a Nolan film is better than 99.9999999999% of what other people are offering these days, so I'm not complaining.

@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

Lots of win in this post that I somehow missed. That is a bad ass episode, but nothing - in Hannibal or in anything else for that matter - touches the Season 2 finale. That's the greatest thing that's ever been on TV. What kind of progress have you made since this post? Are you already done with all three seasons?

And Mads is absolutely the definitive Hannibal. Hopkins is great, but Mads is beastly. Plus, he gets the time to really flesh the character out (no pun intended ) and he does a superb job.

@Bullitt68 what did you think of Silence?

I tried to watch it but I barely made it 20 minutes. I can deal with movies being about religion or having religion in them, but I can't actually tolerate a religious movie, let alone a three-hour one, and Silence is religious in a way and to a degree that I just can't stomach.

 

[Sigh GunRanger]

Mandy was awesome. Normally i hate wannabe arty slow horror movies, but this was cool, and had a great vibe. Amazing score, and the last hour of crazy Cage was terrific. If they just trimmed the beginning by 10-15 mins it would be perfect

Sigh's posts brought me here, but while I'm here, I thought I should provide an update: I finally got to see Dunkirk and I loved it. I didn't love it the way I love Inception, but I still loved it. Nolan's always been a phenomenal filmmaker, but Dunkirk is craftsmanship on an almost Kubrickian OMG-everything-is-fucking-amazing level. The only thing that held it back IMO is the way that it basically unfolds like a documentary with fancier editing. Granted, that was what Nolan intended, but I think that's a stupid intention. I want more from a film than just, "Look at this." Why did Nolan want me to watch that movie? To know what happened? That's what Wikipedia is for. There wasn't any actual thematic investment, which left a rather hollowed-out cinematic experience. Still, though, a hollowed-out experience with a Nolan film is better than 99.9999999999% of what other people are offering these days, so I'm not complaining.

I truly hated it. Bored me to no end.

Lots of win in this post that I somehow missed. That is a bad ass episode, but nothing - in Hannibal or in anything else for that matter - touches the Season 2 finale. That's the greatest thing that's ever been on TV. What kind of progress have you made since this post? Are you already done with all three seasons?

And Mads is absolutely the definitive Hannibal. Hopkins is great, but Mads is beastly. Plus, he gets the time to really flesh the character out (no pun intended ) and he does a superb job.

Im on episode 3 of season3. So far i dont really feel the same juice like I did from the last season. Maybe it's the bad italian actor cop

I tried to watch it but I barely made it 20 minutes. I can deal with movies being about religion or having religion in them, but I can't actually tolerate a religious movie, let alone a three-hour one, and Silence is religious in a way and to a degree that I just can't stomach.

How i felt:

"Is there any aspect of religion that appears appealing based on this film? The Christian Japanese come off so deluded, and lacking in any understanding that it's hard not to view them as more brainwashed than people who achieve a spiritual connection. I get that it's the 1600s, and they are uneducated farmers, and the movie ends up commenting on their confusion towards the end, but it's hard to sympathize when it's so clear that they dont understand just what theyre suffering for.


The movie is repetitive, and is a tough sit until Garfield gets moved to the prison in the town. It felt like a cycle of the same scenes. Christians? Torture, ask for forgiveness. Christians? Torture, ask for forgiveness etc. I was getting bored.

That is until the last act which is great, and saves the movie. Neeson gives the best performance in the entire film, and his matter of fact way of explaining his frustration was excellent.

While the sequence of God talking to Garfield is well done, I dont know if I like it thematically. Can someone come to terms with their ego, and faith, if they literally get the ok from God? If it's not literal, the inclusion undermines his own choice. I think the movie and the character would be better served without it, and have him find a revelation through a different means.





I wouldnt expect tech issues in a Scorsese film, but there are some terrible sound moments, especially when mokichi is crucified in the water."



Overall i wasnt impressed. It's just ok. @Mariah Larry

 

[Bullitt68]

I truly hated it. Bored me to no end.

Naw, it's impossible for me to be bored by Nolan. The "sea" stuff was the lamest part and the "land" stuff had its ups and downs, but the "air" stuff was fucking outstanding. He out-Hitched Hitchcock with those North by Northwest-style shots of the planes dropping into frame from the upper corners. And his tremendous editing coupled with the sound design (I particularly liked the Inception-style ticking of the clock on the soundtrack) amplified the tension brilliantly.

It wasn't as heavy or as profound an experience as something like Inception or Interstellar, where there's so much thematic weight and emotional significance attached to the suspense, but it was still a great thrill ride.

Im on episode 3 of season3. So far i dont really feel the same juice like I did from the last season. Maybe it's the bad italian actor cop

I remember from the Hannibal threads at the time that a lot of people felt that, like the show zigged too jarringly and slipped off the track. But trust in Bryan Fuller and you'll be rewarded. The way he brings everything and everyone together, and especially the way he ends it, is glorious in the most suitably fucked up way for that bizarre show

By the time you get to episodes 6 and 7, you'll feel right back at home. And then the Red Dragon arc kicks in and it's full throttle till the end.

How i felt:

I'm with you on all of that, especially the lack of sympathy for/investment in the characters and the general plight.

Overall i wasnt impressed. It's just ok. @Mariah Larry

Well, you clearly liked it a lot more than I did. It's a pity, too. I don't know how many years/movies Scorsese still has in him. I'd really like to not spend the last of them hating what he's doing

 

[Sigh GunRanger]

Hopefully The Irishman is good. Im excited to see the deaging tech with de niro and pacino.


When it comes to Dunkirk, I felt like I was watching people play dress up. I saw it in IMAX and it was no different than a history channel reenactment. I dont need characters to have a story, but I do need some sort of throughline. And the action was too sanitized to really give that visceral level of ardenaline, like Black Hawk Down for example. I also didnt like the cutting through time. It lessened the tension even more knowing the outcome of scenes before they play out in another cut.

It's the first Nolan film ive ever disliked

 

[KOQ24]

I just hated the choppy way Dunkirk was told.I could get no rhythm going with the Film.
I did like the Battle scenes, esp. the dogfights with Hardy.

 

[Bullitt68]

Hopefully The Irishman is good.

I hope so, too, but I'm not holding my breath. I can't help thinking that they're 20 years too late with that one.

Im excited to see the deaging tech with de niro and pacino.

When it comes to Dunkirk, I felt like I was watching people play dress up. I saw it in IMAX and it was no different than a history channel reenactment. I dont need characters to have a story, but I do need some sort of throughline.

Pretty much this.

And the action was too sanitized to really give that visceral level of ardenaline, like Black Hawk Down for example.

This has always been Nolan's MO, and I agree with you that, in the case of Dunkirk, it hurt him a bit. I took my dad to see both The Dark Knight and Inception in theaters and after Inception he told me that one of his favorite things about Nolan's action is the way that people just get shot and then they move on, no blood and guts. In Dunkirk, though, he could've used some of the blood and guts of war.

I also didnt like the cutting through time. It lessened the tension even more knowing the outcome of scenes before they play out in another cut.

I just hated the choppy way Dunkirk was told.I could get no rhythm going with the Film.

Editing is always one of the highlights of a Nolan film, so I'm not going to say that I didn't like the way that he told the story, because I did, but I did wonder myself while I was watching it if it might've worked better if he'd have kept the cross-cutting but told the story in a linear fashion precisely to maximize the tension like you're saying, Sigh, and to preserve at least a certain forward momentum if not a real rhythm like you're talking about, KOQ.

It's the first Nolan film ive ever disliked

Luckily for me, I still don't have one of those. I just have ones that I like considerably less than others. None that I actually dislike.