Movie Tab II

The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow, 2009) +



You could say (perhaps foolishly) that this film is totally different and far-more serious than Point Break and you could maybe make it stick with those pretentious (I find that a legit word, HA!)-types, but it's amazing to me how similar these films are, although this one has certain flaws (such as episodicness) which the "dumb" flick doesn't share. So, how about I return to this compare/contrast later and talk about why I like this movie so much. This flick is intense. It puts you right into the middle of a dangerous situation for almost the entirety of its 2+hour running time. You know that at any time, sonebody could die, and that's just the way the Iraq War (and the "War on Terror") is. I realize that now people take the Iraq War for granted, but we're still not out. All it'll take are some serious bombings to keep us from pulling out when we said we would. Anyway, this flick does cover three individual, yet totally-realistic soldiers who are in Iraq in 2004 and hope that they can make it out alive.

The main characters are James (Jeremy Renner) who's the bomb disposal team leader and the one who always seems to go out of his way to do too much to try to get killed; Sanborn (Anthony Mackie), who's the leader's by-the-book backup man and safeguard against the theory that "***** happens"; and Eldridge (Brian Geraghty), a scared young man who's sure that he's not going to make it out of Iraq alive, especially if James has his way. Some people criticize the James character for being unrealistic in that he's playing with the lives of the other members of his team, but this guy has been doing it his way for some time now and if he's NEVER actually responsible for American soldiers' deaths, it's going to be tough to make him lose his job since he's better at it than anybody else.

Anyway, I do find this to be serious since the Iraq War is real and surfing bank robbers are fiction, but all movies are created equal (at least in my eyes) until you're "allowed" to judge them for themselves. This film shares with Point Break the male bonding, the concept of machismo, the fear of commitment to marriage and a "normal life", and it does it in such a way that maybe it doesn't quite seem as episodic as it is. In this flick, the characters fill in what's missing from a straight storyline by showing and discussing what they want out of life before they die. As such, it's a powerful comment on war in general and a critique of how modern young men look at how they want their lives to turn out. Don't be all that surprised that the Hollywood Foreign Press gave this film no awards at all (the only best drama nominee it failed to do so). The Iraq War is still seen as bad to most of the [foreign] world, and this film is just too honest to pull any punches to not show America as we really are (even if it's not real but only a form of poetic justice).

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Enjoyed reading your review Mark.....I expected the Hurt Locker to be another action flick but I was pleasantly surprised to learn, as you say, it was attempting a more real look at what it means to live and die in Iraq.

Ex Machina (Alex Garland, 2015) -
Erin Brockovich (Steven Soderbergh, 2000) -
Jason Bourne (Paul Greengrass, 2016) -

__________________
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."

You're giving out some generous ratings with your reviews, Mark. And I'm shocked I've seen all five movies you reviewed. What are the odds? I like Seijun Suzuki a lot, but I remember having a tough time getting through Fighting Elegy, I think because I wasn't sure how I was supposed to take the movie, seriously or as a farcical statement. Gate of Flesh I liked a lot.

__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.

Did you write these just know, or are you repasting some old reviews, mark?

PS: I watched 8 hours of the 12 hours long Out 1 (when you pronounce it it sounds like Antoine, YOU THINK YOU SO SMART RIVETTE) and I can't wrap my head around it. At first I didn't like it much and thought the performance scenes to be incredibly pretentious (best orgy scenes without actual sex I've ever seen, though; me, a person who loves Malick, Tarr etc. says something is pretentious, then it pretty much has to be, *********), but with time I started enjoying it more and more and now I'm on the verge of loving it, but I don't really know how much its length, kvlt status and a certain dose of "cool kids like it" constitutes to it (in other words I'm asking my own snob-iness). One of my friends told me it's really a dreadful film and usually holding his opinion in very high regard, this time I disagree with him and agree with some other online friends (at least partially, they think it's one of the best movies ever, but I don't think it is). At this point I'm a little bit dumbfounded and I have to forget about other people's opinions, ratings etc. and try to watch the remaining 4 hours tomorrow with my mind as clean and free of anything else as possible. This surely is an overwhelming experience and the fact the movie is not slow cinema/contemplative makes it a little bit harder to watch than, say, Lav Diaz's Melancholia or Bela Tarr's Satantango.

More about the film, though. Loose thoughts!

• I was surprised when Jean-Pierre Leaud's character started talking.
• That mystery subplot involving his character was the best thing in those early parts of the film.
• Leaud's begging felt like something Yoshihiko Matsui would put into his movie. Then we find out he's got more to do with the fraud girl than we thought.
• The fraud girl with that cowboy hat and revolver was beyond cutest.
• The theatre troupe exercises seem too long, but with time I was waiting for another one, when the film focused on other subplots.
• Some of my friends said they only could take as little as 30 minutes of it a day and watching the whole thing took them many days. Me, watching the whole thing in two (because I will finish it tomorrow unless some hot girl from MoFo invites me over, or something) seems like quite an achievement, then.
• Long films are very easy to overrate, because since you put so much time into them, they somehow become a part of you! If they manage this, is overrating them really overrating?
• During the first 30 minutes of the film, I was asking myself "What the hell am I doing with my life?". During the last 30 minutes (of what I saw today) I was asking myself "Why didn't I get up earlier today so I could watch the whole thing in one sitting?"
• Why do I have more to say about everything conncerning the movie, but not the actual movie (as in plot, or something) itself?
• I like these dots. That character is called a "button".
• I have to see more films with Leaud. He was exceptional in another long French intellectualist movie The Mother and the Whore. I only saw one film by Truffaut - 400 Blows - and even that I have to rewatch! I guess I have to make a marathon of this and other parts of the story some day! Leaud is such a great actor.
• Actually, the acting in this movie is really great. At times (especially in these theatre troupe scenes) I was asking myself if it's a real group and if Rivette just makes a documentary about them. The way they worked, how believable it all was is incredible. Also, that scene when they all start to freak out, doing some crazy stuff, rolling on the floor, biting each other, screaming, f*cking a mannequin etc. was the weirdest thing I ever saw. Something like a pussy version of Viennese Actionists (these would use a dead gutted pig instead and did all of this naked, while raping each other and taking a shower in pig's intestines), but a little bit easier to explain when your mum walks into the room (thankfully, I live alone). I can't see art in performance, but it was cool. Weird thing to say after I hated it a couple of hours ago. What? I don't even know what I'm talking about anymore.
• I think I overdosed cinema today.
• Next thing I will do is write a passage from Balzac with a chalk on a board and try to read its occult hidden meanings, then meet a professor of literature and ask him questions he can't answer. Then I will become Jean-Pierre Leaud and watch this film on repeat until I die from starvation. Seems like a cool way of spending my last holidays, dontcha think?

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

While researching old posts about today's Top '50s films, I came across several of my multiple-movie posts in Movie Tab II. These five were long enough to be included, but I had to put them in individual posts for them to qualify for the reviews section. I have hundreds (thousands?) more in here, but they're "officially" considered too short to be reviews. Don't expect any more current reviews unless my stroke miraculously reverses.

Delicious (David Butler, 1931)

The Farmer Takes a Wife (Victor Fleming, 1936)

Outcast of the Islands (Carol Reed, 1951)

+
The Thing (Matthijs van Heijningen, 2011)

+

The prequel/remake of Carpenter’s The Thing is still gory, but the F/X utilize much more CGI.
The Prophecy: Uprising (Joel Soisson, 2005)

Sunnyside Up (David Butler, 1929)

The Sound Barrier (David Lean, 1952)

-
Köpek aka Dog (Esen Isik, 2015)

Three stories of love and loss in Istanbul, highlighting the brutality of the misogynistic society – here transsexual Çagla Akalin is ogled by the same men who don’t care if they use her body for sex or violence.
How I Play Golf by Bobby Jones No. 11: 'Practice Shots' (George E. Marshall, 1931)

-
Rio Congo (Maya Kosa & Sérgio Da Costa, 2016)

Brink of Life (Ingmar Bergman, 1958)

Last Life in the Universe (Pen-Ek Ratanaruang. 2003)

Slo-mo, colorful romance set in Bangkok between a sloppy Thai woman (Sinitta Boonyasak) and a suicidal Japanese neat-freak (Tadanobu Asano).
Noroît (Jacques Rivette, 1976)

London Has Fallen (Babak Najafi, 2016)

The Prophecy II (Greg Spence, 1998)

A Woman's Tale (Paul Cox, 1991)

+

Home caregiver Gosia Dobrowolska and cancer patient Sheila Florance (the actress died of cancer after completing the movie) share a love of life and others.
Screen Actors (Hal Elias, 1950)

The Third Day (Jack Smight, 1965)

+
Lord Love a Duck (George Axelrod, 1966)

The Foot Fist Way (Jody Hill, 2008)

Clueless tae kwon do instructor Danny McBride is having marital problems at the same time he meets his idol, a scummy martial arts film star (Ben Best).

OK, break out the tar and feathers.

Solaris (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1972)



This long, sometimes hypnotic film is more of a meditation on humankind's yearning to be connected to something than a sci-fi film. True, it involves aliens on a space station, but based on this movie (not the novel), I still don't even know what or where Solaris is, and I watched it three times. The film involves lonely astronaut Kris (Donatas Banionis) who goes to the space station to determine if the Solaris project is worth continuing. Almost all of the people who have been on the station have died or seemed to have suffered some major delusions. Shortly after Kris arrives, he finds his wife Hari (Natalya Bondarchuk). The problem is that she died on Earth much earlier.

Tarkovsky is certainly a cult director, and I've seen many of his films praised here and elsewhere. He just doesn't strike me as a director who is very inviting. Even though his films present the human condition, the talkiness and extreme length tend to make me feel icy toward him. It's funny because many people feel that Kubrick is a cold director, and he occasionally may be, but he seems warmer to my sensibility. My fave Tarkovsky films are among his earliest (The Steamroller and the Violin, My Name is Ivan), but since they are less-experimental, they are undoubtedly less-personal

Although I do find Solaris exhausting, I also find several unique scenes. The opening in the water-filled countryside is evocative, and then the scenes showing what happened to an earlier Solaris astronaut add some mystery. The scene involving fast driving on a freeway is very trippy, and many of the scenes on the station, especially between Kris and "Hari", even I would consider moving. Then there's the ending, which can be interpreted more than one way, and which I might even consider to make the film cyclical and all a flashback. So, yes, I recommend it, especially to many people here, but somehow the entire 168 minutes just doesn't need to be there. It probably just went over my head or maybe it is a case of overkill in the totality of my acceptance of pregnant pauses. I mean, I did invest about eight-and-one-half hours in viewing it during the last month.

Paranoid Park (Gus Van Sant, 2007)



This is an artistic rendering of an incident which could very well be of some signifance. The basic problem I have with Paranoid Park, along with its companion pieces in minimalist Gus Van Sant "storytelling", Gerry and Elephant, is that it's basically impossible for the viewer to draw any conclusions whatsoever about what they've seen. I realize that this makes it something comparable to watching a painting where you have to interpret the artist's intentions and weigh the success of what they achieved, even if you could be completely wrong about what the original intentions are. This begs the question: at what point do you decide, if you believe the artist's intentions are muddled, that he is responsible or you are responsible when you determine the piece of art to be a failure? Paranoid Park's plot, such as it is, concerns a dead body and an investigation into how it came to be in that state. It mostly takes place at an Oregon high school and a skateboard park where all the disenfranchised kids hang out and try to feel good about expressing and sharing their skills in a society which is crumbling apart at its foundations.

Van Sant's visual palette and technique is far more sophisticated than the other movies mentioned earlier, and they do produce some interesting methods of communication through off-kilter photography and editing and various ways of combining film and video. At its heart unfortunately, the film shares the basic flaws of its predecessors in that the characters are all cyphers who basically act the same whether they're chewing a piece of gum or witnessing a man cut in half trying to crawl off to recover some semblance of life. Even if issues of guilt, famiial responsibilty and the distintegration of American society are inherent in the vague material, they're never even addressed by anything seen on screen.

Pineapple Express (David Gordon Green, 2008) -



I have two interesting ways to look at this film independently from just some "alleged" objective way. I'll start with my objective look. I don't really think this is the kind of film which needs much of a plot description. Just let it be known that it involves a drug dealer (James Franco), his client (Seth Rogen) who works as a process server, the dealer's drug providing kingpin (Gary Cole) and the kingpin's murderous renegade cop lover (Rosie Perez). Throw in the client's high school-attending girlfriend and her family, the fact that the stoners witness a murder, and that they will pursued by the kingpin's hitmen until they too are killed, and you already know more than you need to. Well, maybe the other thing you need to know is that stoners are stupid, so rest assured, what everybody does will probably be more idiotic than you could imagine, and therefore, it's OK to laugh! Yes, the film has a lot of laughs and a surprising amount of action and suspense too, so c'mon, what's not to like?

As I mentioned above, as the film went along, I started comparing it to things in two different ways. First off, I started thinking that this and Tropic Thunder are basically two sides of the same coin. Big studio comedy/action thrillers with idiot characters and some big laughs. Now, I give Tropic Thunder , and I've seen it twice. I'm going to rewatch Pineapple Express again before I return it, but I'm pretty sure I'll keep it at because even though those two movies are obviously not the same movie, I bet most viewers could come up with dozens of reasons about how similar they are and how they probably appeal to the same audience. The other thing I started to think about during the film was that a few of the scenes just started dragging for me partway through. Now, I wasn't sure if it was because of the writing or the direction, but I'm one of those in the minority of people who allegedly watch movies with a critical eye because I've always found director Green's work to be ponderous and pretentious. In fact, when I heard that he was directing a zany stoner comedy, I had a hard time grasping the concept, but I thnk he did a fine job. All of Apatow's comedies seem to be a bit overlong and Tropic Thunder was definitely overlong, so these completely pointless perspectives still seem to support my idea that the two films deserve the same rating. Hi, Iro!

Gran Torino (Clint Eastwood, 2008) -



Eastwood's film is a seemingly-simple, yet deceptively-poignant-and-relevant tale which delineates a story, both visually and scriptwise, as economically as possible. Grand Torino also seems to have some special personal meaning for Eastwood because he really gets to dig deeply into his character, and he must have worked very closely with scripter Nick Schenk on his motives. I was laughing almost immediately every time Eastwood's Walt Kowalski grimaced, moaned, growled or bad-mouthed somebody, and that was most all the time. This is another of those kind of films that they just don't seem to make anymore, but when you have such an archetypal story, you can trust in its elegance to play out its hand slowly and surely, even including a bluff in case it really needs it. Obviously, I haven't really gone into the plot at all so far, and I was hoping I could get away without doing it, but maybe I'll add another paragraph.



Walt Kowalski basically hates everyone. Even when the movie begins with his wife's funeral, you get the feeling that Walt held his wife in contempt for being superstitious and dragging him to church weekly. He certainly hates his two sons and their families, and he most certainly hates all the "gooks" who have taken over his neighborhood. Walt is a veteran of the Korean War who was awarded the Silver Star, and he also worked 40 years on an auto assembly line, going so far to actually having personally produced much of his pride and joy, his mint condition 1972 Gran Torino. The people living in Walt's neighborhood are the Hmong who migrated from Southeast Asia to America after the Vietnam War. Walt doesn't want anything to do with any of them, but through circumstances beyond his control (well, that and his handy, reliable M1 rifle), he befriends teenage boy Thao (Bee Vang) and his older sister Sue (Ahney Her) and becomes a local hero among his Hmong neighbors. Gangbangers of all races also factor into the story, as well as a baby-faced priest (Christopher Carley) who hounds Walt to attend confession and do the right thing. By the time the film's poetic final scene plays out over the closing credits and title song, it's obvious to the more astute members of the audience that Eastwood and Walt both did the right thing. Walt not only revealed himself as a Man and released his inner demons, but Eastwood provided a thought-provoking entertainment with more heart and humanity than most alleged serious filmmakers could ever hope to emulate.

Out 1: Noli me tangere (1971) dir. Jacques Rivette -



An overwhelming experience, even if only caused by movie's riveting (see what I did here?) length. I can't say I regret watching it. As a matter of fact, I think this is a movie that every movie buff should see (no matter if he loves it or vomits after one hour knowing there's 11 hours more to go). I only wish Rivette had completely got ridden of two theatre group exercise footage and focused his film only on Leaud and Berto (man, wasn't she hot) and that crazy conspiracy theory plot that was without doubt the best part of the film. I imagine watching the film in one sitting would add to the experience, because in the end you would be so tired you could mistake it for a masterpiece (I almost did yesterday at 11 o'clock after 8 hours of this film). That being said, I don't think it is a masterpiece. Quite contrary, I think the film is some sort of an anti-masterpiece. For example, the cinematography is almost entirely hand-held camera with (not sure) natural lighting. No art to be found there. At least two hours of pretentious performance footage and another hour of people talking about it. No art there. If this was the only part of the movie, it would've been a piece of crap, but thankfully there are also parts with Leaud and that hot girl that even though almost as pretentious, are much better and artsy (but pretentious at times, too). Actually, this movie is the ultimate exercise in pretentiousness. But it's so pretentious it gets quite amusing after some time. It made me smirk at times, for example when Leaud's character realized all this sect stuff was just bs and he lost so many hours of his life on trying to solve it (and it mirrors the viewer who lost so many hours on observing him trying to find the solution). As a matter of fact, this movie redefines time. After some time, you simply give up and just watch it, forgetting about everything else. But that's hipster talk used by people who rated it 5/5 to excuse loving it. It can be said about any long film. For example, when watching Lav Diaz's Melancholia I completely lost myself in the movie and had only one 10 minutes break. This film was much harder to get into and lose yourself in it. It has a lot of pretentious French intellectual talk and even some hints at politics and a lot on philosophy. Sorry for the chaotic form of my two posts about this film, but as a matter a fact they nicely mirror the movie itself that is chaotic and all over the place itself. You very often don't know what's going on, but observe what's going on on the screen anyway. One of these films that I would understand giving any rating except for 0.5/5 - pure mindless hatred - and I guess 5/5, too. Just look at rating distribution on Letterboxd. So many 5/5. Not sure if it's me not getting this film or everybody else snobbing like hell. Whatever.

Looked it up on RYM. Some guy started his review with "That was long and tedious. But isn’t life just like that?"

So much cringe.

if you watch this you'll be 12 hours closer to christmas

Oklahoma! (1955) -


I didn't get to kiss the bride!

After that singing cowboy appeared on the screen I thought I was watching one of the worst movies ever. It's not true (however the first couple of minutes are one of the most cringe-worthy things I've seen lately, and that's in the bad meaning of the word) as the movie picked up from there, but only a little bit! The visuals were beautiful with those colours and frames, but songs were mediocre and everything else subpar. Of course, Steiger (not enough of him!) was cool and Shirley Jones a doll, so that helped me a lot in surviving the first hour. I think I even tried to look closely through the bush hoping to see something after Shirley stopped bathing and started dressing behind those bushes. Of course I couldn't see anything, but she was HOT anyway. Then, she fell asleep and the wonderful sleep sequence started. Without a doubt, the strongest part of the film with incredible colors (those reds!) and quite imaginative sets and costumes. The auction and everything after it is so boring, though. They just got married and, of course, everybody has to start singing out of blue again. Jeez. EVERY woman in this film (except for Shirley) is so annoying, the way they talk, lol. Shirley is the saving grace.

Don't get me wrong, I really like some musicals (Volga-Volga, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, Singin' in the Rain, Phantom of the Paradise etc.), so I'm not entirely anti-musical, but this one for sure won't become one of my favourites. I wish the whole movie was like the dream sequence. I took a lot of screens:










^ This one looks Refnish. Before Refn!





All in all, not even top 200 of the 50's in my opinion, but an almost unwatchable piece of merry Hollywood dronish tart. With a wonderful dream sequence (at least one full star higher for it alone), hot babe and badass Steiger to save it from total abomination. I mean, I wanted to give it a really low rating, but that dream sequence, though.

Minio did you do those screen shots? If so nicely done. It looks like a blu ray transfer, is it?

Yes. I screencaped these. It's from a Blu-Ray rip.

Good work Minio

Les quatre cents coups [The 400 Blows] (1959) - (possible )



We all know a film that we didn't like that much at first, but then, after a rewatch, completely loved. The Tree of Life was this kind of film for me. Figures, The 400 Blows is another movie of this kind. Seeing it now and loving it completely, it's hard for me to understand how could I dislike it back then, in 2012, when I watched it for the first time. I think my main problem back then, apart from close-mindness and the fact I was watching Bergman or Tarkovsky film every day and therefore every other film felt like crap in comparison (kidding, of course), was the lack of understanding and empathy for Antoine (played wonderfully by Jean-Pierre Léaud). You see, the movie never takes sides and does not judge, so this time I decided not to judge neither. This time I saw much more in the behaviour of boy's parents and teachers. This makes the movie a lot more complicated and complex. While watching it, I was thinking: "Why is he so rebellious, why is he doing things like these?", then I saw his environment and started to slowly grasp it. Not understand, just grasp it.

I love how little details are so meaningful and beautiful throughout the movie. The moment when Antoine is asked if he ever kissed a girl and his initial reaction to the question looks genuine. Another amazing thing is the fact that the film they go to see in The 400 Blows, Paris Belongs to Us, is an actual movie made by Jacques Rivette some ten years later. Obviously, Rivette was inspired greatly by Truffaut's debut film and decided to name his film after it. His 12 hours long behemoth of a film is called Out 1 - when pronounced - 'Antoine' - the name of the protagonist of The 400 Blows. Then, of course, the famous ending. A freeze frame. It's as he gets to the sea, finally, his big dream, but then that look on his face - "what now?", "I can't run any further."

The 400 Blows inspired so many films, it's almost impossible to count them, but even Truffaut himself, as a movie critic and cinema aficionado, took some influences from other movies, like the Cinema-Verite-before-Cinema-Verite little masterwork Little Fugitive, or Jean Vigo's Poetic Realism Coming-of-Age Zero for Conduct. The PE scene from the latter is entirely copied to The 400 Blows!

I was surprised how lighthearted The 400 Blows was. Even though it tackles serious topics like juvenile delinquency, it's quite amusing and in no way heavy-handed. It profoundly tells the story, but never crosses the line and does not rely on cheap melodramaticism nor easy one-way judgment. It can be interpreted in so many ways, this fact alone makes it a masterwork. It's also quite autobiographical for the director, François Truffaut, which adds another interesting layer. Summing up, a masterpiece to behold.

Oof, one less to go. Next in line: Bicycle Thieves, Fellini (this one will be a tough nut to crack) and more!

Visions of Light (1992) - - Quite good, but I didn't learn much technical-wise. Some interesting trivia, though.
Antoine et Colette [Antoine and Colette] (1962) - - The Life of Antoine Doinel - continued. A short one this time, but extremely good. The finale hurts (everybody knows that feeling!)
ひと思いに殺してやれよ [Biotherapy] (1986) - - crazy VHS era gorefest from Japan. Highly recommended!

Nice, I didn't dislike The 400 Blows, I give it four stars, but definitely wouldn't go any higher. An enjoyable, well crafted film but not an absolute masterpiece for me that it is to some people, maybe if I rewatched it I would get more out of it. I'll probably do so when I get around to watching more Truffaut in general, I think that's the only film of his that I've seen.

Edit: Seen Jules and Jim, very good film.