34th Hall of Fame [Archive] - Page 2

TheManBehindTheCurtain

02-08-25, 07:01 PM

Inside Moves (1980)
Director: Richard Donner
Key Cast: John Savage, David Morse, Diana Scarwid, Harold Russell

3.5

104958

All I knew about Inside Moves was the poster. An image of a scruffy, familiar-looking young actor, fist raised. Maybe a martial arts saga?

So I wasn't expecting that first scene. Is this clean-cut guy heading into the office building for a dramatic meeting? Maybe he’s just dragging his heels on his way to a thankless job. Or is he lost? Something's off. He cautious, nervous, glancing here and there, searching. It gels when he slips into an empty office, opens a window, looks out. You expect a dramatic, Hollywood moment: surely he’ll hesitate, music swelling, maybe take a step back, then step up to the window again. Tight, long closeup as indecision sweeps over his face. But no. He barely hesitates. Our view immediately shifts outside. He leans forward. And he lets go. It’s a convincing fall before CGI, crashing through tree branches, hitting a car roof.

And incredibly, he lives.

The guy is Roary (hey, that’s a young John Savage). Now bearded and scruffy, he emerges after months of recovery and painful physical therapy. Limping, unsteady, speaking hesitantly. Perhaps just a tad mentally impaired at first but still lucid and improving. This is where the story really begins, as Roary re-engages with the world.

It's the San Francisco Bay Area. When? Herb Alpert's “The Lonely Bull” is playing in Max's Bar as Roary steps inside, so at least mid-60s. He’s in search of a beer. But he also finds a friendly barkeep, Jerry (hey, that’s a young David Morse too), who also has a limp. Jerry offers Roary a first free round and an introduction to the regular patrons.

Like Roary and Jerry, they all have some disability. One’s blind, another wheelchair-bound, another with amputated hands. These regulars play cards, watch the Golden State Warriors on the TV, tell jokes, trade insults. They ask Roary how he came to be there. He admits he tried to commit suicide, but he doesn’t say why. And they don’t ask. Roary joins the family.

The emotional weight of the story frequently falls on Jerry. His easy-going exterior demeanor masks his interior pain. He’s a bit boastful about his basketball chops, but turns out he really has moves when he challenges a Golden State Warrior to a one-on-one, barely losing. Roary wants to help Jerry get an operation that can get him back into the game. But neither of them have the cash it will take.

And the complications pile on from there. Jerry desperately wants another crack at the big time. But he's distracted by his on-again, off-again drug-addicted girlfriend. Max, the bar owner, has a heart attack and everyone has to pull together to keep the business going. Roary and the new waitress, Louise (Diana Scarwid), seem drawn to each other, but she’s hesitant. Roary’s working on regaining his balance. And we keep wondering: what brought Roary to make that leap?

The acting is uniformly fine, with director Richard Donner amping up the comedy between the patrons to keep things light, then balancing it with tense confrontations that avoid descending into melodrama. Savage does an excellent job with his character arc as Roary struggles to recover physically and emotionally. Scarwid’s remarkable presence as the woman grappling with conflicting emotions deservedly earned an Oscar nom for best supporting actress. And Morse is a standout as a character who we alternately embrace, reject, re-evaluate, and root for. And a special tip of the hat to Harold Russell, who played the wisecracking, double-amputee nick-named Wings to hilarious perfection. Russell’s last appearance was his Oscar-winning supporting role in 1946’s Best Years of Our Lives!

The key insight unfolds when Roary finally confesses why he tried to end his life. No overblown, dramatic soundtrack. Emotion, but no gushing river of tears. It’s nothing monumentally dramatic. That’s the point. Why he did it doesn’t matter. What mattered was how he dealt with it later. As the finale approaches and he vacillates between going one direction or another, we genuinely wonder which it will be.

In that moment, you get an uneasy feeling. They've done such a good job of telling a gritty story that’s, ok, yes … it’s sentimental … but not condescendingly melodramatic. Will they go the distance with a thought-provoking finale, or will they pull their punches and go for the Hollywood closer?

You'll have to judge how the ending suits you.

I enjoyed the ending but not as much as I'd hoped to. I could have left it a few minutes earlier when we had a bit more ambiguity for us to parse through. But, ah, shucks, you can’t blame them for that.

MovieGal

02-08-25, 07:09 PM

104959
Inside Moves
(1980)

The story of two individuals, who by circumstance, became best friends, when they needed each other the most.

One who wanted to end his life and one who was hoping for a second chance at his dream.

I watched this last Monday but finally able to post about it. I don't want to say too much about it so others can watch it and enjoy it.

I enjoy sports films but have watched a few from this era. I really enjoyed how accepting everyone was, as most of the patrons of the bar were disabled in different ways.

It was a little unknown film at the time being directed by one of the famous directors of the era. I liked how the acting and dialog flowed. I really enjoyed it and considered rewatching it.

One thing that caught my eye was the pinball machine in the background being a "Superman" one as Richard Donner, the director, directed both this film and Superman with Christopher Reeves.

104960

TheManBehindTheCurtain

02-08-25, 08:18 PM

Inside Moves
(1980)

I watched this last Monday but finally able to post about it. I don't want to say too much about it so others can watch it and enjoy it.

It would be ideal (but I know impractical) if we could all log in our reviews and then have them published in bulk. I worry about what I reveal as well, but then that also limits the "review" aspect here.

MovieGal

02-08-25, 08:46 PM

It would be ideal (but I know impractical) if we could all log in our reviews and then have them published in bulk. I worry about what I reveal as well, but then that also limits the "review" aspect here.

I'm not great at writing reviews so I'm ok with giving very little. This film made me think about it days afterwards so that's a good thing.

I have been sick all week and today's is the first day I have felt the best.

Citizen Rules

02-08-25, 09:03 PM

It would be ideal (but I know impractical) if we could all log in our reviews and then have them published in bulk. I worry about what I reveal as well, but then that also limits the "review" aspect here.I try not to spoil major plot points in my reviews, but if i do I just put *Spoiler* at the top of my review, that's fair warning:D But mostly I avoid writing snyoposis or retelling what happened in the movie. I figure if people have watched it I don't need to tell them what they just seen and that way it helps me to avoid spoiling the film.

I'm not great at writing reviews so I'm ok with giving very little. This film made me think about it days afterwards so that's a good thing.

I have been sick all week and today's is the first day I have felt the best.Nothing wrong with short reviews, I sometimes go really short, sometimes not, just depends on my mood. Glad to hear you're feeling better.

PHOENIX74

02-08-25, 09:47 PM

If I'm worried about possible spoilers or don't want to know much about the movie being discussed I simply wait until I've watched it before reading all of the reviews that have been posted. I kind of take it as a given that the more reviews I read the more chance stuff will be given away - and I love coming into films as blind as possible.

Takoma11

02-08-25, 10:19 PM

https://deadline.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/leilas-brothers.png?w=1024

Leila’s Brothers, 2022

Leila (Taraneh Alidoosti) is the only daughter in a family controlled by her father, Esmail (Saeed Poursamimi). Due to sanctions on Iran, the economy is in turmoil, and despite being well into middle age, Leila and her brothers are all out of work or living on the fringe. Leila organizes her brothers in a plan to purchase a unit in a new commercial complex. But when Esmail sees a chance to be named patriarch of the extended family, he reveals that he has a stash of valuable gold coins. Seeing a chance to own a business, Leila and her brothers must try to get their father to use the coins for them.

This is a bruising, frustrating look at the limitations imposed by both patriarchy and international relations.

You get the impression that this family would be a bit of a mess even if the economy around them weren’t a total shambles. Father Esmail is obsessed with the prestige that comes with being the patriarch of the family. Leila simmers with resentment for her father’s past actions and her thankless role as family maid. And her brothers, from the naive Alireza (Navid Mohammadzadeh) to the reckless Farhad (Mohammad Ali Mohammadi), can’t seem to follow through with a plan of action.

There are two layers to this movie. On the surface, it’s sort of a family drama comedy. Esmail’s scheming and obsession with being named patriarch. The brothers getting sucked into a scam in which they must knowingly con someone else down the line in order to make a profit. At one point, the brothers try to sell Esmail on the location of their future business----currently a block of public toilets----and their sales pitch is continually interrupted by the distinct sounds of the business being conducted in those toilets.

But this family does not have the luxury of riding the rollercoaster of wacky familial hijinks, because the patriarchal system to which they belong is nakedly corrupt, and the larger economy in which they are trying to survive is increasingly, impossibly dire.

On the patriarchal front, what gets exposed the longer the film goes on is just how hollow the role of patriarch is. Rather than an impactful leadership role, the duty of patriarch seems to be more about helping families take advantage of others. A wealthy relative promises Esmail the role of patriarch as part of making a large gift at a wedding. It’s all under the guise of following the wishes of the former patriarch (recently deceased), but at heart it’s just a scam, a way of buying attention.

But the even darker aspect is the way that it’s revealed that Esmail has failed in his literal role as patriarch. The more we learn about the way that Esmail has deliberately denied his children happiness, the more their schemes to get their hands on his money makes a kind of karmic sense. We learn that in order to keep Leila close to home, he told a man who loved her that Leila was diseased. We learn that he similarly scuttled Alireza’s romantic prospects. While it at first appears that Leila is scheming and ungrateful, we soon see how Esmail’s manipulations and emotional blackmail run far deeper than any of the maneuvers his children are capable of. Worse, when Esmail realizes the trouble his family is in, he chooses to double down from a place of pride.

Surrounding all of this is the cruel reality that international sanctions, while effective to some degree, ultimately fall hardest on those at the bottom of the social ladder. An early scene features a television playing in the background, from which Donald Trump brays “America first!”. The economy is so volatile that having (or not having) a certain amount of money one moment might mean nothing the next day. This adds a cruelty to multiple sequences. A character cannot triumphantly say “I’ve raised the money”, because the next day this merely represents 60% of what they need. This creates an environment of desperation and a need to make on-the-spot decisions. When Leila implores with her brothers that they may never again have this chance, you get the sense that she is not speaking hyperbolically. Further, it could be easy to say that this family is in financial straits because of their own blundering, but at a certain point you have to wonder just who can be successful in this environment. Only the already-wealthy and the conmen it seems.

Overall I thought this was quite good. You see how Leila must rely on convincing her family to try and act in their own best interest, needing them to leverage what they have and work together in order to pull themselves up from poverty. I particularly liked the way that they position Leila in the beginning of the film, only to reveal more and more of the family history and dynamics as the story unfolds.

I liked the performances across the board, and in particular Alidoosti’s performance as Leila and the way that Mohammadzadeh matches her intensity with Alireza’s gentle naivete. Poursamimi is very memorable as the selfish patriarch, using his position and money to bend his family to his will.

4

Takoma11

02-08-25, 10:20 PM

Guys, it took me like three weeks to finish this film. I'd watch like 15 minutes and then get super stressed out!

Anyway, onto the lighthearted flick that is Rocco and His Brothers.

Citizen Rules

02-08-25, 10:27 PM

Guys, it took me like three weeks to finish this film. I'd watch like 15 minutes and then get super stressed out!

Anyway, onto the lighthearted flick that is Rocco and His Brothers.I'm glad you could finish Leila's Brothers. I thought highly of that film because it made me think in numerous directions, it's very engaging. Rocco and His Brothers...as a lighthearted flick:D

John W Constantine

02-09-25, 01:06 AM

Inside Moves (Donner, 1980)

Being a fan of the vast majority of Richard Donner filmography (the superman pinball was a appreciated egg), this is one that slipped under the radar (just had a sudden urge to search out Maverick). I'm not overly familiar with John Savage (hold on...I just had a quick Do The Right Thing flashback), but his performance as a recovering suicide attempt(y?) was pretty good. I like the group of patrons at the pub where he spends time working and recovering. His friendship with David Morse's character and subsequent confrontation towards the end was something I wasn't expecting and was appreciated that the film was confident enough to go there. This Richard Donner guy makes quite a few movies I enjoy.

TheManBehindTheCurtain

02-09-25, 01:12 AM

I try not to spoil major plot points in my reviews, but if i do I just put *Spoiler* at the top of my review, that's fair warning:D But mostly I avoid writing snyoposis or retelling what happened in the movie. I figure if people have watched it I don't need to tell them what they just seen and that way it helps me to avoid spoiling the film.

Nothing wrong with short reviews, I sometimes go really short, sometimes not, just depends on my mood. Glad to hear you're feeling better.

Since this thread is available to everyone, I lean toward writing for the newcomer who's here to scout for films to add to their watchlist. But with a baker's dozen of colleagues here, it makes for a good blend. Anyone new to a film can read more detail to see it's their type of thing. Those familiar with a flick can quickly see who agrees with their assessment.

I do tend to get long-winded and frequently have written even more ... which I then delete. Hopefully I'm giving away only enough to comment meaningfully on the filmmaker's intent. I hope I don't go too far, but if you're worried feel free to pay no attention to me. :)

It's my first time through one of these and am enjoying it. Is it customary to add additional commentary? I have a whole (and long-winded, no doubt) observation about two films about brothers that are separated by 60+ years but have remarkably similar intent.

Citizen Rules

02-09-25, 03:00 AM

Since this thread is available to everyone, I lean toward writing for the newcomer who's here to scout for films to add to their watchlist. But with a baker's dozen of colleagues here, it makes for a good blend. Anyone new to a film can read more detail to see it's their type of thing. Those familiar with a flick can quickly see who agrees with their assessment. For me sometimes a review literally writes itself and I can go long on those reviews. Other times I struggle to stitch three sentences together. Usually it's the films I love or hate that fire me up the most, but that ain't saying that if I write a very short review I was neutral about the movie. Reviews are weird that way and I think that's fun...I enjoy all the different styles and approaches we all take.

I do tend to get long-winded and frequently have written even more ... which I then delete. Hopefully I'm giving away only enough to comment meaningfully on the filmmaker's intent. I hope I don't go too far, but if you're worried feel free to pay no attention to me. :)Been there! I've deleted so many paragraphs in past reviews, but it's all good.

It's my first time through one of these and am enjoying it. Is it customary to add additional commentary? I have a whole (and long-winded, no doubt) observation about two films about brothers that are separated by 60+ years but have remarkably similar intent.Glad to hear you're enjoying the process, you've been a good member. "Is it customary to add additional commentary?" Sure, it's more than fine, in fact I would encourage it:) The idea of an HoF is that we as a group talk amongst ourselves. It can be about a movie from weeks earlier or a movie similar to one we watched or whatever. This is informal and just for fun!

cricket

02-09-25, 09:32 PM

Inside Moves

https://image.pmgstatic.com/cache/resized/w663/files/images/film/photos/159/547/159547186_41f285.jpg

.5 for the film's title.

SPOILERS

I like movies from this era, they just hit different. 1980, but it's a prototypical 70's film to me. Nothing spectacular but a very effective human study. You can see their pain even without knowing all of the causes, but they are survivors. I can remember the days of waiting outside dive bars before they opened, I can relate. A little unbelievable that dude made it to the NBA. Semi-Pro would've been enough, but that's ok. A little unbelievable that Roary would've survived that fall, but that's ok. I feel like John Savage was in every film like this even though I know it's not true. I liked Morse in The Crossing Guard and a few others, he was young here. The girls were great. Wow at seeing the guy with hook hands who I loved so much in The Best Years of Our Lives, I never thought I'd see him in anything else. The characters felt like real people. I cared about them and that made the film. A pleasure to watch.

3.5+

ueno_station54

02-09-25, 11:13 PM

https://nick-davis.com/insmov80rev.jpg
Inside Moves (Richard Donner, 1980)

This is the hardest kind of movie to review. The one's where there isn't really anything wrong with it but nothing about it appeals to you. I'm not even really sure what the appeal is meant to be here, truthfully. Just a complete enigma. I don't even know what to write. I liked how washed out the movie looks, in that 70's kind of way but nothing else about it grabbed me visually. I liked the Christmas party scene because you can feel a sense of community there, but that element feels a bit neglected for most of the film. I think that might be all I got out of it tbh. Nothing about the story, the characters or the filmmaking stood out to me unfortunately. It just came and went and I'm left here scratching my head.

rauldc14

02-10-25, 11:41 AM

Goldeneye

https://www.slashfilm.com/img/gallery/goldeneye-borrowed-one-of-its-best-scenes-from-a-western-classic/intro-1648153323.jpg

This is a Bond film that certainly belongs in that upper echelon. It's good great action and great pace. For me I've always give a bad rap to Brosnan as Bond but I'm starting to wonder if I can blame it more on the writing and story of the other 3 films he was in. But I enjoyed him here and it is a very entertaining film. I don't necessarily think there are many other standouts when it comes to acting, as Judi Dench isn't in the film for very long and even Sean Bean as the villain isn't utilized as much as I would have liked to see. But I do think it's got some of the best action sequences of any Bond film, so there's major ups from me with that. Overall, a real enjoyable one.

4-

Citizen Rules

02-10-25, 09:37 PM

105037
Inside Moves (1980)
Dir. Richard Donner *Spoilers*

Wow, what an opening scene. I've never seen a more impressive stunt jump than that one. Sure I've seen higher stunt jumps, even the jump from the dam in Golden Eye had to be way higher...But what impressed me with that jump was the camera work. Most directors will film the jump statically from a ground mounted camera and then cut to the body on the sidewalk. But not here, the director has his camera do a 120 degree rotation, as the man falls, which I've never seen done...then he cuts to a higher mounted camera that must have been on another building and shows us a perspective that's mind boggling....we can see the street with cars and people and in the same frame see the man falling through the sky. Then the director does what other director's don't usually show, we see the continuation of the fall all the way through some trees and onto the roof of a car on the street. So impressive!

In the age of green screen, CG and safety laws we'll never seen such a stunt performed in a modern movie. I was glad to see the stuntman Dennis Madalone received a critic. Also the stunt fall at the end of the movie down the cement steps of a sports stadium was also dangerous and impressive.

So now you probably think I'm an action movie type guy, nope, I don't really like action only movies unless they offer more. Inside Moves is no action movie. Like Cricket pointed out, it has the personal exploration feel of a 1970s movie. The 1970s was when the baby boomers grew up and the film industry that had once made teenage drive-in movies in the 50s for them and then wacky movies in the 1960s, gave away to more adult movies in the 70s that explored the human condition in a more realistic way. Of course by the time we got to the 1980s, block buster films were making money and so became more common place. Inside Moves fits nicely with that 70s human condition exploration.

I love movies with on location filming and unique locales. Inside Movies was filmed in L.A. which might not sound so exciting but it was filmed in a hilly area of Echo Park a location not seen too much in film. For me the hilly terrain and the run down buildings added to the feel of people who lived their lives on the outskirts of society. I liked the people too, we get to know them and get a feeling that they're real. ***Once again the lesson here is: never have a prostitute as a girlfriend...it only spells trouble!

rating_4

stillmellow

02-12-25, 05:35 AM

Goldeneye

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQi7nwfpg1PC79uhLrtnQyzEWFxXi0xCCXyXw&s

This is one of the few Bond movies I can say I enjoyed from start to finish. It has just the right mix of old school silliness, modern sensibilities, and high budget action. It's a great reintroduction of the character, and an easily digestible starting point, before introducing more serious plotlines, as they did in Tomorrow Never Dies.

Natalya is also quite possibly my favorite Bond girl. She's the perfect balance of smart, beautiful, and tough. Glad her character made it out alive.

The movies only weak points is Sean Bean never really landed as a villain for me. His motives are weak, and he doesn't really stand out. I far prefer Onatopp, with her killer thighs. I love watching her chew up scenery.

It's a small gripe, but I was hoping to see his new silver Aston Martin in an action scene. Although the tank scene was a lot of fun.

👍

Torgo

02-13-25, 02:52 PM

Inside Moves - 4 CONTAINS SPOILERS

This is a favorite "feel good" movie, which is a description where you see criticisms like sentimental and manipulative. There are movies like this I love, but what makes this one special is it's more interested in being authentic than wringing it out of you. While John Savage and David Morse were household names between then and now, Roary, Jerry and the rest come across like people you see every day. Also, I definitely feel for the friends and everyone who sits at the card table at Max's Bar, but I love that the movie shows them how they want to be seen, i.e. like everyone else, and not defined by their disabilities. I remember their banter and jokes before I think about their ailments, in other words. As for the feel-good moments, they have no reaching, obvious musical swells, etc. because they're earned. Take Roary and Louise realizing their love, for instance. There are similar movies that rush through or skip the hard parts to arrive at the good stuff, if you will, but this one takes its time during the rough patch of Louise coping with her fear of falling for a disabled man. There's also the party celebrating Jerry's return: it's the kind of scene lesser ones like it include just to bring the tears. However, since the movie does such a good job letting us know how much Jerry means to everyone up to this point, I smiled because I felt like it and not because I was forced to. Except Jerry doesn't return, does he? There is a brilliance to the yin and yang of him being a hero to the disabled, but being more disabled than they are, whether due to avoiding them or by letting his disability define him. Speaking of authenticity, he is authentically hard to like as a result, but it makes the reward for when he comes to his senses all the more satisfying.

Like the best "feel good" movies, this one is just as entertaining and funny on rewatches as well as full of valuable lessons. It's practically a how-to guide on being a good friend, recovering from a setback and realizing life is worth living. Best of all, it teaches you these lessons without you realizing it. What's more, they hold up despite happening in a world that barely exists anymore. Can you imagine getting to the top of an office building without an ID card these days? Also, who would have predicted that the Golden State Warriors would go from being such an underdog that the players hang out with their hecklers to a yearly title contender?

PHOENIX74

02-15-25, 02:16 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/kXPFDyBh/inside-moves.jpg

Inside Moves - 1980

Directed by Richard Donner

Written Valerie Curtin & Barry Levinson
Based on a novel by Todd Walton

Starring John Savage, David Morse, Diana Scarwid, Amy Wright, Bert Remsen, Tony Burton & Harold Russell

I hope anyone kind enough to read this entire review will pardon a digression at the very outset, but Inside Moves is the type of movie that I associate with a project I began some time ago. You see, a good friend of mine - a terrific writer, published author and film fanatic - wrote a series of articles that I found really interesting. He grabbed the Top 100 Box Office Earnings list from Box Office Mojo (lists from other sites differ considerably, so no one box office list should be considered official) for each year regarding one decade - the 1980s. He then wrote one piece regarding each year, trawling through the list with the advantage of hindsight and making observations. One interesting factor is the fact that quality seems to be evenly distributed - there are as many good films at the bottom of the list than there are at the top, and vice versa. There are often bizarre oddities that make good "this movie was actually made" trivia curios. There are some really good movies that were barely seen on release, and some that have continued in obscurity. I was so interested that I wanted to take it all further - and so with the intention of doing each year I had a closer look, starting with 1980. I found so many interesting and varied movies - and one of them was Inside Moves. Despite being directed by the red-hot Richard Donner, it was one of those films that barely had a release at all - so despite all of it's merits it's not a well-known movie, even today.

Box Office Mojo has since changed the lists from what they were - made them more accurate is my hopeful guess - so the likes of Inside Moves, Ressurection, Melvin and Howard and other hidden gems have disappeared completely. These are movies that audiences never even had a fair shot at judging for themselves, the whole system in place leaving decisions on how wide a release a film gets in the hands of just a few executives, who might not even be that good a judge of how great a film is. The popularization of home video became something of an equalizer - giving movies a life beyond cinema and television, and a more democratic one at that. Videos were around in 1980, but their widespread use and video shops in every suburb were still a few years away. I think Inside Moves would have picked up an audience through word of mouth if it had of been released on video a few years on down the road, but instead it came out in 1981 - and when you take into account that it's cinematic release had no publicity or any advertisements associated with it, then it's easy to see how it slipped through the cracks. There were a few good reviews and an Oscar nomination for Diana Scarwid, but this was one of the quietest releases I've ever seen for a film directed by an established big name movie-maker at the height of his career. Donner's sacking from Superman II the only real indication of why his film was not supported.

The movie has two converging themes - family, and being disabled. I should perhaps put family in inverted commas because I don't think there's a single character in Inside Moves who has a blood relative we hear about. The family of Inside Moves is that of an adoptive community - and as we commonly see in fiction our familial group of characters converge on a bar - this one in Oakland, California. Max's. In Todd Walton's novel our main character, Roary (played by John Savage, giving what is perhaps his best ever performance), is wounded in Vietnam and became disable via that route. In the movie we're treated to an opening that's tremendously powerful and shocking, with a determined Roary set to commit suicide jumping from the 10th story of a building, landing on a tree, then a car, then being transported to hospital in critical condition. The credits cover a montage in which Roary is rehabilitated, and by the time the film proper begins he's the character we'll get to know - limping, pivoting, swaying and unsteady with slurred speech. There's something charming about his manner though - the way he'll swing his fist, turn about suddenly or add some wry aside to a conversation. He's a good guy, and when he happens on Max's bar he meets a group of lovable people.

First and foremost there's Jerry Maxwell (David Morse) - big and brash, he's good at basketball despite having a serious leg injury and is outspoken, keen and very direct. Jerry loves Anne (Amy Wright), a hooker and drug addict that causes him nothing but trouble. Usually playing cards are Stinky (Bert Remsen), Wings (Harold Russell) and Blue Lewis (Bill Henderson). There's the owner Max (Jack O'Leary) and later the bar hires a waitress that Roary will develop feelings for - Louise (Diana Scarwid). Jerry and Roary end up becoming best friends, and although determined to put up money to financially aid the bar (which is in financial troubles), Roary also wants to help his friend get the operation he needs to embark on a basketball career - such is his talent. But when success comes Jerry's way, all of his old friends at the bar are disturbed by the way they're cut off from (and by) him. In the meantime Louis struggles with her feelings for Roary due to the fact that she's not sure she can handle being physically intimate with a disabled man. All of life's troubles, heartaches, successes, joys and tears are shared by those who frequent Max's. Many are disabled. Stinky is blind, Blue Lewis can't walk and Wings has no hands - and this is something that only serves to strengthen the bond between them. It's something Jerry feels seperated from once his leg has been mended, and something he almost fears is contagious.

When I first came across this movie I wasn't as well acquainted with some of it's stars - Bert Remsen I've come to love by delving into the cinematic world of Robert Altman, and I always feel like I'm visiting an old friend when his cheerful countenance is seen and raspy voice is heard. Harold Russell I eventually recognized from the 1946 classic The Best Years of Our Lives - but only after thinking to myself that he "reminded me of that guy" due to the fact he's a double amputee. It took me a while longer to get the fact that this was the exact same man - and indeed Russell hadn't even taken a role in any film during the 34 years that had elapsed since William Wyler's famous movie was made. As mentioned before, Diana Scarwid was nominated for an Academy Award (I know her, despite the fact she's had a disappointing career if you take into account the promise it had), and that makes me all the more curious as to why John Savage wasn't nominated - his is a mountain of a performance that lifts the entire movie up a category, and to see Sarwid nominated but not Savage is a puzzle indeed. His career up to this point had been exceptional, but would take something of a downward turn from that point on.

The team putting Inside Moves together is rock solid. Although we don't hear the score all that often, it makes such an impression when we do that it dominates this movie to such an extent that you feel all of the emotional thematic weight whenever you hear it. John Barry has written a melody that's both catchy and pleasing, and it's carried forth prominently via trumpets and brass - coalescing into a theme we'll hear repeated and get to know so that by the time the end credits greet us you'll be humming along yourself. It's a bittersweet kind of heartfelt tune that evokes bars and people who have had a lot of hard luck in their lives - the kind that would have fit at any stage during Fat City or Ironweed. Behind the camera is László Kovács (not Vilmos Zsigmond!) and he spends much of his time finding the right shade and lighting for searching examinations of faces - there's little time for wide angle shots or beautified landscapes. This is a very human drama, carried forward by it's own emotional weight and the headspace of it's characters. Camera and music make way for the characters created by Todd Walton and realised by the talented performers Richard Donner has gathered around him.

So what really makes a family? Humour - there's plenty of humour in the film, but genuinely funny and at times a little groan inducing. Helping each other out - which is what all the friends at Max's bar do constantly, with advice, encouragement, giving and company. Being there - which is what creates friction when Jerry disappears after his basketball career takes off. Beer - it seems, although I've seen beer do as much to create friction and angst as it does bring people together, but in the world of movies we can sometimes have a perfect world. Nursing each other to health when one has taken a bloody beating from an angry pimp. Turning a blind eye to terrible indiscretions and bad decisions when butting in would simply be interfereing. Standing firm and telling the truth when needed. Throughout the film, because of Roary's new adopted family, we see him grow both as a character and human being proving that his disability couldn't stand in his way when it came to a fulfilling, healthy life - one where dreams can come true. That all might sound sappy or sentimentally trite, but Inside Moves works hard and grinds out a little honesty and isn't afraid to shrink from topics like drug addiction, prostitution, violence and suicide - in a way it earns the right to push a little melodrama once it's established where it's at.

So, at the end of the day what do I really like about this movie? To me, it's always about John Savage and the character he creates with his one-of-a-kind performance. Honestly , I love Roary - but I'm very embarrassed to say that maybe some of that love comes from how charming his manner becomes via the various tics, slurs and sudden movements that are added to the way he goes about communicating. It just makes him unique, but obviously there has to be a good-hearted, loveable personality deep inside for the whole character to work like he does. Partly, I think, it's me cheering on the underdog as well. You'd never guess Roary could be at the place he is at the end of the film when the movie starts - a funny counterpoint to one of the last lines of the movie, delivered by Anne - about people always staying who they are. Of course we do - it's circumstances that change, and we change our circumstances via our actions, and with the help of our extended family whether they be blood relations or good friends. That's the great journey both Jerry and Roary take in Inside Moves, a good natured take on what it means to be crippled in just about every meaning of the term. If you're surrounded by a loving family though, your dreams are your limit.

3.5

PHOENIX74

02-15-25, 02:41 AM

Inside Moves

You'll have to judge how the ending suits you.

I enjoyed the ending but not as much as I'd hoped to. I could have left it a few minutes earlier when we had a bit more ambiguity for us to parse through. But, ah, shucks, you can’t blame them for that.

Richard Donner talks at length about the ending in the film's commentary track on the Granada DVD. You see, the film was meant to end with Anne giving the last line about how "Jerry will always hang about the bar. I'm a whore. You're a sucker..." - that's how it ends in the screenplay, but Donner always ends his movies on a big positive note. It's Donner himself who added the scene where they're all at the game and Roary trips up Lucius (who knows, maybe he made him a cripple - the film's way of speaking, not mine!) and then the two characters go "JEEerrYY!!" "ROOOArrrYY!!" So if you thought the previous scene had a natural, conclusory feel to it, you were right on the money there.

cricket

02-15-25, 07:48 AM

Yes Phoenix, I worked at a couple of video stores in the mid 80s and I never heard of Inside Moves.

Citizen Rules

02-15-25, 01:14 PM

Inside Moves - 1980

....He grabbed the Top 100 Box Office Earnings list from Box Office Mojo (lists from other sites differ considerably, so no one box office list should be considered official) for each year regarding one decade - the 1980s. He then wrote one piece regarding each year, trawling through the list with the advantage of hindsight and making observations. One interesting factor is the fact that quality seems to be evenly distributed - there are as many good films at the bottom of the list than there are at the top, and vice versa. There are often bizarre oddities that make good "this movie was actually made" trivia curios. There are some really good movies that were barely seen on release, and some that have continued in obscurity. I was so interested that I wanted to take it all further - and so with the intention of doing each year I had a closer look, starting with 1980. I found so many interesting and varied movies - and one of them was Inside Moves. Despite being directed by the red-hot Richard Donner, it was one of those films that barely had a release at all - so despite all of it's merits it's not a well-known movie, even today.

Box Office Mojo has since changed the lists from what they were - made them more accurate is my hopeful guess - so the likes of Inside Moves, Ressurection, Melvin and Howard and other hidden gems have disappeared completely. These are movies that audiences never even had a fair shot at judging for themselves, the whole system in place leaving decisions on how wide a release a film gets in the hands of just a few executives, who might not even be that good a judge of how great a film is. The popularization of home video became something of an equalizer - giving movies a life beyond cinema and television, and a more democratic one at that. Videos were around in 1980, but their widespread use and video shops in every suburb were still a few years away. I think Inside Moves would have picked up an audience through word of mouth if it had of been released on video a few years on down the road, but instead it came out in 1981 - and when you take into account that it's cinematic release had no publicity or any advertisements associated with it, then it's easy to see how it slipped through the cracks. There were a few good reviews and an Oscar nomination for Diana Scarwid, but this was one of the quietest releases I've ever seen for a film directed by an established big name movie-maker at the height of his career. Donner's sacking from Superman II the only real indication of why his film was not supported....I was around and going to movies in 1981 but I don't remember hearing about Inside Moves. I also use to frequent the video stores alot in the 80s-90s to rent movies, but never that I remember, ran across this title. That was an interesting project your friend did and in a way it reminds of what I just did for the 1990s countdown. I did an advanced IMDB search for movies made from 1990-1999 and then applied some of the filters to narrow down that list to a more manageable size. Then I read the mini synopsis of each movie in those results and put together a to-watch list of about 250 1990s movies. Many of those were fairly obscure and I'd never heard of them before, found a few personal movie gems that way too. It pays too look and look deep!

Citizen Rules

02-15-25, 01:58 PM

The Movie for Week 7 is:

105172
At Play in the Fields of the Lord (1991)
Director: Hector Babenco

Due date to watch/review: Feb 24th

@MovieGal (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=80538) @jiraffejustin (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=76459) @John W Constantine (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=109412) @PHOENIX74 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=112080)
@rauldc14 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=60169) @edarsenal (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=50536) @Torgo (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=109334) @Takoma11 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=107735) @ueno_station54 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=111569) @stillmellow (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=124844) @cricket (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=68505) @TheManBehindTheCurtain

We still have 2 days left for the Week 6 movie...but as it's the weekend and this is a 3 hour movie I'm posting it now. I could only find one free link for the movie but it is streaming on a couple of services, I'll PM everyone that info.

*Keep an eye on the 1st post, that's were the review links and info are.

Takoma11

02-15-25, 02:51 PM

Everyone saw that 4 hour runtime limit and took full advantage.

John W Constantine

02-15-25, 04:26 PM

Definitely not short.

Takoma11

02-15-25, 05:46 PM

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fm.media-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FM%2FMV5BMTYxOTgxODM2Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNzA1NTQ3NjE%40._V1_FMjpg_UX2000_.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=00ec5ba34d545410717c0c8d05d7031f438107b629b8d0d68fc99f84e2e6f274&ipo=images

Rocco and His Brothers, 1960

My feelings about this one are very similar to my first viewing, but with far, far less sympathy for the family this time around.

I usually write my reviews without having taken notes, and so sometimes I don't have an exact recollection of things from early in the film. I had not remembered this exchange between Vincenzo and his fiance, Ginetta (Claudia Cardinale):
“And as Mamma says, if a real man wants a woman he takes her without asking.”
“He what?”
“He takes her, without asking her or anyone.”
“With me you have to ask every time!”

I know that many have noted the idea that the family moving to the North is what corrupts them (and Rocco himself basically says this later in the film), but I think that this exchange lets us know that they are bringing with them a toxic, oppressive concept of how love and sex and relationships work. A scene where Simone steals from Rocco's employer, then seduces her so that he can steal again reveals his character early on. If Simone had stayed where he was, he would have still been an abusive, manipulative, rape-y leech.

I'd also forgotten the dynamics of the attack scene on Nadia, something that Simone does after an embarrassing loss in the boxing ring. The way that Simone frames the assault as being a punishment for Rocco, and just how awful Rocco's reasoning afterward is.

"How could I know Simone loved you so much?" "His good nature" "Simone needs you". His significant non-response to Nadia asking: "Don't I count for anything?"

I also like, given how movies often like to frame women who do sex work, just how normal Nadia is. When she realizes that Simone has stolen jewelry to give it to her, she finds a way to return it. Her sometime profession (because she stops doing sex work when she gets together with Rocco) is a reason for the characters in the film to be contemptuous of her, but her general behavior, demeanor, and morals aren't that different from the more "acceptable" women in the film. The only time we see her behave in any kind of "trashy" way is after, you know, her boyfriend watches her get raped and does nothing about it except tell her that she should totally get together with her rapist. Also, both times Nadia is attacked, there are men who witness it and literally do nothing. The idea that her behavior is shameful is laughable in the face of what the "legitimate" characters do.

I do think that the brilliance of this movie is in the other three brothers. Even though they obviously don't get as much screen time, they are kind and functional, and far more clear-eyed about Simone's behavior than Rocco ever manages to be. When Ciro tells Rocco that Simone is a "bad seed" and that they need to get some distance from them, and Rocco's like "Aw, no! He's just demoralized!", I could only shake my head. Simone and Rocco are in their own version of a dysfunctional relationship, and Rocco's idea of helping his brother only leads to more pain and suffering. At least as the film goes on it seems like young Luca is getting a sense of just how much of a loser Simone is. I don't think that the environment ruins Simone, so much as it just gives him different opportunities to be the man he was always going to be.

It's interesting to watch this film right after Leila's Brothers, another movie where family dysfunction and selfishness threaten to derail the wellbeing of the family for years to come.

TheManBehindTheCurtain

02-15-25, 08:32 PM

It's Donner himself who added the scene where they're all at the game and Roary trips up Lucius ... and then the two characters go "JEEerrYY!!" "ROOOArrrYY!!" So if you thought the previous scene had a natural, conclusory feel to it, you were right on the money there.

Ah ... thanks for that! I was really enjoying those final moments at the bus stop, thinking it was heading for a terrific ending. But I can't criticize anyone for rooting for the big, feel-good conclusion. It was well earned. But perhaps the risk-taking of a slightly ambiguous ending might have elevated this from "hidden classic" to "cult classic," giving reviewers more to chew on.

Terrific review ...

Citizen Rules

02-15-25, 09:01 PM

...I was really enjoying those final moments at the bus stop, thinking it was heading for a terrific ending. But I can't criticize anyone for rooting for the big, feel-good conclusion. It was well earned. But perhaps the risk-taking of a slightly ambiguous ending might have elevated this from "hidden classic" to "cult classic," giving reviewers more to chew on...As much as I enjoyed the movie and thought it was extremely well made, shot, acted, I do agree with what you said about the happy ending part.

Citizen Rules

02-15-25, 09:01 PM

That's odd, I can still read the spoiler. I don't know what I did wrong?

ueno_station54

02-15-25, 09:51 PM

https://a.ltrbxd.com/resized/sm/upload/yo/pk/lv/t4/be5Ech9euP9wtemqoDXDZ2I80ss-1200-1200-675-675-crop-000000.jpg?v=510b4d5488
At Play in the Fields of the Lord (Hector Babenco, 1991)

I was a bit nervous about this one going in given films with this premise have a history of being exploitative but thankfully that aspect isn't nearly as bad as it could be. I definitely appreciate that this swerves away from the white saviour narrative and digs into the morality of missionary work and its use as a tool for colonialism. You could argue the tribe is still presented as a bit of a freak show (I don't make that argument) but I do think they could have been fleshed out a bit more, they feel a bit like a prop at times and obviously the spray-tanned white dude playing a Native American is weird and distracting but that's the worst thing in a movie that could've been so much worse. The cast otherwise is pretty good though, Kathy Bates and John Lithgow are appropriately irritating and Aidan Quinn, who I was completely unfamiliar with, really makes this work. Daryl Hannah does kind of feel like she's just here to get her t*ts out unfortunately but hey, Tom Waits is here mumbling through his lines for a bit and we love that. One thing that I saw in every Letterboxd, even the positive ones, was that the length was an issue and I don't get that at all. I think movies are almost too efficient with their runtimes these days, The Brutalist for example is 3.5 hours but feels like 90 minutes and none of it stuck with me. This on the other hand, even though I don't love it, is still way more memorable to me and while it feels as long as it is I think that's a good thing. Even more impressive given there's like 3 locations in the whole movie. So yeah, nothing here blew me away or anything but its well enough made and its very watchable. I think this might be one of those reviews that sounds more negative than it is and I'm sorry about that but to reiterate, I enjoyed this. Oh and another thing, "Why did god have to make mosquitoes?" is objectively very funny last words.

Takoma11

02-15-25, 10:19 PM

Oh and another thing, "Why did god have to make mosquitoes?" is objectively very funny last words.

I watched this movie in middle or high school, and I absolutely cannot remember why. Anyway, as you can imagine it made for like a whole week of movie watching and we all handled the mosquito line and the Kathy Bates mental breakdown with great sensitivity and respect.

ueno_station54

02-16-25, 07:11 AM

the Kathy Bates mental breakdown
she really thought she was cooking with that scene.

Torgo

02-16-25, 01:04 PM

That is a fascinating history lesson about Inside Moves' obscurity. I have IFC to thank for discovering it, which played it fairly often in the '90s. Remember when they actually played independent movies? I wonder if there's a list of what they played back then because it's stuff that may not even be streaming or on VOD to this day.

Let's look at their schedule today: they're playing Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, Grease, Footloose and a bunch of Everybody Loves Raymond reruns. Yeah, real independent, huh...

MovieGal

02-16-25, 07:58 PM

105194
At Play in the Fields of the Lord
(1991)

A young couple and their son join another missionary couple in South America to Christianity the indigenous people of Brazil. Along with Christianity, they bring other things. Along with them, a pilot named Moon, becomes a God in their own eyes. This is a test of faith for the young couple as their son catches malaria and dies. Along the way, they lose faith and hope.

I liked this film and it reminded me of two others I have watched that deals with Christianizing foreigners, both The Mission and Silence.

I view this as, outsiders come in , bring Christianity, then bring in government to control the people. To civilized them into the mainstream of the world but along with this, comes communical diseases, which they have no antibodies to fight off this condition. It reminded me of why the people of North Sentinel Island, off the coast of India, has regulations in place. Without antibodies, their culture dies off.

There are several underlying parts to the film and I don't want to give them away.

It was a good watch and it was nice to see it.

Citizen Rules, I would recommend the other two films with similar storyline. However, Silence is a very brutal film in some of its content.

Edit: One of the best things about The Mission is the soundtrack. The Great Ennio Morricone.

John W Constantine

02-16-25, 09:20 PM

At Play in the Fields of the Lord (Babenco, 1991)

This was definitely one that slipped under the radar until this HoF despite being a decently loaded cast I remember from this era of movies. Agree with the story focusing more on a morality of these characters when faced with different circumstances. 3+ hours is sometimes a challenge but a multi view for the main characters helped ease that from viewing. Obviously extra points for the shooting locations. Would not mind reading the novel someday.

Yoda

02-16-25, 09:29 PM

That's odd, I can still read the spoiler. I don't know what I did wrong?
I think it's because it's a quote inside of a spoiler tag, rather than the other way around.

Takoma11

02-16-25, 11:24 PM

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.literallyanythingmovies.com%2Fuploads%2F8%2F6%2F7%2F8%2F86780370%2Fgoldeneye-1636_orig.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=4274ede7e2e9202e2a8cc78b236ddddd42c2ac8e5dd4645c25ddc493a1e718ad&ipo=images

Goldeneye, 1995

James Bond (Pierce Brosnan) is called into action when a secret organization called Janus starts making bold moves to claim a Cold War ere weapon called the Goldeneye. Bond’s mission brings him into the orbit of the deadly Xenia Onatopp (Famke Janssen), strong willed computer programmer Natalya (Izabella Scorupco), and comes to involve the supposed killing of his former partner, Alec (Sean Bean).

Winning characters and performances can’t quite overcome a so-so script.

Bond movies have something of an uphill battle with me, as generally speaking he is not a character I like all that much. Arrogance and a rakish grin might do it for some guys and gals, but I find it more smarming than charming (yes, I know “smarming” is not an adjective). I also don’t compartmentalize franchises well, so there are egregious things from other films that weigh on any new film I watch in the series.

That said, the cast in this film and the overall vibe did a LOT to battle the biases I bring to this series. Brosnan in particular is a really perfect fit for the lead, exuding a calm and a degree of detachment that fits well with the dire situations he must navigate. Everyone being horny for Bond is always a bit hokey, but I find it much more believable with the dynamics established by the film. Aside from a cheesy bit of Bond seducing a psychiatrist who has been sent to evaluate him, the flings are fun and well-anchored into the story.

Backing up Brosnan’s lead performance is a fantastic supporting cast of characters. Janssen’s pain-loving Onatopp is an absolute treasure. She’s here to play baccarat and crush men with her thighs, and the baccarat table is closed. Natalya, who narrowly survives a brutal massacre at her workplace, is a much-needed relatively-realistic character. She falls for Bond, yes, but she repeatedly voices her disgust and discomfort around the way the various characters resort to violence. (Am I alone in thinking that the film could have used ten times more of Minnie Driver’s country-singing mistress, Irina?).

Also on hand are Robbie Coltrane, Joe Don Baker, Gottfried John, Alan Cumming, and Judi Dench. Dench lends a grounding energy to her brief scenes, while Cumming and Baker give a sillier twist.

The movie also takes some winning swings at large scale setpieces, starting with a delicious bungee jump down the face of a large dam. There’s also an absurd chase sequence involving one party in a battle tank. I also liked the borderline Looney Tunes visit to Q’s laboratory.

But I was a bit disappointed to find that the story frequently swallowed up these fun characters. There were several times that the film jumped from one scene to another in a way that didn’t totally mesh for me. The overall plot of the film isn’t hard to follow, but there’s something fundamentally disjoint. The individual setpieces are all fine, but the connective tissue leaves something to be desired. I think that it comes together well in the last 15 minutes or so, getting all of the characters together in a single location.

A general effect of this sense of disconnection is that the movie starts to feel like it drags in the second half. While the very ending worked well for me, I spent a good 30 or so minutes really feeling the length of the film.

I also didn’t think that some of the motivations and statements by the main antagonist made a lot of sense. If a character is going to accuse someone of betraying a friendship, it’s kind of critical that we get some sense of that friendship. When you’ve only seen two characters sharing about 2 minutes of relatively light-hearted screentime, there’s just not a lot of weight to claims of friendship.

I enjoyed this film, which for the most part neatly side-steps most of the issues I’ve had in the past with the Bond franchise.

3.5

Citizen Rules

02-18-25, 02:18 PM

I'm going to repost an edited version of my At Play in the Fields of the Lord review from my Back to the 90s! thread with some added commentary.

105262
At Play In the Fields of the Lord
(Hector Babenco, 1991)

A unique movie with a crummy title. I image people passed this movie by because they believed it was a Christian themed movie, it's not. A movie title can kill a movie and At Play In the Fields of the Lord was only released in 25 theaters before the studio pulled the plug on it. As a result it's not well known today.

Unlike so many newer movies that are cinematic roller coaster rides, At Play In the Fields of the Lord slowly unfolds a tale of indigenous people in the Brazilian jungles and how the encroachment of well meaning but misguided missionaries and western civilization ends up causing these gentle people of the jungle real hardships. Impressively the movie was entirely shot in Brazil, that was so appreciated by me. It looks amazing as there are no studio shots, matte shots or fakey cg.

This is a movie that requires one's full attention as it's subtle story telling that has many different levels to it from the easily observable on the surface themes, to the more complex subtleties.

Takoma11

02-18-25, 06:42 PM

Two other quick notes about Goldeneye:

1) My gosh did I get a nostalgia bomb from those cartoon avatars on the computers. Just zapped me right back to games like Wolfenstein 3D.

2) Not the movie's fault, but just inevitably some lines do not age well, like the almost final line of "Maybe you two would like to finish de-briefing each other at Guantanamo?" Yikes, lol.

cricket

02-18-25, 08:13 PM

At Play in the Fields of the Lord

https://images.kinorium.com/movie/shot/92589/h280_179858.jpg

All I knew going in was a quick glance at the first page of google. The little I saw including the runtime had me less than hopeful. Normally when I watch films like this it involves the natives eating the visitors, and I did hold out hope until the end.

No matter how noble they may be, I always think of people like these visitors as a little nutty. And you bring your little boy there???? I'm not a religious person, but I have no issue with anyone who is. Not a fan of people pushing their beliefs onto others.

Loved how authentic the movie felt. I have no clue where it was filmed but it sure didn't feel like a national forest in New Hampshire. Not quite an A list cast, except for maybe Kathy Bates whose character was a fool among fools, but not exactly B list either. They're all actors I generally like. I thought Berenger did quite well playing someone who is half Native American, probably more believable than Tom Waits playing a Jew. I knew there was going to be a moment between Andy and Moon, who gave off Colonel Kurtz vibes. I enjoyed this much more than I thought I would, but probably not in the way that was intended.

3.5

PHOENIX74

02-19-25, 03:35 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/xd9ts70S/at-play-in-the-fields-of-the-lord.jpg

At Play in the Fields of the Lord - 1991

Directed by Héctor Babenco

Written Hector Babenco, Jean-Claude Carrière & Vincent Patrick
Based on a novel by Peter Matthiessen

Starring Tom Berenger, John Lithgow, Daryl Hannah, Aidan Quinn, Tom Waits & Kathy Bates

The road to hell is paved with good intentions - it's an aphorism that's explored in relation to the effects various characters and institutions have on a tribe of Niaruna natives in the deep Brazilian Amazon River basin in At Play in the Fields of the Lord. Leading the way there, as always, is capitalistic endeavour. Gold miners are coming into contact with the tribe and those surrounding it, always a danger to both parties - so officials task a couple of gung-ho pilots, Wolf (Tom Waits) and Native American Lewis Moon (Tom Berenger) with frightening the tribe away by bombing the area. This unhappily coincides with the arrival of born-again Christian evangelist and missionary Martin Quarrier (Aidan Quinn), his wife Hazel (Kathy Bates) and their son Billy (Niilo Kivirinta). The missionaries are aided by an already established couple, Leslie Huben (John Lithgow) and his wife Andy (Daryl Hannah) along with the local catholic priest Father Xantes (Nelson Xavier). Their endeavour is complicated when Lewis Moon parachutes his way into the Niaruna's tribal lands, convinced that his Native American background gives him a biological and cultural link with these people, who he can help guide. A series of unintended consequences to the actions of all involved leads to tragic results.

Here's a movie that really could have benefited from the Terrence Malick treatment, which would have brought something otherworldly from the Amazon and all those who naturally reside there. Director Héctor Babenco is at least South American himself, but his film lacks the magic that would have pushed it over the top and turned it into the Oscar-nomination machine it was really meant to be. Peter Matthiessen's novel At Play in the Fields of the Lord had been begging for a cinematic adaptation ever since it was published in 1965, and producer Saul Zaentz had nursed the project the moment the book came out, such was his belief in the material - spending $1.4 million himself on grabbing the rights after MGM finally let them go. It's not a case of abject failure - the movie is fine - it's just that a film of this size and scope obviously aims at being the big Best Picture Oscar winner at the end of the year, and At Play in the Fields of the Lord ended up facing the ignominy of not recieving a single nomination. It ended up playing briefly in 25 movie theaters before quietly shuffling away - a box office disaster that basically brought no return from it's near $40 million investment. It didn't deserve that - it's worth seeing, even though it falls short.

I was left somewhat unmoved by Aidan Quinn's performance as Martin, and that's despite the fact that he takes to chewing the scenery in some scenes - he's neither an extraordinary character who is cut down to size nor an every day man who is enlightened by something larger than himself. At least, he doesn't seem to be. Instead we just get some confused, nondescript guy who is argumentative to an extreme at first and then not quite sure what he really believes in anymore or who he is. Then there's Tom Berenger of Irish ancestry playing a Native American - not the best of looks - but to be fair to the actor himself, he probably does the finest job out of the lot. Lithgow is good as Leslie Huben, and Kathy Bates steals a whole slew of scenes as Martin's tightly-wound wife Hazel - including one daring nude scene (who doesn't get a nude scene in this film?) where she basically adorns herself as an ad-hoc native once she's completely lost her mind and dances around the missionary site babbling. I swear it took me around 20 seconds before I realized that this was Hazel, and the moment seemed more suited to Saturday Night Live skit than this film - but perhaps that's just my very own immature way of looking at such an unusual moment in it.

The film was shot by a Brazilian cinematographer - Lauro Escorel - on location in Belém, Pará, Brazil. I couldn't imagine this being shot anywhere else but on location - and the Amazonian scenery is at once forbidding and entrancing. There are some absolutely breathtaking aerial shots, and they have proper context seeing as a few of our characters are pilots. What adds something special to it is Zbigniew Preisner's haunting score - the one aspect of the film I could point to and call absolutely brilliant. The film's main theme is a wistful tune that very much speaks of both paradise lost and the death of dreams - it's almost sad and mournful, but in any other context it also eludes to the natural beauty of this part of the world and it's people. There's a very sweet melody played on an oboe that captures the mood perfectly. Preisner ended up being nominated for a Golden Globe and LA Film Critics Award for his work - but missed out on an Oscar nomination, and is in fact yet to be nominated for an Academy Award. These sights and sounds are definitely in the film's favour and go a long way to making it an enjoyable (if, albeit, long) watch.

I think the central message of the movie is a worthy one - it doesn't simply pull out the obvious colonial expansion lecture, but also points to those of us from different cultures who do our own harm while intending all along to help. That's where Martin and Lewis Moon are two sides of the same coin, both coming to an understanding about the many forms colonial destructiveness can take - religious, biological, cultural and otherwise. They do more to destroy the Niaruna than the men with the bombs do, and in the process lose a lot of their faith as to who they are and what they stand for. Martin isn't portrayed as some religious zealot, but instead is considerate and intelligent - unlike the Hubens he learns from the native people, but is still hated because of what he represents, as is Lewis Moon. We can never shake off who we really are, as Moon seems to do initially when he comes to be regarded as a Niarunan God after "falling from the sky" by parachuting from his plane. This is why we're really better off without any contact with prospective alien races out there in the cosmos - these clashes of culture are by their very nature destructive. It has been that way throughout the world, as the world has become a smaller and smaller place.

In the end, if you'd asked me at the start of the film what I thought was going to happen by the end I'd have pretty much guessed it - there was an inevitability to the whole affair. It's an interesting enough film, and has enough going on in all departments to justify watching it at least this once though - surviving in the jungle has always been a topic that has interested me. These missionaries who forgo the comforts of home so they can eke out an existence in the middle of the Amazon, enduring disease, awful food, mosquitos, bugs, uncertain relationships with natives, rain, mud, heat and lord knows what else - I'm always interested in movies about them, and as such was interested in this film. It didn't turn out to be a masterpiece, but the story it tells is deserving of being told - although not based on any actual historical incident, it does pay homage to a very difficult period of our history as a species, and there is still quite a reckoning ahead of us on that front that will be extremely difficult for coming generations to confront. In that sense, it's a bit of a shame At Play in the Fields of the Lord wasn't a big Best Picture-winning masterpiece. Perhaps we find the whole subject a little easier to swallow when it's in the form of a sci-fi blockbuster like James Cameron's Avatar.

3

rauldc14

02-19-25, 08:27 PM

Inside Moves

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS4Y2P_J1SM_t2pJJY4qDUuoWHw_bAPvNGB9w&s

This is one of those movies that feels a bit emptier to me than it should given the circumstances of its characters. But by the end of it, I really grew to appreciate the friendship between Roary and Jerry. By the end I wish I would have cared more about their bond. The movie does have a dated feel to me, and I'm kind of the opposite of everyone else, this 70s/80s era isn't one of my favorite film eras. Sometimes it all just feels too vanilla to me. I do like the feel of Donners films and by the end I'm fairly bought in, even if the ride to get there was bumpier than I would have hoped for.

3

Torgo

02-20-25, 02:10 PM

At Play in the Fields of the Lord - 4

There are many movies about conflicts between colonists and indigenous tribes from the early '90s, likely due to Dances with Wolves being a hit. Not all of them work - see (or rather, don't see) Medicine Man - but many are quite good like this one. What makes it stand out? It's in Native American "convert" Lewis Moon's conversation with missionary Martin Quarrier: "why do you want to change them? If the Lord made the Indians as they are, who are you people to make them different?" The movie lays out the consequences of doing so and mostly succeeds at tying them together.

People change in this movie, but are any of them Indians? I don't think so, at least not in the health sense (more on that later). At the personal level, in the hard to like Hazel Quarrier, we see how beliefs and prejudices become curses in a way that genuinely shocked me. I like how the changes at this level are not all negative, at least not in a better world. From stepping into a Catholic church for the first time to skinny-dipping, Andy exemplifies the open-mindedness resulting from expanding your horizons. As for Martin, had things gone differently, he might have become a different kind of crusader, i.e. one for indigenous people's rights. Does everyone change in this way? No, but in lead missionary Leslie, we see in disturbing fashion how easily potential change is dismissed with scapegoats like "Satan." There's also changes unrelated to conscious actions; in short, disease. Besides not sugarcoating its devastation to both parties, the movie wisely explores how each one rationalizes disrase and how it belies the missionaries' aims. I predicted that the most popular quote - and reason to stay up at night - on IMDB is "then why did God make the mosquito," and I was right. Finally, we have changes that would not occur if greed were not a thing, which we already know impacts much more than lives, culminating in an indelible image that is hopefully not all we will leave behind on this planet when we're gone.

This is not the first and will not be the last story about the consequences of not leaving well enough alone. While this is not the best story like this, it still deserves credit for staying true to history, and again, proving that the fallout does not only affect the natives. What keeps this from being better is its excessive running time, which you really feel in its meandering third act. Also, I'd like to say this movie has one of the best casts I've seen lately, but then, there's Daryl Hannah's deer in the headlights performance. The "colonists vs. the indigenous" trend is one of the '90s most interesting ones, with Dances with Wolves and maybe The Last of the Mohicans being the only ones the average movie lover will remember in the long run. This one may not reach their heights, but Universal should have promoted it more anyway.

edarsenal

02-20-25, 05:51 PM

https://rudighedini.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/153-rocco-e-i-suoi-fratelli-luchino-visconti-1959.jpg
https://thecinemaarchives.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/rocco-alskdfj-lakdsjf-alsdkjf-e1599070957710.jpg

Rocco e i suoi fratelli aka Rocco and his brothers (1960)

I've been placing My Blind Grab Nom on Jab's Movie Challenge for about three years in hopes of finally watching it. In summary, it is an excellent film that I will never watch again. I do not regret watching it, and I am thrilled to have finally done so.

My initial excitement was enhanced by its placement following Leila's Brothers and quickly rewarded within moments of their arrival by train. The dysfunction is beautifully hidden beneath the closeness of familial love, coping with a difficult move to the city. I was enamored. Very beautifully shot, there is a leisurely introduction to the brothers' spectrum of persona, from good and earnest ones to the bully/coward and, for me, the far more despicable, his enabler, played by Alain Delon. These two extremes of masculine toxicity are the reason I will never see this again. Rocco's misguided martyr and brotherly love mushroomed my initial rage and disgust at Nadia's rape to a litany of WTF?! for the remainder of the film.
Annie Girardot's performance of Nadia was extraordinary. The nuances were captivating, from the carefree woman in need of a coat to the two brothers' culminating victimization. I definitely need to find more of her work.

Takoma11

02-20-25, 06:00 PM

Very beautifully shot, there is a leisurely introduction to the brothers' spectrum of persona, from good and earnest ones to the bully/coward and, for me, the far more despicable, his enabler, played by Alain Delon. .

I recently watched another film where someone referred to as a "saint" did some pretty heinous stuff. I'm starting to think that my definition of "a saint" and the Italian film industry's definition of "a saint" are very much not the same.

edarsenal

02-20-25, 06:28 PM

I recently watched another film where someone referred to as a "saint" did some pretty heinous stuff. I'm starting to think that my definition of "a saint" and the Italian film industry's definition of "a saint" are very much not the same.

I've had that internal monologue myself.

jiraffejustin

02-20-25, 09:51 PM

Rocco and His Brothers

I'm torn on this one. On one hand, it's obvious to me that it's a very well made film. It looks great, the acting is all very good. Alain Delon is an icon. I think I am confused about the point of the film though, as I don't fully understand Rocco's commitment to his brother, I also didn't understand the leap his brother made to do what he did in the field. It was a pretty shocking scene that caused me to struggle with the rest of the movie. The act itself wasn't what shocked me, but how abrupt it felt and how whipped Rocco was to his brother after that despite hating him. I do think the ending is great and would have worked better if I could understand how we got there a little better. Watching Leila and Rocco back to back like that took a lot out of me, as both movies stressed me out and had long run times. I got some catching up to do.

Takoma11

02-20-25, 10:09 PM

I also didn't understand the leap his brother made to do what he did in the field.

While I am also somewhat baffled by Rocco's dedication to his deadbeat brother, what happens in the field does make sense to me.

Simone has just been humiliated in a boxing match and berated by his coach. On the same night, he finds out that Nadia and Rocco are a couple. The combination upsets him, and he goes out looking to make trouble. Conveniently, assaulting Nadia is a punishment for both her and Rocco, and sexually assaulting a woman who has done sex work is (also conveniently) a violent crime that no one would report or, if it was reported, take seriously. Because Simone, at the core, is a loser. He has to bring a whole gang to overpower Nadia and Rocco.

And if you're talking about the murder, notice that it likewise follows men in power rejecting Simone, and even more specifically, Rocco "taking" something that "belongs" to Simone (boxing stardom).

Some people are just like that: they take out their grievances on people who have less power than them.

Takoma11

02-22-25, 05:26 PM

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fprod-images.tcm.com%2FMaster-Profile-Images%2Finsidemoves1980.79269.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=4d10808808ef83d8f3f69de7cb149170864c784f128065ac70a68454e55302b3&ipo=images

Inside Moves, 1980

Roary (John Savage) is left with permanent injuries after attempting to take his own life. Once released from the hospital, he finds his way to a local bar where he connects with a group of men who all have their own different degrees of disability. In particular, Roary befriends Jerry (David Morse), a man whose leg injury scuttled his basketball potential. Roary also begins a tentative will-they-won’t-they with waitress Louise (Diana Scarwid).

A subtle character drama goes slightly askew with a larger-than-life subplot.

For me, this was a tale of two different movies.

First, let’s talk about the movie here that I liked. Partway through the film, Roary finally finds the courage to talk to his new friend group about how he was injured and his attempted suicide. As he describes the events, he admits that there wasn’t something in particular that led him to that moment. We can see in his inability to articulate what drove him to such a desperate act, and in Savage’s withdrawn performance, that Roary is a person who has not had enough meaningful connection in his life.

What this film shows us in Roary’s story is the importance of community and connection. Roary becomes a part of a group, and this gives him the courage to take the big step of beginning to manage the bar. I really appreciated that Roary does not transform into a social butterfly. In fact, we still see him frequently off to the side, on his own, not part of a rollicking good time. But you can see that he is happier. With children, this is called parallel play. It’s where you are happy doing something, even if you aren’t engaged directly with others. Roary has found a sense of belonging, and I really liked how Savage showed this change in the character as the film went on.

I also appreciated the film’s acknowledgement that dating with any kind of exceptional circumstance can be very challenging. Both Roary and Louise are inexperienced with a romantic/sexual relationship that involves someone with a physical disability. Neither knows what to expect, Louise is obviously worried about doing something wrong, and Roary is obviously worried that he won’t be “good enough.” Roary chooses to friend-zone Louise for a significant portion of the film, preferring to totally avoid the risk of being hurt.

And while she does come off at times a little bit like a Mary Sue, I liked Scarwid as Louise quite a lot. She’s just an all-around nice person. I think that in some ways, it’s important for her to be such a straight-ahead person, because it shows us just how much the threat of rejection and shame is in Roary’s head.

But the movie-in-the-movie here that didn’t really click for me was Jerry’s whole subplot, which feels like some strange wish fulfillment fantasy. Jerry goes to a Golden State Warriors game where he heckles one of the players, Alvin (Harold Sylvester). He then follows that player down the tunnel after the game, challenges the player to a one-on-one game, and almost wins. For me, this just felt disconnected from reality. Morse’s performance is fine, but the storyline is just too outlandish (and only more so as the film goes on).

I was also very torn on the portrayal of Anne/Mouse (Amy Wright), Jerry’s on-again/off-again girlfriend who is addicted to drugs and engages in sex work to support her habit. Drug addiction is a disability, and yet Anne is afforded very little sympathy in the film. She’s presented mainly as an obstacle that stands in the way of Jerry’s happiness and success.

Finally, for a hang out movie, I didn’t love the group of guys at the bar. A guy named Stinky who enjoys porn about having sex with a woman who you babysat when she was a child is not my idea of a fun person. I think that the actors have fine chemistry with each other, and get the job done of drawing Roary into a sense of belonging, but I wasn’t pining for more time with them. Their best moment is when they all go road tripping to try and find Alvin’s house.

I wish this one had confined itself more to a character study of Roary and him finding that sense of community.

3.5

cricket

02-22-25, 07:19 PM

I was also very torn on the portrayal of Anne/Mouse (Amy Wright), Jerry’s on-again/off-again girlfriend who is addicted to drugs and engages in sex work to support her habit. Drug addiction is a disability, and yet Anne is afforded very little sympathy in the film. She’s presented mainly as an obstacle that stands in the way of Jerry’s happiness and success.

I agree wholeheartedly, except unfortunately it's consistent with real life for the most part.

Finally, for a hang out movie, I didn’t love the group of guys at the bar. A guy named Stinky who enjoys porn about having sex with a woman who you babysat when she was a child is not my idea of a fun person.

This was certainly a misstep. The fantasy for a guy is normally to be with their babysitter.

TheManBehindTheCurtain

02-23-25, 01:40 AM

At Play in the Fields of the Lord (1991)
Director: Héctor Babenco
Key Cast: Tom Berenger, John Lithgow, Aidan Quinn, Daryl Hannah, Kathy Bates, Tom Waits

3.5

105421

Two small planes arrive at the remote Brazilian village of Mãe de Deus (Portuguese for Mother of God), far up the Amazon. The first is piloted by Lewis Moon (Tom Berenger), with comrade Wolf (Tom Waits) along for the ride. They’ve run out of gas, and the local police captain, asserting he has no way to tell if they are tourists or criminals, confiscates their passports, effectively holding them captive.

The second is shepherding a family of protestant missionaries to their new assignment. Martin Quarrier (Aidan Quinn) is full of zeal for this adventure, his wife Hazel (Kathy Bates) is belligerent and condescending toward those she considers savages, and their young son is full of curiosity. They’re met by Leslie Huben (John Lithgow) and his wife Andy (Daryl Hannah), who oversee the conversion of local tribes. It will be the Quarrier family’s mission to bring Jesus to a seemingly hostile, isolated tribe known as the Niaruna.

And there you already know it. This will end in tragedy. From the outset we’re asking: Have we learned nothing?

The police captain wants the Niaruna cleared out, somewhat for their own good since he knows the encroaching miners and settlers will eventually push them out at gunpoint, and somewhat for his own benefit to avoid that trouble. He offers Moon and Wolf a deal: he’ll return their papers and provide a tank of gas if they toss a few bombs out over the Niaruna village to “scare them away.” If some die, well, it can’t be helped. Surprisingly, Moon, who is part Cheyenne, reluctantly agrees. But on his pass over the Niaruna village Moon spots a young native shooting an arrow at the plane. Something clicks. He calls off the bombing run and returns to the town.

That evening, a barroom encounter between Moon and Martin Quarrier frames the major themes that director Héctor Babenco begins to explore. Quarrier shares his delight at learning the word for Great Spirit in the Sioux language is very similar to the Niaruna’s word for Great Spirit. Moon explodes in anger. There were greater similarities between his people and the Crow and Shoshone, he retorts, and yet they killed the Crow and Shoshone every chance they got. And the Crow and Shoshone killed his people too. Because, he says, they were too stupid to recognize their real enemy.

Moon pegs Quarrier for being both a true believer and an admirer of Indian culture. And Quarrier agrees. Then why do you want to change them, he asks. The Lord made Indians the way they are. Who are you to make them different? Quarrier has no answer. And by the time we get through this epic-length tale, there will still be no answers. Well, maybe one.

Later that evening, Moon chugs down a potent local hallucinogen and, in a state of delirium, flies off. Huben reaches Moon by radio, asking him what he’s doing. “I’m at play in the fields of the Lord,” he answers. The missionaries think he’s perished when the plane goes down. But he’s parachuted to safety. The Niaruna see him descending. Moon sheds his clothes and joins the Niaruna.

Meanwhile, the missionaries set out by boat to reinhabit the Catholic mission where, earlier, a priest and two nuns were murdered by the Niaruna. This takes you a third of a way into the narrative, where Babenco begins to taunt you with possibilities and then snatches them away. Moon’s early encounters with the Niaruna are filled with hopeful signs, as the men alternately challenge and accept him, the women giggle and stare, intrigued, and the children play happily with him. The missionaries encounter a deserted and nearly destroyed compound, but some of the previously converted natives return. They rebuild.

But as events unfold, as the interactions between two wholly divergent cultures undergo the expected misunderstandings and fallings-out, as disease besets them both, the tragedies mount.

Best Actor Oscar nods for 1991 films went to Anthony Hopkins (you know, Hannibal), Warren Beatty, Robert De Niro, Nick Nolte, and Robin Williams. So one can understand how Tom Berenger failed to find a spot in this crowd. But he certainly gave one of the most demanding, physically challenging, and downright brave performances of the year. Naked or barely clad (pun intended) through the vast majority of his on-screen presence, he seems completely at ease surrounded by the tribesmen. Through the joys, the arguments, the disappointments, the dangers, he maintains an even countenance, neither over or under acting his part as the man who straddles two worlds. Rarely betraying what's really on his mind.

In fact the entire ensemble acquitted themselves well. Lithgow perfectly personifies the officious and shallow head missionary, referring to the Catholics as rivals out to “steal” converts away from him, passing off moral offenses as God’s will. Quinn plays the naïve true believer with believable zeal, trying to be brave but coming off as mostly ineffectual. Kathy Bates personifies the distraught mother, throwing herself into a chilling psychotic episode. One could wish Daryl Hannah had more to do, but it was her role to drift in and out of the action, the sounding board for a range of themes.

Also notable? The natives were played by local tribespeople, who perform as convincingly as any professional actor, and in their rituals they are particularly fascinating to watch.

Filmed entirely in the Amazon, with meticulous attention to authenticity, the film has a visceral feel: the oppressive heat, relentless rain. The soundtrack perfectly reflects the beauty of the forest, almost as if echoing through the leaves. Setting to right tone, first ethereal, then foreboding.

And yet, as another 1991 film – the far superior “Black Robe” – demonstrates, a tighter narrative would have made a more convincing point. Chief among the weaknesses are the jarring transitions. For example, Moon joins the Niaruna tribe, knowing nothing of the language, and seemingly in a short time speaks fluently. Only later do we get some idea of the time gap when he explains to Quarrier that a native woman is his wife and her swaddling son is probably his.

Babenco also seems to think that lavishing long takes on scenery can evoke a sense of wonder. The missionary’s first trip up river is needlessly languid (maybe he wants to make it seem like a Conradian journey into the heart of darkness), but the same trip seems to happen later in a flash. Or Moon’s first flight to the Niaruna village, overly long, perhaps to instill awe, ala a similar scene from “Out of Africa.” And, aiming to portray the madness of the missionary’s goals, he beats us over the head with it. Multiple characters throughout essentially mutter the same thing, that the native people would have been better off had they been left alone. But a single, well timed and incisive statement might have had more impact. Then there’s the dying child wondering why God created mosquitoes: a touching moment one cannot fault, but whose manipulative staging is completely out of place in a clear-eyed film that works so hard, and effectively, to eschew sentimentality.

Both innocents and sinners die. Both sinners and innocents survive. Each character represents a different commentary on roles involved in this tragedy. Huben represents the persistence of the church, presenting a final report that is broadly factual but morally lacking. His wife is the observer, who takes it in, obviously disheartened, but merely turns and walks away. Martin Quarrier is the hapless true believer, who succeeds at absolutely nothing. His wife Hazel, who wanted nothing to do with the adventure, leaves damaged beyond repair. Moon, what to make of his final closeup?

“At Play in the Fields of the Lord” asks once again: have we learned nothing? And answers with a resounding No.

“At Play in the Fields of the Lord” invites us to think deeply about its themes, which is both its great strength and its great weakness. Its strength, because it is laden with ideas. Its weakness, because it is heaped so deeply with stereotypical criticism of Christian missionaries that I wonder if in fact Babenco has buried his much broader and more biting critique.

The title “At Play in the Fields of the Lord” is a loose reference to Jesus’s Parable of the Weeds. An enemy sows weeds in a wheat field. When they sprout, a servant asks if he should pull the weeds. No, the owner says. You may also uproot the wheat. Wait for the harvest, and separate them then.

But the parable speaks of laboring in the fields of the Lord. Not playing. When Moon coins the phrase, this crucial turn of phrase comes back later to hammer home a final, and perhaps controversial, point.

Consider the final, gut-wrenching events at the Niaruna village. Moon has taken medicine there but it is too late, and he can’t even stop the Niaruna from using it incorrectly. Martin Quarrier turns up, determined to warn the Niaruna to escape the impending assault by mercenaries, only to see they are so far gone they can’t be helped. Moon and Quarrier represent two extremes in the type of aid offered to the natives, yet neither has done anything that can inevitably save them.

They watch a tribesman, who will be the next chief, under the influence of a hallucinogen. He is dancing among his people, stroking their bodies, as if to wipe away the disease. It evokes images of born-again faith healers. The man in his frenzy might be acting out of true conviction, but so might a preacher. In either case, we know it is fruitless.

The final reveal shatters any shred of purpose Quarrier might have held on to. Moon confesses that the villagers didn’t embrace him as a benevolent god. They feared him. Because he descended from the sky they took him to be a messenger from Kisu, an evil spirit, bringer of bad luck. Quarrier turns over the words on his tongue: Kisu, Jesus. Quarrier realizes when he was teaching them about his benevolent Jesus they took it to mean their evil Kisu.

Quarrier: “So I taught them that Jesus was their evil spirit?”

Moon: “Ah, Jesus, Kisu, What’s the difference? It’s all hocus-pocus, isn’t it Martin?”

Undoubtedly the Catholic and Protestant missionaries are the instigators of this particular tragedy. We want to believe it’s that simple. But tragedy brought on by the inexorable march of “progress” was coming no matter what. Moon, the man who straddles both words, essentially pronounces: a pox on them all. Any belief in a benevolent god, or a great spirit … it’s all just human folly.

With “At Play in the Fields of the Lord,” you may be tempted to judge the film by your own beliefs, or prejudices, or superstitions, rather than by how effectively Babenco is making his own, much broader statement. He gives you plenty of wheat to chew on. But he might have given you more intellectual nourishment with much less chaff.

(And I'm cognizant of falling into the same trap with this overly long review! Mea Culpa.]

Torgo

02-23-25, 05:21 PM

lBut the movie-in-the-movie here that didn’t really click for me was Jerry’s whole subplot, which feels like some strange wish fulfillment fantasy. Jerry goes to a Golden State Warriors game where he heckles one of the players, Alvin (Harold Sylvester). He then follows that player down the tunnel after the game, challenges the player to a one-on-one game, and almost wins. For me, this just felt disconnected from reality. Morse’s performance is fine, but the storyline is just too outlandish (and only more so as the film goes on).

I was also very torn on the portrayal of Anne/Mouse (Amy Wright), Jerry’s on-again/off-again girlfriend who is addicted to drugs and engages in sex work to support her habit. Drug addiction is a disability, and yet Anne is afforded very little sympathy in the film. She’s presented mainly as an obstacle that stands in the way of Jerry’s happiness and success.

Finally, for a hang out movie, I didn’t love the group of guys at the bar. A guy named Stinky who enjoys porn about having sex with a woman who you babysat when she was a child is not my idea of a fun person. I think that the actors have fine chemistry with each other, and get the job done of drawing Roary into a sense of belonging, but I wasn’t pining for more time with them. Their best moment is when they all go road tripping to try and find Alvin’s house.3.5It is pretty fantastical when you think about it. I'll give the movie credit for making him play for the Warriors, which was a lovable loser team at the time, instead of the Lakers, for instance. It was also a nice touch to show that he played in the D-leagues for a while. Was it a worthy reward for having him accept his old friends' support? Sure, but it does take away from the movie's grounded vibe a bit. Would ending the movie with a D-league game, perhaps with Alvin as well as his friends in the audience have been better and more appropriate? Perhaps.

Takoma11

02-23-25, 07:29 PM

It is pretty fantastical when you think about it. I'll give the movie credit for making him play for the Warriors, which was a lovable loser team at the time, instead of the Lakers, for instance. It was also a nice touch to show that he played in the D-leagues for a while. Was it a worthy reward for having him accept his old friends' support? Sure, but it does take away from the movie's grounded vibe a bit. Would ending the movie with a D-league game, perhaps with Alvin as well as his friends in the audience have been better and more appropriate? Perhaps.

The very end, for me, was just too outlandish.

He gets to play in a NBA game, and coincidentally gets to see the guy who beat him up---in a totally unrelated subplot!--totally humiliated.

Citizen Rules

02-24-25, 01:50 PM

The Movie for Week 8 is:
105468
The Good the Bad the Weird (2008)
Director: Kim Jee-woon

Due date to watch/review: March 3rd

@MovieGal (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=80538) @jiraffejustin (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=76459) @John W Constantine (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=109412) @PHOENIX74 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=112080)
@rauldc14 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=60169) @edarsenal (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=50536) @Torgo (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=109334) @Takoma11 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=107735) @ueno_station54 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=111569) @stillmellow (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=124844) @cricket (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=68505) @TheManBehindTheCurtain

Don't fall too far behind because this HoF does not have a set date as to when it ends. It ends on a sliding bell curve...When all the noms have been posted from the members who are currently up to date with their reviews, I will at that point call for ballots, tally the results and reveal the winner.

We have 13 active members which equals about 1/4 of a year! That's plenty of time for a movie fan to watch the noms, so I won't be holding the door for stragglers for very long after the last movie is posted for the weekly watching.

*Keep an eye on the 1st post, that's were the review links and info are.

cricket

02-24-25, 04:43 PM

There must be some mistake, it's only 2 hrs 10 min

Citizen Rules

02-24-25, 06:16 PM

There must be some mistake, it's only 2 hrs 10 minI'm glad there's a couple of comedies to break up those long serious dramas:shifty:

MovieGal

02-24-25, 06:19 PM

I'm glad there's a couple of comedies to break up those long serious dramas:shifty:

This is a long movie too?..

I'm glad my nom isn't long..

Citizen Rules

02-24-25, 06:24 PM

This is a long movie too?..

I'm glad my nom isn't long..It's only 2 hours so not long. It's on Youtube.

MovieGal

02-24-25, 06:27 PM

It's only 2 hours so not long. It's on Youtube.

I found it on another streaming platform. Roku.

Citizen Rules

02-24-25, 06:33 PM

I found it on another streaming platform. Roku.Thanks, that's helpful.

TheManBehindTheCurtain

02-24-25, 06:34 PM

I was able to rewatch via Kanopy, no ads. Of course, depends on your local library system, but that's always where I check first.

Citizen Rules

02-24-25, 06:48 PM

I was able to rewatch via Kanopy, no ads. Of course, depends on your local library system, but that's always where I check first.
Kanopy is good and I use to have it by using a reciprocal library card to another library system that did have Kanopy, but during Covid they shut down that service which makes no sense as it was digital. It wasn't like I was walking into the library.

rauldc14

02-24-25, 07:30 PM

What happened to I Wear Pants?

Citizen Rules

02-24-25, 07:56 PM

What happened to I Wear Pants?MIA...so unless he pops in before the Hof ends and watches and reviews all the noms then his nom is out. I'm not holding my breath. But that's what I like about this method of 1 movie per week, so far no one has watched his nom so if he's dropped out and it's not a big issue.

MovieGal

02-24-25, 08:43 PM

105489

The Good, The Bad and The Weird
(2008)

This was a bit weird but in a good way. Not like the weird things I watch.

A Korean Western with a lot of action. Guns, knives and blood, nothing wrong with that. And everybody wanting the treasure map. A normal western? Not really the type of Westerns I watch. I like arthouse westerns or westerns with horror elements.

I like the action and the shoot outs. It would be nice to bring martial arts into the mix.

At first, when I saw the movie poster, it reminded me of a British-Japanese actor Andrew Koji, who started in a tv series called Warriors. It was set in the Old West. Guns, gangs, wealth, martial arts.

I did enjoy and would probably revisit at some point.

Oh by the way, westerns I'm referring to are The Keeping Room, The Dead Don't Hurt and The Wind. If you get a chance check them out.

Citizen Rules

02-24-25, 09:37 PM

MovieGal

02-24-25, 09:40 PM

And MovieGal is first on the board...The Good, The Bad and The Weird is a long title but not as long as my own nom. Those long titles are hard to fit into a double column post. BTW what does the 1st post look like on a phone? OK I hope and readable I hope.

Portrait or landscape..it was sideways.

https://i.ibb.co/ym0qZwj1/Screenshot-20250224-194015-Brave.jpg (https://ibb.co/RG2csxwm)

MovieGal

02-24-25, 09:43 PM

Straight up and down...I have a Samsung galaxy s10

https://i.ibb.co/QvL08x2h/Screenshot-20250224-194239-Brave.jpg (https://ibb.co/fdfJ8ThZ)

Citizen Rules

02-24-25, 09:44 PM

Portrait or landscape..it was sideways.

https://i.ibb.co/ym0qZwj1/Screenshot-20250224-194015-Brave.jpg (https://ibb.co/RG2csxwm)Thanks MG, can you read the entire 1st post or is anything jumbled up or not readable? I only use a computer so don't know.

MovieGal

02-24-25, 09:46 PM

Thanks MG, can you read the entire 1st post or is anything jumbled up or not readable? I only use a computer so don't know.

The fonts are off. If I view sideways , they aren't in order.its all jumbled up.

Citizen Rules

02-24-25, 09:51 PM

The fonts are off. If I view sideways , they aren't in order.its all jumbled up. Sorry about that. I don't know if that's fixable.

MovieGal

02-24-25, 09:52 PM

Sorry about that. I don't know if that's fixable.

You are on pc ..I'm on phone. That may be the issue.

Citizen Rules

02-24-25, 09:55 PM

You are on pc ..I'm on phone. That may be the issue.Yup. I mean I don't know how to make it look better on a phone.

John W Constantine

02-25-25, 01:43 AM

The Good the Bad the Weird (Jee-woon, 2008)

This was quite a ride, plenty of action, a treasure map, set in the vein of a western. Obviously the action set pieces were pretty entertaining. Don't know if I overly connected with any of our three main characters but a fun entertaining ride would be the best way to describe it.

Torgo

02-25-25, 07:43 PM

And yet, as another 1991 film – the far superior “Black Robe” – demonstrates, a tighter narrative would have made a more convincing point. Chief among the weaknesses are the jarring transitions. For example, Moon joins the Niaruna tribe, knowing nothing of the language, and seemingly in a short time speaks fluently. Only later do we get some idea of the time gap when he explains to Quarrier that a native woman is his wife and her swaddling son is probably his.Good call, Black Robe is very good and another worthy '90s "colonials vs. natives" movie. August Schellenberg, who you've probably seen in a lot of other stuff, is great in it. It's finally on Prime Video after only being on DVD for the longest.

Citizen Rules

02-25-25, 08:03 PM

I seen Black Robe a couple months ago right after I watched At Play in the Fields of the Lords, IMO no comparison. Black Robe dwells too much on guy-flick-action stuff with little meditative qualities but heavy on gruesome killing scenes. The acting was flat and I didn't connect to it.
My past review of Black Robe (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2516865#post2516865)

MovieGal

02-25-25, 09:45 PM

Are we talking about going in a converting Natives of other cultures to Christianity?

I watch on from New Zealand last weekend.

It's called The Convert.

It has Guy Pearce in it.

TheManBehindTheCurtain

02-25-25, 10:36 PM

Good call, Black Robe is very good and another worthy '90s "colonials vs. natives" movie. August Schellenberg, who you've probably seen in a lot of other stuff, is great in it. It's finally on Prime Video after only being on DVD for the longest.

I seen Black Robe a couple months ago right after I watched At Play in the Fields of the Lords, IMO no comparison. Black Robe dwells too much on guy-flick-action stuff with little meditative qualities but heavy on gruesome killing scenes. The acting was flat and I didn't connect to it.
My past review of Black Robe (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2516865#post2516865)

I can understand how it can strike viewers in different ways. The difference between the two movies, for me, comes down to the visceral feel of Black Robe. As the missionaries were going ever deeper into the wilderness, I just felt the danger; I just remember that feeling years and years after seeing it. And then the profound sadness of the final scene where the dying Indians return to be prayed over. There's just no scene in Fields that will stay with me like that.

MovieGal

02-25-25, 10:41 PM

@TheManBehindTheCurtain

Have you seen Silence (2016)?

Beautiful film but harsh to watch. The Japanese don't take to kindly to Jesuit priests trying to convert them.

TheManBehindTheCurtain

02-26-25, 01:03 AM

@TheManBehindTheCurtain

Have you seen Silence (2016)?

Beautiful film but harsh to watch. The Japanese don't take to kindly to Jesuit priests trying to convert them.

I had to look it up, but I do remember it now. All of these movies leave me with a sense of absolute amazement about what humans will be willing to do to remain true to their faith. The missionaries willingly go into the harshest and often the most hostile of environments to do their work. In Silence, many of the converted Japanese cling to their faith even in the face of excruciating torture.

After a little reading, I see that Neeson's character, Cristóvão Ferreira, was an historical figure. Evidently the novel on which the movie is based was highly regarded as largely factual in its core details.

Thanks for the reminder ...

(BTW, @-ing me doesn't work, though quoting does.)

Citizen Rules

02-26-25, 08:02 PM

I can understand how it [At Play in the Fields of the Lord] can strike viewers in different ways. The difference between the two movies, for me, comes down to the visceral feel of Black Robe. As the missionaries were going ever deeper into the wilderness, I just felt the danger; I just remember that feeling years and years after seeing it. And then the profound sadness of the final scene where the dying Indians return to be prayed over. There's just no scene in Fields that will stay with me like that.I can totally understand what you're saying and you're right Black Robe did that sense of foreboding and growing danger well. If a person is looking for that or responds to that then Black Robe would work perfectly for them. I also agree that the end scene in Black Robe was a powerful one. But like you said movies strike viewers differently, as we're all unique and want different things in movies.

It's hard for me to put into words what interested/resonated so much with me with At Play in the Fields of the Lord...but I can say it wasn't the actual conflict or danger between the missionaries and the natives, I'm not much of an action-thriller type of fan. For me what I liked the most was the realization by some of the missionaries (mainly Aidan Quinn) that what they were doing was not helping the natives but destroying them... and that 'god' can be found in the forest and the trees as the natives believed...and that one religious idea isn't superior over the other. Now if someone is devoutly Christian they might not like those themes of the movie but for me a non-religious person those themes did resonate with me.

I also liked the sense of discovering and being in an exotic location. I've long been interested in the Amazon and the south American jungle regions. Once my wife an I went to Panama and took a long river trip in this big canoe boat with a small outboard engine with a dozen or so people and we went way up this slow moving weed choked river to an Emberá (indigenous people) village which reminded me of the journey the missionaries took up river. I suppose there's other aspects of the film that resonated with me but those are two of the main ones.

TheManBehindTheCurtain

02-27-25, 12:31 AM

It's hard for me to put into words what interested/resonated so much with me with At Play in the Fields of the Lord...but I can say it wasn't the actual conflict or danger between the missionaries and the natives, I'm not much of an action-thriller type of fan. For me what I liked the most was the realization by some of the missionaries (mainly Aidan Quinn) that what they were doing was not helping the natives but destroying them... and that 'god' can be found in the forest and the trees as the natives believed...and that one religious idea isn't superior over the other. Now if someone is devoutly Christian they might not like those themes of the movie but for me a non-religious person those themes did resonate with me.

Fair enough. I did like At Play quite a lot as well; it just fell short on technical aspects, such as the pacing. I'm not familiar with the original novel, so I don't know how much the writers and Babenco added in terms of overall themes. I did manage to write a lot, and could have gone on even longer! But I think the salient points were all there, and would have remained intact if they could have condensed a lot of the atmospheric photography.

At the end of my spoiler commentary, I advocate for a different interpretation than merely "the missionaries were all at fault." The local police, the miners, the mercenaries ... they had no religious purpose and they contributed to the Niaruna's fate. And Moon had no traditional "religious" motivation either, and all his actions were for naught as well. And it is condescending to the natives to suggest they are all, every single one, prisoners of their own spirituality; that is, that they were so "primitive" that not a person among them could considered a path forward that wasn't in keeping with their religious traditions. When Moon first shows up, there's a debate among the men over whether to kill him or keep him. So it feels like a discussion among 'non believers" and "believers" about whether there really was such an entity as Kisu or whether this was just some dude that didn't want around. So when Moon says "It's all just hocus-pocus," I took away that the core theme here is that spirituality of all types is a lie we talk ourselves into believing, and acting in accordance with what "the great spirit" (whoever that is for you) rather than facing the stark facts of objective reality is folly.

Torgo

02-28-25, 10:27 AM

The Good, The Bad, The Weird - 4

Does this movie bear a striking similarity to another Western from the '60s beyond the title? Yes. Is that a bad thing? Not at all. First of all, you may be thinking, "a Western in Korea?" While it is quite funny at times, it is not just a tongue in cheek genre homage. It's rooted in actual history; namely, the situation between China, Japan and Korea you may remember from The Last Emperor that indeed made Manchuria resemble the Wild West. Luckily, the movie familiarizes you with this period organically and without relying on talking heads too much. Where this movie really shines, though, is that it's freakin' awesome!

The average Korean genre movie from the 2000s to...well, pretty much today is as reliable as entertainment gets, with this entry demonstrating that this rule does not just apply to action, crime and horror. I've seen Chinese and Hong Kong movies set in environments resembling the American west, but I was still struck by how much the Korean desert in this one also resembles it and how endless the movie makes it appear. As for the action, which features fistfights, gun, knife and sword play, it is even more thrilling and tactile than you would expect given the pedigree. The highlight is a chase scene that is among the most thrilling action scenes I've ever watched in a movie, Korean or otherwise, that to quote Nicolas Cage in Adaptation, defines "technology vs. horse." Last but not least, as high as the standards of the Western tropes in this movie may be, they would be for naught if the good, bad and ugly, ahem...weird trio did not also meet them, but that is thankfully not the case here. As much as I love Woo-sung and the venerable Kang-ho's work here, it is Byung-hun whose other work I want to explore the most and not just because I am the least familiar with it. If you're wondering why I did not mention who is who, well...I will say no more.

Again, this movie proves in highly entertaining fashion that every genre is apparently fair game for Korean filmmakers. It also manages to tell a fascinating history lesson about the consequences of occupation and puppet statehood at the same time. If you don't find the latter as interesting as I do, you will undoubtedly enjoy everything else regardless. Oh, and that especially goes for Byung-hun's impossibly cool Park Chang-yi, who I would cosplay if I could, but I'm honestly not sure if anyone could. I mean, does anyone else in the world have such good hair?

ueno_station54

02-28-25, 12:05 PM

https://d32qys9a6wm9no.cloudfront.net/images/movies/backdrop/84/39ce8f1fc5d1b6dc35e3f5007de221d2_706x397.jpg?t=1636102095
The Good, the Bad, the Weird (Kim Jee-woon, 2008)

Brash, cartoonish, and filled to the gills with action and humour and unfortunately I found none of it to be fun, exciting or engaging. Its something I've been noticing with bigger Korean films, whether its Park Chan-wook, Bong Joon-ho or Kim Jee-woon, these movies all have something that makes them feel the same and whatever it is it rubs me the wrong way. Like how McDonalds puts something in their food that makes it all taste the same, even the drinks somehow, the Korean film industry seemingly has this going on and I don't know what it is. The only thing I can identify is the cheap faux-slickness they all seem to have but it feels deeper than that. idk but either way this just didn't have me feeling much of anything. Like every scene I'm thinking "this should be fun" but the only time I actually found it to be fun was the big horseback action scene towards the end but it was too little, too late by then. That being said, there's movies I don't think work or things about them that don't work and then there's movies that don't work for me and this is a case where its very clearly the latter. I certainly get the appeal and its not like its done badly at any point (outside of a few cheap looking moments I guess) it just doesn't click with me sadly.

TheManBehindTheCurtain

03-01-25, 05:47 PM

The Good, the Bad, the Weird (2008)
Director: Kim Jee-woon
Key Cast: Song Kang-ho, Lee Byung-hun, Jung Woo-sung

4

105695

What better way to start a rollicking adventure than with a double cross. A wealthy businessman orders his assistant to deliver a map to a Japanese official named Kanemaru and collect payment. He’s arranged for an assassin to then steal it back from Kanemaru during a train trip. They’ll get the money and keep this valuable map too.

It won’t go as planned. Never does.

The assassin is Park Chang-yi (Lee Byung-hun), renowned for his ruthlessness and unerring success rate. But when Chang-yi and his gang stop and board the train (via the classic “train blasts through burning logs blocking the tracks set piece”), it interrupts petty thief Yoon Tae-goo (Sang Kang-ho) as, just coincidentally, he’s holding up Kanemaru and his cohort of military escorts and female traveling companions. As the train jerks to a stop, Tae-goo inadvertently shoots up the place, astonished at his luck at having survived. Tae-goo franticly begins collecting whatever booty he can find, which includes … hmm … a map. Chang-yi’s efforts to stop Tae-goo from escaping with the map are frustrated when bounty hunter Park Do-won (Jung Woo-sung) begins popping off shotgun blasts at the both of them.

Well, there you have it. The good, Do-won. The bad, Chang-yi. The Weird, Tae-goo.

Let’s backup; like the movie, I’m going pretty fast. Here are the broad stokes: It’s Manchuria, circa 1939. It’s the wild west, as viewed through the exaggerated lens of celebrated Korean director Kim Jee-woon. Though Manchuria is officially ruled by the Chinese, the Japanese have been there for many years, long before the official start of hostilities in July 1937. Besides the roaming Chinese and Japanese armies, Manchuria is awash in Russian opportunists, Korean freedom fighters, competing gangs of bandits, and opium dealers, but seemingly nothing like the equivalent of the local sheriff sporting an iconic tin badge.

At the center of the whirlwind is “the map,” which Tae-goo learns the Japanese believe reveals the location of treasure that can save their empire. To everyone who wants to get their hands on the map, that can mean only one thing: it leads to the lost, fabulous treasure of the Qing Dynasty. Which would be riches enough to fund the Japanese war effort, help the Korean freedom fighters succeed in their struggle, or make Tae-goo or any bandit horde wealthy beyond their wildest dreams. Through double crosses, madcap chases, and chaotic shootouts, the map changes hands as Chang-yi chases Tae-goo and Do-won chases them both, with rival gangs and soldiers nipping relentlessly at their heels.

Though the title “The Good, the Bad, the Weird” announces its intentions as few movies do, it’s more than just an homage to the Spaghetti Westerns of Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood. Director Kim himself coined the term Kimchi Western, and indeed he’s offering a spicier pastiche than the standard adventure recipes. There’s a frenetic shootout in the Ghost Market (the bandit’s hideout) as Do-won swings around rooftops on dangling ropes ala Spiderman. During a madcap, motorized pursuit in the desert, you’ll feel echoes of Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Road Warrior, and even Stagecoach. Watch Do-won riding a horse while shooting a rifle; tell me it doesn’t remind you just a bit of John Wayne. There’s even Jackie-Chan-esque prankish gunfight choreography when Tae-goo dons a diver’s helmet. And then, oh yes, the finale: the classic three-way Mexican standoff. The blocking and camera work tracking the eye movements of the three gunfighters manages to be just mirthful enough without descending into over-the-top ridiculousness.

In my personal pantheon of Westerns, TGTBTW earns a much higher ranking than TGTBTU. I found myself rooting for the characters more, particularly the boastful, clumsy Weird, who has a dark secret and yet takes time out to rescue children from an opium den. Kim Jee-woon’s non-stop action made for a far more enjoyable experience than Sergio Leone’s self-indulgent, ponderous saga. (TGTBTU’s soundtrack gets the nod, though TGTBTW is still atmospheric and fun.)

Jung Woo-sung, Lee Byung-hun, and Song Kang-ho were already stars when TGTBTW premiered in 2008, and each has gone on to even greater stardom in Korean historical dramas, adventure movies, and serious cinema. Each has worked again with Director Kim. Jung’s physicality and horsemanship elevates his turn as the bounty hunter who remains uncorrupted by the map’s allure. Lee is just mesmerizing as the seriously psychotic, peanut-munching assassin with the irritating haircut. Song is perhaps the most recognizable to Western audiences as the scheming father in the Oscar-winning film Parasite. He's endlessly entertaining, the master of the wide-eyed look of surprise, the boastful posture, the clumsy pratfall. It’s fun to think of comparable Hollywood casts in their younger days: maybe Brad Pitt, Keanu Reeves, and Steve Buscemi; or Tom Cruise, Leonardo DiCaprio, Johnny Depp. (But oh gosh, no, we don’t need a Hollywood remake!)

In 1939, Korea had been suffering under the yoke of Japanese colonial rule for four decades. In many South Korean movies and series of today, Manchuria in this period is a refuge where Korean freedom fighters go to hide or recoup, and Kim includes enough references to let Korean audiences know he hasn’t lost sight of that dark period. Characters talk wistfully about being able to get away from it all. In one of the few quieter moments, he also offers a bit of a tongue-in-cheek coda about centuries of struggle against neighboring superpowers as Do-won observes: “Life is about chasing and being chased. There is no escape.” To which Tae-goo replies. “Let me sleep, man. Stop making me think!” I think Korean audiences will catch even more hints of underlying resentment than I’m able to grok.

For those who want to think more deeply about their movie watching, TGTBTW isn’t perfect. Anyone who obsesses about continuity errors could probably have a field day. The tone shifts chaotically from slapstick to brutal violence (I made the mistake of doing the latest rewatch with my 81-year-old stepmom, and had to fast forward through the scene featuring a dull knife and a finger.)

Still, judging TGTBTW against its obvious intent, it’s an honest piece of entertainment that does not pretend to be anything more than it is. I first saw it circa 2010 via a DVD without subtitling. I actually didn’t need much interpretation; the action pulls you along with the story. It sits in a short list of movies to rewatch periodically.

Final hint: Make sure to watch into the credit roll for an epilogue of sorts. For the true fan, the TGTBTW also has alternate endings with slightly different twists that you may want to track down.

Citizen Rules

03-02-25, 01:13 PM

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvdbeaver.com%2Ffilm2%2FDVDReviews46%2Fgood_bad_weird_blu-ray%2Flarge%2Flarge_good_bad_weird_blu-ray_4.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=8161935ffe987eda7ff1ddcf0765be4dc259b3a266f82ddbc19b419b39321486&ipo=imagesThe Good, the Bad, the Weird (2008)

That guy with the hat and goggles was pretty funny and a good choice for our lead character as he was likable, personable and a hoot to watch. The scene with the two pretty girls in the opium den was my favorite. Not that I approve of using opium but it was funny how the girls kept blowing smoke in his face. And of course the three-way shootout was a neat nod to TGTBTU. So I think this movie hits all of it's marks and delivers just what it's trying to do. But as much as I admire the skill in making this, it's a big film with big chases and lots of choreographed action that must've been hard to pull off stage, still this isn't really my type of movie. I've never liked Jackie Chan comedy-martial arts films or Tarantino movies or rock-em sock-em Rambo type action movies. But I will say this one was well done and so impressed me in that way with lots of different scenes, tons of creativity, great world building and shooting locations and well done characters that were as wild and woolly as the movie was. So even though this isn't really my bag I think it's a good choice for an HoF as it's unique.

cricket

03-02-25, 06:06 PM

The Good, the Bad, the Weird

https://images.ctfassets.net/m3qyzuwrf176/312SSOIckMU9OmBnxUFOiD/c6be77ac37abd8783df7c17961e9b933/Dec15_GOOD_BAD_WEIRD_Song1__1_banner.jpg?fm=webp&w=2000

I'm in the same camp at ueno and CR with this movie. I've seen it before, and I figured it was a previous HoF because it's not something I'd watch on my own, but I don't see it listed anywhere. It must have been a group watch or something like that.

I remember thinking it was entertaining, and it still was. I don't know though, I mostly sat there stone faced. It's not really my type of humor or action. I prefer darker, edgier, more realistic. It's of high quality like a Hollywood film, except I've soured on Hollywood films over the last few years. I think being a Korean film helped somewhat. It's the actors who played the bad and the weird who saved this for me. I've seen them in quite a few films and I'm a fan of both. I get the popularity but it's not quite for me.

3

I_Wear_Pants

03-03-25, 12:38 AM

I didn't nominate Good Bad Weird like I thought I might have. It's my favorite film. The endless action and the glorious set pieces with that popping music is just awesome. I won't disparage it at all. There are no negatives. I watch the movie a handful of times every year just because I enjoy it so much. In fact, without realizing it was a Hall movie, I watched Good Bad Weird a couple of weeks ago. Sure Good Bad Weird is fluffy but who cares when the fluff is so enjoyable? It's also my feel-good movie (which thankfully I've needed less and less recently). If someone asks me for a recommendation of an entertaining film, this is my answer in about half a second.

jiraffejustin

03-03-25, 04:29 AM

GoldenEye

I am not the biggest Bond fan in the world, but it might just be that I haven't seen the right ones. To me, Brosnan doesn't seem like Bond material but he's not helped by the script or really any other aspect of this production. He is dripping with the opposite of charisma, the one-liners suck, and his outfit when they go to Cuba...wtf is that? James Bond should not be confused with a zookeeper. There is no weight behind the reveal of Sean Bean's character because the setup is so quick and abrupt that you don't feel anything for it. In fact, you expect it in a film like this. I was rolling my eyes at the airplane stunt, but I will say I did find parts of the tank stunt amusing even if Brosnan looked like a dolt every time he popped his head up in it. I liked the lighting when he was brought into the holding cell for interrogation. I would have preferred to play the video game for two hours instead of watching this. My apologies to whoever nominated this, I appreciate an action movie being nominated, unfortunately this one just didn't work for me.

John W Constantine

03-03-25, 01:06 PM

You can't win them all.

Citizen Rules

03-03-25, 01:27 PM

You can't win them all.I know that for a fact! I've had a number of my HoF noms end up last or close to it. After being in so many HoFs you'd think I could pick a movie that would be well liked:p

I think your nom is getting overall positive response. I suppose any Bond film makes it hard to please everyone, as people either like the idea of Bond or loath it. Then for Bond fans we all have our favorite actors who played Bond so that makes it a challenge too. Yours is only the second Bond film to be in an HoF, the other was Raul's nom and it was Goldfinger (1964) which I really liked but not everyone was down with Sean Connery's 'romantic' ways with the ladies:eek:

TheManBehindTheCurtain

03-03-25, 01:46 PM

I didn't nominate Good Bad Weird like I thought I might have.

That would be me! :)

Also on my list of frequently rewatched movies. I first watched it on a Korean DVD ... no subtitles, and I was able to follow along with the story line pretty well. The DVD had some special features on the making of the film; I've read that Kim Jee-won is very particular about the packaging of the DVDs. In that train scene where Tae-goo pitches forward and you get this view of the world turning upside down, they showed how they put a cameraman inside a barrel and actually rolled him forward. It was a rental ... would like to get my hands on that one again ...

Citizen Rules

03-03-25, 01:59 PM

The Movie for Week 9 is:
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.o0EgtFdKKS95Dfs9kLjv4QHaEK%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=3e76cb73675492b091520c7473e172c28de1e4da67e50d24fe693d3b3c9586a0&ipo=images
Blue (1993)
Director Derek Jarman

Due date to watch/review: March 11th

@MovieGal (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=80538) @jiraffejustin (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=76459) @John W Constantine (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=109412) @PHOENIX74 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=112080)
@rauldc14 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=60169) @edarsenal (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=50536) @Torgo (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=109334) @Takoma11 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=107735) @ueno_station54 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=111569) @stillmellow (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=124844) @cricket (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=68505) @TheManBehindTheCurtain

*Keep an eye on the 1st post, that's were the review links and info are.

MovieGal

03-03-25, 02:39 PM

Citizen Rules

03-03-25, 02:44 PM

Blue (1993) is on Youtube. Also on Hoopla, Kanopy and Plex for free.

John W Constantine

03-03-25, 02:58 PM

I know that for a fact! I've had a number of my HoF noms end up last or close to it. After being in so many HoFs you'd think I could pick a movie that would be well liked:p

I think your nom is getting overall positive response. I suppose any Bond film makes it hard to please everyone, as people either like the idea of Bond or loath it. Then for Bond fans we all have our favorite actors who played Bond so that makes it a challenge too. Yours is only the second Bond film to be in an HoF, the other was Raul's nom and it was Goldfinger (1964) which I really liked but not everyone was down with Sean Connery's 'romantic' ways with the ladies:eek:
I'm sure I could pick a few choices that I'm certain would win one of these. I prefer to try something a little more difficult and pick things that are more (not completely) obscure and win some members over by surprise maybe. Or I just enjoy wasting people's time, haven't made up my mind yet.

MovieGal

03-03-25, 03:15 PM

I could pick some weird stuff like in past HOF.

Lately, I try to be considerate of other members.

Citizen Rules

03-03-25, 03:16 PM

I'm sure I could pick a few choices that I'm certain would win one of these. I prefer to try something a little more difficult and pick things that are more (not completely) obscure and win some members over by surprise maybe. Or I just enjoy wasting people's time, haven't made up my mind yet.Yeah, I've picked obscure noms where no one had seen them before, but that's just the kind of movies I often like. Not to say I might pick a super big film someday, I like those too.

rauldc14

03-03-25, 04:06 PM

Still looking for a suitable way to watch At Play in the Fields of the Lord. Ok.ru really doesn't work well for me.

I_Wear_Pants

03-03-25, 04:28 PM

That would be me! :)

Also on my list of frequently rewatched movies. I first watched it on a Korean DVD ... no subtitles, and I was able to follow along with the story line pretty well. The DVD had some special features on the making of the film; I've read that Kim Jee-won is very particular about the packaging of the DVDs. In that train scene where Tae-goo pitches forward and you get this view of the world turning upside down, they showed how they put a cameraman inside a barrel and actually rolled him forward. It was a rental ... would like to get my hands on that one again ...

Ah okay. I remember what I nominated now, except it hasn't been up for watching so is it okay if I don't say what it is yet?

That's pretty cool. It's fun to watch stuff like that.

Citizen Rules

03-03-25, 04:32 PM

Still looking for a suitable way to watch At Play in the Fields of the Lord. Ok.ru really doesn't work well for me.It can be rented from Apple TV and Fandango At Home. Do you own a laptop? That should allow ok.ru to work. I'll also look for some free links.

Citizen Rules

03-03-25, 04:36 PM

Still looking for a suitable way to watch At Play in the Fields of the Lord. Ok.ru really doesn't work well for me.You probably need the ok.ru app for your android phone, you can download the app for free, just like a youtube app.

TheManBehindTheCurtain

03-03-25, 04:37 PM

Ah okay. I remember what I nominated now, except it hasn't been up for watching so is it okay if I don't say what it is yet?

Well, I confess that I already know what you nominated. On the second page of this thread is a complete list of noms and who put them forward ...

rauldc14

03-03-25, 04:40 PM

Well, I confess that I already know what you nominated. On the second page of this thread is a complete list of noms and who put them forward ...

I don't think he's in any more. He hasn't reviewed anything.

I_Wear_Pants

03-03-25, 04:41 PM

Well, I confess that I already know what you nominated. On the second page of this thread is a complete list of noms and who put them forward ...

Oh I wasn't aware. Never mind then. I see what you did there. I still don't have a copy... I recall in Noirvember Citizen had us keep it under wraps what we nominated. I guess that changed?

I_Wear_Pants

03-03-25, 05:13 PM

As usual: Any movie that you feel is worthy of an HoF, that's under 240 minutes can be nominated...Previous HoF winners are excluded. Movies that were HoF nominated in the past but didn't win are still eligible. [SIZE=3]One specific movie will be posted to watch each week. The next week will be a different movie posted and so on.

I totally forgot about this. I've been busy with other things and forget easily. Is it too late to participate?

Citizen Rules

03-03-25, 05:18 PM

I totally forgot about this. I've been busy with other things and forget easily. Is it too late to participate?No problem, no worries🙂 We're all friends here and your nom hasn't come up yet so it's no big deal. You don't have to start watching all the movies at this late date if you don't want to.

But if you really, really want to still participate you can but you'd have to watch all 13 movies and review them before your nom is put back into the HoF.

I_Wear_Pants

03-03-25, 05:34 PM

No problem, no worries🙂 We're all friends here and your nom hasn't come up yet so it's no big deal. You don't have to start watching all the movies at this late date if you don't want to.

But if you really, really want to still participate you can but you'd have to watch all 13 movies and review them before your nom is put back into the HoF.

When does it end?

Citizen Rules

03-03-25, 05:35 PM

When does it end?Approximately 5 weeks from now.

I_Wear_Pants

03-03-25, 05:46 PM

Approximately 5 weeks from now.

Sure I can watch 12 movies in five weeks. I've seen Gone with the Wind and Good Bad Weird already, so it'll be fun to watch the others. Are there 13 or 14 nominees, including mine? I have Past Lives on its way from the library and I'll rent At Play in the Fields of the Lord on Apple TV some time this week. I might still have Goldeneye in a box.

Addendum; I counted the list on page two, and saw there are 14 including I Confess, so I need to watch 11 movies in four or five weeks to get this done. I can do it. Sorry I forgot. I get busy with things and lose track of other things.

Citizen Rules

03-03-25, 05:56 PM

Sure I can watch 12 movies in five weeks. I've seen Gone with the Wind and Good Bad Weird already, so it'll be fun to watch the others. Are there 13 or 14 nominees, including mine? I have Past Lives on its way from the library and I'll rent At Play in the Fields of the Lord on Apple TV some time this week. I might still have Goldeneye in a box.

Addendum; I counted the list on page two, and saw there are 14 including I Confess, so I need to watch 11 movies in four or five weeks to get this done. I can do it. Sorry I forgot. I get busy with things and lose track of other things.Yup 14 including your nom is correct. Sounds like you've already seen this https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2522706#post2522706

I_Wear_Pants

03-03-25, 05:59 PM

Yup 14 including your nom is correct. Sounds like you've already seen this https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2522706#post2522706

Yeah I found that post a little bit ago. I decided to save the post on my computer to help me keep track. I found Goldeneye but it was damaged so I have Goldeneye and Past Lives on their way to the library, and At Play in the Fields of Our Lord rented on Apple TV. I'll stop acquiring for now so I can watch those three, and then pick up from there.

rauldc14

03-03-25, 06:13 PM

That's cool if Pants is back. I'd like to rewatch his nomination.

I_Wear_Pants

03-03-25, 07:07 PM

Yup 14 including your nom is correct. Sounds like you've already seen this https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2522706#post2522706

Do you want me to post reviews of the two I've seen? They won't be long reviews because I don't really do long reviews. I can provide some thoughts though.

MovieGal

03-03-25, 07:08 PM

Do you want me to post reviews of the two I've seen? They won't be long reviews because I don't really do long reviews. I can provide some thoughts though.

I don't do long reviews so it's ok

Citizen Rules

03-03-25, 07:13 PM

Do you want me to post reviews of the two I've seen? They won't be long reviews because I don't really do long reviews. I can provide some thoughts though.Only post reviews for the movies that are on the very 1st post, we haven't gotten to them all yet but will for those hold of until they are posted. You don't have to do long or fancy reviews but your thoughts on the movie is a big plus:)

Citizen Rules

03-03-25, 07:13 PM

I don't do long reviews so it's okSometimes I feel like I have a lot to say about a movie and the words come easy, then other times I just can't think of much to say.

MovieGal

03-03-25, 07:16 PM

Sometimes I feel like I have a lot to say about a movie and the words come easy, then other times I just can't think of much to say.

You know me... if I really like a movie, I will write forever..kind of like my The Bunny Game review. Lol

I_Wear_Pants

03-03-25, 07:23 PM

I don't do long reviews so it's ok

I like to keep it simple. I posted thoughts on Good Bad Weird somewhere on this site recently except I can't remember what thread that was. I can expand on that some. The post is only a paragraph or two long.

Gone with the Wind I saw a few years ago so I wonder if I should rewatch it for this Hall. I remember liking it without having much desire to watch it again. The visuals are really good and I liked the performances. The characters weren't my favorite and I felt the movie needed a trim. Overall the film is certainly good. However I wouldn't call it a masterpiece. Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable were enjoyable in their pattering, and of course the ending, and Hattie McDaniel were good. It just went long.

The Civil War backdrop worked for the story and I get the societal implications both of when it was set and when it was made. I mentioned in an Oscar thread a few days ago how I feel the Academy Awards are time capsules for when they come out, and I think Gone with the Wind is a time capsule too, both for the American Civil War, and America in the 1930s. Would I have liked it more if I saw it in 1939? I probably would have. Did I hate it in 2012? Not at all. I just wasn't completely impressed. It can't be what I consider a "neat little film" because it is not little. It's a powerhouse. If it sounds like I hate the film, I don't. I do like it. I think you just "had to be there".

I_Wear_Pants

03-03-25, 07:26 PM

Only post reviews for the movies that are on the very 1st post, we haven't gotten to them all yet but will for those hold of until they are posted. You don't have to do long or fancy reviews but your thoughts on the movie is a big plus:)

Yes sir! I can't recall where that post went. I can post something else if necessary. I've just never felt the need to write lengthy reviews.

MovieGal

03-03-25, 07:26 PM

I like to keep it simple. I posted thoughts on Good Bad Weird somewhere on this site recently except I can't remember what thread that was. I can expand on that some. The post is only a paragraph or two long.

Gone with the Wind I saw a few years ago so I wonder if I should rewatch it for this Hall. I remember liking it without having much desire to watch it again. The visuals are really good and I liked the performances. The characters weren't my favorite and I felt the movie needed a trim. Overall the film is certainly good. However I wouldn't call it a masterpiece. Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable were enjoyable in their pattering, and of course the ending, and Hattie McDaniel were good. It just went long.

The Civil War backdrop worked for the story and I get the societal implications both of when it was set and when it was made. I mentioned in an Oscar thread a few days ago how I feel the Academy Awards are time capsules for when they come out, and I think Gone with the Wind is a time capsule too, both for the American Civil War, and America in the 1930s. Would I have liked it more if I saw it in 1939? I probably would have. Did I hate it in 2012? Not at all. I just wasn't completely impressed. It can't be what I consider a "neat little film" because it is not little. It's a powerhouse. If it sounds like I hate the film, I don't. I do like it. I think you just "had to be there".

I will find for you

I_Wear_Pants

03-03-25, 07:28 PM

I will find for you

I think I found it on page 18. It's only a paragraph and not very descriptive. It sums up what I feel about the movie though.

Citizen Rules

03-03-25, 07:29 PM

....Gone with the Wind I saw a few years ago so I wonder if I should rewatch it for this Hall...The general HoF guideline is if you've seen a movie a number of times or recently seen it and you can remember it well enough, then you don't have to watch it. That goes back to Godoggo days. But if it's been a few years it's probably due for a rewatch for the HoF.

I_Wear_Pants

03-03-25, 07:31 PM

The general HoF guideline is if you've seen a movie a number of times or recently seen it and you can remember it well enough, then you don't have to watch it. That goes back to Godoggo days. But if it's been a few years it's probably due for a rewatch for the HoF.

All right cool. I will think about it.

Here's the post, I think, of the snippet I typed of Good Bad Weird:
Good Bad Weird paragraph by Pants. (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2539768#post2539768)

If it doesn't work, let me know. I could have done it wrong. I can also expand on that if you want.

Citizen Rules

03-03-25, 07:34 PM

All right cool. I will think about it.

Here's the post, I think, of the snippet I typed of Good Bad Weird:
Good Bad Weird paragraph by Pants. (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2539768#post2539768)

If it doesn't work, let me know. I could have done it wrong. I can also expand on that if you want.That review that you posted works perfectly. Read some of the other members reviews, some are detailed some are short...it's all good.

Citizen Rules

03-03-25, 07:36 PM

Take a look at the 1st post, I just linked your review. That's where I will link all of them as they are posted.

I_Wear_Pants

03-03-25, 07:37 PM

That review that you posted works perfectly. Read some of the other members reviews, some are detailed some are short...it's all good.

Perfect. Sounds good. I will now galavant to the first post and see what I need to watch next. Which apparently was not Gone with the Wind. Oops. I did rent At Play in the Fields of Our Lord on Apple TV and I have Goldeneye and Past Lives on their way to the library. I'm catching up!

cricket

03-03-25, 08:30 PM

I've started Blue and I just wanted to say that the audio is probably as important as any other film I've seen. If you've got stereo headphones, surround sound, whatever, use it.

PHOENIX74

03-03-25, 11:53 PM

https://i.postimg.cc/bw5qCB7p/the-good-the-bad-the-weird.jpg

The Good, the Bad, the Weird - 2008

Directed by Kim Jee-woon

Written Kim Jee-woon & Kim Min-suk

Starring Song Kang-ho, Lee Byung-hun & Jung Woo-sung

It's a funny thing - I usually head towards World Cinema for a refreshing break from big-budget blockbusters that offer little other than explosive and violent thrills, but sometimes a foreign director embraces the way it's done in Hollywood and I find myself feeling like I'm visiting Soel but eating at a regular Burger King (it's Hungry Jack's here in Australia - so as not to offend royalty I guess.) I know, I know, everyone will be quick to point out that the film which The Good, the Bad, the Weird is based on, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, was a Spaghetti Western, and as such a foreign film itself. But Kim Jee-woon's ode to that Sergio Leone classic owes a lot to action-packed blockbusters from America, raining fire and brimstone upon the characters (and the audience) while keeping everything moving so fast, so relentlessly, that it actually feels like we're furiously chasing our tails. Even Indiana Jones stops every once and a while so we can gather ourselves - and I doubt if even he could have lasted 139 minutes at full throttle in his prime like this without giving some in the audience a stroke. The Good, the Bad, the Weird does what it does quite well though, so while I'm not entirely sold on it's non-stop action approach it works about as well as it can in this specific film. Elsewhere, I find movies of this ilk often tiresome.

Luckily we have three well-drawn characters, all performed with panache. Park Chang-yi, the Bad (Lee Byung-hun) has been tasked with robbing a train and delivering the precious booty onboard, a map, to his benefactor who is hoping to steal it back after selling it. Yoon Tae-goo, the Weird (Song Kang-ho) is a bandit who just so happens to be raiding the same train, not knowing how precious an item it is he's about to steal. Chang-yi's mob surprise him when they make their move. Park Do-won, the Good (Jung Woo-sung) has been tasked with taking down Chang-yi so he can deliver the map to other interested parties and collect on the bounty that's being offered to him by officials. When Tae-goo escapes with the map the other two parties are soon in pursuit, and joined by a group of Manchurian bandits along with, eventually, the Japanese military juggernaut in a frantic race for this "treasure map" that might arguably lead to the riches hidden by the fading Qing dynasty, or else the key to Korean independence which the Japanese are desperate to beat freedom fighters to. In the end a trail of dead bodies, scorched earth and damaged property lead to a final confrontation between the good, the bad and the weird at the very point the map leads to.

Yes - I really liked the three main characters and the ability for Song Kang-ho, Lee Byung-hun and Jung Woo-sung to pull off what in any other movie might have been a trio of one-dimensional cardboard cutouts. Song Kang-ho is a South Korean acting juggernaut and larger than life personality that always puts his own personal stamp on his characters - a full-faced, expressive force of nature who often plays impish, playful roles. That's what he gets here, in charge of the "Eli Wallach" part - the most fun of the three, with Tae-goo being a fast-talker with all of the best comedic lines in the film. I'd say Kang-ho might be the most recognizable South Korean actor alive today. Funnily enough, Lee Byung-hun's big breakthrough came opposite Song Kang-ho himself in Joint Security Area (a great film I recommend), so this is something of a reunion - as different as he is here as the scarred, evil Chang-yi who projects cool confidence and utter ruthlessness at all times. The king of cool though is Jung Woo-sung who, even though he looks so familiar, I don't think I've seen in anything else personally. A small irk is when Korean characters in Korea wear Western garb as if they've raided the wrong wardrobe - but if Park Do-won wants to be a cowboy, I guess that's his choice. Woo-sung oozes sex appeal and is the most swoon-worthy of our three competing characters.

I don't know if costs are cheaper in South Korea but Kim Jee-woon gets a lot of bang for his buck for a $10 million budget. When you consider that Bong Joon-ho's Okja cost five times as much to make, and that this movie runs nearly two-and-a-half bone-crushing, period vehicle destroying, set exploding, bullet spraying hours. The movie looks expensive anyway - Lee Mo-gae's smooth cinematography sometimes butting heads with storyboarded editing that confused audiences and critics at times. Western shootouts have an optimum speed, and when you have more than one character shooting it out against gangs it helps not to bang and crash through the scenery at too high a rate. I wasn't unduly lost - bad guys have always popped up at random in movies like this, and the fact that Tae-goo is being chased by so many disparate characters and groups doesn't really change the fact that the narrative is very, very simple and not hard to grasp - I find it hard to understand why Empire called it "tangled", but sometimes I think viewers are trying to see more than is actually there, and as such think they're missing something. Even a late "finger chopper" twist isn't enough throw keen-eyed viewers for a loop.

I can't help getting the feeling that The Good, the Bad, the Weird might be a truly great action/adventure movie - I take a glance at the trailer for a sense of recall and I have to admit I nearly swoon over the set-pieces. There's a sense of spiritual affinity with the very best the genre has to offer when it comes to the die hard, dusty, exhilarating chase - and the cinematography does emphasise the "cool" aspect like no other movie I've seen so far this year. I think there were an accumulation of small quibbles that prevented me from absolutely loving it - for example, the sound design didn't quite gel with my preference to treat action like this seriously and not get zany. There's a profusion of CGI birds that hang around after festooning the credits, and I really don't like any animals that are obviously computer generated - it's always a minus. Modernized Mexican style music feels a little incongruent in a South Korean film with the action taking place in the deserts of Manchuria, so I wasn't vibing with this movie's score either. But aside from all of that, this is one movie I feel like I'm going to be seeing again just for it's kinetic visuals and fun comedic sensibility.

Just to be clear - I watched the Korean version of this film (which apparently has a different ending to the international version) and without giving away the ending it's the latter director Kim Jee-woon wanted. The darker ending. Overall I don't think the movie was too violent despite the sheer amount of gunfire happening and the fact that there's a "finger chopper" side-plot - it's not an ugly movie. That's because this isn't serious stuff, it's sheer spectacle - a romp that's meant to exhilarate and wow when not amusing us. What I at first thought was going to be a through-and-through western kind of veered into action/comedy territory, and it would only have taken a small tweak or two to completely remove the western visage it has. I couldn't help feeling the aura of Raiders of the Lost Ark throughout, as much as that film has influenced all films of it's ilk. The Good, the Bad, the Weird comes on pretty hard and makes a few mistakes during it's all-out assault on our senses, but there's plenty in it that's fantastic and captures that hard-to-define spirit which defines our long-cherished love of cinematic adventure.

3.5

John W Constantine

03-04-25, 12:11 AM

Blue (Jarman, 1993)

Been waiting for this one to come up as I watched it a few weeks ago. I could see someone either being completely enthralled with this or completely turned off. It's literally a blue screen with the voice (voices?) of our main character with an attention to sound while he narrates his story (thoughts). This felt almost like a semi horror film, definitely not mainstream to say the least (not that there's anything wrong with that). One of my favorite first timers this year and strong contender for my ballot.

stillmellow

03-04-25, 01:49 AM

Sorry I've been absent, I've been on vacation and then was swamped with work when I got back. I'll try catching up this week

stillmellow

03-04-25, 02:14 AM

I did watch both Rocco's Brothers and At Play in the Fields of the Lord before I left, and they were just too depressing for me to enjoy them. They're both very well made, but they drained too much from me, emotionally, to watch them again. As such, I have a difficult time rating them.

Of The two, I felt Rocco's Brothers worked better as a cohesive story and tragedy. Although, I preferred Leila's Brothers, which was similar in ways.

At Play in the Fields of the Lord was about oppressed natives, but gave most of the dialog and attention to white characters. It just rubbed me the wrong way, sorry.

cricket

03-04-25, 09:37 AM

Blue

https://www.moma.org/d/assets/W1siZiIsIjIwMjIvMDgvMTYvN2Z0NXAzZTR2eF9CbHVlLmpwZyJdLFsicCIsImNvbnZlcnQiLCItcXVhbGl0eSA5MCAtcmVzaXpl IDc3NXg1MjVeIC1ncmF2aXR5IENlbnRlciAtY3JvcCA3NzV4NTI1KzArMCJdXQ/Blue.jpg?sha=aafe1fb122843676

That's my favorite screenshot from the film above. It was also my least favorite. I think this film's effectiveness can not only vary by the type of viewer, but by what the viewer is going through or has gone through in life. I could picture it being unbearable for some. Fortunately that wasn't the case for me, but it was effective. I don't really have a desire to get into the narrative, but I will say that it's poetic, hypnotic, and moving. That's not to dismiss it because it's as real as it gets yet still unique. The blue screen is very interesting. I don't want to say it's not important, but I didn't care for it. I was in a pitch dark room, and after about 15 minutes or so I just closed my eyes, and to use a music term, got lost in the sauce. Stereo headphones were a big plus as the audio is both beautiful and of the utmost importance. I've never listened to an audiobook before, but I imagine that is kind of what I ended up experiencing. That's not meant to disrespect what was done here because overall this worked for me. It just didn't work 100% with the visual. Great out of the box nom.

3.5

MovieGal

03-04-25, 06:38 PM

105784
Blue
(1993)

I watched this last night. The music and the dialog were intense and moving. I could hear pain and anguish in the narrator's voice as he told his story. You could hear his suffering. There was a moment you heard other's in their suffering. His story was heartbreaking. It was a great experience.

rauldc14

03-04-25, 06:42 PM

I'm going to go out of sequence and watch Blue next. I'm probably going to just buy At Play in the Fields of the Lord for cheap and watch down the road.

Citizen Rules

03-04-25, 09:14 PM

I'm going to go out of sequence and watch Blue next. I'm probably going to just buy At Play in the Fields of the Lord for cheap and watch down the road.That's cool.
I did do some reading and for phone users who can't get videos to play this might fix it:
https://www.fonedog.com/android-toolkit/can-not-play-video-android.html

stillmellow

03-05-25, 02:50 AM

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b1/Inside_Moves_FilmPoster.jpeg

That was a surprisingly heartwarming and well written movie! It got a bit sappy in places, and the villain was extremely stereotypical, but it had just the right amount of realistic complications. There were also lot of really good performances all around too.

I'm surprised that the movie was framed with Roary as the main character, rather than Jerry. Most movies would've done the opposite. I'm glad the creator realized that Roary's story of redemption was the stronger one.

On a personal note, I work with disabled people for a living, and I found their portrayal in the movie quite refreshing. They're normal people who laugh at themselves, have regular flaws, and act in very silly, human ways. They refuse to let their disabilities define them.

👍

stillmellow

03-05-25, 03:05 AM

Now for the negative news. I don't consider Blue a movie.

I'm partway through it, and I'll gladly finish it. It's a beautiful examination of life, told by a man very close to death. It has a very haunting energy, with an amazing soundtrack.

But it's not a film. It's not even an experimental film. It's an audio book.

rauldc14

03-05-25, 10:40 AM

Blue

This wasn't very effective for me. There was no emotional connection with the narrator for me unfortunately. In fact, I believe a blue screen made it even harder to imagine what he was going through. It just seemed at times that words were being spewed out and it would have been better if it was emotions. Not that he probably would have been up for it but a documentary style type of film would have been much more effective for me. It's a very personalized feeling type of film, some won't care for it at all and some will connect with it highly. But it literally did nothing for me other than make me watch and see how much time was left. I also don't really consider it a film because it is, indeed more like an audio book.

0.5

I_Wear_Pants

03-05-25, 06:27 PM

Goldeneye and Past Lives are at the library ready for me to pick them up. Due to how Apple TV does their rentals, I will probably wait until Friday night to watch At Play in the Fields of Our Lord to make sure the rental doesn't expire. Hopefully we can get to the library in the next day or two. I plan to order I Confess tomorrow. Is it bad I nominated a film I hadn't watched? I suppose I could watch Blue on Kanopy this evening after the kiddos are in bed. I'll check and see what else is available where.

Citizen Rules

03-05-25, 09:19 PM

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fm.media-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FM%2FMV5BN2QwNTJkNzgtOWIzMS00M2ZkLWFmZTctZDMwOWIyMWNjMDYxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjc5Nj EzNA%40%40._V1_.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=a7397104c963f0ebcaa8c1735ac1f9a9bbf16bbf1af4b24944f802cfffb23a65&ipo=imagesBlue (1993)

I wish I could say something more positive but I want to give an honest review...and honestly this didn't work for me. I had thought this would be a frankly stark, first person telling of living and dying from AIDS/HIV. I was looking forward to this as it sounded interesting but the narrator's voice sounded fake to me like a stage actor giving a dramatic reading while doing a sales pitch for some expensive perfume. The poetic speak didn't add to the experience, it made me not take the situation as serious as it should be taken. I wish just an everyday sounding voice was used to speak matter of factly instead of the poetically polished voice.

Making it worse was the many overly creative turned phrases mixed with an odd soundtrack, neither helped matters. I kept thinking of the Beatles' Yellow Submarine, as the narrator's melodic voice and metaphorically turned phrases made me think of that movie... and the Moody Blues, Nights in White Satin kept popping into my head.

cricket

03-06-25, 09:06 AM

Omg I was thinking that something was familiar and it was Nights in White Satin lol

TheManBehindTheCurtain

03-06-25, 10:23 AM

Blue (1993)
Director/writer: Derek Jarman

3

105833

(Note. Blue has no traditional narrative plot to spoil. This is more of a commentary than a review. Still, it is best to experience it first for yourself before reading this, as I include several quotes, including the concluding lines.)

Early in this intensely personal work are passages such as this: “The blood of sensibility is blue. I consecrate myself to fìnd its most perfect expression.”

The voice is that of Derek Jarman, an artist known for his experimental and eclectic directorial work in film and music videos. Sometimes poetic, sometimes hallucinatory, sometimes glib. But always angry.

Jarman made this “perfect expression,” Blue, in his last months, dying of AIDS, reflecting a bit on life but mostly trying to convey what it is like to, well, be Derek Jarman, a man for whom seeing was like breathing, going blind, his world fading to blue.

To help you experience what the world is becoming for him, this work consists of a blank screen, never wavering a moment from a bright blue, with voices, mostly Jarman’s but with a few friends, echoing around in the void, punctuated with minimalistic sound effects and music.

At times, we feel we’re listening to a fractured narrative as Jarman insinuates blue into fanciful personal and historical accounts. Early he announces: “Blue transcends the solemn geography of human limits.” And later snatches of this theme waft by: “In the pandemonium of image I present you with the universal Blue. Blue an open door to soul.” Or: “The road to the city of Aqua Vitae is protected by a labyrinth built from crystals and mirrors …. Blue walks into the labyrinth ….” Blue figures in references to Marco Polo, and the Blue Bearded Reaper, and blue butterflies, blue delphinium flowers, blue blood, blue mountains. A torrent of blue.

Interspersed with these poetic interludes are grimly clinical descriptions of his doctor visits, the choices for treatments he must endure, involving cocktails of antivirals that, at the time, could at best only agonizingly postpone the inevitable. He recounts the first symptoms of blindness and its ever-encroaching blue void. He seethes with righteous anger at how attitudes about AIDS remains mired in misconceptions, how prevention takes a back seat to treatment. A choice moment occurs when, in an almost mirthful tone, he recites a legal disclaimer regarding a treatment's potential side effects that is impossibly long and yet in its detail sounds completely plausible.

Taken in whole, does all this convey enough of the physical and emotional trauma he endured? Can we sympathize?

At times, his elegiac musings on blue – as a metaphor, or an actual presence, or, well, a color – are poetic and fascinating to listen to. But to my ear – and I realize I’m sounding petty – I too often hear something akin to a talented schoolboy who must write a thousand word essay but can’t quite come up with a meaningful throughline and so strings together some beautiful poetry, hoping to convince us he has found some original new insight: Blue!

Which is a shame. Because by contrast, Jarman is bitingly effective when he’s sharing straightforward observations such as this: “How are we perceived, if we are to be perceived at all? For the most part we are invisible. If the doors of Perception were cleansed, then everything would be seen as it is.” His blue musings mask rather than reveal. He holds too much back, about his career, about his friends, about himself. His anger over this fate he does not deserve is palpable and compellingly stated. But anger is not enough.

In particular, who are these names he repeats like a Chorus in a Greek tragedy: David, Howard, Graham, Terry, Paul? Friends, lovers, acquaintances … we can only guess. First just their names, but later a few fragments as we learn how they suffer and die one by one. But he tells us nothing about who they were, and, most important, who they were to him. So their passing doesn’t touch us as deeply as it might.

Even more urgently, he mentions time and again a man called H.B., someone obviously dear to him. But details? A few fragments, but mostly he tries to tell us he’s important rather than show us why. We get it – he was important. But it's all about Derek Jarman’s anger at the loss, with no meaningful insight into who he was losing. (Through extracurricular research you can discover this is his partner, Keith Collins.)

I hate it when reviewers try to outthink the artist, suggesting what would have been better. But as I reflected on the experience, I wondered … why the blue screen through the entirety of the film? Could it not, over the run time, start as blue and begun to fade so subtly that we don’t notice, until we’re also left in the dark, as he was, at the end? Something just a bit more … well, just more.

But in the end, I must acknowledge there were passages of compelling beauty throughout. In particular, his final words, reflecting on human endeavors in general and that particular presence in his life, H.B., are sad and touching and so beautifully wrought: “Our name will be forgotten. In time, no one will remember our work. Our life will pass like the traces of a cloud and be scattered like mist that is chased by the rays of the sun. For our time is the passing of a shadow, and our lives will run like sparks through the stubble. I place a delphinium, Blue, upon your grave.”

Torgo

03-06-25, 10:23 AM

Blue - 4

The description of film as an empathy machine is one I agree with and that I've referenced a lot. This movie may be the purest example of it I've seen yet. Empathy is the primary sensation I had while hearing Jarman's commentary on living with AIDS, especially since I'm ashamed to say I was not aware of how much medication and how many visits to the doctor were required to treat the condition in the '90s until now. The sadness I felt was no less genuine, particularly whenever he discussed the fates of his many friends and former lovers, nor was my anger towards the powers that be whose neglect had a hand in putting Jarman into this state.

As for his musings on "Blue," besides being pure poetry, I found the insight into how victims of debilitation manage, philosophize and personify their ailments fascinating, and with the aid of the soundtrack, strangely beautiful. That leads to my thoughts about what may be the most famous aspect of this movie in that it's 75 minutes of blue screen. Since it's never not meaningful, I never lost interest or found it tedious; in fact, I would have been happy to hear even more of Jarman's thoughts than what we get. Besides, I was in such a contemplative state that some of what was in my mind's eye displayed on my TV. The entire project recalls a scene from another movie from the same year, Philadelphia, in which Tom Hanks' AIDS victim describes what is happening in a favorite aria to his lawyer. In other words, beyond my new understanding of and increased empathy for what Jarman and all other AIDS sufferers experience, I walked away from this movie with a renewed appreciation for existence.

PHOENIX74

03-09-25, 01:19 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/bNQTzcNy/blue.jpg

Blue - 1993

Directed by Derek Jarman

Written Derek Jarman

Narrated by John Quentin, Nigel Terry, Derek Jarman & Tilda Swinton

I keep thinking, "the best way for me to watch Blue is with my eyes closed." Then I think of the irony. How can I watch something with my eyes closed? I always come to the conclusion that it's not meant to be the way we experience Blue. I should be looking at the blue screen. But my mind craves stimulation, visual stimulation - and it's weak in that it's so easily distracted when being forced to focus on an unchanging sea of blue. That's why I close my eyes. To focus on the words I'm hearing - to fully focus on them. I close them again, and then again I'm thinking, "this is not the way we're meant to experience Blue." I wish I were in a darkened cinema, but I wonder if I'd still be tempted to close my eyes - if the blueness isn't somehow more confronting than I'm willing to admit it is. That the way the blueness is connected with Derek Jarman's experience of AIDS isn't simply so relentlessly there and inescapable that I want to look away as if I'm watching some kind of visual horror. That if I close my eyes, there's always the comforting thought that I can open them again, and that when I do there'll be something wonderful to look at other than a vast, infinite sea of blue.

When troubled, my mind turns to humour. Could I claim to have missed half of the movie because I had my eyes closed? When I looked Blue up I wanted to see a "cinematographer" credit, and hear that there was a three week shooting schedule where every night the crew would gather to watch dailies consisting of that same shade of IKB (International Klein Blue) blue. That there were editors who actually stitched together shots of the exact same colour. If this was going to be so avant-garde in such a manner, why not? Once again, I remember what this film is all about and I feel deeply ashamed of myself - it's a self-protection mechanism, but when other people do the same thing I feel deeply aggrieved and contemptuous of them, like a hypocrite. To be clear - this film isn't a source of fun and laughter for me at all. My focus during it became so narrow that I felt Jarman's autobiographical narration as if I were living it, and that's such a huge challenge because it's often painful to listen to. Even the most inspirational lines of poetry in it are heavy with bittersweet, sad feelings that have a tender aura.

Does Blue sound different than your average, everyday movie, or does it just sound different to me because I can't connect the sound to something visual? There were sounds in this film so different to what I'm used to hearing that I literally went outside because I thought someone was messing around in my yard - and I'm serious when I say that I felt Derek Jarman's blindness. I felt somewhat dislocated from the world I'm used to living in, with everything I heard being so distinct and noticeable. Everything sounds like it's coming from a void. It might just be the fact that there's no real need for Foley artists or any kind of background hum, with everything we hear having a very specific, definite meaning. Still, for the most part this has been recorded in a manner that differs from most movies by the sound of it. Really nice to see that Brian Eno was involved with the music side of matters, adding more to the atmospheric soundscape inside the mind of Derek Jarman. It's a lot more than just a man telling his story - we experience as much as we listen.

I don't think Blue is a film I can rate, or compare with any other film out there. It's an experience, and it's a work of art and a testament. It's deeply affecting and an experience which differs a tremendous amount from any ordinary movie. It's a vivid experiential mindscape that sets it's tone with a single colour, and burrows our focus deep inside a man living out his days with an incurable disease - suffering from blindness and pain. There's poetry and crude humour in equal measures - the full human experience, and always that wall of blue. In fact, the colour itself becomes a character in Derek Jarman's procession of thoughts, and this reminds me to open my eyes to at least focus on the screen for a while, even though I find it impossible to gaze at it for 79 minutes. I realise that those suffering from vision impairment don't have a choice like I do, and of course I feel grateful when face to face with a work of art like Blue, which cuts through all artifice and speaks directly to it's audience from within a sea of that tranquil, blue sky-like ambience. It has such a soft, cool and yet sad feel to it - stretching out forever.

No rating.

ueno_station54

03-09-25, 04:19 AM

https://d3vjn2zm46gms2.cloudfront.net/blogs/2016/10/27003821/Blue1-1300x867.jpg
Blue (Derek Jarman, 1993)

This being nominated is what swayed me to join this hall. It had been on my watchlist forever and especially so since my wife and I watched (and were absolutely devastated by) The Garden about a year ago and we'd been waiting for the right time to watch Blue because we knew it was going to be even more devastating. Without what I'd call Jarman's trademark bold, shocking visuals this maybe didn't have the same visceral punch of something like The Garden or The Last of England but even without that my wife and I were still weeping in each others arms from probably the halfway point on. The other aforementioned Jarman movies I'd seen had such a bitter anger to them and to see that whither away into resignation here hurt so bad. No call to action, no hope for the future, just the rapidly approaching grave and the friends who got there first. I think this hit so much harder than some exploitative documentary from an outsider perspective ever would. God, when he's hopelessly listing all the horrific side effects of the drugs barely fending off the virus followed by "another kiss, another kiss, my greedy lips", I just couldn't keep it together after that. F*ck.

PHOENIX74

03-09-25, 04:57 AM

Is it bad I nominated a film I hadn't watched?

A lot of us do that from time to time - I believe the term used is "blind nom", and it's not frowned on at all.

(Edit - Unless it's a terrible movie, then we get mad at you...)

I_Wear_Pants

03-09-25, 06:55 AM

A lot of us do that from time to time - I believe the term used is "blind nom", and it's not frowned on at all.

(Edit - Unless it's a terrible movie, then we get mad at you...)

Okay cool. I don't know that people will find I Confess to be terrible although I've been surprised other times. Something I got ate up more than I thought it would and then I had to pay off something else so it's going to be a few extra days before I can watch I Confess, which I think is okay because I'm not sure we've gotten to it yet.

I_Wear_Pants

03-10-25, 02:50 AM

That's Goldeneye watched. What a disappointment. I didn't like much. Wade, played by Joe Don Baker, is the only part I really liked. The idea was okay, and typically outlandish for a Bond film. Asking me, of all people, to suspend that much disbelief is asking an awful lot. There were so many eye-rolling heavy-sighing moments I couldn't keep track. It's just... ergh. Not a good film.

Citizen Rules

03-11-25, 12:40 PM

The Movie for Week 10 is:
106018
The Peoples Joker (2022)
Director Vera Drew

Due date to watch/review: March 18th

@MovieGal (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=80538) @jiraffejustin (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=76459) @John W Constantine (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=109412) @PHOENIX74 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=112080)
@rauldc14 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=60169) @edarsenal (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=50536) @Torgo (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=109334) @Takoma11 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=107735) @ueno_station54 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=111569) @stillmellow (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=124844) @cricket (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=68505) @TheManBehindTheCurtain

*Keep an eye on the 1st post, that's were the review links and info are.

MovieGal

03-11-25, 01:27 PM

106023
The People's Joker

Its a DC comics parody of Batman's villan The Joker, but this film has many Jokers as well as Harley Quinns. A young boy, who feels female, wants to be a comedian, so they goes to UBCLive to be a comedian. Along the way, he falls in love and meets other villains. In the end, they are a big hit and defeat Batman.

I dont want to give out a lot of the story.

It was a decent watch. I enjoyed some parts. Im a Batman villain fan more than a Batman fan. Somwe parts were funny and made me laugh.

I hope other can enjoy it as well.

I actually had to look up about Jason Todd because i only know him as The Red Hood, not the character he ends up in this film.

MovieGal

03-11-25, 01:29 PM

Everyone, I'm taking a hiatus for a while. Citizen already gave me the next two films. Im not dropping out. Just wont be posting until he announces the next film.

Enjoy!

rauldc14

03-11-25, 04:26 PM

Peoples Joker

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2024/04/01/multimedia/peoples1-mpjl/peoples1-mpjl-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale

Honestly if you haven't seen this before just please don't bother. It's one of the biggest pieces of junk I have ever laid my eyes upon. Piss poor acting, an awful screenplay and a lack of any sort of film direction at all. I suppose I can give a half star for some decent animation when it cut to those scenes. And that ending is just pure awfulness. The Hall of Fames at Mofo are done wrong by silly nominations like this.

0.5

John W Constantine

03-11-25, 06:14 PM

The People's Joker(Drew, 2022)

Some part of me feels like this was the movie Joe Schumacher wanted to make. To say I don't venture into these types of films despite having an open curiosity to off beat Irreverent b movies. In the end, through all the theatrics I came away with sympathy (empathy) for a kid that had a rough childhood and grew into an adult. Eat your heart out Schumacher.

Citizen Rules

03-11-25, 06:23 PM

Peoples Joker
Honestly if you haven't seen this before just please don't bother. Wait a minute:eek:...Please do bother to watch it, because of the rules and all:p *We have to watch all the noms of course*

The Hall of Fames at Mofo are done wrong by silly nominations like this.I haven't seen The People's Jokers yet, so I don't know if I'll like it or not...BUT I can say it's a legit nom even if it's not to everyone's taste. The only requirement is that the movie noms be under 4 hours, haven't won a previous HoF and the person nominating it believes it's worthy of an HoF. I'm sure Ueno believes the movie has merit, I'm sure we all believe in our noms, I know I do even though a number of my noms have come in last, but I still say Valley of the Dolls is the GOAT!:)

cricket

03-11-25, 08:48 PM

How are you all watching this?

Citizen Rules

03-11-25, 09:05 PM

How are you all watching this?I've a free link for The People's Joker, I can PM people if they want the link. It's also on Apple and Fandango for $4.99

ueno_station54

03-12-25, 04:23 PM

https://variety.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Peoples-Joker.jpg?w=1000&h=563&crop=1
The People's Joker (Vera Drew, 2022)

2024 has come to be known as "The Year of Trans Cinema" and while this technically came out in 2022 (it has one screening at TIFF before WB stepped in with the cease and desist) it wasn't released proper until 2024 along side, most notably, I Saw the TV Glow and I don't think I can properly articulate how important these two movies were to my community from the second they dropped. Films by trans people were rare enough but having a number of films come out that were not only made by us but felt like they were specifically for us is unprecedented. Like, until recently the movie we all regarded as the trans movie was The Matrix and you really have to frame that in a specific way for it to kind of be a trans allegory. Hell even I Saw the TV Glow only addresses transness via metaphor, which is where The People's Joker really breaks the mold. There's simply never been a film like this that's so bold, direct, authentic, heartfelt and passionate about the topic that it feels like it was birthed directly from the trans collective unconsciousness, like there's a piece of all of us up on that screen, our fears, our joy, our love, our trauma, all of it and I can't express how special that is to witness and its not even just what its saying but everything, how it looks, how it sounds, the world building, the characters its all just oozes f*ggotry. Outside of the cultural significance I also just think its a cute, fun and sincere work. I love the bit where she gets her one happy memory, it makes me cry every time. I love that a movie where a naked 3D Lorne Michaels slips on a banana peel, falls down the stairs and gets eaten by a plant can make me cry. I love this movie enough to have gotten a Joker the Harlequin tattoo. I love the DIY spirit of it, I love the gumption it took to make this whole ass movie knowing there was a good chance WB would shut the whole thing down and the possible legal ramifications that might follow. I love that she won the Gotham award for best new director because that just feels like providence. Its the little movie that could for so many reasons and its hard not to love that.

edarsenal

03-12-25, 06:13 PM

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/349c34_0c99c20ec77e4410b7f0fb170c76403e~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_560,h_400,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/349c34_0c99c20ec77e4410b7f0fb170c76403e~mv2.png

Baradaran-e Leila aka Leila's Brothers (2022)

It was a truly remarkable film experience. I read a comment that it was a “hard” watch, so I was tense, waiting for the harshness to hit until the very end. I became engaged and wrapped up in this family. The hook was Saeed Poursamimi’s opening. I loved his character, hated his character, pitied him, and disdained him. It was quite the sojourn. He set the standard for each character and respective actor/actress to follow.

Also, I had a significant turnaround regarding theft from parents. I'm not a fan, but I was cheering Leila and groaning at the brothers’ collective loss of backbone. The ebb and flow of the storyline of desperation, failure, selfishness, and family commitment that bows to “saving face " with such an elegant ending is impressive. Intriguing use of Life Continuation with the children celebrating. On that poetic finish, I unclenched with a sigh of adoration for this cinematic sojourn. I imagined a second viewing sans self-induced tenseness where I would delve right on in with abandon. Shit, yes.

When I saw this, I had watched the first three films of the Hall, in order, on an extended weekend. I was intrigued by the placement of nominations and tickled by their continuation since. So, yeah, YAY!!!

Torgo

03-13-25, 12:18 PM

The People's Joker - 3

This is a delightfully strange and funny piece of outsider art I'm simply glad I was able to watch due to the obvious copyright issues. Is Vera Drew a die-hard DC fan, did she make the association with Joker's smile and masking and go from there, or both? Whatever the case may be, it's an inspired way to inform that sadly, the trans experience, like the autistic one, means having to do a whole lot of pretending you are fine. On top of that, she manages to extend this metaphor to the rest of us. I'll admit with a smile on my face - a genuine one, mind you - that I still hold a candle for Saturday Night Live, but I love a good joke at its expense as much as its haters do. I had to watch Tim and Eric's hilarious parody of the SNL opening credits to confirm that this may be the best jab at the show since that one. Having gone into this unprepared, I have more questions: is Drew a fan of collage or did budgetary restrictions explain the mishmash of various animation styles, puppetry, etc.? While the answers may be "yes and yes," I'm likely just as much of a collage lover, and I also like how each character's style simply fits. I especially approve of Lorne Michaels resembling a crude AI being and that it resembles Bob Odenkirk, with whom he had a contentious relationship, no less. There's also the amusing survey of the minefield that is trying to find love as a trans person, which is just as frustrating as I had assumed - especially for the use of a literal gaslight - and I cannot think of a better throughput than the Joker and her relationship with her mother to provide the movie with a beating heart.

This is an insightful, personal and again, funny means of walking in a trans person's shoes. I wish I could rate it higher, but I have two major issues with it, the first being that it's not the easiest movie to watch. While I would rather see a movie that is rough around the edges than one that is overly refined, this one could stand to be more refined. It comes across like an unfocused, "drinking from the firehouse" barrage sometimes, which exhausted me even though I was not particularly tired at the time. Speaking of exhaustion, my other issue is a matter of preference, which I know seems unfair, but it's impossible for me to not let it affect my judgement: a low tolerance for comedy rooted in breaking the fourth wall and self-awareness. While I found a lot to laugh at, the moments relying heavily on these tropes added to my exhaustion. I still enjoyed the entire product, not to mention much more than anything I've seen in the DCEU so far.

Citizen Rules

03-13-25, 12:22 PM

106056
The Peoples Joker (2022)
Director Vera Drew

I have to hand it to director, writer & star, Vera Drew for creating a bankable movie from what would seem to be copyright infringement, hence my usage of that screenshot. Now when the movie started and I seen that screenshot I thought of course shows like SNL have been doing satire of popular movies and movie characters for along time, and so of course this movie is also satire and the initial angry letter that the director received from an undisclosed source causing the director to pull the movie from the Toronto International Film Festival after one screening due to rights issues...would seem to be an overreaction by the unnamed 'media conglomerate' who sent the infamous letter. I mean after all satire of movies are allowed as stated in that disclaimer....But after watching The People's Joker I'd say it is effectively an alternative universe take on the popular Batman movies, especially the Schumacher directed Batman Forever as the entire movie is set in an alternative universe of the DC comic character Batman. Had I not just seen Batman Forever only a few nights ago I wouldn't have gotten how strong of a connection there is between the two movies. I think it's interesting that some sort of an arrangement or deal was struck between the film maker and the so called media conglomerate who sent the initial angry letter. At any rate we don't know what was said but apparently an OK was given for The People's Joker to have an official theatrical release which is quite a coup for Vera Drew. As far as the film goes it's more like what I would expect to see as a YouTube indie movie. I did laugh at a few things though and the scenes at the anti-comedy club were probably done the best.

edarsenal

03-13-25, 06:27 PM

https://behindthecurtain.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/still-of_inside-moves-1980.jpg
https://nick-davis.com/insmov80rev.jpg

Inside Moves (1980)

I was in tenth grade when this came out, and for whatever reason, though curious to see it, I never did. Quite often, there is that regret of, "Why did I never?" Pleasantly, it was a far more fortuteous first-watch as an old dodger of 60.
It touched deeper and made me enjoy it more profoundly than my youth, who would have been more interested in Blue, Stinky, and Wings while all puppy-dog-faced at seeing Diana Scarwid, which I still did.
A pretty damn cool Bro-Mance with, what I would consider an ensemble cast due to the intricate signifigance of everyone to the story and not merely background and filler. Carrying the story forward on their merit, valuing their lives equally with the main characters, Jerry and Roary.
Like so many of John Savage's performances, I am in awe of his commitment to his character and his presence. I don't believe I've seen any of David Morse's (Jerry) work prior to the mid-nineties, and being a big fan of his, seeing him very early in his career was gratifying, to say the least.

A great film at a great time to view it. VERY cool.

Citizen Rules

03-13-25, 06:53 PM

Citizen Rules

03-13-25, 06:58 PM

Baradaran-e Leila aka Leila's Brothers (2022)

...When I saw this, I had watched the first three films of the Hall, in order, on an extended weekend. I was intrigued by the placement of nominations and tickled by their continuation since. So, yeah, YAY!!!Why thank you:D I tried my best.

PHOENIX74

03-15-25, 07:56 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/ry1L9wnW/the-people-s-joker.jpg

The People's Joker - 2022

Directed by Vera Drew

Written Bri LeRose & Vera Drew

Starring Vera Drew, Lynn Downey, Kane Distler, Nathan Faustyn, David Liebe Hart & Christian Calloway

However Vera Drew's autobiographical story morphed into a cinematic venture, it's refreshing that her transgender journey can both evoke empathy but also be so much fun - it's enough to make me wish everyone could translate their life story into a Batman/DC Universe parody. The end result is me feeling like I know everything about her, and at the same time absolutely nothing about her - or at least, I know her emotional journey without being able to summon up the most basic biographical details about her. Or, perhaps closer to what Vera Drew was intending here, I can appreciate the emotional journey trans people on the whole go through. What better way to tackle issues of identity than to base our central story in Gotham City, where heroes and villains project who they are with dazzling imagination and have often made some kind of transformation that forms an important part of their backstory. I might venture to mention that all of this lands a long way from personal experience for me - but all the more reason to be interested and have a desire to learn.

Our protagonist as a boy (played by Griffin Kramer) at the start of this story has a name that is bleeped out - it's a "deadname", and as such kept private. He starts to realise he has a different gender identity when he's taken to see Batman Forever (or at least, this universe's version of that movie) by his mother (played by Lynn Downey). They live in Smallville, Kansas, and when the boy's mother hears him say he think's he's a girl in a boy's body she immediately drags him off to Arkham Asylum, where Dr. Crane (Christian Calloway) prescribes Smylex - a drug that gives it's users the appearance of being happy even if they're suffering from anxiety, depression or gender dysphoria. The underlying cause goes unappreciated and is dismissed. After coming of age, our protagonist moves to Gotham City and, after being rebuffed by a corrupt and tightly controlled UCB Live television programme decides to start a new "anti-comedy" club (comedy being outlawed in Gotham), becoming Joker the Harlequin, whereupon he falls in love with fellow member Mr. J (Kane Distler), someone who has his own history with Batman (Phil Braun) - a caped law enforcer, with whom he had an abusive relationship. Eventually, under the tutelage of Ra's al Ghul (David Liebe Hart) our protagonist, now The People's Joker, takes on the system.

It's not easy describing how this movie works. There's a melding of the real world and a bizarre fascist version of the Gotham city we know from DC's Batman and it's various incarnations. It's presented with a mix of live action, animation and CGI computer graphics - which further disorients those of us who are still trying to grapple with the strange world this takes place in. Vera Drew takes full advantage of the freedom this allows her to tell her own personal stories while at the same time making full use of the various interpretations we've seen of Batman and Gotham in popular culture, from it's comic book inception to Suicide Squad and Todd Phillip's Joker. In fact, it was an attempted re-edit of Joker undertaken by Vera Drew which led to this project. She started to visualize how the characters in the film reflected her own life - and I think that's something that can come from the deconstruction and reinterpretation of many films once we get down to the bare essentials. What came of it was a virtually unfilmable screenplay - one that really required the imagination with which this has been put together.

I have to say I really enjoyed the inverse relationship we have with what are usually the villains of Gotham City - here they're not "heroes" per say, but instead just prospective comedians who mostly retain the origin stories we're familiar with. Nathan Faustyn, as The Penguin, is a particular delight and surprise - probably because the performance, costume, make-up and general presentation is just a little low-rent and relaxed. It felt like the kind of Penguin impression you'd get from a funny friend, but in the end that was endearing enough for me. The Penguin turns out to be Joker the Harlequin's friend and confidante when he first moves to Gotham, and he fills out the role well. In the meantime Mr. J is embodied by the version of Joker we got from the first Suicide Squad film, played by Jared Leto. It's fine to have various different Jokers in this movie - and in fact it's fine to have whatever else it wants to have - there are few rules, and anything goes. The controlling producer of UCB is Lorne Michaels (Maria Bamford) - Michaels is actually the producer of Saturday Night Live in real life, and in the film he's a computer-generated character. It's dizzying.

I must admit that I rarely venture into territory this low-budgeted and strange, and that as a result the movie was a little daunting for me at first. At times I did find myself thinking, "This looks terrible," - there's a lot that looks aesthetically unpleasing, for whatever reason. The thing is, I can't be sure how much of that is on purpose - or even if all of that is on purpose, because it seems like it might be. There's a lot of brashness here. It takes me back to my peek at the animation of Jack Wedge, and the fact that I have to allow for artistic expression no matter how it conflicts with my particular palate. There's a narrative form that's a little different and that I had to familiarize myself with in order to get used to it, and that flows on into the visual form the film takes as well. But it's far from unintelligible, and it's far from being unpleasing on the whole. Joker the Harlequin's personal story is an essentially earthbound one, and only uses DC Universe characters and places to obfuscate and illustrate. It's intensely personal, full of humour, self-reflective and just a little sad and bittersweet at times. I want different experiences when I watch new movies, and if I learn something I'm pretty happy to have been nudged in The People's Joker's direction.

3.5

TheManBehindTheCurtain

03-15-25, 04:24 PM

The People's Joker
Director/writer: Vera Drew
Key cast: Vera Drew, Nathan Faustyn, Kane Distler

3.5

106113

I’ve never seen anything like this. Usually, that’s just a cliché we pedantic movie reviewers fall back on to catch readers’ attention. But in this case, no, really, I’ve never seen anything like this. That’s not always a good thing. But in the case of “The People’s Joker,” it is.

This is a movie whose reputation precedes it – at least for those of us who regularly consume movie news/review sites and podcasts. Its struggle to see the light of day was epic. The way “The People’s Joker” adapts intellectual property held by industry heavyweights unleashed a plague of lawyers when it first tried to debut in 2022. The short story: The contention that the work is parody which falls under the “fair use” doctrine, combined with adding a lengthy beginning legal disclaimer to that effect, helped it see an official 2024 release on physical media and streaming.

Indeed, “The People’s Joker” is a parody, but that is in the service of a deeper examination by writer/director Vera Drew of transgender identity and acceptance. Set in an alternate universe where Batman reigns and comedy is illegal (except for the officially sanctioned “UCB Live,” a blistering parody of Saturday Night Live), “The People’s Joker” is a non-stop ride: a hallucinogenic cascade of imagery, absolutely biting satire of social “norms” and “mainstream” comedy, seasoned with touching personal reflections.

The only thing traditional about “The People’s Joker” is its chronological timeline. We first meet (bleep) Drew, a youngster who’s suffering from gender dysphoria in Smallville, Kansas. Asking mother “Was I born in the wrong body?” engenders a cataclysmic freakout that ends with a visit to Dr. Crane (yes, I immediately thought: “quack”), who treats (bleep) with the drug Smilex, whose sole benefit is to keep (bleep) smiling (though not happy). And results in a nearly lifelong addiction. The episode also introduces a theme that runs through (bleep)’s entire life story: family, friends, lovers … they all process (bleep)’s issues in terms of what it does to them. “How can you do this to me?” becomes an all-too recurrent and completely tone-deaf refrain.

From confused kid, to awkward teen, to the young adult who leaves Smallville for the big city of Gotham, (bleep) struggles to be seen. Emerging from gender transition, and leaving behind the deadname that was bleeped out, she metamorphoses into Vera Drew. Her goal: to break through as a comedian on UCB Live, run by the toxic Lorne Michaels. She adopts the persona Harlequin, costumed to channel past Jokers such as Johnny Depp and Heath Ledger. She befriends and founds an “anti comedy” club with a pal, The Penguin (Nathan Faustyn), and falls for Mr. J. (Kane Distler), a trans man who is the very definition of “manipulative.”

Vera’s struggle to reach UCB Live encapsulates the main theme: whether to remain true to who she is, or to compromise to become what UCB wants her to be in order to “succeed” in the “real” world.

Writer/director Drew is an award-winning film editor, and it shows in the mastery of the production. She reportedly drew on the talents of dozens of artists to produce a spectacular array of filmic types, from occasional set camera work but more often green screen overlays and animation in a variety of techniques. The characters who fly in and out of the narrative range from the homoerotic Superman to other superheroes, and an array of other popculture caricatures and background artifacts that I could recognize and appreciate only if I were a much cooler person.

Whether you think “The People’s Joker” is your type of film or not, you should see it. I know much of it passed over my head. But it’s the kind of mind-expanding experience you continue to contemplate as the days pass. I’ll admit that from my limited perspective the most impactful, absolutely raw moment came late in the movie as Vera’s mother apologizes and finally admits what she was really trying to shield her child from.

Citizen Rules

03-15-25, 07:29 PM

Keep those reviews coming:) I'll be posting the next movie in a few days.

rauldc14

03-15-25, 08:07 PM

I got At Play in the Fields of the Lord so I'll be watching this week

jiraffejustin

03-15-25, 09:09 PM

Blue

On one hand, I appreciate the effort, but on the other I think it's a stretch to say I watched this film. And is it really a film if you get everything you need out of it without having to watch it? I'll be generous and defend Blue's place as a film, but I wasn't looking at the screen for most of the runtime, a blue wall was not exactly what I wanted to spend 80 minutes staring at. Good on Derek Jarman for making something like this, but it doesn't work for me. I also felt very uncomfortable when he would start whispering, not really sure why. I respect the attempt, but I don't like the film.

cricket

03-16-25, 05:16 PM

The People's Joker

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Joker-Smoking-Vera-Drew-H-2023.jpg?w=1296&h=730&crop=1

Thanks CR for the link! I think I understood more about the trans world than the Batman world, especially as far as jokes and references. Loved the Goodfellas reference-totally unexpected! Yes, there were times when the word amateurish popped into my mind, but I think they did the best they could with what they had to work with. Any of that was overtaken by the cleverness. I laughed a good amount and there's a good variety of humor. It has something in common with my nom as far as acceptance. Liked all of the characters and it was an easy and fun watch. Definitely sign me up for Freddy vs Joker.

3+

I_Wear_Pants

03-16-25, 10:26 PM

I am watching Blue. Or "listening to" the movie Blue. We'll see how it goes.

I'm ten minutes into Blue. It's putting me to sleep. Addendum; I fell asleep for a few minutes watching/listening to this film/radio play. I don't want to try again...

I should ask; where can I find People's Joker?

Citizen Rules

03-16-25, 10:45 PM

...I should ask; where can I find People's Joker?I'll PM you in a few minutes.

I_Wear_Pants

03-16-25, 11:15 PM

I tried to endure Blue. It put me to sleep. It's a guy talking under a blue screen. While I am already tired, it shouldn't knock me out in 18 minutes. It's so disinteresting. I lost focus around 12 minutes, went back to it a couple of minutes later, and fell asleep. I didn't like it.

I_Wear_Pants

03-16-25, 11:39 PM

I'll PM you in a few minutes.

Ooh the local library has it. It's currently checked out so I should get it within three weeks vis someone has to return it within three weeks and then it ship to my pickup library, and then I go get it.

Citizen Rules

03-18-25, 01:13 PM

The Movie for Week 11 is:

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.explicit.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.2qBdhNt9xUbl8WJxqd9ywwHaEK%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=29fe0b708831ca68675f761426ac960e2ac5b26e009b0322b502fb907c049a85&ipo=images
Pariah (2011)
Director Dee Rees

Due date to watch/review: March 24th

@MovieGal (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=80538) @jiraffejustin (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=76459) @John W Constantine (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=109412) @PHOENIX74 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=112080)
@rauldc14 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=60169) @edarsenal (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=50536) @Torgo (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=109334) @Takoma11 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=107735) @ueno_station54 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=111569) @stillmellow (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=124844) @cricket (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=68505) @TheManBehindTheCurtain

*Keep an eye on the 1st post, that's were the review links and info are.

MovieGal

03-18-25, 02:11 PM

106200
Pariah
(2011)

A story of a young talented girl search for a life she chooses to live. Caught beween what she feels to be herself and the view of what her family wants her to be. She goes through the anguish that all teens go through. Her mother doesn’t like how she dresses or her friends and she want to chose the way she wants her life to go.

I enjoyed the story but its not the first time this has been explored in cinema. I enjoyed the acting as well. I think it was a good rec. Thanks cricket.

ueno_station54

03-18-25, 02:17 PM

https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/12/28/4065-fp-00079r_wide-1b6cc70b229756fc83037d770ad29feadb93bc21.jpg?s=1200&c=85&f=webp
Pariah (Dee Rees, 2011)

OK so full disclosure I actually watched this a number of weeks ago because I rented it from the library and it had to be returned so if I'm a bit iffy on details I apologize. Its fun that we're getting all the queer movies back to back to back especially since they're all wildly different and for different audiences. While I feel like Blue and The People's Joker are maybe more targeted towards their own communities, Pariah feels more like its for people on the outside looking in. Its very straight-forward, palatable and there's nothing here that would give the straights culture shock. All this to say, that as much as I found this enjoyable and relatable, it just doesn't really speak to me the same way the other two aforementioned films do. Its a very grounded, plainly shot film leaning on a sense of realism which isn't typically my cup of tea and its maybe a bit more sparse than I'd have liked. On the plus side though, the performances are strong, again it is generally enjoyable and relatable, and it has an absolutely killer soundtrack. Good stuff just not totally for me.

Citizen Rules

03-18-25, 02:37 PM

Pariah (Dee Rees, 2011)

OK so full disclosure I actually watched this a number of weeks ago because I rented it from the library and it had to be returned so if I'm a bit iffy on details I apologize. It's totally fine watching the movies in advance, I think other's have done that too, it's all good.

Its fun that we're getting all the queer movies back to back to back especially since they're all wildly different and for different audiences.I'm trying to group movies together to keep the HoF interesting so we can contrast and compare and hopefully I've done a good job at that. But I can't take credit for Pariah being after The People's Joker. Pariah is Cricket's nom and I had planned on having it earlier in the HoF but he had messaged and asked me to hold off on his nom until later, so I did...and it's just random that it came up now.

MovieGal

03-18-25, 02:41 PM

ueno_station54 , just wait until you watch mine. Some really love it and some hated it.

edarsenal

03-18-25, 06:42 PM

I've a free link for The People's Joker, I can PM people if they want the link. It's also on Apple and Fandango for $4.99
yes, please. Thanks,

John W Constantine

03-18-25, 08:51 PM

Pariah (Rees, 2011)

Watched this a few weeks ago, nothing about it I would say I disliked. The story of the main character and her interactions with the differing opinions of her parents and also the scenes with her best friend and new love interest kept me interested. A coming of age story with some nice tenderness about it that I like added to these stories. Again, solid nom and happy we had it in this group.

stillmellow

03-18-25, 11:22 PM

The Good, the Bad, and the Weird

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMDQxOGMwMTUtZTNmMi00ODJmLThiMDctYTJhMzM2YTMzMDhkXkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_.jpg

Could've used more action.

Just kidding.

This movie barely lets up through its 2+ hour runtime. A lot of the combat was a chaotic mess, and difficult to follow, but it seems to have been intentional. Real life gun battles are usually a chaotic mess, with plenty of chances for friendly fire and other random disasters.

Compared to the original good/bad/ugly, this version has far less substance. It doesn't take enough time to show the human sides of the characters. Even our main hero is just 'a guy who does good because he's a good guy'. That said, I like the twist at the end involving one of the main characters (not the one regarding the treasure), that changes the context of everything that happened up to that point in the film.

Anyway, despite its thin story and kinda generic (but very handsome!) main hero, I really enjoyed the spectacle of all its action, especially the huge chase at the end. Song Kang-ho's performance as Yoon Tae-goo was also very good.

I'll definitely recommend it to anyone who wants to watch a lot of unique action, unlike movies they've seen before.

👍

stillmellow

03-19-25, 01:48 AM

I'm going to have to skip Pariah, at least for now. That hits WAY too close to home for me.

Torgo

03-20-25, 12:55 PM

Pariah - 4 CONTAINS SPOILERS

Adolescence is no picnic, is it? As this movie so honestly indicates, it's even more difficult when very few people are on your side, or worse, if you are not sure who is on your side. Sadly, a situation like this is still synonymous with being LBGTQ+. My most prominent takeaway from this movie is indeed how it argues that a partially open door is worse than a closed one.

As the heartbreaking opening scene indicates, i.e. the one where Alike changes into a feminine outfit to avoid an argument with mom, a closed door is disheartening, but manageable. Partially open doors have much more uncertainty, especially since they can appear to be completely open. Alike encounters many such doors in this movie, and to its credit, it fits in many kinds in its short runtime without feeling overstuffed. Highlights are her English teacher, who Alike thinks believes in her, but then she starts giving her half-hearted feedback. Does the teacher not actually believe she's great or does she just not want Alike to be complacent? There's also best friend Laura, who Alike believes is her rock, but she suddenly gives her reasons to question where they stand. I'm most thankful that the movie gives us a character like Bina, however. As many of us can attest, she is the kind of partially open door who can make a person not want to deal with doors ever again. The best, or perhaps only way to escape the hell of adolescence is to grab the reigns, i.e. state who you are to the world and go after what you want. Alike finally does the former in the powerful moment where she comes clean to mom and dad, and as for the latter, there's my other major takeaway: the value of finding a passion. I like how the movie makes Alike's passion, poetry, seem like the ticket, confidence booster, etc. that helps her make this transition. This is also why I enjoy the window into Laura's life beyond the time she spends with her best friend despite how hard it is to watch. Even if Alike becomes a published author, her problems, like Laura's, will unfortunately not disappear.

This is a valuable, not to mention very well acted means of empathizing with the adolescent LBGTQ+ experience. If it sounds like some of Alike's experiences apply to every kind of adolescence, you are not wrong. Such trials and tribulations are indeed universal, and since the movie makes them specific enough to people like Alike, it is definitely not just another teen movie. Besides, their universality is to its benefit for how it makes the movie all the more accessible. Having never heard of this movie or the people who made it until recently, it was a pleasant surprise to discover it was a boon to many of their careers. All that's missing is an epilogue that informs us if Alike was also successful in her literature career. We don't get to hear much of her poetry, but what we do hear is very good!

Citizen Rules

03-21-25, 10:23 PM

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.AT83tkxmzlf2N0zO31biFQHaEK%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=77672aa15fb169c597d7feeda92101edab1eef8d364fd871c45ee99d2bc37a38&ipo=images
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.t8LNllP1Q25Ci_fsGlyxXgHaEA%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=d999b5fd2b0acb65ebd5def2f356abe9688727adadb2a9aa649a1153bc2dede5&ipo=images
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.LcopcMSnYhI55E79PEMaegHaD1%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=d82367d9ceed8a71418e1ddb5fb8b1273a6a34feddc98fa4500534d000ac10ce&ipo=images
Pariah (2011)

I liked what writer/director Dee Rees did with the look of the film especially with the use of lights in the background to express emotion or to add an exuberance to a darker nighttime scene. Each one of those screenshots is a a good example of bokeh effect, which is a deliberate out of focus background rendered with a wide open aperture on the camera's lens, which makes points of light soft diffused and glowing. You can especially see the bokeh effect in the bottom photo.

As I was watching this I noticed lots of interesting choices that the director made. When the husband comes home the wife pretends to sleep and when she wakes he tells her he's been home for an hour which of course was a lie. Now what I find interesting is all the stuff with the dinner plates. First Alike ask her dad one too many question and he gets pissed and dumps his food along with the dinner plate into the trash. Later the mom who now suspects the dad of cheating takes the left over food out of the refrigerator, which is on dinner plates, and dumps the food in the trash. I found that said alot, though I'm not quite sure what it all meant other than there was serious discord going in the house.

Sad that negative family stuff like what happened to Alike and her friend with the moms turning away from their daughters happens, but I'd say Alike will end up being fine on her own.

Takoma11

03-22-25, 08:29 PM

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FKKAdxJCJpoc%2Fhqdefault.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=523ba9de2e48bc53910ec708c15fdd8708dcf9ae752aac2f05c466079b300604&ipo=images

At Play in the Fields of the Lord, 1991

Martin (Aidan Quinn) and his wife Hazel (Kathy Bates) and their son Billy (Niilo Kivirinta) arrive in Brazil as part of the Christian mission to bring their religion to the indigenous Niaruna people of the deep Amazon rainforest. They are joining fellow missionaries Leslie (John Lithgow) and Andy (Daryl Hannah), who have promised a local police commander (Jose Dumont) to “pacify” the tribe in the face of encroaching seizure of land by the government. Complicating their mission is an explorer named Lewis Moon (Tom Berenger), half American Indian, who decides to join the Niaruna as one of their own.

An interesting examination of a multi-factor culture clash is a bit overstuffed.

First, this movie was a lot better than I remembered from having watched it in high school. Perhaps that’s because this time around I wasn’t watching it 40 minutes at a time over the course of a week on a crummy VHS tape, suffering through the endless commentary of teenage male classmates seemingly unable to get over the novelty of female nudity in the classroom.

I think that the best thing about this film, with its sprawling scope, is the way that it captures the various complexities behind the reasons that mission work takes place around the world. Through the various characters, we witness the power dynamics at play, and the contradictions in how indigenous people are seen by their supposed saviors. All of the characters in the film, no matter their motives, have selfish reasons for their decisions, leading to an inevitable disaster.

Martin is perhaps the most “pure” of the characters we meet, aside perhaps from his son, Billy, who takes to indigenous ways and quickly makes friends. Martin is religious, yet, but he also has an anthropological interest in the tribes and their way of life. His wife, Hazel, is the opposite. She is disgusted by what she sees as “evil” lifestyles and their potential corruption of their child. Leslie is the more overtly superficial of the missionaries, seeing the souls and lives of the indigenous people as more akin to points on a scoreboard than as something innately of value.

The film is at its best when it demonstrates the inherent folly and outright corruption in the process of “pacifying” the Niaruna. Even Martin, who does seem to genuinely care about the Niaruna people, doesn’t actually grasp the scope of what his preaching is doing to the tribal dynamics. There’s a sequence where Hazel tries to force the Niaruna women into modest dresses and bras, which they respond to with a sort of baffled acceptance. This scene is perhaps the best analogy for the whole operation. Martin dunking the Niaruna in the river to baptise them isn’t too far away from putting a dress on someone who doesn’t need or want it.

Further from those good intentions are the actions of Leslie and the commander. Leslie wants the mission to succeed so that they can “win back” those who may have been converted by a Catholic mission that failed when the priest and nuns were killed by the tribe. The commander, meanwhile, knows that gold hunters and others are encroaching on the Niaruna land, and wants to avoid clashes that would make his management of the area look bad. Religious conversion and assimilation are not being done out of care, but as a “nice” way to steal the land and resources of the Niaruna.

Overall, the film looks good, and it’s interesting that it was all shot on location in the Amazon. The jungle feels like a jungle, and the sense of isolation is effective. The family are clearly a very long way from South Dakota.

I did struggle with a few aspects of the film. The female characters are woefully underwritten, despite Kathy Bates doing her best to inject a sense of humanity into Hazel. Daryla Hannah seems to mainly be in the film to be lusted after by all characters, culminating in a nude swim in the river and then a cheesecake sequence of sitting against a tree. This part of the film sticks out like a sore thumb because it’s in such contrast to the way that the indigenous women have been filmed and because a woman going swimming alone, naked, knowing that women in this exact area were raped and killed and there are currently hostile feelings on the part of the tribes is so very stupid that it dings that suspension of disbelief. An indigenous woman named Pindi (Ione Machado) is never even given a single line of dialogue, despite being Moon’s wife and having his child.

And despite its efforts to be even-handed in the treatment of the indigenous people, there are some moments that just don’t feel right. When Andy tells Martin that a man came up to her during her swim, Martin is disbelieving that she wasn’t raped. By way of explanation, she tells him that it was Moon. The logic that she wasn’t raped because the guy she encountered was really white/”civilized” seems to be not just Martin’s framing of the situation, but the film’s framing as well, and that didn’t sit too well with me. We’re given a handful of moments looking at tensions within the tribe about how to deal with the white interlopers, but I wanted to see much more of the complexity of that situation.

Overall, I wish that this film had spent more time with the tribe and in deepening Moon’s journey. It seems to me that there were just too many plot points and character dynamics here, and that the end result is a sense that despite a three hour plus runtime, many aspects get a too superficial treatment. Certain characters, like Moon and Hazel, seem to go from a point A to a point B in a jump and it doesn’t totally make sense. There are also parts of the character arcs---such as Martin seemingly having a crisis of faith---that aren’t followed through on.

I’m glad to have revisited this film, and I thought that the performances were very good.

3.5

I_Wear_Pants

03-22-25, 11:21 PM

Crap. I had a health thingy on Tuesday and it threw me off for At Play in the Fields of the Lord so now I need to rent it again. That'll happen in the next few days when a refund comes.

I have Past Lives on loan from the library so I can try for that tonight. I found Persona else ways.

Those are my current focus.

TheManBehindTheCurtain

03-23-25, 02:20 AM

Pariah (2011)
Writer/Director: Dee Rees
Key cast: Adepero Oduye, Kim Wayans, Charles Parnell, Pernell Walker, Kim Sykes

4

106394

Writer/Director Dee Rees immediately plunges us into the middle of Alike’s world. She’s a 17-year-old black woman, adrift in the throbbing music of a gay club where the lyrics are explicit, the atmosphere is electric, and life-changing choices seem to await. At the forceful urging of her friend Laura, Alike is surveying the crowd, hoping for her first sexual encounter. Despite Laura’s urging, Alike chooses to go home, uncomfortable with the scene, saying she’s trying to avoid an argument with her conservative mother.

As we follow Alike (Adepero Oduye) in the coming days, we see her pushed and pulled in conflicting directions. She’s confident enough in her identity to change into masculine clothes when she gets to school, weathering the hurtful comments and taunts of school mates. But then she changes back before going home, trying not to reveal too much to her parents. Her mother Audrey (Kim Wayans) pushes Alike to try some more feminine clothes and forces her to make friends with a fellow church-goer’s daughter, Bina (Aasha Davis). Her policeman father, Arthur (Charles Parnell), sometimes tries to shield Alike from her mother’s hectoring, though mostly he just wants to avoid conflict. Best friend Laura (Pernell Walker) tries to encourage Alike to break out, but is distracted by her own outcast relationship with her mother. Bina turns out to have her own agenda.

The one who sees Alike simply as a person is her English teacher, Mrs. Singletary (Kim Sykes), who coaches her on her poetry. When she tells Alike “I believe you can go deeper,” it’s encouragement, not criticism.

Our feeling of connection with Alike and her tortuous search for a world where she belongs makes it gut-wrenching to see her endure rejection by her mother, clueless and ineffectual support from her father, and betrayal by friends. She does nothing to deserve her role as outcast, pariah, but she bears the pain rather than compromise to please others.

Pariah is an immersive experience. The handheld camera weaves in and out of the action, an intimate onlooker as Alike, and the people in her life, collide or connect. Music accentuates the action when the characters are playing it themselves, but there’s no background soundtrack, giving the personal scenes even more authenticity. The dialog and acting are so raw and true, from the central personalities to the peripheral characters, that you never feel you’re watching actors in a movie. It’s as if you’re eavesdropping on the private lives of these people. There simply isn’t a false note.

It feels wrong to try to force-fit Pariah with the label “coming of age drama,” a term that drags along many superficial tropes. Alike is not the Hollywood stereotype of the belligerent teenager. Yes, she fights with her parents, but there are moments (however brief) when she and her mother do share intimacies (as in the picture). She can be brusque with friends, but knows when she’s gone too far and should apologize. Most important, that journey to a sexual experience is not the crude, jokey pursuit of teen comedies. For Alike it’s not about the sex, but about intimacy, about craving for a connection with someone who truly sees and accepts her as she is.

Adepero Oduye does a sublime job of portraying Alike as inexperienced, but not naïve; cautious, but not cowed; determined, but never cocky. And above all, smart and wise beyond her years, able to acknowledge, in her final heartfelt, revelatory poetry reading for Miss Singletary, how strong she really is, with the insight to recognize the type of world where she really belongs and the courage to make the choice to go there.

PHOENIX74

03-23-25, 03:03 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/T35S1L9x/pariah.jpg

Pariah - 2011

Directed by Dee Rees

Written Dee Rees

Starring Adepero Oduye, Kim Wayans, Aasha Davis, Charles Parnell, Pernell Walker, Sahra Mellesse

It's a scene that plays out every day, in the United States and all over the world - homophobic parents can rob their children of the comfort and acceptance most take for granted, and that makes it hard for nearly every gay kid out there weighing up whether to come out, or at least when. It's something I never had to worry about, but although I'm sure my parents would have stuck by me if I were gay, I'm also sure they wouldn't have liked it - which I'm very sorry and sad to say. For seventeen-year-old Alike (Adepero Oduye), this is something that has been simmering - just an added factor to the tension quite common to a parental relationship strained by a young girl on the cusp of adulthood, and trying to assert her independence. Alike wears masculine clothes, and her best friend, Laura (Pernell Walker) is openly gay - something which pains Alike's mother, Audrey (Kim Wayans). Her father, Arthur (Charles Parnell), is a cop by profession, and more accepting of Alike - not that he seems any more amenable to her being a lesbian. When Laura encourages Alike to spend time with the daughter of a family friend, Bina (Aasha Davis), there's an unexpected romantic spark - not that this will make Alike's journey any easier to navigate.

We spend a lot of time in Pariah reading facial expressions - something aided by Bradford Young's sterling cinematography, with it's shallow depth of field narrowing our focus on each character and isolating them in many shots. It seemed to me an intensive exploration of everyone's emotional state with close up shots (note how at first many of the shots featuring Alike don't allow us much of a full-frontal view of her face - as we see others) slowly revealing more of Alike's features as she solidifies into the adult she's destined to be. Of course this means feeling a lot of the pain and anger Alike does, but Dee Rees also carefully allots time for us to gather the world of emotion regarding those surrounding her. We see that Arthur and Audrey's relationship is on the rocks, and how that contributes to the situation with Alike and her mother. We see how Alike's relationship with Bina leaves Laura out in the cold, and how much of a betrayal that feels like to what was a best friend. The other characters in the film are given enough emotional depth to make them feel like they have a life beyond the screen and what we're privileged to see, and that makes the film feel expansive and grounded at the same time.

You might be surprised to learn that Adepero Oduye was 33-years-old when she played Alike. What she does best is imbue her character with a real sense of not naivete, but uncertainty, doubt and confusion. There's an unforgettable sequence in the movie where, to advance her credentials as a serious player, Alike manages to procure a strap-on implement she's immediately uncomfortable with. She wears it on a date, her discomfort absolutely palpable - and though the whole episode speaks to a lack of experience and guidance, it's always her expressiveness and body language that tells us the most. Of course there's a great deal of pain, moments of pleasure and determined anger - a teenage swirl that I must imagine would have been difficult for a 33-year-old actor to summon. It's a performance worthy of note, and of course absolutely critical to the success of the movie. Kim Wayans and Charles Parnell are of course also very good in an ensemble that rises to an occasion worth celebrating. There's nowhere to hide in a film that hinges like it does on an emotional intensity that varies so much from scene to scene.

Dee Rees describes Pariah as being semi-autobiographical but I think it tells the story of many out there. Of course, there's a lot of angst and sadness surrounding Alike's struggle here, but I didn't feel like this was a sad film overall, mainly because of how our main character holds her head high throughout. She isn't belligerent or brattish at all, and is instead determined to hold her ground and be herself in the midst of being wronged by lesser people. There are also moments where I felt sympathy for Alike's mother - not because of her prejudice, but because of the results of it. There's a scene where she's bought her daughter feminine clothes, and her friend lets slip an opinion that causes Audrey's eyes to betray a deep well of sadness - a sense she was hanging onto something gone forever and see knew it. I like a film where we feel empathy for someone who is for all intents and purposes the "villain" - Audrey is losing her daughter and her husband, and while it's easy to dislike her when she violently lashes out or uses religion to evoke a sense of superiority, she's also a person to be pitied for being a truly lost soul.

It's worth mentioning the Alike is a poet - an aspiring poet in a sense, finding her voice. At first I wanted to transcribe the poem she writes and recites at the end of the film, but although not a spoiler per se it's part of the movie and should probably best be heard as part of the film - I really enjoyed the way it summed up and encapsulated who Alike was and what her journey represents. There aren't many films out there where one of the biggest highlights is recited poetry, and that's part of Pariah's uniqueness along with being evidence of just how well written the Dees Rees' screenplay is. For me personally, this was an introduction to Dees Rees and (a film I had not known about until now) Pariah, which was her debut feature (Dees Rees went on to be the first African-American women nominated for an Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay for her 2017 film Mudbound.) Another major blind spot, because to me Pariah seems like a pretty significant film from the 2010s. A much-needed departure from all of the horror that I've seen on the screen this year, and that I've seen in the news - restoring some of my belief in humanity.

4

rauldc14

03-24-25, 11:37 AM

At Play in the Fields of the Lord

https://a.ltrbxd.com/resized/sm/upload/yo/pk/lv/t4/be5Ech9euP9wtemqoDXDZ2I80ss-1200-1200-675-675-crop-000000.jpg?v=510b4d5488

I don't know, to me it just feels like an extremely dated movie and it's only from the 1990s. I was pretty bored with it early and there are a few captivating scenes but ultimately it fails to keep my interest with its runtime that seems like it's just too long and drawn out for me. There's nothing particularly wrong with the acting but it fails to have any standout performers for me. I don't necessarily see the look of the film as a strength either. The strength of the film seems to to that it is well directed, but there is just too much fluff and too much drawing out of the movie for me to enjoy it.

2

Citizen Rules

03-24-25, 02:12 PM

The Movie for Week 12 is:

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.MNgCvuQaomfovsaAmE16tQHaEK%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=9a4a7efd4e51e2b54113355cdb30eec996a90f78d50eb0da5857128d16336e70&ipo=images
Before the Rain (1994)
Director Milcho Manchevski

Due date to watch/review: March 31st

@MovieGal (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=80538) @jiraffejustin (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=76459) @John W Constantine (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=109412) @PHOENIX74 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=112080)
@rauldc14 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=60169) @edarsenal (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=50536) @Torgo (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=109334) @Takoma11 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=107735) @ueno_station54 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=111569) @stillmellow (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=124844) @cricket (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=68505) @TheManBehindTheCurtain

*Keep an eye on the 1st post, that's were the review links and info are.

cricket

03-24-25, 07:57 PM

Pariah

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhx1CtnPXUL1A-XQglOynrftk2G9x-bbprVvM07Y5kNxL0C655vqKSXKLubjKErmmWCoH_Ep_vPlaBFzBqBFiZHMNWLO1FpRM0uvHiY3hbZKnbRSA9Rps-_nfwtZiqG4BoN7cXtJKuZP68/s1600/pariah+3.jpg

I nominated this because I think it's an underseen gem that's hard not to appreciate in some way. I liked it even more than I did the first time. All strong performances from actors that I am not familiar with, with the exception of Charles Parnell who I've seen plenty of times. Not spectacular cinematography but it looks good. Not music that I like, yet I loved the soundtrack. Very moving with a sprinkling of humor. I like the fact that it's an all black cast but it's not about stereotypical black issues like racism or drug dealing. It's a human story about people who just happen to be black. However, I do find the story to have an additional layer added to it due to the character's race. To have a family together like this in the black community is looked at as a real badge of honor. They seem to have everything going for them; stability, capability, opportunity, good looks, etc. I wonder where their issues come from, but if I had to guess, part of it stems from a desire to appear to be the perfect family to others. I don't know but I find it interesting. Very important to note, Alike is not rejected because she is a lesbian, she is rejected because the people who reject her are flawed.

4+

I_Wear_Pants

03-25-25, 01:17 AM

Takoma11

03-25-25, 01:01 PM

At Play et cetera made me uncomfortable when the little boys were running around naked. It made me feel ill and I got completely disenchanted with the film. I know what it is trying to do but it felt like exploitation. I would not let my kids anywhere near whomever wrote and directed this film.

While I have complicated feelings about child actors in general, and specifically acting that involves nudity, the naked kids in this movie (which included the boys but also many adolescent girls in the tribe) didn't strike me as particularly exploitative. It looked a lot like how kids run around naked together and don't care.

More broadly speaking, I think it's complicated showing the body of someone who is too young to give consent and also too young to understand the potential long-term impact of lots of people seeing you naked. But outside of those general misgivings, I didn't think this film was egregious on that front. That said, I appreciate that everyone draws their "line of ick" in different places.

I_Wear_Pants

03-25-25, 05:24 PM

While I have complicated feelings about child actors in general, and specifically acting that involves nudity, the naked kids in this movie (which included the boys but also many adolescent girls in the tribe) didn't strike me as particularly exploitative. It looked a lot like how kids run around naked together and don't care.

More broadly speaking, I think it's complicated showing the body of someone who is too young to give consent and also too young to understand the potential long-term impact of lots of people seeing you naked. But outside of those general misgivings, I didn't think this film was egregious on that front. That said, I appreciate that everyone draws their "line of ick" in different places.

I didn't really like seeing the little girls naked either. It was just eurgh. Naked adults is fine because they are more able to choose to do it. This just didn't sit well with me.

cricket

03-25-25, 06:29 PM

I didn't really like seeing the little girls naked either. It was just eurgh. Naked adults is fine because they are more able to choose to do it. This just didn't sit well with me.

It didn't bother me in this particular film but it's pretty much the only thing that bothers me in movies.

I_Wear_Pants

03-25-25, 06:55 PM

It didn't bother me in this particular film but it's pretty much the only thing that bothers me in movies.

It didn't help that the one kid looked reluctant to get naked so it just felt really weird. If someone asked my kid(s) to get naked for a movie I'd probably ask them to find someone else. Now if they're like 15 or 16 or something then I'd discuss it with them. At that age, it wouldn't sit well with me.

On a brighter note, I can probably watch Past Lives within the next couple of days. I'm not going to pretend I have a shot to catch up. It'll be fun to try anyway though.

Ooh and People's Joker is ready for me to pick it up at the library. I'll probably get that done tomorrow some time. I suppose I could just walk down there this afternoon.

TheManBehindTheCurtain

03-25-25, 07:03 PM

Citizen Rules

03-25-25, 08:42 PM

I too found the nudity of the children uncomfortable to watch. But if I were to try to channel what Director Babenco might say: that's exactly the point. To the Niaruna, this is completely normal and natural. They do not try to hide the nakedness of either the adults or the children from Western eyes. Notice how the Kathy Bates character finds the natives disgusting and tries to clothe the women, which they find humorous. I think, in our discomfort, he wants to goad us into considering that we're judging them by standards that are completely alien to the tribe. There's also the nudity of the Darrell Hannah character, which I think you can legitimately say was gratuitous ... or purposefully included as a contrast to again challenge us to examine our attitudes.

Again: I too shared your discomfort watching this. I'm just throwing out this idea because it may be worth considering whether he could have achieved the same effect in some other fashion. The tribes people were played by actual Amazonian natives, and though I haven't read deeply on the production, I would surmise they were not forced into the nude scenes. Whether they embraced it or not, or were misled, I don't know.I agree with everything you said there. To me the only nudity that seemed out of place was Daryl Hanna's cheesecake pose where she's reclining in a centerfold cliche manner on the jungle ground. Hey, there's lots of ants in those jungles get off the damn ground! I don't mind seeing DH in her birthday suit per se but the director could've made it more natural and less of a peep show thing. But I never even thought of the kids nudity until Pants mentioned it. To me the film's payoff is the immersion in the actual Amazonian jungle setting.

In the very first main HoF I was in there was a movie nominated with kid nudity and a lot of people considered it a charming film, but I had issues with it. From my review in the 8th HoF:
http://m13.mask9.com/sites/default/files/styles/l/public/imagepad/20140915/20140915112010-95f021c91d5f2e8b4fa9b9427cea981d4acd8b42.35/movie-my-life-as-a-dog-s1-mask9.jpg
My Life as a Dog

While I liked the majority of the film, I did not like the scenes where a 12 year old girl (played by a 14 year old actresses) exposed her breast to the camera. Over 18 being topless, no problem!...but I don't want to see a little girl semi nude in a movie, yuk!

Maybe this is a cultural thing and in Sweden it was considered enduring and natural. I doubt in America this film would get a theatrical release. The director could have simply made a film edit cutting to the reaction on the boys face as the girl pulls her shirt off. It wasn't necessary to do a close up of her breast.

Besides a few questionable scenes involving sexuality and children I did like the film.

I_Wear_Pants

03-26-25, 04:49 AM

I too found the nudity of the children uncomfortable to watch. But if I were to try to channel what Director Babenco might say: that's exactly the point. To the Niaruna, this is completely normal and natural. They do not try to hide the nakedness of either the adults or the children from Western eyes. Notice how the Kathy Bates character finds the natives disgusting and tries to clothe the women, which they find humorous. I think, in our discomfort, he wants to goad us into considering that we're judging them by standards that are completely alien to the tribe. There's also the nudity of the Daryl Hannah character, which I think you can legitimately say was gratuitous ... or purposefully included as a contrast to again challenge us to examine our attitudes.

Again: I too shared your discomfort watching this. I'm just throwing out this idea because it may be worth considering whether he could have achieved the same effect in some other fashion. The tribes people were played by actual Amazonian natives, and though I haven't read deeply on the production, I would surmise they were not forced into the nude scenes. Whether they embraced it or not, or were misled, I don't know.

Part of it for me was the perceived reluctance of the white boy to get naked. Tom Berenger going nude wasn't so bad because he is an adult and he chose to jump out of a plane and take his clothes off and join the natives. The little white child looked, to me, like he didn't want to do it.

I didn't mind it as much with the indigenous people because that is their culture, so I guess it fit what I expected? Or it wasn't as connected to me because they are dark-skinned whereas the white child is a white kid like mine so it felt more personal? I don't know if that's a bad way to think about it.

I've also thought for a while that, just because what was sough was achieved, it doesn't mean I have to like what was sought, in this case the lack of comfort. I don't discount your thoughts. I just mean a desired result and a positive perception aren't synonyms for me.

Citizen Rules

03-26-25, 12:14 PM

Part of it for me was the perceived reluctance of the white boy to get naked. Tom Berenger going nude wasn't so bad because he is an adult and he chose to jump out of a plane and take his clothes off and join the natives. The little white child looked, to me, like he didn't want to do it.

I didn't mind it as much with the indigenous people because that is their culture, so I guess it fit what I expected? Or it wasn't as connected to me because they are dark-skinned whereas the white child is a white kid like mine so it felt more personal? I don't know if that's a bad way to think about it.

I've also thought for a while that, just because what was sough was achieved, it doesn't mean I have to like what was sought, in this case the lack of comfort. I don't discount your thoughts. I just mean a desired result and a positive perception aren't synonyms for me.That's the same for me, if I see a movie with a CG animal being tortured and killed it deeply bothers me and I hold it against the film. It doesn't matter to my mind that it was just CG as I can feel the pain and suffering. So you are right in believing and feeling like you do, because we're all individuals with different responses and like Takoma said I can respect that people have different 'ick lines' when watching a movie.

MovieGal

03-26-25, 12:21 PM

Citizen Rules

03-26-25, 12:38 PM

There are so many factors when it come to when a film was made and what was allowed..

I watched Child Bride from 1938, which was pre Hayes Code and it didn't bother me. And it wasnt a great copy where you saw her nudity.

Its fine if it made people uncomfortable. Its their choice to watch or not.Chile Bride was PahaK's nom in the 1930's Hall of Fame (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1913443#post1913443) Very controversial for some members, just click that link and on the 1st page are links to the member's review for Child Bride.

MovieGal

03-26-25, 01:06 PM

Chile Bride was PahaK's nom in the 1930's Hall of Fame (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1913443#post1913443) Very controversial for some members, just click that link and on the 1st page are links to the member's review for Child Bride.

Also, there is a difference in exploiting a child for monetary gain at the child's expense and a "child actor".

The parents, guardians and/or agent for the child actor understands there is nudity and its agreed upon and purpose of the film.

Child exploition is just wrong, but has similar characteristics as mentioned above and for all the wrong reasons.

MovieGal

03-26-25, 08:16 PM

106518
Before The Rain
(1994)

A film told in three interchangeable parts about a cultural and religious war between the Albanian Muslims and Macedonian Orthodox Christians. Each story having a major impact on the others.

Words. Faces. Pictures.

At the beginning of the film, you see a Orthodox Christians funeral being performed, as a young woman looks on.

Words, tells the story of an Albanian Muslim girl hiding in an Orthodox Christian monastery from a group of Christian Macedonians, who accused her of murdering one of their own. She seeks refuge in the room of a young monk who took a vow of silence. When she is discovered, both are forced out. She is found by her family and is executed by her brother rather than bring disgrace to her family. The man she murdered attempted to rape her.

Faces, thells the story of Alex, a Macedonian reporter and his British lover, Anne, who is a photographer and learns she is pregnant. Anne meets her estranged husband in a local restaurant to seek a divorce, who is gunned down by an enraged patron.

Pictures, story of Alex returning home to Macedonian, from many years away on assignment, to find his family's home in shambles. He tries to piece together his life after being away and reconnecting with family. He visits a female schoolmate, Hana, who he had a crush on 16 years before. Her family is Albanian Muslim and Alex looked down on by her father amd brother. The murdered man is Alex's uncle and the murderer, is Hana's sister. When Alex tries to help Hana's sister, he is gunned down by his own family. The funeral at the beginning was for Alex and the onlooker was Anne.

When I first viewed this film many years ago, it had such an impact on me, I never forgot it. It was the first of two I have seen from this region of Europe. The other being, The Forgiveness of Blood, from Albania, which deals with a blood feud.

I love the visual of the film with the rustic countryside and simple construction of the homes. The music fits perfectly with the cultural influences. The tension between religious and cultural is amazing, to see such hatred for the other, when at one time, they were peaceful.

This is a film every one should see.

John W Constantine

03-26-25, 09:24 PM

Before the Rain (1994, Manchevski)

Having rewatched this yesterday I admit I've had trouble in formulating my thoughts about what to say about this film. In simple terms I liked it. Especially being able to digest it's story again with good subs (thanks CR). Recently these past few months I have been circling around on movies I had seen an extended period of time long ago. I did watch this during the first few days when it was announced for the HoF. Two months is definitely shorter than years but it has proved rewarding as other rewatches in this time frame have been. I guess my point would be sometimes, look again. Because for me personally one of my if not my favorite things about watching films now is something old giving a whole new perspective on things in the past. In regards to this film, having sat on it for a day not really knowing what to say about this nom over than i highly enjoyed it this time, it struck me as interesting when our photographer friend returns home after many years after an apparent incident with one of his classmates spouse he is introduced to a radically different place he called home than the one he left. Especially in the relations between the different religious backgrounds of the people who call it home. Before the Rain is a story told in three different acts but I realized ACT 1 is almost a ripple effect look into the photographers life in the town many years previous. The structure is clever in switching up in the third act and going out of chronologic order as that helped in telling the story from a different pov. Sometimes it's hard landing the plane in these reviews but all I can say is I found this a very good selection for the group and sometimes the second time around can be even more rewarding.

Torgo

03-27-25, 02:43 PM

Before the Rain - 5

Much has been made of how Pulp Fiction shuffles the deck, if you will, but after watching this movie, I'm surprised I haven't heard more about how this one does it. Not to take away from Tarantino's classic, but Manchevski's use of the technique should have equal attention for how it makes you consider the cyclical nature of war. Then again, is this really a war movie? There is some militia violence, but it's not to the scale of what's in your All Quiet on the Western Fronts or Saving Private Ryans. I think it still counts as one; after all, what happens secondhand in war, which is most of what we witness, is just as destructive. Also, as the movie brilliantly reveals, it's hardly localized to the battlefield. From the idyll of a remote monastery to a fancy restaurant in London, we observe how those who may not even be aware of the war could be its victims. Moreover, the characters of focus in each segment may not be saints, but they are at least trying to have a positive effect on the world, thus making their appearances in the crosshairs all the more heinous. I mean, it's right there in the opening scene: what could be more peaceful and innocent than a monk - one who has taken a vow of silence, no less - planting tomatoes in a monastery garden? Going back to the shuffled timeline, if you charted the one in Pulp Fiction, I predict it would show few loose ends, but I would not say the same for this movie. This is more feature than bug, though, especially since it spells it out for us ("the circle is never round").

This movie did what the best movies I've ever seen also did: made me see the world in a different light and in a unique way. Even though it's a way found in other time-jumping movies, its approach is special enough for the unique descriptor to apply. Also, as a fan of Rade Serbedzija's British and American character work, it was very satisfying to see him in an earlier role and in a movie from his neck of the woods. So, is this movie a good way to introduce someone to the conflict that broke Yugoslavia apart? Again, I learned a lot from it, but I'm ashamed to admit I cannot answer that. I'll at least share that like in too many other similar conflicts, the cause was more important than anyone's humanity.

cricket

03-27-25, 08:01 PM

I don't read the reviews until I watch but that's a lot of popcorns. Never heard of it and will go in blind this weekend.

MovieGal

03-27-25, 08:06 PM

I don't read the reviews until I watch but that's a lot of popcorns. Never heard of it and will go in blind this weekend.

cricket, three of us loved it. Im sure you will too.

Citizen Rules

03-27-25, 08:24 PM

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.4J3qzIhsYGFnA6S3_73gwwHaEK%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=a80865b95cde449e19cd3da4dc72342f256959f92b94bb05f18df6b057c605ec&ipo=images
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.VxwLZSCYDp1rNC1ShHubugHaE2%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=87d4a30c43c877ea2a2714d931992eb1a5ac3c2b58620a3339d32249d25f733e&ipo=images
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.MlwpKZXDXXdDfl_Tr8pHxgHaEK%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=506964a03380bdb085be06d5409501e7c64009c1a08097474663eb595cb2444e&ipo=images
Before The Rain (1994)
Dir. Milcho Manchevski

Filmed in the Republic of North Macedonia...they had a name change in 2018, before that they were known as Macedonia and back in the Soviet Union days they were known as Yugoslavia, I think they once made a cheap little car there called the Yugo.

Visually the film is a treat with gorgeous views of Macedonia and the small rural villages that were so terribly divided. With the exception of a few dicey directorial choices the film cinemagraphically is a stand out. What a cool looking garden that is in the first screen shot. In the third screen shot I like the way the lone man is framed by the darkness of the interior walls, he stands alone just like his character in the movie. The lone tree too suggest isolation.

I sure hope these people in Macedonia got their act together and stopped killing each other because as the film showed us it looked like a beautiful version of hell.

stillmellow

03-27-25, 10:18 PM

The People's Joker

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZTA2YWYxYWUtODA3Ni00MTI4LTkxYjktMDQ2M2M3MzZmZGU4XkEyXkFqcGc@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.jpg

This may be the closest I've ever seen to a fully actualized movie. I can't imagine any bit of it getting changed for the better. Not that it's perfect, but it's quite an amazing mess.

It is utterly bizarre, ham fisted, grotesque, and true in ways that few movies can claim to be. How can I not love a ridiculous trans fable that says things like:

"There are no such things as heroes or villains. That's a lie you were told in order to sell soda. Hero and villain are just faces we put on each day."

Good and evil cease to matter in such a story. What matters are personal relationships and being true to ourselves.

Sadly, a LOT of the anti-trans elements are extremely relevant today, especially in America.

Regardless of what your political beliefs may be, I hope we can all agree that if people aren't allowed to identify as the gender they are on in the inside, then they aren't allowed to be themselves. And if people can't publically be themselves then they aren't allowed to exist at all.

In a world where people are not free to control their identity and own body, people like Batman are not heroes. Theirs just a different form of oppressor.

A-

stillmellow

03-28-25, 03:21 AM

Before the Rain (1994)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d1/Beforetherain.jpg

The film was very hit or miss with me. The third section works a lot better than the first two sections, but it wouldn't have been nearly as powerful without the first two sections.

It's an effective collection of stories about the cyclical nature of war, that makes good use of non-linear storytelling to get its message across.

It is possible for violence to be too random, however, when filmmaking, and it's due to this that the second section is the weakest.

Still, a very thoughtful and heart- wrenching film, concerning wars that most Americans try to pretend never happened.

👍

I_Wear_Pants

03-28-25, 02:28 PM

Also, there is a difference in exploiting a child for monetary gain at the child's expense and a "child actor".

The parents, guardians and/or agent for the child actor understands there is nudity and its agreed upon and purpose of the film.

Child exploition is just wrong, but has similar characteristics as mentioned above and for all the wrong reasons.

There are a few reasons I have misgivings with child nudity.

When I did a comedic horror thing, I commented to someone that I should have written my intro with my character's girlfriend and I making out so I could kiss her, and it made me start to question why scenes are written like that. I didn't actually do it, and mostly meant the quip out of jest, although it got me thinking about it.

Then there was the huge Nickelodeon scandal that came to light recently where the producers would write things for their child actors to feed their twisted desires, and that made me question it even more.

Maybe that's not what happened here. I just can't really escape the notion that it's done for nefarious gains now.

stillmellow

03-28-25, 05:28 PM

There are a few reasons I have misgivings with child nudity.

When I did a comedic horror thing, I commented to someone that I should have written my intro with my character's girlfriend and I making out so I could kiss her, and it made me start to question why scenes are written like that. I didn't actually do it, and mostly meant the quip out of jest, although it got me thinking about it.

Then there was the huge Nickelodeon scandal that came to light recently where the producers would write things for their child actors to feed their twisted desires, and that made me question it even more.

Maybe that's not what happened here. I just can't really escape the notion that it's done for nefarious gains now.

I'm admittedly not as concerned with this issue, BUT I definitely agree that there are many instances in films and tv where childten and young teenagers are exploited by writers and directors. And it can get 10x worse if the creator place themselves in the scene. At that point I'd be highly suspicious of their motives

stillmellow

03-28-25, 05:43 PM

I_Wear_Pants

03-28-25, 07:20 PM

I'm admittedly not as concerned with this issue, BUT I definitely agree that there are many instances in films and tv where childten and young teenagers are exploited by writers and directors. And it can get 10x worse if the creator place themselves in the scene. At that point I'd be highly suspicious of their motives

In all seriousness and fairness, I would never actually do that. It was just a thought that popped into my head. I'm sure there were other motives here for At Play... It just made me uneasy and I decided not to continue the movie. It's probably a cultural thing for both my lack of comfort with it and the indigenous people being free with it.

rauldc14

03-28-25, 08:34 PM

Pariah

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/R0fZOxAcljQ/maxresdefault.jpg

I was quite surprised how much I liked this. The characters just felt so real. The struggles of the family felt like we were watching something so real. It's really low-key good acting. My favorite scene is the conflicts scenes with Mom and Dad. It makes the viewer uncomfortable but is very well done. And it's heartbreaking to see the mother and daughters relationship falter. It's exactly what the director intended to do though. Also a shout out to how good the film looks color wise. Just overall quite a pleasant surprise.

3.5+

I_Wear_Pants

03-28-25, 08:52 PM

The most overt example I can think of in a mainstream film is My Father the Hero, which has a scene where a 14 year old actress is shown wearing a thong. The movie plays it as a joke, because her father flips out after seeing what she's wearing.

And it struck me that the joke works just as well when we don't see the nudity. There never was a reason to show the nudity. There was never even a legitimate reason to have the actress wear a thong. She could've worn blue jeans, and just not filmed her below the waist.

It's difficult not to suspect that 'having the underage actress show up on set in a thong' was the whole point of the scene.

I've gotten into the habit of asking myself, when I write a "questionable" scene (one with explicit content), "Would I feel comfortable with someone that matters to me being in this scene?" or "Would I be comfortable doing this scene myself?" and stuff of that ilk. If I can't fathom my comfort with the action or lines, then it doesn't go in the script.

I should qualify this to add that, if the performer says, "Hey what if I do this thing you find uncomfortable even though I don't and think it'd fit?" then I'd be apt to do it. I want people to feel at ease when I make films with them. It's not foolproof of course. It's just a general guideline. Sometimes I'm more comfortable with some things than other people are, and I know that, and I am flexible.

rauldc14

03-28-25, 08:55 PM

The Good, The Bad and The Weird I might need a link for yet. That's the only one I'm behind on.

Are Gone With the Wind and I Confess still happening?

Citizen Rules

03-28-25, 10:01 PM

The Good, The Bad and The Weird I might need a link for yet. That's the only one I'm behind on. That's on YouTube, I'll PM you a link.

Are Gone With the Wind and I Confess still happening?I talked to JiraffeJustin and he said he's trying to finish so hopefully GWTW will be in, but right now it's on hold. It would be great if I_Wear_Pants could catch up but he said he didn't think he could, so right now his movie is on hold too.

I_Wear_Pants

03-28-25, 11:03 PM

Blue was an interesting idea but I didn't like how he did it. I can understand experimenting. This guy just rattled on about uninteresting things. It felt like whinging, and I got really bored. I think if it was more interesting and upbeat I would have l liked his stories more. I don't really want to hear about a cancerous eye and drinking tea. I respect ambition. This just didn't do it for me.

I_Wear_Pants

03-28-25, 11:07 PM

Citizen Rules

03-29-25, 02:45 AM

At Play in the Fields of the Lord wasn't as good an idea and it really didn't click with me. I don't really like religious nor cultural appropriation, nor do I appreciate child nudity. It just was... erugh. It wasn't for me. I felt nearly physically ill when the seven-year old boy took off his shorts. No thank you.At Play in the Fields of the Lord was anti-religion, the missionaries were shown to be disrespectful to the indigenous people and their actions mostly selfish and hurtful to the native people who lived in the Amazonian jungle. But your own nom, I Confess (1953), is much more religious as it's about a priest test of his own religious beliefs as he won't reveal facts about a crime he heard in the confessional. I'm not sure why you say you don't like religious but chose a movie with religious themes?

rauldc14

03-29-25, 11:21 AM

Citizen Rules

03-29-25, 01:50 PM

DEADLINE for the HoF is April 14th, that's 2 1/2 weeks from now.

Some of you are keeping up nicely and some have fallen behind. Just to be clear, all the movie noms have to be watched & reviewed before sending in your ballot. Sorry but I can't make exceptions as I've already told a couple of people in PMs that everything had to be watched and reviewed before a ballot can be submitted.

*There's still a chance that Gone With the Wind and I Confess will be in, so that could be two more movies you have to watch. If those movies are added back in then I will extend the deadline of April 14th by one week for each of those movies.

Take a look at the 1st post to see what you still need to watch. If you have questions just ask.

@MovieGal (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=80538) @jiraffejustin (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=76459) @John W Constantine (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=109412) @PHOENIX74 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=112080)
@rauldc14 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=60169) @edarsenal (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=50536) @Torgo (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=109334) @Takoma11 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=107735) @ueno_station54 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=111569) @stillmellow (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=124844) @cricket (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=68505) @TheManBehindTheCurtain @I_Wear_Pants (http://www.movieforums.com/community/member.php?u=96027)

I_Wear_Pants

03-29-25, 03:39 PM

At Play in the Fields of the Lord was anti-religion, the missionaries were shown to be disrespectful to the indigenous people and their actions mostly selfish and hurtful to the native people who lived in the Amazonian jungle. But your own nom, I Confess (1953), is much more religious as it's about a priest test of his own religious beliefs as he won't reveal facts about a crime he heard in the confessional. I'm not sure why you say you don't like religious but chose a movie with religious themes?

It was the appropriation I didn't like. Religious themes are fine. I didn't like how the one guy was always rattling on about how the other religions were so terrible and were "the enemy" or whatever.

In I Confess, Montgomery Clift is a priest who has been told about a murder, which adds to the tension. No one actually says how awful another religion is. It's about the morality of a Catholic priest and his confidentiality of the confessional.

I know why I feel that way towards basically lambasting others' views on religion and saying yours is the better version. It's a sore spot for me.

Citizen Rules

03-29-25, 03:51 PM

It was the appropriation I didn't like. Religious themes are fine. I didn't like how the one guy was always rattling on about how the other religions were so terrible and were "the enemy" or whatever.

In I Confess, Montgomery Clift is a priest who has been told about a murder, which adds to the tension. No one actually says how awful another religion is. It's about the morality of a Catholic priest and his confidentiality of the confessional.

I know why I feel that way towards basically lambasting others' views on religion and saying yours is the better version. It's a sore spot for me.It's all cool and I believe we all have different takes on things, so I'm just asking out of curiosity: You said, "I didn't like how the one guy was always rattling on about how the other religions were so terrible and were "the enemy" or whatever."

That's how the film wants us to feel, we're not suppose to like the missionaries with their 'my religion is the only right way attitudes', we're suppose to see that their actions aren't pure but self righteous and self promoting. But like I said if that's outside of your comfort zone, I can dig it. No worries:)

I_Wear_Pants

03-29-25, 04:40 PM

It's all cool and I believe we all have different takes on things, so I'm just asking out of curiosity: You said, "I didn't like how the one guy was always rattling on about how the other religions were so terrible and were "the enemy" or whatever."

That's how the film wants us to feel, we're not suppose to like the missionaries with their 'my religion is the only right way attitudes', we're suppose to see that their actions aren't pure but self righteous and self promoting. But like I said if that's outside of your comfort zone, I can dig it. No worries:)

Oh yeah there was that. It was off-putting, although that's not my sole issue with the film. I can see that it was the purpose of how the characters were written. They still got on my nerves. I've faced that sort of religious scrutiny in the past personally so it rather rubs me wrong. I don't feel negatively that I watched it. I just feel negatively towards the movie. At least now I know I needn't watch it again.

Citizen Rules

03-29-25, 04:57 PM

Oh yeah there was that. It was off-putting, although that's not my sole issue with the film. I can see that it was the purpose of how the characters were written. They still got on my nerves. I've faced that sort of religious scrutiny in the past personally so it rather rubs me wrong. I don't feel negatively that I watched it. I just feel negatively towards the movie. At least now I know I needn't watch it again.That's cool Pants, thanks for explaining:)

cricket

03-29-25, 08:19 PM

I'm not certain, but I thought appropriation meant sort of the opposite.

Citizen Rules

03-29-25, 08:56 PM

I'm not certain, but I thought appropriation meant sort of the opposite.I'm not sure if you're referencing what I said or Pants?

I 'think' Pants might have meant that the half Native American 'Indian' played by Tom Berringer appropriated the indigenous native tribes culture when he adopted their style of dress and living. I could be totally wrong about that. But to address that point...the film is saying Tom Berringer's character starts off as not caring about the indigenous people but was going to drop a bomb on them, then he had an epiphany about his own lack of ties to his tribe after the missionary pleaded with him not to hurt the indigenous people on the grounds that he had something in common with them as a member of a native American tribe that had suffered at the hands of society. So with that in mind he doesn't appropriate their culture, instead he connects to his own roots of living at one with nature. I guess I'm the only one who liked the movie.

I_Wear_Pants

03-29-25, 10:12 PM

I just watched Past Lives. It's a perfectly solid movie. I really like it. Every actor and actress is great and the story is smooth. I don't consider it a favorite necessarily though I am quite happy I watched it. There's nothing to dislike at all. I can see why people were gushing about this so early in the Hall of Fame line up. It's such a good film. Past Lives is easily deserved of any praise it gets.

I_Wear_Pants

03-29-25, 10:16 PM

I'm not certain, but I thought appropriation meant sort of the opposite.

I looked it up, and "appropriation" is when one takes another's work and uses it without the person's permission, so I guess I used it wrong. My bad. I'm not sure what the word I want is then. What I'm trying to say is the act of replacing someone's culture or religion with one's own with the only motive being that the current culture or religion isn't the replacer's. I don't know if this makes sense...

Takoma11

03-29-25, 10:24 PM

So with that in mind he doesn't appropriate their culture, instead he connects to his own roots of living at one with nature.

I think the question of whether Lewis Moon is appropriating the culture of the Niaruna or assimilating into it is an interesting one. (In the context of this conversation, I'm taking cultural appropriation to mean the inappropriate "costuming" in someone else's culture).

When I wrote in my review that I wish Lewis had been given more story time, this is a big part of what I meant. I myself was never sure watching the movie whether he genuinely felt that he had become a part of the Niaruna, or if he was mainly using them as a proxy for his own lost culture and enjoying the shift in status from loser drunk to demigod.

What complicates the question even further is the fact that the tribe has a misconception about Lewis---that he is one of their gods---and he does not take any steps to correct this misconception, which gives him high status in the tribe. This is unquestionably an abuse of power, and I wonder how much you can say someone fully belongs to a group if they are actively deceiving that group about their identity while using that deception to wield political and social power within the group.

I understand the interest in the story of the missionaries, but I found the question of Lewis's identity a more interesting plot element. For example, the sequence where he encounters Daryl Hannah's character and engages in gentle romantic touching and kissing, only to then work out his sexual frustration by sexually assaulting Prini seems to imply that he's still holding onto ideas about who can and who cannot be abused in that way.

I do think that his story fits in with all the other subplots, in the sense that coming to a different cultural group with selfish intentions is never going to end well. Even if we can sympathize with Lewis and his lost sense of self, there's no question that he is, in his own way, using the tribe to serve his own interests.

I_Wear_Pants

03-29-25, 10:28 PM

I'm not certain, but I thought appropriation meant sort of the opposite.

I think the word I wanted is "coercion"? It's pretty much forcing someone to alter his actions to match what someone else desires. There's also the hard-to-spell proselytism, which is more specific to what I meant except I never heard that word until now.

TheManBehindTheCurtain

03-30-25, 02:01 AM

Before the Rain (1994)
Writer/Director: Milcho Manchevski
Key cast: Rade Serbedzija, Katrin Cartlidge

4

106601

Before the Rain announces itself as “a tale in three parts.”

Part 1, “Words,” takes place in Northern Macedonia, where Orthodox Christians are hunting down a young Albanian Muslim woman who they believe murdered a sheepherder in their village. She is shielded by a young monk, who has taken a vow of silence. They try to slip away together.

Part 2, “Faces,” transports us to crowded, noisy London, where Pulitzer-winning war photographer Aleksander (Rade Serbedzija) and his editor Anne (Katrin Cartlidge) are discussing their future together. He’s homesick to return to his native Macedonia, which he left 16 years ago, and wants her to leave with him that night. She instead must meet her husband to ask for a divorce.

Part 3, “Pictures,” follows photographer Aleksander’s return to a Macedonia he no longer recognizes. In trying to re-acquaint himself with an Albanian woman he cared for in school, he comes face to face with the ever-more corrosive animosity between Christian and Muslim.

And tragedy follows at every turn.

Writer/Director Milcho Manchevski begins many scenes with pastoral vistas: villages spread out on a carpet of rolling hills; mountain scapes lit by brilliant, super large moonrises and stunning, bright sunsets; long, winding roads disappearing into the horizon. But as we get closer and details emerge, we see the devastation, the decay, and always the hostile faces glaring from all corners in suspicion. The tension is palpable, the air heavy with the dread of impending tragedy.

In Part 2, Aleksander and Anne are kissing passionately in the back seat of a taxi. We catch glimpses of them from outside, through the shadows and reflections of urban London that play along the window. This is the way Manchevski has chosen to tell his tale: showing you a quivering patchwork, alternating moments of clarity and obscurity. His tale in three parts requires you to knit together your own understanding from the tatters of words, faces, and pictures he arrays before you. Yet, nothing will prepare you for that moment when suddenly everything snaps into sharp and agonizing focus.

While set in Macedonia, Manchevski is reaching for universal themes. The dialog is rich with insights that reflect the futility of trying to make a difference in a world gone mad. During that taxi ride, we hear how weary Aleksander is of documenting wars across the globe. “It’s important to take sides,” Anne contends. “Take sides?” he says. “I don’t want to be on the same side with any of them.” Anne protests: “I meant takes sides against war.” He shrugs it off: “As if it matters.”

Rade Serbedzija, who I recognize mostly as the stereotypical foreign-sounding bad guy in Hollywood thrillers like Air Force One Down and Taken 2, gives an effortless performance as the weary traveler who tries so desperately to recapture the imagined safety of his youth. Also give a round of applause to Manchevski, who took a chance in his feature film debut to hang his thesis on a stylish plot device.

Indeed, how many times will you need to rewatch Before the Rain until you fit together all the pieces to your personal satisfaction? How about that line of dialog, of graffiti, that repeats in each part: “Time never dies. The circle is not round.” And the symbolism of the rain, always on the way, and which arrives only to divide the chronology at that moment when time shatters. It may just leave you too distraught to revisit again.

Those of us who live in comfortable circumstances in Western countries will be tempted to dissect the dialog, the characters, the action, trying to understand the hatred that divides these two communities. But don’t look here for enlightenment. Manchevski is not trying to explain or excuse, to “take sides.” He is showing you a world where the never-ending suspicion, the animosities, the compulsions for perceived retribution are so long buried in a troubled past that neither Christian nor Muslim can explain any longer why they hate each other – only that they do.

TheManBehindTheCurtain

03-30-25, 02:31 AM

I think the question of whether Lewis Moon is appropriating the culture of the Niaruna or assimilating into it is an interesting one. (In the context of this conversation, I'm taking cultural appropriation to mean the inappropriate "costuming" in someone else's culture).

When I wrote in my review that I wish Lewis had been given more story time, this is a big part of what I meant. I myself was never sure watching the movie whether he genuinely felt that he had become a part of the Niaruna, or if he was mainly using them as a proxy for his own lost culture and enjoying the shift in status from loser drunk to demigod.

What complicates the question even further is the fact that the tribe has a misconception about Lewis---that he is one of their gods---and he does not take any steps to correct this misconception, which gives him high status in the tribe. This is unquestionably an abuse of power, and I wonder how much you can say someone fully belongs to a group if they are actively deceiving that group about their identity while using that deception to wield political and social power within the group.

I understand the interest in the story of the missionaries, but I found the question of Lewis's identity a more interesting plot element. For example, the sequence where he encounters Daryl Hannah's character and engages in gentle romantic touching and kissing, only to then work out his sexual frustration by sexually assaulting Prini seems to imply that he's still holding onto ideas about who can and who cannot be abused in that way.

I do think that his story fits in with all the other subplots, in the sense that coming to a different cultural group with selfish intentions is never going to end well. Even if we can sympathize with Lewis and his lost sense of self, there's no question that he is, in his own way, using the tribe to serve his own interests.

Yes, I think how you interpret Lewis Moon is the key to unpacking what Babenco has set out to say. I seem to have an idiosyncratic view on it. It boils down to that scene where Moon and Quarrier are watching the shaman dance around his sick kinsmen, with motions that imply he is trying to wipe the illness from their bodies. It seems almost a parody of faith healers. Moon and Quarrier know this is futile. That's followed by the discussion where Quarrier learns of the confusion regarding the name "Jesus.":

Quarrier: “So I taught them that Jesus was their evil spirit?”

Moon: “Ah, Jesus, Kisu, What’s the difference? It’s all hocus-pocus, isn’t it Martin?”

And that line can't be some random inclusion. It seems to me to represent a more universal rejection of any sort of religion. Yes, here the missionaries are the catalyst for the Niaruna's tragedy. But nothing was going to save them from their fate -- not the Western religion, not even their own religion. "It's all just hocus pocus."

Movies that rely on the familiar "missionary as agent of tragedy" are very common. At Play in the Fields of the Lord feels to me like it is trying to be more expansive than that.

I_Wear_Pants

03-30-25, 03:21 AM

I'm thirteen minutes into People's Joker. I thought I was thirty minutes into it... I don't understand what I'm watching. So he thinks he's a woman? I have a lot of misgivings I really shouldn't go into here (vis I tried that in the Shoutbox and it went poorly) and I don't know that I'm going to not hate this movie. I'm taking a small break and will resume the, uh, thing in a few minutes. I hate how they bleep out his name...

Addendum; I'm going to resume it this evening so we'll see how it ends. I will broaden my mind and approach it more openly. This subject matter, uh, anyway...

PHOENIX74

03-30-25, 06:24 AM

https://i.postimg.cc/sgK17sQm/before-the-rain.jpg

Before the Rain - 1994

Directed by Milcho Manchevski

Written Milcho Manchevski

Starring Katrin Cartlidge, Rade Serbedzija, Gregoire Colin & Labina Mitevska

Two very contrary themes dominate Before the Rain - love, and the act of killing other human beings. If I cast my mind back to the years in which this movie was made, to the land that was once known simply as Yugoslavia, I remember wars and genocide - a constant refrain from my television when international news reached my ears. When Soviet control of Yugoslavia weakened from 1991 onwards ethnic divisions bubbled to the surface, and the breakup of the nation into smaller states signalled the beginning of a decade of murder and killing on a scale which horrified the world. Usually, it was Slavic Christians set against a Muslim minority - and that's where the first story of three interrelated tales in this film begins. An orthodox Christian monk, Kiril (Grégoire Colin) finds a young woman/girl sequestered in his room at the monastery he lives in - she's hiding from a group of men who are out for blood. Later, in London, we catch up with a journalistic agent, Anne (Katrin Cartlidge), struggling to sort out a complex love life that includes Macedonian war photographer Aleksandar (Rade Šerbedžija) - this after discovering that she's pregnant. In the final story Aleksandar returns to his Macedonian homeland and finds that many changes have taken place in his absence. Friends have become enemies and even the children carry guns - suspicion, paranoia, hatred and violence abound.

From our very entrance into the world of Before the Rain Milcho Manchevski and cinematographer Manuel Teran make the most of both Macedonia's rugged terrain (this was actually the very first film ever made in the newly independent nation of the Republic of North Macedonia) and the country's cultural heritage. In the background there's a beautiful 14th Century monastery that works as the location of most of the events in the film's first chapter. Interiors, while not filmed at the same location, are nonetheless equally steeped in historic beauty and religious iconography. "With a shriek birds flee across the black sky, people are silent, my blood aches from waiting" - words from Meša Selimović, one of Yugoslavia's great writers, set the stage for what is a human drama writ large backgrounded against the rolling hills, rural life and the sea. Early on a character, a priest, mentions that "Time never dies. The circle is not round," and this will be key to the events we witness in the film, for if you closely follow the events in the movie they don't make sense chronologically, but work in a way that's been compared the the drawings of M.C. Escher - skewed into an illusion of time where there's no entry point into the story without a prior event being a precursor to what we're seeing. A never-ending cycle.

Throughout the film love and hate continually cohabit together - even during a scene in a London restaurant, where we'd hardly expect any incursion from Balkans-inspired terror or death, there exists an unlikely interloper ready to bring violence and bloodshed. Manchevski is that intent on maintaining that particular status quo throughout without let-up. It's the duality which sits at the very core of his film, and exists within the hearts of a population stirred by the upheavals set in motion by the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe during this era. At first, I watched the characters carrying guns in Macedonia and simply couldn't understand why they'd choose to live their lives almost foaming at the mouth, constantly hungry for some kind of vengeance purporting to this or that imagined slight. But if we're honest with ourselves - the capacity exists within nearly every human being conditioned to look on any group as an "other", and live with constant recollections regarding the evil deeds these "others" have committed against their people. I was really struck though, by the looks on these people's faces - the phobia, bitterness, paranoia, misery and rage is really captured by Manuel Teran's camera.

This was a breakthrough for actor Rade Šerbedžija - having not seen this film when it was released, I only noticed him later on because of his increased visibility - but he has a screen presence which is very commanding and draws you in. He plays Aleksandar in a free-wheeling, child-like manner - lots of movement, posing, expression and confidence. He travels back from London to his Macedonian home, and seems determined to carry on with business as usual despite the fact that this is an extraordinarily dangerous place - as such, without projecting a sense of menace he really sticks out. Earlier on we see Grégoire Colin play his role in a very different manner - reserved, inhibited and nervous, he seems to try and not be noticed. The timidity of youth, mixed with a sense that this is another character not inflicted with the passionate hatred most of his countrymen display so eagerly. Both characters end up in the same position, with results that both differ and mirror each other. Katrin Cartlidge has a role to play as the outsider and a witness who has been touched by the madness, showing us her sense of how confused, unsure and conflicted her life has become as a result. All three have obvious commitment and a deep understanding of their roles, contrasting with the lack of humanity surrounding them - supporting the film with sure-footed ability and talent, which especially goes for Šerbedžija.

Musically, Manchevski has gained the services of Macedonian music group Anastasia, whose strains are a blend of that of the Byzantine past, Eastern Orthodox Church music and ethnic Macedonian rhythms. What more could you ask for as far as authenticity goes, and a real taste of the enveloping feel for the place we're visiting? It's a little unusual and not at all what I'm used to, with chanting and various musical instruments coming to the fore that I never usually hear from in any film score. It invokes a certain spirituality and religiosity to the movie, which for me personally added a certain note of sadness to proceedings. It gave the movie a genuine soul, and there's something particularly mournful about that, considering what the film is about. In a world when there's a lot of soulless cinematic input, something which imbues the images we're watching with cultural sentiment and probably an unfeigned emotional response for the artist's contributing makes a difference. I thought the score was another remarkable part of the package we get when it comes to this film - not because it's the kind of music I'd listen to by itself, but because of the connection it had to Macedonia and the people I was watching.

When you add it all together, there's a lot to like regarding Before the Rain - as much as it loses it's flavour and momentum during the segment that takes part in London. It gave me a very direct sense of what life is like in a society that has become unmoored and beset by ethnic hatred, and how much more pain our natural proclivity to love each other causes ordinary people in those circumstances. This is the kind of movie that gifts viewers with not only it's resonant themes and emotional punch, but also unique locations that have been rarely seen and music that could have no better reverberance than what Anastasia gives to it. That's a strong combination worthy of our applause, and I often had a sense that I was watching documentary reality - my heart skipping beats when life and death are on the line. I think you really have to be willing to step outside of your own cultural boundaries if you're to fully accept life in Macedonia - but of course there are aspects to what was going on in the Balkans during those days that can't ever be accepted. It cast a dark shadow back then, and a dark shadow over Before the Rain - but not before helping to shine a light on our terrible ability to hate, despite our incredible ability to love each other.

4

Citizen Rules

03-30-25, 12:59 PM

I think the question of whether Lewis Moon is appropriating the culture of the Niaruna or assimilating into it is an interesting one. (In the context of this conversation, I'm taking cultural appropriation to mean the inappropriate "costuming" in someone else's culture).

When I wrote in my review that I wish Lewis had been given more story time, this is a big part of what I meant. I myself was never sure watching the movie whether he genuinely felt that he had become a part of the Niaruna, or if he was mainly using them as a proxy for his own lost culture and enjoying the shift in status from loser drunk to demigod.

What complicates the question even further is the fact that the tribe has a misconception about Lewis---that he is one of their gods---and he does not take any steps to correct this misconception, which gives him high status in the tribe. This is unquestionably an abuse of power, and I wonder how much you can say someone fully belongs to a group if they are actively deceiving that group about their identity while using that deception to wield political and social power within the group.

I understand the interest in the story of the missionaries, but I found the question of Lewis's identity a more interesting plot element. For example, the sequence where he encounters Daryl Hannah's character and engages in gentle romantic touching and kissing, only to then work out his sexual frustration by sexually assaulting Prini seems to imply that he's still holding onto ideas about who can and who cannot be abused in that way.

I do think that his story fits in with all the other subplots, in the sense that coming to a different cultural group with selfish intentions is never going to end well. Even if we can sympathize with Lewis and his lost sense of self, there's no question that he is, in his own way, using the tribe to serve his own interests.Those are all good points and I have to say I do agree with what you wrote, especially after reading TheManBehindTheCurtain's thoughts on Lewis Moon (Tom Berringer). I had forgot about the indigenous people mistaking Moon for some kind of spirit god and I didn't remember that Moon had used that to obtain privileged status in the tribe. I've only seen At Play in the Fields of the Lord one time back in December which is now almost four months and 100+ movies ago!...My old memory just isn't that good:eek: But after reading yours and Curtain's post I can remember now that Moon was yet another user and abuser of the Amazonian people, everyone was in the movie in way or another.