The thing is: I dislike the strong negative emotions created by a movie about helpless victims being threatened by an evil person for the duration of the film. Though I'm sure it's a great film, I know it's a classic. But feeling annoying anxiety until the very end of a film when the victims triumph over the evil person, just isn't fun for me. Though I'm guessing people must enjoy that release of their emotional tension with the killing of the evil person or evil creature. I hope that make's sense?
I know what you mean. I feel the same way about those types of films. Too much gnawing negative suspense.
I liked Cape Fear, especially so more than the '91 remake, but it's not a film I'd want to re-watch. I've done some reading about the filming, and evidently during the rape scene between Mitchum and Polly Bergen, she stated that they both totally lost it, and it was only when they went crashing through wall during the struggle that she realized they were acting.
I really enjoyed One False Move. I'm a big BBT fan.
One False Move
Billy Bob Thornton co-wrote the screenplay, which is probably why a lot of it is set in Arkansas (he's from Hot Springs). It was pretty edgy for its day, and many films have imitated it in one way or another since.
Bill Paxton, as the local sheriff, was meant to be the central character, but I don't think he quite rose to the task. He was often convincing, but at other times, his attempts at an AR accent and good old boy traits seemed inauthentic. Likewise the white L.A. cop character was okay at the beginning, but then later seemed lost in the part and made it superficial.
The rest of the cast was very good. Billy Bob played the white trash sociopath very nicely, although I'm sure looking back that he felt he could have done better. But it was Cynda Williams who stole the show in my opinion as Thornton's girlfriend (I didn't realize they were married at the time in real life). Her character covered a gamut of emotions and moods, which she expressed perfectly. It could have been an award winning role.
It's a well directed film about a familiar subject: crazed criminals doing drug deals and murders.... but with a character study twist.
It is indeed VERY difficult to imitate Lynch. I'm a fan of his surreal work (except for the return of Twin Peaks, but that's a different conversation), and there are two rules he always follows:
1. No matter how strange everything is, there must be consistent rules and logic that govern everything.
2. Never explain these rules to the audience.
Maybe part of Under the Silver Lake's problems is, by the end, it explains too much.
Well, even the parts that it didn't fully explain, the whole dog killer thing and everything with dogs. Clearly the protagonist was responsible for the death of his ex-girlfriend's dog. So, it's not so much it was all literally explained, it was very on the nose. It's just tonally of trying a little too consciously. Other people who imitate Lynch will often just try to do the mood, but don't really have much to say. I guess, that might also be a bit of a weakness to Silver Lake. It had something to say about a young grieving over the relationship he screwed up, spending the movie trying to come up with conspiracies/etc (I'm shooting from the hip on my explanation here and it's been a while, so I'm not reconciling the new girl with the previous relationship and I might be missing details), but what it's saying is something a young-ish man would think of as a theme. And you look at what Lynch did with Mulholland Drive and other movies, and it just feels like someone who's older reflecting on things that maybe a younger person has gone through, but something an older person would still be concerned with. Just spit-balling.
But going over your points -
The first point, I'd say it's not so much having the consistent rules or logic (though Lynch does have those), but it's more, do they have something to say. And a chunk of people imitating Lynch go the "weird" vibe, but don't really have a strong sense of what they want to say, which will often result in inconsistent rules as they shoot from the hip.
The second point, of never explaining rules to the audience, it does hint at if a movie is doing that, they're feeling very self-conscious about their metaphors, which, well, successful surrealist movies tend to be effortless. And Under the Silver Lake didn't necessarily feel effortless.
Just rambling on my thoughts on trying to break apart the nuances of when surrealism works and when it doesn't. Shooting from the hip.
Well, even the parts that it didn't fully explain, the whole dog killer thing and everything with dogs. Clearly the protagonist was responsible for the death of his ex-girlfriend's dog. So, it's not so much it was all literally explained, it was very on the nose. It's just tonally of trying a little too consciously. Other people who imitate Lynch will often just try to do the mood, but don't really have much to say. I guess, that might also be a bit of a weakness to Silver Lake. It had something to say about a young grieving over the relationship he screwed up, spending the movie trying to come up with conspiracies/etc (I'm shooting from the hip on my explanation here and it's been a while, so I'm not reconciling the new girl with the previous relationship and I might be missing details), but what it's saying is something a young-ish man would think of as a theme. And you look at what Lynch did with Mulholland Drive and other movies, and it just feels like someone who's older reflecting on things that maybe a younger person has gone through, but something an older person would still be concerned with. Just spit-balling.
But going over your points -
The first point, I'd say it's not so much having the consistent rules or logic (though Lynch does have those), but it's more, do they have something to say. And a chunk of people imitating Lynch go the "weird" vibe, but don't really have a strong sense of what they want to say, which will often result in inconsistent rules as they shoot from the hip.
The second point, of never explaining rules to the audience, it does hint at if a movie is doing that, they're feeling very self-conscious about their metaphors, which, well, successful surrealist movies tend to be effortless. And Under the Silver Lake didn't necessarily feel effortless.
Just rambling on my thoughts on trying to break apart the nuances of when surrealism works and when it doesn't. Shooting from the hip.
I remember liking the original Cape Fear, but would need a rewatch. And given the number of other neo-noir films I like (though struggled to remember their existence), I intuitively suspected it wouldn't make my top 25. If it was classified as a classic noir, I'm pretty sure it would have made that top 25.
One False Move wasn't on my radar until some of the promotional stuff Carl Franklin was doing in a couple of months before I saw the criterion announced. I finally watched it on Mubi within the last couple of weeks, since that's where it's currently streaming. Solid little noir. I agree with the statements about Cynda Williams giving probably the best performance in the movie.
Well, even the parts that it didn't fully explain, the whole dog killer thing and everything with dogs. Clearly the protagonist was responsible for the death of his ex-girlfriend's dog. So, it's not so much it was all literally explained, it was very on the nose. It's just tonally of trying a little too consciously. Other people who imitate Lynch will often just try to do the mood, but don't really have much to say. I guess, that might also be a bit of a weakness to Silver Lake. It had something to say about a young grieving over the relationship he screwed up, spending the movie trying to come up with conspiracies/etc (I'm shooting from the hip on my explanation here and it's been a while, so I'm not reconciling the new girl with the previous relationship and I might be missing details), but what it's saying is something a young-ish man would think of as a theme. And you look at what Lynch did with Mulholland Drive and other movies, and it just feels like someone who's older reflecting on things that maybe a younger person has gone through, but something an older person would still be concerned with. Just spit-balling.
But going over your points -
The first point, I'd say it's not so much having the consistent rules or logic (though Lynch does have those), but it's more, do they have something to say. And a chunk of people imitating Lynch go the "weird" vibe, but don't really have a strong sense of what they want to say, which will often result in inconsistent rules as they shoot from the hip.
The second point, of never explaining rules to the audience, it does hint at if a movie is doing that, they're feeling very self-conscious about their metaphors, which, well, successful surrealist movies tend to be effortless. And Under the Silver Lake didn't necessarily feel effortless.
Just rambling on my thoughts on trying to break apart the nuances of when surrealism works and when it doesn't. Shooting from the hip.
Well, even the parts that it didn't fully explain, the whole dog killer thing and everything with dogs. Clearly the protagonist was responsible for the death of his ex-girlfriend's dog. So, it's not so much it was all literally explained, it was very on the nose. It's just tonally of trying a little too consciously. Other people who imitate Lynch will often just try to do the mood, but don't really have much to say. I guess, that might also be a bit of a weakness to Silver Lake. It had something to say about a young grieving over the relationship he screwed up, spending the movie trying to come up with conspiracies/etc (I'm shooting from the hip on my explanation here and it's been a while, so I'm not reconciling the new girl with the previous relationship and I might be missing details), but what it's saying is something a young-ish man would think of as a theme. And you look at what Lynch did with Mulholland Drive and other movies, and it just feels like someone who's older reflecting on things that maybe a younger person has gone through, but something an older person would still be concerned with. Just spit-balling.
But going over your points -
The first point, I'd say it's not so much having the consistent rules or logic (though Lynch does have those), but it's more, do they have something to say. And a chunk of people imitating Lynch go the "weird" vibe, but don't really have a strong sense of what they want to say, which will often result in inconsistent rules as they shoot from the hip.
The second point, of never explaining rules to the audience, it does hint at if a movie is doing that, they're feeling very self-conscious about their metaphors, which, well, successful surrealist movies tend to be effortless. And Under the Silver Lake didn't necessarily feel effortless.
Just rambling on my thoughts on trying to break apart the nuances of when surrealism works and when it doesn't. Shooting from the hip.
Definitely valid points. With David Lynch, what I love most is the feel of his movies. A sensation of being lost, right alongside the equally lost protagonists. By the end, both the viewer and protagonist reach the end of their journey. They may not fully understand why everything happened, but they always understand what they must do.
Under the Silver Lake takes a slightly different approach, where
the protagonist understands more and more of the conspiracy, but never sees that there is no place for him inside of it. This isn't a rescue mission in need of a hero. It's a complex cult for the ultra-wealthy. Even if it's all a lie, everyone inside clearly wants to be fooled.
the protagonist understands more and more of the conspiracy, but never sees that there is no place for him inside of it. This isn't a rescue mission in need of a hero. It's a complex cult for the ultra-wealthy. Even if it's all a lie, everyone inside clearly wants to be fooled.
Was this movie everything David Robert Mitchell wanted it to be? Clearly not. But it's still an incredibly interesting movie and neo-noir.
Lewis Carrol made Alice in Wonderland as a satire of the 'new math' being taught at universities, and how ridiculous the concept of 'imaginary numbers' are. In hindsight, he was extremely wrong. But the stories he created are still wonderful.
It announced the talents of director Carl Franklin (Devil in a Blue Dress) and co-writer/co-star Billy Bob Thornton while proving what kind of range Bill Paxton had, all wrapped up in this jaunty, sad, violent, wonderfully Noirish tale about regret and bad decisions. I love how it subverts expectations a bit in that a typical Hollywood script would focus on the two Los Angeles Detectives, have the smalltown Sheriff be comic relief, and the bad guys one-dimensional plot points. But it is the big city cops who are the peripheral characters while the Sheriff is much more than he seems on first glance, and the secret of one of the fugitives is what binds them all together beyond the crimes they are being sought for.
In the mid-80s Bill Paxton was fantastic, making a name for himself in a slew of highlighted supporting roles including Aliens, Weird Science, and Near Dark. He never got many bonafide starring roles in his career, even as it progressed, but he is so very good at the center of One False Move. His small-town sheriff is the right mixture of cocky when dealing with his everyday level of duties and anxious to impress the big city cops who have come looking for fugitives, but then all of that flushes away when he sees Fantasia and has to confront his past. He would later shine in Traveler, on the HBO series "Big Love", in his own Frailty, and in Sam Raimi's A Simple Plan (which should still be coming on the list, again with Billy Bob), but he really should have had more starring roles.
And Billy Bob! He was just a struggling actor at that point, with no film career to speak of (Chopper Chicks in Zombietown, anyone?) and only getting bit guest spots on TV like a Matlock and an Evening Shade here and there. 1992 was the same year he would land on the sitcom Hearts Afire with John Ritter & Markie Post, which paid the bills for a few seasons while he could get Sling Blade financed. But One False Move was the first hint at how good an actor he could be as well as how interesting a writer.
Michael Beach is also a standout here as the extremely calm and calculating killer. He's had a long, serviceable career as a character actor, but he is so chilling and perfect in One False Move.
It was eighth on my ballot, eighteen of its fifty-five points. A little shocked its not much higher on the countdown, but hopefully more of you discover it, now.
HOLDEN'S BALLOT 8. One False Move (#73) 15. Shallow Grave (#95) 17. Dead Again (#90) 22. The Hot Spot (#85) 24. Blue Ruin (#82) 25. Johnny Handsome (DNP)
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra
Point Blank - After being double-crossed by his partner and left for dead, a ruthless crook returns years later to get revenge and retrieve the money that was stolen from him.
Branded to Kill - After a botched assignment, a third-ranked hit man finds himself in conflict with his organization and becomes the target of a mysterious, dangerous fellow hitman.
Haven't seen either of these two, but Point Blank has been on my radar for a good while. Branded to Kill looks like something I might enjoy also, even if that eye bit in the trailer made me wince
SEEN: 14/30 MY BALLOT: 3/25
My ballot
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. Following (#84)
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16. Blue Ruin (#82)
17.
18. Red Rock West (#88)
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Point Blank is awesome. It's #21 on my list. Here's something I wrote about it a few years ago:
This is a gripping and stylish crime thriller that holds up very well. While there's no mistaking the decade in which it was made, the movie is shot and edited in ways that inspired modern directors like Soderbergh and Tarantino. The premise is simple and direct: a thief known only as Walker (Lee Marvin) is betrayed and left for dead, so he works his way up the criminal underworld's food chain to recover what he believes they owe him. It's a common premise in this genre to be sure, but Boorman's aforementioned flair makes it unlike any movie in it I've ever seen before from the ways it jumps back and forth in time to making you wonder what's real and what's happening in any of the characters' heads.
I like how Lee Marvin plays Walker as a force of nature who only has vengeance on his mind, but still makes him seem human, and it's a joy to see early work by character actors I've enjoyed watching since I was young like John Vernon and James Sikking. The movie shows its age and not in a good way here and there, most notably in a special effect that made me laugh out loud, but as someone who has seen dozens of movies and TV shows in this genre, it was a nice surprise to see something that's over a half century old that seems so new.
Payback, the '99 Mel Gibson movie based on the same source novel (The Hunter) isn't bad either, but I prefer this movie.
Point Blank used to be top tier Neo-Noir canon. Its reputation has slid a bit of late, but whether you think it is a masterpiece or a silly bore, Boorman's style and Lee Marvin's cool ooze all over it and make it worth a watch at least once. It was definitely influential on a couple generations of crime filmmakers that came afterwards.
As always you may take Tarantino's strong opinions and standards for what they are worth, but here is a video version of one of the chapters from his book Cinema Speculation that compares and contrasts the first two Parker/Walker film adaptations in Point Blank and The Outfit and puts them into context of their eras...
The Outfit is much less famous than Point Blank so I kinda doubt it placed higher on this MoFo countdown, but I expect to see the Mel Gibson starrer Payback in the mix somewhere, also adapted from the novels. I have always liked Point Blank but actually prefer the dirtier, nastier, more brutal Lee Marvin vehicle Prime Cut when all is said and done.
After hitting our third pit stop (70), here's were we are now:
Decade Breakdown
1960s = 7
1970s = 4
1980s = 2
1990s = 10
2000s = 2
2010s = 5
2020s = 0
Strong showing from most decades in this last batch we got 2 from the 60s, 2 from the 70s, and 2 from the 80s... but also 2 from the 1990s, so that decade remains on top.
We still haven't had any recurring director, but trust me, there will be a bunch so sit tight.
"As suspense thrillers go Point Blank is pretty good. It gets back into the groove of Hollywood thrillers, after the recent glut of spies, counterspies, funny spies, anti-hero spies and spy-spier spies. Marvin is just a plain, simple tough guy who wants to have the same justice done for him as was done for Humphrey Bogart." (read full document here)
Peter Foy, from Criminal Element, said:
"Its a fairly re-hashed storyline, but Point Blank finds its ethos in the execution. While British filmmaker John Boorman has had a most eclectic filmography, Point Blank remains his most satisfying and all-encompassing film overall." (read full review here)
"A slick, suspenseful film that is lit up by Boorman's visual artistry and moments of terrifically stylized violence. Like a standard American thriller told with a European sensibility. And Marvin delivers a truly intimidating badass." (read full review here)
"Branded to Kill is a stunner that eschews traditional plotting, even the B-movie kind, for a surreal cavalcade of images that filmmakers would try and mimic for generations." (read full document here)
Jaime Rebanal, from Talk Film Society, said:
"Branded to Kill may perhaps be Suzuki finding himself at his most complete [...] In its blend of gangster, B-movie, film-noir, and parody, it feels a step ahead of most films to come out at that time period." (read full review here)
"The most important thing about this film, to me, though is how ******* fun it is to watch. It just flew by. And even though It might not make a whole lot of sense, hell it might even try it's hardest to make the least amount of sense that it can, it's over-the-top action, abundance of style, and absurd sense of humor really make it a film that is absolutely worth watching." (read full review here)
Reply to Topic
Check out my podcast: 
