26th Hall of Fame

[SpelingError]

Hints:

16.

91226

15.

91227

81005

Welcome to the 26th Hall of Fame!

In case you're new to Hall of Fames and don't know how they work, here are the rules:

1) Everyone who wants to join must state they're joining in this thread and then nominate a film by sending it to me via Private Message. Do not reveal your nomination in the thread! If you wish to join, let me know by September 13th. That will be the loose deadline for this thread, meaning that I'll post all the nominations and you can begin watching and reviewing the films, though you'll still have another week to join this thread before the deadline to join officially arrives (which will be on September 20th, btw).

2) Don't nominate a film which has won a prior Hall of Fame (go to "Movie HALL of FAME Archives & Info" for info on which films have won in the past). Also, your nomination has to be under four hours long.

3) Everyone who joins must watch and review all the films nominated for this thread. You don't have to post a full, elaborate review in this thread for each film, but you do need to say something about each film (write at least a decently sized paragraph for each film and you should be good).

4) The amount of time you have to watch and review all the films for this thread is approximately one week for each film. I'll add a couple extra weeks to account for anyone who may fall behind, but I recommend staying on schedule. Once I get a tally of everyone who's in this thread, I'll put up a deadline for when you have to finish everything by.

5) Once you finish watching and reviewing all of the nominations, PM me with a ranked list (where #1 is your favorite film) of all the films nominated for this thread. The films will be scored based on where they ranked on everyone's lists, with the final reveal happening after everyone has submitted a list.

For example, if your ballot looks like this:

1) Vertigo (1958)
2) Barry Lyndon (1975)
3) Schindler's List (1993)

Vertigo would get 3 points, Barry Lyndon would get 2 points, and Schindler's List would get 1 point. The film which gets the most points wins, the film which gets the second most points will be in 2nd place, and so on.

Nominations:

https://i.postimg.cc/ydz8gg7b/All-the-president-s-men.jpg
All the President's Men (1976, Pakula)
Nominated By: Wyldesyde19

https://i.postimg.cc/sD75k44H/a1c84a34cc693e4e6fed1e05dc337fb8.jpg
And Then There Were None (2015, Viveiros)
Nominated By: Siddon

https://i.postimg.cc/kX68GQQj/Angel-A-Poster.jpg
Angel-A (2005, Besson)
Nominated By: edarsenal

https://i.postimg.cc/C10nYp2G/The-Celebration-poster.jpg
The Celebration (1998, Vinterberg)
Nominated By: SpelingError

https://i.postimg.cc/ZKJmXK99/Cinema-Paradiso.jpg
Cinema Paradiso (1988, Tornatore)
Nominated By: BooBooKittyFock

https://i.postimg.cc/tR5j2LLB/download.jpg
Daisies (1966, Chytilová}
Nominated By: ueno_station54

https://i.postimg.cc/13m1wDTL/220px-Marienbadposter.jpg
Last Year At Marienbad (1960, Resnais)
Nominated By: seanc

https://i.postimg.cc/hGGPgwKm/Not-Quite-Hollywood.jpg
Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation! (2008, Hartley)
Nominated By: PHOENIX74

https://i.postimg.cc/MK3F5Nz5/220px-The-Passion-of-Joan-of-Arc-1928-English-Poster.png
The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928, Dreyer)
Nominated By: jiraffejustin

https://i.postimg.cc/bYKB0Lvm/51-Ks-CT9sy-QL-SY445.jpg
Sweet Smell of Success (1957, Mackendrick)
Nominated By: Citizen Rules

https://i.postimg.cc/2yMRnfKG/id676158.jpg
Tower (2016, Maitland)
Nominated By: rauldc14

https://i.postimg.cc/7hY00F25/s-l300.jpg
The Wizard of Oz (1939, Fleming)
Nominated By: Allaby

[SpelingError]

Deadline: December 15th

Reviews:

Allaby: (12/12) - List Sent
All the President's Men (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2252652#post2252652)
And Then There Were None (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2238008#post2238008)
Angel-A (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2239877#post2239877)
The Celebration (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2250925#post2250925)
Cinema Paradiso (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2251058#post2251058)
Daisies (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2250944#post2250944)
Last Year At Marienbad (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2253011#post2253011)
Not Quite Hollywood (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2237689#post2237689)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2252811#post2252811)
Sweet Smell of Success (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2255425#post2255425)
Tower (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2239812#post2239812)
The Wizard of Oz (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2251116#post2251116)

BooBooKittyFock: (5/12) - Didn't Finish
Daisies (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2241403#post2241403)
Not Quite Hollywood (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2240101#post2240101)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2241359#post2241359)
Tower (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2239404#post2239404)
The Wizard of Oz (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2239896#post2239896)

Citizen Rules: (12/12) - List Sent
All the President's Men (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2238236#post2238236)
Angel-A (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2240837#post2240837)
And Then There Were None (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2239656#post2239656)
The Celebration (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2245015#post2245015)
Cinema Paradiso (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2242271#post2242271)
Daisies (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2237371#post2237371)
Last Year At Marienbad (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2246594#post2246594)
Not Quite Hollywood (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2246073#post2246073)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2237217#post2237217)
Sweet Smell of Success (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2243167#post2243167)
Tower (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2237785#post2237785)
The Wizard of Oz (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2244522#post2244522)

edarsenal: (12/12) - List Sent
All the President's Men (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2243976#post2243976)
And Then There Were None (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2240197#post2240197)
Angel-A (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2237255#post2237255)
The Celebration (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2261655#post2261655)
Cinema Paradiso (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2249446#post2249446)
Daisies (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2260292#post2260292)
Last Year At Marienbad (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2246210#post2246210)
Not Quite Hollywood (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2257677#post2257677)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2252423#post2252423)
Sweet Smell of Success (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2256940#post2256940)
Tower (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2240457#post2240457)
The Wizard of Oz (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2245853#post2245853)

jiraffejustin: (12/12) - List Sent
All the President's Men (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2255827#post2255827)
And Then There Were None (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2262831#post2262831)
Angel-A (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2259964#post2259964)
The Celebration (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2257884#post2257884)
Cinema Paradiso (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2238931#post2238931)
Daisies (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2253571#post2253571)
Last Year At Marienbad (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2252149#post2252149)
Not Quite Hollywood (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2259965#post2259965)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2244620#post2244620)
Sweet Smell of Success (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2249918#post2249918)
Tower (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2262831#post2262831)
The Wizard of Oz (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2248430#post2248430)

PHOENIX74: (12/12) - List Sent
All the President's Men (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2251274#post2251274)
And Then There Were None (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2243238#post2243238)
Angel-A (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2258158#post2258158)
The Celebration (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2239122#post2239122)
Cinema Paradiso (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2242212#post2242212)
Daisies (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2249784#post2249784)
Last Year At Marienbad (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2246471#post2246471)
Not Quite Hollywood (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?
anchor=1&p=2240626#post2240626)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2238024#post2238024)
Sweet Smell of Success (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2247046#post2247046)
Tower (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2245850#post2245850)
The Wizard of Oz (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2241200#post2241200)

rauldc14: (12/12) - List Sent
All the President's Men (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2247951#post2247951)
And Then There Were None (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2250402#post2250402)
Angel-A (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2243354#post2243354)
The Celebration (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2249179#post2249179)
Cinema Paradiso (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2256358#post2256358)
Daisies (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2240298#post2240298)
Last Year At Marienbad (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2241987#post2241987)
Not Quite Hollywood (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2243002#post2243002)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2240447#post2240447)
Sweet Smell of Success (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2248888#post2248888)
Tower (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2245240#post2245240)
The Wizard of Oz (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2259282#post2259282)

seanc: (12/12) - List Sent
All the President's Men (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2237873#post2237873)
And Then There Were None (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2251332#post2251332)
Angel-A (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2240389#post2240389)
The Celebration (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2245890#post2245890)
Cinema Paradiso (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2262622#post2262622)
Daisies (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2237273#post2237273)
Last Year At Marienbad (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2245390#post2245390)
Not Quite Hollywood (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?
anchor=1&p=2238021#post2238021)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2262622#post2262622)
Sweet Smell of Success (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2242459#post2242459)
Tower (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2240052#post2240052)
The Wizard of Oz (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2240893#post2240893)

Siddon: (12/12) - List Sent
All the President's Men (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2240877#post2240877)
And Then There Were None (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2262740#post2262740)
Angel-A (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2240237#post2240237)
The Celebration (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2261371#post2261371)
Cinema Paradiso (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2251703#post2251703)
Daisies (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2258704#post2258704)
Last Year At Marienbad (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2261371#post2261371)
Not Quite Hollywood (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2258872#post2258872)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2251882#post2251882)
Sweet Smell of Success (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2258125#post2258125)
Tower (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2237263#post2237263)
The Wizard of Oz (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2256878#post2256878)

SpelingError: (12/12) - List Sent
All the President's Men (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2237385#post2237385)
And Then There Were None (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2238190#post2238190)
Angel-A (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2239319#post2239319)
The Celebration (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2239881#post2239881)
Cinema Paradiso (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2241156#post2241156)
Daisies (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2242585#post2242585)
Last Year At Marienbad (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2244647#post2244647)
Not Quite Hollywood (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2246243#post2246243)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2246373#post2246373)
Sweet Smell of Success (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2249503#post2249503)
Tower (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2250091#post2250091)
The Wizard of Oz (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2251891#post2251891)

ueno_station54: (12/12) - List Sent
All the President's Men (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2252420#post2252420)
And Then There Were None (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2240843#post2240843)
Angel-A (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2251529#post2251529)
The Celebration (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2256311#post2256311)
Cinema Paradiso (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2258951#post2258951)
Daisies (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2237138#post2237138)
Last Year at Marienbad (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2256199#post2256199)
Not Quite Hollywood (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2252325#post2252325)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2237430#post2237430)
Sweet Smell of Success (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2238100#post2238100)
Tower (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2239224#post2239224)
The Wizard of Oz (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2251322#post2251322)

Wyldesyde19: (12/12) - List Sent
All the President's Men (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2242322#post2242322)
Angel-A (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2258805#post2258805)
The Celebration (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2250584#post2250584)
Cinema Paradiso (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2259566#post2259566)
Daisies (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2252355#post2252355)
Last Year At Marienbad (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2257825#post2257825)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2252188#post2252188)
Not Quite Hollywood (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2239074#post2239074)
Tower (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2260585#post2260585)
Sweet Smell of Success (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2255179#post2255179)
The Wizard of Oz (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2261694#post2261694)

[Citizen Rules]

In!

[Allaby]

Sign me up!

[SpelingError]

There's already three of us in here. Yay!

[Citizen Rules]

There's already three of us in here. Yay!We've been waiting:D

[SpelingError]

We've been waiting:D

Gotta admire the enthusiasm then :)

[ueno_station54]

In!

[Wyldesyde19]

In!

[SpelingError]

Yay, we're up to 5 people now!

[Wyldesyde19]

I’ll figure out my nomination late tonight today.

[SpelingError]

Btw, jiraffejustin is in as well.

[jiraffejustin]

Btw, jiraffejustin is in as well.

Spoiler alert. I was planning a pro wrestling thing where the match starts and then all of a sudden the lights go out and my music hits and the crowd goes wild. Then I come in and my nom places like 5th.

[edarsenal]

I'm in!

[Torgo]

I won't be able to do this one. Hopefully, I can do the next one or the one after that. Have fun, everybody.

[SpelingError]

I won't be able to do this one. Hopefully, I can do the next one or the one after that. Have fun, everybody.

Good, I don't even want you around here anyways!

Jk, you're awesome. Hope to see in the next one :up:

[SpelingError]

Quick question: Somebody nominated a mini series which meets the 4-hour limit, but I'm not sure if that would be allowed here. Would that one work?

[Wyldesyde19]

As far as I know, mini series weren’t allowed previously.

[Siddon]

Quick question: Somebody nominated a mini series which meets the 4-hour limit, but I'm not sure if that would be allowed here. Would that one work?


https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=52323&page=47


That would be up to the individual host of the HoF. Sounds like you mean the 25th HoF which I'm hosting so my answer would be no mini series as we've always done movies. BUT if it's been released on DVD or a streaming service (Amazon, Netflix, etc) as a movie and not a three part series, then it would be eligible. Hope that makes sense.


I think there is actually precedent for this situation. This is all based on memory of a controversy in a hof that I didn't actually participate in, but if I remember correctly, Guaporense nominated an anime miniseries thing and it was allowed, but only because he didn't tell anybody it was a series until after it already started. Then mostly everybody else hated it, partially because it was a series. I think there might have been conversations about not allowing miniseries in future hofs, but ultimately the rules usually end up being set by whoever hosts the thing. Like I said, this is all based on memory from events from probably 6-7 years ago.


It's your call, precedent was set with World on a Wire which has been nominated in Person Rec threads.


https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2192573#post2192573

[Wyldesyde19]

Oops, I stand corrected. Thanks Siddon! 👍

[SpelingError]

Hm, I suppose we could allow it, as long as everyone else is fine with it. After all, it does meet the 4 hour requirement.

[SpelingError]

I decided to allow Siddon's rec.

[Citizen Rules]

Quick question: Somebody nominated a mini series which meets the 4-hour limit, but I'm not sure if that would be allowed here. Would that one work?Up to you of course. I don't mind watching as long as it's available for free somewhere on the internet. Is it?

[SpelingError]

Up to you of course. I don't mind watching as long as it's available for free somewhere on the internet. Is it?

Yep, it is. Let me know if you need a link.

[ueno_station54]

There's only one thing you could call a miniseries that I've ever liked so I hope its that one lol.

[Siddon]

There's only one thing you could call a miniseries that I've ever liked so I hope its that one lol.


I would be very surprised if anyone dislikes my nomination, I always try and take a different approach but I always nominate something that I consider a masterpiece.

[SpelingError]

I would be very surprised if anyone dislikes my nomination, I always try and take a different approach but I always nominate something that I consider a masterpiece.

I'm looking forward to your nomination. I think it will bring some nice variation to this HoF.

[rauldc14]

I'm in.

[Wyldesyde19]

Might take me until tomorrow to decide my nom.

[Citizen Rules]

I might change my nom to an episode of Friends, is that allowed:D

[Wyldesyde19]

Know what? I think I’m going to with my third choice.

[SpelingError]

I might change my nom to an episode of Friends, is that allowed:D

Only if you say that Harold and Maude is great :)

[SpelingError]

Also, I've seen 6 of the 9 nominations so far.

[Citizen Rules]

Only if you say that Harold and Maude is great :):eek: Gosh I hate that movie. But I should rewatch it, just to found out for sure.

Also, I've seen 6 of the 9 nominations so far.Impressive. And that means most all films I haven't seen.

[Siddon]

I might change my nom to an episode of Friends, is that allowed:D


I mean if I really wanted to push it I would try and make you guys watch this...though it's sadly to esoteric for most of you



https://cdn7.cachefly.net/images/large/Superman-Cartoons-Mega-Rare-LaserDisc-ID7325BR.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG0BhElVt8U

[rauldc14]

Also, I've seen 6 of the 9 nominations so far.

Hopefully not mine

[seanc]

I’m in

[SpelingError]

Hopefully not mine

Nope, it's not. I haven't even heard of your nom before. It looks interesting though.

[rauldc14]

Nope, it's not. I haven't even heard of your nom before. It looks interesting though.

Cool. It was nominated in a previous Hall but I think a lot of this group wasn't in it. I wasn't the one who nominated it either.

[jiraffejustin]

I might change my nom to an episode of Friends, is that allowed:D

I'll counterprogram that with an episode of It's Always Sunny.

[rauldc14]

Packers vs. Patriots Super Bowl 31 is my pick

[ueno_station54]

I went with the Undertaker/Mankind Hell in a Cell match.

[jiraffejustin]

I went with the Undertaker/Mankind Hell in a Cell match.

As God as my witness, he is broken in half!

[rauldc14]

In reality though hopefully it's a nice decade spread again.

[SpelingError]

In reality though hopefully it's a nice decade spread again.

So far, it's pretty diverse. Here's the current decade split:

1920s: 1
1930s: 1
1950s: 1
1960s: 2
1970s: 1
1990s: 1
2000s: 1
2010s: 2

[cricket]

Will miss being in but I've only had time to watch 2 movies in the last month and a half. Have fun guys!

[Citizen Rules]

Will miss being in but I've only had time to watch 2 movies in the last month and a half. Have fun guys!Bummer you can't join. Only 2 movies in a month and half, damn you must be working two jobs?

[SpelingError]

Will miss being in but I've only had time to watch 2 movies in the last month and a half. Have fun guys!
That's fair. I hope to see you in the next one though!

[Citizen Rules]

So far, it's pretty diverse. Here's the current decade split:

1920s: 1
1930s: 1
1950s: 1
1960s: 2
1970s: 1
1990s: 1
2000s: 1
2010s: 2I'm liking it!

Is there any chance that you could do the reveal tomorrow (Wednesday)? Seeing how there's still a week to join after the official reveal, no one would be left out. I don't know about anybody else but I'm rearing to go!

[edarsenal]

Love the spread of decades -- very nice!

[SpelingError]

I'm liking it!

Is there any chance that you could do the reveal tomorrow (Wednesday)? Seeing how there's still a week to join after the official reveal, no one would be left out. I don't know about anybody else but I'm rearing to go!
Sure, I'll do that.

[cricket]

Bummer you can't join. Only 2 movies in a month and half, damn you must be working two jobs?

Selling my house

[Citizen Rules]

Selling my houseWell the market is red hot, so hope you get a bundle!

[Citizen Rules]

Sure, I'll do that. Do you know about what time? I'll have some free time during the day so hopefully can be online.

[rauldc14]

Hopefully we can get a couple more yet. Just an FYI I'll be gone Sunday- the following Monday so I won't get started right away unless I somehow sneak one Saturday.

[SpelingError]

Do you know about what time? I'll have some free time during the day so hopefully can be online.
Probably when I wake up, so around 11 AM EDT (hopefully, that's the right time zone for Michigan).

[Citizen Rules]

Probably when I wake up, so around 11 AM EDT (hopefully, that's the right time zone for Michigan).Perfect!

[SpelingError]

Also, even if I reveal them tomorrow, I take it that the deadline to join of September 20th won't change.

[Citizen Rules]

Hopefully we can get a couple more yet... We should tag some people.

[rauldc14]

Hopefully Cosmic or Takoma join yet

[Citizen Rules]

Also, even if I reveal them tomorrow, I take it that the deadline to join of September 20th won't change.Sounds good to me🙂

[SpelingError]

Takoma11

Would you be interested in joining?

[SpelingError]

CosmicRunaway

Also, would you like to join us as well?

[ueno_station54]

Very down for the early reveal. Pretty much have to watch everything this month.

[Wyldesyde19]

Tak is probably waiting to see what’s revealed before she decides.

[jiraffejustin]

Shoot, you could reveal them right now and I'd be fine and dandy with it.

[Thief]

Jesus, you MoFo's just don't stop!



(when's the deadline to join in?)

[SpelingError]

Jesus, you MoFo's just don't stop!



(when's the deadline to join in?)

September 20th.

[SpelingError]

Shoot, you could reveal them right now and I'd be fine and dandy with it.

I'll probably just stick with tomorrow morning, but I appreciate the enthusiasm :up:

[ueno_station54]

Just rewatched my pick to get a head start. It's all downhill from here baby!

[SpelingError]

Just rewatched my pick to get a head start. It's all downhill from here baby!

Actually, without spoiling anything, at least one of the nominated films won't be downhill for you ;)

[gbgoodies]

So far, it's pretty diverse. Here's the current decade split:

1920s: 1
1930s: 1
1950s: 1
1960s: 2
1970s: 1
1990s: 1
2000s: 1
2010s: 2


With the 2000s Countdown coming up, I'm surprised that there weren't more movies from the 2000s nominated.

[Wyldesyde19]

With the 2000s Countdown coming up, I'm surprised that there weren't more movies from the 2000s nominated.
GBG, you joining? 🙂

[gbgoodies]

GBG, you joining? 🙂


No, I'll be focusing on 2000s movies for the next few months. But I'll be following the thread, and I might watch some of the movies if they sound interesting.

[rauldc14]

Jesus, you MoFo's just don't stop!



(when's the deadline to join in?)

Join bro!

[SpelingError]

No, I'll be focusing on 2000s movies for the next few months. But I'll be following the thread, and I might watch some of the movies if they sound interesting.

I hope to see you in some future HoFs :)

[gbgoodies]

I hope to see you in some future HoFs :)


My taste in movies seems to be different from other MoFos, so I'm careful about which HoFs I join, but I usually follow the HoF threads.

Just to give you an idea, this is my list of potential movies for the 2000s Countdown so far (https://www.movieforums.com/lists/custom/332), (in no specific order yet). If you look closely, you'll notice that there are no horror or foreign language movies on it.

[SpelingError]

My taste in movies seems to be different from other MoFos, so I'm careful about which HoFs I join, but I usually follow the HoF threads.

Just to give you an idea, this is my list of potential movies for the 2000s Countdown so far (https://www.movieforums.com/lists/custom/332), (in no specific order yet). If you look closely, you'll notice that there are no horror or foreign language movies on it.

Aye, I see. I think our taste in film (or, at least, 2000's era films) is really different, but it's still cool that you'll be following this thread from the sidelines.

[CosmicRunaway]

@CosmicRunaway (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=90868)

Also, would you like to join us as well?
Possibly. Despite graduating years ago, I'm going back to University to do another program, and today's the first day of classes. I'm waiting to get my course outlines so I can gauge how busy I'm going to be for the next couple months.

I'm only going to be working 4 days a week going forward though thanks to an awkwardly timed lab slot, so I should be fine to participate.

[SpelingError]

Here are the nominations:

https://i.postimg.cc/ydz8gg7b/All-the-president-s-men.jpg
All the President's Men (1976, Pakula)
Nominated By: Wyldesyde19

https://i.postimg.cc/sD75k44H/a1c84a34cc693e4e6fed1e05dc337fb8.jpg
And Then There Were None (2015, Viveiros)
Nominated By: Siddon

https://i.postimg.cc/kX68GQQj/Angel-A-Poster.jpg
Angel-A (2005, Besson)
Nominated By: edarsenal

https://i.postimg.cc/C10nYp2G/The-Celebration-poster.jpg
The Celebration (1998, Vinterberg)
Nominated By: SpelingError

https://i.postimg.cc/tR5j2LLB/download.jpg
Daisies (1966, Chytilová}
Nominated By: ueno_station54

https://i.postimg.cc/13m1wDTL/220px-Marienbadposter.jpg
Last Year At Marienbad (1960, Resnais)
Nominated By: seanc

https://i.postimg.cc/MK3F5Nz5/220px-The-Passion-of-Joan-of-Arc-1928-English-Poster.png
The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928, Dreyer)
Nominated By: jiraffejustin

https://i.postimg.cc/bYKB0Lvm/51-Ks-CT9sy-QL-SY445.jpg
Sweet Smell of Success (1957, Mackendrick)
Nominated By: Citizen Rules

https://i.postimg.cc/2yMRnfKG/id676158.jpg
Tower (2016, Maitland)
Nominated By: rauldc14

https://i.postimg.cc/7hY00F25/s-l300.jpg
The Wizard of Oz (1939, Fleming)
Nominated By: Allaby

[SpelingError]

Also, are all the pictures visible?

[seanc]

Also, are all the pictures visible?

Looks good

[SpelingError]

My thoughts on the nominations:

All the President's Men: Overall, I'm a pretty big fan. The acting and the story progression are all top notch. Looking forward to a rewatch.

And Then There Were None: Haven't seen it.

Angel-A: Haven't seen it.

The Celebration: My nomination. I watched it during the foreign language film countdown we had here and was really blown away by it. I might even rate it a 10/10 this time around. Hopefully, the rest of you will respond well to it :)

Daisies: I saw it once a while ago. I enjoyed it as a curiosity, but felt it flew over my head. Hopefully, I get more out of it this time around.

Last Year At Marienbad: This is another film I saw a while ago, but felt it flew over my head. Given what I've read about it over the years though, I think I'm better equipped for it, so I'm looking forward to it.

The Passion of Joan of Arc: It's a brilliant film for a handful of reasons and I'm excited to revisit it for this thread.

Sweet Smell of Success: I saw this once a while ago, but I barely remember it.

Tower: Haven't seen it.

The Wizard of Oz: I saw this a few times as a kid, and loved it back then. I've been meaning to revisit it for a while, so I guess now's the time to do it. Hopefully, I respond well to it.

[ueno_station54]

Actually, without spoiling anything, at least one of the nominated films won't be downhill for you ;)https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=81080 https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=81081
Had a feeling this is what it was.

[MovieMeditation]

Strong and interesting line-up thus far. :up:

[SpelingError]

Also, while you can start watching the films now, remember that you have till September 20th to join.

[Siddon]

Well look at that I got two noms...very happy to see Tower in a proper Hall. It's heartwarming when people nominate films that I had nominated for them.

And Then There Were None (2015) is my pick and let me explain why I choose this one. The story has been adapted many times yet the film versions have never really worked mostly because of age and time constraints. This is more of a cinematic version told in chapters with a top of the line cast that doesn't feature stars.

All The Presidents Men (1976) saw it years ago not really that impressed by it but I always meant to rewatch it as an older man.

Wizard of Oz (1939) I think some people hate this movie but it's likely the front runner. I wonder if I can find a 4k version but something I look forward to revisit.

Last Year At Marienbad (1960) great French New Wave nomination, definitely worth the rewatch I might actually start with this one.

The Passion of Joan of Arc (1927) Dreyer shows up again...y'know wasn't a fan of this one when I first saw it but I'll give it fair chance.

The Daisies (1966) I remember it being very short and fun.

Sweet Smell of Success (1955) good film...don't know if this is a top film but the rewatch will decide if I love this film or not.

Angel-A (2005) I think this visually stunning but I never watched it

Celebration (1998) VInterberg is a favorite of mine and after The Hunt won I'm happy to see another one of his films make the rounds.

[jiraffejustin]

I'll probably add a couple of these films to the list of films I'd be okay with winning this whole thing, but from the jump I'd prefer my film or The Wizard of Oz winning. The Passion of Joan of Arc is one of the greatest films of all-time directed by one of the greatest directors of all-time. It is iconic, a large part of that due to one of the greatest acting performances of all-time, made even more legendary by the fact that Falconetti was not a prolific actress. She shows up here to drop a nuke on us and then she peaced out.

The Wizard of Oz is classic and belongs in the hall eventually. I don't think I've seen any of the others. I'm most looking forward to Marienbad and Daisies.

EDIT: I've seen Sweet Smell of Success and it's pretty damn good too. I'd rather the other two I mentioned before win, but I wouldn't be angry at this one taking it.

[jiraffejustin]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=81080 https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=81081
Had a feeling this is what it was.

:blart:

[ueno_station54]

All the President's Men - Never heard of this. Doesn't look like my kind of thing but it being from the 70s gives me hope.

And Then There Were None - This looks like some Netflix trash ngl.

Angel-A - I don't actually know anything about this but its one of those movies I *almost* rented from Blockbuster countless times when I was in high school. Jazzed to see what I've been missing out on.

The Celebration - A film I maybe would have gotten to in my own time eventually. Never seen anything from Vinterberg but this is definitely the first of his I'd watch.

Daisies - My pick! A top 10 all time for me and I can't imagine someone stuffy enough to actually dislike it. Its just fun.

Last Year at Marienbad - Now this should be right up my alley but I've bounced off it once before so who knows??

The Passion of Joan of Arc - Can't see this not winning by a colossal landslide. And it should.

The Sweet Smell of Success - No idea. Expectations low.

Tower - No idea but that poster is horrendous.

The Wizard of Oz - Never seen this as an adult. I know the technical aspects will be fun at least.

[ueno_station54]

I jumped the gun and watched my pick last night so I guess I'll write a few sentences about why it rules.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2012/07/01/arts/01VERA2_SPAN/01VERA2-superJumbo.jpg
Daisies (Věra Chytilová, 1966)

No art has meaning. The idea of a work of art having a meaning has always been a grift to attempt adding value to a piece. The "meaning" in every film ever made boils down to "Hey, what if I took and presented it like [I]this, that would be cool" and what rocks about Daisies is that it never feels like its pretending to be more than that. This film has some unambiguous themes of rebellion, gender roles and the bourgeoisie lifestyle but Chytilová doesn't try to present these as anything more than they are: building blocks. She extrapolates those themes into fun ideas for scenes, like everyone else does but just does it in such an honest, unpretentious way with the goal of simply being entertaining.

Above all else, Daisies is cool and fun. Every frame of it. And if you're making a film and its not cool or fun as often as humanly possible, you flat-out did it wrong. The presentation is so bold that there's nothing to really unpack. It's just doing cool stuff all the time. Just look at it, it rules. The two leads are super iconic and they're a joy to watch. Everything about the film is a joy to watch. An all-timer without doubt.

[Citizen Rules]

SpelingError I'll need that link to Siddon's nom that you mentioned and I'll take any other links you or anyone else has...Save me some time looking:D

[SpelingError]

SpelingError I'll need that link to Siddon's nom that you mentioned and I'll take any other links you or anyone else has...Save me some time looking:D

Sent!

[ueno_station54]

Oh, for anyone who hasn't seen The Passion of Joan of Arc, its very very worth tracking down the 20fps version.

[SpelingError]

Oh, for anyone who hasn't seen The Passion of Joan of Arc, its very very worth tracking down the 20fps version.

Could you send me a link to that version? I'm curious.

[ueno_station54]

Could you send me a link to that version? I'm curious.
I'd have to dig around, I just have it on disc but the most recent Criterion release has that version if that makes it easier to track down. Basically just makes the film look normal lmao. Silent era films forced into 24fps always look like they're moving too fast.

EDIT: Found it lol.

[jiraffejustin]

I'd have to dig around, I just have it on disc but the most recent Criterion release has that version if that makes it easier to track down. Basically just makes the film look normal lmao. Silent era films forced into 24fps always look like they're moving too fast.

EDIT: Found it lol.

Do you know if the version on the Criterion Channel is 24 or 20?

[ueno_station54]

Do you know if the version on the Criterion Channel is 24 or 20?


No idea, check the runtime. If it's like 1h36m its the 20fps. The 24fps is a little over 1h20 I think. Would be surprised if they didn't have both since the bluray does.

[Citizen Rules]

I don't really have any preconceived thoughts on the noms that I haven't seen, which is most of them.

But I have seen these:
All the President's Men (1976, Pakula)....I've been wanting to rewatch this one as it's been decades since I last saw it.

The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928, Dreyer)....seen this recently and very impressed. Always glad to see silent films get nominated.

The Wizard of Oz (1939, Fleming)....Believe it or not, I did not grow up watching this. In fact I've only seen it once as an adult. I liked it.

Sweet Smell of Success (1957, Mackendrick)....One of my favorite movies, I love the characters and the dialogue.

Not seen these and in most case not heard of them:

And Then There Were None (2015, Viveiros)
Angel-A (2005, Besson)
The Celebration (1998, Vinterberg)
Daisies (1966, Chytilová}
Last Year At Marienbad (1960, Resnais)
Tower (2016, Maitland)

[Citizen Rules]

I might try and watch the 20fps version of The Passion of Joan of Arc towards the end of the HoF. But I'll post my review from the last time I watched it now.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=56709
The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)

No denying that this film is powerful! I mean just look at that close-up that is packed with emotion. Scene after scene the forlorn, doomed Joan of Arc's face fills the screen with her misery...we can't escape it. It's uncomfortable watching her in such close detail as she's tormented by her over zealot Catholic persecutors. The dementedly gleeful faces of the Catholic inquisitors are just as potent. They reek of hypocrisy as they set in self serving judgement of Joan who's being persecuted for heresy. We know what horror awaits Joan at the end of the film and that makes her suffering all the worse.

As uncomfortable as we might be watching Joan's plight, that's mere piddleness compared to Joan's torment which ends with this young girl being burnt alive by pious men.

[Wyldesyde19]

All the President's Men*(1976, Pakula)
My pick, an intelligent reporting procedural that gets better each time I watch it, lead by some fine acting by Hoffman, Redford, and Robards.
The Passion of Joan of Arc*(1928, Dreyer)
Highly anticipated, as I’ve had me eye on this film for quite some time now. Dreyer’s Vampyr was a marvelous treat, and I have a feeling this may be better.

The Wizard of Oz*(1939, Fleming)

Own this, just watched it last year for the first time and was actually surprised how enjoyable I found it. Good pick, interested to see this again.

Sweet Smell of Success*(1957, Mackendrick)

Another I’ve been meaning to see, just haven’t pulled the trigger yet. *Guess now is as good a time as any. *

And Then There Were None*(2015, Viveiros)
Don’t usually watch mini series, but this should be interesting.

Angel-A*(2005, Besson)
This looks familiar, but I know I haven’t seen it yet. Probably something I looked at watching sometime and then promptly forgot about. That happens a lot.

The Celebration*(1998, Vinterberg)
I was aiming to watch this soon for the 2021 challenge anyways so….yay!

Daisies*(1966, Chytilová}
I’ve watched a handful of Czechoslovakian films, especially those from the Czech New Wave.*
A few early Milos Forman films, The Fabulous Baron Munchausen, and Witchhammer. *The latter two are excellent. *I’ve heard of of this as well, so this is a cool nomination. *

Last Year At Marienbad*(1960, Resnais)
Another on my watch list.*

Tower*(2016, Maitland)
This looks familiar somehow. At least the title does. *But t plot doesn’t. Always glad, and Interesting to see a doc nominated.*

[edarsenal]

All the President's Men (1976, Pakula) Nominated By: Wyldesyde19 Got to see this one in one of the Personal Rec HoF so looking forward to a rewatch.

And Then There Were None (2015, Viveiros) Nominated By: Siddon Regardless of the runtime I am truly intrigued to see a fleshed out rendition of this Agatha Christie Mystery.

Angel-A (2005, Besson) Nominated By: edarsenal this is mine and I'll be posting my review for it momentarily and, if anyone needs an English subtitled link, let me know

The Celebration (1998, Vinterberg) Nominated By: SpelingError This is on my watchlist so pretty excited about it.

Daisies (1966, Chytilová} Nominated By: ueno_station54 As Ueno stated, it's just a fun movie and from what I see, it could very well be.

Last Year At Marienbad (1960, Resnais) Nominated By: seanc Have not heard of this one but I do like the look of it

The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928, Dreyer) Nominated By: jiraffejustin This'll be a rewatch. Amazing film, emotionally heavy, but amazing.

Sweet Smell of Success (1957, Mackendrick) Nominated By: Citizen Rules Looking forward to this rewatch

Tower (2016, Maitland) Nominated By: rauldc14 Remember this one from (I think) an animation HoF. Curious to see how a rewatch plays out

The Wizard of Oz (1939, Fleming) Nominated By: Allaby OH F@CK YES! Grew up on this and even enjoyed when they synced it up to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. Been a couple of decades since I last saw this and d@mn happy to remedy that.

[edarsenal]

http://madeinatlantis.com/movies_central/2007/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/angel-a-movie.jpg
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjk5OWMyNDMtNGU5MC00NzIwLWJiZTAtZTY0NmJhYjM4YWEzXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyOTc5MDI5NjE@._V1_.jpg


Angel-A (2005)

Luc Besson's clever dialogue and almost whimsical outlook on human nature take precedence with his penchant for stylized violence toned way down. And while, yes, the secondary characters are a bit one-dimensional to the point of caricature, our two central figures and the chemistry between them captures and engages me. For me, here lies the magic that enchants in the performances and interactions between Andre (Jamel Debbouze) and Angel-A (Rie Rasmussen).

All of us, everywhere, at one point or another, and for some, quite a few times is in dire need of an angel.
Andre is of that second group. He is in deep. Too deep to get out and incapable of making any headway. He can only fumble, stumble and lie his way deeper and deeper still.
So, on a whim, he decides on the option left. To jump off a bridge into the Seine River.
Ready to jump, making, as we all would, one final plea to a Higher Power, Andre glances to the side at the next support beam where a tall blonde woman appears to be doing the same. In fact, in she goes.
Shocked, he jumps in after her.

Voila. This six-foot, chain-smoking, abrasive bombshell, dressed as (her words), "A Slut," and this mousy, short, nervous, erratic, inept liar, wannabe con artist, in shabby attire, are now attached at the hip as Angel-A solves his problems with Andre kicking and screaming the entire time.
Meanwhile, falling in love as they argue and fight about what is "inside" Andre and how to bring it out for all to see and realize. Especially Andre.

Why does she do it?
Because Angel-A IS, literally, an angel. Sent down from Above to help. It's her job.

In a f@ckin nutshell::
This is a fantastical love story infused with dark, quirky comedic tones, shot in a French-Auteur camera style, à la Luc Besson.
Besson's stylized storytelling sets an excellent pace. Easing occasionally with moments of self-exploration and self-realization. Via, and I need to re-iterate this, their truly excellent chemistry and character nuances. I so do love them.
Much like Besson's dialogue, his usual cinematographer, Thierry Arbogast, is given a day in the sun as the artistic composition visually entices us throughout this film of not only Andre and Angel-A but of Paris herself.

A succulently light heart and mind cleanser for the more serious nominations of these truly excellent General Hall of Fames.
Please use as needed. ;)

[jiraffejustin]

Here are some films I thought about nominating but didn't for various reasons:

The Slumber Party Massacre (1982)
All That Heaven Allows (1955)
Shoplifters (2018)
Throne of Blood (1957)
Evil Dead Trap (1988)
Bottle Rocket (1996)
Who Killed Captain Alex? (2010)
Clash (2016)
Mirror (1975)
Apocalypse Now (1979)
The Given Word (1962)
Amarcord (1973)
Downhill Racer (1969)

Those are all the films y'all were spared this time around.

[Siddon]

https://www.cartoonson.net/_resources/Cartoons/movie/513/image/336x280/Tower.jpg

Tower (2016)

Some films are just perfectly made, Tower is as close to cinematic perfection you will ever see, especially made within the last 20 years. This is the third time I've watched this film and it has the same impact on me each time. When art is made and you can revisit it every year or so and it still holds up with an impact than you know it's good.

Tower tells the story of the first mass school shooting by Charles Whitman in 1966. Whitman is never shown, we never hear about his story...the brain tumor the marine service the murder of his wife when she decided to leave him. That's not the story...instead we get the act of a crazied man who climbed a tower and murdered people below.

The film uses actors, documentary footage, rotoscoping and interviews to play the event of the shooting in real(ish) time. It has a powerful message because the vanity of individuals is lost and an honesty from the witnesses resonates with us the viewer. The survivors are aged near the third act and we get to hear from them with a different perspective.

Often times the little things hit you like a ton of bricks...a police officer thinking this black panthers...when it was a marine. Or when a family is told falsely that their son was killed. You get humorous moments Allen Crum a 40 year old manager giving Whitman the Italian digit is a great moment.

The music is extremely well done, we start with pop and then we get a very basic piano score (that's very haunting) and end with classical music. We hear from Walter Kronkite as he lays out prophetic words and spend a good amount of time with the survivors and are left with a sense of guilt from the heroes that feels genuine and profound.

[Siddon]

With the 2000s Countdown coming up, I'm surprised that there weren't more movies from the 2000s nominated.

Yeah I was a little disappointed that 00's hasn't gotten a Hall of Fame (along with 80's, 90's, 10's)

This would have been my nomination if my nom wasn't allowed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3nh5zcGUsE&t=36s

[Wyldesyde19]

I mentioned the idea of someone hosting a 2000 HOF, and I still think I there is time for someone to host it if they so choose.

[seanc]

Daisies: Someone has a food fetish. At times the editing reminded me of Sesame Street, and in those moments I thought it sure would be nice to be watching Sesame Street. Today is brought to you by the number 0.

[Citizen Rules]

Yeah I was a little disappointed that 00's hasn't gotten a Hall of Fame (along with 80's, 90's, 10's)

I mentioned the idea of someone hosting a 2000 HOF, and I still think I there is time for someone to host it if they so choose. We have 3 months, so someone should host a 2000s HoF. I bet it would be small, so easy to do...and like I said there's 3 months before the countdown deadline. So who wants to host it?

[rauldc14]

Daisies: Someone has a food fetish. At times the editing reminded me of Sesame Street, and in those moments I thought it sure would be nice to be watching Sesame Street. Today is brought to you by the number 0.

Ouch

[ueno_station54]

Evil Dead Trap (1988)
Should have gone with this, coward.

[jiraffejustin]

Should have gone with this, coward.

Saving that one for a rainy day

[SpelingError]

I forgot to set a deadline yesterday, so I'll make it December 1st. That's one film per week (plus an additional two weeks in case anyone falls behind). I updated the second post in this thread with this info. If anyone else joins in or drops out, this deadline might change, but I'll announce it here if that happens.

Also, I rewatched All the President's Men and it held up really well :up: I'll review it either later today or tomorrow.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=81114
Daisies (1966)

Gosh I loved this nom! It made me smile the whole time and that's always a good thing! I loved the creativity of the film, the colors, omg! The creative use of colors and b&w was a visual treat. So too was the set design,I loved the ecliptic decor, so visually rich, especially in the girls room. And that rainbow halo effect on certain images? Very cool.

This film was clearly ahead of it's time as I noticed an editing style that's currently used today in some commercials and movies...In between some scenes there would be a quick inter-cutting of still images, (like piles of leaves, butterflies, etc)...that were shown in fast succession. I've seen that technique used in modern mainstream movies by stylized auteur type directors. In 1966 that was cutting edge.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=81115

Oh, forgot to say the actresses were super charming! and so fun and quirky. I think the strawberry blonde was the cutest, she had such impressive eyes. I liked the brunette too. I loved listening to their voices, they kinda cooed like doves...Geez I could keep writing about this movie as there was so much visually going on.

Thanks @ueno_station54 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=111569) for a really fun and creative nom.




https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=81116

[SpelingError]

All the President's Men (1976) - 4.5

I'm not the biggest fan of biopics. While they may be elevated by some strong acting or some decent camerawork, they often have little else on their minds other than championing whoever is at the heart of their stories or offering a straightforward retelling of whatever noteworthy thing the subject did. While my impression of them is generally "I'd rather just research the person in the film rather than watch a movie about them", this film is an exception to this criticism as it's as much about the process of how the Watergate scandal was uncovered as it is about the scandal itself. Regardless of where you stand politically, this film is a must-see.

This films wraps you up in its story so well with a series of revelations about various people's involvements to the scandal and significant pieces of information coming to light that it keeps you on board with the investigation from beginning to end, even though the outcome of it is already known. As a cherry to all this, certain characters and events (Deep Throat, most of the witnesses being afraid to speak up, members of the CREEP potentially being in danger) add an extra layer of spice to the film and help to ensure that you won't grow bored while watching it. This film also feels relevant today given the various discussions and trials on impeachments/cover-ups/scandals which have permeated the news in the U.S. in the last few years or so.

Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman did a good job in this film and played their parts of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, two Washington Post reporters with different levels of experience, pretty well. Woodward didn't have as much experience at his job as Bernstein did and often showed a reluctance to push the various witnesses they ran into for interviews when they were reluctant to talk, while Bernstein was more demanding with the people he interviewed and didn't accept no for an answer. As the scandal kept growing more and more widespread throughout their investigation and as the importance of solving it eventually dawned on Woodward though, he eventually assisted Bernstein in these endeavors. While Redford and Hoffman are good though, Jason Robards gives the best performance in the film. Even though I've only seen him in four or five films, he's blown me away in every single one of them, as he did in this film. With maybe the exception of Once Upon a Time in the West, I've only seen him in supporting roles, but he plays his part in this film quite phenomenally and proves magnetic whenever he's onscreen. His character has more experience than both Woodward and Bernstein and has to be really careful that the two of them have enough evidence before publishing it. After all, a slip up could potentially bring a bad name to their paper.

Overall, I liked this film about as much as I did the last time I watched it and I'm glad it was nominated for this thread.

Next Up: And Then There Were None

[ueno_station54]

I had time before work and still had the link for it up but I've now left myself like 10 minutes to write this lol.

https://localist-images.azureedge.net/photos/724242/original/fd23350842d12209564d692265f8d56c9a08dfdb.jpg
The Passion of Joan of Arc (Carl Th. Dreyer, 1928)

Not gonna lie, didn't quite hold up this time around. By that I mean I'm considering dropping it all the way to #2 on my favourite films list. Could have been that the soundtrack on the video I watched was just a piece of music the uploader enjoyed and put on it and I didn't notice til super far in lol. Though honestly, any vaguely appropriate music is going to work fine because what's on screen really is powerful enough to transcend that. It's been said over and over but Falconetti's performance truly is the most iconic film performance there will ever be. It can't possibly be topped. The way she portrays her trust in God and that blissful state that comes with it is almost eerie with how immediately convincing it is and the conflict between that and her survival instincts and mortal doubts is just a sight to behold. The supporting actors were clearly chosen for their distinctly stern, intimidating faces and you can really feel that energy radiating off all of them. Like most films from the era, its a very flashy, energetic film. Lots of camera movement, dynamic angles, brisk pacing, nothing to dislike at all and my only real nitpicks are that the outdoor set looks pretty terrible in the handful of wides you get to see it in and there's a couple reused shots that seem unnecessary. Yeah, still hits hard after all these years and numerous viewings. Love it.

[Thursday Next]

I don't really have the time to join right now, but I'll keep an eye on the thread. An interesting and diverse selection of films. Festen is great, The Wizard of Oz is great, Sweet Smell of Success too - this would be a hard one to rank. Last Year at Marienbad might prove divisive. Of the three I haven't seen, Angel-A looks most appealing to me (and it's a 2000s film, bonus countdown prep) so I'll definitely try to watch that.

[rauldc14]

I don't really have the time to join right now, but I'll keep an eye on the thread. An interesting and diverse selection of films. Festen is great, The Wizard of Oz is great, Sweet Smell of Success too - this would be a hard one to rank. Last Year at Marienbad might prove divisive. Of the three I haven't seen, Angel-A looks most appealing to me (and it's a 2000s film, bonus countdown prep) so I'll definitely try to watch that.

We will miss you, hopefully can join the next one.

[gbgoodies]

There are some great nominations in this HoF. I've seen six of the nominations, and I'd highly recommend four of them.

All the President's Men (1976)
Sweet Smell of Success (1957)
Tower (2016)
The Wizard of Oz (1939)


I watched two of the foreign movies for the recent Foreign Language countdown, and I think that they will probably do well too.

The Celebration (1998)
Last Year At Marienbad (1960)


I haven't see these four movies.

And Then There Were None (2015) - (I DVRed this when it aired on cable TV recently, (in three parts), but I haven't had time to watch it yet.)
Angel-A (2005)
Daisies (1966)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928)

[SpelingError]

PHOENIX74 has joined us!

His nomination is Not Quite Hollywood (2008).

https://i.postimg.cc/hGGPgwKm/Not-Quite-Hollywood.jpg

Also, I'll extend the deadline from December 1st to December 8th.

[PHOENIX74]

I look forward to watching and reviewing all of these films, even the ones I've seen. It looks like a varied lot, and all high quality.

[jiraffejustin]

I’m gonna gladly watch that doc, but I think I’d have like it even more if one of the doc’s subjects got nominated.

[Citizen Rules]

I look forward to watching and reviewing all of these films, even the ones I've seen. It looks like a varied lot, and all high quality. Welcome to the HoF! Glad to have you join:)

[SpelingError]

I look forward to watching and reviewing all of these films, even the ones I've seen. It looks like a varied lot, and all high quality.
Glad to have you with us! Out of curiosity, what are your initial impressions/thoughts on the nominations?

[Wyldesyde19]

PHOENIX74 has joined us!

His nomination is Not Quite Hollywood (2008).

https://i.postimg.cc/hGGPgwKm/Not-Quite-Hollywood.jpg

Also, I'll extend the deadline from December 1st to December 8th.
Oh! I know of this doc! I’ve been meaning to watch this for awhile now. It’s partially the reason why I selected Australia as my country of choice for the 2021 challenge.

[edarsenal]

WELCOME PHOENIX74!!
Your nom sounds like a bit o' serious fan, mate!
Sorry, went a little Aussie there lol
Still, definitely looks like a very fun Doc to check out. Looking forward to it.

Looks like we got some serious openers for reviews already on the table. Very much agree with what is said about the ones I've seen and for the one I haven't, with the polarized reviews for Daisies makes for an intriguing approach of where I'll land.

I've also found And Then There Were None in three parts on my favorite Russian streaming site and have already knocked out the first one with its build-up and I'm loving it so far. To quote Sam Neil's character, MacArthur regarding the first of the three episodes, "This is the calm before the carnage." YAYYY

[edarsenal]

I don't really have the time to join right now, but I'll keep an eye on the thread. An interesting and diverse selection of films. Festen is great, The Wizard of Oz is great, Sweet Smell of Success too - this would be a hard one to rank. Last Year at Marienbad might prove divisive. Of the three I haven't seen, Angel-A looks most appealing to me (and it's a 2000s film, bonus countdown prep) so I'll definitely try to watch that.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/97/2d/86/972d868b0d09b881c42f08ba0df47f5d.gif
https://i2.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/crying-on-sofa1.gif?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=540%2C303&ssl=1

Well, my weekend is TOTALLY ruined. Thank you very much.

[Allaby]

I just watched Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation! (2008). Written and directed by Mark Hartley, this lively documentary is about the history of Australian exploitation films. It features a lot of clips from films like The Naked Bunyip , The Adventures of Barry McKenzie , Alvin Purple, Mad Dog Morgan, ABC of Love & Sex: Australian Style, Felicity, Mad Max, Harlequin, Turkey Shoot, BMX Bandits and Dead End Drive-In, amongst others. There are several actors, directors, producers, and critics that comment on the film often in a humorous or informative way. Some of the behind the scenes stories are quite wild. Not Quite Hollywood is a very fast paced and high energy documentary, which is consistently interesting and entertaining. I've seen a handful of the films mentioned, but there are several others that look like fun that I might check out. The films I have seen that were mentioned are (with my rating):

The ABC of Love and Sex: Australia Style (1978) 8/10
Felicity (1978) 8/10
Road Games (1981) 7/10
Long Weekend (1978) 5/10
Next of Kin (1982) 5/10
Mad Max (1979) 7/10
Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981) 6/10

For those who enjoyed this, I recommend other similarly themed fun docs American Grindhouse (2010) and Skin: A History of Nudity in the Movies (2020). This was a good, fun pick by Phoenix74. My rating is a 4.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=81188
Tower (2016)

I was looking forward to this as I like historical mid 20th century bio pics & documentaries. I've seen other documentaries on the History channel about the mass shooting from the 'tower' of the University of Texas, so I expected this to be powerful.

Mostly my reaction was one of frustration and a lack of connection. I found the rotoscope animation to be annoying and a hindrance to the story telling. It reminded me of 1990s insurance commercials that also use rotoscope. It's jarring and rather ugly looking. I should've been caring about the story of the pregnant woman lying shot and wounded in the plaza next to her dead husband. But thanks to the rotoscope I felt like I was watching a cartoon or even worse one of those bad insurance commercials.

Making things even more distracting for me was the editing of brief scenes of live real images along with animation. I SO WANTED to see the real images, even photos with voiceovers would've been much preferred over that rotoscope animation. People said in the 23rd HoF that they didn't like the animation in Yellow Submarine, and as primitive as that might have looked, it did work for a 1960s movie. But rotoscope in a 2016 documentary?

It was only in the last part of the movie when they started showing the real people from that day, that the film had any emotional impact on me. But why couldn't we just heard these people being interviewed over still photos and whatever archival footage there was.

[PHOENIX74]

Glad to have you with us! Out of curiosity, what are your initial impressions/thoughts on the nominations?

All the films I've seen are great (but there's one I've had a troubled history with : and it won't be the one you think it might be.) Best of all - the films nominated are especially varied (I tried to keep in the spirit of that, by picking a film that's quite apart from the rest.) I'm especially looking forward to seeing Tower and Last Year At Marienbad for the first time. I've had Festen lined up for a rewatch ever since the the foreign language countdown wound up. Sweet Smell of Success looks like a potential winner - and yet somehow I've never heard of it before. Daisies and Angel-A sound like my kind of films just from the brief plot synopsis I read (which I'll now do my best to forget - I like to be completely surprised by a film these days.) And Then There Were None has a cast to die for, and a great reputation.

I'm excited about delving in examining these films over the coming weeks :cool:

[Citizen Rules]

All the films I've seen are great (but there's one I've had a troubled history with : and it won't be the one you think it might be.)...Well if you hate a film after watching it, just speak your mind, we all do...I just did! and so did Sean back a page. None of us directed or starred in any of these films so no one should ever take it personally🙂

[gbgoodies]

I've also found And Then There Were None in three parts on my favorite Russian streaming site and have already knocked out the first one with its build-up and I'm loving it so far. To quote Sam Neil's character, MacArthur regarding the first of the three episodes, "This is the calm before the carnage." YAYYY


I think I found And Then There Were None in three parts on YouTube:

Part 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzJT0axQxuo

Part 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sSYY7pVpus

Part 3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf-AnvL37Vg

[gbgoodies]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=81188
Tower (2016)

I was looking forward to this as I like historical mid 20th century bio pics & documentaries. I've seen other documentaries on the History channel about the mass shooting from the 'tower' of the University of Texas, so I expected this to be powerful.

Mostly my reaction was one of frustration and a lack of connection. I found the rotoscope animation to be annoying and a hindrance to the story telling. It reminded me of 1990s insurance commercials that also use rotoscope. It's jarring and rather ugly looking. I should've been caring about the story of the pregnant woman lying shot and wounded in the plaza next to her dead husband. But thanks to the rotoscope I felt like I was watching a cartoon or even worse one of those bad insurance commercials.

Making things even more distracting for me was the editing of brief scenes of live real images along with animation. I SO WANTED to see the real images, even photos with voiceovers would've been much preferred over that rotoscope animation. People said in the 23rd HoF that they didn't like the animation in Yellow Submarine, and as primitive as that might have looked, it did work for a 1960s movie. But rotoscope in a 2016 documentary?

It was only in the last part of the movie when they started showing the real people from that day, that the film had any emotional impact on me. But why couldn't we just heard these people being interviewed over still photos and whatever archival footage there was.




It's a shame that you didn't like Tower. I wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that you already knew about the shooting from watching other documentaries. I watched it the last time it was nominated, and the rotoscope animation didn't bother me at all, but I didn't know anything about this mass shooting, so I was learning about it for the first time, and it kept my interest from beginning to end.

[edarsenal]

I think I found And Then There Were None in three parts on YouTube:

Part 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzJT0axQxuo

Part 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sSYY7pVpus

Part 3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf-AnvL37Vg

Those are even better than the ones I found, THANK YOU SO MUCH for posting them, gbg!!
VERY, VERY kind of you!

[seanc]

All The President's Men: Probably the movie I was most looking forward to because I remember loving it but it must be 25 years since I watched it. Feels like every election cycle I mean to get to my unwatched Blu-ray, and I just don't. Anyway, it was even better than I remembered. It's really a masterclass on making a procedural. If I would have watched this a couple weeks ago, it would have had a shot at my 100 for sure.

I love movies with big vista cinematography. I love directors like Wes Anderson and Bergman who overfill their frames with visual lushness. I also think films like this, where everything feels rather standard visually can be absolutely beautiful. I love how the bright light of the DC we think of are in the background of this film. We see it a lot when the characters are in cars. We don't go in many of these iconic buildings, but they are always there looking over the top of our protagonists, feeling like a very real threat.

I also love the couple of shots we get of Woodward and Bernstein typing away in the background, while the power players are on the TV in the foreground. It's simple, yet extremely effective in making us feel the weight of what is transpiring.

In addition to those specifics visually, the film just looks perfectly 70's in general. The clothing, the newsroom, the smoking. It all effectively transports us to a very specific time and place.

I don't have much else to say specific. The casting and writing are top notch. The way everything plays out is great. We are always in their mind, so we don't have any information that the reporters don't have until they get it. We also never feel lost though, as can happen in movies void of exposition.

Could rank over the great wizard for me. We shall see.

[Allaby]

I just finished watching And Then There Were None (2015). Directed by Craig Viveiros, this miniseries is based on the Agatha Christie novel and is about 10 strangers on an island in 1939 who start getting killed, one by one. Who is the killer? Why are these individuals being targeted? And will anyone survive? Overall, I liked this. It's a pretty good mystery with a fine cast. I thought the cinematography was quite lovely. I would have preferred the kills to be more thrilling though and I did feel it could have used more a little more suspense and horror. The reveal towards the end felt a little lacking to me and I wanted something more dramatic or shocking. This was an entertaining mini-series and well worth the watch. 3.5

[Takoma11]

Takoma11

Would you be interested in joining?

I'm working on the 2021 Film Challenge currently, and as most of the films in this HoF would be rewatches for me, I am going to sit this one out. But some great picks! I literally watched Last Year at Marienbad about a week and a half ago and loved it. Passion of Joan of Arc is a favorite of mine. And while I prefer the 40s version of And Then There Were None, I have seen the recent miniseries and I liked the way that they restored the elements that were changed in the earlier adaptation to make it more "friendly".

[seanc]

Not Quite Hollywood: I really like these types of documentaries. it gives me a glimpse into a world of cinema I will never experience myself. That's because while I am interested in what drives the makers of these films, I am not at all interested in the buckets of fake blood that neither thrill me or disturb me. I am certainly not interested in the twisted male gaze that these films endorse.

In that way this doc was a mixed bag for me. The first half really didn't get enough into the psyche of the directors or why they enjoyed making these types of films. The second half gets much more into that, and I enjoyed that half much more. Especially liked it when they would spend a few minutes on one particular film and get all the talking heads opinions on what made that movie tick. Wish it had been more of that.

I do appreciate that we got a ton of clips in this which makes you feel like you are getting a good look at what the genre is all about. I have to say of all the talking heads we get. It seems like Tarantino and one of the directors might be the only ones who actually enjoy the movies themselves.

Every time I hear Tarantino talk I can't believe I love his movies as much as I do.

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/LXmVW2BJ/joanofarc.jpg

The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) - 20fps*

Directed by Carl Theodor Dreyer

Written by Carl Theodor Dreyer
Based on a novel by Joseph Delteil

Starring Renée Jeanne Falconetti


Dikemark Hospital is a mental institution in the municipality of Asker in Norway, and it was here in 1981 that an employee found canisters of film that had been stored for a long time in a janitor's closet. The canister's were labelled 'The Passion of Joan of Arc' and were sent to the Norwegian Film Institute where they sat for a further three years before they were examined. Decades earlier, in 1928 and '29, the original negatives of Carl Theodor Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc, possibly the greatest film ever made at the time of it's release, had been destroyed by fire much as Joan herself had centuries earlier - and it had been painstakingly reconstructed using for the most part second-best takes that had not been used for the original. It must have pained Dreyer a great deal to think that his film had been lost forever - and in subsequent years it had been mutilated further in an attempt to make it more commercially viable. It has now been resurrected - protected for film lovers by blind chance or providence, however one chooses to view it.

The Passion of Joan of Arc is a masterpiece in more ways than one. In mere decades since it's invention, the cinema had gone from being a novelty to a new art-form, and Dreyer a master ahead of his time. The French Société Générale des Films recognized this and invited him to make a film - by preference one about Marie Antoinette, Catherine de Medici or Joan of Arc. He chose the latter, and his cleverness is evident from it's outset. In the Paris Chamber of Deputies there exists a document going back to 1431 - the trail transcript of Joan of Arc's persecution at the hands of the French clerical court - enthralled by British invaders. Dreyer shows us an actual copy - though in all actuality it is the Latin translation of the original in French. It's leafed through in the present day, then we're taken back to 1431, with a scribe - the actual soon-to-be transcript in his hands. Thereby we make a link with the present, and are taken back 500 years with a wonderful device.

Dreyer was a filmmaker that believed an audience should experience film as a completely separate reality. That we should believe what we're witnessing is real, as if, in his own words, "we're witnessing reality through a keyhole." What a wonderful way to transpose ourselves into reality then, to use Joan of Arc's actual words in this film, echoing through history in the transcription of her trial. His other device works for most, but not all viewers - that of the extreme close-up. This is something that sets The Passion of Joan of Arc apart from most other films. His use of close-up is relentless and all-encompassing. Establishing shots are rare-to-nonexistent, and we're taken directly into the minds and souls of the characters. Dryer himself, when the film was released, said "Everything human is expressed in the face, as the face is the mirror of the soul." Every crease and blemish is shown to us unadorned. Every tear, moment of surprise, feeling of frustration and anger is clear and thrust to the foreground. The soul is laid bare.

The excellence of Carl Theodor Dreyer's direction shouldn't be allowed to overshadow the acting of Renée Jeanne Falconetti, who gives a mesmerizing performance as Joan. She was helped by Dreyer almost torturing her as harshly as Joan was tortured, pushing her to the very limits of discomfort and emotional collapse. Falconetti was the only other person who watched the rushes of the film during it's production with Dreyer, and he credited her with the artistic success of the film. He considered himself only as the 'midwife' of his films, and told everyone that the actors were the real artists. The most a director could do is help them find the performance within themselves - but as far as painting on the canvas of celluloid, it was the actors who created a moving picture. Falconetti's Joan is one of the greatest acting triumphs in film history, but her trying experience turned her away from appearing in feature films. She would always be more comfortable on stage.

The sets were constructed with concrete, instead of the much more usual plaster. They were modelled on medieval drawings - and created with odd angles and perspectives like those drawings. This gives the viewer a dream-like feeling - the world not quite conforming to the usual, just as the trial of Joan of Arc was far beyond the usual. They're set mostly in the background, and despite not really being given any real prominence, they serve their role. Cinematographer Rudolph Maté was already a master of his profession, and combined with Dreyer producing many stunning techniques that presaged others by decades. Shadow is made great use of. Many shots are from a very low angle, and to effect this Dreyer had holes dug everywhere on his set. Some are dizzying, as when the characters themselves are dizzied by some of Joan's divinely inspired answers to her haranguing inquisitors. As her fate becomes sealed we fly to the top of our castle's ramparts and fall head over feet as spectators start to make themselves felt. The art of filmmaking was young, but these filmmakers have a sense of what the medium is capable of beyond their years.

To watch Joan of Arc is to truly have a religious kind of film experience, and it's a film that truly feels timeless. It's authenticity lays at the very heart of it's director's feel of motion pictures. Within a traditional 5 act structure, new techniques and novel storytelling set it apart from all others. Condensed into a short space of time, we experience her trial, confession, recantation and eventual execution. The film doesn't shy away from her burning body, but this isn't for perverse exploitation - during the film truth is constantly pushed into our faces. Whether it be a baby suckling on her mother's breast, or Joan being bled to try and remedy a fever, we won't be allowed to turn away from the spectacle of her martyrdom or that of the body and soul. Through it all there is much symbolism - but not to the point where it starts to take us out of the film.

"The protective flames surrounded Joan's soul as she rose to heaven," the film tells us - perhaps trying to point out that we shouldn't necessarily see her harrowing execution in a sad and despairing light, but perhaps the opposite. This is an exultant film - Joan's triumph over her captors and as she herself pointed out, the moment she is set free and provided with a glorious victory. As a whole, The Passion of Joan of Arc captures that sentiment magnificently and provides us with one of cinema's true masterpieces.

5

[SpelingError]

I'm working on the 2021 Film Challenge currently, and as most of the films in this HoF would be rewatches for me, I am going to sit this one out. But some great picks! I literally watched Last Year at Marienbad about a week and a half ago and loved it. Passion of Joan of Arc is a favorite of mine. And while I prefer the 40s version of And Then There Were None, I have seen the recent miniseries and I liked the way that they restored the elements that were changed in the earlier adaptation to make it more "friendly".

That's fair. I hope to see you in future HoFs though!

[ueno_station54]

https://assets.mubicdn.net/images/film/2464/image-w1280.jpg?1546239610
Sweet Smell of Success (Alexander Mackendrick, 1957)

So this is good enough for what it is, and I do like it, but it pretty much lacks everything I find exciting about film. Nothing exciting at all visually, like it looks fine just nothing of note. The editing (apart from one memorable cut), nothing of note. The music, its fine, forgettable. It never really has a strong mood or atmosphere going. The characters seem interesting but we don't really get all that much from them. The film is pretty much just the script and that's the least important part of any film. It just barrels through the narrative as quickly as possible with everything else being an afterthought. But hey, it is an entertaining script. It's a digestible and fun bit of pulp and nothing else. Probably one of the better films of this ilk that I've seen but that's not saying all that much.

[rauldc14]

One of the better films but that's not saying that much.....

What are you trying to get out of watching these films if 95% of what you see on these you don't like?

[ueno_station54]

What are you trying to get out of watching these films if 95% of what you see on these you don't like?
Don't know what you're talking about, I've liked most of the films I've watched for these HoFs and this current one is 3/3 so far.

[SpelingError]

ueno_station seems fine to me, personally. Rather, the impression I have is that he's a really tough critic.

Out of curiosity ueno, who are your favorite directors/what are your favorite styles and things to see in movies? From what I gather, you seem interested in surreal and weird films.

[ueno_station54]

Well, the aspects of film I'm most into are aesthetic and like vibe. So things with like interesting, expressive camerawork/editing and vivid imagery tend to do a lot for me. Music is also big, of course and I also love things that have like a lot of texture if that makes sense. Like films you can like, feel aesthetically. I'm usually not super big on films that are like heavily narrative-focused as I find them claustrophobic and poorly paced a lot of the time. Also have a soft spot for good schlock and overly-sentimental melodrama type stuff. Thank for asking <3

he's a really tough critic.
Oh btw I'm a girl lol.

[SpelingError]

Well, the aspects of film I'm most into are aesthetic and like vibe. So things with like interesting, expressive camerawork/editing and vivid imagery tend to do a lot for me. Music is also big, of course and I also love things that have like a lot of texture if that makes sense. Like films you can like, feel aesthetically. I'm usually not super big on films that are like heavily narrative-focused as I find them claustrophobic and poorly paced a lot of the time. Also have a soft spot for good schlock and overly-sentimental melodrama type stuff. Thank for asking <3
Aye, I see. I'm also into expressionistic camerawork/editing and movies with vivid feels. My nomination (The Celebration) might appeal to you in that case as it ticks some of those boxes off. We'll see though.

Oh btw I'm a girl lol.

Haha, gotcha. Sorry about that.

[ueno_station54]

My nomination (The Celebration) might appeal to you in that case as it ticks some of those boxes off. We'll see though.
I'm expecting to like it, I've been meaning to see it for years now.

[SpelingError]

And Then There Were None (2015) - 3.5

While I normally don't watch mini-series and television shows, I was still happy to check this one out. Though I had a couple issues with it, I found it to be an effective and tense thriller. The cinematography was a big highlight and enhanced the claustrophobia of the show. The shots of the coastline which seemed to go on forever, the barren landscapes on the island, and the occasional shots of the island being battered by thunderstorms helped to build tension. Speaking of which, I appreciated how different kinds of tension occurred amongst the characters on the island. Of course, there was the surface level tension of the characters growing distrustful of each other, but I also appreciated how, in some ways, they strangely seemed comfortable with each other. The bacchanal in episode three was effective at showing how much the events on the island had warped the characters. They had their differences and were still distrustful of each other, but they were all running out of hope of being rescued, so why not make the most of what may be their final days alive? As strong as this show is, I wasn't that big on the flashbacks. They worked well in the first episode, but not so much in the latter parts of the show. They often slowed the show down and killed the tension a handful of times when the show would cut away from the main action to them. To make matters worse, most of the flashbacks shown in the latter parts of the show (mainly the ones involving Claythorne) either repeated what we already knew about her or provided unnecessary details to her backstory. I also thought that the final reveal, while not bad per se, felt a bit lacking given all the buildup. In spite of these flaws, however, I enjoyed my time with the show and I'm glad it was nominated.

Next Up: Angel-A

[Citizen Rules]

81228
All the President's Men (1976)

Now I feel sick...

I thought I'd seen this but maybe I hadn't. Maybe I just blotted it out of my mind. Now that I viewed the film, I know all great empires do indeed sink under the weight of their own power lust. And I have to say this movie showed me a very depressing truth and if I ever thought politics was the religion of hell, I thought right. I also know nothing has really changed since Watergate only the perpetrators have grown more skilled and I doubt American's will ever catch them with their swollen hands in the proverbial cookie jar, again. Hell current Watergates get cheered by 52% of the population and if anything real was done about it, like it was back under the Nixon administration, civil war would break out in the streets. Giving 52% of the population a chance to get their Confederate flags out of hiding and cram them into their sweaty, waiting hands.

Yeah, that about sums it up. rating_4_5

[SpelingError]

This is just a reminder that you all have till September 20th to join this Hall of Fame.

[Wyldesyde19]

I’ll be starting this up this week. 👍

[BooBooKittyFock]

SpelingError

I’d be down to join

[SpelingError]

SpelingError

I’d be down to join

Glad to have you here! You have till September 20th to dm your nomination to me.

[SpelingError]

BooBooKittyFock has now joined us!

His nomination is Cinema Paradiso (1988).

https://i.postimg.cc/ZKJmXK99/Cinema-Paradiso.jpg

Also, I'll extend the deadline from December 8th to December 15th.

[gbgoodies]

BooBooKittyFock has now joined us!

His nomination is Cinema Paradiso (1988).

https://i.postimg.cc/ZKJmXK99/Cinema-Paradiso.jpg

Also, I'll extend the deadline from December 8th to December 15th.


BooBooKittyFock, Great nom. :up:

I recently watched Cinema Paradiso for the Foreign Language countdown, and it took a while for me to get into the movie, but by the end of the movie, I loved it.

[jiraffejustin]

I feel like Cinema Paradiso is fresh enough in my mind that I don't need to rewatch it. I may still, but it'd probably be at or near the end of proceedings. Here is what I said about it in the 19th HoF:

Cinema Paradiso

The main criticism that gets tossed around at this film has to do with sentimentality, but personally I'm not so cynical that I can't enjoy something this warm. Especially considering that underneath a lot of the warmth is a man looking back at not just the good things, but also a lot of hurt and missed opportunity. Even with the glow of sentimentality attached to nostalgia, it's hard to argue that the film doesn't properly nail that feeling of longing you get when you look back at a time that you wish you could go back and visit. All you are left with is memories and your choices.

[PHOENIX74]

BooBooKittyFock has now joined us!

His nomination is Cinema Paradiso (1988).

https://i.postimg.cc/ZKJmXK99/Cinema-Paradiso.jpg

Also, I'll extend the deadline from December 8th to December 15th.

Hurrah! Cinema Paradiso is already high on my watchlist.

[Allaby]

BooBooKittyFock has now joined us!

His nomination is Cinema Paradiso (1988).

https://i.postimg.cc/ZKJmXK99/Cinema-Paradiso.jpg

Also, I'll extend the deadline from December 8th to December 15th.

Welcome BooBooKittyFock! Great nomination. I just recently bought the Arrow special edition blu ray of Cinema Paradiso and have been planning to rewatch it soon.

[edarsenal]

WELCOME INDEED BBKF!!!
D@mn good choice! Been curious to do a rewatch of this film since seeing it in a General Hall of Fame some time ago.

[BooBooKittyFock]

I tried picking something not many ppl have nominated in the past that I have actually seen. I knew most of you are dedicated cinephiles and most of you had probably had seen this already, but maybe some of y’all haven’t. Either way, I hope this film will bring you a happy feeling of nostalgia, it being a first watch or rewatch!

[Wyldesyde19]

Not Quite Hollywood


Australia cinema was almost nonexistent during the early days of cinema. Before the 70’s, there wasn’t much to it. So, to jumpstart their foundering film industry, they looked to overseas for “inspiration”. A cross between Europe and Hollywood, as one producer calls it.

The result? Ozploitation, which coincided with The Australian New Wave Movement. It wasn’t for the faint of heart, and it certainly wasn’t as prestigious. We’re talking about genres from action(The Man from Hong Kong), dystopian sci-fi (Mad Max), horror (Thirst, Razorback) ausssie westerns(Ned Kelly, Mad Morgan, both based off of actual figures) psychological thrillers (Wake in Fright), and sexploitation films (too many to name). Sexploitation and horrro were their bread and butter during the 70’s.
Most are forgettable. Although there are some worth watching.

NQH follows several directors, critics, producers, actors and actresses as well as Quentin Tarantino, himself a self avowed fan of Ozploitation, who, if I recall correctly, coined the term.

Some of these films are interesting to watch, and listening to the back stories and anecdotes are always interesting. Dennis Hopper as Mad Dog Morgan was filled with stories surrounding his method acting, aaaand well as his boozing and coke use. Indeed, Hopper even appears to reminisce about his experience.

There is also the stories about The Man from Hong Kong, an Asian who they said despised white women and treated everyone horribly.

There also the stories of the dangerous stunts that cost many their lives. It Is almost like a cautionary tale, about what Australia was willing to do to create movies.

What we have here, is a fascinating tale of the “birth” of the Aussie films industry, frought with peril, egos, and censorship. What emerged is still debated. What matters is what came from it. And along for the ride, is Tarantino, riding shotgun, filled with an exuberance that makes one wonder what they may be missing.

Of the films listed at the end, during the credits, I have seen only a handful: Mad Dog Morgan, Patrick, Razorback, Wake in Fright,Mad Max and The Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith. Of that group, Mad Max is easily the best.

I plan on seeing more.

[Citizen Rules]

I tried picking something not many ppl have nominated in the past that I have actually seen. I knew most of you are dedicated cinephiles and most of you had probably had seen this already, but maybe some of y’all haven’t. Either way, I hope this film will bring you a happy feeling of nostalgia, it being a first watch or rewatch!Great film. But I hold that it's not actually about happy feelings.

[BooBooKittyFock]

Great film. But I hold that it's not actually about happy feelings.

Was going mainly for nostalgia, poor choice of wording on my part. 😅

[Citizen Rules]

Was going mainly for nostalgia, poor choice of wording on my part. 😅Nah, you're fine..most everyone thinks of Cinema Paradiso as a happy, positive film. Everyone but me:D But it is a real good film!

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/jjLvyFr2/festen.jpg

Festen (The Celebration) - 1998

Directed by Thomas Vinterberg

Written by Thomas Vinterberg and Mogens Rukov

Starring Ulrich Thomsen, Henning Moritzen, Thomas Bo Larsen
Paprika Steen and Birthe Neumann


The draconian restrictions Dogme 95 enforced on those filmmakers who decided to follow it's rules might at first confound those who suddenly come into contact with them. Unnecessarily forbidding the use of any artificial light, and constricting a film by stipulating only hand-held cameras are to be used appears to be folly of the highest order, which begs the question : why? Fortunately, Festen's director, Thomas Vinterberg, has been able to directly articulate what it all means. Vinterberg has described Dogme 95 as a provocation, an ideology and a game. That Vinterberg and Lars von Trier found it necessary at all to instigate this movement speaks directly to those who feel that storytelling is dead in modern movie-making - painted over with glitz and glamour. Stripping all of that away forces those making a film to think completely differently, and it's here that the rewards are inherent. Forcing filmmakers to think differently and change produces something with an element of the unexpected, and this is where the rewards for working in such a strange manner become apparent. Such is the serious side to what must have seemed to some to be a challenging game the directors were challenging each other with. The first result of this game was the film Festen - and it indeed produced unexpected results.

Festen tells a story which is at first simply unpleasant, and darkens it until it's nearly unbearable. A wealthy patriarch is celebrating his 60th birthday at a palatial home in Denmark, and as such his entire family has descended on the place carrying their age-old resentments, personalities and problems. This celebration will be marred by the fact that one of his adult children, Linda, has recently committed suicide - but all and sundry do their best to not dwell on that fact. Aside from petty bickering all appears to be going well until his son Christian rises to toast his father. What comes forth is a revelation of horrifying abuse, the ramifications of which obviously caused Linda's suicide - and this revelation will lead to confrontations despite most family member's attempts to pretend nothing at all is amiss. It takes much more than Christian's initial toast to crack the rotten egg his father appears to be.

The characters inhabiting this story are exceptionally well-drawn, and expertly portrayed. Christian's father - Helge (Henning Moritzen) is pompous and drives his children hard. His son Michael (Thomas Bo Larsen) is the wild one - and his previous drunken antics have nearly led to him being barred from the celebrations. Daughter Helene (Paprika Steen) is free-spirited, and causes controversy by inviting her black boyfriend to an event where more than one casual racist is celebrating. Helge's wife Else (Birthe Neumann) is loyal and discreet, backing Helge every chance she gets. This main ensemble is supported by a cast of characters that have a depth of their own, and makes the film seem genuine - the world it's depicting more than what we're seeing on camera. You'd almost suspect it to continue beyond the frame, into the various rooms and gardens we can't see. Adding to this sense of reality is the casual way it's captured on tape. Dogme 95 leaves a film to it's actors and characters - the cameraman must follow the action instead of vice versa.

One of Dogme 95's other strict rules demands that all sound on a film be provided by the natural environment. No dubbing or overlaying of sound is allowed. This means that there is perhaps more inventive use of music, and singing is provided by the characters - either they sing in unison or one plays the piano. This is an example of Dogme taking us in directions that Vinterberg may not have naturally veered into if he had more post-production to do on Festen. It certainly doesn't seem out of place. There is a willful ignorance the characters display towards what is going on, as they don't want to face the ugly truth which is unfolding before them. Conga-lines, racist singing and general enforced merry behaviour make the noise people need when an ugly truth needs to be drowned out. This is where Dogme really bears fruit. Directors are forced to think more. It's probable that Lars von Trier and Vinterberg did not even know themselves what their end products would look and feel like. Instead of taking away - it adds.

As the sun sets, natural light begins to bleed away and our characters begin to lose connection with their surroundings and become adrift in a sea of darkness. This is perhaps the greatest happy accident the whole production gains from the ideology it's adhering to. At the height of the crisis and madness surrounding Christian, Helge and the others, this darkness lends an atmosphere that would otherwise never have been considered. It's surprising just how fully engaged we are by this time - lacking music and light our concentration narrows and now everything we have invested is simply in the characters themselves. Here, watching Festen is comparable to watching live theatre - and all of the actors' performances rise to the occasion to produce something compelling, but also quite uncomfortable in many respects. This family gathering was always going to be difficult to watch - but the familial crisis ignited by Christian's toast and the darkness punctuated by bare, unadorned sound hit hard. It's disorientating, naked and powerful.

Personally, the first time I watched Festen I came away from it in a dark frame of mind - as if what I had witnessed was indeed real. Based on what Vinterberg at first thought was a true story (and it may still turn out to be so - with only it's true origin somewhat clouded) this film removes all of the usual barriers we've come to expect from films. When I learned more about it, I felt a compelling urgency to watch it again - and after that viewing I still feel compelled to watch it a third time. With modern movie-making we've lost our sense of the moment, and Festen recaptures that quite brilliantly. It's weaknesses have been turned into strengths, and as such it is something well worth celebrating.

4.5

[rbrayer]

I strongly considered joining but am watching a bunch of films alongside a read of "Pictures at a Revolution" and have other tasks taking up my time. Sad, but this looks fun and as I've seen several of the films, I intend to follow the thread and then join 27. Enjoy!

[Citizen Rules]

I strongly considered joining but am watching a bunch of films alongside a read of "Pictures at a Revolution" and have other tasks taking up my time. Sad, but this looks fun and as I've seen several of the films, I intend to follow the thread and then join 27. Enjoy!Hope to see ya in the 27th!

[edarsenal]

excellent and very informative review, PHOENIX74. Especially in regards to the parameters of Dogme 95 and how it affected the making of the film. VERY NICE.


Finished the third installment of And Then There Were None. Will get a review up during the weekend.

[ueno_station54]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BN2ViYTk4YTItM2JiZi00ZWNkLTliMjMtZjUzOWFiMzRlYzdiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTI3MDk3MzQ@._V1_.jpg
Tower (Keith Maitland, 2016)

Documentaries focusing on a specific event are really tough to make work. Life doesn't always present things in a way that make for a structurally engaging story and that's the case with this particular event. To be honest, the only interesting thing about this event is that it happened and that doesn't really make for the most engaging film. There's just not much to work with when your subject matter is an hour and a half of history. The first 20 minutes feel so long because there's just so many characters being introduced the same way one after another. It doesn't drag nearly as bad after that but the film still feels a lot longer than it is. So it's never terribly interesting but it is at least passably entertaining and the presentation carries it a lot. I've always really liked rotoscope animation, even when it looks jank sometimes (happens a few times in every film its used, kind of unavoidable) and I think it really adds a lot here. They could have gotten a little more ambitious with it overall but the spots where they do go for it it looks really great, the scene where the pregnant girl talks about meeting her guy in particular was a standout. As much as I've whinged about the structure and whatnot, some of the concluding statements from the people involved do have a lot of weight and hit pretty effectively so it does end on a good note at least. Overall, its not really a great story or a great source of information but I dig the style and I was mostly entertained so yeah, it ain't bad.

[SpelingError]

Angel-A (2005) - 3

Tonally wise, I found this film really strange. I'm not sure how much I liked it (my rating may increase or decrease in the future), but I do have some respect for it. Initially, I thought this would be a straightforward story of Angel-A improving Andre and helping him fix his various flaws. Instead though, he made virtually no improvements throughout the first hour and made a couple improvements throughout the final half hour. At the end, while he was in a better place than he was at the start of the film, he still needed Angel-A by his side to prevent him from making the same mistakes all over again. If it wasn't for Andre recognizing that he was only half-developed at the end, one could criticize the film for not properly developing his character, but since the point of the ending is that she didn't fully improve him, the film doesn't need to provide closure to his character flaws. While I find that to be a clever premise, I think I respect this film more than I like it. I admired that the film twisted my initial expectations around, but what I got as an alternative left me rather cold and removed from the characters. Andre's ineptitude kept me at arm's length from him for most of the first hour, so it took me a while to feel an emotional connection to him. Also, the occasional bad advice Angel-A offered (e.g., telling him he should've insulted one of the thugs he owed money to) and how she did virtually all the work when dealing with some of his problems instead of instructing him on how to handle them kept me from getting into her character. And again, I get that Andre wasn't fully improved at the end, so I'm hesitant to call these qualities flaws. I'm just not sure I connected much with them. Angel-A seems like a highly flawed film which resolves its flaws at the end in a rather odd way. Granted though, I'm a bit undecided about how I feel about this film and somebody could probably convince me that it's better or worse than what I think. For now though, this is where I'll stand.

Next Up: The Celebration

[BooBooKittyFock]

Tower: 2016 (Keith Maitland)

I thought this documentary was done very accurately and some ways beautifully. I didn’t love the cartoonish depictions, but I thought it made the documentary become more alive and even though this tragic occurrence happened in 1966, it made it feel so relevant and modern. Throughout the film I teared up a few times but I thought it was amazing the way Rita went to Claire’s aid in the middle of a courtyard, clearly visible from the tower with no coverage and yet she lated there on pavement on a 100 degree day, just to talk to her to keep her conscious. Later she went to the hospital and gave Claire a painting she had made and I thought, this woman is an angel from heaven.

So all in all, I thought this was a well made documentary and the animation wasn’t my favorite but it also played a big part and had a purpose.

[SpelingError]

This is just a reminder that you all have two days left to join this Hall of Fame.

[SpelingError]

You all have one day left to join this HoF.

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=81347
And Then There Were None (2015)

A mostly fun watch...mostly. But its TV miniseries origins were ever present. From the next week's episode sneak previews, to the TV style of acting, to the padding of what should've been a two hour story out to a full three hours...This version of Agatha Christie's classic novel left a lot to be desired.

Most any film that has a mystery to be solved by the viewer at it's core will elicit mostly positive reactions, as the ongoing mystery is a prime hook for any film especially a murder mystery. We watch intently because we want to find out who-done-it? And so yes I had fun watching this, but to be honestly objective the production was average.

The acting was annoy at times especially by the nervous doctor with his constant caterwauling and the equally dismally boring detective with the silly mustache. I couldn't wait for those two to get their comeuppance, aka be knocked off! To be fair, it's probably not the actors fault but the fault of a script that despite three hours time doesn't bother to flesh out these ten guest. For the most part the guest were soulless, two dimensional figures who only exist to be killed. The one exception was the man who had killed 21 people. He at least projected some personality beyond the banally cardboard. He alone had a 'movie soul' as dark as it was, he seemed to have a reason to be and thus was interesting to watch.

The production sadly did not make use of the huge house and it really should have. Instead of taking us, the audience, on a fact finding mission through out the old mansion thus building the feeling of mystery...the house is treated like a set when it needed to be the star character.

[SpelingError]

The deadline to join has officially ended.

[edarsenal]

Angel-A (2005) - 3

Tonally wise, I found this film really strange. I'm not sure how much I liked it (my rating may increase or decrease in the future), but I do have some respect for it. Initially, I thought this would be a straightforward story of Angel-A improving Andre and helping him fix his various flaws. Instead though, he made virtually no improvements throughout the first hour and made a couple improvements throughout the final half hour. At the end, while he was in a better place than he was at the start of the film, he still needed Angel-A by his side to prevent him from making the same mistakes all over again. If it wasn't for Andre recognizing that he was only half-developed at the end, one could criticize the film for not properly developing his character, but since the point of the ending is that she didn't fully improve him, the film doesn't need to provide closure to his character flaws. While I find that to be a clever premise, I think I respect this film more than I like it. I admired that the film twisted my initial expectations around, but what I got as an alternative left me rather cold and removed from the characters. Andre's ineptitude kept me at arm's length from him for most of the first hour, so it took me a while to feel an emotional connection to him. Also, the occasional bad advice Angel-A offered (e.g., telling him he should've insulted one of the thugs he owed money to) and how she did virtually all the work when dealing with some of his problems instead of instructing him on how to handle them kept me from getting into her character. And again, I get that Andre wasn't fully improved at the end, so I'm hesitant to call these qualities flaws. I'm just not sure I connected much with them. Angel-A seems like a highly flawed film which resolves its flaws at the end in a rather odd way. Granted though, I'm a bit undecided about how I feel about this film and somebody could probably convince me that it's better or worse than what I think. For now though, this is where I'll stand.

Next Up: The Celebration
Understandable. This is NOT the usual Angel that comes down to guide and nurture via gentleness, kindness, with a deep adherence to morality. Angel-A is NOT Clarence and Andred this definitely NOT George Bailey from It's a Wonderful Life. LOL

[edarsenal]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=81347
And Then There Were None (2015)

A mostly fun watch...mostly. But its TV miniseries origins were ever present. From the next week's episode sneak previews, to the TV style of acting, to the padding of what should've been a two hour story out to a full three hours...This version of Agatha Christie's classic novel left a lot to be desired.

Most any film that has a mystery to be solved by the viewer at it's core will elicit mostly positive reactions, as the ongoing mystery is a prime hook for any film especially a murder mystery. We watch intently because we want to find out who-done-it? And so yes I had fun watching this, but to be honestly objective the production was average.

The acting was annoy at times especially by the nervous doctor with his constant caterwauling and the equally dismally boring detective with the silly mustache. I couldn't wait for those two to get their comeuppance, aka be knocked off! To be fair, it's probably not the actors fault but the fault of a script that despite three hours time doesn't bother to flesh out these ten guest. For the most part the guest were soulless, two dimensional figures who only exist to be killed. The one exception was the man who had killed 21 people. He at least projected some personality beyond the banally cardboard. He alone had a 'movie soul' as dark as it was, he seemed to have a reason to be and thus was interesting to watch.

The production sadly did not make use of the huge house and it really should have. Instead of taking us, the audience, on a fact finding mission through out the old mansion thus building the feeling of mystery...the house is treated like a set when it needed to be the star character.





I had read that they filmed the interiors in a much smaller location to the point that they repeatedly used one bedroom for everyone and simply changed out furniture.

[Citizen Rules]

I had read that they filmed the interiors in a much smaller location to the point that they repeatedly used one bedroom for everyone and simply changed out furniture.Interesting, I wouldn't have guessed that.

[Allaby]

I just finished watching Tower (2016). Directed by Keith Maitland, this documentary uses animation and archival footage to tell the true story of a sniper firing from the tower of the University of Texas on August 1, 1966. I thought it was an interesting way to tell the story and for me it worked well. This is a powerful and compelling film and I feel it honours and respects the survivors and heroes of that day. I also appreciated that they didn't focus on the guman. This was a good nomination and I'm glad I watched it. My rating is a 4.5.

[edarsenal]

Interesting, I wouldn't have guessed that.
I read that after the first episode and noticed the subtleties throughout the second and third ones.
I just finished watching Tower (2016). Directed by Keith Maitland, this documentary uses animation and archival footage to tell the true story of a sniper firing from the tower of the University of Texas on August 1, 1966. I thought it was an interesting way to tell the story and for me it worked well. This is a powerful and compelling film and I feel it honours and respects the survivors and heroes of that day. I also appreciated that they didn't focus on the guman. This was a good nomination and I'm glad I watched it. My rating is a 4.5.
I like that as well when I saw it in another HoF. Having grown up with a number of renditions and/or inspirations that did focus on the gunman.

[SpelingError]

Understandable. This is NOT the usual Angel that comes down to guide and nurture via gentleness, kindness, with a deep adherence to morality. Angel-A is NOT Clarence and Andred this definitely NOT George Bailey from It's a Wonderful Life. LOL

For what it's worth, I still found the film conceptually interesting and I'd be interested in seeing another film like this. Though I was left rather cold to some of what went on, I do think the unconventional characters were intentional and another viewing may get me to enjoy it a bit more. Who knows.

[edarsenal]

For what it's worth, I still found the film conceptually interesting and I'd be interested in seeing another film like this. Though I was left rather cold to some of what went on, I do think the unconventional characters were intentional and another viewing may get me to enjoy it a bit more. Who knows.
No harm nor foul and I do appreciate that a first view does go down a seldom path and thereby for some, a bit offsetting. Hence the review as an Introduction right from the get go. :)

[Citizen Rules]

Now, I'm even more curious about Angel-A. I might watch that next. Sounds intriguing.

[Allaby]

I just finished watching Angel-A (2005). Directed by Luc Besson, the film stars Jamel Debbouze and Rie Rasmussen. It's about a man struggling with his life and deep in debt who meets a beautiful and mysterious woman who helps him get his life together and solve his problems. I enjoyed this. I really liked the beautiful black and white cinematography. I thought both Debbouze and Rasmussen were very good in their performances. This was an interesting and entertaining story, told in a charming, playful way that really worked for me. Good nomination. 4

[SpelingError]

The Celebration (1998) - 4.5

I was looking forward to revisiting this film and, fortunately, it was just as great as I remembered. I found myself impressed by the mystery of the family, but even more so by the terrific style and the cinematic technique Vinterberg employed throughout the film. Initially, the rough and unpolished camera shots (which I don't consider to be a flaw, btw) and unorthodox camera angles and shooting positions mildly impressed me. As the film went on though, my admiration over those aspects grew more profound. As more revelations about the family were revealed and as the party guests kept turning on each other, the bizarre camerawork resonated with me in the best way possible as it matched the craziness of the situation at the birthday party. Some people may be distracted by its noticeable low budget, but I actually think the film's low budget contributes to its greatness. The grainy cinematography added to the craziness of the film as it lead to many shots feeling reminiscent of a grainy horror film made in the 70's or the 80's. I can't imagine the film giving off the same effect with a higher budget. If I had to nitpick something, it might be better to build to the unorthodox cinematography as opposed to utilizing it right at the start of the film. This isn't to say I disliked the unorthodox cinematography in the first act per se, but since it worked best for me when paired with the family conflict, it might have been cool to have the camerawork escalate in weirdness, with it growing more unorthodox and dreamlike as the story grew more bizarre. However, this minor issue was ultimately lost in the grand scheme of everything I loved about the film, so I don't mean to imply this matters much. Just some food for thought.

Next Up: Cinema Paradiso

[SpelingError]

rauldc14 Also, you're the only person who hasn't submitted a review yet. Of course, there's no rush or anything. Just checking in to make sure you're still with us.

[BooBooKittyFock]

The Wizard of Oz: Victor Fleming (1939)

I have seen this film countless times growing up, as well into my adult years and it never lets me down. I love this movie, it’s one of the movies of why I love movies. As I get older, I will say it becomes more noticeable of how geared towards children it is but even so, this film is timeless.

The cast is wonderful, as well as the makeup/costumes and score, but what impresses me the most is the set design and the cinematography. This film is utterly gorgeous. I don’t know how many times this film was “updated” from its original quality or if ive ever even seen it in its original form but it really has some stunning visuals, without even mentioning it made in 1939.

As I said before, this film is timeless, I absolutely adore it and i believe it’s one of the most important movies in film history and I will watch it again and again.

Update: I can not wait till I have upgraded my entertainment center to 4K, especially to watch this film!

[rauldc14]

rauldc14 Also, you're the only person who hasn't submitted a review yet. Of course, there's no rush or anything. Just checking in to make sure you're still with us.

Was on vacation and just got back. Sorry I forgot to mention that.

[BooBooKittyFock]

I’ve been slacking on my reviews myself, just turned in my Wizard of Oz review but I still need to write up a “Not Quite Hollywood” and “The Passion of Joan of Arc”.

Both were amazing films but I have realized I am going to find it hard to list these films/documentaries in order, because I would choose a film over a documentary any day. Then again, “Not Quite Hollywood” was a high octane, explosive cluster**** of ****, blood and mayhem. Definitely added over 15 films to my watchlist due to that single documentary!

[SpelingError]

Was on vacation and just got back. Sorry I forgot to mention that.

No worries, you're good :up:

[seanc]

Tower

Tower: My second watch of a very powerful doc. I had never heard of this incident until seeing this for the first time. Really love the style and how it unfolds. The rotoscope style into the real people makes when they begin speaking very powerful. Dropped tear more than once. Especially when the pregnant woman says she forgives the shooter. Incredibly powerful moment. The other thing that makes this really powerful is the sound design. The constant gun shots through two thirds of the film is astounding.

[BooBooKittyFock]

Not Quite Hollywood :Mark Hartley (2008)

Wow, wtf did I just watch….. and this was just the documentary about said films.

This doc was about ozploitation, a genre I have not had the pleasure of watching or even heard of up until now, besides basically watching it indirectly through one of Quentin Tarantinos films.

Not Quite Hollywood definitely took notes from its subject matter, just like the films, this doc was a high octane **** fest of debauchery, explosions, sex and karate. It just never took a breath, from beginning to end, this doc was in high gear, outdoing it’s previous scene from explosive **** fest to nuclear psycho zombie apocalypse bending over Pamela Anderson, while on Meth, all while driving on an out of control train driving 255 mph, which ends up crashing into a volcano.

Point is, this doc was a lot, but at the end of the day, it did it’s job, because I am definitely interested in the genre of film and will definitely be watching some films in the near future!

[edarsenal]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/480xn/p03bj5kd.jpg
https://mygeekblasphemy.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/attwn-cover.png?w=640


And Then There Were None (2015)

Ten little Indian boys went out to dine; One choked his little self and then there were nine.
Nine little Indian boys sat up very late; One overslept himself and then there were eight.
Eight little Indian boys traveling in Devon; One said he'd stay there and then there were seven.
Seven little Indian boys chopping up sticks; One chopped himself in halves and then there were six.
Six little Indian boys playing with a hive; A bumblebee stung one of them and then there were five.
Five little Indian boys going in for law; One got in Chancery and then there were four.
Four little Indian boys going out to sea; A red herring swallowed one and then there were three.
Three little Indian boys walking in the zoo; A big bear hugged one and then there were two.
Two little Indian boys sitting in the sun; One got all frizzled up and then there was one.
One little Indian boy left all alone; He went and hanged himself and then there were none.

Besides the convenience of splitting up a 3-hour version of Agatha Christie's top-selling murder mystery, as far as my own time restraints, the three episodes created a more definitive First, Second, and Third Act of a theatrical performance, for me.
A familiar nuance to a number of BBC productions of similar settings that I've always and continue to enjoy.
To the point that it is rather easy to break down, each episode should one be inclined.

Since I've never read any Christie mysteries I do not know how closely a representation this production was to the root source. It is, very much, a more realized, in-depth exploration of the story and the many characters that are all strangers with one simple common thread; they've all been brought together to be murdered for past crimes that they had each had gotten away with. Or so they thought.

I think my favorite was the First Act with the introductions of each of them and the reason for them all being there is revealed in a recorded message citing each and every one of their crimes, played for all to hear after dinner.
The building tension and dread are done exceedingly well as the first few begin to be taken out. Building even more through the Second as alliances are made and mistrust begins to grow rampant. Is the murderer in hiding? Who the hell are these Owens that invited them here? Or is the murderer there, amongst them?

And since this IS a murder mystery, I will not delve into it but I will express how, like the first two, the finality of the murders and the reveal were quite enjoyable to witness in the Third Act.

[Siddon]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wY9B2LzwjX4/maxresdefault.jpg

Angel-A (2006)

If ever there was a mixed bag award for these types of Hall's it would go to Angel-A because this is a very complicated and difficult film to critique. I mean I am truly conflicted on how I feel like the quality of this work was and if it should even count as "good" or if the work is "evil" if not borderline racist. If you were to describe the film in a synopsis an muslim abroad is saved by a white angel. So that's one layer of problems...the fact that the "angel" also prostitutes herself, drinks alchool, and runs around half naked is a provocative concept but you've got this dirtier aspect to it with the casting choice. The films central metaphor is a problem and that's tough for me as a reviewer.

I can see where Besson is going with his work, Rie Rasmussen is very good borderline a star making performance. She has an incredible screen presence and the story with her is engaging. Besson also uses a less is more aspect with the special effects, you feel like you are watching an ad campaign for perfume at times...and I say that in a good way. Besson's trademark femme fatale lets you know this is his work though tonally it's questionable. I'm really kinda of struggling with this film.

Aside from the films politics which I could somewhat put aside, the thing that will keep from ranking this highly is it is just to much like other films (Wings of Desire, Before Sunrise, It's a Wonderful Life). A film like this needs to be original but it's so reminiscent of earlier works from other filmmakers. When you steal from classics it's hard to look past that and judge the film as a whole.

I get why people will like this film but for me I'm very uneasy about it.

[rauldc14]

I watched a film today. First review coming tonight

[rauldc14]

Daisies

https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.002/id13433/article01_1064x.jpg

Another Hall of Fame where something is nominated that really doesn't have business being in these things. These two acting ladies were terrible, their voices could be the most annoying in movie history. If there is a point to the movie then that's cool but I really didn't care either way. Any scene with food involved is just pure trash. How one can ever be hungry during this movie would be beyond me. They don't even act like real humans. I can give it a half star for how some of the film looks, but that's all I can do. I'll say it again but I think films like this are an honest deterrent to what we are trying to do here, even if somebody likes it we are basically already knowing what has taken last place before the results are even in. As for my favorite part of the movie? The end credits.

0.5-

[SpelingError]

And now, everyone in this Hall of Fame has submitted at least one review. Hooray! Let me know if I missed any of your reviews, by the way.

[Citizen Rules]

Daisie

Another Hall of Fame where something is nominated that really doesn't have business being in these things. These two acting ladies were terrible, their voices could be the most annoying in movie history. If there is a point to the movie then that's cool but I really didn't care either way. Any scene with food involved is just pure trash. How one can ever be hungry during this movie would be beyond me. They don't even act like real humans. I can give it a half star for how some of the film looks, but that's all I can do. I'll say it again but I think films like this are an honest deterrent to what we are trying to do here, even if somebody likes it we are basically already knowing what has taken last place before the results are even in. As for my favorite part of the movie? The end credits.

rating_0_5-Raul you're one of my favorite members and I respect anyone's right to have a different viewpoint...but I got counter the idea that Daisies doesn't belong in a Hall of Fame.
Both me and my wife enjoyed the movie and I'm often very picky about what I like as everyone knows:p. And if you look at it's IMDB page you can see it's highly rated and those ratings are from 11,000+ votes. It's not like it's an Ed Wood Jr movie. I mean it's not trying to be realistic, you know Wes Anderson isn't very realistic either but people still like him. It's cool you hate the film, but I do disagree that movies like Daisies don't belong in an HoF.

81424

[rauldc14]

I know you don't like to rate movies much but are you saying it's like over a 4 for you?

[Citizen Rules]

I know you don't like to rate movies much but are you saying it's like over a rating_4 for you?Good question, if I was doing a full review which someday I will, it would be a rating_3_5 that's subjectively...But objectively (art house rating) I'd say it's a rating_4, though I tend to rate by subjectively.

I expected to hate it, and was bored by the first scene where the girls act like robots with ratcheting sounds, but after that I warmed up to it. I thought the food stuff was funny, gross but funny. It was just so weird how they had this food fixation. I thought it was a very creative, experimental, free-form movie that fits what society was experiencing in the late 1960s.

[rauldc14]

Good question, if I was doing a full review which someday I will, it would be a rating_3_5 that's subjectively...But objectively (art house rating) I'd say it's a rating_4, though I tend to rate by subjectively.

I expected to hate it, and was bored by the first scene where the girls act like robots with ratcheting sounds, but after that I warmed up to it. I thought the food stuff was funny, gross but funny. It was just so weird how they had this food fixation. I thought it was a very creative, experimental, free-form movie that fits what society was experiencing in the late 1960s.

Fair enough. For the record I've actually almost watched this prior to it's nomination but I had no idea it was anything like this.

[Citizen Rules]

Fair enough. For the record I've actually almost watched this prior to it's nomination but I had no idea it was anything like this.I'd never heard of it myself. It helped that I thought the blonde was cute🙂

[SpelingError]

We all know that Themroc was really love-it-or-hate-it among us (well, maybe not "love-it" lmao), but Daisies, by comparison, is generally considered to be a much better film. A number of critical essays have been written about it, Criterion included it in one of their Eclipse series on the Czech New Wave (https://www.criterion.com/boxsets/870-eclipse-series-32-pearls-of-the-czech-new-wave), and Sight & Sound listed it as one of the best films of all time in 2012. To my understanding, while ueno_station wanted to pick another weird film for this Hall of Fame, she went with something that has more of a classic status.

As an aside, here's the Criterion essay for this film (https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/2269-eclipse-series-32-pearls-of-the-czech-new-wave), if you're curious (scroll down a bit on the page to get to the essay for Daisies).

[Siddon]

For what it's worth, I still found the film conceptually interesting and I'd be interested in seeing another film like this. Though I was left rather cold to some of what went on, I do think the unconventional characters were intentional and another viewing may get me to enjoy it a bit more. Who knows.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRCtqfd9IWQ
Wings of Desire (1987)

[SpelingError]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRCtqfd9IWQ
Wings of Desire (1987)

I've been meaning to check that one out for a while, actually haha.

[Wyldesyde19]

Daisies

https://www.artforum.com/uploads/upload.002/id13433/article01_1064x.jpg

Another Hall of Fame where something is nominated that really doesn't have business being in these things. These two acting ladies were terrible, their voices could be the most annoying in movie history. If there is a point to the movie then that's cool but I really didn't care either way. Any scene with food involved is just pure trash. How one can ever be hungry during this movie would be beyond me. They don't even act like real humans. I can give it a half star for how some of the film looks, but that's all I can do. I'll say it again but I think films like this are an honest deterrent to what we are trying to do here, even if somebody likes it we are basically already knowing what has taken last place before the results are even in. As for my favorite part of the movie? The end credits.

0.5-

Honest question here, but what exactly is so objectionable about this film?
Content? *
Just a “bad film”? *
If it’s the former, i would have to see it before having any real opinion on it.
If it’s the latter, I don’t see why it can’t be included, as “bad films” are entirely subjective. Considering it’s status as a classic film, especially in its native coubtry (Czechoslovakia), I’d wager it just didn’t connect with you. Which is fine, but that alone shouldn’t disqualify it from consideration.

[Wyldesyde19]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRCtqfd9IWQ
Wings of Desire (1987)
I’ve been wanting to see this for so long now. High up in my watch list.

[seanc]

Angel AThink this was my first Besson, which seems weird. Had never even heard of this movie so that was fun. Rarely get to see something that I have no idea what to expect. I enjoyed the modern It’s A Wonderful Life twist. I thought the performances and script were very solid.

The look of the film didn’t do anything for me. The B&W felt too sanitized and sharp. Didn’t have that lived in feel.

Overall, solid flick.

[ScarletLion]

Lolz. 'Daisies' is fantastic. It was a pioneering Czech new wave feminist romp that swam against the tide of what came before.

4.5

[seanc]

Serious question for Daisies fans.

Is there a thematic through line that I am missing that adds to it being compelling for you?

Or is it just the unusual visuals?

Or C, have you always dreamed of drinking milk from a bathtub that your filthy friend soaked in? ;)

[ScarletLion]

Serious question for Daisies fans.

Is there a thematic through line that I am missing that adds to it being compelling for you?

Or is it just the unusual visuals?

Or C, have you always dreamed of drinking milk from a bathtub that your filthy friend soaked in? ;)

It's a film for cinephiles. The film was banned in the Czech Republic on it's release and the Director was threatened with exile - because it showed gratuitous rebellious behaviour which men didn't approve of outwardly let alone women. If you look at the lineage of film, if it wasn't for the likes of Daisies, we wouldn't have what we have now. It opened up a path to more freedom of expression, more open film-making. French new wave had started this a few years before, but an Eastern European producing films like this was almost unheard of.

In terms of theme - you take what you will from it - I take it as a direct assault on male establishment, male authority and manhood.

Imagine being a woman in Eastern Europe in the 60s watching this. You'd feel utterly liberated.

https://i.imgur.com/7nLLCDD.gif

Just my opinion anyway. Sorry to hijack the thread.

[seanc]

It's a film for cinephiles. The film was banned in the Czech Republic on it's release and the Director was threatened with exile - because it showed gratuitous rebellious behaviour which men didn't approve of outwardly let alone women. If you look at the lineage of film, if it wasn't for the likes of Daisies, we wouldn't have what we have now. It opened up a path to more freedom of expression, more open film-making. French new wave had started this a few years before, but an Eastern European producing films like this was almost unheard of.

In terms of theme - you take what you will from it - I take it as a direct assault on male establishment, male authority and manhood.

Imagine being a woman in Eastern Europe in the 60s watching this. You'd feel utterly liberated.

https://i.imgur.com/7nLLCDD.gif

Just my opinion anyway. Sorry to hijack the thread.

You aren’t hijacking the thread.

Maybe what your saying about being a woman during this time and seeing this is true. I just don’t see it when the women in the movie aren’t doing anything that’s liberating. I definitely feel like this movie would be more for the male gaze than some kind of freedom cry.

I would say calling this a movie for cinephiles is more than a little condescending.

[BooBooKittyFock]

It's a film for cinephiles. The film was banned in the Czech Republic on it's release and the Director was threatened with exile - because it showed gratuitous rebellious behaviour which men didn't approve of outwardly let alone women. If you look at the lineage of film, if it wasn't for the likes of Daisies, we wouldn't have what we have now. It opened up a path to more freedom of expression, more open film-making. French new wave had started this a few years before, but an Eastern European producing films like this was almost unheard of.

In terms of theme - you take what you will from it - I take it as a direct assault on male establishment, male authority and manhood.

Imagine being a woman in Eastern Europe in the 60s watching this. You'd feel utterly liberated.

https://i.imgur.com/7nLLCDD.gif

Just my opinion anyway. Sorry to hijack the thread.


So the film is better in the right context?

Wonder if everyone that didn’t appreciate it didn’t know it’s origins, either way, I’ll be sure to read up on it before giving it a look see 👀

[ScarletLion]

So the film is better in the right context?

Wonder if everyone that didn’t appreciate it didn’t know it’s origins, either way, I’ll be sure to read up on it before giving it a look see 👀

I wouldn't tell anyone how to watch a film, how much to read up on it before or afterwards etc. But this film is lauded by certain parts of the film world, and it does therefore insert a bit of intrigue as to why, so maybe it does require context put next to it to fully appreciate it.

That's why I said this film is for cinephiles. It's highly unlikely a casual film viewer who just likes to be instantly entertained by movies would stumble across this film and love it.

Having said that, it's obviously possible for anybody to still dislike this film. I just think it's quite close to unique.

[Citizen Rules]

Serious question for Daisies fans.

Is there a thematic through line that I am missing that adds to it being compelling for you?

Or is it just the unusual visuals?

Or C, have you always dreamed of drinking milk from a bathtub that your filthy friend soaked in? ;)It's the unusual visuals and the joy these girls extrude, (I think extrude is the right word for this). It sort of reminded me of the old Benny Hill TV show being a series of running gags.

It's a film for cinephiles...I'm not a cinephile, in fact I'd reject that terminology for myself. I'm just a guy who likes movies. I might like some mainstream Hollywood flick then again I might not...I might like some artsy film, then again not. I did like Daisies though.

So the film is better in the right context?

Wonder if everyone that didn’t appreciate it didn’t know it’s origins, either way, I’ll be sure to read up on it before giving it a look see 👀The only context I needed was knowing that all over the world, the culture of the young baby boomers was changing in the late 1960s.


Glad to see a little convo happening here:)

[seanc]

It sort of reminded me of the old Benny Hill TV show being a series of running gags.

On this we totally agree. Pretty much what I was getting at when responding to Scarlet Lion saying it was liberating for women.

[Citizen Rules]

On this we totally agree. Pretty much what I was getting at when responding to Scarlet Lion saying it was liberating for women.It probably was liberating for women and men in a stifled eastern block communist country, though that had no bearing on me liking it. It did help that my wife liked the movie🙂

[rauldc14]

The Passion of Joan of Arc


Really liked the close ups. Got a lot of emotion out of Falconetti. I watched the version with the ongoing score in the background and I'm still not sure how I felt about the score. In ways it felt a bit too overpowering for me. I think it was well directed too, you can see that Dreyer put a lot of work into studying the history of the event before he put it to screen. Overall, it's a film that's hard to enjoy and I probably won't come back to it but it still has it's place of importance.

3

[SpelingError]

It's been a while since I've seen Daisies, but I do remember liking it quite a bit and I remember reading the film as being about feminist rebellion and anti-patriarchy. After all, the opening conversation between the two leads spells this theme out so clearly it almost borders on bring too obvious.

Regardless, feel free to like/dislike what you want. Let's just try to keep our negative reactions focused towards the film and not towards the person who nominated it. I don't want to make anyone feel bad for nominating a film in this Hall.

[seanc]

It probably was liberating for women and men in a stifled eastern block communist country, though that had no bearing on me liking it. It did help that my wife liked the movie🙂

I suppose that speaks to where me and the sex positive crowd part ways. I don’t see playing up to the male gaze and their fetishes as liberating. I see it as dehumanizing.

[Citizen Rules]

I suppose that speaks to where me and the sex positive crowd part ways. I don’t see playing up to the male gaze and their fetishes as liberating. I see it as dehumanizing.I kinda like gazing at the pretty girls;)

[seanc]

I kinda like gazing at the pretty girls;)

Well, yeah, I’m human. I definitely have to fight sexualizing women at times. Not hard for me with this movie though. I found most of the segments gross. I certainly think the fetish element is part of the intent though.

[rauldc14]

I think with what they were doing being off-putting I never really judged their looks much, to be honest.

[Citizen Rules]

Well, yeah, I’m human. I definitely have to fight sexualizing women at times. Not hard for me with this movie though. I found most of the segments gross. I certainly think the fetish element is part of the intent though.I was just joking around... My honest reaction to the two actresses as I watched the film was: I found them charming, in a nutsy way. I didn't find them sexy. I don't think they were ever presented as sexy or eye candy. They seem to be presented as young adult women trying to rebel against conforming. Even that screen shot Raul posted isn't sexy to me it's more charming (yes I use that word a lot at my age!). If this had been an American film made today, they would've been presented much differently.

[ScarletLion]

If this had been an American film made today, they would've been presented much differently.

Exactly. That film was 'Promising Young Woman' (2021)

[edarsenal]

With a second watch, my initial reaction and appreciation is pretty much spot on, so I will copy and paste my first review from the 2nd Animation Hall of Fame:

https://i.imgur.com/XsGlu7u.gif


Tower

Once upon a time, such a scenario of someone going to the top of a building and firing away at those below was almost unheard of. This is why this specific scenario from back in '66 had such an impact and would be played out in a number of references. I even remember reading a comic book as a kid with a very, very similar situation inked out about a glass-wearing youth on top of a building with an apple and a rifle with a sight. The final panels show him taking a final bite of the apple, setting it to the side, and standing on the ledge, waving. Then being hit multiple times by gunfire from below.

That, and other references played off the view of the sniper himself.

This does not.

In fact, using rotoscoping and mixing it with documented film, we follow several of the victims and police officers involved in the 96-minute shoot-out that claimed some 16 dead and around 36 wounded.
Making for a rather captivating documentary where the rotoscoping of those telling their stories added quite nicely to the storytelling. Even more so when, near the end, when we see the actual people telling their stories resulting, for me, even more of an impact.

I found the entire film both informative and sympathetic to those who lived through that hour and a half of madness and death. They did an excellent job of it all. focusing nearly all of it on those who lived through it and their actions while only giving the sniper a bare minimum of time. Which I found extenuated the humanity of those below and the officers who got up and took him out. Instead of glamorizing the one behind the trigger who continued to fire on anyone who got in his line of fire.

[seanc]

I was just joking around... My honest reaction to the two actresses as I watched the film was: I found them charming, in a nutsy way. I didn't find them sexy. I don't think they were ever presented as sexy or eye candy. They seem to be presented as young adult women trying to rebel against conforming. Even that screen shot Raul posted isn't sexy to me it's more charming (yes I use that word a lot at my age!). If this had been an American film made today, they would've been presented much differently.

I actually agree but I think intent matters.

If this film was made as an American film today it probably would have been censored. So, yeah, looking at it through today’s lens it’s benign. Looking at it through the lens of Czech New Wave, it’s not. That’s what you guys are responding to though, is the step forward in that way.

[Wyldesyde19]

Exactly. That film was 'Promising Young Woman' (2021)
Which was a very fine film.
The thing everyone needs to remember about Daisies is it is a surrealist film, and is meant to be absurd.

[Citizen Rules]

I actually agree but I think intent matters.

If this film was made as an American film today it probably would have been censored. So, yeah, looking at it through today’s lens it’s benign. Looking at it through the lens of Czech New Wave, it’s not. That’s what you guys are responding to though, is the step forward in that way.That's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure if I fully understand your line of thinking? You say:

If this film was made as an American film today it probably would have been censored. Why? Censored in what way?

[Wyldesyde19]

Yeah, the idea that we’d censor it for anything isn’t credible, considering what we’ve shown in recent years.

[seanc]

Why? Censored in what way?

If it went as far as it wanted with the sexual aspect, as it would be able to if it was made today.

I’m other words. I think it is intended to be sexual in nature. Because of the time and place it was made it is tame in that way to us.

Part of me asking my original question is whether it was intended to be as sexualized as I thought. That’s why you comparing it to Benny Hill confirmed my thoughts.

[seanc]

Yeah, the idea that we’d censor it for anything isn’t credible, considering what we’ve shown in recent years.

See my post above. If that doesn’t clarify, let me know.

[Citizen Rules]

If it went as far as it wanted with the sexual aspect, as it would be able to if it was made today.

I’m other words. I think it is intended to be sexual in nature. Because of the time and place it was made it is tame in that way to us.

Part of me asking my original question is whether it was intended to be as sexualized as I thought. That’s why you comparing it to Benny Hill confirmed my thoughts.I didn't see any sexual aspects to Daisies. Do you mean there was an underlying lesbian theme going on?

[seanc]

I didn't see any sexual aspects to Daisies. Do you mean there was an underlying lesbian theme going on?

Could be. Definitely think the fetishes and attire, the cutesy aspect your talking about are playing to the male gaze. Again, all very tame by our standards.

Curious why if you didn’t see it as somewhat sexual why you compared to Benny Hill?

[Citizen Rules]

Could be. Definitely think the fetishes and attire, the cutesy aspect your talking about are playing to the male gaze. Again, all very tame by our standards.

Curious why if you didn’t see it as somewhat sexual why you compared to Benny Hill?I mean Benny Hill was silly, sappy goofy...with very farcical/whimsical short snippets making up the entire show.

[seanc]

I mean Benny Hill was silly, sappy goofy...with very farcical/whimsical short snippets making up the entire show.

You find his show sexual?

[Citizen Rules]

You find his show sexual?Ha, no...In high school I had a friend who liked The Benny Hill Show and so whenever I was at his house we'd watch it. I never liked that show though and Benny was kinda creepy looking down women's dresses then making that grinning face at the camera. I was into Monty Python's tv show at that time.

[seanc]

Ha, no...In high school I had a friend who liked The Benny Hill Show and so whenever I was at his house we'd watch it. I never liked that show though and Benny was kinda creepy looking down women's dresses then making that grinning face at the camera. I was into Monty Python's tv show at that time.

It’s like we are on the same page…even though we are on opposite pages. :)

[Citizen Rules]

It’s like we are on the same page…even though we are on opposite pages. :):p That's see what happens when I watch Angel-A, which should be very soon.

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/gjT6PWL1/Not-Quite-Hollywood-onesheet-Australia-1.jpg

Not Quite Hollywood : The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation! - 2008

Written & Directed by Mark Hartley

Featuring Quentin Tarantino, Jamie Lee Curtis, Dennis Hopper
Jackie Weaver, Jack Thompson and Barry Humphries


Not Quite Hollywood opened doors that had heretofore been shut, even to Australian audiences who had lived through the explosion that was the Australian New Wave of cinema during the 1970s and 1980s. It was a hidden treasure just waiting to be discovered - although there was on the surface a reluctance to acknowledge the more base levels of Australian film, there is a uniqueness here that strikes people who come across these movies. Quentin Tarantino was influenced a great deal by them - but they were loathed by Australian critics who felt especially image-conscious, and as such they were buried at home and rarely seen overseas thereafter. In 2003 Tarantino caused something of a sensation in Australia when he premiered Kill Bill Vol. 1 and at the screening dedicated it to Brian Trenchard-Smith in front of critics and filmmakers who had fervently wished that Trenchard-Smith had never decided to carve out a career directing Australian exploitation cinema. For his part, Tarantino considered those at the screening 'snobs' - but attitudes began to change when this documentary hit the big screen and film fans began to rediscover a forgotten era of movie history.

Mark Hartley spent a number of years researching this subject - something akin to cutting a trail through virgin jungle in the Amazon. It was a subject virtually unresearched - it's foremost expert Quentin Tarantino himself. There were no books published on this subject. When Hartley sent Tarantino his rough draft for the film he expected no reply - but instead the reply was instant. From that moment on Tarantino did everything in his power to help the project go forward - including sitting for hours of interviews regarding the films and his personal history with them. His help didn't end there. There were some cases where the negatives of the films involved didn't exist or couldn't be found - and Hartley discovered that Tarantino himself had hunted them down in the past and owned them personally. With this auspicious start, Hartley spent the next five years putting together the documentary Not Quite Hollywood : The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation!

This documentary's advantage is the fact that it is one of the most entertaining 100-plus minute films you can encounter - with the added effect of arousing your curiosity enough to set film lovers into action hunting down these films and watching them. Examining film after film, it could be excused for becoming tedious or tiresome - but Hartley has expertly and wisely cut down his film into a digestible size. He had over 250 hours of interviews and film footage to wrestle with - and had a film of over three hours in length when he had cut everything but it's most essential elements. I applaud him for delivering a film that runs under 2 hours in the end - and not leaving us exhausted and perhaps fed up. Special mention should also go to editors Jamie Blanks, Sara Edwards and Mark Hartley. On it's DVD release, another 100 minutes of cut footage entertains no less - but an important lesson to learn is that some things, no matter how lively and wonderful they are, must be left on the cutting room floor. The rest is left to us to explore - and Hartley has faith in us to do that.

The film is divided into three sections, with an introduction that gives us the background of what state the Australian film industry was in the decades leading up to the 1970s - which was that it was virtually nonexistent. Here Hartley has had some luck inasmuch as the explosion of genre filmmaking in Australia did go through three distinct phases, the first coming during the 'free love' era and consisting of sexual exploits and nudity, the second being more horror based and the third honing in on action and stunts. The titles of these sections are appropriately bawdy and irreverent : Ockers, Knockers, Pubes and Tubes - Comatose Killers and Outback Chillers - High Octane Disasters and Kung Fu Masters. The tone and content are laid back and rude in keeping with the films, but behind it all is some serious research, skill and delivery only seen in the best of documentaries. There are an extensive number of films examined in an attractive way that actually gives most viewers a great urge to search them out and see them. Writers, directors, crew and actors all appear to have fond memories of the era - and to have had a great time.

Co-existing with the exploitation genre were the serious Australian New Wave films, which deserve a mention. Some, like Wake in Fright, Breaker Morant and Picnic at Hanging Rock do get that mention - but only in service to the genre films being examined - although Wake in Fright did initially have much greater coverage in the documentary. It's a little-seen great film, and described by Jack Thompson as showing a true-to-life depiction of Australian culture that most Australians did not want people overseas to witness. Many of the exploitation films, as mentioned by Tarantino, were not promoted as being Australian. Some, such as Dead Kids (otherwise known as Strange Behavior) were set in the United States and utilized U.S. actors nearly exclusively. Others, like Road Games featured U.S. stars such as Jamie Lee Curtis, and Stacy Keach. Mad Dog Morgan featured Dennis Hopper in the title role. Importantly, Hartley manages to interview Jamie Lee Curtis, Dennis Hopper and Keach for this film - giving it a comprehensive profile and getting serious star power behind it.

For those old enough to remember drive-ins, there is some nostalgia delivered pre-credits and during the film. There's some sadness that the era came to an end, but the advent of the video era gave many of these films an exposure they wouldn't have had otherwise. There is also prominent mention of the fetishistic love Australian men have for cars, and the role they played in many exploitation films. Most issues like this are well-balanced and not stretched to the point where we begin to lose interest. The film's music also keep us charged up and includes Angry Anderson belting out Rose Tattoo's 'We Can't Be Beaten', The Angels with 'Shadow Boxer', 'Living in the 70s' from Skyhooks and The Easybeats with 'I'll Make You Happy'. Some great animation - a real staple of the film - is provided by the film's animation department. Such is the editing, there is no need for any narration - the story flows smoothly and coherently from beginning to end.

Being film fans, my friends and I were surprised by Not Quite Hollywood when we saw it at an arthouse cinema - and so were film fans in general. It led to a mass release of films which up until that moment were largely forgotten. Many I recognized from the days when video revolutionized the film-watching experience, and many I had until then not heard about. Some I never knew were Australian - such as the very strange musical The Return of Captain Invincible, where Alan Arkin plays a superhero whose secret weakness is booze and where a villain played by Christopher Lee belts out songs. I know a few friends who cleared a spot for a whole new genre in their collections. It's a documentary I'm thankful for, and one I can be always in the mood to watch. For anyone that enjoys it - I recommend the two-disc collectors version which includes hours of footage cut from the film, trailers for all of the films featured (and trailers were very different in those days,) interviews, a fantastic collection of images and film posters, Q&A sessions and various funding pitches from the film's early gestation. I'll leave this with a small section (the whole thing is too long to transcribe) of the Fantasm Comes Again press kit which is included with the release :

3. Australian films are in the news at the moment. Get your college and/or university newspaper to do a story on the sequel to Australia's most successful international movie. Run a competition for the reader who guesses the size of Mary Gavin's breasts.

We will probably never see the repeat of this particular New Wave movement of films and their exploitation deluge of "boobs, pubes and kung fu".

I also recommend, to whoever enjoyed this, Mark Hartley's Electric Boogaloo: The Wild, Untold Story of Cannon Films, which was released in 2014.

(I decided not to give it a rating - since it's my nomination in the Hall of Fame)

[Citizen Rules]

https://www.movieforums.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=81468
Angel-A (2005, Besson)

I was intently focused on the film for its entire time...That's high praise, as not many movies capture my imagination and keep me interested for the duration.

Angel-A is the kind of film that I find myself thinking about all the next day...and that too is a rarity for me. And you know what? I knew I'd like this film the second I seen its poster and read the synopsis. I just had a feeling...and I was right!

Gosh I loved this film, but I'm not sure if I can explain why. But I'll try...

I was intrigued by the idea that an angel is not like most of us perceive and isn't like the usual movie angel. If memory serves me angels according to the bible were very tall, very powerful and could be quite passionate, and that's how Angela appears. She towers over Andre the man who rescues her from the river. I mean she really towers over him. Even her head is like twice the size of his. It's impressive!

I liked the idea that in heaven she had no past and seemed to be at beckon call to be sent where she was required, with no will of her own. It added to her plight and made me feel compassion for her. It was telling that she was starved for human vices and smoked like a chimney, drank and was described as a 'six foot tall blonde slut.' I thought that was a cool juxtaposition to what we a movie angel usually is. But I'm sure that the idea of an angel banging guy after guy for money in a dance club's bathroom doesn't sit well with some. But I liked that too about her as it seemed to say something about the perception of sin.

I also loved the usage of black & white film, though it's actually bluish monochrome and that too gave the film an other-worldly look. I certainly warmed up to the two lead actors right away and that's always a plus. And of course I liked the film's message, If you think your shi*, you'll be treating like shi*. Words to live by.

rating_4_5

[ueno_station54]

https://api.rlje.net/acorn/artwork/size/andthennone_sr01_ep01_splash?w=500
And Then There Were None (Craig Viveiros, 2015)

I think I've mentioned before in these little write-ups that I really dislike the mystery genre. It's just such a piss-poor fit for film and honestly it probably sucks in books too. Mysteries are only interesting if you're trying to stay one step ahead of it and figure it out and why would I ever do that when the film is just going to tell me in a few minutes anyway and if I put a movie on the movie should be what's entertaining me not my brain making up its own fun. This genre is just so much better for video games, where the riddle isn't just gonna solve itself if I wait long enough. So just by virtue of this being the genre it is, it was always going to be either annoying or laughable no matter what (any film with a twist will always get a laugh/eye roll out of me, this one included) but there's lots of other aspects to a film than the script that it could earn back points with.

It doesn't! Not anywhere! It looks like the made-for-TV film that it is. Everything just looks so drab. It looks like it was shot on a potato, especially in low light situations which is a lot of the film. Pretty much all the design elements are crap. The set design is so so dull other than maybe that one room with the green lattice-like design on the walls and the costuming is flat out terrible and makes everyone look like a massive dork. Nothing interesting ever happens visually and the few times they even try don't turn out well and I just can't stand that shallow field of view thing they do every closeup. The music is like, flat out embarrassing. It has no presence whatsoever and that's one thing that can really help a film of this genre. Having a strong ambience and atmosphere is a must for this kind of thing and the score doesn't try. Even the title card has garbage music and its even visually unappealing too. On top of all this the acting is subpar and not one of the characters is even remotely interesting. This was so mind-numbingly boring throughout and felt at least twice as long as it was. I've strongly disliked a couple of the films I've watched for some of these HoFs but this is the first one that's felt like a joke. This has no redeeming value whatsoever. This isn't art, its content.

[Siddon]

https://film5000.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/review/image/127/All_The_Presedents_Men-MAIN.jpg

All the Presidents Men (1976)


It's important to note the year...1976, the book was released in 1974 I don't know if this is the quickest turnaround for a topic but it might be. I don't know what you can say about a film like this personally I'm not really a huge fan of the film for the year it came out. I don't think it really holds up as an Oscar winner compared to other films from this year.


Now judging the film for it's merits it's basically a docudrama and a slice of life of 70's newspaper work. It's pretty good, the suspense doesn't really kick in until the end of the film and for a paranoia thriller's that were common from this era it was lacking. Redford is fine, Hoffman is good, Robards got an Oscar over Burgess Meredith for Rocky which looks crazy. But the film really is about the work when it comes to uncovering the scandal the director does a solid job doing a thrilling half filled story.

[seanc]

Wizard Of Oz: Iconic for very good reasons. I have always loved it since childhood. There really isn’t much more to say about it. Be surprised if the Wizard doesn’t win.

[Citizen Rules]

Wizard Of Oz: Iconic for very good reasons. I have always loved it since childhood. There really isn’t much more to say about it. Be surprised if the Wizard doesn’t win.Amazing movie when one considers the technical achievements it made back in 1939. I'd be happy for it to win, but I don't think it's a lock to win.

[seanc]

Amazing movie when one considers the technical achievements it made back in 1939. I'd be happy for it to win, but I don't think it's a lock to win.

Maybe Passion?

[Citizen Rules]

Maybe Passion? Yeah, that one is a top contender. I haven't seen them all yet, but I'm thinking there are 3 really strong movies vying for 1st place.

[seanc]

Yeah, that one is a top contender. I haven't seen them all yet, but I'm thinking there are 3 really strong movies vying for 1st place.

I imagine you are thinking President’s Men. I think that Sweet Smell will be battling for third. Marienbad could possibly join that group, fingers crossed.

[Citizen Rules]

I imagine you are thinking President’s Men. I think that Sweet Smell will be battling for third. Marienbad could possibly join that group, fingers crossed.Nah, I wasn't thinking of either of those two.

[SpelingError]

I'll post my Cinema Paradiso review tomorrow, if not tonight. Overall, my opinion of it is mostly unchanged.