Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps5511dd24.jpg Since joining this forum, I've been content to post my write-ups for movies in the Rate The Last Movie You Saw thread. My write-ups are usually no more than a short paragraph, but occasionally, if a film really strikes a chord with me, I want to spend more time discussing what I loved/hated about that particular film. Since so many other people post in that thread, however, my write-ups quickly get lost in the shuffle. By creating this thread, I can keep a catalogue of the films I've watched and what I wrote about each one. So, without further ado, I welcome you to . . . Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...psa4eed5db.jpg About the Reviewer: After a bloody altercation with authorities, Captain Spaulding's body was never found. He remains at large. This former clown and once proud owner of Captain Spaulding's Museum of Monsters and Madmen now resides in a filthy trailer located in Parts Unknown, where he spends most of his time watching movies and torturing the occasional stranger. You may disagree with what what he writes about a particular film, but, considering that he's a sick, sadistic, murderous clown, perhaps it's a good thing if your tastes don't not always align. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...psf4405041.jpg Enjoy your stay. As the sign on the wall states, there is no turning back! |
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
Cool. Looking forward to these. :)
|
Love it, great style:up: I'll be keeping tabs regularly.
|
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
Nice. Can't wait. :up:
|
The Shootist http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps164a5a19.jpg (Don Siegel, 1976) (Starring: John Wayne; Lauren Bacall; Ron Howard; James Stewart) In a sense, the same cancer that is diagnosed in John Wayne's character in The Shootist, as well as the cancer that, three years after filming for The Shootist wrapped, would claim the life of The Duke himself, had also afflicted the entire genre. The Traditional American Western was dying. After all, a decade earlier, Peckinpah had infused the Western with a darker, more violent and nihilistic sensibility. And the Italians--- Sergio Leone, in particular--- had started serving the Western with a side of spaghetti. John Wayne's brand of Westerns, however, with their idealism and old-fashioned values, had long since grown stale. The mold, the cancer, was a lack of interest from the movie-going public. This makes The Shootist all the more poignant. Not only is it John Wayne's last film, it's essentially the last film of an entire era. Everything about The Shootist feels like a funeral, as if Wayne was participating in his own procession. When he struggles for breath in certain scenes, it doesn't feel like acting (and it probably wasn't, considering that his entire left lung had already been removed). When he discusses his inevitable death and how he wants to be remembered, it doesn't feel like a line of dialogue, but a man in the twilight of his life speaking directly to his fans. Considering how well the character and the movie mirrors Wayne's real life, you'd think that The Shootist was written specifically for him, so it's surprising to learn that he almost wasn't cast in the role. What a crime that would have been. Without The Duke, this old-fashioned Western would've been average at best and already forgotten. It's fitting that James Stewart, Wayne's close friend and co-star of the brilliant The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, is also in this movie, and he adds a certain somber respect to the scenes in which he appears. An aging Lauren Bacall, as well as a young Ron Howard (with hair!), are also great. The directing from Don Siegel is nothing special, but it gets the job done, and perhaps it's appropriate, given the material and the actors involved, that his direction is so straight forward. The main draw, of course, is Wayne himself. I think it's one of the best performances of his career. (Not that I've seen enough to make that claim; the dude appeared in over 140 films!) From the opening montage to the climactic showdown to the poignant final scenes, The Shootist is a proper, dignified, elegiac farewell to an American icon. Long live the legendary Duke and his extraordinary legacy! http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...psce1ab718.jpg |
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
I really need to get around to The Shootist. This will be a fun thread to follow Captain!
|
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
Awesome review. I'm jealous of your writing abilities! :up:
|
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
Great. He does all this and then it's a bloody Western. And John Wayne, to boot. Ah well, I'm still looking forward to this thread. :D
|
Originally Posted by honeykid (Post 1091336)
Great. He does all this and then it's a bloody Western. And John Wayne, to boot. Ah well, I'm still looking forward to this thread. :D
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/webroot/a...s/774245_o.gif |
Originally Posted by honeykid (Post 1091336)
Great. He does all this and then it's a bloody Western. And John Wayne, to boot. Ah well, I'm still looking forward to this thread. :D
|
GODZILLA (Gareth Edwards, 2014) (Starring: Aaron-Taylor Johnson; Bryan Cranston; Ken Watanabe; Elizabeth Olson; Sally Hawkins) http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...psff0a6346.jpg First, a word about Pacific Rim, since apparently every review for Godzilla feels the need to compare/contrast the two films: I hated Pacific Rim. Hated it, hated it, hated it. I know it's cliché to use the video-game analogy, but, in the case of Pacific Rim, it's appropriate. Unless there is a controller in my hand and I can press A-B-X-Y to make the robot on the screen hit an awesome combo, I have no interest in watching giant robots fight giant monsters for two hours in what is essentially the equivalent of watching someone else play a video-game. From the first few seconds of Pacific Rim, when the voice-over narration started talking about Kaijus and Jaegers, my eyes glazed over. You know how a trained warrior, during a moment of torture, can place his mind elsewhere so that he doesn't feel any pain? That's what I did during Pacific Rim. It was the only way I could make it out of the experience alive. So, after hearing that Godzilla featured giant monsters besides just our titular lizard, I worried that I'd have to resort to my ninja mind tricks to make it through the two-hour run-time. Luckily, that wasn't the case. Instead of trying to be the cinematic Ritalin for modern audiences, Godzilla forces the audience to sit and wait for the payoff. Director Gareth Edwards doesn't pull a Michael Bay. He doesn't throw constant action at the screen and pile CGI spectacle on top of CGI spectacle. Instead he lets the story grow on its own by allowing the movie to breathe and build toward an actual climax. The anticipation grows stronger by the minute. The tension steadily escalates. Whereas most blockbusters only give you a quick handjob, Godzilla spends a hour and a half on foreplay before delivering us to a toe-curling orgasm in the last act.* (*Forgive the crude sexual analogies. I guess giant lizards get me all hot and bothered.*) http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...psc9adc704.jpg (A reminder to always have your giant lizards spayed and neutered.) I've heard a lot of people--- probably the same kind of people who loved Pacific Rim--- complain that they wanted more Godzilla in their Godzilla movie. But I admire Edwards approach. I like that he teases the audience to the point of frustration. We get glimpse after glimpse, making the ultimate reveal all the more satisfying. When the camera finally pans up and reveals Godzilla in all his scaly glory, just in time for the monster to deliver his trademark roar, it's a breathtaking sight. This is the most impressive and awe-inspiring Godzilla has ever looked. No matter what anyone says about the film, nobody can criticize the special effects. The movie looks amazing. Unlike Roland Emmerich's 1998 abomination, which featured a story that was an insult to the original movies and a Godzilla that looked more like an over-sized Tyrannosaurus Rex than the King of Monsters, Edwards's Godzilla features a loving, honorable, reverential portrayal of the titular monster. It's clear that the people involved with the making of the film are fans of the Japanese films. This Godzilla is essentially a God in reptilian form--- a protector of the earth. Yeah, he might level entire cities while vanquishing a foe, but even the Man of Steel does that nowadays, so who's to judge? http://37.media.tumblr.com/aeadd8c6a...e5bko1_500.gif ("King Kong ain't got nothin' on me!") For a movie like this to transcend to greatness, however, there has to be a captivating human interest. Judging by this film and his debut feature Monsters, Edwards understands that approach. Unfortunately, both films have contained flat-as-paper characterization. With the exception of Bryan Cranston, every other character in Godzilla is just fodder. Elizabeth Olson only exists to clutch her child and run. Sally Hawkins does nothing but spout exposition. Ken Watanbe mostly just stares into the distance and mutters "Godzilla" in his thick Japanese accent. And the lead, Aaron-Taylor Johnson, doesn't do much but give the camera something to center on as he continuously finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. This, along with a few plot holes, is the film's biggest flaw. Perhaps my bar has been lowered when it comes to modern day blockbusters, but I don't expect great characterization when I visit the theater during the summer months. All I ask is to be entertained and thrilled, and Godzilla delivered that in spades. This is the kind of spectacle that deserves to be seen on the big screen with a bucket of popcorn on your lap and a cold soda in your hand. Godzilla might be cinematic junk food, but it's mighty damn tasty! http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps12a1a87b.jpg |
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
Awesome review. I agree that Godzilla was used appropriately, I think the complaining that there wasn't enough of him is stupid. When he was on screen, it was epic, and having too much of him would ruin that.
I disagree about Pacific Rim, though. I really like that movie. |
Originally Posted by Swan (Post 1091676)
Awesome review. I agree with Godzilla was used appropriately, I think the complaining that there wasn't enough of him is stupid. When he was on screen, it was epic, and having too much of him would ruin that.
I disagree about Pacific Rim, though. I really like that movie. I'm in the minority about Pacific Rim. A lot of people love it. However, to me, it might as well have been Transformers 16 or whatever the hell number we're up to now. |
Great to see your glowing review of The Shootist; I saw it last month and gave it the same rating. I thought it worked so well as a human drama, especially given the circumstances you mentioned. I'd be really happy to see it sneak onto the 70's list.
As far as Godzilla, I'll watch that when I can watch it at home. |
Originally Posted by cricket (Post 1092053)
I'd be really happy to see it sneak onto the 70's list..
|
Originally Posted by Captain Spaulding (Post 1092054)
I'm not crossing my fingers. The western seems to be a very under appreciated genre around here.
I liked your review for Godzilla. :up: I'm not that interested in the film as I prefer my Godzilla, when I watch them, to be a Japanese man stomping around a styrofoam city in a rubber suit, but it does seem that people are liking this, which is good. |
It's easy for me to wax poetic about films I enjoy, but I also watch a lot of films that don't warrant the time it would take for me to write a full-fledged review. I could ignore those films and not do any write-ups at all, but that wasn't my intention for creating this thread. After all, I never intended for this to be a typical review thread. That's why, besides just the lame attempt at alliteration, I chose to name this thread 'Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue.' I plan to write about every film I watch, regardless of quality or the length of my write-up. Some films will receive longer, more detailed reviews, but there will also be a lot of posts like this one where I bunch two or three films together and write no more than a short paragraph about each film.
- - - http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...psb12c4daa.jpg Ride Along (Tim Story, 2014) I'm not overly familiar with Kevin Hart. I've seen him make guest appearances on various programs, but I've never watched any of his stand-up. I don't know if he's funny or not. Judging by his performance in this film, however, as well as the brief snippets I've seen from him in other things, he seems to confuse manic energy for comedy. The thought process seems to be that if he talks really fast and moves around a lot, people won't realize that his jokes are flat. That might work for a talk show appearance, but not in a ninety-minute movie. The laughs are almost non-existent, and even the funniest moments aren't really that funny. You might chuckle under your breath a couple of times or muster a weak smile, but that's about it. As for the recycled plot? Well, if you've ever seen a buddy-cop movie, you'll be able to accurately predict everything that happens in Ride Along. The wheels are flat on this lame ass comedy. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps6067ab6d.jpg A Single Shot (David M. Rosenthal, 2013) This had the potential to be so much better, but the weak script is too much of a burden for the talented cast to overcome. Sam Rockwell gives it his all and Jeffrey Wright does wonders with the little that he's given, but the story is too reliant on dumb decisions, too full of contrived situations, and too predictable to be anything but a below-average thriller. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps6dccc055.jpg Dark Skies (Scott Stewart, 2013) Take the same insipid formula from every lame PG-13 horror movie released in the last few years, replace the paranormal with the extraterrestrial, and you'll have Dark Skies. It's as if the director had a checklist of horror movie clichés: the kid who draws pictures of the unwelcome entity; strange behavior from animals; shadowy figures caught on security cameras; the old wise man who tells the characters what's really going on; the woman who hears strange noises in the night and wanders through the dark house, leading to numerous opportunities for JUMP SCARES. Some of it is unintentionally hilarious. None of it is scary. All of it is boring. |
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
All those films look and sound like their not worth your time. Did you go into them thinking they would be? Single Shot has the look of a film which, once upon a time, might've been worth making, but by the time everyone has had their say, it's done.
|
Originally Posted by honeykid (Post 1092907)
All those films look and sound like their not worth your time. Did you go into them thinking they would be? Single Shot has the look of a film which, once upon a time, might've been worth making, but by the time everyone has had their say, it's done.
I like Sam Rockwell, so I was looking forward to A Single Shot. I recorded Dark Skies during a free trial of Showtime. I don't know why I watched Ride Along. I figured it'd be pretty bad, but it was worse than I expected. |
Originally Posted by Captain Spaulding (Post 1093019)
I'm an equal opportunity provider. Good films, bad films, foreign films, classic films, silent films. . . porno films. :shifty:
I like Sam Rockwell, so I was looking forward to A Single Shot.
|
The Long Goodbye (Robert Altman, 1973) (Starring: Elliot Gould; Sterling Hayden; Nina Van Pallandt; Mark Rydell) http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...pse2408391.jpg When I hear the name Philip Marlowe, I immediately think of Humphrey Bogart in The Big Sleep, fedora on his head, cigarette dangling from his mouth, as he and the beautiful Lauren Bacall exchange some of the greatest and most sexually-charged dialogue ever written. What I don't think of is Elliot Gould and his missing cat and his yoga-practicing nudist neighbors. Nobody can compare to Bogey, who is as effortlessly cool and magnetic as any leading man ever to grace the big screen, but Gould's embodiment of the iconic private detective is something completely different: a sharply-dressed Rip Van Winkle in a world of bikinis, out of his element and out of touch with the times, walking around with a bemused smirk on his face as he mutters aloud to himself about the strange characters and situations he encounters, all of which is completely alien to the black-and-white noir from which he appeared. But, as Marlowe would say, it's okay with me. http://37.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lz...ce2uo1_500.gif As I watched The Long Goodbye, I was reminded of an interview I saw with Quentin Tarantino, where he discussed how the plot of Jackie Brown can get in the way of the movie itself. On a first watch of Jackie Brown, instead of relaxing on the couch with Samuel L. Jackson and sharing a bong with Bridget Fonda, the audience is more concerned with the money and the complicated double-cross. Once you know how things play out, however, you can re-watch the movie and just sit back and hang out with the characters and enjoy their conversations. The Long Goodbye strikes me as a similar situation. While watching it, I found myself distracted by the case. Instead of just being a spectator and enjoying the movie's free-flowing spirit and all of its idiosyncrasies, I was too consumed with uncovering the culprit behind the murder of Marlowe's friend. I watched The Long Goodbye as if I was reading the Raymond Chandler novel. That's not the proper way to view this movie. Just like Jackie Brown was Tarantino's unique spin on the world of Elmore Leonard, The Long Goodbye is Altman's unique spin on the world of whodunits. If McCabe & Mrs. Miller was Altman's anti-western, The Long Goodbye is Altman's anti-noir. I won't lie: I was slightly disappointed by The Long Goodbye. I went in with high expectations, knowing how much most of you love this movie, but I was underwhelmed. However, I don't blame the movie, but myself. The Long Goodbye strikes me as a movie that will only grow in my estimation the more times I re-watch it. I look forward to sitting on the beach with Gould's Marlowe and Sterling Hayden's re-incarnation of Ernest Hemingway while having whatever he's having. And I'll gladly join Marlowe at three o'clock in the morning on an errand for cat food. Or strip down do my yellow trunks with a young, freakishly muscular Arnold Schwarzenegger. But on my first watch of this beloved classic, I found myself preferring Altman's other films, like Nashville and Short Cuts and California Split, that don't have even the tiniest semblances of a plot for me to stumble over, allowing me to focus solely on the characters. The Long Goodbye is a very good movie, perhaps even a great movie, but I'll have to re-immerse myself in its world, hopefully with the right mindset, before I can make that verdict. As of right now, however, there is a slight disconnect between me and this movie. I can see why so many people love it. And I love parts of it. Maybe next time I'll fall in love with all of it. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps43ac31c8.jpg |
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
Your review is fair enough, it's certainly an unusual movie. I would compare it to The Big Lebowski in its overall cool style with little focus on plot. I love both :D
|
Originally Posted by Daniel M (Post 1093147)
Your review is fair enough, it's certainly an unusual movie. I would compare it to The Big Lebowski in its overall cool style with little focus on plot. I love both :D
|
Why is it a good movie, Captain? Because it's idiosyncratic" Because it's cool? Because it's pre-Tarantino or pre-Coen Bros. in some form? What are your actual reasons? I know others can come forward, again, and talk about their reasons, but I didn't really get why you think that.it's very good or great and are going against your gut, which my gut agrees with (and rates much lower) but has no need to qualify, :)
|
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
I agree with the point that the first time through, I wasn't a blt to relish all the little details as much as on subsequent viewings, but that is sort of how Altman films are, I guess. I always tend to like his stuff more each time I see it, as i get to really appreciate all the character quirks etc. For the record, I love The Long Goodbye.
|
I would agree with you on A Single Shot and The Long Goodbye.
|
Originally Posted by mark f (Post 1093221)
Why is it a good movie, Captain? Because it's idiosyncratic" Because it's cool? Because it's pre-Tarantino or pre-Coen Bros. in some form? What are your actual reasons? I know others can come forward, again, and talk about their reasons, but I didn't really get why you think that.it's very good or great and are going against your gut, which my gut agrees with (and rates much lower) but has no need to qualify, :)
I browsed through an Altman thread last night where you rated almost all of his movies a or less. (Yet, if I remember correctly, Popeye had one of the higher ratings. Go figure.) Obviously his movies don't jive with you for whatever reason. I'm not as big of an Altman fan as some others on this forum (although I've yet to see several of his films, especially the lesser known ones), but I've enjoyed everything I've seen from him to some extent, with the exception of Countdown, which probably shouldn't count since he was fired from that job, and M*A*S*H, which was a result of me expecting more of an out and out comedy (and that's my fault for having preconceived notions going into an Altman movie, since the man defies conventions). It's difficult for me to quantify why any movie is "good." I mean, a person can recognize great performances or great writing or great camera work (all of which The Long Goodbye has) and other technical aspects, but ultimately it just comes down to whether or not you like it. If someone asks me why cheeseburgers taste good, I don't know what to say other than "because they're delicious?" I mean, should I break down the texture of the bun for you? Trace the pickle back to when it was a cucumber? Talk about the quality of the hay that the farmers fed to the cow before slaughtering it? :shrug: I can't tell you why I think The Long Goodbye is a very good movie. All I can tell you is why I enjoyed it. I've seen someone--- it may have been Holden Pike on this very forum--- talk about how Altman doesn't really work within genres. Yeah, he might make a western, but it's not going to be like any other western you've seen--- it's distinctly Altman. Same goes for noir in The Long Goodbye. Altman only works within the genre of Altman. If you watch enough of his movies, you start to notice certain distinctive traits, whether it's the overlapping dialogue or the voyeuristic camera, that are signatures of Altman's trademark style. Just as I admire a writer who develops his own unique voice (Ray Bradbury only writes like Ray Bradbury, for instance; William Faulkner only writes like William Faulkner), I have a great admiration for directors who are so masterful behind the camera and who are so unique in how they approach a film that you can immediately point to the screen and go, "Oh, yeah, that's Altman, alright," without even seeing his name on the opening credits. So a small reason why I enjoyed The Long Goodbye is simply because I've come to admire Altman's unique qualities and stylistic trademarks. I also think it takes a bold director to resurrect an iconic character like Philip Marlowe, then drop him into a movie that's completely alien to the old-school noir that made him a household name. Obviously Marlowe's morals and ideals clash with post-Vietnam California and its bohemian vibe. (After all, the character is used to cigarette smoke wafting in the air, not marijuana smoke.) But I thought it was clever how even Marlowe's exterior was symbolic of that contrast. While most of the characters are walking around in bathing suits (or, in the case of his nudist neighbors, dressed in nothing at all), Marlowe is always in a suit and tie. While the rest of California and its inhabitants are colorful and sunny, Marlowe is always seen in black and white, as if he just stepped out of a 1950's noir. And while the other characters are practicing yoga and worried about their health, Marlowe is still chain-smoking cigarettes as if he hasn't heard the news that cigarettes cause cancer. Everything about his character is out of place and dated. When we see him wake up in the opening scene, it's as if Marlowe has been asleep for the past 20 years. I found that very clever, and it's part of the reason why I enjoyed the movie. (Brainfart alert: The scene near the end of the movie, where the gangster forces everyone to strip off their clothes, including Marlowe, just flashed in my mind. I'll have to re-watch the movie to decipher the context and exact symbolism of that scene, but I'm pretty sure it ties in with what I was just talking about. See? This is partly why it's a very good movie. The more you think about it, the more layers you see.) I also loved Sterling Hayden's performance. I didn't even recognize him from the films I know him from--- like The Asphalt Jungle and Johnny Guitar. With his boisterous personality and a constant drink in his hand, it was seriously like watching a resurrected Ernest Hemingway. The scene where he and Marlowe share a few drinks on the beach was my favorite scene of the movie. Even Hayden's character gives Marlowe a few puzzled looks in that scene as he tries unsuccessfully to carry on a conversation with a private detective who has apparently stepped out of a time machine. Their contrasting natures were really highlighted in that scene. I enjoyed some of the blink-and-you'll-miss-it humor. For instance, the scene where the guy in charge of trailing Marlowe's character quickly disposes of the "used" tissues on his dashboard from where he's been watching Marlowe's nudist neighbors through binoculars. I also found the opening scenes of the movie quite humorous and cute, and I was extremely disappointed that even the damn cat betrayed Marlowe. (Although I like how Marlowe's relationship with the cat is symbolic of what's to come later on in the movie with Marlowe's supposedly dead friend.) The scene where the gangster breaks a coke bottle over his girlfriend's face was a great scene, just due to the shocking violence of it and how it illustrated the gangster's dangerous, unpredictable nature. And even if I didn't laugh out loud a ton, I had a smile on my face during most of Marlowe's bemused reactions to the events and characters around him. Overall, I found The Long Goodbye to be an entertaining movie. So those are some of the reasons why I enjoyed it. Do those reasons make it a good movie? Maybe. Maybe not. But it irks me that you seem to be implying that my wasn't truthful or that I wasn't listening to my gut---- as if I disliked the movie and I was just trying to appease the people on here who love it. If anything, my rating was too low. I loved a lot things about The Long Goodbye. But I went into it with very high expectations. Given all the praise that the film receives on this forum, as well as my adoration for several other Altman films I've seen, I expected it to be an automatic shoo-in for the top-10 on my 70's list (right alongside Nashville), but it wasn't that. Most likely, the movie was a victim of hype. We should all watch movies with no expectations or pre-concieved notions, but it's difficult to keep ourselves unbiased. I also think that The Long Goodbye, like all great movies, requires multiple viewings to fully appreciate. I'm very fond of movies that have a relaxed, laid-back approach, where the viewer is allowed to put their feet up and just hang out with the characters. Pulp Fiction is like that. So is Dazed and Confused and Rio Bravo. My favorite Altmans--- Nashville, Short Cuts, California Split--- also have that approach. I love all of those movies. Like I stated in my initial write-up, however, The Long Goodbye is more similar to Jackie Brown, in the sense that both movies, despite having that same "hang-out" quality, also feature a lot of plot that you have to pay attention to on a first viewing. That can distract a viewer from all of the smaller things happening in each scene, which is why you have to watch those movies more than once to appreciate everything that's going on outside of the plot. Now that I can push aside the whodunit side of The Long Goodbye, I expect to enjoy it even more. Or maybe I'm just biased against The Long Goodbye because I'm a fan of The Big Sleep and refuse to accept anyone other than the guy in your avatar as the true Philip Marlowe. Who knows? Sorry for writing you a novel. You'll only be able to watch nine movies today instead of ten because of how long it'll probably take you to read this gargantuan post. Hopefully I answered your questions and gave you enough "actual reasons." Now do you mind returning the favor and telling me why you dislike Altman so much? |
The next four entries--- Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid; Noah; Straight Time; The Passenger--- are reviews I previously posted in the Rate the Last Movie You Saw thread, but I'm copying and pasting them here so that Yoda can add them to the awesomely revamped Reviews section. In the case of The Passenger, I'm raising my rating from a to a since the movie has continued to grow on me in retrospect.
Everyone has different criteria for their ratings. Some reviewers are way too generous. Others are way too strict. I try to rate movies based on quality and not personal enjoyment, although it's often difficult to separate the two. For perspective, here's my definition for each rating: : Masterpiece : Excellent : Great : Very Good : Good : Average : Below Average : Bad : Mannequin, which is a synonym for Terrible : I'd Rather Be Sodomized By a Rusty, Ten-Foot Steel Pipe Than Re-Watch This Movie : Mannequin Two: On the Move, the deepest level of Hell, where Hollywood Montrose sodomizes me with a rusty, ten-foot steel pipe while Sexy Celebrity stands to the side and spouts the brilliance of Mannequin for the rest of eternity. |
You know there's also a . :)
|
Originally Posted by mark f (Post 1093867)
You know there's also a . :)
|
Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid (Sam Peckinpah, 1973) (Starring: Kris Kristofferson; James Coburn; Bob Dylan; Jason Robards) http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...psecd2f9e1.jpg From the very first scene--- a sepia-tinged "flash-forward" that reveals the fates of both title characters--- the inevitability of death hangs in the air like "a long, black cloud coming down." The characters know it, but they have no need to acknowledge it or try to avoid it. Due to their lifestyle and the times in which they live, death is always around the corner. One second you're laughing in the bed with a prostitute, the next second you're bleeding on the floor with a bullet in your chest. The most remarkable thing to me, however, is the bold way in which these characters stare death in the face and then go on about their business. Nobody begs or cries or questions why. They've all accepted their fates. The film was almost like watching a two-hour death march disguised as a revisionist western, yet it's more beautiful than depressing, more poetic than somber. It's the cinematic equivalent of a drowning man who ends his futile thrashing and instead allows himself to drift deeper and deeper into the abyss, embracing the inevitable with a calm, inviting smile on his face. My only quibble with the film is the casting of thirty-six-year-old Kris Kristofferson to play twenty-one-year-old Billy the Kid. I admire Kristofferson as a singer/songwriter, but his limited acting range is better suited for supporting roles, like in Scorsese's criminally underrated Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, or in bit roles, such as his minor, but important part in Peckinpah's phenomenal Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia. Kristofferson's version of Billy the Kid is jovial and fun, the kind of guy with whom I'd love to share a beer, but he lacks the aura that turned the Kid into a legend and caused so many people to gravitate around him. Personally, I got a big kick out of Bob Dylan's performance. He's not much of an actor, but his lines are minimal. (When asked, "Who are you?" he responds, "That's a good question.") He also provides the music for the film, including the oft-covered "Knockin' On Heaven's Door," and his songs are the perfect companion to the film's wide-open, dusty settings. In my favorite scene, Pat Garrett (played by James Coburn) orders Bob Dylan's character to read aloud the cans on the shelves while he interrogates two other men about the whereabouts of Billy the Kid. As the tension mounts and we wait to see which man is going to pull his gun first, Bob Dylan's trademark voice and diction can be heard in the background, going, "Beans . . . Baked beans . . . Salmon . . . Lima beans . . . Beans . . . Succotash . . . Quality beans . . ." It's hilarious. I've become a big fan of Sam Peckinpah in recent months. I don't think Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid is quite as strong as The Wild Bunch or Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, but it's still an excellent, one-of-a-kind western: a poetic, bloody tale of changing times and dying lifestyles. It's pure Peckinpah through and through. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps9d548a93.jpg |
Originally Posted by Sexy Celebrity (Post 1093872)
That's Mannequin Two: On The Move.
|
Noah (Darren Aronofsky, 2014) (Starring: Russell Crowe; Jennifer Connelly; Ray Winstone; Emma Watson) http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps3170e6e2.jpg Aronofsky, why hast thou forsaken me? Noah was one of my most anticipated movies of the year, not because of the story, but because of the man behind the camera. With the exception of The Fountain (which is in dire need of a re-watch), I've loved everything Aronofsky has done. He's one of the most exciting filmmakers of this generation. But I was worried that Noah, with its 125-million-dollar budget, wouldn't feel like an Aronofsky movie. I was right. What does it feel like? A movie with schizophrenia. Part Hollywood epic, part art-house. It's the result of an atheist director giving his own take on a biblical story, then, for fear of offending the religious right, restraining from his full artistic vision. Never is that more clear than during the "creation" sequence. We're treated to a beautiful montage that begins with the big bang and shows the evolution of the universe and the origin of life. We start at the bottom of the family tree and watch as a single-celled organism adapts and evolves over hundreds of thousands of years. Once we reach the "ape stage," I sat up in my seat, wondering if he was about to cause an uproar with the Christians in the audience, but once again Aronofsky restrains himself by interrupting the montage to show humans "created in His own image." Many Christians will probably be upset by the overt fantasy elements in the movie (yes, I understand the irony in that statement), as well as the unlikable portrayal of Noah. The trailers have been very careful to omit the stone giants that play a prominent role in the film. They look like something from The Never Ending Story. (And speaking of never-ending stories, the movie is way too long and drags mightily in the last act.) Even though the stone giants initially threw me for a loop, the movie gives a satisfactory explanation for their presence which fits perfectly into its religious themes. Honestly, the stone giants were one of the most interesting parts of the movie, and their battle as the flood ensues was the most exciting part of the movie, even if it did feel like a deleted scene from The Lord of the Rings. Everyone in the cast not named Russell Crowe is relegated to background furniture. That's unfortunate, since Jennifer Connelly and Emma Watson really shine during the few opportunities that they get. I also thought that the CGI was way too noticeable at times. The script is overloaded with ideas and the whole film is a mess. Despite all of that, however, there are brief moments of brilliance. Several scenes are strikingly beautiful. There's some great imagery, especially during Noah's visions, which are the most Aronofsky-like thing in the movie. Ultimately, however, the film crumples under the weight of its own ambitions. It's too unorthodox to appeal to the religious crowd, but too Hollywood to appeal to the director's fan base. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps9c29aa4c.jpg |
Straight Time (Ulu Grosbard, 1978) (Starring: Dustin Hoffman; Gary Busey; Harry Dean Stanton; Theresa Russell) http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps6371a324.jpg I've always had a problem with authority. If someone tells me to do something, I immediately want to do the opposite. My attitude has led to a few unpleasant encounters with authority figures in the past, whether it was teachers and principals in high school, or police officers and security guards nowadays. I find that people in such positions often abuse their power; they begin to think that they are better than everyone else, when often they're just clowns in a uniform. The parole officer in Straight Time fits that bill to a tee. He's a smarmy, sleazy a**hole who makes life unnecessarily hard for Hoffman's character, Max Dembo. When Dembo reaches a breaking point and attacks and humiliates the parole officer, I felt a great sense of glee. 'This is a movie that gets it,' I thought; 'no wonder we have so many repeat criminals when this is how you treat them.' That key moment in the plot marks a transition both for Dembo and the tone and direction of the movie. In the first half, we watch Dembo, fresh out of prison, try to go straight. Despite being harassed and unfairly treated by the parole officer, Dembo tries to re-join society by finding employment and a place to live. He even establishes a relationship with an attractive young woman at the employment agency. Although he spends time with friends who are former criminals and drug-users, he resists their temptations. Dembo's desire to live a normal life and leave crime behind seems earnest, so we, the audience, sympathize with him and root for his success. Then everything changes. After he lashes out against the parole officer, his "straight time" is over and he reverts to his old criminal ways. At first, it seems like the system has left him with no other choice. I viewed Hoffman's character as a victim. But the movie has already revealed that he's been a lifelong criminal, in and out of jail since a young age. Crime is in his blood, and that becomes increasingly evident as he commits more and more crimes less out of necessity, but because of an internal lust that requires fulfillment. The monster behind his eyes is a demon no different than that of an alcoholic or a drug addict. As it rears its ugly head, the meek and humbled Max Dembo of the first half seems like a stranger, a put-on, and I felt a bit foolish for relating to him so strongly. The quiet, understated, engrossing character study of the first half transforms into a slightly more conventional, somewhat predictable crime film in the second half. But even if the later scenes of heist-planning and bank-robbing look familiar, there's an extraordinary depth to the characters and their actions, thanks to Hoffman's phenomenal performance and the strength of the script in the first half, that isn't seen in most movies of this type, making Hoffman's character all the more real and frightening and heartbreaking. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...psbc5dcb4a.jpg |
The Passenger (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1975) (Starring: Jack Nicholson; Maria Schneider) http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...psb11c9cbd.jpg I admire verbose writers like Faulkner and Cormac McCarthy, whose sentences tend to go on and on and on (and then on and on some more), but sometimes I prefer to read a writer like Hemingway, with his less-is-more philosophy, who practices a spare, sparse style devoid of bells and whistles. Antonioni takes the same minimalistic approach. This script, in the hands of a different director, would've played like a fast-paced thriller, but Antonioni slows it down. He allows each scene to breathe, emphasizing silence and drawing attention to the wide-open spaces. As a result, this would-be thriller turns into something deeper and more existential. I think many of us, myself included, occasionally grow bored with the day-to-day monotony of our lives. So what would it be like to leave everything behind--- all of our demands and responsibilities and baggage--- and swap lives with someone else? Instead of being the driver of your own life, you can let go of the wheel and become a passenger in the life of someone else. Imagine the sense of freedom and re-birth and the endless possibilities that open up in front of you. No more nine-to-five. No more nagging wife. No more bills to pay. Every day becomes an adventure. Jack Nicholson's character seizes such an opportunity when a man bearing a slight resemblance to him dies in an adjacent hotel room. Unfortunately for Nicholson, however, the man is a gunrunner for rebels in a nearby civil war. What should be an open door to a life full of new and exciting possibilities instead turns into a dangerous race for survival. Nicholson gives an excellent, understated performance (no 'crazy eyebrows' here), which isn't surprising, since this film was released during his unheralded string of hot-streak performances in the 70's. One of my only complaints is that some scenes--- particularly the more typical action-oriented scenes--- feel a bit out of place in the picture, probably due to the differences in tone between the script and Antonioni's approach to the material. No doubt that this is quality film-making, however; the kind of film that deserves and invites multiple viewings. There is a seven-minute tracking shot near the end of the film that is easily one of the most beautifully-constructed and technically-proficient scenes I've ever seen. This "forgotten" film deserves a wider audience, even if it's just for that one scene alone. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps25726d86.jpg |
I've got to make sure I watch Pat Garrett and The Passenger; they weren't on my radar.
I really enjoyed Straght Time as well. I'm not very interested in Noah; I could watch it when it comes to cable. |
http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...psc064dba4.jpg X-Men: Days of Future Past (Bryan Singer, 2014) I watched this movie several days ago, and I've been meaning to write a review for it, but I just haven't been able to muster the desire. I guess that's indicative of how I feel about the movie. I'm not a big fan of superhero films in the first place, but I've enjoyed the X-Men franchise more than others in the genre. (X-Men: First Class is, in my opinion, one of the greatest superhero films ever made.) Days of Future Past is another solid entry into the franchise, but it isn't as great as everyone is making it out to be. I was worried that the time travel element would be shoehorned into the movie as a cheap ploy to get the First Class cast to share the screen with their older counterparts. That isn't the case. (Although the time travel element does serve as a convenient excuse for Singer to hit the reset button on X-Men: The Last Stand.) The schizophrenic relationship between Magneto and Professor Xavier feels more forced than ever. Quicksilver is the highlight of the movie, but he's given very little screen time compared to the other mutants. The stakes are high for the characters, but I never felt that Singer properly conveyed that level of excitement and dread and tension to the audience. When the underwhelming climax finally arrived, I greeted it with a shrug. Maybe I'm just experiencing franchise fatigue, since this makes the seventh X-Men film, but I think it's time for the mutants to put the spandex in the closet and leave it there. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps47b8bf39.jpg Machete Kills (Robert Rodriguez, 2013) I've enjoyed the recent revival of exploitation-style movies--- Planet Terror, Death Proof, Black Dynamite, Drive Angry--- but Rodriguez's Machete was my least favorite of that bunch. The trailer for Machete was more fun than the movie itself, and, in similar fashion, the trailer for Machete Kills Again . . . in Space! is more entertaining than the full-length movie that follows. It's the same problem that plagues many Saturday Night Live movies. What works as a short skit doesn't necessarily translate into a full-length movie, and the one-joke premise of the Machete movies is stretched thinner than the intestines that Machete rips from his villains. Don't get me wrong, I still get a kick out of all the gleeful violence and over-the-top gore; the cameos are fun; and the multiple one-liners are so corny that I can't help but smile. But if the movie had been ninety minutes or less instead of nearly two hours, I would've enjoyed the carnage so much more. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps6c5e7596.jpg Labor Day (Jason Reitman, 2013) The only thing that made this overly earnest and sentimental melodrama worth watching is the pairing of Josh Brolin and Kate Winslet. The duo is talented enough to plug some of the holes in the contrived script, making their romance more convincing that it otherwise would have been. This is an easy film to make fun of, however. I mean, it's ridiculous enough that the woman houses an escaped convict and falls in love with him after only three days, but she's also willing to pack everything up and move to Canada in the blink of an eye. Her thirteen-year-old son wears only one emotion on his face during the entire movie. Apparently making one peach pie as a kid gives him the master baking skills to grow up and open his own baking shop. The movie also feels oddly incestuous. This is the kind of movie that feels harmless enough while you're watching it, but when it's over and you reflect on it a bit, the weaker it seems. |
I still want to see Machete Kills and X-Men but nice reviews.
|
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
I hated Labor Day as well. I kept waiting for the twist that she knew him previously somehow. It is the only way I could have possibly been on board with her motivations, even then I am not so sure. I also thought the performances were the only redeeming quality but only gave them one star for the effort.
|
Originally Posted by cricket (Post 1094163)
I've got to make sure I watch Pat Garrett and The Passenger; they weren't on my radar.
Originally Posted by seanc (Post 1094875)
I hated Labor Day as well. I kept waiting for the twist that she knew him previously somehow. It is the only way I could have possibly been on board with her motivations, even then I am not so sure. I also thought the performances were the only redeeming quality but only gave them one star for the effort.
|
Frenzy (Alfred Hitchcock, 1972) (Starring: Jon Finch; Barry Foster; Alec McCowen) http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps2ff6f599.jpg Maybe Alfred Hitchcock was scarred as a kid from always taking the blame for his siblings' misdoings, or maybe he just had an irrational fear of being falsely accused of a crime, but the innocent-man-found-guilty is a recurring motif that he explored in several films (The 39 Steps, The Wrong Man, North by Northwest, among others), and, in my opinion, much more effectively in previous films than in the uneven Frenzy. The lead character, due to his relationship with two of the victims and the fact that he's last seen near the scene of a crime, becomes the prime suspect in the ongoing hunt for a serial killer who rapes and strangles his victims with a necktie. The movie takes awhile to get going, but once the manhunt begins in the second half, things become much more compelling. Hitchcock, being the Master of Suspense, milks the tension and dread in a few key scenes, like the excellent sequence where the killer boards the back of a delivery truck to recover a piece of incriminating evidence, which is easily the highlight of the film. No longer bound by the moral restrictions of earlier decades, Hitchcock is allowed a greater freedom to explore the perverse depths of the sexually deviant serial killer. The scene involving an attempted rape and the ensuing murder is appropriately disturbing. The camera doesn't shy away from the nudity or the heinousness of the act. Once we've seen the killer in action, however, Hitchcock makes the wise decision to allow the audience's imagination to fill in the ugliness about to befall his next victim. As the killer leads a woman into his apartment and delivers his ominous line ("You're my type of woman"), the camera slowly backtracks down the stairs and out of the building. The effect is chilling, since we know of the horrible deed that's taking place inside the building while everyone else in the vicinity remains oblivious. On the downside, Frenzy lacks the focus and polish that I've come to expect from Hitchcock. I don't usually notice goofs, but there's an early scene in the movie where the lead actor, Jon Finch, is smoking a cigarette while engaged in conversation. Within the same scene, the cigarette changes length multiple times and constantly jumps from his mouth to his hand. The cigarette even disappears once or twice to magically reappear the next second. It's distracting and amateurish to see such jarring editing mistakes in any film, let alone a film by an all-time great like Hitchcock. Also, the last act of the film feels rushed. The lead detective in the case makes a surprising, unjustified turnabout in his suspicions. He spends three-fourths of the film convinced that Finch's character is the perpetrator, then, without seeing any reason for his change of thought, is suddenly convinced that Finch is innocent after all. For a movie that occasionally drags its feet in the first hour, it ends up feeling like several key scenes were either glossed over or omitted entirely, all at the sacrifice of the story. Of the sixteen Hitchcock films I've seen, Frenzy definitely ranks near the bottom. But even if the movie fails to reach Hitchcock's usual heights, there's still plenty of good to be gleaned from it. After all, Hitchcock is arguably the greatest director of all time, so even his weaker efforts are worth watching. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps920389ca.jpg |
Le Cercle Rouge (Jean-Pierre Melville, 1970) (Starring: Alain Delon; Bourvil; Gian Maria Volonté; Yves Montand) http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps56b43baa.jpg There are many reasons to fall in love with a movie. Maybe you're able to relate to the characters on a deeply personal level. Maybe the movie stimulates you intellectually or emotionally. Maybe, like a ride at a carnival, you find the movie enormously entertaining and fun. Or maybe, in the case of Le Cercle Rouge, the movie is so effortlessly cool, so assured and stylish and elegant in its approach, that you feel more like a badass just for watching it. In many ways, Le Cercle Rouge reminds me of what the Italians did to the Western. By transporting a genre that was so traditionally American across the pond and filtering it through the eyes of Italians like Sergio Leone, the old-western mythology was heightened, the gunslinger was transformed into an almost mythic figure, the duels were elevated to epic showdowns of skill and tension and suspense; slap an iconic Ennio Morricone score onto the proceedings and you've just transformed a decades-old genre into something completely new and game-changing. Melville, by approaching the material from a different heritage and culture and adding his unique perspective to the traditionally American tropes, did the same thing to the old-school noir and gangster flicks typically seen in the 40's and 50's. The result is something that looks familiar from a distance, with its fedoras and trench coats and scenes of people being held at gunpoint or meeting at nightclubs, but on closer examination is wholly original. This is pure cinema through and through. If the Italians' re-imagining of the Western was called a Spaghetti Western, then I guess Le Cercle Rouge could be called a . . . Well, I don't know what kind of food the French are famous for, so I'll just call Le Cercle Rouge an Eiffel Noir, in reference to the Eiffel Tower. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...psdcffec84.jpg In keeping with the Spaghetti Western comparisons, Alain Delon is to Melville what Clint Eastwood is to Sergio Leone: a reverential badass of few words and fewer emotions, who is magnetic, mysterious, compelling and charismatic. The same can be said for Volonté's escaped criminal and Montand's demon-ridden sharpshooter. It's impossible to imagine these characters performing the kind of mundane tasks that you and I do every day. They exist solely to look cool, smoke cigarettes, plan heists and evade the cops. And speaking of cops, Bourvil's veteran of the police force feels more villainous than the criminals, willing to extort and blackmail and break any laws that stand between him and the so-called "bad guys." This isn't black vs white, but gray vs. gray: a morally ambiguous world where the line between right and wrong is non-existent. Every character, regardless of which side of the law they preside, is tormented in some aspect. The characters rarely get in a hurry, performing their duties with painstaking precision and finesse, which is indicative of the movie's leisurely pace. Scenes unfold slowly and quietly. The musical score is rarely present and operates at the level of a whisper when it is. This works to the movie's benefit, especially during the phenomenal heist sequence, which lasts nearly thirty minutes and is filmed in almost complete silence. Most directors would speed up the proceedings and slap a song over the scenes and feature the actors talking to one another as they make off with the jewels, but these characters are professional criminals, and Melville shows every step of their process, emphasizing the tension until it is almost unbearable. I was so caught up in the heist sequence that I had to remind myself to breathe during it, fearing that I would somehow set off an alarm if I made too much noise. The performances, the cinematography, the shot composition, the editing, the minimal use of dialogue--- everything about this movie feels like the work of a consummate artist. Le Cercle Rouge oozes coolness from every pore of its celluloid being. It is my first encounter with Melville. I guarantee that it won't be my last. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps78717f86.jpg |
Originally Posted by Captain Spaulding (Post 1095454)
Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid is one of those movies that has two versions: the studio's version and Peckinpah's version. If you watch it, make sure it's the latter. You've probably watched more 70's films over these last few weeks than anyone else on the forum, so your top 25 will be tough to crack, and I can't see Pat Garrett being one of those films to do so. I know I liked Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia considerably more than you did, and I think it's a superior film to Pat Garrett. But who knows, you might love it. Are you a fan of The Wild Bunch?
|
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
So glad you also loved Le Cercle Rouge, Captain! The heist sequence has instantly become one of my favorite movie sequences of all time. It doesn't get more stylish than that. When Montand's character suddenly lifts up his gun from the stand and fires at his target, you can truly feel the meaning of the word "cool".
To answer your question in the post comment: Yes, I also watched Le Samouraï from Melville, which is also really good and is similar in tone and execution. I'm planning to watch Melville's whole (unfortunately too short) filmography in the next few months, solely based on the quality of the two films I've seen from him at this point. |
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
Great that you liked Le Cercle Rouge so much, I think it's a masterpiece too, one of the coolest and great films I have ever seen. There's just so much to love about it and I really want to re watch it again soon (I will when I get home as I have it on Blu-ray :cool: ).
Like Cobpyth I also watched Le Samouraï recently, and whilst its still very good, I think it's a level below the genius that is Le Cercle Rouge. I also want to watch the rest of his films as they look so good, maybe Un Flic first though as although it's not meant to be as good as his others, it's 70s :) |
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
Once the 70's deadline has passed and I've caught up with a few movies from last year that I still need to see, I definitely plan on making Le Samourai and Army of Shadows a priority. Those are the two that look the most interesting.
|
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
For me, Army of Shadows is Melville's masterpiece, a perfect combination of his cinematic techniques and subject matter, but Le Cercle Rouge would be right behind it.
|
Originally Posted by Holden Pike (Post 1096742)
For me, Army of Shadows is Melville's masterpiece, a perfect combination of his cinematic techniques and subject matter, but Le Cercle Rouge would be right behind it, for me.
|
http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps47ff8cb0.jpg Husbands (John Cassavetes, 1970) It always annoys me when people criticize a film for not having likable or relatable characters. All that should matter is if the characters are interesting. Unfortunately, like every other Cassavetes film I've seen so far, the characters in Husbands are neither interesting, likable or relatable. Instead they stumble and bumble along for an excruciatingly long two-and-a-half hours, spouting pointless, inane, obviously ad-libbed dialogue while in no way resembling actual human beings. Ten minutes of this movie feels like an eternity, as scenes draaaaaag and drrrraaaaaaaggg and drrrraaaaaaaaggggg some more. Is Cassavetes making a statement on friendship or grief or mid-life crisis? Who knows? Who cares? You know as little about these characters by the end as you did in the beginning. All that changes is your overwhelming desire to punch each of them in the face. Cassavetes remains my least favorite "important" director. Watching Husbands is as enjoyable as getting a colonoscopy. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...psda3e65c4.jpg Tango & Cash (Andrei Konchalovsky, 1989) In 1989, it was probably a big deal to see Rambo and Snake Plissken share the screen. I've never been a big Kurt Russell fan, so the pairing did nothing for me, but the chemistry between the two actors and their constant quips back and forth are the best part of the movie. Stallone seems like an odd choice for his character: a spectacled, bookish, neatly-dressed cop, but I assume it's meant to be tongue-in-cheek, just like seeing Kurt Russell dress in drag later in the movie. The plot is formulaic and predictable with an overblown finale featuring eighteen explosions and a bad guy-in-the-mirror-OMG-which-one-do-we-shoot? ending, but the movie is marginally entertaining, despite the overwhelming amount of 80's cheese. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps1d07c712.jpg Cry-Baby (John Waters, 1990) Ever since watching The Rocky Horror Picture Show a few weeks ago and loving it, I've felt a desire to check out more atypical musicals. Prior to Cry-Baby, the only other John Waters film I'd seen was Pecker, which I hated, but Johnny Depp is my favorite actor, so that was reason enough for me to give this movie a chance. Now I'm crying because I wasted an hour-and-a-half of my life. The musical numbers are nothing special or catchy, but at least they're better than the dreck that surrounds them. Waters tries to hide his lack of talent as a director by piling ugly character on top of ugly character and then injecting his movies with an anarchistic sense of perversity. Cry-Baby aims to spoof Grease and old prison musicals. Instead it's just a spoof of filmmaking. |
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
As president of the Movie Forums John Waters fan club, I'm supposed to always say positive things about John Waters, but screw that, I'm prez.
Cry-Baby was okay when I saw it A LONG TIME AGO, but I've never felt the pressing need to watch it again. You should watch Serial Mom if you haven't yet. |
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
I agree about Serial Mom. :yup:
|
I appreciate the review on Husbands; I was probably going to watch it but think I'll pass now.
In regards to where you said you don't like it when people criticize a film for not having relatable characters- I sometimes state that I can't fully get into a film because I can't relate to the characters. However, it's not a criticism of the movie. How do you feel about that? |
Originally Posted by cricket (Post 1097971)
I appreciate the review on Husbands; I was probably going to watch it but think I'll pass now.
In regards to where you said you don't like it when people criticize a film for not having relatable characters- I sometimes state that I can't fully get into a film because I can't relate to the characters. However, it's not a criticism of the movie. How do you feel about that? I can't fault anyone who isn't able to fully connect with a movie because they can't relate to the characters, but I don't think it's a valid criticism of the film itself. For instance, there are movies about people in upper society and all their rich people problems that I can't personally relate to, and that sometimes affects my ultimate enjoyment of the movie. That's not a fault in the film, however. It's just that I have a difficult time connecting with such movies because those characters and their problems are completely alien to me. But I rarely find such movies or characters interesting, either, which is probably the biggest reason for my disconnect. My bigger annoyance is with the people who criticize films for having unlikable characters, as if the movie about the serial killer or the rapist or the pedophile was meant to portray its character in a positive light. ("Yeah, sure, he raped eighteen women and killed them afterwards, but darn it, isn't he charming!") There are a lot of bad people in the world who do bad things, and if a movie is going to accurately portray that darker side of humanity, naturally those movies are going to be unpleasant to watch and feature characters who do horrible things, thus making them unlikable. To me all that matters is if the characters are interesting. When I watch something like Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, it's not that I'm rooting for Henry or sympathizing with him or anything--- I don't like him---- but I'm not supposed to, either. Yet the movie is a fascinating, albeit disturbing, character study. Same goes for Abel Ferrara's Bad Lieutenant, one of my favorite movies. Or even The Devil's Rejects, to a lesser extent. The Firefly family makes me laugh and I enjoy watching them, but they still commit atrocious acts--- especially the stuff in the hotel room--- yet despite their ugliness or their "unlikableness," as it were, they are still enormously entertaining and interesting to watch. |
Thanks for the answer; I can't disagree with anything you said. It's a fine line; I think anyone's opinion is valid for not enjoying something, yet it should still be acknowledged that perhaps the movie may be effective for someone else. I'm careful how I word things; I gave The Mirror a low rating, but at the same time, I have nothing bad to say about it. A lot of people stare their opinions as fact, which I find kind of annoying. You're not one of those people. Keep up the good work
|
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
Be sure to watch Love Streams from Cassavetes, though! I think that's a very good film.
Husbands wasn't really my thing either, although there were a few good moments in it. |
Originally Posted by Cobpyth (Post 1097994)
Be sure to watch Love Streams from Cassavetes, though! I think that's a very good film.
Husbands wasn't really my thing either, although there were a few good moments in it. I hated Faces, Shadows, and Husbands. A Woman Under the Influence is the only one I'd recommend, and that's solely because of Gena Rowlands' excellent performance. Obviously Cassavetes has his admirers, and some people think that his films are very authentic and capture the verisimilitude of real life, but to me they feel too forced, like he's trying very hard to make a point and failing. Plus I hate how his films feel as if they're being made up on the spot. Maybe I just prefer movies with a well-written script and great dialogue. Watching Cassavetes, on the other hand, feels like watching someone's home movies. |
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
Not "someone's", Cassavetes'. :)
|
Originally Posted by mark f (Post 1098046)
Not "someome's", Cassavetes'. :)
If you like him more than Altman, I'll be as disappointed in you as when you rated Howard the Duck higher than The Long Goodbye. :p |
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
You overrated Husbands, and whatever you gave A Woman Under the Influence, it's too high.
|
Greed (Erich von Stroheim, 1924) (Starring: Gibson Gowland; ZaSu Pitts; Jean Hersholt) http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps04b237d2.jpg "I intended to show men and women as they are all over the world, none of them perfect, with their good and bad qualities, their noble and idealistic sides and their jealous, vicious, mean and greedy sides. I was not going to compromise." --- Erich von Stroheim Many modern filmmakers ignore the "picture" part of motion pictures, instead relying on lazy voice-over narrations and on-the-nose dialogue that tells the audience everything they need to know about the plot and the characters instead of showing them. But in 1924, long before directors had dialogue or special-effects or voice-over narrations in their toolbox, a movie had to rely solely on imagery to convey its stories to the audience. Sure, there were occasional placards to explain a transition or a character's background or an important line of speech, as well an accompanying musical score to match the emotions on screen, but everything else had to be accomplished through a visual palette of imagery and symbolism and metaphor. As Norma Desmond says in Sunset Boulevard, "We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!" And it's those wonderfully expressive, emotive faces from the silent era that served as a character's canvas. Actors and actresses--- such as Gibson Gowland and ZaSu Pitts in Greed--- embodied their roles, using only their faces and their bodies to convey the inner-workings of their characters. And directors like Erich von Stroheim (who, coincidentally, played Norma Desmond's butler in the aforementioned Sunset Boulevard) had to inject meaning, subtext and depth into every scene if they were going to maximize the potential of their visual medium. This is why Greed, despite being ninety-years-old(!), remains one of the most powerful and masterful works of cinema that I've ever seen. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps47be8010.jpg Greed illustrates that no matter how hard we chase success, we are ultimately slaves to fate and circumstance. And no matter how hard we strive to do good, to be reliable and to be morally upright, our animalistic urges and our basest desires occasionally get in the way, corrupting our minds in a moment of passion and causing us to do things that we later regret. The characters in Greed are flawed, but normal. Eventually, however, an unkind twist of fate, along with an unforgiving environment and the "demons" in their blood, ultimately take their toll. Each character becomes infected with a cancer of the soul--- symbolized by the color gold (which was hand-colored onto certain scenes, allowing the golden glow to radiate from the black-and-white surroundings like a poisonous toxin)--- and their downward spiral begins. We are introduced to McTeague, the main character, as he takes a break from mining to pick up a small, injured bird. He nuzzles the bird against his face and kisses it on the head, then another miner slaps the bird out of McTeague's hand. In an act of brute strength, McTeague, consumed with rage, lifts the man over his head and throws him off the bridge. In later scenes, when we see the caged canaries that McTeague keeps as pets, the birds serve as a reminder of McTeague's conflicted nature: his compassion, which we learn he inherited from his mother, as well as his violent temper, which he inherited from his father. It is an internal tug-of-war that wages inside of his character for the duration of the movie, until one side eventually triumphs. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps5c254a22.jpg During the wedding sequence, in an example of the multi-layered depth that director Erich von Stroheim adds to every scene, we see through the window a funeral procession that is taking place outside on the street below. Many viewers might not notice such a detail, since the camera doesn't focus on the funeral procession or draw attention to it, but for observant viewers the funeral procession gives the wedding sequence an ominous tone, signifying the eventual demise of our bride and groom. When Trina, McTeague's wife, wins the lottery shortly afterwards, she slowly changes from a meek, wide-eyed woman to a lying, conniving, mean-spirited wench, hoarding her winnings despite the couple's eventual struggles. Her gradual deterioration, both physically and mentally, is startling, and it is a testament to ZaSu Pitts's phenomenal performance. The change in Marcus Schouler, however, McTeague's friend and Trina's cousin, is less a transformation than a revelation, as his overwhelming jealousy and hatred unveil his true persona. During his supposed "farewell," when the camera cuts to a cat in the room flicking its tail in agitation, and then later shows the same cat attack the pet canaries just before McTeague receives bad news, we don't need to be told who has reported McTeague's unlicensed dental practice to know that Marcus is responsible. There is nothing Hollywood about Greed, no happy endings or easy answers or saccharine manipulations, which is probably why it was so poorly received by the public upon its release in 1924. Greed is unafraid of exploring the ugly depths of humanity. When McTeague and Marcus wander into the desert---- which von Stroheim filmed on location in the harsh, unforgiving conditions of Death Valley, resulting in numerous crew members being hospitalized for heat exhaustion--- the bleak landscape, with its parched earth and searing sun, is symbolic of how far our characters have fallen. They've lost everything, tangible and intangible, and their souls lay barren and exposed. It is a powerful, uncompromising ending to a powerful, uncompromising film. Not only has Greed surpassed Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans as the best film I've seen from the silent era, it can proudly stand alongside the greatest films of all-time. Greed is, simply put, a masterpiece. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps193aa125.jpg |
I never heard of Greed before; I'll hit that after the 70's binge.
|
Originally Posted by cricket (Post 1099676)
I never heard of Greed before; I'll hit that after the 70's binge.
I don't know how well-versed you are in silent cinema. They can be a bit of an acquired taste, since we're so used to sound and dialogue and a different style of acting. I think the comedies of Chaplin and Keaton are easier entry points. It took me a little while to get into the flow of silent movies, but once I did, I've discovered some all-time favorites like Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, The Crowd, Nosferatu, Metropolis, City Lights, etc. Greed is the best of the bunch, in my opinion. It's easily the best movie I've seen since I joined this forum. |
That's high praise with all the good movies you've been watching. I watched Modern Times a couple months ago and enjoyed it very much. I imagine silent drama will be a little tougher for me like you say, but it's definitely something I have to try. Oh actually, I watched The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari; I couldn't really get into that one.
|
The Exorcist (William Friedkin, 1973) (Starring: Linda Blair; Ellen Burstyn; Jason Miller; Max Von Sydow) http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...psa9d5e621.jpg Some movies can be a victim of their own success, especially when it comes to later generations, and I think The Exorcist falls into that trap. Even though this was my first true viewing of the movie, I've seen so many scenes before--- the "pea-soup" scene, the "360-degree-head-turn" scene, "the power-of-Christ-compels-you" scene, as well as numerous other iconic scenes from the movie--- that it hampered my enjoyment of the movie. Watching The Exorcist in 2014, after seeing the movie discussed and parodied so many times over the years, is like reading a book after you've already read the Cliff Notes version, so nothing is a surprise, not even the ending, and the result is a somewhat underwhelming, disappointing experience. That's not a proper critique of the movie itself, however, since it isn't the movie's fault that, forty years after it release, it remains so iconic and so ingrained in popular culture. The longevity of The Exorcist is a testament to the movie's strength and its impact on the genre. It's just a shame that people like myself can't travel back to 1973 and watch The Exorcist in a theater when it was still fresh and new and hadn't already been spoiled and ripped off by countless inferiors. Is The Exorcist the most frightening film of all time, as so many people label it? No, not even close. And I don't think I would've agreed with that claim even if I had seen the movie in 1973. What it is, however, is a slow-build of tension and dread and suspense that's effectively creepy and unsettling, which is then enhanced by a strong cast, great directing, a solid script, phenomenal special-effects, and an accompanying score that punctuates the horror and gets under your skin. The movie is remembered most for the shocking transformation of fresh-faced Linda Blair into the decomposing, demon-infested embodiment of evil; and appropriately so, since it taps into the parental fear of wanting to protect your child from harm and disease and, you know, demonic possession. (In a weird, twisted sense, I guess you could also say that The Exorcist is a metaphor for a really extreme case of puberty, where, instead of pimples, we get skin lacerations; in response to burgeoning, hormonal-induced desires of sexuality, we stab ourselves in the privates with a crucifix; and, as a result of feeling alienated and alone, we possess priests and propel them out of two-story windows. Normal stuff for any pubescent teenager.) http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps8e4b0d16.jpg The highlight of the movie for me, however, was Jason Miller's portrayal of the guilt-ridden priest. The early scenes involving his mother, as well as the ensuing visions after her death, were some of the best scenes in the movie. During the exorcism, when the demon takes the form of the priest's deceased mother and preys on his feelings of guilt and abandonment, the effect is chilling. And speaking of the exorcism, the last thirty minutes of the movie, when the act finally takes place, is thrilling and exceptionally well-crafted. The movie is more of a slow-burn than I expected, but the methodical pace adds to the gravity of the final sequence. When Max Von Sydow finally arrives outside the house, briefcase in tow, in that iconic shot that's often used on the posters and box-covers of the movie, you know that *****'s about to go down. I also appreciate that most of the characters, especially for a horror movie, remain level-headed about the proceedings. Even the priest, instead of immediately jumping on the exorcism bandwagon, approaches the matter with skepticism and rationalism. It's unfortunate that The Exorcist's legacy has essentially handicapped it for modern audiences. We've heard "Luke, I am your father," long before we watch The Empire Strikes Back. We've seen the iconic shower scene in Psycho years before we watch the actual movie. And we've already had the majority of thrills from the The Exorcist spoiled for us long before we get to put those iconic scenes in context. As a result, despite being a very effective horror movie and containing many great elements, I can't help but feel that The Exorcist is a tad overrated. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...psc7ac327e.jpg |
1 Attachment(s)
Out of curiosity, if you guys could go back in time and watch any movie on opening night, especially before any scenes or twists had been spoiled for you, what movie would you choose?
This is a hypothetical situation I've discussed with my friends before, and the movie that always springs to the front of my mind is Psycho. Like I stated in the review for The Exorcist, the shower scene is so iconic that most of us have seen it long before we watch the actual movie. For many, the twist about Norma Bates has also been spoiled, although luckily I was spared in that regard. Psycho is already one of my top-ten favorite movies of all time, so I would've loved to sit in the theater, still a virgin to all its twists and turns, and witness the shower scene for the first time, not knowing that it was coming. Even when I watched Psycho for the first time several years ago, I was surprised at how early in the movie that scene occurs, especially considering that Janet Leigh had been our lead the entire time. As soon as she turns on the faucet, though, I immediately knew what was about to happen. But imagine watching the movie not knowing that the curtain is about to be pulled back, the knife raised, etc. I can't even imagine how awesome that would've been. http://www.movieforums.com/community...1&d=1402253911 So, mofos, what would your choice be? |
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
Oh boy, there are so many that I would love to see without knowing anything about them. But personally I would go with The Empire Strikes Back.
Just imagine being in the movie theater during it's initial release and experiencing everything for the very first time. |
Originally Posted by Lucas (Post 1100698)
Oh boy, there are so many that I would love to see without knowing anything about them. But personally I would go with The Empire Strikes Back.
Just imagine being in the movie theater during it's initial release and experiencing everything for the very first time. |
Well, I saw The Empire Strikes Back the first day at the theatre, and I knew the twist ending. I didn't believe it until I actually saw it for myself, but Cinefantastique, a magazine my brother and I regularly read, and my bro later wrote for, had done the unforgivable and revealed it. It didn't really take away from the experience though because the photography and sound is so all-enveloping in that scene, but it was a bit disappointing after the fact. It didn't make me boycott the magazine, and they were better at reveals in the future. Besides, I don't think many people read that issue before the release.
|
Originally Posted by Captain Spaulding (Post 1100692)
Out of curiosity, if you guys could go back in time and watch any movie on opening night, especially before any scenes or twists had been spoiled for you, what movie would you choose?
Star Wars (1977) for me http://oi57.tinypic.com/4u6op5.jpg this is how it'd work if i had my way. i'd get sent back in a time machine, i'd remember every movie i've seen that was released before 1977. but for every movie that came afterwards, my memory would be wiped for my time travel trip. (preserved in a case or whatever to be restored once i return) http://thunderbird37.com/wp-content/...chine_side.jpg http://oi57.tinypic.com/2en6mag.jpg then i'd sit back and be an innocent and previously unaware eyewitness http://media0.giphy.com/media/1pVhAOYf1J00U/giphy.gif http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDnQdw7eN9s |
I think you're absolutely right about how new viewers react to seeing The Exorcist now; I've heard it a few times on this forum. My parents took me with them to see The Exorcist when I was just 2 years old. The Exorcist, The Omen, and to a lesser extent, Carrie, gave me nightmares for years. I got the full effect of The Exorcist, it's still a little uncomfortable for me to watch, and it will always be a five star movie for me. Incidentally, The Shining and Trilogy of Terror also gave me nightmares. The only movies my parents held back from me were Alien and Dawn of the Dead. I didn't see those until I was 10.
As for your question about which movie I would've loved to see in the theater- I'll go with my first childhood favorite, The Wizard of Oz. |
Originally Posted by cricket (Post 1100727)
My parents took me with them to see The Exorcist when I was just 2 years old.
|
Originally Posted by Captain Spaulding (Post 1100749)
I used to get nightmares as a kid just from watching Nickelodeon's Are You Afraid of the Dark?, so seeing The Exorcist in theaters at the age of two would've probably traumatized me for life. How did you not bawl the entire two hours and drive everyone else in the theater bonkers? Or did you? :D
|
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
Funnily enough, I was watching Psycho again last night on Sky Movies with my brother and I thought 'I wish I could have been there when this was released', I have seen it probably about five times now and it continues to surprise me with just how good it is.
Other than that I am not sure what film I would say. Whilst I am not the biggest fan (no complaint, but on the level of some of the guys in here), culturally important films like Star Wars would have been epic to see at the time on the big screen, then there are films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Godfather. There's a whole load of others that would have been great as well, American films aside (being around for the "New Hollywood era" of the 70s must have been so good), I would have loved to have been alive at the time of the French new wave and managed to get my hands on the new films that were coming through at the time. By the way, good review on The Exorcist. I'd probably rate it a touch higher. I have seen it countless times as it's my step-brothers favourite film and he always seems to put it on when he comes round :p |
Originally Posted by Captain Spaulding (Post 1100749)
I used to get nightmares as a kid just from watching Nickelodeon's Are You Afraid of the Dark?
|
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
Tomorrow evening sometime, Honeykid, Nostromo87 and I are doing a Mannequin commentary. We'd love to have you if you can make it.
|
Originally Posted by nostromo87 (Post 1100720)
|
Originally Posted by Sexy Celebrity (Post 1101519)
Tomorrow evening sometime, Honeykid, Nostromo87 and I are doing a Mannequin commentary. We'd love to have you if you can make it.
Why are you guys willing to do that to yourselves anyway? Are you sadists or is this like a group suicide kind of thing? |
http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...psa773aa5d.jpg Big Jake (George Sherman, 1971) In a surprisingly brutal opening, a gang of outlaws rides into the family ranch of Big Jake (John Wayne) and proceed to kill nearly every man, woman and child in the vicinity, illustrating their cruel and dangerous nature. When they kidnap Big Jake's grandson, it's up to the Duke to track them down. The first 45 minutes or so of the movie is very strong, with the aforementioned opening, along with Wayne's introduction and an elaborate shoot-out that results in multiple casualties. From there, however, the movie slowly loses its steam. Big Jake's estranged sons accompany him on the trip, and there are several forced scenes that try to emphasize their awkward relationship. It doesn't help that the actors playing Jake's sons give very poor performances. The occasional goofy humor stands out like a sore thumb as well, since it clashes with the movie's tone. I watched The Shootist recently, and I was a bit taken aback and saddened by how sickly Wayne appeared in that movie. Big Jake was released five years earlier, and it's obvious that Wayne was in much better health at that point in time, since he still has his trademark swagger and vitality. Richard Boone's performance as the main antagonist is also a highlight of the movie. Big Jake is a solid, traditional western, but it could have been so much better if the second half had maintained the strong momentum of the first half. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...s36ec5040.jpeg The Mercenary (Sergio Corbucci, 1968) If you watch enough spaghetti westerns, you start to notice that, despite varying plots, the basic formula remains the same. I'm generally okay with that, since it's a formula that I continue to enjoy, but sometimes, like when watching The Mercenary, I long for something different and a little less predictable. Franco Nero (the original Django) plays the typical mysterious gunslinger with a ridiculously fast draw that is seen in so many films of this genre. In return for financial gain, he fights alongside a group of revolutionaries, led by a Mexican Colonel who reminds me of a cross between Tuco and Lee Van Cleef's character from The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. Jack Palance, with his unique physical features, makes for an interesting villain. There are some great shoot-outs and badass quips, along with a trademark Morricone score. I loved the showdown near the end (always my favorite part about these spaghetti westerns), but overall I thought The Mercenary was fairly average. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps9c0fa80b.jpg Guns for San Sebastian (Henri Verneuil, 1968) Unlike The Mercenary, Guns for San Sebastian is absent of gunslingers and almost completely devoid of gunfire, allowing it to distance itself from other spaghetti westerns in a manner that I found quite endearing. Anthony Quinn continues to impress me in every role I've seen, and Guns for San Sebastian is no exception. He plays an outlaw who develops a bond with an old, saintly priest. When they stumble into the crumbling remains of a dying town, the priest is shot and killed, and Quinn, despite being an atheist, puts on the robes and is then mistaken for a priest by the bullied townspeople. He develops a bond with the people and helps them fight off a Charles Bronson-led gang of predatory Indians. Quinn, despite his rough exterior, often infuses his characters with genuine tenderness (his excellent performance in 1962's Requiem for a Heavyweight, one of my all-time favorite movies, comes to mind), and the same is true in Guns for San Sebastian. The movie is more reserved and stoical than most films of this type, and there's little action until the last 30 minutes or so, but when the time comes for bullets and blood, the movie doesn't hold back or come up short. Guns for San Sebastian is a very underrated, atypical spaghetti western. I enjoyed it quite a bit. A pleasant surprise. |
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
There seems to be a recurring issue with the pictures. Can others see them?
|
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
I see 'em.
|
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
I can see them, Captain.
|
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
They're working fine for me. :) Shame about the films. :p
|
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
I couldn't before, but now I can. Nice reviews as usual, didn't notice your review of Greed before. That one looks great and a must watch when I decide to explore silent cinema a bit more, so far my favourites off the top of my head are: Sherlock, Jr., The General, City Lights, Sunrise, The Passion of Joan of Arc, but I've generally only seen 1/2 films from each of the important directors.
|
Thanks for the input, guys. Apparently I have a hard time attaching images, so I'm just going to upload them to my photobucket account from now on and link to them from there.
Originally Posted by honeykid (Post 1102391)
They're working fine for me. :) Shame about the films. :p
|
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
I can see them. ;)
|
Originally Posted by Captain Spaulding (Post 1102398)
What is it about westerns that you dislike so much, honeykid? I'd say maybe it's a British thing (you are British, right?), since westerns (or at least the traditional ones) are so inherently linked to America, but Daniel isn't American either, and I've seen him admit to liking westerns.
|
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
Yeah, I don't think you have to be American to like "American" things. Quite the opposite is true a lot of the time, I find - I adore a lot of American culture (never been a big fan of Westerns, though) and Anglophilia is a huge thing in America.
|
Originally Posted by Captain Spaulding (Post 1102398)
What is it about westerns that you dislike so much, honeykid? I'd say maybe it's a British thing (you are British, right?), since westerns (or at least the traditional ones) are so inherently linked to America, but Daniel isn't American either, and I've seen him admit to liking westerns.
|
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
Well, my grandma said the same thing. I've got it - that's who you remind me of.
|
Originally Posted by Captain Spaulding (Post 1093863)
Everyone has different criteria for their ratings. Some reviewers are way too generous. Others are way too strict. I try to rate movies based on quality and not personal enjoyment, although it's often difficult to separate the two.
: Masterpiece
: Excellent : Great : Very Good : Good : Average : Below Average : Bad : Mannequin, which is a synonym for Terrible : I'd Rather Be Sodomized By a Rusty, Ten-Foot Steel Pipe Than Re-Watch This Movie : Mannequin Two: On the Move, the deepest level of Hell, where Hollywood Montrose sodomizes me with a rusty, ten-foot steel pipe while Sexy Celebrity stands to the side and spouts the brilliance of Mannequin for the rest of eternity. |
Originally Posted by honeykid (Post 1102452)
I can't really put my finger on it. I have a problem with the colour pallette, but that doesn't matter with the B&W ones, of course, which are often the ones I usually dislike the most. While there are westerns I like, and films that were Westerns in another life, such as Assault On Precinct 13, as a genre they just don't interest me. They never have, though. I can say that. Westerns, cowboys, they've never been something I enjoyed or had any interest in. Even as a small child. Never wanted to be one, never thought they looked cool.
|
Fruitvale Station (Ryan Coogler, 2013) (Starring: Michael B. Jordan; Octavia Spencer; Melonie Diaz) http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps93a68bd9.jpg I've always wondered if the people whose lives are cut short due to some unfortunate accident, be it a car crash or a shooting or some other unpleasant scenario, wake up on the day of their death with an uneasy feeling in the pit of their stomach. Do they experience doubts about their future course of action? Does a sixth sense cry out unheard? Or are they completely oblivious? When Oscar Grant III, in Fruitvale Station, suggests to his girlfriend that they stay home on that ill-fated New Year's Eve, is it because he's tired? Or is his subconscious trying to warn him? Fruitvale Station opens with the real-life footage of the fatal 2009 incident between Oscar Grant and police, so viewers, whether familiar with the story or not, are immediately aware of Oscar's fate. This adds solemnity to every scene. A visit with a friend or family member carries extra weight, because we know, unbeknownst to the characters, that this is the last time that they will see Oscar alive. Same goes for the added poignancy in the scenes between Oscar and his daughter. Or the "Oh, no!" gasp from viewers when Oscar's mom encourages him to take the subway. Life is fragile. Time is fleeting. Death is approaching. When a dog, seconds after Oscar stops to pet him, is run over and killed in the street, we want to warn Oscar that the dog has just foreshadowed his own impending doom. Hey, Oscar, don't get on the subway, dude! Any time "based on a true story" appears at the beginning of a movie, you should know that liberties have been taken with the story. Characters from real life may be added or subtracted; situations dramatized or omitted; details tweaked or forgotten. Fruitvale Station isn't a documentary. If you want to know the facts, read up on the incident yourself, but the movie deserves to be judged on its own. The Oscar Grant in Fruitvale Station isn't a martyr or a flawless individual. He's a troubled young man trying to turn his life around. He's been in prison; he's cheated on his girlfriend; he has a violent temper; he's been fired from his job due to excessive absences. Everyone makes New Year's resolutions, but rarely anyone keeps them. Sadly, we'll never know if Oscar would've stayed true to his promises or not. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps471e541a.jpg Everyone but me seems to be impressed with Michael B. Jordan. He shines in the scenes with his daughter, and he captures the earnest naivety of the character, but I found his performance to be unconvincing in other parts of the movie, especially in the scenes where he tries to be tough. (Although maybe that's the point? Maybe the director is implying that Oscar was caring and gentle and only pretended to be a tough guy in certain moments as a defense mechanism?) Something about Jordan's delivery felt forced to me, though, just like the annoying "bruh" that gets tagged onto the end of so many lines of dialogue. Octavia Spencer, on the other hand, is excellent in the movie, fully embodying the spirit of her character. Late in the movie, when things turn tragic, she gets to do the heavy lifting, capturing the pain and heartbreak of the moment. I wouldn't have objected if she had been nominated for Best Supporting Actress. Fruitvale Station gets a little too emotionally manipulative toward the end, using Oscar's daughter to tug at people's heartstrings. Even when the movie ends and it shows footage from the real-life protests and remembrances, the last image before the credits is of Oscar's real-life daughter. I understand that the director is trying to illustrate that there's a little girl who will now grow up without a father due to this tragic incident, but something about it felt cheap and heavy-handed. I was also annoyed that every time Oscar texts someones--- which happens frequently throughout the movie--- the "text speak" comes up on the screen. Maybe it's because I'm one of three people in the world who still doesn't own a cell phone, or maybe it's because I'm annoyed by the butchering of the English language, but I hate when movies pretend that texts are worthy of their own subtitles. That's not a criticism, just a personal pet-peeve. Like the character of Oscar Grant III, Fruitvale Station is well-intentioned, but heavily flawed. The director succeeds in putting a face to the tragedy. The movie illustrates the senseless loss of life. And the subject matter is important and timely. However, it's not a movie that I have any interest in revisiting. I say that not because it's depressing or infuriating or difficult to watch, but because, with the exception of the last twenty minutes, the movie isn't particularly interesting or engaging. The movie should be powerful because of the script and the directing and the performances, not just because it's based on true-life events. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps74b9b0c5.jpg |
Nice review. Sounds like it's ok if there's nothing else on.
|
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
Great review, not so great film. Fruitvale Station is decent, but it is very,very heavy-handed. It was trying way too hard to make the viewer emotional. Michael B.Jordan is an excellent actor though, I've been a fan of his ever since The Wire.
|
Stalker (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1979) (Starring: Alexander Kaidanovsky; Anatoly Solonitsyn; Nikolai Grinko) http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps7c9aa6af.jpg As we get older, the magical tint of Disney fades, diminishing our childish sense of wonder, our idealism, and our optimistic belief that anything is possible, thus resulting in a pessimistic shift in our perspective of the world. It's like going to bed on Christmas Eve when you no longer believe in Santa Claus. Where's the magic? Where's the excitement? While watching Stalker, I experienced a similar shift in perspective. The mysterious power of the Zone held me within its grip and kept me enthralled until, like the characters in the film, I began to lose hope. Doubts persisted and grew until I no longer believed in the magic of the Zone. I scoffed at Stalker's claims of hidden dangers. I laughed at the notion that this room, located deep within the decaying remains of a wet and mildewed industrial building, could contain the power to grant a person's innermost desires. It's all in Stalker's head, I thought. The Zone is just a metaphor, a symbol, and although that might make the subject ripe for analysis, it's much less exciting within the confines of the film. When the characters venture into a room filled with sand dunes, we see a bird fly halfway across the room, only to disappear into thin air. Then another bird (or is it the same bird reappearing from a different angle?) flies across the room and lands safely on the other side. Is this a trick of the camera? Or is it proof that the normal laws of physics no longer apply inside the Zone? Just like a kid, on Christmas Eve, convinces himself that the sounds on the roof are only tree branches scratching against the shingles, not Santa Claus and his sleigh of reindeer, I shrugged it off as a strange coincidence. The final scene of the film, however, leaves no doubt. What first seemed like a science-fiction film only because of the questions it asks, not because of its content or its execution, is flipped on its head with one gut-punch of an ending. Suddenly, an array of extraordinary possibilities is revealed, and my hope and faith in the mysterious power of the Zone and in the world of Stalker was renewed. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...psfc943194.jpg Stalker is brilliantly shot, with a great eye for detail and an almost Kubrick-like composition. Every frame of the movie, with its dirt and grime and rain-drenched settings, is like a grotesque painting of malnourished beauty. The world outside the Zone is filmed through an oppressively thick sepia filter, as if the entire world, with its apocalyptic, Chernobyl-like aesthetic, has rusted into decay. This makes the Zone, with its blue sky and fields of green, almost heavenly by comparison. Or at least it feels that way until the characters travel deeper into themselves and into the Zone, where the grime and slime accumulates on their skin, and the grass and clouds give way to subterranean tunnels of crumbling concrete and debris. It's no coincidence that the sepia filter returns just as the characters sit hopeless and defeated outside their destination. And it's also no coincidence that Stalker's handicapped daughter is the only aspect of the outside world viewed through color, as her special gifts hint at the hope of a brighter future. Stalker, just like the mysterious realm inside the Zone, is loaded with ambiguity, asking more questions than it answers. This will turn some off some viewers, but, in my opinion, any work of art that asks important questions can be much more powerful and hard-hitting than a work of art that pretends to have all the answers. After all, what's more important, the belief in something or the proof? Does it matter if the room inside the Zone really exists or is it only the idea of the room that matters? Must the room really grant people's wishes for them to have hope in a brighter tomorrow? Or is it only the symbolic nature of such a room that serves as a catalyst for change? Like the works of fellow Russians Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, Tarkovsky's films are dense, stuffed with meaning and rife with symbolism. They can't be fully digested with one viewing, so I feel at a loss to try to write a review for this film when I've only just watched it for the first time. Stalker is a Master's thesis of a film, one that deserves to be watched multiple times and analyzed and dissected and written about at length. This is a long movie, divided into two parts, and, with its slow, meditative pace, you can certainly feel the movie's length. But regardless of its difficult nature, Stalker is an absolutely awe-inspiring, thought-provoking work of art, frustrating at times, but hugely rewarding. I can't wait to watch it again. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps8f27f8ff.jpg |
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
I remember my first watch of Stalker, it hit my like a sledge to the chest! Fantastic film!
|
Movies like Stalker are tough for me, but it kept me engaged. It was a positive viewing for me.
|
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
Stalker is one of the great masterpieces of cinema, in my opinion.
|
Re: Captain Spaulding's Cinematic Catalogue
Outstanding review. Stalker is an incredible film.
|
http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...psb422d7a8.jpg The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (Ben Stiller, 2013) Outside of a few interesting visuals, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is a boring, hollow, cloying piece of rubbish. It tries so hard to be life-affirming and enriching in a you-can-do-anything-you-set-your-mind-to sense, but it lacks any emotional resonance, substance or depth to make it effective. Ben Stiller wears a blank expression on his face for the duration of the movie. He shares zero chemistry with Kristen Wiig and his daydreams quickly grow tiresome and annoying. The script is weak and contrived and eventually dissolves into a montage of Walter Mitty's ridiculous "adventures." Not funny. Not interesting. Not entertaining. You can watch a "Be All You Can Be" or "Just Do It" commercial and get the same quality and message in a fraction of the time. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...psf5ec7c9a.jpg Runner Runner (Brad Furman, 2013) Runner Runner was lambasted by critics and general audiences, and deservedly so, since this is easily one of the most half-assed attempts at a movie that I've seen in quite some time. Everything about Runner Runner, from the script to the editing to the directing, feels scribbled together, as if the people involved with the making of the film feared that the studio would realize that they had been cheated out of millions of dollars and would demand that their budget be paid back in full. Since the plot of the movie revolves around a Ponzi scheme, it's basically art imitating life. I assume Ben Affleck and Justin Timberlake agreed to star in the film just because they wanted a paid vacation to Puerto Rico. That and the paychecks are probably the only reason anyone allowed themselves to be involved with this piece of crap. http://i1052.photobucket.com/albums/...ps98e683f8.jpg 47 Ronin (Carl Rinsch, 2013) Quality-wise, 47 Ronin is just as bad as the other two movies in this post, but I found it to be marginally entertaining. Keanu Reeves, for obvious reasons, sticks out like a sore thumb. Performance-wise, though, he's no more stilted or wooden than anyone else in the film. 47 Ronin is supposedly based on true events, but I doubt that the real story of the 47 Ronin involved dragons and giants and CGI creatures. Considering the $225 million budget, it's stunning how poor the special effects are in this film. (And considering that 47 Ronin now ranks as the second biggest box office bomb in history, I imagine whoever thought it was a good idea to invest such an obscene amount of money in this film is now seeking employment elsewhere.) If 47 Ronin hadn't taken itself so seriously, this could've been a fun, albeit ridiculous, adventure story. Instead it feels like a bigger-budgeted Season of the Witch, but with more samurais and less Nicholas Cage. |
| All times are GMT -3. The time now is 07:45 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums