Gatsby's New and Improved Flick Critique

→ in
Tools    





The great thing is, Inside Out is totally worth a few bucks... but yeah it would have been better if you could have seen it earlier + for free. Hope you have better luck next time.
I had a chance to grab Fantastic Four...

What a shame I didn't take it.




Master of My Domain
Stagecoach (1939)




Directed by: John Ford
Starring John Wayne as Ringo Kid, Claire Trevor as Dallas, Thomas Mitchell as Doc Boone, George Bancroft as Marshal Curly Wilcox


Dallas crouches in fear as the Indians approach the stagecoach

Stagecoach is not only an essential Western, but opened up a path for many future Westerns because it proved that Westerns could be profitable, after faith being lost due to many flops. I can easily see why this masterpiece by Ford raked in a lot of dough, it is the 1939 equivalent of a modern blockbuster packed with romance, action, charm, suspense, and any adjective that doesn't even give out a slight hint of cinematic artistry.

That's why Stagecoach should be criticized by how well it elevated a linear, extremely common story to a level of genius, which is the necessity of a truly great film, sometimes exceeding the value of an original and experimental film. Example: building a house of sand out of using your bare hands on the beach is brilliant - but if you can turn that house into a castle big enough for French taunting to take place, then that is an automatic unforgettable achievement. The revolutionary 1939 film is one of those movies that exceed it's premise and soar high into sky without ever looking back at the meagerly inventive starting line.

Stagecoach, out of all places starts off at a Stagecoach station. There, from capital A A-hole to capital Z Zany, assorted groups of people wait for a ride to accomplish their ambitious goals. The film focuses on a stage headed for Lordsburg, New Mexico. The passengers include Dallas (Claire Trevor), a banished prostitute, and accompanied with her is a drunken doctor called Doc Boone (Thomas Mitchell, who's character can be summed up as a dumbed-down, alcoholic version of John Belushi). There is also a pregnant Lucy Mallory (Louise Platt), who is traveling to meet her husband Luke Mallory, a Calvary officer. On the stage, driving, are squeaky voiced Buck (Andy Devine) and Marshal Curly Wilcox (George Bancorft) Lastly there is whiskey salesman Samuel Peacock (Donald Meek), and two others who are picked up later; gentleman gambler (John Carradine) and banker Henry Gatewood (Berton Churchill).

But no, that is not all the people I want to introduce in this review, there is an actor who gained instant fame from starring in this film as Ringo Kid, an outlaw pursued by many, including officer Luke Malary. His name is the one and only John Wayne, and because he was around his early thirties when he shot Stagecoach, even in my eyes, he looks beautiful. He almost brought out the secretly gay 13-year old boy inside of me, just almost.

In total, 7 people get on board the stage headed for Lordsburg, which just thinking about it makes you feel claustrophobic. Ford makes good use of this situation by capturing the overall mood of the passengers. When a certain character is talking, he focuses the shot not only on that character but also on the two or three people next to him, and it captures the various, little emotions that could have been easily missed. In one frame, there is a happy man, a nauseous lady. and another person who's mind seemed to has escaped their body.

Another sign of character from Ford is that all 9 main character are given their special moments. Half of the time, John Wayne or Claire Trevor isn't doing much of importance. It's the mildly amusing and helpless Doc Boone causing trouble (but ending up saving the day), or dim-witted stage driver Buck exclaiming a statement not fitting for a situation, as the scene lingers with an awkward silence, and you can't help but cringe just a slight bit. The timid and nervous whiskey seller Samuel Peacock is basically the running joke of the film, because his last name gets pronounced wrong every single time someone addresses him. Mr. Peacock obviously does not like Doc Boone at all, as the two frequently engage in minor quarrels. The plot is mostly driven by simple, but memorable dialogue, body gestures, and character. The greatest aspect of having a director great at creating a drama-esque film, is having the Western feel like a grandparent would tell you when you were younger, with a bit of heroic and comical exaggerations, instead of the true, hard grit.

The film is shot in black and white. This takes away the orange-shaded, magnificent, and visually appealing atmosphere of Westerns to some extent, but in Stagecoach the damage is minimum, rather, it builds on a handicap. Ford is famous for location shooting, and his good eye found quite a vast and glamorous landscape for an area located in the US. Long shots of meditating sand dunes and breezes scattering the drops of sun could have easily been shots where a new scene begins, or for a transition. But that didn't happen, because, again Ford is a natural storyteller. He lingers on dialogue and facial expressions, rather on action or artificial shots made simply for the purpose of moving on. The most movement he gave was the stagecoach driving from one end of the frame to the other. If you notice, there isn't a whole lot going on in his shots, what the characters are doing always make sense.

There is a romance between RIngo Kid and Dallas. Kid, unlike a lot of initial cynical and somber heroes, he knows he shines wherever he goes. Instead of being indifferent and seemingly rude at first, from the start whenever Dallas needs help Kid is there. We almost can't believe that Kid first ended up in the pen when he was only 17 years old. The two fall in love quickly, which lead to some cliched, but juicy lines; a woman's dream.

The trouble, or in other words the plot point can be summed up as when the express bus you're traveling on breaks down, but on a much larger scale with a lot of life-risking circumstances if you don't pay sharp attention and/or simply don't have much luck when it comes to survival. Buck, a Spanish man who helps them along the way, and a few others are reluctant about continuing their journey to Lordsburg when Geronimo (a famous Indian for those who didn't pay attention in class) and his men are headed towards their direction. But in the end the vote for carrying on despite dangers.

I am so thankful that the majority won, or else we wouldn't have seen some amazing action sequences that happens non-stop for 15 minutes. Even by 2015 standards, they take your breath away and absorb it, putting it on the screen so that you are completely glued. The chase takes between the stage and Indians on horses with arrows and occasionally rifles as weapons. Sure, I do love a good car chases, but when it comes to horses, you can feel a bit more tension and desperate speed, because the ones who are fighting are entirely breathing beings, not machines that can just be manufactured again. As Indians fly off horses, multiple horses and the stage are shown in one steady shot, and actual, raw damage being made, you can't but wonder how this was possible in 1939.

The awe reaches it's climax, for me, with a shot that has an almost impossible POV for that time - beneath the hooves of the Indians' horses. They ride above the camera as you feel like you are being crushed, and that was one of those moments when I realized I was watching a masterpiece. There is also one that is mentioned frequently, the one where an Indian is shot by Ringo Kid and falls between two rows of horses. Then, there isn't a fast cut, the camera lingers, this time not for a lasting effect of dialogue, but to show horses trampling over him as his lifeless body seems pushed back, contrasting with a forward motion. He risked his life doing that stunt, and it instantly makes your draw drop.

I do have a problem with this film - and that is the portrayal of Native Americas as mindless savages whose only pleasures in life are raiding innocent people. But a film represents the time it was made, and when the conceptions of that age do not interfere enough to break a timeless magic, then already a great film is born. Add that with a clear, and unbelievably entertaining anything possible, and you have Stagecoach.

+




Great review. Stagecoach was the film that got me in to Ford and probably remains my favourite film by him and one of the best Westerns that I have ever seen. As you say, the story is quite simple and straightforward, yet it soon reveals itself to be extremely complex, in terms of personalities and thematics, all the different ingredients coming together, Ford integrates all the different elements perfectly through great storytelling and for me it's easy to see how this influenced Orson Welles when he made the his masterpiece in visual character storytelling in Citizen Kane.

Ford's commentary on America is fascinating to be, the integration of different cultures working together and the creation of a mythical character in the Ringo Kid are fascinating. John Wayne's arrival is an epic moment, and so are all the scene after he arrives in the town at the end. As you mention the Indian attack scene is fantastic, one of my favourite chase scenes ever, it seems like a miracle even watching it now, how they managed to film it all so perfectly.

When I watched the film I thought originally it was going to be a lesser Ford film, I hadn't heard much about it in comparison to what I believed to be Ford's more epic and analytic films like The Searchers and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, but I was blown away by just how good it was, a perfect film for me.

__________________



Master of My Domain
Stagecoach sounds aweful. :P Well written review though.
Aweful? You mean you think the film will be full of awe? Why yes, you're correct.

In seriousness, please do check it out at some point. Okay, some moments do get a bit too corny even for me but everything else is even above excellence.



Excellent review, Gatsby. Somehow I missed it when you first posted it. Stagecoach is one of my top five favorite westerns, so I'm pleased to see that you enjoyed it so much.

His name is the one and only John Wayne, and because he was around his early thirties when he shot Stagecoach, even in my eyes, he looks beautiful. He almost brought out the secretly gay 13-year old boy inside of me, just almost.
Saddle up, cowboy.

__________________



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
I repped you Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind but I couldn't disagree more! But I watched it during a break up some time ago and I may be suspect. But it's a freaking masterpiece! I repeat, I may be suspect. But you suc* for not liking it!

100% with you on The Graduate! I would rate it just a tad lower (ok, 90% with you) but it's definitely a brilliant piece of film! You're cool again!

About Moonrise Kingdom. It's one of my all time favourites and I remember having a huge impact on me. You review made me want to rewatch it though because I understand what you said about Wes Anderson's work. I'm curious if I will love it on a rewatch! Thanks for that!

Hated Annie Hall. Woody Allen does nothing for me. Enough said.

The Third Man is one of the great noirs of all time. I wouldn't rate it as high as you, but I agree with pretty much everything you said on your review!

Inside Out is a beautiful film and your review one of the best I've read so far, and probably the one I like the most on your thread! It's great when a movie makes you feel like that, especially when it's such a pure work or art!

I'm subscribing to this thread! Great work Gats!!!



Master of My Domain
Thanks neiba, I really appreciate the birthday reply and bundle of rep. It seems like you agree with me more than you disagree, and for that I am glad.

And I promise to post a new review by this month... finally.



Damn, Gatsby, another glowing review of Inside Out!

When calculating the amount of reps in total, you have gotten more than more than me in my Cinema Review thread, actually, and you deserve it. You getting 21 reps looks like day-to-day stuff in here!

But really, I always said your new reviews here was damn great and I actually think you might be my only true rival, in the sense that you also write lengthy, detailed reviews with a good word flow and synonymic range. I'm actually kind of glad you haven't reviewed in a while, so I can take more attention when you are gone.

But really, this review was great and full of depth - just like the film. You captured many of the same things I also liked and cried about and I hope you'll deliver another review soon - I really love reading them.

Thanks, Gats.



Master of My Domain
Damn, Gatsby, another glowing review of Inside Out!
Wait, what? You mean I've written multiple Inside Out reviews?
When calculating the amount of reps in total, you have gotten more than more than me in my Cinema Review thread, actually, and you deserve it. You getting 21 reps looks like day-to-day stuff in here!
Heh, well, I can't lie about feeling good because of all the huge amounts of rep, but seriously I'm so overrated. There are a few people here that deserve more rep than what I get.
But really, this review was great and full of depth - just like the film. You captured many of the same things I also liked and cried about and I hope you'll deliver another review soon - I really love reading them.
Thanks MM. To give you a hint on what I'm TRYING to work on - it's a review on a more sophisticated film, compared to what I usually review here.



Master of My Domain
Gravity (2013)




Directed by: Alfonso Cuaron
Starring: George Clooney, Sandra Bullock


If someone is listening, they are eavesdropping, not saving your life.

Gravity, one of the most acclaimed films of 2013, further pioneered the usage of IMAX porn imagery, convincing everyone that, especially movies having something to do with space, should be viewed with the extra ticket price.

That's exactly what I did too 2 years ago, even though I really have something against 3D glasses that have been covered with a coating of dirt caused by countless amounts of pass users. and just the concept of 3D in general. I also bought the front row seats popcorn available and sat down in the theater with a few other people I brought along.

So yes, I was one of the many people who were fooled by the theater experience. I walked out of the theater thinking I had found the best film of that year, hope in 3D, and maybe a potential new favorite. Then I re-watched the movie recently after a long time (on TV) and slowly saw the once existing magic and awe evaporate in front of my very eyes.

Don't get me wrong: Gravity is by no means a bad film, even if the whole experience gets more ruined the smaller your screen gets. The visuals are above solid and the cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki is amazing. Alfonso Cuaron does an excellent job of keeping balance between emotional moments and tense claustrophobic scenes and creating a fast pace (not only does he direct, but he also edits all his movies, so it's his work you see on the screen). But that's pretty much it. All the film has succeeded in doing is implanting sequences of space debris chaos and Sandra Bullock panicking.

The plot: Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock), a medical engineer, is on her first mission in space alongside Lieutenant Matt Kolwalski (George Clooney), who's last mission before retirement is this very one. Things seem to be going swell when disaster strikes: The shuttle is destroyed from incoming debris which was part of a defunct satellite, and now the two must find a way to safely return to Earth.

There are supporting characters in the movie, but I didn't mention any of them because all of them are killed off within 10 minutes of the movie. This leaves us with Sandra Bullock and George Clooney's character for the rest of the film. Sadly, neither of the two are interesting enough to shine in the midst of stunning effects and an environment where intense character development can not happen. Dr. Stone is your typical workaholic intellectual who is in distress because of past tragedies involving her family. She lost her daughter to an accident and feels guilty about it, but I don't remember much beyond that because movie doesn't say. Matt Kolwalski is another typical character who the writers picked up at the Cinema Depot for half price. Just imagine a laid-back and easy-going veteran who cracks jokes and makes unnecessary and unfunny quips (my favorite: when the debris from the satellite cuts power being sent to America, he actually says; "half of America just lost their Facebook").

Afterwards there is a lot of panicking and spinning, which is very effective as the entire frame is focused on the moment of the two main characters as the camera keeps rotating with very few cuts. Then after all the tension peace comes as Stone and Kowalski regain oxygen and slowly head their way towards to the nearby "Tiangong", a Chinese space station.

I won't blow what happens to the two of them and if they get safely back home or not, but I will say that nothing particularly innovating happens after the amazing shuttle sequence that convinced everyone to see Gravity. Cuaron seems to be aware that Clooney is not a particularly good actor to focus on when trying to extract raw emotion from the vastness of space and the contrasting human psychological strains within, so for most of the film it's a Sandra Bullock one-woman show. Alright, she delivers, but once she takes over she divides the film into two parts - the first being a cataclysm of stunning imagery, and the second part, of course, being a mediocre drama set in the bleakest place in the universe.

Thus, the film tries to be one of those films that blends imagery and intense dialogue and acting together, yet fails on both parts. It could have gone for a minimalist direction, by focusing mostly on internal conflicts and have the obscure space as an effective backdrop, or maybe go on full surreal like 2001: A Space Odyssey did and have Dr. Stone and Kowalski have the experiences of their lives - and in the end turn them into another one of those 4th dimensional space babies. However, like I said above, Gravity lacks the ambition, and the fear of being different from other space survival films, and even when it has ambition, it is wasted.

Apparently Sandra Bullock got nominated for Best Supporting Actress for her performance in this film. This is (1) another sign that this film was heavily over-praised back then in 2013 (and still is) and (2) showing that the Academy has maintained it's low standards. According to these standards, Children of Men should have won every award available. But the Academy folks didn't do that and Curaon and his buddies had to resort to making a film that would save them from financial dept.



-



Booo, but I repped you anyway. 2001 is surreal? Gravity is like what other space survival movie exactly?


Your my boy, but this is the most wrong you have been since the Eternal Sunshine fiasco.
__________________
Letterboxd



Master of My Domain
Booo, but I repped you anyway. 2001 is surreal? Gravity is like what other space survival movie exactly?


Your my boy, but this is the most wrong you have been since the Eternal Sunshine fiasco.
As I was writing the review I forgot you were a fan of the film. Oops.

Also, if you have any other problems with the review, blame the lack of time.



Rep for being back, but I kind if love the film myself.

Script really brings it down though and I would've preferred more unknown actors to portray the main roles.

But as an all-out movie experience, this film is MIND BLOWING in my opinion - and yes, also on the small screen with a proper set-up.

I rewatched Gravity on a 48" television screen (with Philips ambilight on) with 5.1 surround cranked up and the movie in 3D. I don't understand the fuss about the movie being nothing but a "big screen experience". Personally I loved it more as I watched it at home, but I do think you need a proper set-up.

Just like Jurassic World this movie is an experience and should therefore be experienced, not watched. I still love it, a feast for the eyes and ears (except the dialogue).

Again, awesome to see another one from you, Gats!



Gravity was average at best for me. I liked it at the start, but once my admiration for it's effects wore off, I lost interest. Good job Gats



Master of My Domain
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)




Starring: Terry Jones, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam
Directed by: Terry Jones, Terry Gilliam


What a wise king he is

Right away, with its credits, Monty Python and the Holy Grail sets the mood for the entire film. At first, you are shown what seems like every other credit sequences – with several people involved with production introduced at a time. For some reason there are subtitles at the bottom, which arise from the bottom with elegant sneakiness, but wait, it's laden with nonsense. And what¡¯s with people who were involved in supervising a moose showing up? Thankfully, we get a 4th wall breaking apology, then a notice that explains how the people responsible sacked. Finally, all arms are raised, in surrender, and bright, colorful lights are accompanied by a quivery tune. Now we can watch the movie.

This is an example of how much effort the Monty Python group puts into each gag, regardless of their importance, but is also an example of how the humor works. Starting off from a fairly normal situation, more and more silliness and imagination is added. The comedy is not a chain of one-liners; it is a slow build-up, one by one, hand-crafted with delicacy and expert timing. It pays off when you see our beloved holy knights go from trying to take over a French-occupied castle to getting bombarded with, let me check my lists¡¦ sh*t and cows. In the construction of comedic gold gems, there is also the beauty of contradiction, sarcasm, and irony used. Peaceful violence, the cowardly brave, happily injured, and so on.

But the biggest aspect, which is also used in most comedy films, is a contrast between moment a and moment b. For example, an intelligent remark makes a moronic joke even funnier. Monty Python and the Holy Grail, takes this formula to the extreme by providing contrast that is drastic as day and night. There¡¯s one scene I really like, than gets frequently overlooked because of two or three famous ones. King Arthur is riding through a local farming area with crops growing. After seeing two working peasants, he gains the sudden urge to test whether or not he is well known and is receiving respect from his people. Hilarity ensues when it is revealed that the male peasant has, strangely, the mindset of a passionate supporter of democracy, while King Arthur, is of course, the almighty monarch freedom hates. The peasant, upon seeing a public enemy, starts to rant about liberty and whatnot, while King Arthur is utterly confused, as he expected to be treated with respect.

Imagination and creativity is off the wall here. Surprisingly, in my opinion, it¡¯s often used when transitioning from one segment to another, floating down the narrative river, or reminding you that what you¡¯re watching isn¡¯t just mindless fun. Thus, Terry Gilliam¡¯s artwork shines in the midst of all the absurdity. His hand-drawn animations bring in a gust of weird and flamboyant atmosphere. It can seem like a distraction, however it brings diversity into a film that could have easily been consisted of only fake horses, humans, and wacky creatures and objects.

Speaking of creatures and objects, they are the legitimate offspring of perfectly natural insanity, thinking outside of the cliche box, and execution upon receiving a vision you want to see be brought to life. Monty Python is the dream of every artist: they get to create ¡°The Knights Who Say Ni¡±, ¡°The Holy Hand Grenade¡±, ¡°Time the Enchanter¡±, and ¡°the fluffy bunny that turned out to be not so harmless¡± (these are all in quotations on purpose, because they deserve to be crowned with them) without a greedy producer objecting. I am still baffled whenever I re-watch this film, or see a YouTube video clip: how did they imagine these? Putting a knight who refuses to accept that he is fatally injured in a film can be viewed as a simple task, but as those who are wise have said, simplicity is often the most complex. In a way, it inspired me to finally write a new review (this one).

All this holds together under the fact that film knows exactly what it is. I love films that proudly admit that it is below common sense. Stupidity intended to be clever can come off as annoying, but stupidity intended to be stupid – not in an offensive way and with a bit of sophistication – is magic. It¡¯s why nerds love this film, but the subject matter is not about witty usages of complicated scientific equations. A five-year old can find enjoyment, and so can a mature adult. There is a certain humble nuance throughout that is able to unite a vast number of people, which is unfortunately nowhere to be found in more recent comedies.

Simply put, Monty Python and the Holy Grail is the best comedy I¡¯ve ever seen, in terms of how hard it made me roll on the floor laughing. The direction is amateurish and the production design is sometimes cringe-worthy, and it unintentionally makes the entire frame funnier. The actors had to ride on invisible horses made comically plausible by coconut shells because of budget restraint; it wasn¡¯t on the script. Intentional or not, hilarity takes on an invincible form and attacks nonstop for 90 minutes. Sit back, and don¡¯t care about the characters, don¡¯t stop to appreciate the soundtrack, don¡¯t spot the obviously fake blood. There is no need for analyzing in front of blithely ridiculousness.



__________________
Letterboxd Profile: https://letterboxd.com/GatsbyG/



Great stuff Gatsby. I was introduced to that film when I was 14 and thought it was great, but it's been so long since I've watched it. A rewatch is long overdue.

Lately, I am more and more appreciating comedy - good comedy - as a medium. It's sad that in America, today, we're often exposed to such crap that gives comedy a bad name. But what Buster Keaton and Monty Python did, in terms of comedy, was no easy feat and took talent all it's own. For example, and you mention this in your review - budget constraints leading to them using coconut shells. I mean, it takes a special kind of comedic genius to come up with that.