33rd Hall of Fame
The 33rd Hall of Fame All are welcome! So many great movies out there to choose from. From obscure favourites, to all-time classics, every Hall of Fame throws up interested and varied films for us to either check out for the first time or watch again - there are literally 1000s of candidates out there! Just PM me the name of the movie you want to nominate (after checking here to make sure it hasn't won a previous Hall of Fame) and in around a week from now I'll reveal the list of films we're about to discuss, review and vote on.
Rules of Participation:
I'll extend the deadline on this Hall of Fame seeing as the Noir and Neo Noir Countdowns are about to commence, and will take up some of our time over the coming weeks - so no need to worry about being too busy. There's plenty of time to settle the competition between the selected movies. I'll keep who nominated what anonymous until the end, but everyone is free to put their hand up and say "I nominated this or that movie". Please, keep debate, but don't argue. Let's make this the best Hall of Fame we've ever had! Or at the very least the second best! DEADLINE : MAY 31st Please note : I'm operating under Australian Western Standard Time, which will feel a little unusual compared to other hosts. If you ever want to quickly check how it compares, then : If you're on the West Coast of the U.S.A. add 15 hours If you're on the East Coast of the U.S.A. add 12 hours If you're in the U.K. add 7 hours "Where's PHOENIX?" - He's probably sleeping. Participants : PHOENIX74 - (nomination locked in) jiraffejustin - nomination received John W Constantine - nomination received edarsenal - nomination received beelzebubble - nomination received cricket - nomination received Citizen Rules - nomination received rauldc14 - nomination received Siddon - nomination received ScarletLion - nomination received Hey Fredrick - nomination received |
NOMINATIONS https://i.postimg.cc/0jpq1SVR/aftersun2.jpg Aftersun (2022) https://i.postimg.cc/Gtkwp5TX/the-bank-job.jpg The Bank Job (2008) https://i.postimg.cc/8kby9wHk/beau2.jpg Beau Travail (1999) https://i.postimg.cc/vmMgJ7XM/gods-little-acre2.jpg God's Little Acre (1958) https://i.postimg.cc/RZm1tnrN/humani.jpg L'humanité (1999) - Withdrawn https://i.postimg.cc/xdbgZL00/macbeth.jpg Macbeth (1971) - Disqualified https://i.postimg.cc/6348RHpr/seasons2.webp A Man For All Seasons (1966) https://i.postimg.cc/0jd2dhRw/mona-lisa2.jpg Mona Lisa (1986) https://i.postimg.cc/SNgmS6yk/shoplifters2.jpg Shoplifters (2018) https://i.postimg.cc/FK3tL3Qf/there-will-be-blood2.jpg There Will Be Blood (2007) https://i.postimg.cc/vHSX3fSB/treasure.jpg The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) |
I'm in....gotta think about my nom.
|
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
I'm most likely in, I'll wait until the reveal to make sure. Thanks for hosting Phoenix!
|
I'll probably join this one. Probably.
|
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
I'm in. Thanks for doing this!
|
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
I will probably stay in the sidelines, what with the Neo-noir countdown and countless other stuffs going on in my life... but who knows? I will check the reveals.
|
Originally Posted by Thief (Post 2442727)
I will probably stay in the sidelines, what with the Neo-noir countdown and countless other stuffs going on in my life... but who knows? I will check the reveals.
|
Originally Posted by PHOENIX74 (Post 2442747)
I'm going to add a couple of weeks to the deadline because of the Countdowns, which many of us will be busy with (and which will dominate CR's and your time completely) - so I'm hoping that won't be an issue for many people.
|
I didn't watch a single movie in February but I think I'm in
|
Originally Posted by cricket (Post 2443239)
I didn't watch a single movie in February but I think I'm in
|
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (Post 2443241)
Not a single movie? What were you doing?
|
Originally Posted by cricket (Post 2443251)
I watch less when me and wifey are getting along and we've been getting along, plus Celtics and work.
|
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
Leaning towards yes, if I can find something worthy enough for all you cinephiles.
|
Originally Posted by Hey Fredrick (Post 2443264)
Leaning towards yes, if I can find something worthy enough for all you cinephiles.
|
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (Post 2443255)
TV series and sports then? I hope you're not working three jobs, yikes! Hope you join the HoF.
|
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
looks like I'm in. Going with one I haven't seen since I was a kid. Should be a blast.
|
Sent my nom so no turning back now. Considered a few sick ones but went with something normal:p
|
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
Pick something good guys, because I am in and I picked a great one.
|
A great bunch of films starting to coalesce here - very worthy, varied and interesting.
|
Originally Posted by beelzebubble (Post 2443385)
Pick something good guys, because I am in and I picked a great one.
|
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
I'm hoping to join and if so I went with something that most haven't seen. Maybe Ed has? I guess we'll see:D
|
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
Sent my nom in
|
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
Now we just wait for @Siddon to send in his nomination.
|
Hopefully we have a great HoF and everyone participates this time from the get go...as opposed to waiting tell the last week to post their reviews. I just don't get that.
|
Any more joining in? Anyone? I promise we don't smell.
|
Originally Posted by John W Constantine (Post 2443888)
Any more joining in? Anyone? I promise we don't smell.
|
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (Post 2443882)
Hopefully we have a great HoF and everyone participates this time from the get go...as opposed to waiting tell the last week to post their reviews. I just don't get that.
|
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (Post 2443889)
Maybe we need to do the @ mention thing? Sometimes people just don't see a thread when they logon to MoFo, so they don't even know about it.
|
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
I'm open to it, but would need some notice/it would have to not conflict with anything. Which is tricky because we literally just had to delay the Oscar picks banner to make room for the noir list banner! :laugh:
|
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (Post 2443882)
Hopefully we have a great HoF and everyone participates this time from the get go...as opposed to waiting tell the last week to post their reviews. I just don't get that.
Originally Posted by rauldc14 (Post 2443904)
I agree with this. If you're going to wait forever and forever I just don't see the point of joining
https://media.tenor.com/eh4coYfNJG0AAAAM/nice.gif |
Originally Posted by beelzebubble (Post 2443905)
Maybe Yoda could add a banner for the HOF when they come up. Not that I am trying to make more work for him.:D
|
I sent a PM to the following as notice that a new Hall of Fame was starting : Allaby, CosmicRunaway, cricket, culliford, edarsenal, GulfportDoc, Hey Fredrick, James D. Gardiner, jiraffejustin, ScarletLion, skizzerflake, SpelingError, ThatDarnMKS, Thursday Next, Torgo, Wooley
If there are any possible HoFers that I've missed amongst those we can "@" them or let me know - I'd love juuuuust one more at least, but some might be waiting until the reveal to take that advantage. |
Originally Posted by PHOENIX74 (Post 2443943)
I sent a PM to the following as notice that a new Hall of Fame was starting : Allaby, CosmicRunaway, cricket, culliford, edarsenal, GulfportDoc, Hey Fredrick, James D. Gardiner, jiraffejustin, ScarletLion, skizzerflake, SpelingError, ThatDarnMKS, Thursday Next, Torgo, Wooley
If there are any possible HoFers that I've missed amongst those we can "@" them or let me know - I'd love juuuuust one more at least, but some might be waiting until the reveal to take that advantage. |
Originally Posted by beelzebubble (Post 2443948)
Try Takoma.
|
Here are the reveals for the films that have been nominated up to this moment. I'm pleased that we have something from the 40s, 50s, 60s 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s and 20s - we're only missing the 1970s really, and anything pre-40s. Each one of us nominated something from a different decade to the others.
So, in alphabetical order : https://i.postimg.cc/0jpq1SVR/aftersun2.jpg Aftersun (2022) https://i.postimg.cc/8kby9wHk/beau2.jpg Beau Travail (1999) https://i.postimg.cc/vmMgJ7XM/gods-little-acre2.jpg God's Little Acre (1958) https://i.postimg.cc/6348RHpr/seasons2.webp A Man For All Seasons (1966) https://i.postimg.cc/0jd2dhRw/mona-lisa2.jpg Mona Lisa (1986) https://i.postimg.cc/SNgmS6yk/shoplifters2.jpg Shoplifters (2018) https://i.postimg.cc/FK3tL3Qf/there-will-be-blood2.jpg There Will Be Blood (2007) https://i.postimg.cc/vHSX3fSB/treasure.jpg The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) And just a final reminder to @Allaby, @CosmicRunaway, @culliford, @GulfportDoc, @Hey Fredrick, @James D. Gardiner, @jiraffejustin, @ScarletLion, @skizzerflake, @ThatDarnMKS, @Thursday Next, @Torgo, @Wooley and @Siddon, @MovieMeditation, @Wyldesyde19, @Miss Vicky, @John-Connor, @LAMb EELYAK, @MovieGal, @KeyserCorleone - extra time granted due to the two countdowns going on. Would love another nomination or two. |
I’m in the middle of mandatory OT on Saturdays again, so I won’t be able to devote any time to this.
That being said, I’ve seen 5/8 of the nominations. Haven’t seen God’s Little Acre, Beau Travail or Aftersun yet, although I certainly know of them. Mona Lisa is one I’m sure I’ve seen, anyways. It looks familiar and sounds familiar, but….if I did, it was so long ago my memory is hazy af |
Some heavyweights and few underdogs there.
|
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
Why wouldn't you put those in order....anyways here comes a 70's nom
|
Out of the nominations, I've only seen Shoplifters and Treasure of the Sierra Madre, and they're both great films I'd gladly watch again. Even though Aftersun made it into a few categories of the Film Awards last year, I didn't ever get around to watching it.
There Will Be Blood is one of those films that I keep saying I'll check out, but never do. No Country for Old Men was much the same, though I finally watched that one in preparation for the neo-noir Countdown, so it's too bad I can't participate and have a reason to sit down with There Will Be Blood as well. It's kind of funny, because a few days before I got that PM about this HoF, I had been thinking I should join one again. But I've only been watching noirs and 2023 films for the last few months, and haven't really had time to think of a more general nomination. I'd rather not have to rush to find something, so maybe I'll see you guys in the next one instead? |
Just what I was hoping for - a film from the 1970s to complete the set to a certain degree...
https://i.postimg.cc/xdbgZL00/macbeth.jpg Macbeth (1971) Added to the nominations on page 1. |
Originally Posted by CosmicRunaway (Post 2444191)
It's kind of funny, because a few days before I got that PM about this HoF, I had been thinking I should join one again. But I've only been watching noirs and 2023 films for the last few months, and haven't really had time to think of a more general nomination. I'd rather not have to rush to find something, so maybe I'll see you guys in the next one instead?
|
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
Looks like a cool hall.
|
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
Also, how insane that there is one nom from every decade 1940 and up!
|
|
Have fun, everybody. After doing the Neo-Noir HoF and my own Albert Pyun project, I feel like going back to regular rotation if you know what I mean. Looks like a good one, though, especially with Aftersun, Beau Travail, Mona Lisa and Sierra Madre.
|
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
Quite a wonderful spread of films traversing the decades. VERY cool.
Aftersun (2022) Unknown to me, and a gut feeling said to run blind with just a short summary on IMDB, so I'm intrigued. Beau Travail (1999) I remember being curious about this when it came out but never following through, so this'll be a pleasant opportunity. God's Little Acre (1958) This MUST be CR, and no, I have not had the pleasure of seeing another dramatic turn by Tina Louise, so YAY L'humanité (1999) This will be a rough one to weather, I think. Macbeth (1971) Truly cannot remember if I've ever seen Polanski's rendition, but I do enjoy me some Shakespeare. A Man For All Seasons (1966) Saw this a couple years ago and pretty happy to revisit. Mona Lisa (1986) I'm pretty sold on checking this one out with Hoskins, Caine, and Coltrane. It looks pretty solid. Shoplifters (2018) I ADORED this film and have been dying to see it again. How frickin awesome! There Will Be Blood (2007) It's been some time since I last saw this, so I'm looking forward to revisiting it. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) This one is mine, and I haven't seen it since I was but a pup, so pretty excited. |
Originally Posted by edarsenal (Post 2444404)
God's Little Acre (1958) This MUST be CR, and no, I have not had the pleasure of seeing another dramatic turn by Tina Louise, so YAY
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) This one is mine, and I haven't seen it since I was but a pup, so pretty excited.
|
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
I am VERY surprised that God's Little Acre isn't yours. Now I'm curious to find out which is.
|
Another nomination comes rolling in :
https://i.postimg.cc/Gtkwp5TX/the-bank-job.jpg The Bank Job (2008) |
https://img.icdn.my.id/cover/w_1200/...sons-18434.jpg
A Man For All Seasons (1966) The 1960's tend to get a bit of a bad rap when it comes to prestige pictures. The decade started off with Lawrence of Arabia and then a series of clones came out that were dry and unremarkable. A Man for All Seasons seemed to try and buck the trend telling a more intimate story in a film that should be a cinescope style epic but plays more like a procedural. Paul Scofield was a working actor of little reknown whent he film came out...and he became a bit player in the decades post, however he was given this one magnificent role and he knocks it out of the park as Thomas More. The film is the story of the mad King Henry VIII and his desire to divorce his current barren wife and replace her with his new younger version. Robert Shaw plays the king and he's great in this. One of the things you really notice in the film is the excellent work from all the small parts. Orson Welles shows up in the begining, John Hurt is hanging around in the background, Vanessa Redgrave has a silent small cameo. The casting in this film is pitch perfect. Paul's performance is fantastic, I think a normal take would be a man conflicted with his desire to stay alive. Or on the flip side you would think Moore would be a rebel...but rather what we see is a man steadfast and resolute in his choices, pushing up against a bureaucracy that wants this whole thing over and done with but it struggling with Moores' silent obstinate. I wouldn't call the film a slough more a long march to the inevitable conclusion. Sometimes you can appreciate a film that doesn't try and do too much, rather focuses on execution. I think I have enough puns in there. B+ |
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gInglg9lY...anski_1971.JPG
Macbeth (1971) Roman Polanski has made a number of films over the years often times playing with genre but sticking to mostly horror. His 1971 version of Macbeth is a film both of it's time and vastly ahead of it. The film has three major prongs going for it, the first of which is this is the play. This isn't some sort of butchered updating of Shakespeare this is the real dialogue and while it might seem like a choire for the viewer Polanski does two very clever things in this film. The first of which is he strips the film of all the glamour, this is a dark horific version of the story...as it should be. The central themes of coruption, madness, and evil are fully shown. Jon Finch gives a two pronged performance speaking boldly as a mad men to the rest of the cast but his inner monologue is filled with fear and doubt. And third aspect is it's strongest point and that's the cinematography. Only the National Board of Review honored this film, this mostly had to do I believe because it was finaced by Hugh Hefner and rated X on it's release. Now the rating has been adjusted and it's no longer an X rater film because well it's clearly a hard R of a film. But all of that is beside the point...this film has so many things going for it. You are completely absorbed into this world as really you have no stars in the film. You only have the characters, ugly flawed and cynical. And yet it also has a dream-like quality to it thanks to an incredible and restrained score. And finally the last act is filled with sadness, humor and reality giving us a final duel that is right up there with They Live. One of the things I do with my nominations is try and find and watch the best version of a story and present that to you guys. This is the best version of Macbeth and perhaps the best Shakespeare adaption ever made. I hope you guys enjoy it on a cold wet evening with a fire burning by your side. A |
I guess I can get started on these. I'll try to have a few reviews up today.
|
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
great write-ups @Siddon. FULL agreement with Scolfield knocking it out of the park. Felt exactly the same way the first time I saw this a couple of years back and I'm growing more and more curious to see Polanski's rendition of Macbeth after reading your review.
|
Originally Posted by PHOENIX74 (Post 2444435)
Another nomination comes rolling in :
https://i.postimg.cc/Gtkwp5TX/the-bank-job.jpg The Bank Job (2008) |
Seen and think highly of There Will Be Blood, Mona Lisa, Shoplifters, and Sierra Madre.
Seen All the King's Men and didn't like it simply because I don't generally like those types of movies. I'll give my best effort and try to immerse myself in it. Speaking of those types of movies-Macbeth-ugh-well but it's directed by Polanski so I'm interested. Don't know anything about Aftersun but it's already on my watchlist, love it when that happens. Must have read something positive here. At first glance, The Bank Job looks like a run of the mill action film. That's ok because I like run of the mill action films and Jason Statham. Also, director Roger Donaldson has made several good films. Not familiar with God's Little Acre, Beau Travail, or L'humanite. I see the director of the latter is Bruno Dumont who directed Twentynine Palms. If it's anything like that we could have some juicy controversy. It could be tame for all I know, but be careful who you watch it with! |
Originally Posted by cricket (Post 2444627)
Speaking of those types of movies-Macbeth-ugh-well but it's directed by Polanski so I'm interested. Very interested in seeing how Macbeth does in this Hall because it's visually on a different level than almost everything else in this Hall. On the other hand it is two hours of authentic Shakespearian dialogue |
Macbeth (1971, Polanski) In 11th century Scotland, Macbeth and his friend Banquo hear of a prophecy that leads to the murder of their king. After which, Macbeth and his ascension to throne does not come without serious consequences and the loss of his state of mind. This time period for Polanski is certainly a turbulent one. Add this with his type of films he was producing at the time and birthed is this washed out (Scotland dreary?) canvas involving murder and madness of its king. The visuals (with that 70's tint) definitely kept my attention while struggling to digest the honest dialogue from Shakespeare. I respect it but it made this a difficult watch despite doing almost everything else in top form. Will definitely be digesting some of those visuals for a while with that unsettling score. |
I'm going to try to hit one of these tomorrow
|
Mona Lisa (1986, Jordan) George is a small-time crook just released from the joint. After failing to reconnect with his daughter and wife(ex?) he reunites with his old friend Thomas. In the process, George takes up a job driving for call-girl Simone. As their partnership becomes closer, Simone gives George a task of locating one of her colleagues from her earlier days in the business. But this leads to some unexpected difficulties. I found this a pretty good entry with a great reveal/resolution at the end. I loved the banter between Hoskins and Coltrane during their time on screen. The partnership between George and Simone developed nicely leading up to the films bittersweet conclusion. But George finds a silver lining in the end. |
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
Glad to hear a little bit about Mona Lisa, especially regarding Hoskin and Coltrane's banter.
|
Originally Posted by edarsenal (Post 2444730)
Glad to hear a little bit about Mona Lisa, especially regarding Hoskin and Coltrane's banter.
|
https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content...6-am.png?w=780
Shoplifters (2018) I feel like we get one of these films in every Hall and I don't see myself ever ranking these films near the top. This movement in Asian cinema is just dull to me, this film is classified as a thriller and it has elements in it. This is the story of a family of shoplifters, they don't just make a living shoplifting one works as a live fetish/stripper, another is a day laborer and the eldest is a pensioner. One day they come across a very young neglected girl and bring her into this family of thieves. I saw this film about four years ago and it really doesn't hold up on repeat viewings. So much of the film is just a yarn, it's a story where when you remove the plot twists (that aren't really executed well) you are left with just blandness and banalities. I guess that's a style and a choice...Ozu made a lot of films like this The film has some solid set design, the family lives in a crowded and cramped little three/four room house. When the family leaves the house some of the scenes are thrilling...to a point. It's a technically solid film but I don't think I could describe anyone in this film without having to rely on plot points. I think it's really just the genre I find dull. B- |
https://64.media.tumblr.com/a77223e7...9b5cff0c1b.gif
God's Little Acre (1958) I mean part me has no clue why this film was nominated and another part of me well can kinda figure it out. This movie was just a mess to the point where it almost felt experimental. The first half hour of the film you think you are watching a comedy about poor people. Then an Albino shows up and the story ends up being camp but then the last third act it becomes this crazy melodrama. I'm really curious about the motivations of the person who nominated this because I'm sure how to judge it. I was entertained much in way it's entertaining to flip through a series of channels, and yet I didn't hate the film I was just confused. Every young person in this film is incredibly good looking...except for Buddy Hacket who is both comic relief and part of a sex thing with one of the daughters. C |
Originally Posted by Siddon (Post 2444866)
God's Little Acre (1958) I mean part me has no clue why this film was nominated and another part of me well can kinda figure it out. I'm really curious about the motivations of the person who nominated this because I'm sure how to judge it.... I'm sure ALL of the noms were chose by the members because they liked them, or believed they were interesting or thought they could win, etc. etc. |
**becomes curious....goes back through threads to check daisies incident **
|
Originally Posted by John W Constantine (Post 2444881)
**becomes curious....goes back through threads to check daisies incident **
|
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (Post 2444874)
What?...You're going to 'judge' the reasons why this movie was nominated? Haven't you had enough judging with the whole Daisies incident???
I'm sure ALL of the noms were chose by the members because they liked them, or believed they were interesting or thought they could win, etc. etc. Speaking of mellodrama.... No I'm not saying this was picked in bad faith, but this movie is really weird. This film starts like Lil Abner and then becomes The Last Picture Show and switches on a dime. I don't really see the appeal in suggesting a film like this but I'm curous about the reasoning |
Originally Posted by Siddon (Post 2444928)
Speaking of mellodrama....
No I'm not saying this was picked in bad faith, but this movie is really weird. This film starts like Lil Abner and then becomes The Last Picture Show and switches on a dime. I don't really see the appeal in suggesting a film like this but I'm curous about the reasoning Why did I chose it? Because I had fun watching it the one time viewing some years ago and wanted to see it again. And because I remember it being an interesting film that I hoped people would either like or at least find interesting as it's an odd film and hoped that would spark conversation. And because most members seem to want noms that aren't well known so I figured God's Little Acre hadn't been seen by most. I also asked my wife about various noms and she liked this one more than some of the other films I had in mind. That's about it as far as my reasons go. I had considered two different noms, both very popular films, but didn't go with them as I didn't want to make people have to set and watch a nearly 4 hour long film. Tina Louise is a plus, that's for sure! But no that wasn't the reason at all. |
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
Themroc, Daisies, and In A Glass Cage. All awful
|
Originally Posted by rauldc14 (Post 2444935)
Themroc, Daisies, and In A Glass Cage. All awful
|
Originally Posted by Torgo (Post 2444885)
Look up the Themroc incident from the 25th one while you're at it. Total DramaRama ($1 to Cartoon Network).
|
In the meantime, the reasoning behind our nominations can be varied - and that's what creates such an interesting mix of films every time around. If they were just filled with well-known classics every time, I wouldn't like Hall of Fames as much. But I always base my voting on the films themselves. The reasons behind each nomination shouldn't really play any part. You might just like to see how one of your lesser-known but interesting films will fare, or go for the win with a well-liked classic - after all, there are many Olympians in an event that have no chance of winning, but compete to see how they go. Diversity is best - and in my whole time participating in these things, I've never seen a nomination that's just been made in bad faith.
|
**checks Phoenix74 participation hof records**
|
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
I love weird nominations. I wish there was more of them.
|
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
Is the speed increase function the best technological advance in recent history of cinema? AFAF.
|
Originally Posted by John W Constantine (Post 2445102)
Is the speed increase function the best technological advance in recent history of cinema? AFAF.
|
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (Post 2445110)
Ha, I just got that reference..someone's been reading past HoF threads!
|
Originally Posted by jiraffejustin (Post 2445038)
I love weird nominations. I wish there was more of them.
|
Originally Posted by PHOENIX74 (Post 2444951)
In the meantime, the reasoning behind our nominations can be varied - and that's what creates such an interesting mix of films every time around. If they were just filled with well-known classics every time, I wouldn't like Hall of Fames as much. But I always base my voting on the films themselves. The reasons behind each nomination shouldn't really play any part. You might just like to see how one of your lesser-known but interesting films will fare, or go for the win with a well-liked classic - after all, there are many Olympians in an event that have no chance of winning, but compete to see how they go. Diversity is best - and in my whole time participating in these things, I've never seen a nomination that's just been made in bad faith.
|
Originally Posted by John W Constantine (Post 2445114)
Is there a balance between weird and unwatchable?
|
Shoplifters https://pics.filmaffinity.com/Shopli...8191-large.jpg I first watched this movie 3 years ago when it was chosen for me in a personal Recommendation HoF, which by the way will be coming back once the NBA season finishes up. I feel the opposite of Siddon in that I think something like this is an excellent HoF choice. I was not as into the drama this time around but I was more into the characters. They remind me of addicts, except their addiction is bad choices. Of course shoplifting, although it can be understandable, is not a victimless crime and the father figure would eventually cross the line. I still found them to be sympathetic and likable, obviously having been dealt a bad hand in life. I found the way they lived and what they did to survive believable. The drama of how the "family" came to be is interesting and well done. Glad to have watched it again. |
Originally Posted by cricket (Post 2445254)
Personal Recommendation HoF... will be coming back once the NBA season finishes up.
I watched Shoplifters in a PR HoF too and thought it was pretty great. It's the type of film you can just spend time with as it's not pushing all of your buttons but allows you to soak it in and just see what this 'families' like is like. |
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
I also watched Shoplifters in a PRHoF, the foreign language one. I really liked it but I also had to watch some real heavy hitting films in that HoF so it's placement on my final ballot may have made it look like I didn't care for it but nothing could be further from the truth. I usually don't like re-watches in HoF's but this is one I won't mind at all.
|
Who's going to help a poor MoFo out? I need me 'free' links for all these noms, preferably with English subs.
Aftersun (Charlotte Wells 2022) Beau Travail (1999) L'humanité 'Humanity' (Bruno Dumont 1999) Macbeth (Roman Polanski 1971) A Man For All Seasons (Fred Zinnemann 1966) Mona Lisa (Neil Jordan 1986) Shoplifters (Kore-eda Hirokazu 2018) There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson 2007) The Bank Job (Roger Donaldson 2008) |
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (Post 2445279)
Who's going to help a poor MoFo out? I need me 'free' links for all these noms, preferably with English subs.
Aftersun (Charlotte Wells 2022) Beau Travail (1999) L'humanité 'Humanity' (Bruno Dumont 1999) Macbeth (Roman Polanski 1971) A Man For All Seasons (Fred Zinnemann 1966) Mona Lisa (Neil Jordan 1986) Shoplifters (Kore-eda Hirokazu 2018) There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson 2007) The Bank Job (Roger Donaldson 2008) |
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
Well I picked mine nom because I think it is an excellent film.
|
L'humanité 'Humanity' (1999, Dumont) In a quiet little French town a rape and murder of a young girl calls Pharaon into it's investigation. If Pharaon seems a little out of it, well, it's because he is due to some unfortunate events in his recent past. He spends time with a girl down the street and her boyfriend on their trips together out and on the town. It seems like something to do, but again there is an investigation to be attended to. This one has all the makings of being a straight point A to B story. It shows us the very simplistic lives of these small town inhabitants where daily events play out as things normally do. But as the simple story moves along in a almost dialogue light pretty image trip, little actions by the main character started to grab my attention as opposite of the simple structure throughout the story. We are made aware of a tragedy in the main characters history which as his story and investigation comes to a finale. When the credits rolled I was left wondering what exactly happened to our main character and his family. I normally go for this as long as it doesn't become overbooked. I dunno, maybe Im on drugs and overthinking a simple thing. Have a feeling this will divide this group. |
Re: 33rd Hall of Fame
Shoplifters.
This is one of the films that elevated my interest in modern Japanese cinema and particularly Koreeda. I'd only seen his film 'Like Father, Like Son' before this one. After it, I watched 4 or 5 of his movies in a month or 2. It is heart rendering family drama at it's best. My review on release:
Hirokazu Koreeda is a master of cinema.
I'm still digesting this movie but I'm pretty sure it's one of the best of 2018. It is an absolute gem. A superb tale of love, kinship and what it means to be family. Morals are queried, and formalities are tested. Lily Franky, Sakura Andô and those 2 children are impeccable. The dialogue and characters are perfect. Beautiful, beautiful cinema. A truly great nomination. And his new film 'Monster' is one of his best too. Go and check it out. |
Originally Posted by Siddon (Post 2444928)
Speaking of mellodrama....
No I'm not saying this was picked in bad faith, but this movie is really weird. This film starts like Lil Abner and then becomes The Last Picture Show and switches on a dime. I don't really see the appeal in suggesting a film like this but I'm curous about the reasoning |
Originally Posted by ScarletLion (Post 2445339)
Someone's literally nominated a Jason Statham action film in a Hall of Fame noms! An Anthony Mann drama from the 1950s really isn't a weird choice considering.
80% on RT 69% Metacritic 7.2 IMDB God's Little Acre 42% RT 6.5 IMDB As I said before this isn't like one of those nominations with naked kids, or something like Themroc which is questionably bad. I was curious because the film was weird and average. The thing about the film is that it's not really a drama...or a western...or a comedy...or a romance it just kept switching genres to the point where it was almost unrecognizable. If you were going to nominate a melodrama from the 50's/40's you had a lot of great options. Kings Row, Peyton Place, Bigger Than Life, All That Heaven allows etc. etc. I was more curious about the choice because having to review the films...what can really be discussed about the film. Now as for the Statham nomination...he's not Steven Segal or Jean Claude Van Damn or Chuck Norris. Statham has a solid top ten films and Roger Donaldson though inconsistent has made some top tier pictures. Now is it s a choice to go with The Bank Job over No Way Out one of the great neo-noirs...it's a choice but I can understand and see the reasoning. You are picking between a good film and a masterpiece versus an experimental melodrama during the heyday of melodramas. |
https://www.wickedlocal.com/gcdn/aut...pjpg&auto=webp
The Treasure of Sierra Madre (1948) A number of filmmakers who had success in the 30's/40's work hasn't really aged well. When you come across a filmmaker whose work holds up well it seems like it's a good idea to work through his body of work. So I guess after Maltese Falcon the next film up would be Treasure of Sierra Madre. I was actually thinking about nominated Heaven Knows Mr Allison a film that I think is underseen...but I'll hold off because I think someone is going to pick African Queen next. Bogart and Huston come back together in this one, with Boggie now in the role that the other characters in Maltese were. The characer and performance in this film is so great. We're basically following a guy who isn't smart, isn't noble, isn't really that bad and we are watching him descend over the course of the film. Walter Huston plays an old timey prospector and he's fantastic in this. He got his career ending Oscar with this performance and you get it. The charisma and energy he brings to the roll in unmatched. Tim Holt plays the third man in the group...in a lesser film he would be the lead but here's he the more compass less is more. The only quibbles I would have with the film is that visually it's not on the level of a classic. The bandits are a little campy and feel like they are wearing costumes and playing to stereotypes. I do wish the final act had a bit more restraint because it gets a little over the top. But still amazing film, fun watch. A |
Originally Posted by Siddon (Post 2445348)
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1189844-the_bank_job
80% on RT 69% Metacritic 7.2 IMDB God's Little Acre 42% RT 6.5 IMDB As I said before this isn't like one of those nominations with naked kids, or something like Themroc which is questionably bad. I was curious because the film was weird and average. The thing about the film is that it's not really a drama...or a western...or a comedy...or a romance it just kept switching genres to the point where it was almost unrecognizable. If you were going to nominate a melodrama from the 50's/40's you had a lot of great options. Kings Row, Peyton Place, Bigger Than Life, All That Heaven allows etc. etc. I was more curious about the choice because having to review the films...what can really be discussed about the film. Now as for the Statham nomination...he's not Steven Segal or Jean Claude Van Damn or Chuck Norris. Statham has a solid top ten films and Roger Donaldson though inconsistent has made some top tier pictures. Now is it s a choice to go with The Bank Job over No Way Out one of the great neo-noirs...it's a choice but I can understand and see the reasoning. You are picking between a good film and a masterpiece versus an experimental melodrama during the heyday of melodramas. I'll watch the Bank Job because someone considers it worthy. Just as I'll watch God's Little acre. Every one of these nominations means something to the person who nominated it. Questioning why they've been nominated is poor form. |
Originally Posted by ScarletLion (Post 2445353)
Every one of these nominations means something to the person who nominated it. Questioning why they've been nominated is poor form. And I wanted to know why...out of curiosity you people are acting like it was an accusation. When someone picks something unusual...and God's Little Acre is unusual I just wanted to know why. I don't think asking why someone selected a film is worth making a fuss about. I would remind you I picked films that have come last before..I chose My Dog Skip. The film came in last place, but I saw a lot of merit in the film...the idea of the unreliable narrator in a children's film was a topic that I thought was interesting. A selected To Live and Die in LA another film that came in last place I selected that film as a neo-noir mid budget film that illustrated the effectiveness of a pulpy story and a quality car chase...that Hollywood doesn't do anymore. And one of my first selections was Mr Freedom...one of the first super hero films that was also a black satire and indictment on the Vietnam war. But once again...I was curious about the reasoning that's all. |
Originally Posted by Siddon (Post 2445357)
And I wanted to know why...out of curiosity you people are acting like it was an accusation. When someone picks something unusual...and God's Little Acre is unusual I just wanted to know why.
I don't think asking why someone selected a film is worth making a fuss about. . |
The Bank Job (2008) https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/...1MDU1._V1_.jpg A Statham movie in a Hall of Fame? Whoever nominated this should probably be banned from all future HoF's, don't ya think? I mean what are we even doing here? Anyway, a woman, Martine (Saffron Burrows) gets busted trying to bring some cocaine into England. Was she set-up? Hmmm, maybe but who cares. It doesn't matter. Knowing her background, the authorities offer her a chance for immunity. See there's this guy that they've been wanting to nab, a kind of revolutionary figure whose been a bit of a thorn in the side of the government. The police (MI5 or 6?) believe he has some rather embarrassing photos of a member of the royal family stashed in a safe deposit box that he will release to the public should anything happen to him. As long as he has them photo's he's untouchable. Martine is tasked with getting together a crew and getting those photographs. She goes to an ex, Statham, who has a history of small time crimes but nothing like this. He's a family man now but things are getting tight for him so he agrees to do it. He recruits his team and they rob the bank's safety deposit boxes and kick one hell of a hornets nest in the process. Seems a lot of people keep a lot of VERY private shit in them little boxes. Things that could ruin lives. They piss off everybody - from high up government officials to a local porn producer - and they want their scalps! I really liked this one. There isn't anything deep going on here. It's not a masterpiece by any stretch. It's simply entertainment, done well. If you're expecting high octane action this isn't that movie. It's not Crank but what it does have in common with that film is it has absolutely no chance of winning one of these HoF's. But I've watched worse. |
Originally Posted by Siddon (Post 2445357)
And I wanted to know why...out of curiosity you people are acting like it was an accusation. When someone picks something unusual...and God's Little Acre is unusual I just wanted to know why.
Originally Posted by Siddon (Post 2444866)
God's Little Acre (1958)
I mean part me has no clue why this film was nominated and another part of me well can kinda figure it out... I'm really curious about the motivations of the person who nominated this because I'm sure how to judge it. |
Originally Posted by Citizen Rules (Post 2445431)
Probably because you said you could judge the motivations of the person who nominated God's Little Acre.
So please go ahead and judge.....feel free to tell us what my real motivations were for choosing God's Little Acres. Well I don't know what you can discuss when you nominated a film like this. A big part of this competition/project is discussion and when you put out a film like God's Little Acre what are you leaving for discussion other than the tonal/genre changes in the film. |
I think some people really need to be more open minded towards weird/unconventional nominations and to not assume the worst intentions possible of those who nominated them. The level of drama/dogpiling over some of the prior HoFs were beyond tiring to read through and why I withdrew from participating in them.
|
| All times are GMT -3. The time now is 04:03 PM. |
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