Movies Serious Movie Discussion

[Rimbaud82]

Quest for Fire (1981)

Set in Paleolithic Europe some 80,000 years ago it is an adventure story about a group of primitive men and their, as you might guess, quest for fire...

The Ulam tribe is somewhere in the middle-stage of human development; they live in a cave and have some primitive form of language, they also make use of fire. However, they are unable to create it themselves, instead they have to keep it constantly burning. When it is put out during an attack by a more primitive, ape-like tribe three of them are chosen to go on the quest to find another source of fire (including Ron Perlman, who lets be honest does look a bit like a caveman anyway lol). Along the way they are confronted with a number of ordeals, including being attacked by sabre-tooth tigers, the cannibal ape-men, a bear, confronted by wooly mammoths and the general perils of stone-age existence - hunger, cold, the natural environment. They also come across a tribe of more advanced hominids (the Ivaka). One of their women acts as something of a love interest for one of the Ulam, and a means for showing the move from pure animal lust to genuine love and affection, along with human advancement in technological terms.

The dialogue is solely in the invented language (developed by Anthony Burgess) of the Ulam tribe, while Cree/Inuit language stands in for the Ivaka's more developed speech. There are no subtitles at all, so meaning is communicated through the actions and gestures of the characters. It is certainly pretty original in that sense, I don't think I have ever seen anything like it. At some points, the whole thing did feel a bit ridiculous watching human beings dressed in rags jumping and grunting like apes, and running around as if they have a bad-back and arthritis in their knees. Like an extended version of the opening of 2001. At times the grunting and whatnot just got a bit tedious and annoying. But I suppose you also have to allow for the fact that it was released in 1981, and overall it was a pretty engaging film. Of course, I sincerely doubt it's terribly historically/scientifically/anthropologically accurate....but it bills itself as "science fantasy" and it certainly provides some sense of how tough it must have been to survive that kind of enviroment, and in the process it evokes something of the development of human culture even if it all happens in a rather short time-span. A pretty unique and original film if nothing else.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Bernardo Bertolucci has died aged 77...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-46342644

The Comformist definitely stands out as one of my favourites and I think you can see the influence of Coppola pretty strongly in The first two Godfathers and Apoc Now. I'v not seen Last Tango in Paris or The Last Emperor in probably 15-20 years so might have to get around to rewatching them, never seen 1900 either.

Damn, RIP! I must say I was never a huge fan of The Conformist and have not got round to his other films, but certainly an important figure in European cinema!

 

[moreorless87]

I spose The Dreamers is his best known film on Sherdog, ironically I always found that far from the sex being forced into the film as is often the case that side of things was better done where as the whole paris riots/new wave referencing side didn't come off as well.

 

[Yotsuya]

Hah, I just realized, that Dreamers is the only movie I've seen from Bertolucci.

 

[Yotsuya]

Quest for Fire (1981)

Set in Paleolithic Europe some 80,000 years ago it is an adventure story about a group of primitive men and their, as you might guess, quest for fire...

The Ulam tribe is somewhere in the middle-stage of human development; they live in a cave and have some primitive form of language, they also make use of fire. However, they are unable to create it themselves, instead they have to keep it constantly burning. When it is put out during an attack by a more primitive, ape-like tribe three of them are chosen to go on the quest to find another source of fire (including Ron Perlman, who lets be honest does look a bit like a caveman anyway lol). Along the way they are confronted with a number of ordeals, including being attacked by sabre-tooth tigers, the cannibal ape-men, a bear, confronted by wooly mammoths and the general perils of stone-age existence - hunger, cold, the natural environment. They also come across a tribe of more advanced hominids (the Ivaka). One of their women acts as something of a love interest for one of the Ulam, and a means for showing the move from pure animal lust to genuine love and affection, along with human advancement in technological terms.

The dialogue is solely in the invented language (developed by Anthony Burgess) of the Ulam tribe, while Cree/Inuit language stands in for the Ivaka's more developed speech. There are no subtitles at all, so meaning is communicated through the actions and gestures of the characters. It is certainly pretty original in that sense, I don't think I have ever seen anything like it. At some points, the whole thing did feel a bit ridiculous watching human beings dressed in rags jumping and grunting like apes, and running around as if they have a bad-back and arthritis in their knees. Like an extended version of the opening of 2001. At times the grunting and whatnot just got a bit tedious and annoying. But I suppose you also have to allow for the fact that it was released in 1981, and overall it was a pretty engaging film. Of course, I sincerely doubt it's terribly historically/scientifically/anthropologically accurate....but it bills itself as "science fantasy" and it certainly provides some sense of how tough it must have been to survive that kind of enviroment, and in the process it evokes something of the development of human culture even if it all happens in a rather short time-span. A pretty unique and original film if nothing else.

I just finished playing the caveman sand box game Far Cry Primal Saturday, so your write-up was a nice reminder to watch this movie. I liked it also. Pretty brutal and funny. Cinetatography and locations were great and make-up, actors and script kept things entertaining.

 

[Yotsuya]

Damn, lead caveman was played by Everett McGill (Big Ed in Twin Peaks) and his constantly nude love interest by Rae Dawn Chong (Cindy in Commando).

 

[europe1]

Set in Paleolithic Europe some 80,000 years ago it is an adventure story about a group of primitive men and their, as you might guess, quest for fire...

Reading this review, I do not at all get an impression of boundless, unlimited ecstasy-of-love -- which is the only valid emotion that a person could have towards this movie. Please re-word your article and resubmit to Sherdog.

They also come across a tribe of more advanced hominids (the Ivaka). One of their women acts as something of a love interest for one of the Ulam, and a means for showing the move from pure animal lust to genuine love and affection

Roger Ebert (momentously overrated as he is) wrote two of his best paragraphs about that.

"I suggested earlier that there's probably a temptation to laugh during “Quest for Fire,” especially during such touchy scenes as the one in which early woman teaches early man that it wasn't as good for her as it was for him. I smiled during those scenes. But, thinking over my response, I realize that I wasn't smiling at the movie, but at the behavior of the characters. Man is a comic beast. For all of our dignity, we are very simple in many of our wants and desires, and as we crawled out of the primeval sludge and started our long trek toward civilization, there must have been many more moments of comedy than of nobility.

“Quest for Fire” cheerfully acknowledges that, and indeed some of its best scenes involve man's discovery of laughter. When one of the primitive tribesmen is hit on the head by a small falling stone, the woman from the other tribe laughs and laughs. Our heroes are puzzled: They haven't heard such a noise before. But it strikes some sort of deep chord, I guess, because later, one of the tribesmen deliberately drops a small stone on his friend's head, and then everybody laughs: The three men together with the woman who taught them laughter. That's human. The guy who got hit on the head is, of course, a little slow to join in the laughter, but finally he goes along with the joke. That's civilization."
​

(including Ron Perlman, who lets be honest does look a bit like a caveman anyway lol).

And it was his very first film role!

Just as the story Quest for Fire deals with the dawn of humanity, on a metatextual level it deals with the dawn of Ron Pearlman. I sort of wonder if his love for prosthetic-heavy roles comes from just this movie, where he absolutely killed it as a troglodyte.

It is actually very fitting that Pearlman would debut here. The director of this movie -- Jean-Jacques Annaud -- is sort of a conusor of strange and interesting faces. He scouted the entire Mediterranean to find peculiar visages to put in his next film, In the Name of the Rose (Sean Connery's best film alongside The Hill), which takes place inside a Medieval monastery. The guy has a deep fascination concerning the way people look and act, meaning Pearlman is perfect for him.

. At some points, the whole thing did feel a bit ridiculous watching human beings dressed in rags jumping and grunting like apes,

What you of course mean is, "totally freaking awesome".

This is one of the best adventure stories of all time, damnit!

 

[Rimbaud82]

Reading this review, I do not at all get an impression of boundless, unlimited ecstasy-of-love -- which is the only valid emotion that a person could have towards this movie. Please re-word your article and resubmit to Sherdog.

lol I did like it, but not quite boundless joy.

Roger Ebert (momentously overrated as he is) wrote two of his best paragraphs about that.

"I suggested earlier that there's probably a temptation to laugh during “Quest for Fire,” especially during such touchy scenes as the one in which early woman teaches early man that it wasn't as good for her as it was for him. I smiled during those scenes. But, thinking over my response, I realize that I wasn't smiling at the movie, but at the behavior of the characters. Man is a comic beast. For all of our dignity, we are very simple in many of our wants and desires, and as we crawled out of the primeval sludge and started our long trek toward civilization, there must have been many more moments of comedy than of nobility.

“Quest for Fire” cheerfully acknowledges that, and indeed some of its best scenes involve man's discovery of laughter. When one of the primitive tribesmen is hit on the head by a small falling stone, the woman from the other tribe laughs and laughs. Our heroes are puzzled: They haven't heard such a noise before. But it strikes some sort of deep chord, I guess, because later, one of the tribesmen deliberately drops a small stone on his friend's head, and then everybody laughs: The three men together with the woman who taught them laughter. That's human. The guy who got hit on the head is, of course, a little slow to join in the laughter, but finally he goes along with the joke. That's civilization."​

​

That is a good quote for sure!

Just as the story Quest for Fire deals with the dawn of humanity, on a metatextual level it deals with the dawn of Ron Pearlman. I sort of wonder if his love for prosthetic-heavy roles comes from just this movie, where he absolutely killed it as a troglodyte.

It is actually very fitting that Pearlman would debut here. The director of this movie -- Jean-Jacques Annaud -- is sort of a conusor of strange and interesting faces. He scouted the entire Mediterranean to find peculiar visages to put in his next film, In the Name of the Rose (Sean Connery's best film alongside The Hill), which takes place inside a Medieval monastery. The guy has a deep fascination concerning the way people look and act, meaning Pearlman is perfect for him.

Yeah Perlman was excellent you have to say. And I have been to watch The Name of the Rose for ages, only after watching this did I realise it was the same guy. I guess I will get round to that soon as well.

What you of course mean is, "totally freaking awesome".

This is one of the best adventure stories of all time, damnit!

Maybe my review sounded too harsh because I did like it a lot, just that sometimes all the grunting and hobbling about got a bit tiresome. But on the whole it was really good, and as I say, very original.

 

[Yotsuya]

But it strikes some sort of deep chord, I guess, because later, one of the tribesmen deliberately drops a small stone on his friend's head, and then everybody laughs: The three men together with the woman who taught them laughter. That's human. The guy who got hit on the head is, of course, a little slow to join in the laughter, but finally he goes along with the joke. That's civilization."

My favorite scene of the movie! The stone was not a actually that small and the victim of the practical joke was bleeding, which that was a nice stone age touch.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Just finished

The Emigrants (1971)

An absolutely beautiful film! Set in 1844 it concerns a young family (the Larsens, played by Max von Sydow and Liv Ullman), their toils and troubles at home in the Swedish countryside and, eventually, their bold decision to sail to America in an attempt to build a new life in Minnesota.

At over three hours long it's certainly not a brisk film, and in fact it is only one half of the story. A sequel of similar length entitled The New Land was released a year later and the director (Jan Troell) considers them to be one long story. I'll watch the sequel tomorrow. In any case, the film moves at a steady pace; Troell doesn't seem to be in any hurry to tell the story, but it is not boring either. We see the harsh life of the Larsen family. Despite their hard work they struggle to get by on their poor, rocky farmland. Along with a few other events which I won't spoil, it is this which motivates them to brave the sea-journey to America in search of greener pastures - rumours abound that America is a land of milk and honey. On the boat they are accompanied by other peasants, as well as religious dissidents forced to flee persecution of the Swedish establishment.

The film subtly details the lives of the Larsens with a vivid realism that conveys their struggle. But at the same time it's not some hopelessly bleak film. In this respect it really reminded me of one of my favourite films from a few years later, The Tree of Wooden Clogs. You feel the dignity of the Swedish peasants and their work, the importance of their hopes (the thing which drives them to America in the first place), as well as the importance of religion for many of them. There is death, illness, and suffering along the way to Minnesota, but by the time they get there you really feel a sense of the families joy at having finally arrived. It is an profoundly moving film, with some beautiful visuals to accompany the wonderful story.

 

[Bullitt68]

Have you seen Capricorn One?

I'd honestly never even heard of it.

Pickpocket (1959)

That's my least favorite of Bresson's "big" films. I much prefer Diary of a Country Priest and A Man Escaped.

Finally got around to Arrival. Right in the f'n feels. Great movie.

Meh, I thought that one was a bit of a letdown.

I ended the night moving from Midnight Special and its ET stuff to Arrival. I can't remember who among you in here was either wanting me to see or warning me off of seeing this one, so I don't know who I'm proving right or wrong here, but I wasn't really a fan. Arrival is like the other side of the same problematic coin: If Midnight Special pissed me off because Nichols didn't try to explain anything, Arrival pissed me off because the explanation was stupid. It was like a less intelligent and less inspired version of Interstellar.

Much like Midnight Special, I was immediately invested. I'm not crazy about Amy Adams, but she didn't detract from anything; Jeremy Renner was given the most thankless role I've seen him in yet; and Forest Whitaker is always awesome. I thought the script was actually pretty strong; I loved the way they balanced the military strategizing and the global politics with the "human" drama of trying to communicate. And the scene with the bomb was top-notch. But the ending didn't make sense to me.

Like Interstellar, time is the key here. According to Adams, time isn't perceived the same way by the aliens. But, unlike in Interstellar - where it's more of a "feeling" or a "perspective" that allows you to "transcend" time - in Arrival, it's ostensibly the understanding of a new language that all of a sudden snaps your brain into a place where you "see" things differently. If I'm right so far, then I'm at a loss as to how that makes sense. One minute, she's struggling to understand/use this new language; the next minute, she can read their huge jumbled mess of a message; and the next minute, she can see her entire life from beginning to end.



What I thought they were doing - and what I think they should've done - with those "dreams" or "visions" that she was having (and which, it turns out, were glimpses from her future) was something like the aliens bypassing all "normal" modes of communication (visual, verbal, written) and communicating through some form of telepathy. Something like, with the situation as dire as it was, them "reaching out" to her and, instead of communicating with her on her terms with the whiteboards and the computers, communicating on their terms - and her realizing that she actually can (maybe all humans can?) communicate that way.

Anyway, I enjoyed both Midnight Special and Arrival, but I was disappointed with the endings of both. And, for the record, neither one has shit on Interstellar

Sorry about responding to this stuff separately. Off my multi-quote game.

In Interstellar, humans are unable to process time like the "beings of the bulk" because they can only handle it linearly, and in a forward direction. So the beings of the bulk provide Coop with a mechanism (the tessaract) to allow him to manipulate time via a physical constant (gravity). He is able to because the love he feels renders those boundaries inconsequential.

The aliens in Arrival "transcend" time in the same way as the beings of the bulk - they are simply able to with the faculties they possess. However, this means interpreting their language (as puny humans), is, to put it simply, a bitch. They know what to say from start to finish before they actually start, though not how you or I do. Their language is semasiographic - it links symbols intricately and in such a way that taking one bit out negates the whole. Humans aren't capable (until Louise) of that level of sophistication, or rather would never think to do this because it's just easier to do it the way we do.

As for Louise and how she picks it up and changes, it's difficult to grasp if you think of language as a series of words the way English is spoken or written. It makes Louise think differently the way sign language makes you think differently. Spend enough time doing sign language and the way your hands move would code for certain feelings and words, even if you don't actually need to use it to communicate because you're not deaf or mute. Louise works long enough with the language that her own thoughts begin to be represented in the same way, where she is able to navigate hypotheses and conclusions all at once even. At least, that's the idea.

She begins to "see the future" early on in the process of trying to figure out the language. Then the flash-forwards get clearer and clearer. Her transcending time is less a leap and more how she has to engage with the language if she ever wants to crack it.

In Interstellar, humans are unable to process time like the "beings of the bulk" because they can only handle it linearly, and in a forward direction. So the beings of the bulk provide Coop with a mechanism (the tessaract) to allow him to manipulate time via a physical constant (gravity). He is able to because the love he feels renders those boundaries inconsequential.

The aliens in Arrival "transcend" time in the same way as the beings of the bulk - they are simply able to with the faculties they possess. However, this means interpreting their language (as puny humans), is, to put it simply, a bitch. They know what to say from start to finish before they actually start, though not how you or I do. Their language is semasiographic - it links symbols intricately and in such a way that taking one bit out negates the whole. Humans aren't capable (until Louise) of that level of sophistication, or rather would never think to do this because it's just easier to do it the way we do.

The equivocation that I find problematic in Arrival is discernible here: If the aliens are "simply able" to "transcend" time with the faculties they possess, then no human being, Louise included, should be capable of their "level of sophistication" in the absence of those faculties. Sort of like those animal studies where scientists can get an ape to understand the concept of death, which is fucking insane...but that's still a far cry from being at our "level of sophistication." Louise being able to understand what they're trying to say, I can buy that, but her actually ascending to their level of sophistication and being able to perceive time just as they can in the evolutionary equivalent of the blink of an eye, that I'm not buying.

She begins to "see the future" early on in the process of trying to figure out the language. Then the flash-forwards get clearer and clearer. Her transcending time is less a leap and more how she has to engage with the language if she ever wants to crack it.

This would seem to be another problem: Doesn't she arrive already thinking she has an ex with whom she had a daughter who died? Wasn't she already seeing the future before the aliens even showed up? This would again seem to point up that equivocation: Is it because she possesses the same faculties as the aliens (if so, WTF?) or is it because she is able to grasp the language (if so, WTF with the flashbacks/flash forwards prior to her exposure to the language?)?

Sort of like those animal studies where scientists can get an ape to understand the concept of death, which is fucking insane...but that's still a far cry from being at our "level of sophistication." Louise being able to understand what they're trying to say, I can buy that, but her actually ascending to their level of sophistication and being able to perceive time just as they can in the evolutionary equivalent of the blink of an eye, that I'm not buying.

When Arrival was realeased, me and some other guy (by which I mean Caveat or Rimbaud, can't remember) was discussing something similar to the monkey business. We mentioned that ethnologists studing indigious, primitive tribes in the jungle asserted that these people really don't have a concept for "the future" outside of cyclical stuff (seasons, birth-and-death). They didn't even have a word for the future. Trying to explain something that could be happening in the future to them was streniously difficult. Their lack of conceptual awareness -- brought on due to lack of word-knowlage -- simply meant that they could not imagine or comprehend something like "the future".

I think this serves as another neat analogy for what the aliens are trying to do. In the material universe there exists physical phenomenons that we cannot comprehend due to our lack of conceptual understanding. They try to teach us to see these things through language. Just like those ethnologists tried teaching the tribespeople about the future, a phenomenon that they had no cognitive-concepts with which to understand.

You mentioned the word "evolutionary". As in that mankind would need more inherent brain-power to actually grasp these concepts, more brain-nerves and shit. Such a discussion is of course, entierly speculative considering that this is fiction. But we have the same brains as our caveman ancestors did. And we can comprehend concepts (like, the future) that would have been far out of reach for did. And we did not do this through evolution but through simple socialization, which was facilitated by our mastery of language.

That makes me wonder, how many concepts can be imagined that we simply have not been able to imagine yet?

Louise being able to understand what they're trying to say, I can buy that, but her actually ascending to their level of sophistication and being able to perceive time just as they can in the evolutionary equivalent of the blink of an eye, that I'm not buying.

That said, I do agree that this isn't something that you really "buy." This is sci-fi, of course.

However, by that same account, I have a harder time buying that love could have the metaphysical function that it does in Interstellar. It just seems unreasonable that a human emotional (something that exists due to chemical in our brains) could have an interaction with physical forces that exists in our material universe (gravity and shit).

Not that that lessened my enjoyment of the movie or anything.

This would seem to be another problem: Doesn't she arrive already thinking she has an ex with whom she had a daughter who died? Wasn't she already seeing the future before the aliens even showed up? This would again seem to point up that equivocation: Is it because she possesses the same faculties as the aliens (if so, WTF?) or is it because she is able to grasp the language (if so, WTF with the flashbacks/flash forwards prior to her exposure to the language?)?

I saw those scenes as being for the audience -- not from Adams present memory (as have virtually everyone I've seen writing about the film). By splicing those scenes into the narrative, we inject meaning into Adams emotionlessness. We assume that her aloofness is due to this past trauma. However, when the true nature of those scenes are revealed, our assessement of her character takes a dramatically different turn.

In a sense, in the movie it is us the audience who have been unstuck in time. It isn't Amy who does that. It is us. And that plays and tinkers with our understanding -- mirroing how Amy's understanding changes as she begun grasping the language.

You mentioned the word "evolutionary". As in that mankind would need more inherent brain-power to actually grasp these concepts, more brain-nerves and shit. Such a discussion is of course, entierly speculative considering that this is fiction. But we have the same brains as our caveman ancestors did. And we can comprehend concepts (like, the future) that would have been far out of reach for did. And we did not do this through evolution but through simple socialization, which was facilitated by our mastery of language.

First, no we don't. Our ancestors ironically had larger (though less efficient/developed) brains. Second, I don't think you can hive off socializing from evolution. Isn't it that we evolved to socialize, and evolved to socialize using language? Third, while the brain evolves quite rapidly by evolutionary standards, we're still talking several generations for evolutionary change to take effect on the level of the species. Short of touching a 2001-style monolith and bashing Jeremy Renner's head in with a bone, there's no way Amy Adams should've picked that shit up that fast.

The Tree of Life (2011)

Im thinking, is Tree of Life the most religious film of all time? Not religious as the redneck "jesus said shoot gays" type of thing, or religious as something with symbols and traditions everywhere, but religious as in spiritual, and believing in something transcendent that the human brain is not able to comprehend. I wonder what devoted atheists think about that movie.

The Tree of Life sucked.

I watched The Tree of Life and didn't really like it that much. I thought maybe I would since it seemed pretty straightforward by Malick standards, but like almost all of his shit, it takes forever to start moving and by the end you still don't go anywhere. I've called him a wannabe Kubrick a million times, and this was him at his most wannabe, and by the same token, this was his biggest failure at being Kubrick. None of the 2001 Earth-forming space crap made any sense, it didn't fit, and even all of his cosmic shit about grace and nature doesn't even go anywhere and he just ends it with that dumb ass beach walking scene.

The family stuff was okay, but the stuff with Sean Penn was dumb as fuck and totally pointless, and to be perfectly honest, I didn't even know which kid he was, the older one and the younger brother is the one that died or the younger one and the older brother is the one who died. And Malick didn't seem to give a shit, either.

I thought I would like it a lot based on the potential I knew it had, but I didn't like it very much because of the potential it wasted.

Malick should've focused in on one single strand: Either we're telling the story of a kid experiencing life in a highly flammable family environment courtesy of his volcanic father, or we're telling the story of a man who's life is full of regrets who doesn't know how to see the potential for greatness in his family rather than his own failures, or we're telling the story of a woman having a crisis of faith as she is forced to acknowledge the fractured status of her fantasy of domestic bliss, or we're telling the story of a man late in his life reflecting on his childhood in an effort to make the most out of what time he has left with his father and/or mother, or we're telling the story of the evolution of the universe and how cosmic and/or divine forces function in the spinning of the universal story of Life.

All of that shit randomly bouncing around inside of one two-and-a-half hour movie bubble is like that bouncy ball scene in Men in Black, it's just pure chaos and everything gets destroyed.

Now I can't tell you definitively that my opinion is the result of my being an atheist (though a "devoted atheist" sounds weird) nor can I tell you it's the result of my being a film fan (nor can I even say what ratio it is if it's a combination). All I can tell you is that The Tree of Life was a boring, pseudo-philosophical, quasi-spiritual exercise in intellectual masturbation from, for my money, one of the most obnoxiously trite and transparent formalists to come out of the art-house scene.

People really need to get over Malick. He just puts turds in top hats.

I finally got around to seeing the US cut of The Shining

This is actually news to me! I didn't know that there was a different cut for the US market

This is news to me, too

The European cut to me as well seems much tightly focused on the idea of the bloody legacy of colonialism with Jack more clearly the lead character. The US cut I think has more focus on the contemporary situation, most obviously playing up the family relationship far more and arguably shifting the perspective of the film to Wendy as the lead character giving her more screen time and more of a relationship with Danny via the "Tony" character plus indeed having her see ghostly history of the hotel at the end.

Maybe now you'll get why I reacted with such a strong "WTF?" when you initially brought up all that colonialism shit

The Other Side of the Wind (1976/2018)

Forgot about this one. Did you see this on the big screen or is it already out on DVD/Blu-ray?

Bernardo Bertolucci has died aged 77...

RIP. The Conformist is my pick for the GOAT non-Leone Italian film.

I must say I was never a huge fan of The Conformist

I spose The Dreamers is his best known film on Sherdog, ironically I always found that far from the sex being forced into the film as is often the case that side of things was better done where as the whole paris riots/new wave referencing side didn't come off as well.

I didn't love The Dreamers, but I did think it all worked well and I enjoyed the movie nerd bits.

The Emigrants (1971)

I was going to alert you to the fact that there's a sequel, but you already know that. I watched these a long time ago, back during my Bergman obsession which created a net of movie watching in which these non-Bergman pairings of von Sydow and Ullmann got caught, so I don't remember much in the way of details, but I remember, perhaps due to an American bias, enjoying The New Land more, particularly for the Sioux stuff and the tonal combination of wistfulness and promise.

I honestly hadn't even thought about these movies in forever, but reading your post and then reading both films' Wikis makes me want to spend 7 hours watching them again

 

[moreorless87]

Maybe now you'll get why I reacted with such a strong "WTF?" when you initially brought up all that colonialism shit

I think that's still obviously there in the US cut, you still have the background to the hotel and the native American art present in it plus the gold room ghosts relating back to the pre depression upper class more colonialist era. Indeed you get the added(well not taken away) scene of Wendy seeing the literal "skeletons in the closet" at the end.

The main differences in the US cut are more time given to setting up Jack hurting Dany previously and the "Tony" character. Again I suspect part of the reason for the cut wasn't so much the "Americans need stuff explained" we typically get given but rather than Kubrick wanted the US cut to relate more to the current social situation there.

I didn't love The Dreamers, but I did think it all worked well and I enjoyed the movie nerd bits.

I mean the obvious comparison to me would be WIthnail and I, I think that film merges the drama and the setting more effectively where as here I get the sense the Paris in the 60's stuff ended up being played up in the script(not read the novel its based on) to try and make the film more saleable to the mainstream rather than being used more as a setup. I think you can see he's really much more interested in the drama, the sense of the brother/sister trapped in there own little semi incestuous world.

Somebody really should pick The Comformist for a movie club option as I think that has a lot of potential for discussion, both in theme and visually.

 

[Rimbaud82]

That's my least favorite of Bresson's "big" films. I much prefer Diary of a Country Priest and A Man Escaped.

I liked it a lot, but the only other Bresson I have seen is Diary and I just absolutely love that film, so I definitely prefer it to Pickpocket. Will probably watch The Trial of Joan of Arc next once I can find a good copy.

People really need to get over Malick. He just puts turds in top hats.

Certainly not surprised you don't like Malick lol. The schtick did wear thin in Knight of Cups though.

Forgot about this one. Did you see this on the big screen or is it already out on DVD/Blu-ray?

It's distributed through Netflix actually! In the UK it is anyway.

It was still pretty good, just not as good as I was expecting.... I think I enjoyed it for the cinematography more than anything. It was very stylish but felt a little too cold and sterile to me, a bit dry, I guess this is somewhat the point as we are supposed to associate this style with Clerici's repression, but it just didn't engage me too much (other than visually).

I was going to alert you to the fact that there's a sequel, but you already know that. I watched these a long time ago, back during my Bergman obsession which created a net of movie watching in which these non-Bergman pairings of von Sydow and Ullmann got caught, so I don't remember much in the way of details, but I remember, perhaps due to an American bias, enjoying The New Land more, particularly for the Sioux stuff and the tonal combination of wistfulness and promise.

I honestly hadn't even thought about these movies in forever, but reading your post and then reading both films' Wikis makes me want to spend 7 hours watching them again

Have you seen Olmi's The Tree of Wooden Clogs? I think you'd enjoy it too if you like this.

 

[Yotsuya]

People really need to get over Malick. He just puts turds in top hats.

(I haven't actually seen any of his films in many many years, but it always feels good when getting confirmation for my prejudices.)

 

[moreorless87]

He isn't a big fan of Tarkovsky of course so I'm not really surprised he doesn't like Malick.

Personally I do tend to think Malick is a little overrated as a visual director, I mean his best work obviously looks good but there is something of the "new age motivational poster" to it for me. I still feel that Badlands is by far his best film due to having such a strong performance from Martin Sheen in it to backup the visuals.

 

[Rimbaud82]

He isn't a big fan of Tarkovsky of course so I'm not really surprised he doesn't like Malick.

Personally I do tend to think Malick is a little overrated as a visual director, I mean his best work obviously looks good but there is something of the "new age motivational poster" to it for me. I still feel that Badlands is by far his best film due to having such a strong performance from Martin Sheen in it to backup the visuals.

"new age motivational poster" visuals<45>That is a good description at times to be fair, this why I said in my review of The Tree of Life that it broaches on silliness at times, it's the same in The New World...it cuts a little close to that new age-y kind of vibe. But I think this his best work (and I'd say those are both included) does

Badlands is great obviously, and I can see the argument for that, but I still think Days of Heaven is possibly his best still.

 

[Yotsuya]

Reading this review, I do not at all get an impression of boundless, unlimited ecstasy-of-love -- which is the only valid emotion that a person could have towards this movie. Please re-word your article and resubmit to Sherdog.

After watching the movie again with actor commantary track I agree. The last act was a bit slow and maybe took a bit wind out of the sails, but it is a wonderfully curious movie. Too goofy to be arthouse, too gory to be a family movie, too uncomfortable at times to be a crowd pleaser.

And it was his very first film role!

Just as the story Quest for Fire deals with the dawn of humanity, on a metatextual level it deals with the dawn of Ron Pearlman. I sort of wonder if his love for prosthetic-heavy roles comes from just this movie, where he absolutely killed it as a troglodyte.

It is actually very fitting that Pearlman would debut here. The director of this movie -- Jean-Jacques Annaud -- is sort of a conusor of strange and interesting faces. He scouted the entire Mediterranean to find peculiar visages to put in his next film, In the Name of the Rose (Sean Connery's best film alongside The Hill), which takes place inside a Medieval monastery. The guy has a deep fascination concerning the way people look and act, meaning Pearlman is perfect for him.

Pearlman had half the makeup time compared to the rest of his tribesmates. Gotta rewatch In the Name of the Rose. In perspective coming from Quest for Fire it seems a really delicious prospect.

 

[Sigh GunRanger]

@Bullitt68 You all should watch Bone Tomahawk on Amazon prime. Awesome horror western, with a great cast. Looks cheap but it's worth it.

And bull im working my way through s3 of hannibal. Dont worry

 

[Rimbaud82]

One of my latest LP purchases lol

"Brahms!"

 

[moreorless87]

Watched Andrey Zvyagintsev's Leviathian again and its just as good if equally depressing. I do have to say though I think a lot of the western reaction to it feels rather hypocritical to me, the reality is a lot of its funding did come from the Russian state and if you look at the UK for example I, Daniel Blake also got criticism from politicians like Ian Ducan Smith for IMHO a much milder anti establishment tone. In the US I really struggle to think of any recent cinema that's this damning of society as a whole, it simply wouldn't get funding.