18th Mofo Hall of Fame

[MovieMeditation]

That's probably because you watched a lot of Disney animation since then and so built up a working knowledge of Disney's animation style...giving you a new appreciation for the skills of those early animators. I always admire it when someone delves into a subject matter or director's work and thus gets a good feel for the flow of time on cinema.

For sure. You are definitely right. Watching every Disney Classic and going in depth with reviewing and whatnot back in 2015 was one of my best decisions ever. Such a fun, enlighting and interesting experience.

[edarsenal]

I always assume that at least one person is going to hate whatever I nominate.
I usually worry more about what I'm going to hate. :laugh:

I worry what you're going to hate too ;)
But I am getting closer to finding almost tolerable films for you.

Nowhere near, but close.


Omigod, I just realized, we have a variance of the Love/Hate relationship.
I love your films, you hate mine :laugh:

[Citizen Rules]

I worry what you're going to hate too ;)
But I am getting closer to finding almost tolerable films for you.

Nowhere near, but close.


Omigod, I just realized, we have a variance of the Love/Hate relationship.
I love your films, you hate mine :laugh: Ed, that makes you the enabler:p Joking of course:)

[Nathaniel]

Brimstone (2016)

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/61/8f/cc/618fcced27e434521f7cf0512083ecbc.png

*SPOILERS*

This received some buzz here on release but I just didn't get around to it at the time. There was a point about 20 minutes into Brimstone, where I thought this was a good movie from the past few years that I'd completely overlooked. Sadly, by the end of the film that was no longer the case. Not that there aren't things to like about it as a whole. It got under my skin a few times early on which Koolhoven deserves credit for. There are some nice visual set pieces, including one towards the end of the Revelation act that I liked a lot. I also admire its willingness to take risks but I feel it pushes into overboard territory with how the film progresses.

Instead of using the violence and misery in an engaging way, it wallows and revels in it for two and a half hours for no meaningful reason. A lot of the plot happens just for the sake of adding in more misery and more violence. Characters that are close to Liz serve little purpose other than to be abused to increase her own physical and mental suffering. They're like mannequins standing around waiting to either be tortured or killed. Because there's so much of this, I became numb to it after a while and lost interest. I thought the ending was underwhelming as well and I wonder if it would have been better cutting as she hits the water.

Also, The Reverend is a ridiculous character that I could not take seriously. A caricature of the embodiment of evil. He's essentially a sharpshooting aggressively religious sadist whose primary goal is violent incest and who spouts absolute nonsense. Bad pretentious dialogue which Guy Pearce tries to make work but I wasn't enjoying it. He's like something out of a superhero comic in that last act too.

Brimstone wasn't awful but I ended up disliking it quite a lot by the time the credits rolled.

[edarsenal]

http://www.angelfire.com/music6/walteregan/MovieLog/roadtoperdition.gif

Road to Perdition (Sam Mendes, 2002)
Imdb (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0257044/?ref_=nv_sr_1)


Date Watched: 02/03/19
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 18th MoFo Hall of Fame, nominated by edarsenal
Rewatch: Yes

I've seen this film once before - 17 years ago when it was still in the theater. I didn't care at all for the film back then and when I saw it nominated for this Hall of Fame - and by edarsenal, whose nominations I never seem to like - I was not too enthused.

Watching it tonight, I really have to question why I disliked it all those years ago. I've never found the subject of mobsters all that interesting, but I was really drawn in by the way this film was presented and its focus on the relationship between the father and son. The performances were all quite good, with Tom Hanks - stepping out a bit from his usual good guy roles - and Jude Law, who I normally dislike, the standouts. I also really liked the dark, moody look of the film as well and found this to be overall a very solid and engaging watch. I doubt it'll ever become a personal favorite, but I expect it'll rank high on my HOF ballot.

3.5+

wait - what??

you liked it?!?!?


NO. . . . . REALLY?!!?!

https://media.giphy.com/media/nU704Y2jeFOHm/giphy.gif



Hold on, does this mean I have to like yours?
dammit

[edarsenal]

@edarsenal *Nomination received
@Neiba *Nomination received
@Nathaniel *Nomination received
@MovieMeditation *Nomination received



Remember February 11th is the first deadline to get your first review in, if you PM me I'll grant you a week extension

We had a really nasty bit of weather last week and part of this one, below 30 degrees on two days and with the job I have dispatching tow trucks it's been a madhouse to say the least, but I will be posting a review before then.

[pahaK]

[CENTER]Brimstone (2016)

Also, The Reverend is a ridiculous character that I could not take seriously. A caricature of the embodiment of evil. He's essentially a sharpshooting aggressively religious sadist whose primary goal is violent incest and who spouts absolute nonsense. Bad pretentious dialogue which Guy Pearce tries to make work but I wasn't enjoying it. He's like something out of a superhero comic in that last act too.


The way I understood it was that Liz killed Reverend in the brothel. This means that in acts 1 and 4 he's actually some sort of supernatural being back from Hell to haunt Liz (in IMDb trivia it's said that he has blue eyes in acts 2 & 3 but black in 1 & 4 - I forgot to pay attention to that on my rewatch). This way his, umm, considerable capabilities during the last act don't seem odd at all.


Other than that I can understand that it's not a movie that everyone is going to like. It's one of the bleakest films I've seen but I often like stuff like that. I'm pretty sure that CR will absolutely hate it :D

[Nathaniel]

The way I understood it was that Liz killed Reverend in the brothel. This means that in acts 1 and 4 he's actually some sort of supernatural being back from Hell to haunt Liz (in IMDb trivia it's said that he has blue eyes in acts 2 & 3 but black in 1 & 4 - I forgot to pay attention to that on my rewatch). This way his, umm, considerable capabilities during the last act don't seem odd at all.



I got that Koolhoven is presenting him as a manifestation of evil and that contained the distinct probability that he dies in the brothel. Then resurrected as a monster/demon figure of some sort. He also mentions that he went to hell and back in Act 1 whilst taking the sermon which adds to that theory and how I picked up on it at the end of Act 3. I did not notice the eyes which is kind of cool. The fantasy element here is frustrating to me though and another mark against it because it then feels like a copout to explain leaps of logic rather than something that I found particularly interesting from a plot perspective.


Other than that I can understand that it's not a movie that everyone is going to like. It's one of the bleakest films I've seen but I often like stuff like that. I'm pretty sure that CR will absolutely hate it :D

I like bleak films myself as they can be the most emotionally effective but this is way up there haha.

It would be a surprise if CR liked this movie, but maybe I'm in for one.

[Citizen Rules]

Brimstone
I'm pretty sure that CR will absolutely hate it :D


It would be a surprise if CR liked this movie, but maybe I'm in for one.

Ya never know what I might like:cool: I'm getting curious about Brimstone so probably will watch it soon.

[MovieMeditation]

I already planned on Brimstone today but it’s fun that so much talk is going on about it now. Perfect timing. Or perhaps not, because I’m not gonna have my review up for it until tomorrow.

But I saw it. So now I’m on 3 films... trying to catch up! :up:

[pahaK]

Starting to watch Split. Let's see if I can do it in one session.

[Joel]

Starting to watch Split. Let's see if I can do it in one session.
Dont be bitch

[pahaK]

No love for Split from me either. At least I was able to write majority of my review while watching the film :rolleyes:

Split (1989) N

Big Brother is watching everyone but one man lives beyond its control. Is he the new messiah or just a random lunatic?

51484

To me Split looks exactly like how I'd imagine a film school project that tries too hard to be intellectual and artistic to impress the teachers. The result is preachy and incoherent mess only interested in giving speeches and doing gimmicky edits.

I like my movies with story and characters but Split is more like modern art splashing almost random images and big words on screen with all sorts of noises playing in the background. I'm somewhat sure that there's a logic behind Split's structure but it doesn't really save it from being utterly boring (and I'm more interested about the piece of art than the artist's explanation of it anyways, hence my distaste for the so called modern art).

I can't really find much positive to say about this. I think it's technically terrible (especially editing is horrendous), badly acted and badly written piece of cinematic junk.

0.5

[CosmicRunaway]

I kind of really want to watch Split now.

[Yam12]

All the negativity towards Split makes me wonder what film got the most hate in a HoF before.

[Miss Vicky]

I fell asleep early last night and didn't watch anything. Might try to fit in two today.

[rauldc14]

All the negativity towards Split makes me wonder what film got the most hate in a HoF before.

Probably PMMM if I remember correctly. But Split is nearing that.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.cinemagazzino.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/result-6-542x340.jpg
Brimstone (2016)

I remember watching an old vampire movie. As the vampire draws near, the inept vampire hunter pulls out his wooden cross to fend off the blood sucker. The vampire heartily laughs and says, 'you have to believe in that to make it work'...

Brimstone is like that...it's touted as dark and disturbing but to the savvy movie watcher it's so cliche ridden with one dimensional characters that only exist to wield knives and kill, that nothing in the movie seems real. Hence it's utterly ineffective as the vampire hunter's wooden cross was.

Brimstone is like a $35 gourmet hamburger served with a sprig of parsley in a fancy restaurant. Sure it looks fancy with it's on location shooting and impressive cinematography, but it's still just a hamburger...it's a fast food thrill flick to be gulped down, fine cuisine it's not.

Brimstone is a con, a sham that pretends to be something more than it is. Strip away the cinematography and sets and it's just a well dressed up horror film with a stone faced antagonist that's even more unbelievable than Jason from Friday the 13th. The plot is juvenile, pretending to deal with deep themes, when all it actually delivers is thrill kill scenes fit only for mass consumption. What Brimstone needed to be believable, was some good old fashion character development and drama.

If you want to see a top notch thriller about an evil preacher chasing down children, watch Robert Mitchum in The Night of the Hunter (1955) now that's a movie!

rating_1

[Yam12]

I haven't seen that yet but ouch...

[pahaK]

At least I knew CR will hate it. And yes, Brimstone essentially is a "well dressed up horror film" even though it doesn't have the tag on IMDb. Obviously I disagree with the lack of depth and such but maybe it's just the horror-loving, religion-hating me :D

[Joel]

People that hated Split wouldnt know a good movie if it gave them the reach around.

[Citizen Rules]

At least I knew CR will hate it. And yes, Brimstone essentially is a "well dressed up horror film" even though it doesn't have the tag on IMDb. Obviously I disagree with the lack of depth and such but maybe it's just the horror-loving, religion-hating me :DIt's a poor movie, period. Even at Roger Ebert.com the film received a scathing review and a dismal 1 star rating. You might give out 1 star ratings like candy, but most critics reserve 1 star for the utter failures.

Link to Roger Ebert.com review: Brimstone (https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/brimstone-2017)

[MovieMeditation]

18th Hall of Fame
Brimstone
2016

https://i0.wp.com/thepeoplesmovies.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Brimstone_Guy-Pearce.jpg?resize=735%2C371

Brimstone you say? Yeah, more like “Grimstone”…

This two-and-a-half-hour wannabe horror tale is a persistently and purposely pale presentation of pure evil and extreme religion set inside a revenge slash stalker story with a grim reverend and a runaway girl in the middle of all the murky madness…

This soulless, satanic approach to Gods will and people’s wrongdoings is both its strength and its weakness, respectively. The stubborn graphic imagery acts like a tow-truck to the story, pulling the audience through the mud by the neck, until there is no more filth to pick up or fresh air to breathe, leaving this aggressively agonizing approach to torture the film towards an inevitable breaking point. How long it takes for the torture to tip the cup over for its audience is completely up to the individual watching – either you with it all the way or you ain’t, because it won’t back down, that’s for sure. I must confess that I rapidly accepted the reaper-like tone going on and prepared myself for a harrowing (and hollow) hell on earth experience. I ran with the silliness of it and bought into the barebone skeleton of its set-up. I wish it was a bit more tongue-in-cheek. Instead, it’s just a bit tongue-less.

But I was mostly able to “enjoy” this almost drab demise into depression and death by acting submissive to the sick mind of the director and view his screwed-up vision – of what I take is sort of a horror-western-family-tragedy – in the light of a pulp-cult-b-movie trying to act as a “big budget”, professionally executed character study. Because, under the surface, there really isn’t much to it at all. It might make it seem like there is, but it really is just a well-executed exercise in executions and elaborate set-ups for situations meant to break our main character... for two and a half hours. Despite all the talk of religion and what comes with it, every moral or thematic point hits you on the nose like a baseball bat filled with rusty nails. It isn’t so much about the “whys” as it is about “to which degree”. And it isn’t about each hit either, but more the amount of hits possible in the shortest amount of time.

If you can accept the director going on a killing spree and ending up on a collision course, then you may very well enjoy watching whether this movie can stand the test of its runtime, while testing your level of acceptance for psychical and mental torture. If you struggle with that, you may find a saving grace in the superb cast and often striking cinematography. Dakota Fanning has the look needed for this role and delivers a well-balanced performance, while her younger self is even better in my opinion, portrayed by Emilia Jones. The show of the town though, however sadistic for the sake of being sadistic he might be, Guy Pearce does deliver the goods as the baddy. Perhaps “one note” but notably so. If he doesn’t make you uncomfortable, I don’t know what will. And as stated, the images that brings this ugly tale to life are often extremely beautiful; the compositions are elegant – especially the extreme wide shots and those shooting directly down from above – they really evoke something in you and probably have more character than the entire film. I really liked the score by Junkie XL too.

Dear Father, please forgive me and wash away all my (cinema) sins for digging this insanity. It isn’t a particularly good film, but the paper-thin plot delivers more than a papercut in its execution and the combination of wacky violence and wonderful visuals builds a fiery fundament on top of the plot and characters that does indeed lie buried in the ground from the get-go. I went with it and I don’t hate myself for doing so. I admit there was something refreshing about watching a movie that requires a refreshment before, during and after... If this movie was a drink it would be a virgin bloody Mary. Kind of a double entendre in here, maybe even more… Anyways, the drink’s awful, but the fancy fruit and colorful cocktail umbrellas does look nice. Another!


3.5-
on a bad day I would have brought
it down to 3/5-

[pahaK]

It's a poor movie, period. Even at Roger Ebert.com the film received a scathing review and a dismal 1 star rating. You might give out 1 star ratings like candy, but most critics reserve 1 star for the utter failures.

Link to Roger Ebert.com review: Brimstone (https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/brimstone-2017)

I've read that review before and like some people in its comments think it's a complete joke. That reviewer is just offended by the film's content and unable to see anything beyond that.

I get that you hate my nom and it's OK. I still love the film regardless of that and linking other opinions similar to yours won't change my stance. It's just a matter of taste, no need to make it anything more.

[MovieMeditation]

I wonder what cricket would think of Brimstone.

You seen it, cricket?

[pahaK]

People that hated Split wouldnt know a good movie if it gave them the reach around.

Even though I hated Split I liked the nomination because it seems to have the same qualities that my noms have - it's a film majority of us haven't seen and it's something you personally seem to like a lot. Don't let our hate to get under your skin :D

[Miss Vicky]

People that hated Split wouldnt know a good movie if it gave them the reach around.

People who insult other people for their taste in film shouldn't participate in HOFs. :shrug:

[MovieMeditation]

People who insult other people for their taste in film shouldn't participate in HOFs. :shrug:
I would take it he's taking the piss here. If not though, then I'm worried. :D

Anyways, picking a movie like Split, whether you like the crazy weirded out style of it, you would KNOW it would receive a helluva lot of backlash in a HoF.

I haven't seen the film yet but I do wonder the thought behind going that extreme with a nomination. It has 130 votes on IMDb - and that's NOT in thousands. :laugh:

I wonder if Joel himself actually participated in the making of this film...

[Siddon]

I can understand where Joel is coming from in theory...I mean I watched Mad Love, Akira, and Mr Freedom all fail to make an impact on these Hall of Fames, I think challenging films could work but typically they don't.


With that said Split is definately the worst film I've seen in any of these Hall of Fames.

[Siddon]

https://flopmovies.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/4db8e526-ee7b-4253-870f-03d27fd61ad6.jpeg?w=1000




Brimstone (2016) is a deeply flawed film executed to perfection basically told in four parts the cohesive story is a pretty big flop yet by breaking it up the cast is expanded the story becomes much more palatable. I enjoyed the ambition of a film like this even though I felt like it got swallowed up in it's larger themes.

The film has a strong undercurrent of fetishism, feminism, pedophilia and apostasy. While any of those themes could have connected and told a powerful story the filmmaker bounces from one ideology to the other never really settling into one and letting the characters develop. If you can't tell one good story it makes sense to tell four flawed ones.

Guy Pierce is terrible in this, I'm a little disappointed he didn't end up tying the Fanning girl to the train tracks at one point. Yet the high production values and excellent set pieces elevate the work a bit for me. Though the climax is equally ridiculous.

rating_2_5

[Joel]

Guys im totally kidding, honest. And like i said before it didnt occur to me until it was too late. I made a few posts talking about my mistake at length.

Split is a fine film.

And no i didnt help make the film but thanks! A little before my time.

[pahaK]

I can understand where Joel is coming from in theory...I mean I watched Mad Love, Akira, and Mr Freedom all fail to make an impact on these Hall of Fames, I think challenging films could work but typically they don't.

I guess the "issue" here is that people are different.

People have opinions (not just about the movies but everything) that I just fail to comprehend; not just disagree with but completely fail to see how someone can see things like that. Fortunately with age I've come to accept this and no longer feel the need to "correct" these people.

At some later date when more people have watched Brimstone I'll probably reply to some of the criticism and try to explain why I either don't see the "issue" or in some cases consider the "issue" important piece of the film. Based on the reviews this far I seem to be watching a slightly different movie from others. I don't mind the hate but I don't always understand it (I suppose Joel feels the same).

[Velvet]

bubba ho-tep is a great film.

[cricket]

I wonder what cricket would think of Brimstone.

You seen it, cricket?

I havent

[Joel]

I want to get a lot of these movies watched this long weekend..sooo..I guess my next step is to ask as gently as possible..are any of them on youtube by chance? Before I hit up the library?

[Joel]

Even though I hated Split I liked the nomination because it seems to have the same qualities that my noms have - it's a film majority of us haven't seen and it's something you personally seem to like a lot. Don't let our hate to get under your skin :D

Nah, man, it is all fine. Like I said, it was a personal film, and had I not zonked out at the wheel when I nominated it, and realized it was for a regular HoF, I would've saved it for a more experimental trash HoF. I'm actually a little bummed I didn't think of that first. I totally wasted it. Ah well.

I am looking forward to seeing some of these films on here, though. Some of them seen, some not. They all generally look at least semi interesting, which is very rare in my limited experience with HoF's.

[MovieMeditation]

Rewatched The Florida Project. Review tomorrow.

Felt about the same about it though I did notice more, which I will get over in my review.

[Yam12]

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (David Hand; 1937)
https://d23.com/app/uploads/2016/05/1180w-600h_a-to-z-behind-the-magic-snow-white.jpg

I hadn't seen this before so I was interested in what I'd think of it. The animation in this was very good and I felt it still holds up even though the film is over 80 years old. However I felt that the characters were quite flat and the plot was pretty basic, although I did find the dwarfs to be quite amusing. Overall this one I respected more for its significance, rather than one I actually liked.

[Joel]

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

I fit this one in again. I'd seen it as a kid, and read the story book. I think I even had the audio cassette version. The only thing I'm going to say is that the animation is beautiful.

I'm not a parent, and I'm not a kid so...animation usually doesn't score very high with me, for reasons I am still not quite sure about. Nothing wrong with this film. It's important for history and the achievements of mankind, but it did little for my mood, and stimulated me only in the realm of the gorgeous drawings. Animation must be such a tough racket.

Wait a minute. Maybe that's why I dislike it so much. It seems so difficult to keep drawing variations of the same image in motion. My God, what a chore!

[Yam12]

I want to get a lot of these movies watched this long weekend..sooo..I guess my next step is to ask as gently as possible..are any of them on youtube by chance? Before I hit up the library?

I was able to find Split, Abandon Ship, Perfect Blue, Bubba Ho-Tep and Road to Perdition on YouTube. Can help with links for ones you've not seen if you need them.

[Joel]

I was able to find Split, Abandon Ship, Perfect Blue, Bubba Ho-Tep and Road to Perdition on YouTube. Can help with links for ones you've not seen if you need them.

That would be great, thanks, Yam12!

[edarsenal]

https://www.updown.org.uk/outofcos/oc_sevenwaves.jpg


Abandon Ship!


SPOILERS


It's pretty hard NOT to discuss this film without going into the spoiler arena. So, if you haven't watched this yet, don't read this yet.


Setting ordinary folks into an extraordinary situation can make for a great examination of the human psyche and what we are capable of, in the worst of times. And with this film, afterward. Which, for me, in regards to the afterwards, had an even more rebounding gravitas than the sad, and at moments, noble release of the "deadwood" to the sea to save the remaining survivors.

I would not make claims to the "What would I do?" or, for that matter, would I have the tenacity to see it through. But, as a movie watcher, I must say, I found that scene quite exceptional and intense as people could be seen in the distance as they continued without them. Beginning with Kelly, who takes it upon himself to set the example. Following with a full variety of terror to acceptance.
Quite the memorable bit of the film.

A secondary "message" of humanity is the. . . not sure if I have the right to label it simply as cowardly acts of self preservation, but I cannot find any other "label" for it. And that is the near end, when the survivors, having made it through the night storm and surprised to be alive are ready to revere Power's character for having the courage to do what had to be done. And then, when the freighter appeared, they quickly turned on him as a pariah.
A far too common thing when it comes to letting someone else do the dirty work and then leave them to burn for it.
I was seeing it earlier as several of them insisted that they assisted "under gun point," so that they could claim innocence later.
Perhaps I'm being a bit too cynical in their regards, or maybe, just honest about how quickly a lot of folks turn on those willing to take responsibility for the hard choices.

Some wonderful pondering thoughts came from Edith who found it a cruel, whimsical notion that, in an emergency, lumbering apes equal the removal of a genius, a playwright and an opera singer. . .
I also loved how she had a greater nobility than many of the more righteous of those adrift.

A great bit of cinema, CR. Bravo sir.

[MijaFrost]

I can understand where Joel is coming from in theory...I mean I watched Mad Love, Akira, and Mr Freedom all fail to make an impact on these Hall of Fames, I think challenging films could work but typically they don't.




I voted Mad Love as my #1 in that HOF, just so you know someone loved it...

Haven't watched Mr Freedom yet but it sounds interesting.

IMO Akira is batsh1t crazy but in a good way, mostly. I'm not really sure what the filmmakers were aiming for, maybe an anti-laboratory-experiments vibe. I feel like it got too out of hand, but that's the thing with anime... oftentimes it's like, "Go big or go home," which obviously involves a lot of over-exaggeration. So that can pretty much be chalked up to just the genre itself (anti-war, post-apocalyptic, etc).

[Miss Vicky]

http://www.angelfire.com/music6/walteregan/MovieLog/2perfectblue.gif

Pâfekuto burû (Perfect Blue) (Satoshi Kon, 1997)
Imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0156887/?ref_=nv_sr_1)

Date Watched: 2/7/19
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 18th MoFo Hall of Fame, nominated by Nathaniel
Rewatch: Yes

This was, if I recall correctly, my third time watching this film. I first watched this movie in 2015 (when I was on a mission to watch every film on the MoFo Top 100 Animated Films list) and again in 2017 (when it was nominated for an animated films tournament). With each viewing I've been very much impressed by how well crafted it is. I think a lot of people wrongly dismiss animation as being a medium for children's entertainment. I was once one of those people, but watching the work of Satoshi Kon was instrumental in changing my perspective.

Perfect Blue tells a very taut, disorienting tale of obsession, paranoia, and delusion. The characters felt very real and at times I forgot I was watching an animated film because I was so lost in the story. The film also does really well to set its mood and uses color very effectively contrast the two worlds Mima inhabited - as a pop idol and as an actress. It also uses that contrast to contribute to the unnerving feeling as she really lost touch with reality.

I am not without my complaints about this film, but they are pretty minimal. My only major gripe was how irritating I found Mima to be, particularly in the earlier scenes - her childlike naivete and shrill voice are really grating. I also find myself unable to really feel any emotion for her - perhaps a result of my annoyance with her - and for that reason even on this third watch I just can't seem to cross that line from really liking it to actually loving it. Even so, I think it holds its own among the other psychological horrors I've seen and will surely secure a place on my ballot for the Horror countdown.

4+

[ahwell]

The Florida Project

Overall, I really enjoyed this movie. There were some flaws but it kept me engaged the whole time. The film suffered a bit from lack of a firm structure and pacing, but I think that also fits into the movie's evasive main conflict. I really enjoyed this conflict, because it is not explicit at all... thinking about the movie, there is no stated goal of any of the characters. But instead, the movie gives us goals for them, which they work towards, some of them failing, some of them succeeding. To me, this is a fascinating take on the situation these characters are in... the sense of hope or hopelessness - or, in a more classical term, fate - that they are experiencing. \

4

[MovieMeditation]

18th Hall of Fame
The Florida Project
2017

https://groundfloormedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/movie-poster-design-florida-project.jpg

I remember watching this in anticipation for the Oscars and feeling disappointed.
Knowing what to expect now, I don’t really feel disappointed, but I’m still kind of underwhelmed by it.

I like the concept and idea behind the story though, portraying poverty in America from a perspective we don’t see that often and showing that world through the eyes of those children who lives in it and have to get by in this false façade of wonder and happiness, knowing deep within that these colorful shells aren’t exactly Disneyland, despite being located on the road leading straight to the real thing. There is definitely a nice contrast here and watching both the grown-ups and children struggle in these confinements is definitely interesting, while seeing them try to cover up the reality is even more intriguing.

Unfortunately, I have a hard time buying into and believing the kids who are in this movie. I think they do are great job at what they are supposed to, but I’m not sure I like the direction they are given by Sean Baker. The hyperactive and excessively vulgar approach to how children are supposed to be seems a bit artificial to me. Looking at the environment they are in and the influence they draw from what surrounds them, especially the parents, and the amount of time they are by themselves definitely builds on the fundament of how they behave in the film. But I still think it is a bit much and takes me out of the movie at times.

Also, it seems like Baker uses more time on having the children run around making trouble than exploring what is really troubling them. I would have loved deeper and more intimate moments that could drive the story forward. I would essentially have loved more of what we got towards the end with the two little girls in the doorway. Not to that extent, but something that presents the children as more than just a product of poor parenting and deprived conditions.

I admired the little details subtly sprinkled throughout the story; like the children pointing to random doors while explaining who lives there and what they know about them (i.e. “he goes to prison a lot”). That is an interesting way in not only explaining the environment and the types of people who lives there, but also how the children comprehend this and how long they have really been living like this. But what held my attention the most was Willem Dafoe, who was absolutely brilliant as the manager there. And as a bystander to it all.

I did think the film got stronger as it neared its inevitable turning point, where the fairytale world would fall, and the reality present itself in its truest form. The build-up towards that was very fascinating, having the “magic castle” slowly crumble and show more signs of a struggle for our main characters, especially the mother, where her actions and behavior eventually will bring her down – and hard. Having the children in the middle of it, especially her own daughter, really emphasized the themes of the movie, and it was also here the film really founds its strength and also utilizes the children properly in my opinion. Also, having the mother and daughter both experience their own version of a realization and desperation was really good.

I’m not sure if it is the expectation of a different story or the actual execution of the product that weights the most for me, when it comes to my thoughts towards this movie. All I know is that it doesn’t quite give me enough and I have a fair share of problems with it. That said, there are definitely things to like about this one.

https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/the-florida-project.gif?w=1400&strip=all&quality=75

3-

[rauldc14]

Glad you liked it ahwell

And MovieMeditation wish you liked it more but nice write up!

[MovieMeditation]

Glad you liked it ahwell

And MovieMeditation wish you liked it more but nice write up!
Thank you. And yeah, me too.

Do you have a write-up somewhere or can you give some quick thoughts on what you really love about it and why?

[rauldc14]

Here's a link to what I last had to say about it. But I'll have another review with another watch:

http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1857487-the-florida-project.html

[MovieMeditation]

Here's a link to what I last had to say about it. But I'll have another review with another watch:

http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/1857487-the-florida-project.html
Thanks!

I can see our views on it are very different and interestingly so. I will look forward to your new write-up too. :up:

[John-Connor]

My 2 cents..
The Florida Project 2017
https://i.imgur.com/I324fih.jpg
Willem Dafoe and the kid actress were great. Beautiful cinematography, the delivery and story moved me..
https://i.imgur.com/pyP9auA.jpg
4

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=51509
Abandon Ship! aka Seven Waves Away (1957)
*spoilers*

This is my nom and I like to say that so you guys know where I'm coming from. I'll be the first to admit it's not a perfect film. Hell, I've only seen a handful of films that I'd consider flawless. At times in the first part of Abandon Ship the dialogue does seem a bit stilted, like the director needed to do another take. I image the reason for that was: it's a small budget independent film and shot in a huge water tank at Shepperton Studios UK. Shooting ocean scenes in those huge water tanks was an extremely difficult task. So yeah the dialogue in the opening scenes isn't always perfect, but as the main action starts the film finds it's groove and everything flows accordingly.

To me Abandon Ship is special as the crux of the story puts one in the shoes of the acting captain (Tyrone Power) and delivers an emotion that I've not experienced in any film before. We have this tiny boat that's overloaded and nearly sinking, with even more people clambering to climb aboard to save their very lives. It's all so claustrophobic...

Then on top of that, the skies turn sullen as a fierce storm approaches and the captain has to make a moral decision: does he condemn some to death so as to save others? Or does he do nothing at all, leaving the outcome and their lives to fate?

It's a heady decision and it happens so fast once the dying Lloyd Nolan jumps overboard, that the feeling of intimacy is palatable. That moment when the captain has to act, for me, is a thing of fascination. I call it a time crux, when a moment in time surfaces and one can feel the connection between human psyche and the flow of time and events, ...where one's actions shape time in a manner outside of the temporal mundane....OK, I'm stopping right there, as I'm sure you're thinking, 'what the hell is he talking about!'



.

[MovieMeditation]

MIght do yours next, CR.

It’s Friday, so I’ll probably watch a film with the family. Probably gonna be Widows from last year. If it doesn’t get too late I’ll see Abandon Ship afterwards. :up:

[Citizen Rules]

MIght do yours next, CR.

It’s Friday, so I’ll probably watch a film with the family. Probably gonna be Widows from last year. If it doesn’t get too late I’ll see Abandon Ship afterwards. :up:I should be watching your nom this weekend. It sounds promising. I hope to watch another tonight as well.

I'll PM you a better quality link to Abandon Ship.

[MovieMeditation]

I should be watching your nom this weekend. It sounds promising. I hope to watch another tonight as well.

I'll PM you a better quality link to Abandon Ship.
I doubt you’ll like mine. Very artsy fartsy. Very experimental. But it also makes fun of it so maybe you will. And maybe you’ll enjoy the center story if not the crazy stuff around it. :D

[MovieMeditation]

Caught up on all the pages of this thread I missed since I joined late. Didn’t read all the review though since there’s still films I haven’t seen yet. :)

I watched Abandon Ship as promised. Review tomorrow!

[edarsenal]

http://monteneyelearning.org/staffblogs/monteney/year1classblog/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2014/09/SnowWhite7.gif


Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs

Doc: Careful men. Search every cook and nanny-- Uh, hook and granny-- Uh, crooked fan-- Uh, SEARCH EVERYWHERE.

For me it's pretty easy to get caught up in the nostalgia and childhood memory of this and so many other Disney films and cartoons as well as the TV show on NBC every Sunday night.
Add the fact that I've outgrown that silly ass cynicism that a lot of us had to wear as an armor against the callousness of adult life once all our childhood dreams, fantasies and belief in the fantastical and the magical was stripped from us; I can sit back, once again, and enjoy such a film with only a minimum amount of skeptical curmudgeon.

Though one thing as not changed, and it is the appreciation of the artwork and artistic prowess it took for a number of various scenes throughout this film.
Something I've always admired is the artistic creativity of delving into the pure heart of Goodness AS WELL as the disturbing soul of Evil with equal dedication. Which, like so many early Disney animations, we see this time and again and it's been a pleasure to revisit that, and this childhood film, once again.

A solid animation for a General Hall of Fame.

[Joel]

wow good review edarsenal!

I never looked at it like that but now that you mentioned it

[edarsenal]

wow good review edarsenal!

I never looked at it like that but now that you mentioned it

THANK YOU

[Citizen Rules]

SPOILERS follow for Abandon Ship

Some wonderful pondering thoughts came from Edith who found it a cruel, whimsical notion that, in an emergency, lumbering apes equal the removal of a genius, a playwright and an opera singer. . .
I also loved how she had a greater nobility than many of the more righteous of those adrift.

A great bit of cinema, CR. Bravo sir. Glad you liked it, Ed! I like what you wrote in your review as I think we're of the same mind on the movie.

about: Edith (Moira Lister). The only other time I seen Abandon Ship, I didn't pay much attention to her character. I guess I thought she was just there to be a thorn in the captain's side. This time around I realized Edith is a lot like Leslie Howard in The Petrified Forest. I gather she's lead such a rich and privileged life and that she's more excited by the moment and risk taking and somehow manages to see the bigger picture that hangs over the heads of the other passengers.

[Siddon]

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is on probation right now, neiba's got 48 hours to post a review or get back to me

[Citizen Rules]

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is on probation right now, @neiba (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=85193)'s got 48 hours to post a review or get back to meNeiba has always been very solid in HoFs. By my count he's been in 23 and only didn't complete 2 and both were at the same time. Usually he doesn't post much until the very end of an HoF, but he's always been a good member.

[MovieMeditation]

18th Hall of Fame
Abandon Ship!
1957

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYzhmMjMzMmQtOThkYy00ZjcyLTg2MjItYWFhMGZjZGRiNDNlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjQzNDI3NzY@._V1_.jpg


Cinema has developed greatly over the years since the motion picture maiden voyage more than 100 years ago. Today, making the impossible possible has never been easier with the “first aid kit” called a computer. Technological advances have helped shape cinema as we know it and has added more and more layers to the sacred and undying “movie experience”. But that also means the focus has moved greatly since its beginning. You no longer need one singular element to drive multiple ones, since you have so much to play with now. I dearly missed those days when it was all about the script. Some of the best movies ever made relies heavily on a simplistic but fantastically written script, with sharp dialogue and narrow turning points. Those dialogue-heavy movies, where everything relies on acting and interactions, preferably in a one-setting scene, is simply unparalleled…

‘Abandon Ship!’ or ‘Seven Waves Away’ or ‘Seven Days from Now’ is one of the lesser known films made like that and no wonder since I take it most people are feeling lost at sea when it comes to even tracking down this three-titled cinematic cast-away of a film. But in all seriousness, it shouldn’t be. I found it to be a pretty solid film given the level of popularity it has, though it definitely also has its flaws. You can tell the budget has been small, which makes for an uneven opening and ending, though when it gets going in the middle part it does fare pretty well, almost going overboard at places with the progression of the plot, having some elements being too unbelievable or unsuccessfully executed.

The very opening feels dated, and the budget clearly butchered the sense of actual terror you can reach out and touch. Okay, they didn’t have the money to blow up stuff, but showing the landmine blow above water when it is later stated it went under the ship kind of annoys me. And it doesn’t help when the film finally introduces the characters, which ends up not being the characters we should actually care about, except we do because we have no idea what happened to them after we leave and is kept wondering at least for a while until we accept we aren’t getting back to those people anymore. It was super weird having a similar story before the main event, also featuring a dog and a dead guy and what have you. It was like the short film of the feature film that followed. Very weird.

Anyways, the acting is indeed on the theatrical side but not to any particular major annoyance for me. It seems like a lot of dialogue was ad-libbed though, because of what I take it is poor conditions for sound recording, which does make matters a bit worse. The acting was good in places, but the driving force definitely came from Tyrone Power, who was really good. At least some of the performers had a good character behind them, which made their performances a bit more fascinating. The film kept my attention most of the time but jumped the ship a little when it had the huge text on screen with ‘WHAT WOULD YOU DO?’ type nonsense in the end. I was entertained though, so here's a rather poor write-up of a good nomination, CR.


3-

[MovieMeditation]

Neiba has always been very solid in HoFs. By my count he's been in 23 and only didn't complete 2 and both were at the same time. Usually he doesn't post much until the very end of an HoF, but he's always been a good member.
He's doing the 2nd Chance HoF too, right?

Maybe he's been the most busy in there and wanna get that closer to done before he moves in here...

[Citizen Rules]

He's doing the 2nd Chance HoF too, right?

Maybe he's been the most busy in there and wanna get that closer to done before he moves in here... Right, he's in the 2nd Chance HoF, his nom is Letter from an Unknown Woman (1948). I'm sure he will finish, he's been in a lot of HoFs and has been a good member.

[MovieMeditation]

Right, he's in the 2nd Chance HoF, his nom is Letter from an Unknown Woman (1948). I'm sure he will finish, he's been in a lot of HoFs and has been a good member.
I believe so too. He's one of my favourite members and when he's not busy doing opera he's usually here or watching movies I believe :D

I like Letter from an Unknown Woman. Hope it does well...

[Citizen Rules]

MM, good review of Abandon Ship. Even though you didn't love it, I'm glad you can have some appreciation for this 60 year plus film.
...It was like the short film of the feature film that followed...About the opening raft scene...yeah Miss Vicky mentioned that too. I actually agree that the raft scene isn't really needed. But I did like the title sequence of the ever closer approaching mine, for it's simplistic effectiveness done on a small budget...But the raft scene could have been cut and in it's place I would have done this opening scene: a half full life boat with people frantically swimming to it and clambering abroad, soaking wet and tired. With each additional passenger the tiny boat sinks lower and lower into the briny sea. Then last we get Tyrone Power making his way on board. That kind of scene would have created foreshadowing and increased initial tension and also would have visually relayed the underlying theme that the ship is dangerously overcrowded with too many passengers.

BTW, that was Tyrone Power's third time in an HoF. I had previously nominated his movie Nightmare Alley (1947) for the 13th HoF and Neiba had nominated Witness for the Prosecution (1958) for the 50s HoF.

[rauldc14]

Neiba has always been very solid in HoFs. By my count he's been in 23 and only didn't complete 2 and both were at the same time. Usually he doesn't post much until the very end of an HoF, but he's always been a good member.

Yes but the rules were posted beforehand, so I think it's a reasonable request.

[Citizen Rules]

Yes but the rules were posted beforehand, so I think it's a reasonable request. Oh, you misunderstood me. I never tell a host what to do, I might suggest ideas, but I respect a host gets to be a host. So, I'm just being a positive character witness for Neiba.

[rauldc14]

I almost forgot about Nightmare Alley. Really remember enjoying it now that you brought it up.

[Citizen Rules]

I almost forgot about Nightmare Alley. Really remember enjoying it now that you brought it up. I have one more Tyrone Power movie that just maybe some day I'll use as a nom. Then again I must have 100s of possible noms in a word file, so who knows if I ever will use it.

[MovieMeditation]

Yes but the rules were posted beforehand, so I think it's a reasonable request.
Just to justify my comments too: I obviously also agree on Siddons rules and expect Neiba to follow them. My post was more about the fact that since he has 48 hours he can watch and review a movie in that time if he still haven’t. :up:

Anyways, neiba where ya at!? We talking about you up in here!! :D

[MovieMeditation]

MM, good review of Abandon Ship. Even though you didn't love it, I'm glad you can have some appreciation for this 60 year plus film.
About the opening raft scene...yeah Miss Vicky mentioned that too. I actually agree that the raft scene isn't really needed. But I did like the title sequence of the ever closer approaching mine, for it's simplistic effectiveness done on a small budget...But the raft scene could have been cut and in it's place I would have done this opening scene: a half full life boat with people frantically swimming to it and clambering abroad, soaking wet and tired. With each additional passenger the tiny boat sinks lower and lower into the briny sea. Then last we get Tyrone Power making his way on board. That kind of scene would have created foreshadowing and increased initial tension and also would have visually relayed the underlying theme that the ship is dangerously overcrowded with too many passengers.

BTW, that was Tyrone Power's third time in an HoF. I had previously nominated his movie Nightmare Alley (1947) for the 13th HoF and Neiba had nominated Witness for the Prosecution (1958) for the 50s HoF.
Yeah something along those lines would have been much better. And I did like the idea of the title sequence just not so much its execution... but I was being picky. :D

I love Witness for the Prosecution. Haven’t seen the other one.

[neiba]

The Square (2017)

I did a Podcast on this film here, so it's a film I know quite well and I am not surprised it is nominated by MM, I know how good his taste is.

Disclaimer: My review on The Square is extremely personal (probably more than with every other film) so my interpretations are open to discussion because they are only just that.

It's a great critique on contemporary art, one that I deeply share. It talks about how closed on itself is the art world now and how everything just has to be rationalized and understood instead of felt. This is particularly dangerous because society is becoming less and less empathic, and art should be the thing responsible to cultivate empathy.

The film is immensely ironic and filled with small jokes and hidden messages: like every time there is a conflict there is a square somewhere on the background to highlight the hipocrisy of all the concept behind the exhibit;
or how intense and uncomfortable the monkey scene is but at the same time it's probably the one art piece in the whole film that actually makes you feel something even if it goes beyond the borders of what you can call a artwork;
and my personal favourite one is (and this may be my imagination but I'm pretty sure it's true): the soundtrack is almost exclusively an (amazing) album by Bobby McFerrin called Circle Songs, which I interpret as the director trying to say the music is different and probably the type of art every other art form should be following.

The only things I didn't like in this film were it's excessive lenght (it could have easily 30 minutes less) and how sometimes it falls into the same mistakes that is trying to critique. Apart from that, amazing film and one that proves how much is Cannes ahead of the Hollywood Academy when it comes to choose its winners.

[neiba]

Thanks Citizen Rules and MovieMeditation for all the kind words. I really appreciate it.

About this rule, I know the fact I'm participating on this means I agreed with it but I just wanna say how stupid it is in my opinion, I won't get in any more HoFs that have it. One thing is to control if people are in so others don't waste time (as Miss Vicky did, which was great), other completely different is to control the pace at which I watch the films here. I had a good reason for not finishing the 2 HoFs I was in some time ago, apart from that, I've never let anyone down and I am one of the members with more participations around here.

That being said, I'll try to follow the rules on this one cause I commited to it, but that's the last time I do it.

[edarsenal]

With Abandon Ship, I did kind of wonder about Mr. Holmes stating in the beginning how much trouble the overloaded lifeboat was in, and then swims out to it instead of back to the large chunk of wood that accommodated those on it and wondered what become of the person, (or was there two?) left on it.

And with Edith she was a kind of a "sleeper" character that had more to her and could be dismissed only to miss out on something more going on.
I really liked that about her as the movie continued.

[edarsenal]

neiba, will be reading your review on Square AFTER I see it since I'm excited to go into it completely blind but I am looking forward to the review, especially with it having it a personal aspect to it.

[MovieMeditation]

The Square (2017)

I did a Podcast on this film here, so it's a film I know quite well and I am not surprised it is nominated by MM, I know how good his taste is.
Wauw. Thank you, neiba, for those very kind words.

And on the review and your thoughts on the movie. I LOVE THEM. Great write-up. In my personal opinion that write-up counts as ten, but that’s just me. :p

Glad to see your thoughts in here. It was worth the wait.

[Citizen Rules]

...About this rule, I know the fact I'm participating on this means I agreed with it but I just wanna say how stupid it is in my opinion, I won't get in any more HoFs that have it.

One thing is to control if people are in so others don't waste time (as Miss Vicky did, which was great), other completely different is to control the pace at which I watch the films here.

I like the way I did it in the 1930s HoF as it didn't put a time schedule on anyone who had successfully completed past HoFs. This is from the 1930s HoF:

IMPORTANT:

We've had a problem with people joining HoFs, but never participating, and never saying they've dropped out either. That causes problems!

New HoF members will need to post their movie write ups on a regular basis. 1 write up in the first 2 weeks, and 3 in the first month and so on. That way we know your keeping up. If too much time passes without any activity from someone, their movie with be disqualified.

[Siddon]

Thanks @Citizen Rules (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=84637) and @MovieMeditation (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=85347) for all the kind words. I really appreciate it.

About this rule, I know the fact I'm participating on this means I agreed with it but I just wanna say how stupid it is in my opinion, I won't get in any more HoFs that have it. One thing is to control if people are in so others don't waste time (as Miss Vicky did, which was great), other completely different is to control the pace at which I watch the films here. I had a good reason for not finishing the 2 HoFs I was in some time ago, apart from that, I've never let anyone down and I am one of the members with more participations around here.

That being said, I'll try to follow the rules on this one cause I commited to it, but that's the last time I do it.


Well the rules wasn't really meant as a slight to you rather after all the dropouts we've had with Foreign Language and 80's Teen movies I do think it's important that you hit certain deadlines so we know you are in this. Also don't forget it was only December last year where I had to explain to the mod that you were still in another Hall of Fame.



https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=58033&page=13



And while you might not like the rules I feel like we've got a good chance of having everyone finish this hall and it feels like it's been a long time where I participated in a Hall with no drop outs.

[MijaFrost]

Although I'm not in this HoF I think it's a fair rule. Over the past year I've seen a few people post maybe two or three reviews then disappear and after almost everyone has already watched and reviewed their nom they say they're out, so yeah. HoFs are kind of like MoFo's movie clubs after all - participation is required to be a "member."

[neiba]

That's why I supported MV's way of doing things. I have always done this the same way: I have periods when I watch 5 films a week, and others I don't watch anything. If I finish before the deadline, which I usually do, what's the problem ?

[Siddon]

That's why I supported MV's way of doing things. I have always done this the same way: I have periods when I watch 5 films a week, and others I don't watch anything. If I finish before the deadline, which I usually do, what's the problem ?


Well you've basically got 6 weeks to cover 4 movies (1/3rd of the Hall) and once again you are not the problem

[Joel]

I can see both pov's, but do agree that the rule is kind of good to have. It forces the participant's hand with being motivated, not that someone wouldn't be motivated, but it's a harmless assurance that everyone finishes, and aiming for a zero dropout rate in one of these things is kind of admirable I think.

[rauldc14]

Yeah and I'm all for continuous discussion. I really like the idea to be honest. I have a 48 hour workweek and a family life but I can still manage to squeeze these deadlines in.

I can see where one wouldn't like it if they are busy, but in the past I've skipped a few if I knew it would be too tough a task as there is always another one. I've been sticking with generals and throwing in a specialty HOF here and there.

[pahaK]

Personally I think that having these minor deadlines along the way is good. I'm using MV's style on my Horror HoF and it just seems that it's too easy to reply to notifications that "I'm in". With one week to go there there are still 4, 3, 3 and 2 films to go with one participant already disqualified. Personally again, I don't understand why people leave so many films to last few days :shrug:

[ynwtf]

Good idea generally. The recent 80s Teen HoF was my first. I was one who had to catch up near the end and I'm grateful that I was not automatically dropped though I should have been. In my case, the job takes over based on when contracts hit or close and that's that. I should have seen the overlapping timelines and just not entered.

For me, that's sometimes more pressure than I can manage, but a requirement for the job. In those periods, other obligations go through triage. There's a weird line for me between fun comradery and obligation and guilt. Unfortunately, the work place is often that multiplier influencing my perception of other things going on.

For that, and my personality, I probably won't take part in more HoF lists. I had to experience one to learn how I fit (or don't fit) the expectations.

Totally understand the need for the rule. Still sucks in a way though, given low population here.

[ynwtf]

Just noticed this isn't a general discussion but an actual HOF. My apologies for stomping in the thread!

[Joel]

Just noticed this isn't a general discussion but an actual HOF. My apologies for stomping in the thread!

You get the best of both worlds. You can still drop discussion in here and write-ups, and not be obligated. :cool:

[Citizen Rules]

@Siddon (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=95448) you're doing a good job:up: and I like your new deadline rule. I'm glad you tried something new, as did I and Miss Vicky. We have to try new stuff to see what works, and of course there's no perfect solution.

The 80s Teen HoF had no rules about dropouts or requirements for write ups, and the result was, it was a mess! It had 3 dropouts and we never knew they were dropping out until the very end. I thought at one point the HoF wasn't even going to finish. So your rule (or a similar rule) could have helped that situation greatly.

I feel HoFs are about participation as a group and so waiting until the last couple weeks of a 3-4 month HoF to finally post some reviews at the end, is completely missing the point of joining an HoF. If someone doesn't enjoy the process why join?

[pahaK]

You might give out 1 star ratings like candy, but most critics reserve 1 star for the utter failures.

Because this (and other similar remarks in the past) was a big reason I did this I'm just going to leave a link here too: statistics from my first calendar year as a mofo (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1988943#post1988943) :D

[Citizen Rules]

Because this (and other similar remarks in the past) was a big reason I did this I'm just going to leave a link here too: statistics from my first calendar year as a mofo (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1988943#post1988943) :DI seen your list last night on your review thread. It doesn't really tell me much about your movie taste, as labels like: drama or sci fi or horror etc...could be applied to a wide swath and styles of films. I don't like modern horrors but if I made such a list you'd see most of the horror films I've watched I've liked, and that's because I choose older horrors from the 30s-60s.

But it's true, you do give really low ratings to beloved movies in HoFs...which of course is your choice and your right. But it's pretty obvious you usually don't like classic Hollywood dramas & comedies especially with adult romance themes. I believe you've said so yourself. Which is your right too, no one has to change their viewpoints.

[Joel]

the square - 2017 - Ruben Östlund

spoilers

a highly original and tense movie working with subtleties in/and humor.

an art curator is fractured about with several subplots relating to parenting, power playing, artistic/moral integrity, and ...just a lot of other things.

I was entertained and kept on the edge of my seat for reasons I am still trying to understand.
The way things were orchestrated kind of blew me away a little, and I've been the audience on a good amount of films that pull the rug from underneath you but this movie sets the scenes up so tonal and so misleading that it's often hard to tell what we're watching. At one point I thought I may have witnessed 2 separate murders. What's left off of camera, and what is implied with very glaring yet subdued visual clues really had me twitching.

I think some of my confusion was that because I could never fully adjust to the tone - that the moral message trying to escape the script was hindered for me. I could never really connect on any serious level outside of some quiet carnage, and it's not that I connect with carnage, it's only that at least I thought I understood what might be coming around the corner. Does it take a twist? The tension builds for apparently no reason. I believe this was done on purpose. I mean, obviously it was done on purpose. It was done well.

I was allowed to enjoy each scene as an experiment and I was interested in this movie pretty much from start to back. I would have personally liked to have seen it a bit shorter. I felt that the children with daddy subplot kind of only acted as a reflection of a man slowly embracing his hypocrisy, but then again, that may not have been the message the film was aiming to put across. I think the script in that regard was muddled, just the way it translated. I cared less for some of the elements meant to maybe weigh more(?)

Definitely a comedy with some nice dark blend going on in there and the cinematography was next level in some areas.

[MovieMeditation]

Thanks for your thoughts Joel !

Glad you had a mostly entertaining and stimulating experience. You definitely aren’t a square. :p but seriously, a good write-up. I’m glad to see how people respond to my nom exactly as I want them to - not to necessarily love or even like it - but just to be provoked, stimulated, interested, fascinated, uncomfortable or even downright mad or irritated, or whatever they may feel. This one gets you going, I hope... for whatever reason to you. Good or bad. But it should get you going alright.

I didn’t watch any noms today unfortunately... went for some Redford at sea and Dafoe at a gate instead.

[pahaK]

I had put this on my watchlist just before the HoF so I was going to see this anyways. Not quite as good as I hoped but quite solid nomination (by my standards) nonetheless.

The Little Stranger (2018) N

A doctor returns to his hometown and gets entangled in the lives of what's left of the family living in large but slowly crumbling manor.

51593

I often like slow burn Gothic horrors and there's lots of good in The Little Stranger too but also lots of little issues that kinda pile up and weigh the whole down a notch. Perhaps my main issue with the film is its ambiguity or more precisely how it is achieved - both the script and Domhnall Gleeson are selling Dr. Faraday's envy so hard that the ending felt like a copout (it's about the envy anyways but the exact nature of events is left open for no good reason).

Acting is generally very good (especially Ruth Wilson and Will Poulter) but Gleeson is (probably per director's instructions) too emotionless and cold all the time. I suppose he's meant to try to act like the upper class gentleman does in his mind but it feels hard to grasp why the disillusioned and somewhat humble Caroline would fall for such antics. I found the relationship as a whole very unconvincing.

There's good atmosphere in The Little Stranger and it uses the class conflict pretty well as a base for the story. The build-up works to a large degree but like I said earlier it pushes its premise little too hard. It's pretty close to being good though and it definitely wouldn't need big changes to be that. We'll see if it grows on me with time but for now...

3

[Citizen Rules]

https://news.cinecitta.com/photo.aspx?path=/public/news/0071/71893/TheSquare.jpg
The Square (2017)

The Square presents the viewer with a seemingly random set of circumstances that Christian (Claes Bang) the curator of a contemporary Swedish art museum faces. We see Christian, an atypical Swede (according to this film) to be a man of high morals...He drives an electric car and stands for openness and civility. He's seemingly a model citizen. However the way he handles himself after his phone & wallet are stolen, shows he's not quite versed at practicing what he purports.

At each encounter with an 'outsider' he reacts with mistrust. His incongruity grows as he overreacts to each situation. In one rather humorous example, Christian has a one night stand with an 'outsider' (an American woman) he mistrusts her so much that he refuses to let her have the used condom, out of fear that she will use the contents to impregnate herself.

There's many vignettes within the film's structure that goes to show how a high minded man like Christian, isn't always so broad thinking when faced with real world situations. That narrow, world view happens in reverse too....When Christian as head curator of the museum quickly agrees to use the promotional video idea of two fellow Swedes for the new exhibit. He trust them, even though their idea for a YouTube video on the museums behalf is beyond wild and ends up causing an outrage. His trust is based on his familiarity with people who look like him, thus he gives the two young Swedes free rein. That trust in this case is misplaced.

I especially liked the museum's exhibit where visitors have to choose between two paths to enter...they can choose, 'I Trust People' or 'I Don't Trust People'. Above each entrance is a count of how many have entered each path. Most chose, 'I Trust People'. Only to find they're required to prove that trust in strangers by leaving their phone and wallet unattended in a square.

The Square is an interesting film that creates real worldliness through low key filming & editing techniques...It's kind of like watching someone else's life on a videocam feed. But you know if you spend 2.5 hours watching someone else's life it does tend to get a bit monotonous at times.

[Siddon]

Acting is generally very good (especially Ruth Wilson and Will Poulter) but Gleeson is (probably per director's instructions) too emotionless and cold all the time. I suppose he's meant to try to act like the upper class gentleman does in his mind but it feels hard to grasp why the disillusioned and somewhat humble Caroline would fall for such antics. I found the relationship as a whole very unconvincing.


My interpretation


I think a big part of the story is what each individual is missing. Caroline to me is a lesbian who desires to leave England and relocate somewhere where she can be herself. Faraday on the other hand is missing parts of himself, he has an emptiness to him because the house took a part of him and manifested into this poltergeist. Faraday is only complete when he's at the estate.


But three stars from you is a pretty good score

[pahaK]

My interpretation


I think a big part of the story is what each individual is missing. Caroline to me is a lesbian who desires to leave England and relocate somewhere where she can be herself. Faraday on the other hand is missing parts of himself, he has an emptiness to him because the house took a part of him and manifested into this poltergeist. Faraday is only complete when he's at the estate.

Caroline being a lesbian makes sense in many ways, I suppose (and the author is, as far as I know, very keen on lesbian protagonists).I don't know about the Faraday thing though. He's very much the same at the mansion too and part of my ambiguity issue is that I'm not even sure if he really manifested the poltergeist (Caroline saying "You" right before her fall implies she knows the attacker and she's never seen the boy Faraday) or just dealt with the family as his regular adult self. Maybe the boy at the end is just sad that the man never got over the child's envy.

[Joel]

Thanks for your thoughts Joel !

Glad you had a mostly entertaining and stimulating experience. You definitely aren’t a square. :p but seriously, a good write-up. I’m glad to see how people respond to my nom exactly as I want them to - not to necessarily love or even like it - but just to be provoked, stimulated, interested, fascinated, uncomfortable or even downright mad or irritated, or whatever they may feel. This one gets you going, I hope... for whatever reason to you. Good or bad. But it should get you going alright.

I didn’t watch any noms today unfortunately... went for some Redford at sea and Dafoe at a gate instead.
Oh that was good. That redford flick. Forgot the name.

Dafoe. Hmm..animal farm?

And yesh man. Solid nom! What a well done collectio. Of scenes!

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=51600

The King of Comedy (1982)


Masha's and Rubert's interaction scenes were my favorite part of this innovative film directed by Scorsese. I remember way back in the 80's watching Late Night With David Letterman and Sandra Bernhard (Masha) was a frequent guest. I never knew who in the heck she was back then. She seemed to me to be only famous for being on Letterman. Of course she had co starred in 1982's The King of Comedy, but I didn't know that...On Letterman, Sandra was just like her character in the movie: loud, obnoxious and odd...very, very odd and very funny too! She's a strange person, at least on screen and I always enjoyed watching her.

Robert DeNiro aka Rubert Pupkin, (love that name!) who IMO gives one of his best performances in his phenomenal career. Rubert is both annoying and likable, at the same time. He does the oddest things and yet we can still relate to why he does them, even if we don't approve of the way he approaches his rise to fame.

You know, I never liked those old Jerry Lewis movies, (gosh I hope no one nominates one of them, ha) but, I really liked Jerry here as a TV star talk show host...I doubt any of you guys, except for Ed maybe, are old enough to have watched The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, so I don't know if everyone will get that the Jerry Langford Show is meant to be a thinly veiled version of Johnny Carson's TV talk show. I love that they have the show done up so much like the old Carson show that you actually get the real producer of The Tonight Show, Freddy De Cordova playing the producer. And we see the behind the scenes production which I thought that was cool.

At the time The King of Comedy came out it was like seeing one of the most popular shows on TV in a dark comedy film...oh so very surreal and somewhat of a scary thing for the real Johnny Carson and other celebs of the time. Scorese is on record saying he regretted doing the subject matter of the film due to it's potential effect on potential future Ruberts. I for one am glad he made it, this might be my favorite Scorsese.

[MovieMeditation]

Oh that was good. That redford flick. Forgot the name.

Dafoe. Hmm..animal farm?

And yesh man. Solid nom! What a well done collectio. Of scenes!
It’s All is Lost and At Eternity’s Gate, respectively. :)

[Citizen Rules]

It’s All is Lost and At Eternity’s Gate, respectively. In case anyone is interested, my review of All is Lost (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1465433#post1465433)

spoiler free of course:)

[Joel]

It’s All is Lost and At Eternity’s Gate, respectively. In case anyone is interested, my review of All is Lost (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=1465433#post1465433)

spoiler free of course:)
Nice one. Cr!

I remember checking to see if this was one of the few more recent pictures shot on film and learning an Arri Alexa was responsible. Most digital movies are RED or Sony. The Arri smokes them. Usually always looks like film on one of those.

[Joel]

road to perdition - 2002 - sam mendes

SPOILERS

I didn't remember everything about this film, but I had seen it at least twice before since it came out. I remember liking it each time. Something occurred to me this time, however, and that was the glaring mismatch of themes and tone, or I should say the geling of the two.

On one hand you have powerhouse actor Paul Newman doing of course his balsamic vinaigrette Newman's Own job of acting which is always fun to watch. Then you have Tom Hanks, who could have been a real bad fella had he not felt almost forced in his role. I didn't fully believe him. Then came the sentimentality and typical Hollywood fuzzy heartwarming elements that were dreadfully out of place in a large scale gangster film about avenging your wife and child's murder while protecting the only kid you have left.

These themes are much too heavy to succumb to the typicality of moments that season this film and wear it thin. Everything down to an anonymous farm couple who's sole responsibility is just to be a cardboard caricature of a stereotypical plot device. Less than 30 seconds after we meet the couple - the little boy is waving in slow motion to his father as he works with Pa Farmer in the distance. It's moments like this, along with moments of canine galloping that kind of destroy the credibility that this film knew what it wanted and what it could do.

Take The Shawshank Redemption for instance. That film blended thriller elements and heavy subject matter with a lightheartedness well because the writing was so good. The writing was textured, and characters had ample time to familiarize themselves with the audience. In this picture I couldn't say the same thing. Driving lessons with hit man dad didn't seem to really sell me all that much. I felt like the writing needed way more breadth.

I think the film looks gorgeous, and some of the action and surprises are worthwhile, but soon or a later the whole thing kind of crumples. I get a strong feeling that Sam Mendes really had no business trying this type of picture, and that he really didn't know how to make it work, because, well, it didn't really work. Not as a confident balancing act. Not for me.

I liked it, though, as contradictory as that sounds. I enjoyed it yet again. I guess it took a third viewing to finally realize that this is a by-the-numbers type of studio film, and not the grim self discovery tale it aimed to be. I'll probably not watch it again for this reason, and because three times is usually a charm. In this case I liked it less the 3rd time.

[MovieMeditation]

Got Little Stranger in today. Review tomorrow!

[rauldc14]

I watched Road to Perdition tonight. I'm a bit sleepy so I'll get the review up tomorrow.

[rauldc14]

Road to Perdition

https://images.fatherly.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/roadtoperdition_header.jpg?q=65&enable=upscale&w=600

This was the film that perhaps I most looked forward to in this Hall of Fame as Tom Hanks is usually very good in whatever films he chooses. Thought he did a good job in a different type of role for him, probably the best performance in the film. The rest of the cast was good though it's a shame there wasn't a standout performance as I was hoping the film would lend to. My favorite part of the film was the look and feel of it. It's cinematography and dark gritty atmosphere gave the film an authentic 1930s mobster vibe. Overall it was a good film but I had such high hopes for it that I would be kidding if I said I didn't come away at least a tad disappointed. I actually thought the ending was quite good, in contrast to what a few of the other members have thought.

3+

[MovieMeditation]

18th Hall of Fame
The Little Stranger
2018

https://www.dreadcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/The-Little-Stranger-Bluray-1.jpg

Though this gothic tale did boost a gloomy atmosphere akin to that of pure horror, it didn’t really get under my skin due to a rather stale story. I might not have held my breath in any scenes, maybe besides one, but the film did hold my attention well enough even so, which is weird considering how much it has going against it. But what it does have going for it is the atmosphere, the acting and the general professionalism in the way the story is put forward – however that story may be. The film looks good, it sounds good but ultimately isn’t that good when looking at the bigger picture… at least in my eyes.

While I do admire a story, which doesn’t jump to sorry excuses for scares nor execute every member of the cast in a cascade of blood by the minute, I wish ‘The Little Stranger’ was… well, a little stranger. It plays it extremely straight and therefore the film is in desperate need of either crooked characters, some canny writing or perhaps a few call-backs to classic horror, which the house and atmosphere either hints at or sets itself up to, at times. But it never happens. Nothing ever really happens. As an audience, I feel like some sort of passive poltergeist to this story. I wish I could throw stuff at these people and make them do something of interest, but I’m just trapped behind the screen unable to communicate with the characters or change the ways of the story. Like the house, the story kind of feels… a bit empty and hollow.

It is like a character drama (quietly) clashing with a family tragedy being stuck in a glossy gothic tale. If it wasn’t for the acting, the first two wouldn’t be fascinating at all and if it wasn’t for the set design and generally solid cinematography, the latter would be litter too. Pretty much everything on the outside is oozing with professionalism, but underneath it feels like a hollow shell to me. When the film finally grabs me, it doesn’t hold on for very long and it doesn’t drag me into the story more than it merely drags me along. If it wasn’t for that last-minute attempt at “something” resembling ambiguity, as well as the small outbursts of intensity, I wouldn’t have remembered this movie the next day.

I really wish this film would have been better... I feel like there is a story in there somewhere that could work, if only it would decide whether to go full-bodied drama or full-blown horror. Instead I just get the sense of an unsteady middle-ground, where neither of the genres are followed through with. I love my drama with a dash of horror and vice versa, but ‘The Little Stranger’ could really have been a little stronger in both departments, if it really wanted to bind the two of them together beautifully. If the film was a flower, it would be pretty to look at but with bad binding work. And you wouldn’t see it bloom nor would you see it wither away. It never rose to something bigger nor let a leaf fall just to trigger or trick our mind. The flower would look pretty on a grave though.


2.5-

[edarsenal]

I will be back to read this review once I watch Little Stranger.

[MovieMeditation]

I’m currently halfway, with half of those left being rewatches...

Those I have left are:

The Square [rewatch]
Road to Perdition (rewatch)
Perfect Blue (rewatch)
King of Comedy
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Long Title
Split

[MovieMeditation]

Thanks for the write-up, Citizen! Though I find it hard to figure out how you liked it. :D

You can be honest with me, just know that. If you thought it was **** you go ahead and say so. I know it doesn’t sound like you thought that, but you know what I mean. ;)
Anyways, I didn’t expect this film to be up your lane, so I’m glad if you got something out of it at least. :up:

[Citizen Rules]

Thanks for the write-up, Citizen! Though I find it hard to figure out how you liked it. :D

You can be honest with me, just know that. If you thought it was **** you go ahead and say so. I know it doesn’t sound like you thought that, but you know what I mean. ;)
Anyways, I didn’t expect this film to be up your lane, so I’m glad if you got something out of it at least. :up: I think I liked it? Hard to say though with this movie. I did really feel the runtime. Now, I do love a slow, introspective film and The Square is my type of film. I enjoyed the world it showed and the way it showed it...But damn it was so slow that it tried my patience. A good 30-45 minutes could have been cut out and the film would have been a favorite of mine. As it is, I really don't know how I feel. I appreciate it, but had a real hard time getting through it. So basically the enigma of my review is my enigma of my own opinion:shrug:

[MovieMeditation]

I think I liked it? Hard to say though with this movie. I did really feel the runtime. Now, I do love a slow, introspective film and The Square is my type of film. I enjoyed the world it showed and the way it showed it...But damn it was so slow that it tried my patience. A good 30-45 minutes could have been cut out and the film would have been a favorite of mine. As it is, I really don't know how I feel. I appreciate it, but had a real hard time getting through it. So basically the enigma of my review is my enigma of my own opinion:shrug:
I see, hah that's interesting. But yeah, I do agree the movie is too long. It's a shame because I remember when I saw it the first time I absolutely loved it through the first hour and the next hour I loved all the different directions it took, while as we entered the last 30 minutes I definitely began feeling the length, wishing the director would have known when to stop.

[MovieMeditation]

18th Hall of Fame
Road to Perdition
2002

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7e/b3/72/7eb372c91b43b82e68096d1c0a65d868.jpg

’Road to Perdition’ is somewhat of a road to participation in Sam Mendes’ glossier and more polished gangster drama, which does indeed seem to shoot straight out the pages of the graphic novels. I had no problem accepting the world that Sam Mendes creates here, yet the criminal underworld does feel overly formal and comes off as too fine of a company at times, though perhaps intentional in places – especially considering the obvious modern noir vibe and the coming of age story of the son, who view this vile world from the sidelines. A different take on the genre is definitely welcomed and as stated I accepted it from the start…

I liked all the actors present, though no one really made me feel their presence outside of maybe Hanks and Law. Craig was good at being a slimy bastard and Newman as the old man and up-top organization leader did equally well, though both remained impressive only in their abilities as an actor, rather than with the, admittedly, restricted characters, which is perhaps the reason they don’t really resonate with me. However, I can’t necessarily blame them. Though it could be the directing, I suspect it is the writing that is to blame. I guess the limitations of the feel-good gangster drama takes the wheel here, though the motor running it is clearly the boy – who also opens and ends this story – which would explain the intention of the film and the lesser focus on the surrounding players.

I feel like the story is mostly pretty straight forward, but I do like the arc of Hanks’ character, who seems distanced to his family but deeply dedicated to his job; these two things slowly change sides throughout the story, ending in his own death. While I’m fine with the ending being nicely folded together by a sentimental voice-over, I’m not necessarily a fan of the predictable and rather perplexing ending at the beach house. While my comments on the character’s arc above could be one way of explaining either his sudden unawareness or his purposely “necessary” sacrifice to the criminal world, I still think it to be weird that Hanks would just “forget” about the killer hunting him earlier. Again, it could be one of the two previously mentioned reasons, as to why he ended up dead and thereby didn’t “forget”. But honestly, I doubt it. The film isn’t exactly subtle throughout, so why should it suddenly become so? Therefore, I feel it is completely out of character for Hanks to suddenly “forget” about the killer or think it is all over because he killed almost everybody, including the man that had him on contract.

Anyways, I do like this film even so and together with the opening and ending monologue everything ties nicely together in this little tragic tale of man raised in crime, who doesn’t want his own son to go down the same road. There are interesting things going on, either under the surface or hinted at in certain scenes, but for this to be a hit it should have dived deeper into the conflicts and fleshed out the characters. The story and characters aren’t quite captivating enough throughout and when Hanks tells his son about his regrets and inner conflicts it makes me miss more of such scenes through the entire film. Nevertheless, I enjoyed this movie even the second time around, despite its problems…


3.5

[edarsenal]

[CENTER]18th Hall of Fame
Road to Perdition
2002

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7e/b3/72/7eb372c91b43b82e68096d1c0a65d868.jpg

I feel like the story is mostly pretty straight forward, but I do like the arc of Hanks’ character, who seems distanced to his family but deeply dedicated to his job; these two things slowly change sides throughout the story, ending in his own death. While I’m fine with the ending being nicely folded together by a sentimental voice-over, I’m not necessarily a fan of the predictable and rather perplexing ending at the beach house. While my comments on the character’s arc above could be one way of explaining either his sudden unawareness or his purposely “necessary” sacrifice to the criminal world, I still think it to be weird that Hanks would just “forget” about the killer hunting him earlier. Again, it could be one of the two previously mentioned reasons, as to why he ended up dead and thereby didn’t “forget”. But honestly, I doubt it. The film isn’t exactly subtle throughout, so why should it suddenly become so? Therefore, I feel it is completely out of character for Hanks to suddenly “forget” about the killer or think it is all over because he killed almost everybody, including the man that had him on contract.


I've really enjoyed reading the varying reviews of my nom with pluses and minuses!

I do feel pretty similar it and remember feeling it being sort of "off" the first time I saw this. Thinking it was a shout out to the old Hays Restrictions that "bad guys get caught or die in a film" or simply put there to give the ending more of a punch.
After a few more watches I do see how, Hank's character, taking a moment to just breathe, watching his son on the beach could be taken unaware by Jude Law's character sitting in waiting for him.
We all let our guard down, hoping the worst is behind us, even when it isn't. Simple human fallibility, I'm afraid.

[MovieMeditation]

I've really enjoyed reading the varying reviews of my nom with pluses and minuses!

I do feel pretty similar it and remember feeling it being sort of "off" the first time I saw this. Thinking it was a shout out to the old Hays Restrictions that "bad guys get caught or die in a film" or simply put there to give the ending more of a punch.
After a few more watches I do see how, Hank's character, taking a moment to just breathe, watching his son on the beach could be taken unaware by Jude Law's character sitting in waiting for him.
We all let our guard down, hoping the worst is behind us, even when it isn't. Simple human fallibility, I'm afraid.
Yeah that was also what I kind of wrote in the review. That being with his son has taken the focus away from work more and more and actually ends up being the reason he is off guard and gets killed. But there is still things that don’t make sense to me and definitely feels like it’s heavy on the “ending needs a punch”. Like having all this go back to bite him and so we can have the father-son moment where the son doesn’t pull the trigger and thereby doesn’t end up as his father.

But a good nom nonetheless. I definitely think people should see it. And I can see a lot of people loving it. A lot already do.

[edarsenal]

Yeah that was also what I kind of wrote in the review. That being with his son has taken the focus away from work more and more and actually ends up being the reason he is off guard and gets killed. But there is still things that don’t make sense to me and definitely feels like it’s heavy on the “ending needs a punch”. Like having all this go back to bite him and so we can have the father-son moment where the son doesn’t pull the trigger and thereby doesn’t end up as his father.

But a good nom nonetheless. I definitely think people should see it. And I can see a lot of people loving it. A lot already do.

very well put!
And THANK YOU!

[Joel]

I’m currently halfway, with half of those left being rewatches...

Those I have left are:


Split


lol

[Citizen Rules]

Done and voted:cool:

[Miss Vicky]

I ended up not watching anything over the weekend because I got distracted with a project, but I'm going to try to at least get Brimstone and The Square watched this weekend so I can take them back to the library.

[MovieMeditation]

Done and voted:cool:
Holy sh*t that was fast! :eek:

I ended up not watching anything over the weekend because I got distracted with a project, but I'm going to try to at least get Brimstone and The Square watched this weekend so I can take them back to the library.
Going for 2 two and a half hour films! Damn gurl! :D

[ahwell]

I got Brimstone from the library, but didn't have time to watch it and had to return it... so I'll have to get it again some other time.

[Citizen Rules]

Holy sh*t that was fast! :eek:
I usually watch a movie a night, so it's not hard for me to knock em out. Plus I like to get the DVDs back to the library.

But ya guys won't get rid of me that easy:p I'll be around reading post and reviews:)

Good noms everyone!

[MovieMeditation]

18th Hall of Fame
The King of Comedy
1982

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNGRjMWJkMWYtODEzOC00ZWE1LWFmNzAtNDE2ZWY0NTE4YmUyXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjUwNzk3NDc@._V1_.jpg

Being the king of creepiness shouldn’t at all be a compliment, but with ‘The King of Comedy’, Martin Scorsese schools us yet again, staging another unsettling insight into the mind of a sociopath, proving that being a cab driver or deranged comedian is – or at least can be – one and the same. Robert De Niro as Rupert Pupkin is the most uncomfortable, unnerving and unbalanced individual resembling a human being I have seen in a long time. He lacks a lot of what makes a being human, but what he misses in that department he makes up for in intelligence – and that’s what makes him so freaking frightening. He is too polite, too pushy and too pandering to the point of supreme psycho-pathetic extremity.

This level of weirdly sympathetic but preposterous, psychopathic behavior in a character only ever comes once a decade – or maybe even less – within cinema. De Niro creates an unmatched deranged dexterity that really draws me in and takes me out of my comfort zone; and I don’t like it! Or maybe it’s more likely that I just don’t like that I like it. F_ck… maybe I’m the crazy person here. Anyways, Martin Scorsese really is the master and you might ask “at what” and I might say “at everything”. Because, if there is someone in cinema that can change his genres like he changes his underwear, then it has to be Scorsese. That man has proved time and time again that he can still surprise you and surprise me he did.

No wonder it bombed at the box office or was butchered by the audience at the time – no one was ready for the ravage one of the greatest cinematic duos of our time was about to pull off. People were feeling like they were being pulled off, but perhaps they just didn’t take their time to pull over and think for a second before they dubbed it a cinematic wreck. People just weren’t ready to get so uncomfortable in their comfortable seats eating away at their popcorn while Scorsese served up a moral pop quiz. No one wanted to follow a f_cked up human being like Pupkin so closely, but not looking closely would make you lose track of the greatness within. There is so much to take away from this movie I don’t know what to talk about here, honestly.

I know Scorsese didn’t write the script, but he really picks movies that has those monumental endings, which pulls the rug from under you and let the curtain fall before you have time to digest it. Scorsese is like a cinematic con artist, playing tricks on our minds and morals. I loved how the ending of ‘The Wolf of Wall Street’ made us ashamed and disgusted at ourselves for having such a great time with such a grim person for three hours straight. In ‘The King of Comedy’ we smile awkwardly as Rupert Pupkin succeeds in his quest to become a great comedian… for one night only. And Scorsese continues to implement the backstory of our main character into the comedy within the comedy. We sympathize with this sick bastard somehow and even when he gets out of jail after serving time for his wrongdoings, people still cheer him on. I mean, I cheered him on… I think.

This is a disgusting, uncomfortable, uncompromising look into a mind we don’t belong in, but in a world we do live in. Things like fandom, stardom, obsession, mental states, media culture and crime are just some of the themes that gets air time in this De Niro Show, directed by Martin Scorsese (no really, he was the director of the show within the show also, in a lovely little cameo)… and we are going to end off in his words, because while disturbing, “I actually think it’s pretty funny…”


4.5

[Joel]

MovieMeditation - very engaging review of KOC..."cock",... ridiculous. Sorry.

I appreciate how passionate you are about such a messed up movie. This is what can be done with a PG rating. Do they do it anymore? I haven't seen it. Scorsese. Just when you think nothing of particular interest...you remember his hidden gems like KOC and maybe a portion of After Hours.

[MovieMeditation]

MovieMeditation - very engaging review of KOC..."cock",... ridiculous. Sorry.

I appreciate how passionate you are about such a messed up movie. This is what can be done with a PG rating. Do they do it anymore? I haven't seen it. Scorsese. Just when you think nothing of particular interest...you remember his hidden gems like KOC and maybe a portion of After Hours.
Movie is messed up for sure. A messed up masterpiece...

I still have After Hours waiting for me, so maybe Scorsese will surprise me once again :up:

[Joel]

I still have After Hours waiting for me, so maybe Scorsese will surprise me once again :up:

He should is my guess. It has its lulls, but it's a good time, ...a fiendish and obsessive time...almost boring and despairing...but it ties up nice imo. It's a perfect little refinished basement/bigscreen projection laserdics type of film. Snacks, additives, etc...tired eyes, willingness to observe kind of movie.

[Citizen Rules]

...I still have After Hours waiting for me, so maybe Scorsese will surprise me once again :up:After Hours was Raul's nom in the Second Chance Hof. Most in that Hof didn't seem to like it, but I thought it was pretty darn cool.

[rauldc14]

After Hours is Scorseses best film!!!

[MovieMeditation]

After Hours is Scorseses best film!!!
I highly doubt that but I expect to really dig it though!

[Miss Vicky]

http://www.angelfire.com/music6/walteregan/MovieLog/floridaproject.gif

The Florida Project (Sean Baker, 2017)
Imdb (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5649144/?ref_=nv_sr_1)

Date Watched: 2/15/19
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 18th MoFo Hall of Fame, nominated by rauldc14
Rewatch: No.

I went into this movie having no idea what to expect. I'd read the name and seen images of the film's poster around MoFo but nothing about those things piqued my interest. Things weren't looking too promising either in the first few minutes of the film as Moonee and the other children basically made nuisances of themselves.

As the film progressed though, I slowly began to feel something for the situation these characters were in. I wouldn't say that I liked Halley, and certainly she made a lot of poor choices, but I found it easy to see how much of a struggle her life was. I felt for the kids, too, as they faced hardships they could neither control nor truly understand. The one character that really stood out to me though, was Bobby the manager. I really loved the way he tried to help and how he never turned a judgmental eye on the others, even as they laid blame on him for things that went wrong.

I also really loved how real the characters felt - not in spite of their petty, trashy ways but because of it. I appreciated that nobody was painted as a hero or as a villain. They were just a bunch of people in a situation without much hope, struggling through their day to day existences all within sight of that "Magic Kingdom."

3.5+

[rauldc14]

Wow. Glad you liked it!

[Joel]

After Hours was Raul's nom in the Second Chance Hof. Most in that Hof didn't seem to like it, but I thought it was pretty darn cool.

That's because you are the shiznit

[Joel]

The Little Stranger


I rented this as I do with most HoF films because I feel better doing it that way.

Right from the start I was exhausted with the pointed and sharp pomposity of characters that were almost cartoonishly boring and pretentious. I simply did not care for this humorless and audaciously involving snoozefest. I’m just glad I was able to shake this typically british laundry pile off of my forehead with something mindless and courteous, something of the Jim Belushi persuasion.This will be the last HoF I will attend because my bank account dry heaves when I participate, and I refuse to pirate stream. No offense to anyone.

[edarsenal]

https://bttcinemablog.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/brimstone-carrie.jpg?w=652&h=267


Brimstone

I had found myself, at multiple moments and at the spiraling descents, wondering: how I would have felt about this film if I had not bared witness to a number of cricket nominations? Having turned that cinematic corner of being able to see past the cruelty of the context, into the craft of the film itself. Specifically, Nothing Bad Could Happen being that actual corner to where I could view such a film as Pixote beyond the subject matter's harshness.
In fact, at a number of parts, as the film moved beyond it's first hour, it was a kind of saving mantra: "I've watched cricket films, I can deal with this."

And I did.

I appreciated the growing tension of the first chapter and how well it was constructed. I was on pins and needles waiting for the brutal shoe to drop.
I thought the cinematography had a haunting beauty throughout the film. Pausing at many a time to admire the long shots on so many occasions.
I will also say that the length of the film was a necessity. I find myself pondering on where to cut scenes and came to the realization that it is more due to the subject matter and the abuse that Fanning's character is subjected to with an unrelenting callousness that wears on you. Not so much the actual story length itself.
As stated with others, there does seem more purpose in setting up scenes of abuse and while there is some truth to it; a large portion of the story being told feels necessary in the greater scheme of it all.

I have always enjoyed Guy Pearce from the first time seeing him in LA Confidential and found that he can do creepy exceedingly well and while a bit limited in dimension, he still makes you despise him for the depravity bathed in religious righteousness that he commits to.
And, as the victim of that character both Dakota Fanning and Emilia Jones are excellent at making us care for them with scarcely a word spoken. And OH how we cheer for both at their attempts to break free, and how it gnaws at us when there is no relief and the only final release is at the bottom of a lake.
Damn.

Still, a very worthwhile film overall, I must admit.

[Citizen Rules]

...This will be the last HoF I will attend because my bank account dry heaves when I participate, and I refuse to pirate stream. No offense to anyone. That's a bummer and we'd miss you. I know your nom has been taken a kickin', BUT...you did also nominate one of the most well received films in any HoF...The Station Agent...which now is a proud member of the MoFo Movie Hall of Fame:) I liked The Little Stranger myself, luckily my library had it.

[Miss Vicky]

Do you not have a good library system in your area, Joel?

I often can find many of the films I need to watch for HOFs on DVD at my library at no cost.

[Siddon]

The Little Stranger


I rented this as I do with most HoF films because I feel better doing it that way.

Right from the start I was exhausted with the pointed and sharp pomposity of characters that were almost cartoonishly boring and pretentious. I simply did not care for this humorless and audaciously involving snoozefest. I’m just glad I was able to shake this typically british laundry pile off of my forehead with something mindless and courteous, something of the Jim Belushi persuasion.This will be the last HoF I will attend because my bank account dry heaves when I participate, and I refuse to pirate stream. No offense to anyone.




I am trying to choke this film down but it's not easy. The music and editing are so boring and icky to me. I hate that melodramatic early to mid seventies brass section with emerging synthesizer sounds. It's like being clobbered upside the head with a wet newspaper on a pipe smoke filled enclosed porch with the feeling of never getting to turn the vcr on ever again because you're trapped somewhere you do NOT wanna be!

I think once a film establishes its mood, it's up to the viewer to decide whether they are up for the challenge. I dunno. Like a pretentious art film HoF, I feel trapped with this nom. And Siddon, this is in no way meant to offend you but, I cannot stand this film so far. This isn't my official "review" of it, but things are not feeling very good right now concerning this particular nom. I will be a man about it and march back with my papers to finish it off. But will it be a major character arc and epiphany on my part, or will it be like trying to hastily get a load out when you've been banging away on a beer goggle date for 6 hrs and no end is it sight to just call it a night?




Akira - nah. Labored watch. Not fun. Hate most cartoons as an adult. Sorry.



You know you've given the same vague review for my last three nominated films. I hate to see you go, but I doubt you were ever really here to begin with.

[Joel]

Do you not have a good library system in your area, Joel?

I often can find many of the films I need to watch for HOFs on DVD at my library at no cost.

I have mixed results with the lbrary. Most of the time, even if a title is in circulation somewhere in the state (not sure if all libraries offer this cross pollination type of availability for titles like mine does?), it could be months before I get an email telling me it's in.

I have prime for a few days, I'm going to try and get the rest of these knocked out.

[Joel]

I know your nom has been taken a kickin',

That's completely understandable, 100%, and I don't feel any resentment for that, honestly, I don't! I mean, would it be nice if one person liked it? Yes! But...there have already been 3 people I've showed it to here that've liked it Citizen Rules, and 2 of them loved it re93animator, TYTD!

[Yam12]

Gonna try to get another one of these watched tonight. Probably going to be either Florida Project or Little Stranger.

[MovieMeditation]

Missing 4. Might go for Extremely Loud today.

[Nathaniel]

Double bill on for tonight.

The King of Comedy and Abandon Ship.

[Yam12]

The Little Stranger (Lenny Abrahamson; 2018)


https://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/styles/nodeimage/public/blogs_2018/09/2018_38_film.jpg?itok=HjTyQXQ9

A film with a plot that had potential but ultimately did not do it for me. The film is quite well made and is has some solid production design and cinematography. The acting is fairly good for the most part but I wasn't a fan of Domhnall Gleeson's performance in this. My biggest problem with this was that I just found it to be quite dull and as a result I was struggling to keep interest in the film. I would've liked for the plot to be more suspenseful which would've at least made the film somewhat interesting but instead I spent the majority of the time just waiting for this to end. Overall quite disappointing.

[Joel]

I think I'm gonna do up Brimstone.

[pahaK]

I hope this review doesn't cause cancer :D It's just not my film.

The Square (2017) N

A curator of an art museum in Stockholm tries to wade through professional and personal difficulties.

51763

All I knew about The Square was that IMDb tags it comedy and drama and it's related to modern art. Somehow I missed the comedy altogether (was there something I was supposed to laugh at?) and due to extremely uninteresting characters the drama misses its mark too. What remains is half-hearted critique of contemporary art and failing attempt to put equal sign between hypocrisy and common sense.

First 25 minutes or so are somewhat promising but after that it becomes more and more clear that the purpose is not to laugh at contemporary art per se but to blame its providers and consumers for hypocrisy when they don't live their lives according to noble explanations of the art. The Square keeps telling us that self-preservation is wrong and it's immoral to think anything but the best of others.

So a 2.5 hours long (and I mean LONG) comedy that barely makes you smile, and drama that has characters you don't want to see that keeps promoting a message you don't agree with doesn't sound too good. A film this long needs to have a story, structure, relatable characters, humor or something to keep me entertained - just anything. The Square has almost nothing for me.

1

[MovieMeditation]

Wauw. That has to be the worst rating to one of my noms ever in a HoF.

But then again, I did take the biggest chance yet with this one. It was bound to split people, so while it doesn’t surprise me it’s still a bit sad to see. Oh well, that’s how it goes sometimes. I’ll review my own nom once I revisit it again soon!

[edarsenal]

http://www.angelfire.com/music6/walteregan/MovieLog/floridaproject.gif

The Florida Project (Sean Baker, 2017)


I had forgotten to mention,
I f@ckin LOOOVE this gif!!

Where ON EARTH did you find this clip of you as a kid, Miss Vicky?
:D;)

[edarsenal]

I'll be picking up The Square, The Little Stranger, and Bubba Ho-Tep from my library in the next day or so along with posting up my review of Road To Perdition (Spoiler Alert: it was okay, I guess)

[Joel]

Wauw. That has to be the worst rating to one of my noms ever in a HoF.

It was bound to split people, s

You said Split. Uh huh-heh-he uh huh

[Joel]

I liked The Square because I didn't really even get a message from it. I honestly don't think there was even a message - unless the message is that everything is contradictory, and NOTHING is ever black and white.

For example, the scene where the main character gets asked by a beggar woman to buy her a sandwich. He apprehensively agrees, and you can see him kind of light up with feeling good doing service, but before he even gets to the counter the beggar woman demands that it have no onions on the sandwich, and she has this entitled and grouchy grimace on her face. So, the main character walks up to the counter, buys her the sandwich, and then gives her the sandwich while slipping in "you can pick your own onions off of it"

So a movie like The Square knows that there is good and bad in everyone, yet it doesn't force that obvious reality down your throat. It just plays out the scenes absurdly.

Absurdity like the fanatical woman who had a one night stand with the curator. As she tries to bring him down and control him, we hear the creaking of an uneasy stack of chairs posing for installation art in the gallery space behind them. This loud and obnoxious chair creaking keeps interrupting her soapbox lecture to her one night lover, and at the end of it all he gets her to admit she's even filthier than he is because she is attracted to his status and power, and that's why she slept with him, not just because she was horny like he was. He just didn't call her is all he's guilty of. So then we have an ugly ego on top of it. A nice little surprise twist that seemed to stifle out the raging fire we smelled the smoke of, taunting us from around the corner unseen.

I laughed plenty at this film. There's a lot to like about it. Structure and proper narrative? No. It reflects what art is in that, these rules and regulations for digestible linear-like explanations are really at the mercy of people who can get their own meanings out of them. In that regard the film excelled. Ironically, I shaved some of my score off for the lack of transcendence that the script could not deliver on. I was looking for a message, and I didn't get one, that is - until now, when I threw my thoughts down about the film again.

Good art always allows the audience to hold the brush and finish it off.

[MovieMeditation]

On topic / off topic here, who cares. Just some thoughts... I’m sorry for the length,

When people ask me what my favorite genre is, I say to them: cinema. And in no way do I mean that in an arrogant or snarky way, nor do I think everybody who loves to watch movies should say the same. Of course we all love movies here. I’m not thinking of myself as being “smarter” and “higher up” than anybody here. There are tons of people here who knows more than I do, have seen more movies than I do, etc.

But my point is just that when i watch movies, I watch them as “cinema”, and not what genre it falls in, not whether the character(s) are likable, not whether the style “appeals” to me. Of course, there will always be subjectivity. Always. Sometimes the personal view in me will contradict with this way of viewing movies. That can't be avoided. And I don’t purposely try to view a film objectively or talk about it objectively for the sake of objectivity. I love cinema and therefore I try to see it in context of that. How this certain scene, certain character or certain style works as a piece of cinema, and most importantly, how it works on the fundament it lays upon itself...

The last part meaning, that all films set out to say or do or create something and I weigh that higher than whether it is pure, unadulterated “cinematic quality", as they say, where the importance - to me is at least - is more whether a given B-movie homage is comfortable and successful being just that. I don’t compare said movie to The Godfather, for example. It's apples and oranges for one. But films should first and foremost succeed on their on premises. If a film wants to be all out action with little plot, but where the action drives the story forward, then I wanna look at if the action is good enough to carry it and if it works like the director intended. I always try to view a movie from the movie’s perspective - “try” being an important word here.

Anyways, of course some people just wants to be entertained by movies; some wants to be touched by them; some always wants characters that are interesting; some want it all. Some really wants movies to play after their head. Say, I personally don’t care if I like a character - I want to know and understand who that character is and how the movie presents him/her/them to me... I don’t care if a message in a movie appeals to me - I want to know how the movie brings it forward and talks about it/dissects it... I don’t care if a movie have story or structure or anything - I want to know whether the movie has a good reason for not having it/them (like weighing other elements more, for example) and if it works in its own terms and with the outline it works from. That's what's important.

I don’t know if it’s the movie critic or the film lover speaking here... perhaps it's both. I just know that I will always have a hard time viewing other people’s opinions on films when they are either too vague, too subjective, or too dismissive of what they see/experience. Strong subjectivity is one thing, but they have to come with proper points within them, meaning behind them, back-up references and so on. Or else they mean nothing. They stand as empty talk. Nothingness. At least to me.

And yes... of course this write-up here springs partly from pahaK’s reaction to The Square, but please know that this is in no way just directed at you or written with just you in mind. This is very general also and how I feel on this topic. Something I have always felt but seem to really want to have come out right now.

If I were to use an example close to heart and with purpose to you in particular, pahaK, I would take Brimstone, for example. I could have reviewed it as “the film is far too violent and it gets monotone, boring and unbearably tedious to watch. You just keep waiting on when the film will kill another dude or girl in a grusome way. It’s 2.5 hours of a pretentious revenge flick trying to look slicker and act smarter than it really is, with it’s many storylines and themes of religion, morals and whatnot.”

^^That could just as well have been something I would have said. With a different mindset to movies, it could very well be the exact way I would have written things actually... But I viewed the movie from the movie’s point of view first. Then the inevitable subjectivity comes sneaking behind, sure, but I focused on it as part of cinema. As a piece of work, of thought, of creativity. "What does the director want to say or do with this film?"... I saw how clearly it presented its intent to be violent and use violence as a, admittedly bit cheap way, to enforce its themes, characters, story and whatever comes to mind. But it worked well enough for the movie and what it wanted.

Of course, there’s more general cinematic check points that a movie should cross off or at least turn around in a way, but mostly everything should have its starting point in the movie itself. No movie is the same so why should my viewpoint be? The broader you are able to expand your mind towards objectivity and the basis of cinema, the greater an experience you can have with a movie.


I hope there is something to take from all this for somebody. I’m sorry if it seems like a rant or something. I guess it kinda is. You are all welcomed to share your point of view, of course. :up:

[Citizen Rules]

Some good points there Joel, about The Square. I had similar thoughts (honestly!) while watching the film, only my no-recall memory forgot about them by the time I had wrote my review.

But yeah, I liked what you said about the beggar woman scene. It was well done. She was so damn picky about onions on her free sandwich...that when the museum guy buys her a sandwich and tells her to pick the onions off her self...it was so unexpected and realistic to the diversity of human nature. And yet it wasn't played big, it was done subtle and matter of fact. To me that's a hallmark of a good film, as it didn't scream the intent of the scene to the audience.

Oh, about the American woman who was trying to make a big stink about museum man not remembering her name...when she's just into him for his prestige. I heard those chairs crashing too! and that made a subliminal feeling to the scene. What was weird about the sex scene is we see the woman has this chimpanzee in the living room that's putting on lipstick...a representation of her true self? I don't know? I thought that was funny though.

The Square does NOT spoonfeed emotions and tell the viewer what to think, and I think that's brilliant. Compare that to Brimstone which within 30 seconds of the evil preacher guy giving his sermon I felt like I was watching an evil cartoon caricature.

A great director once said (I can't remember who?, maybe Kazan) that every antagonist should have a good quality that the audience can relate to, so as to understand the antagonist motives. Rubert in The King of Comedy is bat-ass crazy, a dangerous person and yet Scorsese and DeNiro imbibes him with enough humanity that we can see a bit of ourselves in his character and still get him.

[MovieMeditation]

Some good thoughts and points there, both Joel and Citizen. Very interesting reads :up:

[Citizen Rules]

MM, just read your last post:up: Interesting read and I admire your method for evaluating films. I'll try to come back and comment later. Right now it's off to work.

[Joel]

Can I still talk about Brimstone only 90 mins into it? I'm gonna anyway.:cool:

It's a long movie!

So far I can really appreciate some of what it has to offer. Actually, I'm not sure if I can.

Did you see how fast that happened?

For a low budget picture it has some things going for it. Some of the early set work is a bit shoddily constructed, like the aluminum looking support columns in the beginning church scene. One thing that usually gets me in old westerns is that the set design always looks about as old as the actual fictional life location must look now. This isn't an issue for Brimstone lol. It looks pretty spanky.

Some of the lighting seems a bit too LED and obvious. You know - the kind where you know a softbox is right out of frame right or something? It has that fax moonlight colder white temperature but it's too close and/or not powerful enough to give spot real distance from the frame and then throw that blue sheen on the back of a white dress getting into a horse cab.

Why am I talking about just lighting and sets, and do I have anything positive to say about the film so far?

I just got done complaining that I saw boo boo's on a low budget film, yet I can only really comment on the design, because in later scenes, it's places like the Harem and some open range locations - things start looking like a real western picture in the high B area.

As far as story, it has an interesting one in the way it tells it. The constant time shifting doesn't really have any obvious transitional elements (except for a wild strike of lighting twice in a row which was wild), at least none that I could spot. Dude, you just spotted one, what the hell are you talking about?

Well - back to the movie I guess.

[Nathaniel]

The King of Comedy (1982)

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-as8_2xF46zE/WZpbXLym54I/AAAAAAAAO8s/WQA9bOioJdc7mKemGnzAXM10hGuRAyinQCLcBGAs/s1600/07-drawing.png

The King of Comedy was a first time watch and the last Scorsese feature that I hadn't seen. It lived up to the hype in a big way. An excellent cynical satire on celebrity culture and recognition filled with so many quality dialogue exchanges. Massively impressive. In that sense this script would transfer really well to the stage though whether you would want to be confined in a room for a show with a pretend Rupert Pupkin is another matter.

Rupert is deranged and cringe inducing in a fascinating way. The film plays out like a series of awkward skits with Rupert dominating and each feeling important to the film's progression. It's fundamentally like a social horror that I suspect most people would want to turn away from. Ricky Gervais is someone who uses a lot of these scene setting techniques for his own brand of cringe humour in shows like The Office or Extras but this is more intense.

Where I think the script expands on that too is this exploration of relevant themes that push a tone focused on understanding the desire for personal celebrity and recognition. What would you do for fame or success? Where 'Anything' can be the motto. Despite Rupert's psychotic overbearing persona and desperateness I bought into his situation. He's such a well written character, detailed and complex, backed up by his fantasies of comedy greatness.

The straight performances offer an ability for Rupert to play off and the way they in turn interact with him is the crux of why it's so uncomfortable, I've only seen a couple of Jerry Lewis films prior to this, the one before this being The Nutty Professor which is a character so far off from what is here. I thought he was one of the highlights and his dialogue brings out a condescending and polite manner. Rupert is completely unwilling or too socially inept to pick up on this because of his stability when meeting someone that he idolises. People believe what they want to believe.

This will finish towards the top of my ballot.

[Joel]

Brimstone
chapter 2
Exitdis

OK, so there wasn't really anything for me here. It aimed high and failed because it was silly. I mean, how am I gonna put any faith into a film who has the dramatic moment played out with a guy's intestines wrapped around his neck, all the while this dude is acting like he has a broken ankle in the facial pain department? Tell me, huh?!

I also didn't like the underage girl whorehouse theme, they need to dial that shlt way back. Nasty and not cool in my book, like, at all.

It just felt way too bloated and self important.

I'm a person who enjoys a messy failure if it entertains me, humors me, or makes me think on some creative level. Brimstone does none of this, and while I appreciate its sometimes tough guy tone, I don't like to see stuff like this, thematically. The world is screwed up enough and since the dialog and acting were either second rate or uninspired respectively, I gotta give this thing like, I dunno..a star and a half or something.

[MovieMeditation]

Really good write-up, Nathaniel. I also saw it for the first time and loved it. I haven't seen nearly every Scorsese picture. I'm impressed by that. But when I watch a Scorsese film I usually end up saying "Damn, I should really watch more Scorsese..." :D

And Joel I completely understand the disliking of Brimstone. It's an unpleasant movie. One could make many points for its problems, but on some sort of guilty pleasure, high-art B-movie, 'Saw'-franchise-like-torture-porn-ish kind of level... it sorta worked for me haha.

[Joel]

Really good write-up, Nathaniel. I also saw it for the first time and loved it. I haven't seen nearly every Scorsese picture. I'm impressed by that. But when I watch a Scorsese film I usually end up saying "Damn, I should really watch more Scorsese..." :D

And Joel I completely understand the disliking of Brimstone. It's an unpleasant movie. One could make many points for its problems, but on some sort of guilty pleasure, high-art B-movie, 'Saw'-franchise-like-torture-porn-ish kind of level... it sorta worked for me haha.

And I don't fault you one iota for that because I enjoyed aspects of it, too...just not enough compared to the unpleasantness. I think it was the little girl so close to such graphic yet mindless sex, and the fact that the main father figure has his innards around his neck. I mean, just writing that out again kind of has me laughing I'm not gonna lie.

[MovieMeditation]

And I don't fault you one iota for that because I enjoyed aspects of it, too...just not enough compared to the unpleasantness. I think it was the little girl so close to such graphic yet mindless sex, and the fact that the main father figure has his innards around his neck. I mean, just writing that out again kind of has me laughing I'm not gonna lie.
Yeah, especially that last scene you mention, was a little hard to digest.... wait, get it? Sorry, anyways. It was extremely graphic and violent on the verge to completely ridiculous and silly. Probably not even on the verge, but over the ****ing hill and down into the depths of shake-your-head-extreminess...

But yeah, it definitely pulled all strings possible to provoke you and make you uncomfortable etc.

[Joel]

Yeah, especially that last scene you mention, was a little hard to digest.... wait, get it? Sorry, anyways. It was extremely graphic and violent on the verge to completely ridiculous and silly. Probably not even on the verge, but over the ****ing hill and down into the depths of shake-your-head-extreminess...

But yeah, it definitely pulled all strings possible to provoke you and make you uncomfortable etc.

Which is why I'm gonna finish the last hour right now!!

HAhaha!

Yes, this film gets three reviews..because it's so looooooong.

Fake review, fake review!

[MovieMeditation]

Which is why I'm gonna finish the last hour right now!!

HAhaha!

Yes, this film gets three reviews..because it's so looooooong.

Fake review, fake review!
You wanna know what's nastier and crappier than Brimstone and has done worse things to intestines?

Taco Bell ;)

[Joel]

You wanna know what's nastier and crappier than Brimstone and has done worse things to intestines?

Taco Bell ;)

"Ain't dat da truth, dat da plain troof!"

oh god,..and remember Bone Tomahawk.

I liked that movie much better but still...ouchie.

[MovieMeditation]

"Ain't dat da truth, dat da plain troof!"

oh god,..and remember Bone Tomahawk.

I liked that movie much better but still...ouchie.
Really like that film! Indeed a nasty scene though!

[Citizen Rules]

I have my nom picked out for the 19th. Just thought I'd say that. It's not like you guys can guess it:p

[pahaK]

I don't know if it's a good or bad thing that I (not necessary my nomination but me) always seems to become a topic in these HoFs. I still think that more in depth discussion about my perception of movies and how I rate them would better fit in my own movie diaries but I still need to shortly reply here as well.

Of course, there will always be subjectivity. Always. Sometimes the personal view in me will contradict with this way of viewing movies. That can't be avoided.

The most important thing you need to understand about me regarding movies is that my ratings are 100% subjective. Maybe, kinda like with you, there's always some objectivity to contradict and mess with my mind but my aim is pure subjectivity.

The other big thing is that I don't separate art and entertainment. To me they're the same thing. For me art that doesn't entertain in some way is just bad art (note: subjectively speaking).

So to decipher the important information from my reviews I'd suggest this.

1) Check the rating. The exact value isn't that important for understanding but the ranges for bad (-1.5), OK (2-3) and good (3.5+) are.

2) Remind yourself that the rating is based on my subjective feeling of being entertained (and I don't mean that in lighthearted and fluffy sense but as an idea whether the time was well spent while watching the film).

3) The written review is my attempt to rationalize the reasons that lead to the rating. As the rating is holistic, personal and based on interpreting a general feeling the write-up is often flawed as putting the intangible to words is difficult.

And I'll try offer some alternative thoughts to Brimstone in near future. It seems many people have issues with stuff I considered essential so I feel obliged to rationalize my opinion some more.

[Miss Vicky]

http://www.angelfire.com/music6/walteregan/MovieLog/brimstone.gif

Brimstone (Martin Koolhoven, 2016)
Imdb (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1895315/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)

Date Watched: 2/17/19
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 18th MoFo Hall of Fame, nominated by pahaK
Rewatch: No.

I had some very mixed feelings about this one. First, I thought the film looked great. The cinematography, sets, locations, and costuming were impressive. Second, I liked the premise of it and thought there was a lot of potential there for a truly gripping story.

Unfortunately, however, what the film delivered was an overly long, bloated, and rather disjointed tale that could have really used more editing. What even was the point of Kit Harrington's character? I mean, the man can't act so whatever, but there was zero chemistry between him and Joanna and I felt nothing when his character met his demise. That whole subplot with him was just wasted screen time.

Still, I did find myself at least moderately invested in Joanna's story - at least up until that final ridiculous confrontation with the reverend, which left me rolling my eyes - so I'll grant it an almost favorable rating.

3

[MovieMeditation]

pahaK that’s cool and I’ll look forward to more in-deph stuff about your own nom.

I don’t know, I just feel like your reviews and ratings just comes off as too shallow sometimes. I feel like movies have a lot too offer in each department and entertainment can come in many forms. It just seems so basic the way you tackle a movie and it often sounds like you write off a movie really quickly or because of very few elements instead of trying to look at the bigger picture or try to understand the different sides to it. I might be wrong though, but that’s just sometimes how it comes off to me.

[ScarletLion]

Some great noms in this HoF, I keep popping in to see how they are going. The Square and The Florida Project are favourites of mine from the last few years. Great films.

[pahaK]

I don’t know, I just feel like your reviews and ratings just comes off as too shallow sometimes. I feel like movies have a lot too offer in each department and entertainment can come in many forms. It just seems so basic the way you tackle a movie and it often sounds like you write off a movie really quickly or because of very few elements instead of trying to look at the bigger picture or try to understand the different sides to it. I might be wrong though, but that’s just sometimes how it comes off to me.

I suppose it depends on how you define shallow. To me it seems that being subjective alone is enough to make rating/review shallow to you. On the other hand I rarely get anything out of reviews that are trying to be objective and purposefully push the person out of the picture. It's just two completely different approaches to movies.

About the reviews themselves. I'm not personally happy about many of them. At times writing them feels like a chore and honestly it shows. Especially with mediocre films I often feel like I don't really have anything to say and end up writing some generic crap I've written multiple times before. I've made plans and promises to myself about changing my reviews but I'm really bad at keeping those. I'd really like to get rid off all the technical stuff in my reviews (like ban the word cinematography which I tend to use way too much) but it's difficult to focus on how I feel if the film is like "meh, I guess it's OK".

So yeah, I'm sure that the image you have is well supported by my reviews. Whether me being shallow is the right conclusion of that, I certainly hope not. I'd say the issue is an equal part of me being lazy and we just having almost opposite ideas of how to review films. I don't write films off because of very few elements, I write them off due to holistic experience whether or not that comes across from my reviews.

[MovieMeditation]

Some great noms in this HoF, I keep popping in to see how they are going. The Square and The Florida Project are favourites of mine from the last few years. Great films.
That’s great to hear. And awesome to see you in here you are welcomed anytime!:cool:

I really enjoy this HoF too. I feel like the noms are really good in this one.

[MovieMeditation]

I suppose it depends on how you define shallow. To me it seems that being subjective alone is enough to make rating/review shallow to you. On the other hand I rarely get anything out of reviews that are trying to be objective and purposefully push the person out of the picture. It's just two completely different approaches to movies.

About the reviews themselves. I'm not personally happy about many of them. At times writing them feels like a chore and honestly it shows. Especially with mediocre films I often feel like I don't really have anything to say and end up writing some generic crap I've written multiple times before. I've made plans and promises to myself about changing my reviews but I'm really bad at keeping those. I'd really like to get rid off all the technical stuff in my reviews (like ban the word cinematography which I tend to use way too much) but it's difficult to focus on how I feel if the film is like "meh, I guess it's OK".

So yeah, I'm sure that the image you have is well supported by my reviews. Whether me being shallow is the right conclusion of that, I certainly hope not. I'd say the issue is an equal part of me being lazy and we just having almost opposite ideas of how to review films. I don't write films off because of very few elements, I write them off due to holistic experience whether or not that comes across from my reviews.
Yeah, your reviews are definitely a big reason to my comments, because if you didn’t review on a regular basis and never really posted your thoughts I perhaps wouldn’t be as keen to comment on all this.

But when having your own review thread and writing reviews on regular basis I personally feel like you should have more to say than just “it was good, it was bad, didn’t work for me” etc etc. That said I feel like everybody should have more to say when they enter a HoF. This isn’t the Rate Your Last Movie thread.

And no, being subjective alone is not enough to make it shallow to me. What makes it shallow to me is the absence of proper reasons or in-depth points and references and what not which then makes me understand and respect your opinion. Tossing the word hypocrisy around multiple times doesn’t give me much if anything...

I feel like reviewing films you have an obligation to at least go somewhat in-depth or at least make people understand where you are coming from. I might be speaking for me alone when I say this, but I have absolutely zero interest in reading a review thread that says “bad movie, didn’t work for me” or “I don’t understand the praise”. Well then tell me why, how, when etc etc. That’s what I want to know. The rest is just empty words with noting to them...

[pahaK]

I have absolutely zero interest in reading a review thread that says “bad movie, didn’t work for me” or “I don’t understand the praise”.

Well, regardless of my own discontent with my written reviews they're not like that either. And also I think that The Square review isn't nowhere near my worst - it's pretty explicit on what's wrong with the film in my opinion. Using it as an example of bad review pretty much stems from the aforementioned "subjectivity is bad" parable.

[MovieMeditation]

Well, regardless of my own discontent with my written reviews they're not like that either. And also I think that The Square review isn't nowhere near my worst - it's pretty explicit on what's wrong with the film in my opinion. Using it as an example of bad review pretty much stems from the aforementioned "subjectivity is bad" parable.
Subjectivity is not bad lol. Is that what you take from all this?

Anyways, we won’t get further here. I’ve stated all that needs to be stated. That you don’t want to take it in and only partly answer me everytime tells me you either don’t see it or dont want to talk about. That’s fine.

[ahwell]

I just watched Road to Perdition, I’ll try to get a write up by the end of the day.

[ahwell]

Road to Perdition

My review of this is overall pretty positive.
Things I liked:
Acting... a real thumbs up in the movie. Tom Hanks and Paul Newman were (of course) amazing, and many of the other actors were really good as well.
I also really liked the structure. From the time of the murder to the end, we basically know the outcome... I mean, the title says it all... but the movie is so great at building it up to this moment, when we know it's going to happen but don't want it to.
The visuals were also really, really, good, and one a very deserving Academy Award for Cinematography. Some of the camera work was breathtakingly original and beautiful.

Things I thought were pretty good:
Rewatchability. I could definitely seeing myself re-watching it, which is pretty good... but, unlike movies like Pulp Fiction, which I've watched two nights in a row once, it may drag a bit in the second viewing.
The script was pretty good too, although it could have used some spicing up.
It was also pretty original, which I liked. Yes, it was a bit of a stereotypical revenge tale, but it was put together really well.
The themes were very interesting, and it seemed to be saying almost that violence and revenge is the true Road to Perdition, and once you are on that road, it is hard to get off of. Very powerful.
The film paced itself pretty well too, which I enjoyed.

Things I didn't really like:
The music. I can be very judgmental on music, and this one just didn't stick with me. Kind of generic and boring.

Rating: 4

[Siddon]

https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/florida-project-sunshine-state-brooklynn-prince.jpg

The Florida Project is the story of a mother and her daughter living in a seedy hotel outside Disney Land...or it's the story of the manager of the seedy hotel outside Disney Land. It's a strange film in the sense where you don't really know who's story this is between Mooney, Halley, and Bobby. My biggest issue with the film is that you do wish that you could anchor yourself with one character. Each of the stories is a fairly different style of drama. Mooney is the coming of age subplot where she's a child and she's having fun in this somewhat terrible world. Then you've got Halley who you have somewhat of a character study of a reprobate and her story is interesting but doesn't seem to hit the right notes. Finally you have Bobby who is more of a man at work dealing with the obstacles of his life.



The conflict with telling these three stories is that they can feel uneven at times. And while I admire how Halley is humanized yet not canonized I do feel like her story hold back the film from getting any sort of momentum or traction. The movie isn't long enough to feel like an ensemble epic like Magnolia yet it's also feels like it drags during the first and second act.


i

[Siddon]

So I just did the update that's 71 reviews out of 144 so we are almost at the midway point

Abandon Ship 8/12 (Citizen Rules)
Brimstone 8/12 (Pahak)
Bubba Ho-Tep 5/12(Miss Vicky)
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close 2/12 (Neiba)
The Florida Project 6/12 (Raul)
The King of Comedy 5/12(Yam)
The Little Stranger 6/12 (Siddon)
Perfect Blue 5/12 (Nathanial)
Road to Perdition 7/12 (Ed)
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs 8/12 (Ahwell)
Split 7/12 (Joel)
The Square 4/12 (MovieMeditation)

[Citizen Rules]

Interesting stats up there^
Looks like people are sort of saving the longest movies for last. I did that too.

[rauldc14]

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

https://splicedpersonality.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/extremely-loud-and-incredibly-close.jpg

A film on the surface that has all the right things going for it. But admittedly it's a long ways from being a good film. Here, the acting on paper should be great but it doesn't seemed used properly. As far as the direction goes, I know it's based off a book but it's definitely a messy concoction. I suppose I related to Max Von Sydows character the most. It should have been the little boy that we felt the most for but something felt a little cold about his character. I don't think Hanks or Bullock we're bad but they also weren't utilized properly for me and I would have liked to have seen some buildup with their relationship as well to make the film a bit more emotionally impactful. I liked that Viola Davis was in this as I always enjoy her in films.

I think my biggest beef with the film lies in the fact of the 11 year old gallabanting across New York City. It didn't seem legitimate for him to be doing this and especially for his mother to let him do this. I would just say that this film is pretty average across the board when it certainly could have been something even more special. I would have to assume that this will be quite forgettable, a shame due to it being about a 9/11 story.

3-

[MovieMeditation]

18th Hall of Fame
The
Square
2017

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/10/30/movies/squareanatomy/squareanatomy-videoSixteenByNine1050.jpg


Is it hip to be Square?
‘The Square’ is the title of the film, but it is also the newest art exhibition at the X-Royal Museum, which makes an effort to provoke people into acts of kindness or compassion inside a direct-opposite modern society. The story taking place in the cinematic ‘Square’ definitely reflects that of the exhibition ‘Square’, which is a fun and thought-provoking parallel and further enforces the saying that film is art and further the fact that ‘The Square’ definitely tries to reflect art itself. Life imitates art… but art also imitates life.

‘The Square’ is a lot like artwork indeed, where the film comes with more questions than answers and demands that the audience engages in the conversation about the issues it presents to us. It would rather want to embark on a quest to display and party examine – but without fully answering – the many social subjects and personal problems it puts in front of us. Like art it provokes, it stimulates, and it stabs at our mind with its razor-sharp satirical view on society and human behavior. So, like the exhibition says, you are also responsible for turning ‘The Square’ into something special, which then transcends its movie form.

Without your partaking, ‘The Square’ is either just one single frame – or twenty-four of them – with interesting people and exciting situations, thought, feelings and debates within – but missing the important element of participation, commitment and counteraction. You know what I like more than when a film brings up a great subject and then closely dissects it? When a film brings up a great subject and don’t. Being given the subject, but not the whole discussion or its conclusion, is the greatest gift in cinema. Nobody wants to be spoon-fed information, opinions and answers. The scale of presenting questions, discussing answers and coming to conclusions varies a lot from film to film. ‘The Square’ is one of those that stays mostly in the beginning of the scale, compared to the norm.Some people don’t like that. I do.

Director Ruben Östlund thinks outside the box in ‘The Square’, when it comes to storytelling, structure and stating facts, fiction and finding a clear way through it all. The movie is very much alive, and nothing is too small or too big nor too politically or morally (in)correct to be talked about here…

Christian’s story
The film opens with our main character, Christian, in an interview situation, sitting in the finest clothing in the cleanest room – not at all looking like the man he was just moments ago – waking up on a sofa next to yesterday’s leftover food. YOU HAVE NOTHING a sign claims behind him, part of the art attraction he is sitting in. But it also kind of reflects the story of our main character, which is about to unfold. He is a wealthy man, who dresses dapper and drives an elegant, eco-friendly electric car. But without basic humanistic values, all that is just empty nothingness and ‘The Square’ is partly a journey for Christian to come to realize that. He gets his phone and wallet stolen trying to help people seemingly in need. That said, he mostly assisted because of another person taking the initiative.

When he comes home, the fact of the matter takes a backseat to the almost farce-like approach to turning the story of the stolen belongings into amusement for others and later admiration for how technology has evolved over the years – talking about the problem rather than solving it and following the stolen items on a GPS-tracking screen is apparently more interesting than doing something about it or going to the police. There is just this whole absurdity of the situation not really being handled like a situation, which I find very funny. When they finally do decide to do something about it, they once again avoid confrontation or rational thinking by slipping a threatening letter down the mailbox of several innocent civilians, who also happens to be living in a poor part of town.

Christians story evolves in interesting ways from here, further enforcing his embarrassingly pathetic persona. Like when he receives money from scared, innocent victims of his letter, which he then gives to a homeless lady. He is a wealthy man, but thinks he does a good deed handing over money that isn’t his from a situation he himself caused. And the whole paradoxical thing about him “confronting” problems caused to him, but not confronting those caused by him, like later in the film, when this whole situation comes back to bite him. Only when the problem is literally on his doorstep and in his eyesight, he takes action or at least “tries” to. When he realizes what he has done and wants to call the boy and handle the situation, he goes through tons of garbage in his finest suit to find the letter he threw out with the phone number on it.

He confesses to the phone in a video message, which is still cowardly one could say, and furthermore he actually turns some admirable personal confession into political stuff at one point – backtracking a bit, saying one thing or act cannot chance the world, yet he handed out a ton of money (that wasn’t even his) to just one homeless earlier on and even asked a homeless man to help him look after his expensive bags of designer clothes, while he didn’t have a dime for that same homeless, when he was confronted just a minute before that. He definitely comes off as a hypocritical individual but that is the fact for many people and parts of society, especially the life he lives.

At a press conference, Christian decides to step down as curator of the museum because of a graphic, morally wrong video showing a little beggar girl being blown to pieces. That very same video he earlier commented on, saying they can’t censor themselves like that and they have to stand up for what they present and represent. Now he does the exact opposite. The storyline of his family doesn’t take up much time and some deems it unnecessary or incomplete. I kind of like the fact that it is so much a background thing, because it just reflects Christians situation. He doesn’t listen to or take care of his daughters, but in the end, he finally goes to a dancing tournament with them, which is their passion – this gets hinted at earlier on, when the girls arrive in dancing clothes to his apartment. Dressed in very loose and casual Sunday clothes, Christian then goes to the apartment building to apologize and do like he should have from the beginning…

Two scenes
There is a scene, where an intense discussion is going on between Christian and a woman, who he slept with one drunk night, in which you can constantly hear the creaking sounds of an art installation of chairs in the background. The scene has many layers, one of which is the general absurdity and awkwardness of the confrontation, in which Christian is asked to recall and retell the events of the night, while the prejudice and predominance of her approach and intention really gives you uncomfortable vibes. The background noise fits very well with the conversation going on, being just as annoying and repetitive, but also adds a tempo and follows the tension of the scene closely, coming to a climax at certain point, which also fits with what is being said in the conversion; like when he finally says “we had sex” the chairs comes crashing down. She really wants him to remember the night and think of her than more than “just another girl”. She continuously tries to bring him down and make him look dumb, saying he is only ****ing women for fun and how she isn’t a power-hungry hoe, yet when he comments on her looks and compliments her, she feels flattered and doesn’t stand by her own word.

Another great scene and one of the best scenes in any film that year, is the dinner scene with the ape man. Having a person portray the dawn of man and pursue the animalistic instincts in an environment that is the total opposite of that. The evolution of man in each end of the spectrum, creating an intriguing contrast on behavior and intelligence, but also just a fun one visually, with the bare-chested “crazy person” in the midst of the wealthy, prestigious faces at their fancy dinner party. How far can you go for the sake of art? When does a thing stop being art? When do you know? People are just sitting there, not sure whether it is all an act. It is a passive, hopeless, helpless lifetime we live in. But this “act” does bring out who we really are, separating the cowards from the heroes. One guy runs away, leaving his wife behind, another guy goes in to confront the “beast”, as the only one doing so at first, soon after seeing the husband/boyfriend of the woman being attacked also stepping in – but not being able to be the one to take that first step. Slowly but rapidly so after this, the rest of the crowd begins to step in. The whole scene is so uncomfortable and elegantly done.

There is also the whole comment on the art scene and also how one handles and respects art. Take for example, the two dumb men who wants to find a way of promoting “the square”, which can get people’s attention. But what they end up creating is rather attention for attention but without reason, since the latter disappears in the provocative imagery and conflicting reactions to the video. These two also represents youth in general and the whole social media nonsense and how so-called “business” people rarely even cares about the business they are in. On the way to present their idea, they rather want to make sure their hair looks good; focusing on the way they present themselves rather than the presentation itself. They also do rock, paper, scissors on who should do the talking, making it all seem less like passion and more like an obligation… less like interest and more like invest. I also loved how someone in the meeting mentioned “the ice bucket challenge” and when someone asked what it was about, they didn’t even know – the advertisement outshines what it actually advertises.

‘The Square’ talks about more than it can fit inside its four walls and more than I can fit in this review. I don’t know how to end this review and clearly Östlund had the same problem because his film is indeed too long. Maybe the same can be said about this review also. Well, art imitates art, I guess... ;)


4.5-

[rauldc14]

The Florida Project

http://cinemayward.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/florida-project.jpg

This was a film that after my first time watching it I knew it would become a favorite of mine. I love the story and it has an authentic feel to it. I could legitimately see myself going on vacation and driving by a place like this wondering exactly how these people are making it work. The film never really centralizes who the film is truly about, and I like it that way. The three main players, Hayley, Bobby and Moonie are all given some chances to shine. All three are quite good performances. Willem Dafoe shines as bright as I've ever seen him do in any performance as the hotel manager. And he really has some scene stealers. His scene dealing with the pedophile was just purely great acting. He really feels authentic in his performance.

Also shining was Brooklyn Prince. It's a shame she couldn't garner an Oscar nomination, that's just how great I believe she did. She takes what looks to be a horrible situation she is dealt with in life and tries to make it seem as if there isn't a problem in the world. I like how her relationship with her mother seems like it is there yet it also feels like something important is missing. It seems like when Moonie isn't with her mother she is having more fun and that she hasn't a care in the world, similar to a child going from their everyday life to being in Disneyland.

The film is technically a gem too. I loved the setting that was used in the film. It seemed like a nice pick for a trashy hotel location and i loved the color that they gave the building, almost as if they were hiding how trashy the place really was by trying to build it up into being something unique. Lots of great camera shots too that used great lighting. Loved the overlook of Dafoe peering off into the distance from the balcony of the hotel while smoking a cigarette. Also Hayley and Moonie walking around while the sun was setting just looked beautiful. The direction of Sean Baker is something I will keep my eye on in the future as he did a magnificent job here putting all the pieces together and making a great film.

In the end, a great film that feels like a pretty good depiction on how some may have it better than others, although Moonie certainly didn't make anyone want to feel bad for her rather just kept playing with the cards she was dealt and was happy enough with it. Great film.

4+

[ahwell]

Bubba Ho-Tep

For how bizarre this movie is, it really shouldn't work, but I really enjoyed it. There are elements of nearly every genre (comedy, horror, fantasy, drama, etc.), and it's all fused to create a wildly entertaining story of JFK and Elvis Presley.

One could look at this movie and think that, deep down, it is about redemption of the soul, in that today's world values the souls of the young over the old, represented by the mummy taking the souls of the old without any restriction. However, I just prefer it as a good piece of entertainment, just really fun.

I did struggle with pacing... I felt that the movie couldn't decide how to pace itself, speeding up immensely at the end... I'm not sure how well that holds up.

4

[MijaFrost]

Yeah, your reviews are definitely a big reason to my comments, because if you didn’t review on a regular basis and never really posted your thoughts I perhaps wouldn’t be as keen to comment on all this.

But when having your own review thread and writing reviews on regular basis I personally feel like you should have more to say than just “it was good, it was bad, didn’t work for me” etc etc. That said I feel like everybody should have more to say when they enter a HoF. This isn’t the Rate Your Last Movie thread.

And no, being subjective alone is not enough to make it shallow to me. What makes it shallow to me is the absence of proper reasons or in-depth points and references and what not which then makes me understand and respect your opinion. Tossing the word hypocrisy around multiple times doesn’t give me much if anything...

I feel like reviewing films you have an obligation to at least go somewhat in-depth or at least make people understand where you are coming from. I might be speaking for me alone when I say this, but I have absolutely zero interest in reading a review thread that says “bad movie, didn’t work for me” or “I don’t understand the praise”. Well then tell me why, how, when etc etc. That’s what I want to know. The rest is just empty words with noting to them...

I just read this and I have to say I consider it to be unfair to be critical of people's review style in these HoFs. I think it's enough that they're willing to join in and write some thoughts. It takes effort to do that, and sometimes it's hard to conjure up a piece of writing that doesn't simply repeat what everyone else was saying, because you happened to agree with them on some points.

My reviews are often short and concise as I did not have hundreds of words to write about the film. It doesn't mean I didn't appreciate it.

I think it's cool when people write long, detailed takes and I enjoy reading them, but expecting everyone else to do the same as if this were a classroom assignment with a certain minimum of words to write... that would just take out the fun here.

[MovieMeditation]

I just read this and I have to say I consider it to be unfair to be critical of people's review style in these HoFs. I think it's enough that they're willing to join in and write some thoughts. It takes effort to do that, and sometimes it's hard to conjure up a piece of writing that doesn't simply repeat what everyone else was saying, because you happened to agree with them on some points.

My reviews are often short and concise as I did not have hundreds of words to write about the film. It doesn't mean I didn't appreciate it.

I think it's cool when people write long, detailed takes and I enjoy reading them, but expecting everyone else to do the same as if this were a classroom assignment with a certain minimum of words to write... that would just take out the fun here.
There is more to it than what you just read here.

Many people here in the HOF has written short reviews, positive and negative, and I haven’t had a problem with those. It’s mainly pahaK’s way of writing that I find shallow and actually unfair to the movie he’s reviewing.


But I’d rather forget about that and move on. I may have overreacted too. It was some thoughts I’ve had for long and it just happened to really come down in relation to this with pahaK.

[pahaK]

Many people here in the HOF has written short reviews, positive and negative, and I haven’t had a problem with those. It’s mainly pahaK’s way of writing that I find shallow and actually unfair to the movie he’s reviewing.

Or you could just be honest about it and admit that you have an issue about me giving 1/5 for your nomination. I've read the reviews in all HoFs I've been in and I strongly disagree that mine are so much inferior to everyone else's that they alone would merit such critique.

Every single time someone has had a complaint about me in HoFs has been after giving bad rating for the specific person's nomination. I can relate to that but it's getting old. Especially when the person first says my reviews are crappy and shallow and then replies to my honest self-critique with crap like...

I might be speaking for me alone when I say this, but I have absolutely zero interest in reading a review thread that says “bad movie, didn’t work for me” or “I don’t understand the praise”.

...somehow insinuating that my reviews are only that. I wouldn't mind you saying that you're pissed about me not liking your nomination but I do have an issue when you try to build an "objective" argument based on lies, hyberboles and strawmen. That's all I have to say about the subject.

[MovieMeditation]

Edit: I have kind of been an idiot in some places of this discussion. I shouldn’t have mixed two different discussions together either, trying to make it into one. That only created confusion and there was some strong feelings involved in one of them which bled too much over in the other.

I guess I let my anger and confusion of all this get on my nerves. I’m sorry for that. However much I disagree with your way of reviewing movies, words like “shallow” does more bad than good.

I guess the best thing here is to accept that’s just how you do it. Somewhere inside all this unnecessary discussion, all I really wanted was to understand your reviewing style and perhaps make you see films differently and in a more positive light. I read through your entire diary of 2018 and I got the same impression all the way through, good and bad reviews. But instead of discussion and support, it mostly became personal stuff mixed with simplified statements. That was stupid.


Sorry to everybody. I hope people realize my intentions were meant as constructive but came out as criticizing more than anything. I will get this thread back on track with a review of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close a little later. :up:

[MovieMeditation]

18th Hall of Fame
Extremely Loud
and Incredibly Close
2017

https://www.centralparksunsettours.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/extremlyloud38.jpg


Before going into this, I expected it would be one of those movies that would use a tragedy, in this case the fall of the two towers, to try and get me to cry for two hours. With ‘Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close’ that isn’t extremely wrong, though it is incredibly overexaggerated for the sake of getting the point across. I didn’t hate this nearly as much as I thought I would, but I did have a lot of problems with it, most of which resign with this type of film...

I’m not the biggest fan of films that take on a real-life tragedy and try to turn it into some sort of fairy tale, of not only sentimental and melodramatic proportions, but also with a dose of coincidental happenings and clammy charm, in the midst of a farfetched plot that always come together a little too perfectly. I don’t mind movies that turns something negative to something positive nor do I mind my movies with a dose of magic. But I wish movies about actual events had just a tad more authenticity, because picking up something so heavy and brushing over it so lightly is just oddly confusing to me and works against the story from the get-go.

But where the movie with the extremely long title does victor in way, is with the acting. The main character has Asperger syndrome, which is not always smoothly written into the character, but almost always delivered excellently by Thomas Horn, who unfortunately never pursued acting after this. He had several scenes, in which he impressed quite a bit for his age, though the script does feel rather pushy at times. In general, the script is pretty damaging for the film, which is a shame, because if the script would just let the characters breathe, there would be more to take away from this. But instead this very artificially constructed attitude makes every scene a confrontation rather than a consolation. I always sensed the intentions luring underneath and therefore feel hesitant to want it to get close. It feels like it tries to sell me something, and I just don’t buy it. I want it to interest me to feel invested, but instead it just irritates.

When Max Von Sydow entered the story though, I finally found something that worked for me as well as the story. His character doesn’t say anything, so maybe that is why I like him. He is interesting because he doesn’t feel intimating and he creates authenticity because of the simplicity of his acting. It is subtle and very controlled – by Sydow not the script. Everyone else doesn’t seem restrained like Sydow, more like they got a restraining order on them and aren’t allowed to step too much out of their cut-out characters and that is a shame. Tom Hanks seems cast because of his natural charisma and Sandra Bullock has this resting face-of-depression that works well for what she is supposed to be doing. John Goodman cashes a paycheck, while Viola Davis thankfully does have believability about her that works and feels pleasantly understated.

This film didn’t feel nearly as insulting as I thought it would. Hidden behind all the perfectly polished edges there is a story that is a lot rougher. A boy, who also happens to have to deal with something as tough as Asperger, loses his dad who is clearly the person he bonds with and finds comfort in. It is a story of loss, sorrow, secrets, confusion, trauma, tragedy and much more. The father, who always seem on top of the world, crumbles in front of his son as Oskar hears the distressing calls. The son, whose mental illness makes it hard enough as it is when he tries to cope and understand, while the mother has to deal with the loss of her husband, trying not to lose her son too. The grandfather, who feels a sudden responsibility and repressed guilt and the many interesting people that Oskar meets, each with their own stories.

These things sadly never get out properly or in the right way. It is one of two things, both of which are extreme cases… they are either never really in the spotlight, or they are in a light shining brighter than the sun, annoying the hell out of me for its blatancy. There are scenes of restraint and balance, but they are not many. There is something beautiful about this tale, but it is too flawed and fluffy to find a way into my heart or head. I didn’t love this, and I probably won’t remember it in the long run either, unfortunately.


2.5

[Joel]

Sorry to everybody. I hope people realize my intentions were meant as constructive but came out as criticizing more than anything.

Not a big deal at all from my perspective. It's not like you were attacking him severely. You had issues. He voiced his stance, you voiced yours. No name calling, no malice. All good, imo. :cool:

[edarsenal]

http://thefilmexperience.net/storage/2000s/roadtomurder.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1342046662525


Road To Perdition

Peter: "Why are you always smiling?"
Conner: "Because it's all so f@cking hilarious."


One of the very top things that always brings me back to this film, (which I own and enjoy going back to, again and again) has been the cinematography. There is such a wonderful staging of nearly every shot; it is no wonder it had won, not only the Academy Award for Cinematography, but also from BAFTA, and others for it.
Bringing you in and poetically immersing you into this world and the lives that inhabit it. With this film there is a kind of graphic novel influence and then goes above and beyond it - for me, anyways.
I can go on and on about it and remark on the use of windows in a number of scenes, not just the final scene. My favorite being the one at night when Micheal, unable to move, is standing outside the front door and Conner is within, looking at his reflection and Micheal is terrified that he was seen. That whole setup is so effective, like so many others in this film.

And that is simply the visual aspect.

Add to that the pacing of the story through the view of the young Micheal Sullivan in regards to his father and his father's boss, played by Tom Hanks and Paul Newman. Both of which add the usual excellent nuances and inner elements that enfolds and embraces me as I watch them.
Add to this, Daniel Craig and Jude Law in protagonist roles and a small, but substantial cameo by Stanley Tucci as well as the other secondary roles, and I've found a very solid and developed story and film. And I shouldn't forget the actor who plays our "narrator" or more accurately, our POV of it all. Which I like that he spoke like a kid and didn't have "adult dialogue" or a delusional innocence to him. He's not amazing, but he does hold his own in my opinion.

And yes, there are flaws, like most films do have, but they are minimal to me and scarcely affect my appreciation and continued enjoyment of each and every re-watch of this film.

[MovieMeditation]

Watching: Split.


Pray for me.

[neiba]

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

This is one of those films I used to watch every week as a kid. I've watched it again 2 months ago during Christmas time and I am afraid it didn't hold up as much as I would have liked it to.
While the animation still deserves a lot of credit I just didn't feel conected to what I was watching, as I do with other Disney films like Lion King for example.
Still, the dwarves song still brings a lot of nostalgy and every scene they are in is a joy to watch!

3

[neiba]

I'll watch King of Comedy tonight!

[Miss Vicky]

I've been sick for the last week or so, but I'm going to try to finish this HOF this weekend. I'm still like 29th on the waiting list for The Little Stranger at the library, so I'll probably just rent it instead.

[edarsenal]

Good chance of checking out The Square tonight

[MovieMeditation]

I've been sick for the last week or so, but I'm going to try to finish this HOF this weekend. I'm still like 29th on the waiting list for The Little Stranger at the library, so I'll probably just rent it instead.
Shame to hear you have been sick. Hope you get better soon.

But on another note... why are so many people in line to rent freaking Little Stranger??? That's super weird:|

Good chance of checking out The Square tonight
:love:

[Miss Vicky]

But on another note... why are so many people in line to rent freaking Little Stranger??? That's super weird:|

No idea. I don't think I'd even heard of it prior to this HOF. But the waiting list is for all of Solano county, not just my town, and they may only have one or two copies of it. Plus the loan period is 21 days, so once someone checks it out they have awhile before they have to return it.

[ahwell]

No idea. I don't think I'd even heard of it prior to this HOF. But the waiting list is for all of Solano county, not just my town, and they may only have one or two copies of it. Plus the loan period is 21 days, so once someone checks it out they have awhile before they have to return it.

Yeah, unfortunately in my county things aren't looking much better... I'm on 18th waiting list. But Perfect Blue and King of Comedy should be arriving soon so I can get those done.

[Joel]

I have Perfect Blue, Extremely Loud, and Abandon Ship left. I may go for Abandon Ship next

[Miss Vicky]

http://www.angelfire.com/music6/walteregan/MovieLog/thesquare.gif

The Square (Ruben Östlund, 2017)
Imdb (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4995790/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)

Date Watched: 2/23/19
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 18th MoFo Hall of Fame, nominated by MovieMeditation
Rewatch: No.

I don't have a whole lot to say about this one. I realize that it is satire and that it is attempting to skewer the pretentiousness and hypocrisy of modern art and of people in general. The trouble is that I don't care.

I have no interest in modern art or in the culture that surrounds it. I cared nothing for Christian and was not at all interested in his journey. I also am not one who appreciates awkwardness as comedy - something The Square employs frequently - and I found the film's pace and runtime rather tedious. I was never fully engaged with the film and My rather deficient attention span was stretched well beyond its limits. Were it not for my obligation to watch it for this HOF, I would've turned it off long before the credits rolled.

That said, the film is full of strong ideas and is peppered with scenes that I found impressive at least from a visual standpoint. I can understand why someone else might love The Square, but it simply wasn't for me.

3-

[Joel]

The projection scenes early on in The Square - of that caveman exhibit guy - ...I was convinced it was Jim Carrey.

[Siddon]

https://assets.mubi.com/images/notebook/post_spotlight_images/7178/images-w1280.jpg?1495394380


The Square (2017)


The Square is an inside joke of a film constantly asking you the viewer do you get it..do you get what we are doing. This is art but it's also art. A collection of scenes vignettes the film is at points feels like an improve act from a series of pretentious first year law students. The film lacks a cohesive narrative and is completely bereft of tempo. The jokes work in some sense but then you go back to slipping out of consciousness through the drivel.


Really at the end of the day the messages it's trying to send are both insipid and insulting. Yes we shouldn't be hypocrites, no homeless people don't have a heart of gold, yes men do just want to sleep with women really when it's all said and done did we have a point or was the entire thing just two and half hours of tedious virtue signaling about virtue signalling.


It's got great ideas but it's not right for a film. Perhaps it should have been like a mini Dekalog. But at the end of the day it just didn't work for me. I think this film just got me over postmodernism in film.



2

[Miss Vicky]

I watched The Little Stranger yesterday. I'll try to get the write-up posted today. I may also rewatch Bubba Ho-Tep tonight.

[edarsenal]

Got about three quarters through The Square this weekend, should be knocking it out tonight or tomorrow

[Miss Vicky]

http://www.angelfire.com/music6/walteregan/MovieLog/thelittlestranger.gif

The Little Stranger (Lenny Abrahamson, 2018)
Imdb (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6859762/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)

Date Watched: 2/24/19
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 18th MoFo Hall of Fame, nominated by Siddon
Rewatch: No.

The Little Stranger surprised me. Where I was expecting something of a supernatural horror, what I got instead was a mystery drama about envy and the lengths at which someone might go to obtain what they desire.

It is a bit of a slow burn, but I still felt there were some pacing issues with it and would have liked to see things move along a bit faster. Overall though I quite enjoyed it and it did at least keep its story within a reasonable runtime. The cast here all turn in excellent performances and I really liked the dark, foreboding atmosphere of the film.

The Little Stranger is a very engaging movie, though not one that I expect will really stay with me or that I'll want to revisit.

3.5

[MovieMeditation]

I’m only missing a rewatch of Perfect Blue and then I’m done. Haven’t posted a Split review either, should get that done soon. I’m away right now so that’s why I haven’t been too active.

Sorry to see The Square not really appealing to many. But it’s not exactly unexpected. :) I hope at least some outside of me and Neiba will find some greater enjoyment in it. Thanks for the write-ups :up:

[rauldc14]

I watched The Little Stranger tonight. I'll post a review tomorrow. I'm at the halfway point now. Not bad for being one of the cabooses for this HOF.

[Miss Vicky]

http://www.angelfire.com/music6/walteregan/MoFoTop100/bubbahotep.gif

Bubba Ho-Tep (Don Coscarelli, 2002)
Imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0281686/?ref_=nv_sr_1)

Date Watched: 2/25/19
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 18th MoFo Hall of Fame, nominated by me
Rewatch: Yes, many times over

Bubba Ho-Tep is about an aging Elvis impersonator - who insists he's the real deal - and an old black man - who claims to be John F. Kennedy ("They dyed me this color!") - who team up to fight an undead mummy in cowboy duds that has been picking off the other residents of an East Texas rest home by sucking their souls out of their asses.

But it's also about the sad and lonely existence lived by many elderly people - abandoned, forgotten, shoved aside, and regarded with apathy and condescension as they wait for death. It's about friendship, self-sacrifice, and valor. And it is this potent combination of absurdity and heart that made me instantly fall in love with this movie when I first watched it over 15 years ago.

Bruce Campbell and Ossie Davis are an absolute delight as our decrepit duo and infuse their ridiculous roles with generous helpings of humanity and more ham than a butcher shop. Ella Joyce is a riot too as one of the nurses, whose job it is to attend to a peculiar problem suffered by "Mr. Presley." The film is also liberally peppered with site gags and ridiculous one liners that kept a big dumb grin on my face throughout.

Bubba Ho-Tep is by no means an intellectual piece of high art, but it is for me a masterpiece of pure entertainment.

5

[Miss Vicky]

Ballot sent.

[rauldc14]

The Little Stranger

https://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/review/primary_image/reviews/the-little-stranger-2018/hero_little-stranger-2018-2.jpg

I like the vibe that the film gives off. It certainly has a rather chilling atmosphere and I really enjoy the look of the locations of the film, particularly that eerie house. The film always seemed to keep me glued to what was happening next, even in it's lulls you had a certain feeling that something would come up and surprise you. I was actually rather impressed with the acting, particularly Domhall Gleason but also Ruth Wilson and Charlotte Rampling were very very good. Great chemistry by Gleason and Wilson. Lots of great camera shots too and definitely appreciated the overall look and work put into the sets of the film. I'm really surprised by the fact that this has such a low IMDB rating. It's not a perfect film and I'm not even sure it will be all that memorable in the long run but I think it was still pretty well made. Nice nom by Siddon.

3.5

[pahaK]

Continued with another one that's been on my watchlist for a long time.

The Florida Project (2017) N

Six-year-old Moonee lives in a cheap motel in Florida with her mother. Money isn't easy to come by and mother doesn't always stay within legal boundaries. Daughter's games with her friends often turn to mischief too.

51993
"Man, oh, man, that's gross."

There's no real story in The Florida Project as it just follows Moonee's summer. She plays with her friends, does all sorts of mischief and generally demonstrates how badly her mother has raised her. She seems like a smart kid but the circumstances aren't on her side. Ending is kinda sad as she doesn't understand that she's potentially given a chance at something better.

I have no idea if in Florida everything is really in pastel colors but it gives the film a funny look. Maybe it's just showing how for kids everything is little more bright and colorful and wonderful while behind the pastel walls things are really broken and dirty. At least I thought it was about that difference between children and adults.

Acting is superb. That little girl playing Moonee is so expressive and animated. Her mother is also great as a total ass white trash who blames everyone else for her problems and loses her temper every time someone doesn't do as she wants. Dafoe is great too but he usually is.

So The Florida Project is really well-made glimpse to these people's lives but outside several individual scenes I'm not too interested in them. There's no way I can call it a bad film and despite of some compatibility issues with this viewer I was never really bored. It's one of those films I consider just OK but can perfectly understand the love it's got.

2.5

[MovieMeditation]

18th
Hall of Fame
Split
1989
https://cdn.iofferphoto.com/t/KWX7KEMMLbKc6oOG1zDhl7SsHsA=/adaptive-fit-in/250x250/filters:fill(transparent)/img3/item/638/072/383/o_split-1989-rare-sci-fi-drama-dvd-ca89.jpg
When the movie started, I didn’t want to just split the scene right away… I wanted to split every scene, of almost every second, of this filmic feculence... I wanted to get away, get out, go under the radar, run away, retreat, evacuate, depart, leave, simply anything in the world that would mean I didn’t have to watch anymore of this agonizing endurance test of absolute torture.

Seeing the main character scream about a freaking straw was already the last straw for me... I mean, there was basically no story – at least for the first many, many, many minutes it just felt like random scenes, random characters and random events happening – and happening in a way that makes you question whether what’s happening is actually happening at all – and not in a good way. Actually, mostly in a way of doubting whether anything so otherworldly awful can actually be something you willingly watch as a film-lover?

The only time I felt something that somewhat represented one-part of half of a quarter of a percentage of interest was when he met that one woman. That was the only time I felt the movie somehow managed to raise a level up on the Bristol stool chart. Simply put, the mere exercise of watching this film-diarrhea made me feel sick, wondering if this movie would have the same effect on me as when you watch someone yawn and you do it too? I prayed to God it wouldn’t, because I was on a public bus… Anyways, I guess there was some sort of ongoing theme, just like when an intense infection makes you run to the bathroom multiple times during a day, this movie did have a theme of big brother like surveillance, but it was done in the same sh*tty way every time. The look, the feel, the everything of this movie was just bad.

Sh*t, eh excuse me Split, is endlessly exasperating excrement of experimental sci-fi punk-trash, which might be a number two, but it will be dead last on my list, that’s for damn sure… I will try my best to flush this out of my memory as quickly as possible. “Straaaaw” Fuuuuuuuck!


0.5

[MovieMeditation]

Ballot sent.
This^^

I will get a review up for Perfect Blue soon.

[Miss Vicky]

MovieMeditation

That review was great! :rotfl:

[Nathaniel]

Abandon Ship! (1957)

https://immortalephemera.com//wp-content/uploads/2011/11/005-stephen-boyd.jpg


I hadn't heard of Abandon Ship so other than some clues that can be picked up from the title I wasn't all that sure what to expect.

The film's ethical quandary is the aspect that I enjoyed the most. The presentation is paced effectively towards the breaking point and surfaces the internal biases that Holmes has when it reaches that point. Who he does and does not align with feels like a natural inclination related to how his character behaves. Thought provoking for sure.

I didn't like the acting and thought it was poor for the most part. There's too much awkwardness likely down to the filming conditions that I found to be distracting. For the situation they're in, they don't really convey the drama that they're attempting to because of this. It's an unfortunate consequence of the difficulty facing Richard Sale and the crew here and was just something they had to work around. In that sense, it's surprising it came out looking as good as it did.

Abandon Ship is so reliant on the acting and dialogue as well so it's a big knock against the film for me. Without Tyrone Power's performance I would have given this a negative rating but thankfully he comes into his own in the latter stages. Great in the last few scenes especially.

Finished with mixed views on this one. It was fine but not one that I can see myself revisiting.

[Nathaniel]

I'm going to hold off on reading your Split review for now MovieMeditation but the rating certainly caught my eye.

[rauldc14]

Anyone have a link with subs for Perfect Blue?

[Citizen Rules]

Anyone have a link with subs for Perfect Blue? I do.

[Citizen Rules]

Why you guys are brutal on some of the movies:eek:

[edarsenal]

https://highonfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/screenshot2.jpg


The Square

An artistic film that seems to be anti-art, or rather, anti-people who claim to like art. . . how truly art - esque.

There is such a brutally honest display of art museum denizens and supporters here, and then they crank up the awkwardness and pull away the intellectual facade while using the very "tools" and "devices" of this world of art supporters and curators use to define themselves and their intellectual appreciation of what they are told is art; make for both an interesting and tiresome endeavor. Which, in itself is kind of impressive. Taking an inside joke and hinting at the way art is perceived,dissected and portrayed, without ever completing the debate it appears to suggest, is, in itself the very core of this film. Or so it feels like to me.

With strange cuts and misdirection of camerawork throughout - something I actually enjoyed, where we see the reaction of someone talking as opposed to showing the person speaking, and keeping key elements off screen could easily cause aggravation AND/OR a keener interest of finding out what the hell is going on. And, in the end, have we been motivated to end the debate or do we simply take the path of action that shifts the harsh light away from us to someone or something else?

I've seen a number of films that center around the awkwardness of humanity and the fumbling thereof and I have found more aggravation than interest in a larger number of them. But not here. While it did seem to run a bit longer than I would have cared, which, I do GET the reasoning of such extensions of many scenes: extracting the tension by elongating the scene, I did find myself caught up in it all.

MM stated this was a brave attempt at choosing a nomination, and rightly so. Where it will end up in my final voting, I can't truly say, but I will say I'm pleased to have been introduced to it.

[Citizen Rules]

Eloquently written review, Ed!...You do have a way with words and pack a lot of esoterics in your review...good reading!...You know the more praise The Square gets, the more I seem to like it, in retrospect. Odd I know! but that happens sometimes. And sometimes when I review a movie I have no idea how I feel about it, until my review tells me what to think. Anybody else have that experience?

[edarsenal]

Eloquently written review, Ed!...You do have a way with words and pack a lot of esoterics in your review...good reading!...You know the more praise The Square gets, the more I seem to like it, in retrospect. Odd I know! but that happens sometimes. And sometimes when I review a movie I have no idea how I feel about it, until my review tells me what to think. Anybody else have that experience?

Much appreciated CR. I always enjoy the love and observations you bring into yours.

And I have noticed that with The Square. At the moment of viewing, there's this kind of capturing of your sea legs as the film (ship allegory placed here) rides over unexpected waves and it's after the "storm" that you come to a conclusion. I do know that, having drifting off to sleep and then going back to it, I think I got a chance to get those sea legs. Of course at that point of the film (somewhere around the two thirds mark) the course went into rougher seas lol

And yes, most reviews seem to bring me new enlightenment into the film I had just watched. Bringing the experience into a literal translation as it were.

[Yam12]

Watched The Florida Project tonight. Will get something up soon.

[edarsenal]

Got a large chunk of The Little Stranger the other night, just need to finish it off. Some great acting and while the pace IS slow, I do enjoy what I've seen.

[Yam12]

The Florida Project (Sean Baker; 2017)

http://cinemayward.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/florida-project.jpg

Was looking forward to seeing this for some time so was quite glad when it was nominated here. Overall it did live up to my expectations of it. The acting was very good, particularly from Prince, Vinaite and Dafoe were all very strong and the cinematography also look particularly nice. I did feel that this was a good portrayal of porverty. I also really liked the ending. Overall this did live up to the hype and is definitely one of the best of 2017.

[MovieMeditation]

18th Hall of Fame
Perfect Blue
1997

https://a.ltrbxd.com/resized/sm/upload/ti/3e/3j/9h/perfect-blue-1200-1200-675-675-crop-000000.jpg?k=a9a433c49b

’Perfect Blue’ is not a perfect film, but it is a frustratingly fascinating piece of art,
which pushed the boundaries of animation and cinema in more than one way…

While the story could have been better structured, it could hardly have been better conceived. The way the film presents a person’s slowly crumbling sanity, combined with the later introduced schizophrenic behavior, is super convincing and very impressive… it is also a little too confusing at times, especially towards the end, and while the wildly elevated and admittedly engrossing animated presentation of shifting personalities and interchanging plotlines is insanely interesting, I too get a little bit insane just watching it, wishing it would have dialed it down just a tiny bit.

Armed with amazingly animated sequences, director Satoshi Kon shoots more informational bullet-points at us than we can keep track of and there is so much going on here that it does get a bit overwhelming. In a sense, it works when everything is overworked, but I can’t help but fault it a bit. There are too many instances of intimidating scenes that turns out to be in her imagination, only to find out they aren’t and finding out they are after all or perhaps not. The film switches a lot between plots, people and points of views, and while I don’t have a need to be fulfilled, I feel more frustration than needed be. There is a sense of ambiguity and artistic value to what Kon creates here and for that I appreciate this film a lot.

This movie was made in 1997 and I have never seen scene-transitions like that in an animated film before or since – at least not in this sense nor scale of which Kon does it here. It is mighty impressive and works surprisingly well. The story is very mature for an animated film and really draws me into the story from the start – keeping me captured in the collapsing mind of our main character. Building this world, both the physical and mental one, while making sure the focus comes from inside and out of our main character, the movie does a fine job at.

So, despite of the film getting a bit too lost in its own little crazy game of crazy, it does maintain my attention well and insistently wind up my mind in intriguing ways that I surprisingly wound up enjoying a lot; whacking away at my brain with its wacky plot-construction kept inside a beautifully realized animated universe. ‘Perfect Blue’ might not pass with flying colors, but focusing on one color and nailing that perfectly usually also works pretty darn well…


4-

[edarsenal]

very good, precise perception into Perfect Blue, MovieMeditation! It took me a few rewatches to actually "get" what the hell was going on lol
But yeah, the scene-transitions are impressive and the style of it all always kept me involved. Confused, but involved.

[MovieMeditation]

very good, precise perception into Perfect Blue, MovieMeditation! It took me a few rewatches to actually "get" what the hell was going on lol
But yeah, the scene-transitions are impressive and the style of it all always kept me involved. Confused, but involved.
Thank you, ed. This was my 2nd watch, but it’s been a very long time. I honestly don’t doubt that I will get every single second of this movie if I persistently pull out this movie every now and then. I do like the ambitious nature of it and the fact that it’s not just made to digest instantly. I would still have liked it turned down just a tiny notch. But I still very much like it, as you can see by my rating (half a star up from last time actually.) :up:

[Joel]

https://highonfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/screenshot2.jpg


The Square



"Stellar!"...."a magnified descript in full bloom!"...."enriched and enlightened, a true marvel of reflection!"......"well said"



Serious, though - ed. Nicely done!

[Joel]

And sometimes when I review a movie I have no idea how I feel about it, until my review tells me what to think. Anybody else have that experience?

Yes, sir! :)

[Joel]

18th
Hall of Fame
Split
1989
https://cdn.iofferphoto.com/t/KWX7KEMMLbKc6oOG1zDhl7SsHsA=/adaptive-fit-in/250x250/filters:fill(transparent)/img3/item/638/072/383/o_split-1989-rare-sci-fi-drama-dvd-ca89.jpg
endlessly exasperating excrement of experimental sci-fi punk-trash, which might be a number two, but it will be dead last on my list, that’s for damn sure… I will try my best to flush this out of my memory as quickly as possible. “Straaaaw” Fuuuuuuuck!


0.5

But I feel as if your review left a lot out...tell us what you really thought!

;)

[MovieMeditation]

But I feel as if your review left a lot out...tell us what you really thought!

;)
I know you can take it, Joel!

Haha, of course the review was an obvious exercise in over exaggerated sh*t talk (quite lit(t)erally. :p I didn’t like it at all and hardly anyone did so I thought I might as well have some fun with it. Hope that was okay haha

[Joel]

I know you can take it, Joel!

Haha, of course the review was an obvious exercise in over exaggerated sh*t talk (quite lit(t)erally. :p I didn’t like it at all and hardly anyone did so I thought I might as well have some fun with it. Hope that was okay haha

Totally, dude.

Like I said, my fascination with it is something I selfishly thought would translate, and..it did not. That's OK. As much as I see the differing POV's in the garbage bin dept POV( pov x's 2), I still can't separate my own love for it. Thankfully, lol. ;P

But WATCH OUT! Because the next time, I may decide to elect "A Night in the Life of Jimmy Reardon".

[rauldc14]

I hated Split, but I've often thought of nominating something that others would really consider trash

[Yam12]

I hated Split, but I've often thought of nominating something that others would really consider trash

There should be a HoF for films that are universally considered bad (The Room, Birdemic, etc.) Could be a lot if fun.

[Citizen Rules]

I hated Split, but I've often thought of nominating something that others would really consider trash Like what would you nominate?

[pahaK]

I hated Split, but I've often thought of nominating something that others would really consider trash

I think I already did that with Child Bride :D

[rauldc14]

Like what would you nominate?

Not sure but Hangover or Wedding Crashers would be my style

[Citizen Rules]

Not sure but Hangover or Wedding Crashers would be my styleI've not seen Hangover but I've seen Wedding Crashers and thought it was pretty darn funny. It would make a good nom for a Comedy HoF.

[edarsenal]

"Stellar!"...."a magnified descript in full bloom!"...."enriched and enlightened, a true marvel of reflection!"......"well said"



Serious, though - ed. Nicely done!

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

THANKS
LOVE the "quotes"!!!

[edarsenal]

https://assets3.thrillist.com/v1/image/2782710/size/gn-gift_guide_variable_c.jpg


The Little Stranger

SPOILERS

I actually surprised myself at how agitated I was at the ambiguity of the ending to this film. Especially since I normally enjoy an ambigious ending and yet, here, I actually grumbled, "What the f@ck!?"

Perhaps because this felt very much like a British Mystery film and everything seemed to narrow down to "the answer/reveal" that I honestly got pretty d@mn irate when it didn't happen.
Which, perhaps, why what normally intrigues and gives birth to speculation and debate; felt more like a cold shoulder and the back of someone who refused to answer my question as they stiffly walked away.

So much so I had to seek out an interview with the director, Abrahamson, who gave me an explanation I could have considered if my anger did not get so much in the way of what could have been a lovely session of "film detective" on my part. Instead of what was a gut-jerking reaction of "It's Faraday. He envied, he was infatuated and took them all out just to get it." Godd@mmit

Now, without that misinterpretation of my perception of this film as I watched, completely blind to all of it, I could very easily have appreciated the ambiguous ending, and relished it even more so learning the director's view of it all. That the "thing" was born of Faraday, as a child when he broke off the acorn from the frame and while the adult was not acting first hand, there was a connection to the "ghost" that "haunted" Hundreds House.

I rather like that.

AND, I DID rather like the film all together. (Which may also have played a bit into the quick to anger at the ending of an enjoyable film).

Because I DO enjoy such films and I love the actresses in this. Both Charlotte Rampling from a number of things in the past and Ruth Wilson whom I was utterly intoxicated with in the BBC crime series Luther (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1474684/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_2)
http://25.media.tumblr.com/bc9649a1e230fb834e94c32778d4f196/tumblr_mya98rc4PQ1s7rxuto5_250.gif

Along with the ambiance as well as the frigid tension that permeates any good British Gothic film as this did.
I WILL be seeing this again AND having ridden my silly anger, I can appreciate the nuances of the ending of a man who ached so badly for something as a child only to get a "shell" of that former glory that had originally entranced him back then.

[Citizen Rules]

The Little Stranger

SPOILERS


I had to seek out an interview with the director, Abrahamson, who gave me an explanation I could have considered if my anger did not get so much in the way of what could have been a lovely session of "film detective" on my part. I believe in death of the author. So I never believe what directors say when they try to explain what their film means....as they're only stating what they wanted to say with the film and not what it means to me. Ridley Scott is the worst at that.



Instead of what was a gut-jerking reaction of "It's Faraday. He envied, he was infatuated and took them all out just to get it." That's how I seen the film.

[edarsenal]

I believe in death of the author. So I never believe what directors say when they try to explain what their film means....as they're only stating what they wanted to say with the film and not what it means to me. Ridley Scott is the worst at that.



That's how I seen the film.

I agree, but since I'm watching the film and had not read the book I have to go to the creator of the media that I'm witnessing. Which, like an overly large number of films, comes down to another reader's perception of what they read and not necessarily the author's vision. Except for those who bring in the author to write the script or assist in the creative aspect of the film. So how close he came or meandered off, I don't know. But I did get to read the director's perception of the film's ending and what he was aiming at when he made it.

[Citizen Rules]

When I said death of the author, in this case I meant the director. I should have wrote my post my clear, but I was in a hurry! as usually:p

[edarsenal]

When I said death of the author, in this case I meant the director. I should have wrote my post my clear, but I was in a hurry! as usually:p

faux pas is as faux pas does, my friend.
Speaking as a man is utterly freakin fluent in faux pas ;)

[Citizen Rules]

faux pas is as faux pas does, my friend.
Speaking as a man is utterly freakin fluent in faux pas ;) I don't know what you just said:p, but it sounds good!

[edarsenal]

I don't know what you just said:p, but it sounds good!

:laugh:

[MovieMeditation]

How is everybody looking? I know Citizen and Vicky are done, as am I.

The list on the first page hasn’t been updated so I was just wondering. :) even though I’m done I’ll happily join in on the discussion of course :up:

[Siddon]

How is everybody looking? I know Citizen and Vicky are done, as am I.

The list on the first page hasn’t been updated so I was just wondering. :) even though I’m done I’ll happily join in on the discussion of course :up:

Last edited by Siddon (https://www.movieforums.com/community/posthistory.php?p=1983919); 6 days ago at 01:36 PM.

I'm going to watch Bubba Ho-Tep and then do an update.

Basically I don't want the thread to become neglected so I will be slowing down my pace to match the stragglers.

We've received three lists 2-9 are very close with the first and last place films both having hefty leads.