22nd Hall of Fame

[CosmicRunaway]

Before anyone points it out, yes I do realize that I said very little about the film itself in that write-up. I didn't mention the performances or the cinematography at all. However Joker is a film were the context of its release was very important to my perception of it, so that's what I decided to focus on.

[Miss Vicky]

I agree that the controversies around Joker were stupid and I'm not a fan of Phillips (Old School is the only other one of his films I like, but I've not watched it in awhile) or his comments but I think he created something special here. I'm glad I made you watch it, Cosmic.

[Hey Fredrick]

Many pianists consider Mozart to be one of the hardest composers to play due to the nuanced touch needed, yet in Shine the "professionals" condescend to it; "He'll start with Mozart" says the piano teacher when taking in David. In real life, many pianists would tell David to start with Rach 3 and transition to Mozart.


I remember hearing this a long time ago regarding Mozart: Musicians hate Mozart because amateurs can play him but professionals can't. I think the condescension is usually cover for not being able to play it as intended.

I really liked Shine. The "Sock it to us Liberace" scene is one of my favorite scenes of all time but I'm a big fan "How do you like dem apples?" kinds of scenes.

[GulfportDoc]

I remember hearing this a long time ago regarding Mozart: Musicians hate Mozart because amateurs can play him but professionals can't. I think the condescension is usually cover for not being able to play it as intended.

I really liked Shine. The "Sock it to us Liberace" scene is one of my favorite scenes of all time but I'm a big fan "How do you like dem apples?" kinds of scenes.
Actually most Mozart piano pieces are not that difficult, certainly for an accomplished pianist. In fact they're fun to play for the musician, but can get boring for the audience. In that way it's similar situation to Dixieland jazz.

[rauldc14]

I can't find a decent copy of I, Daniel Blake so I may have to watch Inglorious Basterds and Joker first. Those are my last 3.

3 ballots are in already. Nice job guys!

[rauldc14]

Inglourious Basterds

https://d2e111jq13me73.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/styles/share_link_image_large/public/screenshots/csm-movie/inglorious-basterds-1.jpg?itok=H7NqQyuX

I had watched this previously for the 7th Hall of Fame and I was pretty indifferent to it, swaying on the side of not caring for it. My initial thought was that this rewatch would either prop it up quite a bit or that I would just pretty much hate it. What happened was the latter.

That's not to say there isn't good in the film for me. I really enjoy Christoph Waltz's performance as Colonel Landa. The brightest bright spot in the whole film and if the film were done as magnificently as it was done through chapter 1 I would really like the film. Loved the dialogue of Waltz in it and it had a lot of great shots like the Jews who were hiding eyes poking out of the floorboards, really well done. All the chapters to follow it are just not up my alley.

I really disliked Brad Pitt in this film, not to mention his annoying accent. Usually like him so it was a bummer. Also didn't care for Diane Kruger in this. As for Tarantino, people always hate me for saying this but I think he emphasizes style over substance to much that it affects the stories he tells. And that's my biggest negative with this film, especially with that ending. Not saying it's a bad film in general but it certainly isn't a film that is for me either.

2.5

[Thursday Next]

Inglorious Basterds
If there are issues with it it is Hitlers cartoonish performance

I meant to mention this too. It's like an unnecessary spoof of the Downfall Hitler meme (which was totally serious in the original, and didn't need spoofing, because the meme was the spoof).

[Thursday Next]

The Matrix (1999)
Laurence Fishburne is very good in this...nobody else is

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

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=65093
Blue Ruin (2013)

Hell yeah! Gotta love a movie with Jan Brady toting a Tec 10 semi auto, like some backwoods survivalist in a modern day Hatfield and McCoy feud. I didn't even know Eve Plumb was in the movie and then the credits rolled, good thing I watched them as otherwise I'd never had spotted her.

I should probably hate this movie, but hot damn, I really liked it. Right at the get go where we see the homeless guy and follow him around... all without him speaking, I knew then that I liked this movie. I mean he could've just went dumpster diving for the next 90 minutes and I would've dug it. It just felt so much like what I call 'honest cinema'. I loved the style of film making and the actor/character was interesting too and that's about all I really need to care about a film. Gosh I wish more movies were made without the bombastic need to 'wow' the audience.

Yes Blue Ruin had some graphic violence, but...and this is a big but...the film never presented that violence as tawdry, cheap thrills. I just watched Oldboy and that film made the graphic violence seem like a thrill ride in an entertainment park. Blue Ruin never did that and for that reason I was OK with the violence as it was done 'matter of fact'. That's the best I can explain that. The violence was there, but it was never presented as a reward to the movie goer, instead the violence was an integral part of the story.

Loved the low key ending, less is more and that ending worked perfectly. Blue Ruin is why I keep joining these HoFs!

[CosmicRunaway]

Glad you liked the film CR!

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=65103
I, Daniel Blake (Ken Loach 2016)


The strong British working class accents were hard for me to understand. Luckily Dave Johns is the kind of actor that you can feel his thoughts and see his growing anger at his frustration over loosing his ability to work and make a living. All he wants is to to pull his own weight but a heavy bureaucratic system, that seemingly is well intention, ends up treating him like an invalid.

I liked the honest, indie style of film making here, and ironically I, Daniel Blake reminds me of Blue Ruin. Very different stories, but similar direction, where the character's inner self and actions tells the story, without the need for cinematic tricks to cue in the viewer on how to feel.

When Daniel meets Katie who has two kids who's also struggling with money...we then see it's people helping people that counts for the most. That's in juxtaposition to what the government agencies do.

I liked the food bank scene the best. What I really liked about it was the set design. It's a little warehouse set up to look like a poor man's version of a grocery store. And that set says it all! The British government agency's mean well and tried to help these forlorn, destitute people, but by doing so with their sad little 'grocery store' of warehouse food, it just all looks so hopeless and depressing. Good nom.

[rauldc14]

72 reviews down now. Just 49 left!

[Thursday Next]

I, Daniel Blake

We should all be drinking a lot more bloody coffee.

I’d always put off watching this, not because I thought it wouldn’t be good, but because I thought it would be frustrating to watch. The idea of watching a Ken Loach film is a bit like the idea of having a salad for lunch - it's probably good for you and you won't be sorry you did it, but it's harder to muster up the enthusiasm for it that you might for something less bleak sounding! I’m glad this HoF did make me finally watch it.

There’s an inherent difficulty in conveying the boredom and frustration of dealing with bureaucracy without making the film boring – watching someone on hold to a government agency is only mildly less irritating than being put on hold by them yourself. But while it was a little slow to start, the film manages to inject some humour and humanity in amongst the hopelessness of a man being ground down by a catch-22 system.

Having read many articles on the problems of the new benefit system and the disability assessment process, I wasn’t sure what more there would be to learn from this film – and it is a film that very obviously wants you to learn something – but what it did do was put a human face on the problem. People aren’t customers or service users, they are individuals and the system isn’t always built to handle individuals. It’s inconvenient coming up against a difficult tax form or ticking the wrong box online under normal circumstances – when a mistake in the system means you won’t eat that month, it’s more than inconvenient, it can be life or death.

I think it had a good point to make on the reliance on computers which can exclude older people, people who can’t afford a computer or people with disabilities who find it hard to use one. It’s not just government services who are guilty of this – banks want people to bank online, shops want to email your receipt etc. – but when it is government services accessed by more vulnerable people it is pretty shocking. I know a few older people who just wouldn’t be able to access services online.

I thought for the most part the performances were very natural and real – I believed in Daniel and Katie absolutely. Some of the supporting cast were a little too deliberate in their portrayals – the unhelpful job centre woman, for example – but at other times I wondered if they had just brought cameras into real locations like the library or the foodbank. There were just a few things at times that undermined the realism – the computer making a bleep noise when the form was filled in incorrectly, the police car putting the flashing lights on - and that was a shame because it then made me question the veracity of some of the other things shown in the film.

The scene in the foodbank was absolutely the stand out scene of the whole film – unlike some other things that happened later, I didn’t see that coming so it was all the more shocking and dramatically effective. It also made me want to donate more things to the foodbank so I guess in that sense, job done.

[MovieMeditation]

65139

JOKER

Todd Philips takes a deep dive into the drama genre and emerges as a dark horse rather than the donkey he reluctantly became in the clammy confinements of comedy. No one is laughing now, because Philips has proved that he can take the reins with rage and ride off into the darkest corners of the DC universe. In the center of it all, we have Oscar-winning actor Joaquin Phoenix, who certainly wasn’t a joker in the award season line-up. He arguably delivers his best performance as Arthur Fleck, the awkward and mentally unstable mama’s boy who proves a product of society in the worst ways possible…

The film is a character study and I agree that it relies heavily on Joaquin Phoenix. But Joaquin Phoenix as Arthur Fleck, who then eventually becomes Joker. That is the story it wants to tell. How Fleck breaks down and breaks free from everything around him, emerging as a phoenix from the filthy ashes of a society in early apocalypse. As with the title card in the beginning, Joaquin as JOKER really does take up the entire screen with his towering performance of this pitiful lunatic luring the audience into his twisted mind. The movie grows from within Arthur, telling its story from the inside out, digging its way out through the dirt. Joker, or Arthur Fleck, is the jumping board for the story that jumpstarts every single element around him. In the reality of the film, Arthur is a product of society, but in the realities of filmmaking, the society is a projection of Arthur.

It truly is a film build in and around Arthur in every sense of the word, all the way down to the framing, camera and lenses used – large format cameras, often relying on intimate close-ups or distancing wides, combined with the use of telephoto lenses and the constant bokeh-blurred-background used to truly isolate the isolated. Joaquin as Arthur is secured as the main focus, literally, closing out the world around him. All the close-ups are uncomfortable, cunning and uncanny, while the wides are isolated, atmospheric and awkward. I wouldn’t argue, that parts of the technical aspect and possibly the entire story aspect is very explicitly presented, but honestly, it isn’t more on the nose than the clown wearing it. I don’t know if that saying works, but my point is that it’s quite obvious what the intention is from the start, and it never tries to be anything else. Philips isn’t the best writer and he could improve as a director too, but as for many people working in comedy, they seem to understand human emotion better than most and he has a flair for creating atmosphere too.

It may be a very surfaced film filled with dents, about a man suffocating in society and eventually rising to the surface where he can finally breathe. But surfaced or not, that very surface is deliciously rusty, all scratched up and worn out. It just works, and even with a limp script, Philips lifts this world and the character right off the pages – the comic book and the movie script. We feel Arthur’s thoughts, feelings, emotions and motivations hiding behind the façade… Joaquin has taken a lot of the credit, and rightfully so, but one shouldn’t wash away Todd tugging away behind the curtain, pulling all the strings to this amazing setup for Joaquin. The performance is undeniably exceptional, but the atmosphere equally so. All the technical aspects mentioned earlier, combined with the towering score that made me sink down in my seat watching this in the cinema. The feel of the movie is so demanding and so dictating in a way. Some may not like that and view it as being too obvious, too much or too attention seeking. And in a way I would agree. But it is hard to fault a movie for the fundament it builds and presents us with. That you wanted another film with another angle and another execution, that’s fine, but in no way do I feel like the film isn’t true to itself from beginning to end.

Also, no one can deny the underlying layer of obvious yet important criticism towards the system that eventually creates Joker. That aspect is very real. I honestly admire the film for its boldness and bleakness in this area, which also seems to be what caused the controversy surrounding the film. Some may see it as a joke with no punchline, some may feel it as a punch with no joke, but the fact is that a joker can be anyone and anything and the controversy is almost a contradiction in itself. When Arthur finally rises up in the midst of riots and roars, while wounded and bleeding, he turns hurting to happiness and completes the transformation into JOKER with a smile created from pain… grinning outside and in. And at the very end, we get this little epilogue of our hero… born in hell… living out his own heaven… walking into the sunset in his own twisted, almost taunting way. Because the enemy is not he, but thee who wants him captured and not cared for. They don’t care… they just send in the clowns… the genuine clowns of our society. Not those with make-up, but those that make up excuses with made up facts. Now that's the true jokers, ladies and gentlemen - and indeed... they wouldn’t get it.


4.5

[Miss Vicky]

That’s one hell of a review Meds!

[rauldc14]

Here's my honest question though and remember I need to rewatch the film because I've only seen it once as well: will Phillips ever make another really good movie?

[MovieMeditation]

That’s one hell of a review Meds!
Thank you very much, Miss Vicky.

I was struggling a bit after writing the first two paragraphs, but now a few days later, the rest came out no problem right after my breakfast today. I think it turned out pretty well.

Here's my honest question though and remember I need to rewatch the film because I've only seen it once as well: will Phillips ever make another really good movie?
I think he’s only gonna improve. Now he proved himself with Joker so I think he’ll let himself unfold more. And now so will the studios now that that saw what he can bring in.

[CosmicRunaway]

I always enjoy reading your reviews MM, but that one's especially good. :up:

[MovieMeditation]

I’m only missing one and a half movie. And I’ve deliberately been holding back on the rewatch of Dronningen since I saw it fairly recent and want to make sure the rewatch makes perfect sense for me when I finally jump in.

I’m currently in the midst of watching State of Seige and it really isn’t for me. As expected. There’s two things I hate. One is to not finish a movie in one sitting and the other is to stumble upon movies that “isn’t for me” because I feel like all movies have something to offer. And I want to like them or at least understand them. But I’m truly struggling with this one. I’m not much for commenting on movies before finishing them either. But anyways... it has taking me two attempts to get to the halfway point. I’m definitely gonna finish the last hour in one sitting. :up:

[Thursday Next]

Waco: The Rules of Engagement

I didn’t know anything about the siege in Waco before watching this movie, which was a bit of a problem as the film assumes you are familiar with it and doesn’t explain, it just jumps right in. I pieced together what had happened, sort of, but it the whole thing was like a counter argument to an argument you haven’t heard which was odd; a summary at the start wouldn’t have gone amiss.

There is a clear bias here. Obviously most documentaries do have a viewpoint, and I get that the thrust of the film was uncovering or exposing elements of what had happened that had previously been hidden, but not being at all familiar with the ‘official’ version of events, it felt very uneven. There were a few times I was sceptical of what they were saying and wondered what the other side of the story was – especially when the evidence presented was just a blurry picture that supposedly showed gunfire. Sometimes it seemed clear. Sometimes it seemed like conspiracy theory speculation – something red near a tank is not definitely a person who wore a red shirt. Sometimes it raised more questions than it answered. A more rounded picture of the story might have made a better film.

It’s clear that there has been some heavy-handed action by the FBI, resulting in a large number of deaths, and some kind of cover-up. Some of the information presented in the last half an hour of the film is quite shocking. It’s a shame it takes the film two hours to get there, bogged down in the minutiae of what kind of warrant they had.

Despite the obvious and shocking culpability of the government forces here, I think the film’s efforts to present the Davidians as innocent victims was misjudged. It glosses over the crimes alleged to have been committed by Koresh, including child abuse. It also doesn’t really explain what efforts were made by the FBI and negotiators to secure the safe release of the children, although there are brief clips of a negotiator mentioning them, so there must have been something. Clearly they have been failed by both the Davidians and the authorities. Nobody really comes out of this film looking good.

Towards the end one of the contributors says that justice and law should mean a man having a trial, whatever his crimes, not just being killed outright. True, of course, but the other side of that is that when accused of crimes he should submit himself to trial, not shoot the people with the warrant and hole himself up in a compound with an illegal stockpile of weapons and a bunch of child-bride hostages for human shields.

I read on wikipedia that this film was produced by gun rights activists. The funny thing about guns and religion, two central aspects of this story, is that everyone wants freedom for their own guns and their own religion but tend to get a bit worked up about other people exercising theirs. That goes for both sides in this.

I think this was quite a poorly made film. The storytelling was poor. There was no attempt at presenting the information in an interesting way, either in terms of organisation or visually. The music was awful. At one point there is what is clearly quite emotional and shocking testimony from a survivor who is almost in tears, but instead of allowing his testimony to speak for itself, it is almost drowned out by the music. I was unsure about the decision to show the charred bodies. It might have been provided as evidence of how they died, but I think the real reason was the shock value and it felt a little exploitative.

[edarsenal]

Just caught up with this thread - been vacant for almost two weeks while finishing up the Western and Noir HoFs, so I will be diving in and knocking out films. Most likely start with Mildred Pierce tonight, I think. And, as I finish ones I haven't seen I'll go back enjoy the conversations and write ups on those films.

And, since I missed the initial post during that time, my condolences as well on the passing of your mother, Thursday Next. Take care my dear!

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=65232
The Last Picture Show (Peter Bogdanovich 1971)

There are two movies that I've reviewed since joining MoFo that I feel I got wrong...The Last Picture Show is one of those.

On my second time watching this my appreciate has grown quite a bit. What I thought were flaws was actually director Peter Bogdanovich's vision of things long passed. It's like opening an old photo book and taking a look back on other people's lives who lived long ago in some small desolate town. Life there is bleak as the blown wind that sweeps down the asphalt. No one really has any hope there, they just sort of exist the best they can. We're shown these images from afar as if we're seeing back in time and seeing how these smashed dreams came and went like dust in the proverbial wind.

The cast was great, and what a great discovery Bogdanovich made in hiring Cybil Shepard for her first movie! No wonder all the boys went crazy for her. Timothy Bottoms is real good here, as is Ben Johnson as Sam the Lion...Eileen Brennan & Cloris Leachman were stand outs too. I loved the shooting location that Bogdanovich used and thank goodness Orson Welles convinced him to shoot this is black & white.

[rauldc14]

Oh yeah! Glad this one turned around for you!

[GulfportDoc]

The Last Picture Show (Peter Bogdanovich 1971)

There are two movies that I've reviewed since joining MoFo that I feel I got wrong...The Last Picture Show is one of those.

On my second time watching this my appreciate has grown quite a bit. What I thought were flaws was actually director Peter Bogdanovich's vision of things long passed. It's like opening an old photo book and taking a look back on other people's lives who lived long ago in some small desolate town. Life there is bleak as the blown wind that sweeps down the asphalt. No one really has any hope there, they just sort of exist the best they can. We're shown these images from afar as if we're seeing back in time and seeing how these smashed dreams came and went like dust in the proverbial wind.

The cast was great, and what a great discovery Bogdanovich made in hiring Cybil Shepard for her first movie! No wonder all the boys went crazy for her. Timothy Bottoms is real good here, as is Ben Johnson as Sam the Lion...Eileen Brennan & Cloris Leachman were stand outs too. I loved the shooting location that Bogdanovich used and thank goodness Orson Welles convinced him to shoot this is black & white.

This has been one of my favorite movies. It sets a tone which inhabits a location that is distinctly American. I saw it when it came out while I was on tour in England. It made me so homesick that I couldn't wait to get back to the States.



I loved Ben Johnson in his role. But Cloris Leachman was the standout performance for me. In fact she won an Academy Award for it. She has tremendous breadth and depth as an actress. That's why it was so peculiar seeing her all those years in an enjoyable but silly role in the MT Moore show. Glad she got the payday though.

But IMO this is one of Bogdanovich's finest.

[Thursday Next]

Queen of Hearts (Dronningen)

"Sometimes what happens and what must never happen are the same thing."

I could probably count the Danish films I have seen on one hand – Festen, a few Dreyers and Brotherhood (a film about gay neo-Nazis that was nominated in a film tournament on here once upon a time (remember tournaments – what we had before we had halls of fame :lol:)). I should probably watch more Danish films – recommendations welcome! In fact there's a lot of countries I should watch more films from, perhaps some country-specific hofs are due...

Anyway...at the start of David Copperfield, he says something about whether he will turn out to be the hero of his own life. Here, instead, we have a protagonist who turns out to be the villain of her own life. The film plays with perspective and sympathy well – by the time Anne’s villainy begins, we have sympathy for her, so its all the more jarring – although there are signs earlier on in both her conversations with her husband and at work, that Anne is an uncompromising character and will do what she wants to stay in control. There are also hints throughout about Anne’s past which are intriguing (was she abused as child? Why doesn’t she speak to her mother?). In the aftermath of the affair, we are still rooted firmly in her perspective so the tension from her fear of discovery remains, even as that sympathy is turned upside down like the trees in the opening shot.

The most shocking part is not even the seduction, but her callous and calculating treatment of Gustav afterwards. She of all people who should know the damage she has done, and the further damage of denial. Only earlier she is confronting a rapist in a car park after he is acquitted, she then effectively becomes him. At one point, Anne says to her husband, “you think I’m a monster.” It’s an interesting line, because of she hasn’t been portrayed as a monster, but more as selfishly, disgustingly human. It is human nature, the dark side of it, that is being explored. Also because she defines herself so much by her ‘perfect’ life – job, marriage, children, house – that she cannot imagine herself without it, cannot admit to the monstrous thing she has done ("What are you most afraid of?" "That everything will disappear."). Towards the end, Anne shows such a lack of empathy that you wonder whether the empathy she has shown to clients earlier in the film is all fake. Her children, too, sometimes seem more like trophies of her life rather than people with whom she has empathetic interactions with as people in their own right.

One thing that made me think was the reaction of Anne’s sister. How much is she complicit by not telling someone else what she has seen? In an affair between adults, perhaps it would not be her place to interfere, but in the circumstances, shouldn’t she have done something more? She might still, beyond the timeframe of the film, and there is always that possibility hanging over Anne. It’s a horrible position for her to be in, it could make a film in its own right.

There is a sense of subtly creeping tension throughout the whole film; even from the start there is this feeling of something about to go wrong. It’s very well shot – the lighting and the way it switches from cold to warm, and the unflinching close-ups of trees. The sex scenes are pretty unflinching too – I wasn’t expecting them to be quite so explicit. It’s certainly a brave performance by the lead actress, Trine Dyrholm, and as a lot of the drama is her inner drama and conveyed through her expressions and physical performance, I thought she was fantastic.

All in all I thought it was a gripping film, not an easy or a pleasant watch but very well made and thought provoking.

[edarsenal]

This has been one of my favorite movies. It sets a tone which inhabits a location that is distinctly American. I saw it when it came out while I was on tour in England. It made me so homesick that I couldn't wait to get back to the States.



I loved Ben Johnson in his role. But Cloris Leachman was the standout performance for me. In fact she won an Academy Award for it. She has tremendous breadth and depth as an actress. That's why it was so peculiar seeing her all those years in an enjoyable but silly role in the MT Moore show. Glad she got the payday though.

But IMO this is one of Bogdanovich's finest.
I'm looking forward to this one. The few Bogdanovich films I've seen have been exceptional. Two of which, What's Up Doc? and Paper Moon I've loved since childhood. The only other film of his I've seen was Mask.

[rauldc14]

I skipped out on watching the last two for this this week, but I'll finish next week

[edarsenal]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BOGY0YjcxYjYtNDI0Zi00Y2EzLTk5OTItY2Q1MWIyYmE3NjM1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTI3MDk3MzQ@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,13 77,1000_AL_.jpg


Mildred Pierce

Mildred: Wally, you should be kept on a leash! Now why can't you be friendly?
Wally: But I AM being friendly!
Mildred: No, I mean it. Friendship's much more lasting than love.
Wally: Yeah, but it isn't as entertaining.

This is a great film that I would watch more often if I didn't get so d@mn angry watching it.
And that is really due to the excellent portrayal of a petulant, spoiled, avarice, and callously devious daughter, Veda by Ann Blyth. The masks she wears, the nuances and glimpses beneath, to when she let's loose. . . She's so brilliant at being such a beguiling serpent that I utterly f@ckin DESPISE the character SO much, I just go berserk every time she walks all over her mother. And THEN I get angry with her mother for LETTING HER!
https://media0.giphy.com/media/l1J9u3TZfpmeDLkD6/200.gif

Otherwise, this could easily be one I go back to, again and again.
Now, admittedly, I do have a problem seeing Joan Crawford as a martyr, which is totally on me.
BUT--
considering all the Westerns I've been watching recently I have NEVER EVER seen a quick draw that even comes CLOSE to when she double slaps Veda!
https://media1.tenor.com/images/da2afa286de1f281a03c51e9699ec58d/tenor.gif?itemid=17171648
If not for the incredibly loud "slap" effect, you could so easily have missed it, it's that fast.

And then she goes and ruins it by apologizing and weeping. . . Joan, Joan, Joan, why?! WHY!?:rolleyes::mad:

But enough of that.
This IS a great movie that definitely dances around the limits set up by the Hays Code with grace and skill. The story is very well done and the cinematography is ripe with some fantastic compositions and lighting.
Along with these two there are two people I have loved since I was a kid.
Supporting actor extraordinaire: Jack Carson and the Lady of the Deliciously Biting Wit: Eve Arden. Their characters and their presence are a seriously wonderful addition to the cast.
And if I'm going to do mentions then I really should add Zachary Scott playing the ne'er-do-well playboy.

So, a definitive BRAVO, CR, for a great movie that lights such a fire under this grumpy old hump of mine ;)

[Citizen Rules]

Glad you liked it Ed. Was that a first time watch?

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=65265
Mildred Pierce (Michael Curtiz 1945)


Joan Crawford made a huge comeback in 1945's Mildred Pierce. Director Michael Curtiz was reluctant to hire the once big movie star, as she had a reputation for being difficult to work with...and in the last few years Joan Crawford hadn't been been as popular as she once was. In the 1930s Joan Crawford was one of the biggest stars working. It's a good thing for Miss Crawford that she was given the role... A role that has her as a working class mom who works herself to the bone, to give her only child, a spoiled brat of a daughter all the luxuries she had been denied in her own life.

This might sound like a soap opera...but thanks to the flashback opening scenes that starts the movie with Joan being taken to police headquarters for a murder she seems to have committed a mystery in afoot. But did she do it? That's the mystery and that's the rub and Mildred Pierce has several sub stories running along with the main theme that makes this movie a master piece of screen writing.

Nominated for 6 Oscars, and winning one, Best Actress for Joan Crawford and one and only time she would win that. Joan gives her all to movie, she pours herself into her role, that's something she was known to do even later in her career when she did b budget horror films she would give it everything she had!....The role of Mildred Pierce was not unlike her own life and her strained realtionship with her daugher who'd later write Mommie Dearest.

Ann Blyth plays her spoiled rotten daughter to perfection. She was nominated for best supporting actress her and well deserved too. The rest of the cast is great, Jack Carson getting a nice amount of screen time. Loved the beach house, how cool was that! One of my favorite movies!

[edarsenal]

Glad you liked it Ed. Was that a first time watch?
Not a first, and if I recollect, around the third or fourth time I've seen this throughout the years.

[Citizen Rules]

Not a first, and if I recollect, around the third or fourth time I've seen this throughout the years.Ah rats, I thought I had one you hadn't seen. Oh well maybe next time:p

[gbgoodies]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=65232
The Last Picture Show (Peter Bogdanovich 1971)

There are two movies that I've reviewed since joining MoFo that I feel I got wrong...The Last Picture Show is one of those.

On my second time watching this my appreciate has grown quite a bit. What I thought were flaws was actually director Peter Bogdanovich's vision of things long passed. It's like opening an old photo book and taking a look back on other people's lives who lived long ago in some small desolate town. Life there is bleak as the blown wind that sweeps down the asphalt. No one really has any hope there, they just sort of exist the best they can. We're shown these images from afar as if we're seeing back in time and seeing how these smashed dreams came and went like dust in the proverbial wind.

The cast was great, and what a great discovery Bogdanovich made in hiring Cybil Shepard for her first movie! No wonder all the boys went crazy for her. Timothy Bottoms is real good here, as is Ben Johnson as Sam the Lion...Eileen Brennan & Cloris Leachman were stand outs too. I loved the shooting location that Bogdanovich used and thank goodness Orson Welles convinced him to shoot this is black & white.






Oh yeah! Glad this one turned around for you!

This has been one of my favorite movies. It sets a tone which inhabits a location that is distinctly American. I saw it when it came out while I was on tour in England. It made me so homesick that I couldn't wait to get back to the States.



I loved Ben Johnson in his role. But Cloris Leachman was the standout performance for me. In fact she won an Academy Award for it. She has tremendous breadth and depth as an actress. That's why it was so peculiar seeing her all those years in an enjoyable but silly role in the MT Moore show. Glad she got the payday though.

But IMO this is one of Bogdanovich's finest.

I'm looking forward to this one. The few Bogdanovich films I've seen have been exceptional. Two of which, What's Up Doc? and Paper Moon I've loved since childhood. The only other film of his I've seen was Mask.


For those of you who like Peter Bogdanovich, TCM has been doing a series of podcasts called "The Plot Thickens".

They're available to listen, download, or read the transcript here:

https://theplotthickens.tcm.com/

As far as I know, you do NOT have to sign up for these podcasts, but you can subscribe to them if you want to.

[GulfportDoc]

For those of you who like Peter Bogdanovich, TCM has been doing a series of podcasts called "The Plot Thickens".

They're available to listen, download, or read the transcript here:

https://theplotthickens.tcm.com/

As far as I know, you do NOT have to sign up for these podcasts, but you can subscribe to them if you want to.
Thanks for the heads-up, GB! These look like perfect podcasts to download and listen to in the car...:cool:

[edarsenal]

Ah rats, I thought I had one you hadn't seen. Oh well maybe next time:p

Actually, this is more on the uncommon to rare side that I have seen your moms. Though if I have, it's a good chance it's one I really enjoy.
Not on the level of a Miss Vicky nom, mind you -- but still :);)

[edarsenal]

For those of you who like Peter Bogdanovich, TCM has been doing a series of podcasts called "The Plot Thickens".

They're available to listen, download, or read the transcript here:

https://theplotthickens.tcm.com/

As far as I know, you do NOT have to sign up for these podcasts, but you can subscribe to them if you want to.
THANKS I'll have to check it out

[MovieMeditation]

Aight, so I’m actually DONE.

Still got some reviewing to do but as far as the movies go they have all been watched. I’ll wait with compiling the list until I have all the reviews done. Sometimes it’s good to kind of go over the movies again through writing about them and then make my final decision.

It has been an interesting HoF with many great noms and a good mix of very different genres, countries and styles. I liked that.

The Matrix, State of Siege and Dronningen will receive reviews as soon as possible. :up:

[rauldc14]

Aight, so I’m actually DONE.

Still got some reviewing to do but as far as the movies go they have all been watched. I’ll wait with compiling the list until I have all the reviews done. Sometimes it’s good to kind of go over the movies again through writing about them and then make my final decision.

It has been an interesting HoF with many great noms and a good mix of very different genres, countries and styles. I liked that.

The Matrix, State of Siege and Dronningen will receive reviews as soon as possible. :up:

Really glad that you joined us and glad you loved the mix!

Hopefully you can join us on future ones too!

[Citizen Rules]

Good to have you join MM. I still have your movie to watch, so hang out and be watching for my review.

[Citizen Rules]

For those of you who like Peter Bogdanovich, TCM has been doing a series of podcasts called "The Plot Thickens".

They're available to listen, download, or read the transcript here:

https://theplotthickens.tcm.com/

As far as I know, you do NOT have to sign up for these podcasts, but you can subscribe to them if you want to.I didn't listen but did any of you check it out? I always thought Peter Bogdanovich was an interesting director and film historian too.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=65313
Shine (Scott Hicks 1996)

This is the kind of nomination I look forward to watching, an uplifting tale about the triumph of the human spirit.

I went into this blind, I'd never heard of the movie or of David Helfgott. I should've loved this, but I didn't. As much as I usually like Geoffrey Rush, I couldn't stand his take on a mentally ill person. It was annoying and somewhat comical when comedy wasn't appropriate. He was not believable to me, I was very aware of an actor 'acting odd'. I've seen other actors do the same kind of performance with the same rapid fire, confused speech and it never works for me. I thought that he might be someone high on drugs in the first scene, either that or he just drank 10 cups of coffee.

The odd thing is the teenage David Helfgott, Noah Taylor was really good in this. His performance was nuanced. I was hoping so much that Rush's adult David would be a small part of the film. Unfortunately we see him quite a bit in the third act and for me the third act was the weakest.

The other thing that I didn't like about Shine was that the entire story felt rushed and abbreviated. It was like there was a 2hr 30min long story here, but the film was cut down to 1hr 45mins in the edited room, leaving only a framework of the story. I didn't even know for sure what was wrong with David. I seen him collapse at the piano during his big performance, then he was in a mental hospital, but what had happened, all the scenes were so brief without any center to them.

And then he just seemed to pop into different people's lives...I still don't know why a rich and successful Lynn Redgrave would marry him? When we just had seem him jumping on a trampoline with his genitally flopping in the air, as small children watched him. To me, that would signal that he wasn't well enough to care for himself and he sure isn't ready to be married. Or maybe the Australians think that's funny? Maybe they do as there was another scene just like that earlier in the film.

I didn't buy into the movie and I didn't care about David. It could've been a good story if another director made it.

[Wyldesyde19]

I’ll be hitting up the last picture show this weekend.

[MovieMeditation]

Citizen Rules I pretty much agree with all you said, as you’ve probably read in my review it’s some of the same problems you seem to have.

I have one problem with your review though: you say you don’t like Rush’ take on a mentally ill person and that it’s comical and not believable. I could somewhat agree and I sort of had the same feeling when this film began. But you do realize that the real person he is portraying is actually EXACTLY like that. He talks like that and acts like that. Rush does a brilliant job copying this.

Of course you are welcome to not enjoy this. I somewhat had a difficult time fully enjoying such a hectic performance, but it’s just how he was and doing anything else would be disrespectful to the real life David.

[Citizen Rules]

@Citizen Rules (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=84637) I pretty much agree with all you said, as you’ve probably read in my review it’s some of the same problems you seem to have.

I have one problem with your review though: you say you don’t like Rush’ take on a mentally ill person and that it’s comical and not believable. I could somewhat agree and I sort of had the same feeling when this film began. But you do realize that the real person he is portraying is actually EXACTLY like that. He talks like that and acts like that. Rush does a brilliant job copying this.

Of course you are welcome to not enjoy this. I somewhat had a difficult time fully enjoying such a hectic performance, but it’s just how he was and doing anything else would be disrespectful to the real life David.No performance can ever be EXACTLY like the real person that's being portrayed. Another actor of equal skill could have portrayed David in the same manner as Rush did, and yet the other actor's performance would've still been different and thus could've worked for me. There's just too many subtle nuances in the individual that comes out in a performance to say that an actor's performance is exactly like the real person they portray. And then there's the script writer who can have the actor saying and doing all sorts of stuff. Some writers would've been able to do more with the role of David making his role profoundly impactful or more fleshed out. Then of course there's the director who gives the 'feeling' to the film. I very keenly was aware that this was an Australian made film during my watch of the movie, as they often favor films with ecliptic silliness, and can tend to go over the top, at least for my taste. Seeing how this was a very serious subject matter the quirky comic scenes didn't work for me and most of those came during Rush's screen time. Another director & screenwriter could have worked to make the movie bring out more of Rush's performance, making the film more believable and less abbreviated feeling, while minimizing or even removing what looked like comical elements.

[rauldc14]

Still looking for I, Daniel Blake. Prob watch Joker soon.

[neiba]

Do we have a deadline for this?

[Citizen Rules]

Still looking for I, Daniel Blake. Prob watch Joker soon.Check your PM

[neiba]

The Matrix (1999)

This film was one of my biggest flaws till recently. I only had watch bits of the third when I was a kid because it was on TV but, believe it or not, I knew almost nothing about the story of the franchise. I knew that at some point Neo was asked if he wanted to accept new knowledge or remain peacefully ignorant in the famous red pill/blue pill scene but that was pretty much it.
Well, I finally watched it a few weeks before the start of this HoF, the whole trilogy in one sitting.
This is obviously the best of the three but I don't consider the other 2 as bad as most people, quite on the contrary, I felt very entertained through out the whole series.

The story is incredibly original and even for today's standards it seems fresh and unique. The visuals are, of course, part of the explanation, but it doesn't end there. The script is probably among the most well written in any action film ever. It's balanced, it doesn't allow for too much suspension of belief (at least considering the whole concept of the film) and the dialogues are solid.
The action scenes are extremely well directed, the acting top notch, the villain one of the most iconic and menacing ever and the pacing is absolutely perfect.

4 -

[edarsenal]

The Matrix (1999)

This film was one of my biggest flaws till recently. I only had watch bits of the third when I was a kid because it was on TV but, believe it or not, I knew almost nothing about the story of the franchise. I knew that at some point Neo was asked if he wanted to accept new knowledge or remain peacefully ignorant in the famous red pill/blue pill scene but that was pretty much it.
Well, I finally watched it a few weeks before the start of this HoF, the whole trilogy in one sitting.
This is obviously the best of the three but I don't consider the other 2 as bad as most people, quite on the contrary, I felt very entertained through out the whole series.

The story is incredibly original and even for today's standards it seems fresh and unique. The visuals are, of course, part of the explanation, but it doesn't end there. The script is probably among the most well written in any action film ever. It's balanced, it doesn't allow for too much suspension of belief (at least considering the whole concept of the film) and the dialogues are solid.
The action scenes are extremely well directed, the acting top notch, the villain one of the most iconic and menacing ever and the pacing is absolutely perfect.

4 -

I'm the same way. Enjoy the series.

[rauldc14]

I didn't make an official deadline. Seems we are all doing well. How about July 20th? A month and 5 days?

[Thursday Next]

Joker

"Is it just me, or is it getting crazier out there?"

People seem to either love or hate this film. I found myself somewhere in the middle. I’m not sure the whole juxtaposition of comic book and grim serious issue film completely worked for me, at times it seemed like it was trying to have its cake and eat it in that respect. But there was a lot about it I did like.

This being one of the last films I’ve watched for this hof, I’m going to draw out a few parallels with some of the other films that occurred to me whilst watching it – loner goes on a killing rampage (and why do so many people have guns anyway?) (Blue Ruin), initially sympathetic-ish protagonist becomes an outright villain (Dronningen), downtrodden man loses his job, is let down by the system and befriends a single mother neighbour (I, Daniel Blake), stylised popular movie with moments of brutal violence (Inglourious Basterds), well-acted portrayal of a man with mental health issues related to a troubled childhood (Shine)…

I really liked the setting, the realisation of this rundown city on the brink of violence that’s set in 1981 like Taxi Driver or The Warriors could happen here, and also at times feels modern, like it could be our world (replace clown masks with V for Vendetta masks, for example), and yet at the same time is this not-quite-real fantasy comic book city, if in a less obvious way than other renderings of Gotham City.

There were some really good shots which were just framing Joker in different places – on the bus, in doorways, behind curtains - which I liked. I liked the scene where he practises his interview and the way you hear the echoing of laughter as he waits in the wings of the tv show. I liked that he has this strange one-sided relationship with Murray Franklin, and it is that rejection by this imagined father-figure that helps to unhinge him. I kind of felt like that didn’t need to be basically repeated with the whole Thomas Wayne storyline.

It could have had something more to say about how that kind of television ruins people’s lives, but in the end it’s trying to say so many things, swinging a blunt instrument around in the hope that it will hit something, that it doesn’t quite make any incisive points about any of them. Sometimes there’s a bit of overkill – Joker running from the cops and becoming lost in the crowd of clowns on the train is good, everyone celebrating him in the middle of a riot is a bit much. His interview with Murray was a bit of an anti-climax for me. He says he’s not political but then goes on a political rant, it seemed to be trying a bit too hard to be saying ‘look, this film is making an important point!’ when it seemed to be exhibiting too much self-awareness for the character as established up to that point.


Joaquin Phoenix is excellent – like Miss Vicky, I was always a big fan of him in films like Quills and Gladiator 20 years ago, so great to see him get rewarded for his work in this film now. Robert De Niro was inspired casting, but it did make the similarities to King of Comedy even more obvious. There’s a scene where he’s sitting in the dressing room with a huge mural of De Niro behind him, like he’s sitting in the shadow of the earlier film (and performance).

[Thursday Next]

I remember his Social worker (psychiatrist?) was having her office shut down due to cutbacks (?) leaving him no alternative to turn to.
He was literally cast out as an afterthought.
So the screen play nomination was deserving.

I actually thought this was one of the worst-written aspects of the film! The psychiatrist basically just says 'oh by the way we're getting shut down tomorrow you won't be able to get any medication'... that was one of the things that was much more 'comic-book' than realistic or nuanced. And that kind of simplicity is fine, in a comic-book movie, but it can't then also claim to be an insightful look into how people with mental health issues are failed.

[Wyldesyde19]

I didn't make an official deadline. Seems we are all doing well. How about July 20th? A month and 5 days?
That works well for me. I’m going on vacation starting next Friday for 8 days and I’ll be out of town as a result. I won’t get any knocked off during that time.
I did watch The Last Picture show but I want to really think about what I want to write about it.
Expect a review sometime tonight

[Miss Vicky]

Glad to see you got something out of Joker, Thursday.

[rauldc14]

I, Daniel Blake

https://i2.wp.com/whatsworthseeing.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/I-daniel-blake-e1463953871343-1024x617.jpeg

I had a feeling that I would like this one, and it pretty much held true to that. The only other Loach film that I saw was Kes which I wasn't huge on but this one was very well directed.

Dave John's and Hayley Squires were both magnificent, at times this didn't really feel like a movie but rather felt like we were watching reality happen, which is a real true testament to a solid film. Some great scenes, I actually really liked the computer scene, pretty relatable as I know a lot of people who are old who have had to adjust to this new way of doing things in life. And I loved when Johns asked the guy to defrost the computer. Nice humor in an otherwise fairly serious film.

The ending felt pretty abrupt, which was my decision maker on not actually loving the film. I would have preferred the film to be a bit longer, if I'm honest, but still real good.

3.5+

[rauldc14]

That works well for me. I’m going on vacation starting next Friday for 8 days and I’ll be out of town as a result. I won’t get any knocked off during that time.
I did watch The Last Picture show but I want to really think about what I want to write about it.
Expect a review sometime tonight

Tonight is over :)

Sorry, just looking forward to the review!

[Wyldesyde19]

Yeah sorry. I got distracted haha.
I’ll have it up shortly.

[Wyldesyde19]

The last Picture Show

Abilene, Texas is a dying town of quiet desperation. If you don’t get out while you’re young, you never will. That seems to be the thought anyways. It’s a sentiment shared by many, however.
The wives are unhappy, stuck in unfulfilling marriages. Or bored, since there isn’t much to do. So they have affairs.
It’s a fascinating look into these lives that inhabit this dying town.
It’s the performances that make this film. Watching it again 10 years later I’m struck by the performances more then I had been originally.
The story centers around a groups of teenagers. There isn’t much to do except go to the local cinema, the cafe or the pool hall. All are owned by Sam the Lion. A man of great stature. He’s tied to the town in an inexplicable way.
TLP populates this town with interesting characters like Sam the Lion. And it’s the interactions between them that is so captivating.
And when the cinema closes, there’s a sense of what’s equivalent to a funeral. They know it’s only a matter of time before it’s all gone.
After watching it, I was struck by this so much that I wanted to rewatch it again. Such was its pull.

[edarsenal]

I didn't make an official deadline. Seems we are all doing well. How about July 20th? A month and 5 days?
PERFECT
I watched Blue Ruin last night, pretty good film, and will try to get a review up tonight or tomorrow night.

[rauldc14]

The last Picture Show

Abilene, Texas is a dying town of quiet desperation. If you don’t get out while you’re young, you never will. That seems to be the thought anyways. It’s a sentiment shared by many, however.
The wives are unhappy, stuck in unfulfilling marriages. Or bored, since there isn’t much to do. So they have affairs.
It’s a fascinating look into these lives that inhabit this dying town.
It’s the performances that make this film. Watching it again 10 years later I’m struck by the performances more then I had been originally.
The story centers around a groups of teenagers. There isn’t much to do except go to the local cinema, the cafe or the pool hall. All are owned by Sam the Lion. A man of great stature. He’s tied to the town in an inexplicable way.
TLP populates this town with interesting characters like Sam the Lion. And it’s the interactions between them that is so captivating.
And when the cinema closes, there’s a sense of what’s equivalent to a funeral. They know it’s only a matter of time before it’s all gone.
After watching it, I was struck by this so much that I wanted to rewatch it again. Such was its pull.

Glad you enjoyed it!

[Wyldesyde19]

Glad you enjoyed it!
I had seen it before, but man it was much better this time around

[rauldc14]

Joker

https://consequenceofsound.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/joker-2019.jpg?quality=80

I don't think my thoughts have changed to much on my second viewing of this film, although I didn't really see much of a divide between the first and second half of the film.

It's really quite interesting to see one man carry an entire film, Joaquin Phoenix. It plays off a bit on the films themes of isolation and loneliness.

A lot of films I like are bleak and dark and this one is certainly that, one of the more darker and depressing films I've seen actually. It did a good job showing just how screwed up people can get if they are thrown to the wayside in life. And it's a shame that society would ever let people get this way. We all need to be aware and make sure we are taking care of each other when we can. I think my problem is the absolute brutal ending, which seems silly but I feel like it's a Psychopathic ending and I'm not a fan of violence like that. I feel it did go a bit too far to be honest. But I do think the rest of the film was pretty well done.

I suppose the score is honestly very well done, and like I said I have other favorites that I enjoyed more from 2019 but I can definitely respect it.

I'll add a plus to the rating this time, it's very close to a 4 star film for me.

3.5+

[rauldc14]

My list is in. We are now at 85/121. Props!

[Citizen Rules]

I'm hoping to watch another nom tonight. Then I'll try to finish up shortly after that. I have 3 more to go.

[MovieMeditation]

Queen of Hearts

65452
SPOILERS
'Dronningen' is a film that demands all emotions on deck, as the bleakness of reality washes in over you like a tsunami filled with sorrow, sadness and anger. It plays persistently with your thoughts and feelings in a way that mirrors the happenings on screen as your body screams to be allowed out of this nightmare, but ‘Queen of Hearts’ has the upper hand and holds a tight grip as it lays out a royal flush that crushes everyone and everything on its path. Once upon a time this was a full house filled with love, now there is only four of a kind left in the family, while all affections are flushed straight down the toilet by the hands of an almost royal figure who used to flourish but now falters… withers… and fades away.

'Dronningen' deals a lot with human nature and nature itself is used to reflect that. Seasons change with the events and characters of the film and nature is almost a character in itself – both the hot summer days and the bleak winter nights play vital roles in the risky role play of our main character, Anne. And how fascinating it is to follow the descent of this dame into absolute disaster. The way she starts out as a busy businesswoman who can hold her own – in private and in profession – while also being a seemingly caring and kindhearted human being. However, there are also clear flashes of a female living in a dense fog looking for a decent f*ck. Well okay, it isn’t as simple as that, but to put it more precise she seems to be stuck in a monotone life, which then turns into a midlife crisis that evolves towards an actual epiphany. Because when Gustav suddenly enters… everything changes.

But afore anything of any actual weight happens, we are left impatiently waiting for the moment of inevitability – the moment where moments collide and come together into a climax of relief and release… in more than one way, I guess. We know how wrong it is, but the chemistry between the two leads is so good that we want it to happen – we wish to see the past confrontations finally bear fruit… the forbidden kind. And so, it does. In a sudden way that doesn’t seduce us but honestly rape your senses and sense of reality. Because, in a way, you were in this dream-like state with them, but quickly realize exactly what it was you were rooting for. Unfortunately, though, I found out that this important scene was removed from the international version, which I’m honestly really mad about. I find the scene pivotal to the plot and the way it is presented and plays out is a turning point for the film.

65453

In the scene we see an explicit blowjob, which I personally think gives you the wakeup call needed to actually question your thoughts and feelings up until now. Because a wonderfully romantic and sensual scene would not have set off the same emotions as the sexually shocking images that strips the viewer naked with his or hers sudden inner conflicts. As an audience – or as a witness – we feel confronted, called out and even condemned in a way. It is a powerful scene that sets the rest of the plot in motion and truly proves that Anne is on a collision course we expect will not end well… her wild and almost animalistic side was suddenly not only seeking or searching… it was hunting. The inner id has taken control and Anne feels almost invincible and thus also too comfortable for her own good, which ends up breaking their little fairytale world filled with these wonderful wrongdoings.

And this is where the film really finds its grip and becomes truly gripping – and not just in the sense of getting your full attention, but actually almost literally gripping your throat with a tight hold, locking off air supply and holding you down in your seat making you watch… ‘Clockwork Orange’ style. Anne is confronted by her husband after Gustav have told his father everything and Anne actually lets out a defeated “yes” when she is asked about the truths of all this. However, shortly after she backtracks her story, backstabs Gustav and continues to coldheartedly lure Peter straight into her laid out trap of lawyer-level argumentation and foul play. I particularly love when she tells Peter how ridiculously easy it is to manipulate him – referring of course to Gustav, but in reality, talking about herself… a brilliant but bone-chilling scene. While unwilling to admit to boning Gustav she becomes a ticking time bomb in and on herself, as she let a lie become reality until that reality becomes all too real.

The scene with the three of them talking, shouting and screaming – externally and internally – is absolutely devastating, as Anne derails into the deranged almost. Once, a seemingly caring woman who devoted her life to helping young people in trouble is now terrorizing and tearing apart that very same youth. Gustav is alone more than ever right now, and Anne’s lie is like a leech sucking out all that is worth anything, leaving him like an empty shell… cracking easier than ever… ready to break at any minute. Gustav’s last attempt at ending the insanity is as heartbreaking as it comes. He shows up in the middle of the night yelling for his dad, only to have Anne drive him away. His thoughts, feelings and emotions are all over the place as he desperately tries one last fix… all at once. He frantically tries to solve the present situation by calling for his dad and ending the lie, while also giving one last hectic attempt at going back to the past by confusingly kissing Anne before finally falling to the ground. It is clearer than ever now that there is nothing he can do. He cannot live in the present, he can’t go back to the past and soon he realizes that there is no future for him either.

65454

The very person who made Anne feel so alive is now dead and guilt hits in both breakdowns and brilliant reflections on the past, as Anne looks out through a window but directly at her own reflection as well. Lastly, the final shot of the movie is so subtle yet so profound, as we see Anne and her family riding a car in complete silence. A car filled with grief… and guilt. Anne is sitting visually still, but clearly internally distressed. As she sits there quietly, without uttering a single word, she opens her mouth ever so slightly before everything turns to darkness and the horror ends. For us at least. The moment is almost a blink-or-you-will-miss-it moment, but I love the open-ended uncertainty of it. Was she about to crack up, break down and confess? Or would she have stopped herself before uttering a single word? Will Anne continue to live out this lie forever? A woman who seemingly demands liberty while also abandoning integrity… who is she really and what has she become? Dangerous, disastrous, disordered… a woman toying with feelings, dictating emotions and truly becoming… a Queen of Hearts.


4.5

[Thursday Next]

Anne is confronted by her husband after Gustav have told his father everything and Anne actually lets out a defeated “yes” when she is asked about the truths of all this...


I thought this was a really interesting moment in the film too. She does seem to confess...and then turns it around so quickly. In fact she's then so convincing in her denial that you almost believed her, despite having watched it happen!

I'm unsure about your reference to a scene having been cut out - the version I saw certainly had an explicit scene.

[MovieMeditation]

I'm unsure about your reference to a scene having been cut out - the version I saw certainly had an explicit scene.
I chose to mention it because the version I downloaded had the scene cut out and therefore I thought I might as well mention it because I thought it was an important and effective scene so if someone read my review and realized they didn’t watch that scene then they know they didn’t watch the original cut.

[rauldc14]

Hell of a review Meds!

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=65493
Queen of Hearts
Dronningen (May El-Toukhy 2019)

That painting on the wall is sure foreboding looking, and as with all set designs it was chosen for effect...Anyway I just wanted to mention that.

Dronningen is a well crafted movie with a subtle message that can be left open to interpretation. However the end results are clearly tragic. I appreciate a movie that doesn't hammer it's message into the audiences head, and Dronningen never did. I won't say this was an easy watch, the first hour was slow, but did set up tensions in the marriage and home life...Then boom and there's an expletive sex scene I wasn't expecting that. The sex in the movie isn't pretty, it's like watching two dogs on the front lawn copulate...an odd view!

As the second hour progresses the plight of Gustav becomes more sadder as we see the wreckage of Anne's self indulgent act. At first I didn't like Gustav as he seemed like a punk, but then we see he's really good with the twin girls and is just struggling and somewhat confused about which direction he's life should take. Anne goes from sympathetic to a pedophile predator.

There's a couple of explanations for Anne's seduction of the teen boy. I like that the film didn't spell it out for us and we can decide for ourselves just why she did it. Though a clue is when she tells of her first sexual experience and says it shouldn't have happened. We don't really know what should not have happened but we can guess. Even after the sex is over, Anne continues to inflict damage on poor Gustav with dire results.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=65565
State of Siege (1972 Costa-Gavras)

I want that Cadillac convertible! The one the dead guy was in at the start of the film. That would be such a sweet car! Come to think of it the film was loaded with classic old cars, the police even remark about how nice and old 1920s car is when they are searching for the rebels in the garage.

Anyway...I liked this film! I thought it was a cool nom, something I'd never heard of and would have never seen on my own. Before watching it I read the synopsis at IMDB and also read your guys' reviews. It's a good thing I didn't go into this blind or I would've been totally confused about what was going on. But thanks to IMDB I seen that this was a French made film about a right wing government in Uruguay that has it's para military police being trained by right wing operatives from the USA. And that's true, the USA did meddle in South American politics, supporting right wing dictatorships just so that leftist rebels with communist leanings didn't get a foot hold.

We see the police rounding up suspects and killing them, that is the death squads. Those type of police death squads still operate in Latin America and other parts of the world. So this film which was done documentary style really felt like you were there back in the day. We don't really get to know the characters and we don't need to, this is about the subject of U.S. involvement in Uruguay.

It did feel like propaganda, notice how we see the brutal torture of a suspect by the police, but we never see the actual killing of the American by the rebels. I for one don't have a problem with propaganda, most films have a message that they want to make clear and State of Siege certainly did.

[Citizen Rules]

Does Inglourious Basterds have English subs on the DVD? I tried watching this from a video file and there's lots of French or German being spoke, but no subs.

[MovieMeditation]

Does Inglourious Basterds have English subs on the DVD? I tried watching this from a video file and there's lots of French or German being spoke, but no subs.
You need subs indeed. Entire scenes are spoken in German, French and a little Italian.

[rauldc14]

33 reviews are left. Let me know if I've missed any of yours

[Citizen Rules]

You need subs indeed. Entire scenes are spoken in German, French and a little Italian.Ah that's what I thought. I'll see about adding a sub file into the video file. After all my English is bad enough:p my German and French speaking skills are non existent.

[Siddon]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/T0IpLw3lQC-y3UMaOlh3CR0jnFl5InP2px4dQc87BrF208PoLk1hgFNXOkfQoxFKV54vD12C616_u1q-b-tUUP8pJr1VcgFtG2MxPGlNfSMh3FvBeVv421_RNIqt3tzHyA

The Last Picture Show(1971)

Larry McMurty wrote a trilogy of stories based on I suppose the cynicism and desperation of small town life in Texas. I've only seen two of the films but I think I'm going to track down the 2nd story. The Last Picture show tells the story of the sexual awakening of a pair of boys in the time period before the summer of love and after WWII, a sort of lost generation.

The town is populated with a bunch of old cowboys, a bunch of women who are stuck in bad marriages and kids who have to decide what to do with their lives. The film attempts to be an aged classic shot in black and white yet still dealing with issues of sex that wouldn't have been tolerated in the 40's/50's style it emulates.

Ben Johnson and Cloris Leachmen both won Oscars, Johnson for a single scene, Leachman for a hell of a character arc. It's actually fairly surprising that it registered 4 acting noms but neither lead (Shepherd or Bottoms made the cut) very surprised about Cybill because the film nosedives into melodrama when she leaves the story

[Siddon]

https://kk.org/truefilms/files/2004/09/Waco1.jpg

Waco The Rules of Engagement (1997)


Hard to believe this film was made 25 years ago...and that's not a good thing. The quality of documentary film-making has taken huge leaps it's fairly distracting to watch something like this. Does the low quality of the film hurt the overall narrative...I'm not sure.

It's a good story and it has a great point of view. The Branch Davidians are not vilified and the ATF agents are given a pretty damning indictment. But the problem with a story like this which attempts to show one side I often found myself curious as to what are we not being told about Koresh.

I do wonder if a stronger pov would have trimmed the runtime and made a more compelling story. And this is really my issue with the film is that it's not long enough to give us a comprehensive look into the story but it's also to long when it could make a more emotionally powerful story. It's walking the line between news and art and failing at both.

It's a good story but not so much a quality film.

[MovieMeditation]

T H E
MATRIX

65596

What is The Matrix and what does it mean?1

’The Matrix’ managed to blow the minds of moviegoers worldwide when it hit cinemas just before the new millennium. It was a towering milestone in technological achievements, containing artificial archenemies aching to attack and destroy the destined “one” named Neo, who is in search for answers inside a dream-like digital world full of well-choreographed kung-fu combat and cool-looking lingering slow-mo shots, all of which makes you want to pinch some no-hinge sunglasses on your nose just as you enter a nirvana of nu-metal music and macho-like masquerades... Welcome to The Matrix.

‘The Matrix’ is all style and pseudo-substance, successfully spellbinding you with its rocket-fueled pocket philosophy and ever-impressive action scenes, giving a f*ck about gravity but gaining a ton in badassery. It might have revolutionized computer-generated imagery, but its grand computer-generated space is undoubtably one of the undisputed monarchs of science fiction world building. A world created by two creative minds and then morphed into a singular higher soul called Morpheus, who is the leading exposition-feeding entity that everybody believes in. But who does he believe in? Neo of course. The nerdy little hacker who seeks answers in a world where nothing makes sense to him anymore. Thankfully, Morpheus has the answers, or at least the questions.

I’m not saying 'The Matrix' isn’t a smart movie, because what does that even mean exactly? 'The Matrix' may be a knot easier loosened than everlasting, but that knot sits on a stylish green tie, further complimenting the dark shirt and even darker trench coat. Matrix is code in itself, but also a code to live by. You literally devote your life to a digital system more dangerous than the real world. But perhaps also with more hope, even if it is by a microscopic margin. ‘The Matrix’ is a fired-up fairytale of destined journeys and the fight between good and evil… it is a reference-filled religious rambling, which exists only in its own little world… but most importantly it is confident in its cool-factor, creative in its world building and playful with its complexity. ‘The Matrix’ might not be petrol-fueled rocket science… but it might just be petrology-fueled… because it f*cking rocks!


4

_______________________
1. Matrix – the fine-grained portion of a rock in which coarser crystals or rock fragments are embedded.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=65601
Inglourious Basterds
(2009 Quentin Tarantino)

I liked most of the movie and that's why I hate Tarantino!


It's those annoying extra doo-dads that he adds that drive me crazy. It's like the guy doesn't know when to stop decorating the cake. Sure Orson Welles was showing off his cinematography in Citizen Kane, but Orson Welles had style, whilst Tarantino only has a meager dose of carnival style. I remember going to K-Mart shopping when I was a kid, what a tacky store that was, Tarantino would've loved it, especially the blue light special.

But credit where credit is due. Tarantino knows how to cast a film and how to write a scene and how to write interesting dialogue, but he goes way to long in all the important scenes. There's a point of no return, where a scene goes and goes and the viewer is satisfied and that's enough. Many directors, actually most directors will rush a scene and make it all too brief. Tarantino doesn't do that, but there's a point reached in each of the scenes where I found myself growing bored. Take the basement bar scene, I really liked it, but then it went to long and I lost interest.

I know a lot of people love slasher films and so love how Tarantino lingers on each kill shot and milks it for all it's worth. And that doesn't gross me out, but it puts me in the mind of a John Carpenter B movie and makes what I'm watching seem all the more silly and that's a shame because I liked the bulk of the movie.

Though the most silliness comes from Tarantino's ecliptic sound score. I found the score so loud that at points it made me focus directly on the music, then I had to reach for the remote to turn the volume down.

And I certainly could do without the inane labels that appear on the screen, ugh! And the convoluted and completely over the top ending, pure cheese. In fact cheese must be Tarantino's middle name and I bet he spells it: Velveeta.

[ahwell]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=65601
Inglourious Basterds
(2009 Quentin Tarantino)

I liked most of the movie and that's why I hate Tarantino!

It's those annoying extra doo-dads that he adds that drive me crazy. It's like the guy doesn't know when to stop decorating the cake. Sure Orson Welles was showing off his cinematography in Citizen Kane, but Orson Welles had style, whilst Tarantino only has a meager dose of carnival style. I remember going to K-Mart shopping when I was a kid, what a tacky store that was, Tarantino would've loved it, especially the blue light special.

But credit where credit is due. Tarantino knows how to cast a film and how to write a scene and how to write interesting dialogue, but he goes way to long in all the important scenes. There's a point of no return, where a scene goes and goes and the viewer is satisfied and that's enough. Many directors, actually most directors will rush a scene and make it all too brief. Tarantino doesn't do that, but there's a point reached in each of the scenes where I found myself growing bored. Take the basement bar scene, I really liked it, but then it went to long and I lost interest.

I know a lot of people love slasher films and so love how Tarantino lingers on each kill shot and milks it for all it's worth. And that doesn't gross me out, but it puts me in the mind of a John Carpenter B movie and makes what I'm watching seem all the more silly and that's a shame because I liked the bulk of the movie.

Though the most silliness comes from Tarantino's ecliptic sound score. I found the score so loud that at points it made me focus directly on the music, then I had to reach for the remote to turn the volume down.

And I certainly could do without the inane labels that appear on the screen, ugh! And the convoluted and completely over the top ending, pure cheese. In fact cheese must be Tarantino's middle name and I bet he spells it: Velveeta.



Knew this was coming LOL

thanks for giving it another try though! :)

[Citizen Rules]

Knew this was coming LOL

thanks for giving it another try though! :):)You might be surprised where I place it on my ballot:cool:

[MovieMeditation]

STATE OF SIEGE

65630

If there is one thing I hate when watching movies, it’s not being presented with a bad one – purposely or not – but rather being proposed with the fact that the given film just wasn’t for me. Because as ridiculous as it sounds, I want every single movie I watch to be “for me”, if that makes sense… But we are all different and therefore not every single film falls into your personal taste, however, I do always try my very best to find out what it is a given film has that makes it great to others. I feel like that is a huge importance as a self-certified cinephile, to challenge yourself with all that it has to offer and really dive into the mindset of the movie and the audience it is supposed to appeal to. But for this particular movie, it might be the hardest I have ever tried to put myself up for that challenge… and I failed miserably.

I can’t really say anything that hasn’t already been said, but this is a very bareboned political propaganda film, which presents us with these events and the facts and the people in it. But as a viewer I felt completely uninvited into what was going on. It is clearly a director who had a very strong opinion about something and wanted to use his voice in filmmaking to speak up about the truth. But to me it becomes a thin one-note statement, taking two hours to present, rather than an interesting exploration of the events on display. It doesn’t feel like it has a beginning, it mostly has a middle and sort of an end. It is more about this one event and how it seemingly played out. Told as straight forward as possible to feel authentic and “real” I guess.

While I kind of like the washed out, blueish cinematography, the technical aspects are generally pretty bland or just confused. Yes, there are some fancy camera moves, but not all of them feels earned. It never really becomes a prominent part of the film and neither does the acting. The story is front and center, but that story isn’t really told in any exciting way. I’m not saying they should Hollywoodize the **** out of the script, but once again it seems like it is all about this one story and this one side of that story, which is being told in a very monotone manner for more than two hours. For people who knows a lot about the event and who feels very strongly about it, this is probably a great film. But since I don’t know anything, the film should work to make me care. And it never does. It doesn’t seem to invite people in who aren’t already “a part of it” in one way or another.

Political films can certainly appeal to me, but personally I’m not crazy about politics in general, and it seems like you either have to be very passionate about politics, or the plot of which the film is based upon, to actually enjoy this film. As a movie, it fails completely for me, but as a political statement, I’m sure it did exactly what it should. I guess I just have to admit that I bumped headfirst into a cold concrete wall of political propaganda, which gave me headache more than anything. This movie was the first time in a long time where I felt like – no matter how hard I tried – I just couldn’t give it the chance it probably deserved. I truly struggled with this one and this review was a really long write-up about that very frustration. So as simply put as I can, this movie just hit me in all the wrong places and this type of movie just isn’t for me at all. It is clearly loved and respected by many, so I will respectfully say that “it’s not you, it’s me” … I’m sorry.


1


An unfortunate end to this HoF for me, but on a positive note I am now done with both the watching and the reviewing... I will send my list shortly.

[rauldc14]

6 ballots are in now! 5 remain to decide the winner!

[Thursday Next]

Mildred Pierce

" I think I'm safe in observing that almost anyone would like ten thousand dollars, Mr. Fay."



Mildred Pierce starts off Noir and flashes back to pure melodrama. It’s thoroughly entertaining. Joan Crawford is luminous as the titular Mildred, who would do anything for her children, especially spoilt elder daughter Veda (Ann Blyth, brilliantly vile). I feel like I should see more of Joan Crawford’s films, loved her in Johnny Guitar too. I’ve never seen Grand Hotel – is that a good place to start?

I thought Mildred Pierce was an interesting portrayal of women who have businesses and ambitions and interactions with each other and don’t just play the ‘femme fatale’. I liked Mildred’s friend, Ida, she could have been in it more, I thought.

Well, that was the last watch for me, now on to ordering my list. As always, that’s the hard part. There are several films that feel like they should be somewhere in the middle in my head, some of them will have to be near the bottom of the list though, as there was only one film I really didn’t like and something has to come second-last…

[Citizen Rules]

Mildred Pierce

...I feel like I should see more of Joan Crawford’s films, loved her in Johnny Guitar too. I’ve never seen Grand Hotel – is that a good place to start?…Glad you liked it!....Yeah Grand Hotel is a good place to start, it's a neat film in that it's one of the first multi character story movies, all very dramatic and with tons of great stars including the Barrymore's. Joan was younger in it and plays more an ingenue type. One of her biggies was The Women (1939). But I liked her best when she played tough as nails characters in such greats as: A Woman's Face(1941), Humoresque (1946), Possessed (1947), Flamingo Road (1949) & The Damned Don't Cry (1950)

From the early 1940s and on she usually played complex and driven women and I think that's what made her a house hold name. I've always been a fan of hers.

[rauldc14]

7 of us have finished, leaving just 4 slackers left. July 20th will remain the deadline.

[Citizen Rules]

7 of us have finished, leaving just 4 slackers left. July 20th will remain the deadline.That's most of us finishing in just under 2 months for 10 movies...or about 5 days per movie, which seems like the right length to me. Both me and Cricket hosted HoFs where 5 days per movie was the length...and everyone finished fine.

You could've made this 6 months long and some would still have a number of movies to go at the 5 month 2 week mark. That's not a complaint, but it's an observation that some choose to wait tell the end to watch no matter how long an HoF is.

[rauldc14]

Yeah a lot of people flew through this including me, which surprised me.

[MovieMeditation]

I didn’t expect to finish that fast either.

I was craving a HoF after my return to MoFo Land and I knew it could be very tough because I got work as well as work outside of my work... committing to a HoF in the midst of that almost seemed wrong, yet somehow I was motivated and also excited and would gladly watch the films - even rewatch those I didn’t really have to.

It’s been great fun :up:

[Thursday Next]

List submitted. It has been a fun hall of fame.

[Siddon]

https://images.justwatch.com/backdrop/10769362/s1440/shine
Shine (1996)


Shine is a musical biopic that for me is more of a product of it's time. The story is told in three parts, David as a boy, as a young man and as an adult. I'm not sure if Geoffrey Rush is the true lead of the story or if this is even Davids story. Because if you think about the film ends with the death of his father Peter...Peter is the one who goes through the growth and has the more compelling story and character. A Holocaust survivor Peter raises David to play the piano though he reaches a point where his teachings can only go so far. He's constantly pushing and pulling at David that David finally leaves the nest to study abroad and then...breaks down.


Rushs' part of the story is almost superfluous to the actual conflict. We don't really dive into his life post mental institution we just get these little shards of his new life. I almost felt at the end like I watched an extra long epilogue as it was so glossy and to clean. Here's a guy in a marraige with a mental illness yet it's played with a sense of whimsy. David is an indulged eccentric at this point and you wonder how it works with the second act of the story.

[Siddon]

https://i1.wp.com/image.tmdb.org/t/p/w500/tu8oEWbadaLb3y8gKh1QtvlD1Ix.jpg

Dronnigen (2019)


This is the story of a lawyer working a rape case when her stepson moves in and causes a disruption in her life. It's the sort of film we've seen countless times though here the gender is reversed and played with a bit more dispassion. The lead actress Trine Dyrholm is very good as the film is basically a showcase for her as none of the other characters get much screen time. The husband is somewhat of a cypher the litle girls are basically scenery and you don't really get into Gustav's life or reasoning for his actions.



I'm not sure how I feel about this film, it reminds me of lesser Bergman works like Summer with Monika or Winter Light. I doubt I'll think about this film five years from now. I enjoyed the duality of this woman who is helping sexually abused children while engaging in her own version of sexual abuse. It would have been nice if that would have been covered more. I also felt ripped off as the most interesting set piece we don't see rather we hear about in the end. It's the sort of thing that reminds you that you are watching a budget drama.

[rauldc14]

Wyldesyde19
neiba
edarsenal
Siddon

A little less than 2 weeks until the deadline

[Wyldesyde19]

Yep, just watched Joker last night. Will write up a review shortly

[edarsenal]

https://basementrejects.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/blue-ruin-movie-review-dwight-ben-gaffney-shooting-practice-macon-blair-devin-ratray-home-alone-buzz.jpg


Blue Ruin

Ben Gaffney: [to Dwight] Hey, man, I know this is personal. That's how you'll fail. No speeches, no talking. You point the gun, You shoot the gun.

It's a special occasion that takes a regular story plot, in this case, revenge and clears away the standard glamorized tropes and takes a lesser path; bringing something a little extra to the viewing.
That's what I got from this. And that's what I thoroughly enjoyed in this.
Now, don't get me wrong, I do enjoy a good shoot 'em up revenge flick. One of my current favorites is the John Wick series.
But it does show the extreme point and from there I can sum up how very well conceived and played out Blue Ruin is.
Dwight, played with such incredible depth by Macon Blair is not an ex-hit-man or ex-military or hell, ex-anything. He's not even an everyday man caught in an extraordinary situation. He's a broken shell, overwhelmed by grief, at the very bottom of the emotional well to the point of paralysis. Trying to find the impetus to move. Not so much forward, but to simply move.
I felt for this crumpled derelict with anguished eyes and a broken soul from the get-go and I respected the film maker for not presenting any reason for us to cheer or support this man attempting to find his "revenge" only to get spun deeper into the whirlwind.

Without giving away the final plot points that are revealed near the end of it all, we have a far more realistic portrayal of a vigilante situation going completely off the rails. And we are right beside him and, due to Blair's acting and should we dare to, a window inside his emotional state of mind.

[Siddon]

https://cdn2-www.mandatory.com/assets/uploads/2014/04/Blue-Ruin-Macon-Blair.jpg

Blue Ruin (2013)


Blue Ruin takes an epic story and shrinks it down to the smallest and most effective way to conclude it. A vagrant finds out that his parents killer has been released from prison he then goes on a journey of revenge with each chapter added more information he didn't have before. You've got a catharsis to the film in that the violence is incredibly satisfying and brutal and the twists give us the viewer visceral delights in the action. This is Death Wish but with a higher degree of intelligence. The writer establishes a subtle set of rules so that the bad guys get properly punished and we the audience are not left with conflicted morality issues I liked the film and I admired it, prove positive you can make an effective low budget film that doesn't just have four actors in one set place.

[neiba]

Wyldesyde19
neiba
edarsenal
Siddon

A little less than 2 weeks until the deadline


Under control :)

[Siddon]

@Wyldesyde19 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=104656)
@neiba (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=85193)
@edarsenal (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=50536)
@Siddon (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=95448)

A little less than 2 weeks until the deadline


I'll finish this tonight

[CosmicRunaway]

Glad you guys liked Blue Ruin. :up:

I wish I had something constructive to add, but I don't haha.

[Citizen Rules]

Glad you guys liked Blue Ruin. :up:

I surprised myself by really liking Blue Rain, and oddly enough I didn't find it overly violent. I think it's because it didn't linger on the violent scenes and present them as eye-candy, like a Tarantino film would.

Did anybody else see it as a cautionary tale in the vein of the Hatfield–McCoy feud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield%E2%80%93McCoy_feud) ?
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield%E2%80%93McCoy_feud)

[Wyldesyde19]

Joker

I’m torn by this film, between its beginning which is amazing, and it’s ending, where it glorifies violence as a effective form of uprising against the rich. It attempts to make its anti hero tragic, when really he’s a the victim of his own self loathing.
Budget cuts have denied him his meds. So as a result he burns the city to the ground, or at least his followers do. Then he’s rescued and propped up as some hero for the masses.
Or is it imagined? I wonder if it was, as he poses on the hood of a car as the crowd cheers him on.
As a social commentary, it’s effective. We see how the budget cuts effect Joker personally. And we see his history of abuse, a revelation that send him over the edge.
But what is the point of the ending? It seems to tries to copy Taxi Driver, a film with a similar theme, but had better presentation. The two films were compared to each other, and that comparison hurts Joker.
In Taxi Driver Travis only wants hurt Those who are guilty of some crime. Real or imagined. But that’s because he sees himself as some sort of “hero”. Joker on the other hand, Just wants to hurt anyone. There are no heroic deeds for this man. He’s angry and bitter. And it shows in his final scene on the nighttime talk show.
Phoenix is great here, and as Joker he’s effective. But Ledger did it best of course. Still, one can’t help but be drawn to his antics on screen. His penchant for dancing and posing and such.
Zasie is almost wasted here, and once the truth about her is revealed she’s cast off. She could have been used more effectively in this film as a sort of actual attempt at Jokers redemption by showing him some act of kindness.
And that’s what we have here, a good film, but it’s potential wasted at the end.

[Miss Vicky]

In Taxi Driver Travis only wants hurt Those who are guilty of some crime. Real or imagined. But that’s because he sees himself as some sort of “hero”. Joker on the other hand, Just wants to hurt anyone.

I don't think this is true at all. All of his victims hurt him in some way.

[Wyldesyde19]

I don't think this is true at all. All of his victims hurt him in some way.
Murray Franklin never hurt him. Sure, he mocked him, And then invited him on television, but that doesn’t Seem like it was malicious in any way.
What ever hurt you think there was from it, was perceived only.

[Miss Vicky]

Murray Franklin never hurt him. Sure, he mocked him, And then invited him on television, but that doesn’t Seem like it was malicious in any way.
What ever hurt you think there was from it, was perceived only.

Emotional hurt is still hurt and I don't think it's fair to say that mocking is not malicious. Sure, Murray had no way of knowing that Arthur would see the show or how hurt he would be by being made the butt of the joke, but it's not like Murray was chosen at random either.

[Wyldesyde19]

Emotional hurt is still hurt and I don't think it's fair to say that mocking is not malicious. Sure, Murray had no way of knowing that Arthur would see the show or how hurt he would be by being made the butt of the joke, but it's not like Murray was chosen at random either.
That’s actually a good point, and one I failed to consider. I don’t think Murray was malicious in intent, but from Jokers point of view it didn’t matter. Doesn’t change my over all view of him in comparison to Bickle though. But looking beyond that, he seems to revel in what his actions have caused. He doesn’t care about the destruction And those who may be hurt by it.

[MovieMeditation]

https://i1.wp.com/image.tmdb.org/t/p/w500/tu8oEWbadaLb3y8gKh1QtvlD1Ix.jpg

Dronnigen (2019)


This is the story of a lawyer working a rape case when her stepson moves in and causes a disruption in her life. It's the sort of film we've seen countless times though here the gender is reversed and played with a bit more dispassion. The lead actress Trine Dyrholm is very good as the film is basically a showcase for her as none of the other characters get much screen time. The husband is somewhat of a cypher the litle girls are basically scenery and you don't really get into Gustav's life or reasoning for his actions.



I'm not sure how I feel about this film, it reminds me of lesser Bergman works like Summer with Monika or Winter Light. I doubt I'll think about this film five years from now. I enjoyed the duality of this woman who is helping sexually abused children while engaging in her own version of sexual abuse. It would have been nice if that would have been covered more. I also felt ripped off as the most interesting set piece we don't see rather we hear about in the end. It's the sort of thing that reminds you that you are watching a budget drama.
SPOILERS // I don’t feel like the ending is supposed to rip you off. No matter if they had 100 million dollars the story just doesn’t call for making it “a set piece”, as you call it. I personally love that we leave them in this enclosed space inside the car and all those thoughts and feelings going through her as she sits there. Alone, yet with her family. Seeing the dead body of Gustav and/or seeing her/them at the funeral would just be exactly that cliche story you are talking about. I like this ending a lot more.

Also, I feel like, if you want to, there’s so much to take from this story, which is in the subtext or just subtle. Much of the story or the characters are developed in the subtext. I like that.

[Citizen Rules]

I think the last half of the film is the way it is, because the director needed to tie the story into the Batman universe. Personally I enjoyed the first half thanks to the exploration of the state of being of Phoenix's character. I wish the film was not called Joker and had no tie in to the Batman universe. But then again it might not have been made, and wouldn't have made nearly as much money.

[MovieMeditation]

I think the last half of the film is the way it is, because the director needed to tie the story into the Batman universe.
I got super confused for a second, since you didn’t quote who you were talking to and I made a reply in between, making it seem like you commented on the last half of Dronningen and how it needs to tie into the Batman universe. :laugh:

[Citizen Rules]

I got super confused for a second, since you didn’t quote who you were talking to and I made a reply in between, making it seem like you commented on the last half of Dronningen and how it needs to tie into the Batman universe. :laugh:Ha:p

[edarsenal]

I surprised myself by really liking Blue Rain, and oddly enough I didn't find it overly violent. I think it's because it didn't linger on the violent scenes and present them as eye-candy, like a Tarantino film would.

Did anybody else see it as a cautionary tale in the vein of the Hatfield–McCoy feud (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield%E2%80%93McCoy_feud) ?
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield%E2%80%93McCoy_feud)
When kin shoots kin, it's always Hatfields and McCoys pops in my mind.
Speaking of, a while back I'd seen an awesome TV mini-series (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1985443/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_16) of it with Kevin Costner showing ow it leads up to, its full duration and aftereffects.

[Citizen Rules]

When kin shoots kin, it's always Hatfields and McCoys pops in my mind.
Speaking of, a while back I'd seen an awesome TV mini-series (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1985443/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_16) of it with Kevin Costner showing ow it leads up to, its full duration and aftereffects.I've been meaning to watch that mini series, I remember hearing it was really good.

[edarsenal]

I've been meaning to watch that mini series, I remember hearing it was really good.

I was very impressed by all of it. Excellent mini-series all around.

[Wyldesyde19]

I’ll be making a push into the rest of these the next week.
Plan on hitting the rental for Blue Ruin, and hoping they have a few more available to rent.
Waco is saved on Amazon so that Shouldn’t be a problem.

[Wyldesyde19]

Ok, Rented Blue Ruin, I, Daniel Blake and Shine. Let’s see if Neiba can continue his run Incredible run in these General HOF.

[neiba]

Ok, Rented Blue Ruin, I, Daniel Blake and Shine. Let’s see if Neiba can continue his run Incredible run in these General HOF.

To do that I first need to watch all the films here! :p

Let's get this party started then:

Mildred Pierce (1945)

It's an interesting combination of genres, with what is actually a drama but told in the structure of a noir. The cinematography (which looks stunning btw) of the opening of the film even suggests this will be a quintessential noir but as the story progresses the less important the murder presented in the beggining seems when compared to how these characters interact.

I do think the acting was very good, especially from the young Ann Blyth which portrays one of the most despicable characters I've seen recently. Joan Crawford was very good too if I consider that the flaws of this movie (that I think are pretty much on her character) happen due to the director/screenwriter's choices of characters building and not so much due to her work.
First, 2 major things happen to Mildred in the first 30/40 minutes of film which are a divorce and the death of a daughter and I didn't see her being affected enough. In fact, the divorce does absolutely nothing to her and the death of child even does less if you think how much it should matter. Even the way they happen it's totally anti-climatic, there's no weight to it.
Secondly, is that Mildred is too much of a contradiction for me to find her credible. We have a woman who raises an empire from the ground due to hard work and incredible vision but that gets manipulated by a teenager who doesn't even appear that smart beyond what's humanly tolerable. If you can let that slide due to her being her daughter, I don't see how to apply love as the reason to the way she lets Monte manipulate her. She doesn't love him, she knows that and I don't see how she needs him. If she has the money, is Monte only there for the status, so she can get her child back? I find it too big of a stretch, to be honest.
There's also Wally who must be the only smart character on the film - talks much but always wanted the best of Mildred without being stupid because of that - and Bert who is very hard to read and who I wished to see more of.
So we have a main character constantly making the wrong decisions and that ultimately hurts my ability to care for whatever happens to her which should be, IMO, the whole purpose of the film.

Otherwise, it's a good film, with some very interesting traits and great moments, but I can't help but think this story had more potential than this.

3 +

[neiba]

Last Picture Show (1971)

A very nice coming of age film, fueled with nostalgia and regret.
Nothing special happens during the 2 hours this takes, but at the same time, everything special happens. It's about wasting youth and how the only who have enough wisdom have already passed the time where big decisions could be made. Jacy's mom, especially, was a very fine character when it comes to this particular aspect.
I loved the acting by everyone involved and how bleak the movie looked. I also liked how much you felt the passing of time, it's like you could see this characters getting older and wiser, but at the same time, less excited about living.

Very nice nom!

3.5 -

[neiba]

Yeah, for some reason I misread the title and watched a film called Rules of Engagement (2000) with Sam L. Jackson thinking that was Wyldesyde19's nom! :bored:

[Wyldesyde19]

Yeah, for some reason I misread the title and watched a film called Rules of Engagement (2000) with Sam L. Jackson thinking that was Wyldesyde19's nom! :bored:
🤣🤣🤣🤣

[edarsenal]

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-10/26/14/campaign_images/buzzfeed-prod-web11/poverty-experts-defend-i-daniel-blake-for-its-rea-2-5345-1477507533-0_dblbig.jpg

I, Daniel Blake

Katie: . . .this is what he wrote. "I am not a client, a customer, nor a service user. I am not a shirker, a scrounger, a beggar, nor a thief. I'm not a National Insurance Number or blip on a screen. I paid my dues, never a penny short, and proud to do so. I don't tug the forelock, but look my neighbour in the eye and help him if I can. I don't accept or seek charity. My name is Daniel Blake. I am a man, not a dog. As such, I demand my rights. I demand you treat me with respect. I, Daniel Blake, am a citizen, nothing more and nothing less."

Sometimes a film comes along that leaves you speechless.
It touches you and you are unable to express -- anything, really. Because it doesn't quite feel adequate. To say I feel sorry for Daniel and how, sadly, truthful his and far, FAR too many others' situations are; seems ineffectual considering what I have witnessed watching this very touching and very sad film about realistic lives and realistic struggles when left to the bureaucracy of federal institutes.

Perhaps I should skirt the emotional impact and all the angry tears of seeing such good people, (I must include Katie in this) being brought lower when trying to deal with a system that states they are there to assist, but their rules and procedures make it nigh impossible to receive said assistance. I think many of us has experienced this in some form or fashion during our lives and this film hits home quite beautifully aka in a heartbreaking manner.

Both Dave Johns (Daniel) and Hayley Squires (Katie) bring very touching, very realistic performances. As do many of the people throughout. Which, I believe included one woman who helps Katie in the Food Bank who is not an actress but actually worked there.

A powerful film about a very everyday situation that shouldn't be but is.

[Siddon]

https://a.ltrbxd.com/resized/sm/upload/nc/ja/7e/yw/state-1200-1200-675-675-crop-000000.jpg?k=f73fe9ae1d

Yeah I don't get the hate...I watched it again and I just don't see where all the vitriol for this film came from. State of Siege is a docudrama that tells the story of a possible CIA operative who is kidnapped and murdered by guerrilla terrorists in an unnamed South American country. That isn't a spoiler as it's the first scene in the film. The point of the film in my opinion is you are supposed to decide with which side you end up with sympathies. Do you believe in the unseen deaths brought upon by a crooked government or the actions of the terrorists.



Gavras takes these long shots of immense scope we get those guy in the room scenes that we've become so familiar with but we also get these huge tracking shots that take us throughout the city...a city under siege. Some of you were bored by this...I certainly wasn't. You also have a tense Hitchcockian scene in a garage when the rebels (or terrorists) are being searched above while they hung out below.


I thought this was his most accessible film but I guess not. oh well

[neiba]

Blue Ruin (2013)

Quite a fresh take on revenge films.
I especially loved the cinematography and the editing of this. There's this aura that ties up the entire film quite nicely and the transition betweeen scenes is really smooth.
The acting is solid but I also didn't feel the actors had much to do as every character only show up a very limited range of emotions.
The film was made intenionally slow so we could see the journey of Dwight as he starts to realize he's way over his head and that he doesn't know how to stop what he started. I missed however more from the bad guys. We never actually meet them, we are put in the middle of the story with so much important stuff having already happened and we're told just to focus on one guy as he tries to kill a whole family.
This may not be a fair critic because the movie achieves perfectly what it wants, the problem is that it doesn't want much.

3

[MovieMeditation]

I thought this was his most accessible film but I guess not. oh well
It may very well be his most accessible film. He’s just not a very accessible director.

And that’s not meant in a negative way. But he just makes these very docu-drived and heavily politic films. That’s definitely not gonna be everybody’s cup of tea. Some directors chose to use the medium very differently, like Tarkovsky for example, where you don’t really follow the general rules of filmmaking. And Costa-Gavras is definitely one of them.

[MovieMeditation]

Blue Ruin (2013)

Quite a fresh take on revenge films.
I especially loved the cinematography and the editing of this. There's this aura that ties up the entire film quite nicely and the transition betweeen scenes is really smooth.
The acting is solid but I also didn't feel the actors had much to do as every character only show up a very limited range of emotions.
The film was made intenionally slow so we could see the journey of Dwight as he starts to realize he's way over his head and that he doesn't know how to stop what he started. I missed however more from the bad guys. We never actually meet them, we are put in the middle of the story with so much important stuff having already happened and we're told just to focus on one guy as he tries to kill a whole family.
This may not be a fair critic because the movie achieves perfectly what it wants, the problem is that it doesn't want much.

2.5 +
I’m a bit sad and a bit surprised you didn’t like this more.

We don’t see much to the bad guys because the bad guys are perhaps not even that bad. I loved this constant moral dilemma that was present at all times in the movie. We didn’t really know who was bad or what really happened. Should we root for this guy or not? It really did a great job at putting the emotions of equal amounts of anger, frustration and confusion in us. I disagree that it doesn’t want much. It want everything that you don’t usually see in revenge flicks. It’s like the Pulp Fiction of revenge flicks... how the protagonist is not really that tough. How he lives miserable before the actual kill. How the kill is actually super sloppy. How there’s many loose ends. How he tries to get weapons and it’s not as easy as it looks. How his plans fail more than succeed. How he has to encourage himself to do what he does. How he is human. How he has to wait around for the “baddies” to come home and that not everything turns out the way it should have etc etc

[Wyldesyde19]

I’ve watched both Blue Ruin and Shine and will have reviews Written soon

[neiba]

I’m a bit sad and a bit surprised you didn’t like this more.

We don’t see much to the bad guys because the bad guys are perhaps not even that bad. I loved this constant moral dilemma that was present at all times in the movie. We didn’t really know who was bad or what really happened. Should we root for this guy or not? It really did a great job at putting the emotions of equal amounts of anger, frustration and confusion in us. I disagree that it doesn’t want much. It want everything that you don’t usually see in revenge flicks. It’s like the Pulp Fiction of revenge flicks... how the protagonist is not really that tough. How he lives miserable before the actual kill. How the kill is actually super sloppy. How there’s many loose ends. How he tries to get weapons and it’s not as easy as it looks. How his plans fail more than succeed. How he has to encourage himself to do what he does. How he is human. How he has to wait around for the “baddies” to come home and that not everything turns out the way it should have etc etc

Yeah, but the way the bad guys are portrayed is as if they kind of deserve it because the whole family would gladly kill someone and not sweat about it.
About the loose ends, I think Dwight wanted to go to jail and he didn't expect them not to call the cops, so he's faced with the decision to kill the whole family or let his entire family die. He really has no other option. There's merit on that, to see a human being suffer from his own actions.
Hell... I'll raise half a popcorn to the rating xD

[MovieMeditation]

Hell... I'll raise half a popcorn to the rating xD
My job here is done.

:laugh:

[Wyldesyde19]

Shine


Genius has a way of of being a double edged sword. It incites jealousy from your peers, despite all the praise they also heap your way. And sometimes that can come from your own family. This is what happens with David Hefgott. Rush is amazing in this film. Lets gets that out of the way first. He was amazing when I first watched this right around when he won his Oscar for this portrayal, 23 years ago. He's still amazing after all these years. He quickly became one of my favorite actors.
Hefgott becomes a prodigy, which seems to incite jealousy from his own father, played with icy contempt by Armin Mueller-Stahl. He plays him with a stern and foreboding presence, it was no wonder David wilted under his withering gaze. The elder Hefgott abuses him both physically, and mentally. Eventually, David has a mental breakdown. what follows is his rediscovery and return to the music world, and a reconciliation of sorts with his father. The pacing is wonderful, and the director, Scott Hicks, wisely doesn't go for sentimentality here. He gives the biopic the attention and care it deserves. The way the piano pieces are filmed made me want to learn the piano. I could listen to the soundtrack all day. As such, we're left with an achievement that fully captures a man in turmoil, crushed under the weight of his mental illness. And occasionally, the genius that lurked beneath, hidden away.

[Wyldesyde19]

I’ll do my review for Blue Ruin tomorrow. Going to start up I, Daniel Blake now. Been wanting to see this for years now.

[rauldc14]

I've decided to extend this one week, but that is it. Lists and reviews due July 27th

[neiba]

oI've decided to extend this one week, but that is it. Lists and reviews due July 27th

will keep planning my views with next week in mind but that's more comfortable. Sorry for the slacking!

[edarsenal]

I've decided to extend this one week, but that is it. Lists and reviews due July 27th

That is MORE than kind of you, but I'm still going to aim for the 20th to finish up the last films.

[Wyldesyde19]

Blue Ruin

Not a lot to say about this. It’s nothing really special, as far as revenge films go. Basic plot, basic characters, basic dialogue. About the only nice thing I can say is there were a few scenes where it got slightly intense, and there were a few nice shots.
Mostly, it was a disappointment. I expected more violence considering what I had heard about it, with comparisons to Blood Simple and Pulp Fiction. But those films offered far more then a plot. They were fresh. They were different.
Blue Ruin was just.....there.
About the only good thing to say about watching this, is that it will fill the slot on the 2020 movie challenge under “films made under 1 million budget”.
So...thanks for that. 👍

[edarsenal]

https://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/images/reviews/290/full/1433288174_3.png


State of Siege aka État de siège

Tupamaro leader: We don't have much time. If you want to write...
Philip Michael Santore: I'll write. But not to the embassy. To my wife only.

As a kid I remember seeing a few films done in a similar composition dealing with political/revolutionary stories, so that, even without any prior knowledge of the climate of the film, it was an easy segue into how things would proceed. And for me, finding the flow of any given film does wonders for my ability to explore and experience said film. And that experience was an enjoyable one.

Before writing this I read the reviews for this since I wanted to wait until I saw this before doing so. Something I've done with the other films in this HoF I haven't seen.
I did notice that the most common critique is that there is no look beneath the surface of the facts presented. The lack of personal knowledge in those involved; their motives, desires and so forth.
I think that kind of knowledge would have minimized the importance of the politics, aka the game of chess being played out. Removing that personal touch amplifies the indifference of what is done to the citizens and how, to fight back, the urban guerrillas leave their own personas behind and become The Idea for which they are fighting for and the Policies they are battling against.
In the end, it is a chess game and emotions and personalities create more conflict instead of the pursuit of the final move.
It may make for a boring film for many, but, understanding this simple fact from the get go, it was not, at all, for me.

From the opening of the intense amount of military and police stopping vehicle after vehicle, including armed troops on roof tops to the expertise of the guerrillas collecting vehicles I was intrigued and knew I was in for some serious old school espionage/spy genre done in a documentary film style. And while there was a number of times I had to pay very close attention, being outside the chess game as a mere observer, it was still a very good film and one I may see again to delve even deeper in game in play.

[edarsenal]

could I get a link for Dronningen, please
THANKS

[edarsenal]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uiB9TB69TVA/hqdefault.jpg


Waco: Rules of Engagement

I remember when this was going on and every single news story as well as a movie that went straight to TV scarcely a few months after the fire when so many died had only one thing to say: Koresch is an insane zealot who set his compound on fire, killing his congregation. There were the occasional rumors that it was the FBI who sent in tanks that caused the fire and that the enforcement agencies severely dropped the ball. Followed by more and more stock reports: Koresch is a religious zealot that committed mass suicide to his congregation and himself. Making comparisons to the infamous Jim Jones/Jonestown where some 900 believers died from drinking cyanide drugged kool-aid. Squashing said rumors as rumors only.
For myself, during that summer as the incident was turned into a twisted circus of the agencies, government and news repeating the above fact over and over till everyone considered it the entire story and the complete truth; I tuned out, knowing in my gut that when there's that much insistence by one side, somebody somewhere is covering up some kind of f@ck up and that this lil country of mine has had a stockpile of said f@ck ups and a bigger pile of BS attempting to cover it up throughout our history. To the point when it has become an art form. Sadly.

So, to see this document which, if you didn't see the massive amount of one side propaganda going on at the time it could be easily construed that this is the exact same or perhaps just a retort to an argument that many folks know little about.
For me, what is seen on the document, especially detailing that final day is a whole lot of stuff that was NEVER mentioned in any news story or made for TV movie that allegedly was strictly fact based.

Do I know the FULL story on both sides? Nope. Only those involved do.
But gassing children and elderly people is horsesh#t.

[edarsenal]

I've also finished The Last Picture Show leaving me with Dronnegin (THANKS CR for the link) and Joker to finish up on.
Not sure if I'll have time to write up Picture Show tonight -- time will tell.

[Wyldesyde19]

I have reviews to write up for I, Daniel Blake and Waco. Then just Dronningen, State of Siege and Mildred Pierce to watch

[Wyldesyde19]

I, Daniel Blake


This film is a scathing attack on the welfare system and how it views those they deem dependent upon it. It’s pacing is slow, but it has to be, as we’re afforded time to get to know the characters involved. The message isn’t subtle, but it’s not supposed to be, I guess. At times, it comes close to grandstanding. For sure, it comes off slightly preachy. The final scene, where Kate reads Daniels letter, for instance.
But those are minor quibble sin an otherwise marvelous film. I feel for Daniel, and Kate. The scene where Kate breaks down in the food bank is sad and effective one. It doesn’t overreach.
The actors are good in their roles. Dave Johns plays Daniel as a proud man, one who has never depended on anyone else his whole life. A heart attack has changed that, And he is now dependent on the welfare system.
He’s caught in a literal Catch 22. He’s deemed unfit to work By his Doctor. The assessor seems him fit to go to work. Without consulting his physician. How he is treated by those those who are supposed to help him says more about the individuals in charge.
So begins his trials.
Kate is played by Hailey Squires, with a vulnerability that she hides from her children which soon takes a toll on her. She eventually is forced to do a job that Daniel feels is beneath her. But she’ll do anything for her children. That minor subplot is, sadly, dropped and never picked back up. Made Kate and her own experiences with that job would have been satisfying.
But again, that’s a minor quibble. This film is great. It’s my first Loach film, and I’ve been wanting to see his films for awhile now. I’m glad I finally have.
Dammit Neiba! If your films wins again, I’m starting a petition to ban you from future HOF! Haha

[neiba]

I, Daniel Blake


This film is a scathing attack on the welfare system and how it views those they deem dependent upon it. It’s pacing is slow, but it has to be, as we’re afforded time to get to know the characters involved. The message isn’t subtle, but it’s not supposed to be, I guess. At times, it comes close to grandstanding. For sure, it comes off slightly preachy. The final scene, where Kate reads Daniels letter, for instance.
But those are minor quibble sin an otherwise marvelous film. I feel for Daniel, and Kate. The scene where Kate breaks down in the food bank is sad and effective one. It doesn’t overreach.
The actors are good in their roles. Dave Johns plays Daniel as a proud man, one who has never depended on anyone else his whole life. A heart attack has changed that, And he is now dependent on the welfare system.
He’s caught in a literal Catch 22. He’s deemed unfit to work By his Doctor. The assessor seems him fit to go to work. Without consulting his physician. How he is treated by those those who are supposed to help him says more about the individuals in charge.
So begins his trials.
Kate is played by Hailey Squires, with a vulnerability that she hides from her children which soon takes a toll on her. She eventually is forced to do a job that Daniel feels is beneath her. But she’ll do anything for her children. That minor subplot is, sadly, dropped and never picked back up. Made Kate and her own experiences with that job would have been satisfying.
But again, that’s a minor quibble. This film is great. It’s my first Loach film, and I’ve been wanting to see his films for awhile now. I’m glad I finally have.
Dammit Neiba! If your films wins again, I’m starting a petition to ban you from future HOF! Haha

Ahah! I'm glad you liked it! But I think you don't have to worry about that, I can see Inglorious Basterds taking this!

[Miss Vicky]

leaving me with Dronnegin and Joker to finish up on.

You saving the best for last or what?

[Wyldesyde19]

Ahah! I'm glad you liked it! But I think you don't have to worry about that, I can see Inglorious Basterds taking this!

It isn’t as good as Jagten, which was amazing, but a great film nonetheless.

[neiba]

Waco: The Rules of Engagement (1997)

I don't have much to add that most of people wrote about this film here haven't said already.

For starters, props to Wyldsyde for nominating a documentary. It's a genre that I feel isn't represented enough around MoFo and it's really nice to see one competing on a general HoF.

I too, had to check what was all this about half through the film, because the director just assumes that you have a basic knowledge of what happened here, or at least that you know the "official" version, to which this documentary poses opposition.
I can understand this film taking only one side of the history (which is something I usually don't like about docs), being that there is already a dominant view on the story and this tries to balance the two sides of the story. What I can't forgive is the feeling that the directors obviously began working on this with their views already set on stone, which ultimately hurts the credibitlity of the film, and my emotional connection of the film.

As an European, there's something so alien in hearing some Americans speak as if they were the only that have freedom and that justifies everything. Adding that my absolute and visceral hate for cults (particularly those involving children) and for people who base their view of a country's laws on a freaking mythology book, it's hard to relate with the crazies who are, according to this documentary, the victims.

That being said, there's obviously some shady aspects of the story told by the government. Is it really like this documentary portraits? I seriously doubt it, but I believe there's some true about it.

As a film, this has some flaws, being the twisted view on the subject the main one, but there's also problems with the selection of information put into this, the pacing and the cinematography isn't really interesting.

2.5 -

[neiba]

Does someone have a link for State of Siege?

[Citizen Rules]

Does someone have a link for State of Siege?
I do, I'll PM you.

[rauldc14]

I'll play catch up on this thread tomorrow. Sorry for falling behind on it. Looks like just 3 more ballots to gather and a few reviews of course.

[rauldc14]

Actually I should be caught up now. Just need 3 more from Ed, 5 from Neiba and Wylde. Let me know if I missed any!

[neiba]

Actually I should be caught up now. Just need 3 more from Ed, 5 from Neiba and Wylde. Let me know if I missed any!

You missed my review on Blue Ruin! :)

And write-up on State of Siege coming right up!

[rauldc14]

You missed my review on Blue Ruin! :)

And write-up on State of Siege coming right up!

Fixed, sorry for the miss!

[neiba]

State of Siege (1972)

Ooooof... So much to say about this!

I had watched Costa-Gavras' Z in preparation for the 60s Countdown and included it on my list, at #15. Like Z, State of Siege is a profound critique on fascist regimes, on the deterioration of democratic governments due to unhealthy relationships between church, army and state and an ideological defense of the communist revolutionary movements that fought to overthrow this dictatorships. Like Z, State of Siege is an incredibly intelligent film filled with irony and more than a few brilliant moments.
This film is obviously about the political situation in Urugay in the late 60s and early 70s (there would actually be a coup-d'etat in 1973 that installed a definitive fascist regime that last 12 years), but the name of the country is never mentioned. You see flags, you see planes with Montevideo written on them and a couple more clues, but the idea is that this can be applied to any Latin America country that was being a victim of American imperialism and growing fascist movements. It also manages to hit the brazilian dictatorship a few times (that scene where a naked man is being tortured and the camera turns to the brazilian flag which has Order and Progress written on it is one of the many examples of Costa-Gavras irony).

As with any historical drama, particularly a docu-drama like this one, the more you know about the historical context of the film, the more you gain from it. And the more you can relate to the political situation of Uruguay at this time, the more you can relate with the characters, and more importantly in this case, with the movie's concept (which I see has been a problem to most people on this HoF).
My country dealt with a fascist dictatorship that lasted 41 years and that ended in 1974, so not long after this film came out. It ended with a pacific revolution made by the communist resistence (that dealt with a similar opposition as the one the Tupamaros did), then we lived in a quasi-communist regime for 2 years and changed in 1976 to a social democratic government that we still conserve to this day, like most european countries. So, I will always refuse to see comunism as the devil, though I strongly disagree with it. I see its importance particularly in fighting absolutism and unjustice though I wouldn't give the reigns of any country to a communist government.

Now, given that Costa-Gavras was extremely critical of what Santore represented, you would expect that character to be one of the villains of the film. However, he is never treated like that, but like someone who is not only very perceptive but also very sensible. His interrogatory scenes are not framed as if they were between oppresor and captive, but as an ideological debate that has no clear winner, as both sides present extremely valid points. You can see that his interrogator, while not liking him, is one of the few that doesn't want to kill him and is one of the few who actually understands the weight of the final decision the movement has to make regarding Santore's life.

Then you have also someone who I adored to see on screen: the old journalist, who I imagine represents the view of the director himself. Watching everything happen from outside, while being affected by it, seeing his country less and less democratic, not appreciating the violence lead by the Tupamaros but understanding why it was happening and commenting on all of it with the most refined irony. He understood everything beyond the ideologically blind debate and pointed it out time and time again but never being taken seriously.

Now, as I said, a common attack on this film on this HoF is that Costa-Gavras didn't make people relate with the characters which turned the experience a less enjoyable one. While I can understand and respect that, I absolutely disagree. There are only a few scenes where the director asks you to care for individual characters: the funeral, the scene where Santore realizes he's about to die and chooses to write to his wife instead of asking for help and the brilliant bus scene, where you see Tupamaros struggling with a hard decision while not being properly understood by his comrades who only want all capitalists to die no matter what. The rest of the film is not about caring for characters, it's not about the individual members of Tupamaros, Santore or his family, the journalists or the politicians. This film is about caring and relating for an idea, which is way more challenging but equally important. The idea that all men are born equal, that a country deserves its sovereignty and that democracies should never stop checking themselves as the danger is often born from within.

And in that regard, State of Siege is a masterpiece. Thanks Siddon.

4

[MovieMeditation]

Great write up, neiba!

[edarsenal]

You saving the best for last or what?

actually, I am. I tried to sit at home last night to sit back and enjoy Joker, but it didn't work out that way, but I do wish to finish off with that nomination.

[edarsenal]

neiba, LOVED the old journalist as well.

[neiba]

Shine (1996)

This was a film that had been on top of my watchlist for quite some time now, and I'm glad I finally gave it a go. Sorry for the following review, is quite messy, but I'm tired and have so much on my mind about this film that I can't organize it properly.

A strict father projects his own failures on his talented son who grows surrounded by pressure and extremely poor social skills. The kid eventually snaps when perfoming the monumental Rach 3, one of the most challenging pieces ever written for piano, both technically and musically. This piece had the aditional weight of being the one which, in David's mind, would finally satisfy his dad's never-ending appetite for perfection.

As a story telling device, the film is very well constructed. It never tries to simplify the musical universe, which is more than most music films do, and focuses more on the humane side of the story which is something that a non musically educated viewer can understand and relate to. The perfomances are quite good by everyone involved, with the obvious highlight going to Geoffrey Rush who has some moments of brilliancy (the scene where he meets his father in his room, suddenly becoming so fragile and child-like is exceptional) in a all around very solid perfomance.
The soundtrack is obviously one of the best parts of this film, with a few emblematic pieces of the classical repertoire and a few that I wasn't expecting to hear.
It falls sometimes into the typical cliches found in biopics. I didn't like the way the relationship with the astrologist is explored, it feels too sudden, too fast and almost unbalanced, like she was taking advantage of him, or at least as if that whole relationship was only the tool to show him getting back to doing concerts.

As a musician, this story is not a new one for me. It's not uncommon that amazing young talents just lose their way, falling into depression, schizophrenia or any other mental illness more or less serious, usually for not having enough emotional support nor ways to blow some steam. I know a particular case, of a guy a bit older than me, who is a hell of a pianist but that behaves exactly the character on this film. He doesn't know how to behave with other people, he's always awkward, when I talked to him about driving a car he told me he could never do it because he sees numbers all the time in front of his eyes. But when this man sits in front of a piano, he's no longer the weird man staring on his shoes and fidgeting with fingers, he's a god. I'm sure it's the only time when he sees clearly, when he gives himself to this obsession, the same that took everything else away from him.
David Helfgott obviously had the seeds of his mental illness with him from the start, but there are so many ways the turning point could be avoided. The father has, obviously, the greatest responsability, but not the totality of it. The kid should have played tennis or studied chemistry or did anything else as an hobbie, to learn that living solely for music (or anything really) can lead to this.
Because that didn't happen, music became his cross to carry, not his passion. He began taking pleasure of not missing any notes and not from actually making music, something that commonly happens to many musicians, even those with no mental illness. And there's a moment that ilustrates that perfectly: when he's playing the Rachmaninoff Concerto and the sound shuts up and he can only hear the tapping of his fingers, like the mechanical perfection of a swiss clock. Music shouldn't be about that. It shouldn't be about competition or prizes. It should be about sharing this magical bubble created by musician and composer to which the audience is invited and where mistakes are allowed, but lack of passion isnt'. The fact that there is something called "concert musicians vs competition musicians" (meaning some musicians are amazing at concerts but don't fill the necessary requirements to win competitions, whatever the f*** that is) is a disgrace. And that's the other part of the guilt: the culture surrounding classical music that will forever crush the spirit of the most fragile musicians, no matter how talented.
So it's no surprise David finds the passion again when he's playing on a restaurant, with no added pressure to be perfect. Then there's the moment when he cries after the concert, like he found redemption finally, like it all makes sense... That moment brought me to tears, so thank you ed for the nomination.

4-

[Wyldesyde19]

Cranking out the last 3 In the next few days. Also, going to do a review of Waco.

[Citizen Rules]

Cranking out the last 3 In the next few days. Also, going to do a review of Waco.Have you seen Waco before? Or was it a blind nom?

[Wyldesyde19]

Have you seen Waco before? Or was it a blind nom?
I’ve seen it before. Been over a year though.

[Citizen Rules]

I’ve seen it before. Been over a year though.Cool...I look forward to your review of it.

[neiba]

Dronningen (2019)

Third (?) danish film on these HoFs, third film about pedophilia. What's up with the danish movie industry, MovieMeditation? :p All of them great, btw!

This is obviously a very twisted and heavy film. Like someone said, it's pretty much the counterpart to Jagten.
I like how the characters are introduced to us and how much our perception of them changes with the film. We are shown a woman who is very successful, who does a job protecting children, who has a nice marriage and obviously loves her daughters and who can, in the first interactions she has with Gustav, show a lot of empathy and good parenting. We are conditioned to root for her from the start even when she starts abusing the boy (if it was a man abusing an underage girl, the public perception would be a lot different) which is a very well executed manipulation done by the director. Also because the kid is shown as a mature and intelligent young adult rather than as a child, the whole relationship doesn't look as wrong as it inherently is and even the extremely graphic sex scenes normalize the whole thing to the point it doesn't feel as uncomfortable as it should.
However, we soon realize that the whole reason behind her behaviour is a middle age crises and as soon as she realizes that she might deal with the consequences of her actions she turns into somebody else. She lies, manipulates her husband and Gustav, does the old victim blaming and creates the idea on the mind of the boy that she is powerful and nothing he can do can affect her. This shows Gustav as he truly his - a child who was abused and who has not the mental structure to hold such a thing - and works as a wake up call for the audience. It reinforces how monstrous pedophilia really is and how wrong we were in relativizing Anne's actions, even if we were conditioned to do that. The ending is as brutal as predictable and you can only hope that woman has a horrible future ahead of her.

The acting is very very good, especially by Trine Dyrholm who shows an impressive array of emotions. Gustav Lindh does also a great job.
The cinematography serves perfectly the theme of the film, creating and releasing tension on the right moments and giving it an aura that unifies the whole picture.

Very good nomination MM!

3.5 +

[neiba]

Joker (2019)

So... second time watching this in a few months and I have to say I am one of those who thinks this loses all its power on a second run. I never thought it was brilliant but at least it made me root for the main character. This time around though, it did nothing to me.
I'd say the main problem is that it lacks unity. A lot. Besides Joaquin Phoenix' perfomance - who does a terrific job as usual, but neither he is the best man that ever played Joker nor this is Phoenix' best work - there are no homogenous elements. The script is a mess, the mental illness doesn't seem coherent and many decisions seemed motivated more by social commentary (to call it politely) than by artistic reasons which is something I hate. And I won't even talk about the clear borrowing from Taxi Driver and King of Comedy, both much greater films, precisely for being able to build great atmospheres that tie the film together.
There are some moments of great cinematography which again are isolated and the same could be said about the soundtrack.
The film eventually becomes boring because none of the characters are believable or relatable and everything seems unorganic. I can say I wasn't expecting to struggle to finish this but these 2 hours seemed like a lot more...

2.5 +

[neiba]

Done and list sent, just in time of the original deadline. Such a strong selection of films!!! Well done everyone!

[Wyldesyde19]

Waco: The Rules of Engagement


Watching Waco we become aware of several things:

1). The ATF acted outside their jurisdiction.
2). Evidence either disappeared or was lost.
3). The child abuse charges and statutory rape charges have, to this day, never been proven. Indeed, on of the key alleged victims seems to have read an “account” that seemed written for her. She has also been accused of giving contradictory statements.
The films paints an ugly picture of a bungled raid that quickly spiraled out of control. As events continued to spiral away from the agents, they eventually made a desperate last attempt to bring them to their knees.
I was 13, I think when this occurred, And remember it vividly. The fire. The news reports. No one at the time could have predicted what would happen. Yet watching this documentary, one wonders how that’s possible?
The movie switches between video archive of deceased Branch Davidians, and the resulting hearing that followed. In between those are actual footage of the gunfight. It even shows the smoking bodies. It isn’t for the faint of heart. But this movie doesn’t draw its own conclusions. It presents the evidence from both sides and allows us to make up our own minds.
And of course, the spectre of David Koresh looms ominously through out. Presented by archives video during the siege and video recordings, his charm obvious to those who knew him.
Was he insane? Possibly Was he as dangerous as the Government claimed? Maybe. We’ll never know for sure. What we do know, however, is that he absolutely defied the government, and we know how they tend to respond to such defiance.
And at the end, the FBI, having taken over, had decided that it was enough. What transpired was a tragedy.

[Wyldesyde19]

State of Siege


Costa-Gravis political pot boiler about the fate a kidnapped American who is blamed for training in the use of torture and in being a part of counter insurgency and collusion with the government.
We see debate between the american, Philip Michael Santore (Yves Montand) and his captors. As each allegation is brought against him and he attempts to deny it, they engage in a discussion over their beliefs and politics.
Mean while, the government starts to hunt the liberation group down.
The film draws a fine line between the two, as the guerillas are doing what they must to survive, while the Government does what they want to stay in power.
This film is never boring, and Gravas keeps the tension throughout, even with the interrogations and the resulting search. All the while, we’re privy to how the government really works as we see reporters asking their own questions of the validity of some of the accusations.
Really good pick, and as mentioned previously, I had thought I’d seen it already but may have confused with possibly Army of Shadows.

[Thursday Next]

It looks like State of Siege is gathering a bit more appreciation towards the end of this HoF, nice to see!

[Wyldesyde19]

Watching Mildred Pierce now before I go to work.

[Wyldesyde19]

Finishing this tonight. Watching Queen of Hearts right now.
Will update tomorrow.

[Wyldesyde19]

Mildred Pierce

Poor Mildred. All she wants is her oldest daughters love. So much so she’ll buy her anything to attain it. Expensive dress. Check. Expensive car. Check.
Heck, she’ll even marry a man she doesn’t love due to his social status to keep her happy. As you can imagine, it’s all down hill from there.
The film opens with the death of said man. We are then treated to a flashback that explains how Mildred, played with equal parts vulnerability and determination by Joan Crawford, arrived to this moment. As told to the detectives.
From one unhappy marriage to another. Along the way, she opens a restaurant business. Her eldest daughter, Veda, a spoiled brat played convincingly by Ann Blyth, looks down upon her with contempt. It is their relationship that is at the heart of the story. We never really know why she has such contempt for her mother. I don’t think she could even explain it.
As we follow Mildred’s story, we understand her pain. She’s willing to sacrifice so much for Veda.
Curtiz does a good job of capturing the city and the beach, particularly at the beginning as she walks along the boardwalk alone At night and we see the dampness along the boards. And all the while, he completely captures the inner despair Mildred feels as she desperately attempts to recapture Vedas live and respect.
And of course the closeups of Crawford’s face as we see her sadness. Her eyes, and her body language.
Shout out to her assistant, played by Eve Arden,who stole most scenes she was in. She had some great one liners.
This was a great nomination. Even better, it was a good film. Not at all what I expected.

[rauldc14]

Need 4 from Ed, 1 from Wylde

[edarsenal]

Shine (1996)

This was a film that had been on top of my watchlist for quite some time now, and I'm glad I finally gave it a go. Sorry for the following review, is quite messy, but I'm tired and have so much on my mind about this film that I can't organize it properly.

A strict father projects his own failures on his talented son who grows surrounded by pressure and extremely poor social skills. The kid eventually snaps when perfoming the monumental Rach 3, one of the most challenging pieces ever written for piano, both technically and musically. This piece had the aditional weight of being the one which, in David's mind, would finally satisfy his dad's never-ending appetite for perfection.

As a story telling device, the film is very well constructed. It never tries to simplify the musical universe, which is more than most music films do, and focuses more on the humane side of the story which is something that a non musically educated viewer can understand and relate to. The perfomances are quite good by everyone involved, with the obvious highlight going to Geoffrey Rush who has some moments of brilliancy (the scene where he meets his father in his room, suddenly becoming so fragile and child-like is exceptional) in a all around very solid perfomance.
The soundtrack is obviously one of the best parts of this film, with a few emblematic pieces of the classical repertoire and a few that I wasn't expecting to hear.
It falls sometimes into the typical cliches found in biopics. I didn't like the way the relationship with the astrologist is explored, it feels too sudden, too fast and almost unbalanced, like she was taking advantage of him, or at least as if that whole relationship was only the tool to show him getting back to doing concerts.

As a musician, this story is not a new one for me. It's not uncommon that amazing young talents just lose their way, falling into depression, schizophrenia or any other mental illness more or less serious, usually for not having enough emotional support nor ways to blow some steam. I know a particular case, of a guy a bit older than me, who is a hell of a pianist but that behaves exactly the character on this film. He doesn't know how to behave with other people, he's always awkward, when I talked to him about driving a car he told me he could never do it because he sees numbers all the time in front of his eyes. But when this man sits in front of a piano, he's no longer the weird man staring on his shoes and fidgeting with fingers, he's a god. I'm sure it's the only time when he sees clearly, when he gives himself to this obsession, the same that took everything else away from him.
David Helfgott obviously had the seeds of his mental illness with him from the start, but there are so many ways the turning point could be avoided. The father has, obviously, the greatest responsability, but not the totality of it. The kid should have played tennis or studied chemistry or did anything else as an hobbie, to learn that living solely for music (or anything really) can lead to this.
Because that didn't happen, music became his cross to carry, not his passion. He began taking pleasure of not missing any notes and not from actually making music, something that commonly happens to many musicians, even those with no mental illness. And there's a moment that ilustrates that perfectly: when he's playing the Rachmaninoff Concerto and the sound shuts up and he can only hear the tapping of his fingers, like the mechanical perfection of a swiss clock. Music shouldn't be about that. It shouldn't be about competition or prizes. It should be about sharing this magical bubble created by musician and composer to which the audience is invited and where mistakes are allowed, but lack of passion isnt'. The fact that there is something called "concert musicians vs competition musicians" (meaning some musicians are amazing at concerts but don't fill the necessary requirements to win competitions, whatever the f*** that is) is a disgrace. And that's the other part of the guilt: the culture surrounding classical music that will forever crush the spirit of the most fragile musicians, no matter how talented.
So it's no surprise David finds the passion again when he's playing on a restaurant, with no added pressure to be perfect. Then there's the moment when he cries after the concert, like he found redemption finally, like it all makes sense... That moment brought me to tears, so thank you ed for the nomination.

4-
Very glad to hear you enjoyed it.
Thanks for sharing the story of your friend, I've known a few and in my youth, I was that person and chickened out from going that rabbit hole and the tragedy that following it always brings to the mind, heart and life. Being the prize exacted for creative genius.

I agree about the "concert musicians vs competition musicians" (or as I prefer to call them: passionate vs technical musicians). Both being extraordinary but, for me, it is the former that captures my heart and my complete attention and only my respect for the latter. One particular classical guitarist, Tatyana Ryzhkova whom I enjoy watching on youtube is of the former and there is such an enchanting playfulness that, while I TRY to study her technique I am forever captured by how she "converses" with her instrument and the music she is playing.

[edarsenal]

Need 4 from Ed, 1 from Wylde

three actually. Two of which I'll be posting shortly.

[edarsenal]

https://www.lisahoyrup.dk/jk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/trinedyrholmwww.jpg


Dronnegin aka Queen of Hearts

Gustav: What are you most afraid of?
Anne: That everything will disappear.

It has been my movie watching experience that nearly all Directors set out to create an emotional state, convey it and ignite us with it. For May el-Toukhy it appears that emotion is Anger to the point of Rage.
And for me, it was an utter and complete success.

A little too much in fact because it was nearly impossible to appreciate the talent and nuance that went into making this film. The camera work, the composition, story arching, all of it was difficult to see beyond my seething disgust at what transpires.
My sole attention remained on the methodical sociopath, Anne. Who's professional psychiatric manipulations in the beginning, are easily missed. Then, as the spiral begins, are made more and more evident. Even her refusal to take blame is hinted at when her boss asks her, to just once, admit that she made a mistake.
Trine Dyrholm is exceptional at the layers of emotions that play out and even more so at the ones hidden beneath the cold veneer of this self-preserving -- and forgive the use of word, because all others fail -- c#nt.
For me, there was never a moment in that first hour of the film with any kind of sympathy or attachment to the character, Anne. Her every action was all a professional facade hiding the immoral predator that lurked, biding it's time for the proper victim. There are countless moments in that first hour that hint at it. How she controls her "cases", her home, her husband and, when it comes to seduction of Gustav, it is not out of the blue, but calculated. Each and every step. Even that initial blowjob, there is a cold detachment of a predator claiming what it's about to devour.

When her sister catches them, her reaction isn't shame or guilt. It is fear of being found out. Of (as the quote I chose) losing everything. To the point of destroying Gustav.
In the final scene, her lips part, as if to say something.
Is it a confession?
Hell no.
She's taking that evil secret to her grave and anyone else who dares to attempt to reveal it will be pulverized.

[edarsenal]

https://www.themoviegourmet.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/last-picture1.jpg


The Last Picture Show

Sam the Lion: If she was here I'd probably be just as crazy now as I was then in about 5 minutes. Ain't that ridiculous?... Naw, it ain't really. 'Cause being crazy about a woman like her is always the right thing to do. Being an old decrepit bag of bones, that's what's ridiculous. Gettin' old.

Considering this is a film about regret in a dead end town and those who inhabit it, I severely expected this to be a very difficult watch.
It wasn't.
And, by the way, I saw this BEFORE Queen of Hearts, so it wasn't by comparison of already being in that state of mind to make it easier. Though, I must say, it definitely didn't assist me in my watch of a far more difficult film.
With TLPS there is a kind of poetry to it all that I was familiar with on my multiple viewings of Paper Moon (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070510/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0) that begins with the opening scene traversing down the dirt street of mostly abandoned buildings, that will, by the final closing of the film, include the Movie House that is, along with everyone and everything else, an excellent visualization of the crux of the story and the state of mind of the townsfolk.

Now, I scarcely knew anything about this film going in and as I discovered the cast and their personal stories and interactions, I must say, I found myself caught up in all of it. Especially the adults. Though that could be me being an old codger and finding an easy connection to them and what they were going through. Ben Johnson's stoic and wise Sam the Lion, Eilleen Brennan's good-spirited Genevieve, Ellen Burstyn's Lois Farrow trying her best to help her daughter avoid the mistakes she's made. Which is, as many parents know, pointless and therefore, utterly frustrating. And, finally, the heart-breakingly beautiful performance by Cloris Leachman as Ruth. There is a reason that her comedic endeavors are so memorable and she does the same in this dramatic performance.
Not to say their youthful counterparts do not rise to the occasion. Bridges, Bottoms and Shepard and even Quaid are given some excellent characters to really shine in and they truly do. Bogdanovich filming them in an Old Hollywood-esque style. Especially Sybil Shepard who is forever lighted and framed like so many old time goddesses and Noir femme-fatales.

With a story line that traverses a year in the life, we see beneath the Happy Days persona of the Fifties to, like any other era, the less than pristine world that is outside the Movies. It amazed me that since the very few films of Bogdanovich I have seen I really enjoy each of them, that I do not seek out more of them.

[edarsenal]

And that leaves me with Joker.
If anyone has a link for it, PLEASE, let me know since my original search for a streaming rental is no longer available.
THANKS!!

[Wyldesyde19]

Queen of Hearts

Affairs always have messy endings. The beginnings usually start off fine. It’s the endings that are tricky. Anne learnt his lesson the hard way.
She seems to have it all. A successful career as a lawyer where she seems to help girls who themselves are victims. Twin girls she calls the birth of as being the best day of her life. Her sister, who she calls her best friend. And a husband who seems to be a decent man. So why does she risk it all for a Meaningless affair with his underaged step son? Did she feel unfulfilled? Probably. Or she herself a predator? Most likely.
The director does an amazing job at framing the scenes. Like when Peter drives away with his son, we see Anne and her daughters through the back window, as they appear further away. Or the scene where they are leaving at the end, Peter and his daughters are far ahead of Anne as she walks alone.
And a scene during Christmas where the girls get a dog as a gift. The Stepson, Gustav, must have been jealous about them having the life he never had.
Maybe he wanted revenge against his father? His motives are easier to discern. Until it seems he may have had actual feelings for Anne. It’s hard to tell. What is known, is he was a victim

[edarsenal]

THANKS CR!
Actually just found a rental and finished watching it.
Liked it a lot!
As I thought it would be, it WAS the ideal ending to this HoF.
I'll have a review up shortly

[edarsenal]

https://data.whicdn.com/images/336739478/original.jpg


Joker

Card: Forgive my Laughter: I have a Condition.

Coming from a guy who read comic books as a kid/teenager and graphic novels into my adulthood, I thought this was quite an excellent Origin Tale of Joker despite the flak that it has gotten from the comic book crowd. Taking the psychological fragmentation of a poor, desolate unknown, pitiful weakling that knows naught but sadness and abuse. As opposed to a criminal falling into a vat of acid or a similar glamorized mythos. Which, in my mind, is a far better route and it is done amazingly well.
Joaquin Phoenix is a master at portraying the more broken, victimized psyches and, as usual, Joaquin goes the extra mile, adding the malnutrition physique to Arthur Fleck. Creating an additional layer to this abused creature and the awkward infant steps of what would become the psychotic King of Chaos that all other comic book villains aspire to.

Phillips weaves a tension filled street of Gotham, it's cruel grittiness far more realistic than a lot of predecessors and we see the vulnerability and the tortured soul that was only hinted at and never shown in regards to the various possible origins of Joker. Giving us the foundering first steps as Arthur decides that his life is no longer a tragedy but a f@cking comedy.

I can very easily see myself rewatching this and enjoying it a little more, each time.
A D@MN FINE ending to this HoF!

[Miss Vicky]

Took you long enough. :p

Glad you enjoyed it!

[edarsenal]

Took you long enough. :p

Glad you enjoyed it!

hey, don't talk to me like we're married
;):D

THANKS for nominating it!

[rauldc14]

So we have everything we need (well except me tallying the final 3 ballots into the mix). But this is going to be damn insanely close, probably the most cluttered HOF to date. There's legitimately 7 films or so that have a shot (not trying to spoil anything, but it's the truth).

I'd like to propose Monday around 3PM central for an unveil.

[Thursday Next]

Any guesses as to the winner? Before it started I would have said Inglourious Basterds, but I, Daniel Blake looks like a solid contender.

[neiba]

I'm betting in IB, but I'm glad I, Daniel Blake at least challenges the clear favourite! Also Dronningen and Matrix may be surprise winners!

[Citizen Rules]

My guess is each of these noms will finish in these 4 groups. Though I have no idea about the order within the groups.

Top group
Shine
I, Daniel Blake
Queen of Hearts

Second group
The Matrix
Inglourious Basterds
Joker

Third group
Mildred Pierce
Blue Ruin

Fourth group
The Last Picture Show
State of Siege
Waco The Rules of Engagement

[Thursday Next]

I think you may be overrating Shine's chances there, Citizen, but I could be wrong! Only Miss Vicky really didn't like The Matrix so I'd say it's still in with a shot, and Mildred Pierce was moderately well received so that's got to be a second group-er. I think those bottom three were the least loved, certainly.

[MovieMeditation]

When is the reveal?

[neiba]

When is the reveal?

Supposedly in about 25 minutes

[Citizen Rules]

24 minutes now:)

[MovieMeditation]

Supposedly in about 25 minutes
24 minutes now:)
Thanks y'all.

That was also what I calculated my way to. There's so god damn many time zones I lose track of what's what. :bored:

[Citizen Rules]

Thanks y'all.

That was also what I calculated my way to. There's so god damn many time zones I lose track of what's what. :bored:I have no idea what time zone Raul's in. As far as I'm concerned there's only one time zone, mine:p

[CosmicRunaway]

He's in Central I think, but I don't understand what time that is. I can only convert to my timezone from Eastern haha.

[John-Connor]

I have 'world clocks' on my taskbar..
Rooting for Matrix! :cool:

[CosmicRunaway]

I used to use a website for converting time zones, but it was sometimes off during daylight savings time, which is a pretty long time to have an incorrect clock haha.

[John-Connor]

Just one click on the taskbar (Windows) and I get this;

66621

[CosmicRunaway]

Am I reading that map wrong, or is it claiming that Helsinki is in Africa?

[John-Connor]

lol, I think it overlaps, so it looks that way :p

[CosmicRunaway]

I'm sometimes suspicious of maps because they often don't include the island I live on. :suspicious:

I see a lot that don't include New Zealand also, so at least we're not the only island apparently sinking into the ocean!

[MovieMeditation]

Would love to see the reveal before heading to bed. Pleeeeeaaaase, Raul! Read me a goodnight story from the depths of MoFo

[neiba]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6eQ78HCGEA

[CosmicRunaway]

Pleeeeeaaaase, Raul! Read me a goodnight story from the depths of MoFo
https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=66622

:p

[CosmicRunaway]

I just noticed that the spelling of "General" is wrong but am not going to bother fixing it now haha.

I mean...raul isn't going to fix it, because he totally posted that. :shifty:

[MovieMeditation]

This Raul-dude been nagging at us for MONTHS about getting them films watched AND reviewed and then turn in a list and everything has to be on time and bla bla bla and the dude can’t even be on time himself... what a total douche. I mean seriously.

:rolleyes::p

[Citizen Rules]

So who's hosting the 23rd? I got my nom picked out I just need to know who to send it to:)

[neiba]

So who's hosting the 23rd? I got my nom picked out I just need to know who to send it to:)

Ya, also have my nom picked out, which will be the 4th consecutive win for me :rolleyes::D

[rauldc14]

Late to my own party!

[Citizen Rules]

Ya, also have my nom picked out, which will be the 4th consecutive win for me :rolleyes::D
I hate to tell ya this, but you've never won. The movie with the highest points is inducted into the MoFo Hall of Fame, that's all. You've made several past comments about winning, I sure hope you're not only joining these to 'win'. I have noticed you don't put much effort into these and wait until the last couple weeks to watch the noms.

[MovieMeditation]

Late to my own party!
Glad you could make it before the party turned to a funeral with all the roastings I had prepared...

[Miss Vicky]

I hate to tell ya this, but you've never won. The movie with the highest points is inducted into the MoFo Hall of Fame, that's all. You've made several past comments about winning, I sure hope you're not only joining these to 'win'. I have noticed you don't put much effort into these and wait until the last couple weeks to watch the noms.

Wow. Relax.

I consider the induction of both Her and Dances With Wolves to be "wins" for me and there's nothing wrong with seeing it that way or choosing movies with an eye on winning. As long as he's getting everything watched and written up and has his ballot in by the deadline, you've got no reason to complain. Deadlines exist for a reason. It's not a race.

[neiba]

I hate to tell ya this, but you've never won. The movie with the highest points is inducted into the MoFo Hall of Fame, that's all. You've made several past comments about winning, I sure hope you're not only joining these to 'win'. I have noticed you don't put much effort into these and wait until the last couple weeks to watch the noms.

I obviously know the movie is the winner, it was a joke. And the fact that I always nominate relatively unknown films, instead of consagrated classics should say enough on how I play these, especially considering for how long I've been joining HoFs.
Regarding how I watch the films, won't say sorry for watching films whenever I want as long as it's inside the deadline (and when I'm not, which doesn't happen that often btw, I say sorry). You don't get to judge how serious I take these just because I watch everything in the last few weeks.

[MovieMeditation]

Damn... this quickly turned into the 22nd Brawl of Fame. :shifty:

[rauldc14]

I am just double checking everything. We are getting there. I'm slow I know

[Citizen Rules]

Damn... this quickly turned into the 22nd Brawl of Fame. :shifty:Nope not a brawl, just saying people don't win the movie does, I've said that before many times. Actually it was MarkF who said that to me once in an HoF, and it made sense.

[MovieMeditation]

Nope not a brawl, just saying people don't win the movie does, I've said that before many times. Actually it was MarkF who said that to me once in an HoF, and it made sense.
Sure. I don’t think anybody thinks otherwise.

However, I don’t see anything wrong either with finding some fun in a friendly competition. The movie might be the winner but the person picked it not knowing the other nominees and thereby he or she also has something to celebrate. I would be glad to win an HoF. I wouldn’t selfishly claim that I somehow accomplished an amazing feat all by myself. But I don’t see why it can’t be someone winning with his or hers movie. It’s not the important part but I think it’s a fun part of the HoF. It’s people discussing movies after all. It is about the people in some shape or form. The movies don’t watch or discuss themselves...

[rauldc14]

11th Place: Waco: The Rules of Engagement

https://img.thedailybeast.com/image/upload/v1524105660/180418-potok-waco-hero_ftg5xg.jpg

33 Points
1st, 8th, 8th, 9th, 9th, 10th, 10th, 11th, 11th, 11th, 11th

[rauldc14]

10th Place: State of Siege

https://d2ycltig8jwwee.cloudfront.net/reviews/1620/fullwidth.b7af46d7.jpg

52 Points
3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 9th, 10th, 10th, 11th, 11th, 11th

[Citizen Rules]

I appreciate Wyldesyde going with a doc:up: I'm glad I watched Waco too as it opened my eyes to stuff that I never knew happened. Though it's production values were low, sorry to say I did vote it last.

[MovieMeditation]

Had Waco at 10th.

My reason for that is mostly the very biased and off-putting presentation of this tragic event. Secondly, it wasn’t that well made imo. But it’s a very interesting story, I’ll give it that. I would love to watch a documentary covering more of this story.

Anyways, as I said in the past I admire the choice of a doc for a HoF. I wouldn’t mind seeing more of that and I might do it myself too.

[rauldc14]

9th Place: Shine

https://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2088/2881/1600/shine_004.jpg

55 Points

4th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 8th, 8th, 9th, 9th, 9th

[Citizen Rules]

I had at #6 State of Siege...I thought it was a cool nom and Siddon often picks unique stuff, which I'm glad of.

[Citizen Rules]

Raul can you post a little slower, I can't type that fast:D

[Citizen Rules]

Wow, Shine was 9th! Geez I thought you guys loved that and I had predicted that to win, shows what I know! I had it at number 9.

[MovieMeditation]

Slow down!

Ehm, State of Siege was dead last for me. Just didn’t work for me. I’m just not the right person for this type of movie. I definitely see others would love it. But I couldn’t stand it.

Shine I had at 8. Decent biopic but far from perfectly executed. Interesting to a degree but with quite a few problems.

[neiba]

Shine and State of Siege deserved to be higher!

[rauldc14]

8th Place: Dronningen

https://carlosdev.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/queen-of-hearts.jpg?w=584&h=389

63 Points

1st, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 10th, 11th, 11th

[neiba]

8th Place: Dronningen

https://carlosdev.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/queen-of-hearts.jpg?w=584&h=389

63 Points

1st, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 10th, 11th, 11th

WHAAAAAAAT?

[MovieMeditation]

Aw. I had hoped for higher. But even for its placement I have enjoyed y’all writing about Dronningen and mostly it seemed like you liked it in some shape of form. I tried to go with something a bit different at least. :up:

I had it at 1, but honestly there was another film that almost pushed it to 2nd.

[Citizen Rules]

Dronningen 8th! Wow I thought that might win. It sounded like most were impressed by it. I had it at 10.

[rauldc14]

7th Place: Joker

https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/joker-1.jpg

66 Points

1st, 1st, 4th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 9th, 10th, 10th

[neiba]

My list so far:

3. State of Siege
5. Shine
6. Dronningen
10. Joker
11. Waco: The Rules of Engagement

[MovieMeditation]

Joker was my 4.

I really enjoy the atmosphere and performance by Joaquin of course. It’s a little thin on plot but it’s a fun and filthy world to disappear into. :up:

[neiba]

Joker was predictably too divise to be successful. But it was nice to read the reviews of everyone. Not often we have such recent films being nominated, so nice MV!

[rauldc14]

Intermission....

[Citizen Rules]

Nuts! Joker is 7th, crazy I thought it would be higher. I guessed the results all wrong. It was my #5

[Citizen Rules]

Intermission....That's cool, but how long? an hour? I'll go back to work if it's going to be long.

[MovieMeditation]

That's cool, but how long? an hour? I'll go back to work if it's going to be long.
Hopefully not that long. I’m heading to bed as soon as this is done. But if I have to wait an hour I’ll be sleeping. :D

[neiba]

Was really expecting Dronningen to place a lot higher, like Top 5 at least. I guess it's between Matrix, I, Daniel Blake and Inglorious Basterds now.

[CosmicRunaway]

First raul's too slow to start, then he's too fast haha.

I had Waco last at #11. My unfamiliarity with the original story and general disinterest in documentaries didn't do the film any favours. I didn't hate it, but I never want to watch it again.

State of Siege was just one spot above, at #10. There were parts of it I quite liked, but again not having any prior knowledge to what the film was actually about worked against it.

Shine was a film I enjoyed, but it ended up being #8 on my list because there were just too many films here I liked more.

Dronningen was my #5 and was among the hardest for me to rank since my 4-6 could probably go in any order.

Joker was another member of that group, and it ultimately went at #4.

[neiba]

MovieMeditation, I'm still mad at you for dropping off when you picked Beasts of the Southern Wild, just saying! :p

[rauldc14]

Top 6 guesses?

[Miss Vicky]

Definitely some unexpected placings here. I'm guessing edarsenal was the other person to put Joker at #1?

My votes so far:

1. Joker
4. Shine
5. Dronningen
9. Waco: Rules of Engagement
10. State of Siege

[neiba]

From 6 to 1:

Mildred Pierce
Blue Ruin
Last Picture Show
The Matrix
I, Daniel Blake
Inglorious Basters

[MovieMeditation]

I don’t dare guess anything the way things has been going so far... definitely the most surprising results in any HoF I have been in.

[Thursday Next]

I'm not particularly surprised so far.

Top 6 guess:

6. Last Picture Show
5. Blue Ruin
4. Mildred Pierce
3. Inglorious Basterds
2. The Matrix
1. I, Daniel Blake

[MovieMeditation]

Let’s move! I’m heading to bed in 10 minutes!

[edarsenal]

WOW -- thought I was going to miss this!
Sweet!

mine so far:
1) Joker (#7) -- yes, Vicky, you better believe I was the other person to vote it #1
2)
3)
4)
5)
6) Shine (#9) -- not sure if this is the lowest I've ever voted one of my own due to others I've enjoyed more, but it could be
7)
8)
9) State of Siege (#10) -- really liked this, but there were others I enjoyed more
10) Waco: The Rules of Engagement (#11) -- VERY informative, THANKS wylde for going with this one
11) Dronningen (#8) -- even though it is at the bottom of my list I have enjoyed MM's nom's for being so very much out of the box. The Square comes to mind.

[rauldc14]

And the back half...

[edarsenal]

https://media2.giphy.com/media/gpXfKa9xLAR56/giphy.gif

[rauldc14]

6th Place: Blue Ruin

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQukcUVS5YC-CTtlCz_h3Ieh-aiKyMw8h-K_g&usqp=CAU

69 Points

2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 6th7th, 9th, 10th, 11th

[pahaK]

Am I reading that map wrong, or is it claiming that Helsinki is in Africa?

There are actually jokes suggesting that here in Finland :D

[rauldc14]

5th Place: The Last Picture Show

https://830936.smushcdn.com/1677424/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/The-Last-Picture-Show-1971-featured.jpg?lossy=1&strip=1&webp=1

74 Points

1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 7th, 9th, 9th, 10th

[edarsenal]

Blue Ruin was a great surprise even for a Cosmic film which I usually quite enjoy, I had it at #2

mine so far:
1) Joker (#7)
2) Blue Ruin (#6)
3)
4)
5)
6) Shine (#9)
7)
8)
9) State of Siege (#10)
10) Waco: The Rules of Engagement (#11)
11) Dronningen (#8) .

[Miss Vicky]

Weird. I thought the reception to Blue Ruin was mostly lukewarm. Guess it was warmer than I thought.

My ballot:

1. Joker
4. Shine
5. Dronningen
6. Blue Ruin
7. The Last Picture Show
9. Waco: Rules of Engagement
10. State of Siege

[edarsenal]

Picture Show is one I'll be seeing again at my #4 spot

mine so far:
1) Joker (#7)
2) Blue Ruin (#6)
3)
4) The Last Picture Show (#5)
5)
6) Shine (#9)
7)
8)
9) State of Siege (#10)
10) Waco: The Rules of Engagement (#11)
11) Dronningen (#8) .

[MovieMeditation]

Blue Ruin was my second and the one that almost took the first place for me. Love it. It became a favorite for me with this rewatch.

Last Picture Show was my 9. I liked the idea of it more than I liked the film. But it’s one of those that might grow on me.