17th MoFo Hall of Fame

Tools    





Aside from choosing modern films, I wonder if I have some kind of pattern with my noms? I mean, obviously there are distinct similarities between The Libertine and Quills, which I nominated in the first HOF I did, but I'm not sure about the rest of them.



The world doesn't owe you a damn thing
Aside from choosing modern films, I wonder if I have some kind of pattern with my noms? I mean, obviously there are distinct similarities between The Libertine and Quills, which I nominated in the first HOF I did, but I'm not sure about the rest of them.
It is possible to get a good guess at which, in a line of Noms, which one may be yours, but to put that into actual words is kinda hard to say.
__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes
~Mr Minio



Weird is relative.
@Citizen Rules and @CosmicRunaway

I watched a digital Blu-ray copy of The Aviator in 1080p, so it actually looked pretty good. Maybe that's what Scorsese wanted at the beginning, but of course only lower definition DVDs were produced at the time.




What are your last ten nom's? I think most have had to do with the other lists.


I've done ten nom's
My Favorite Year (1982) [Virgin]
Last Supper (1995) [Womens]
The Godfather (1972) [Best Picture]
Aguirre Wrath of God (1973) [15th]
Mr Freedom (1969) [16th]
Bride of Frankenstein (1935) [30's part 1]
Thelma (2018) [Foreign]
Mad Love (1935) [30's Part 2]
The Beast Must Die (1974) [B-Movie]
The Innocents (1962) [17th]

For me it's less about genre and more about age, my next ten noms are likely going to come from the following years.

(1941)
(1956)
(1958)
(1959)
(1977)
(1981)
(1985)
(2011)
(2014)
(2015)



It's time to have some fun
What are your last ten nom's?...
These are all from the Main Hofs

Waterloo Bridge (1931)........16th Hof - 7th out of 10
American Graffiti (1973).......15th Hof - 5th out of 11
Passengers (2016)...............14th Hof - 6th out of 11
Nightmare Alley (1947).........13th Hof - 8th out of 14
Never Let Me Go (2010).......12th Hof - 5th(tied) out of 11
The Flowers of War (2011)....11th Hof - 6th out of 11
East of Eden (1955) .............10th Hof - 1st (tied) out of 10
Leave Her to Heaven(1945)...9th Hof - 6th out of 11
Lady Killer (1933) ..................8th Hof - 12th out of 13



These are all from the Main Hofs

Waterloo Bridge (1931)........16th Hof - 7th out of 10
American Graffiti (1973).......15th Hof - 5th out of 11
Passengers (2016)...............14th Hof - 6th out of 11
Nightmare Alley (1947).........13th Hof - 8th out of 14
Never Let Me Go (2010).......12th Hof - 5th(tied) out of 11
The Flowers of War (2011)....11th Hof - 6th out of 11
East of Eden (1955) .............10th Hof - 1st (tied) out of 10
Leave Her to Heaven(1945)...9th Hof - 6th out of 11
Lady Killer (1933) ..................8th Hof - 12th out of 13

Yeah so the pattern is you pick movies that would either be covered by a list a specific Hall or inspired by it.


30's List/Hall
70's Hall
Sci-Fi List
40's Hall



It's time to have some fun
Yeah so the pattern is you pick movies that would either be covered by a list a specific Hall or inspired by it.


30's List/Hall
70's Hall
Sci-Fi List
40's Hall
Oh, I see what you're saying now...Yes, I do sometimes chose movies that support Countdowns or Hofs but not all those that you listed, see were. Actually looking at them and the time frame of the Hofs most weren't because of an Hof or Countdown.








Incendies (2010) is a Shakespearean melodrama that takes place in Canada and an unnamed Middle Eastern nation. A mother dies leaving a very graphic instructions for her employer and children to find their father and their brother during the course of war. The film is told in a series of chapters that bounces back and forth between time periods.

While the chapter format is necessary it leaves the viewer with the unenviable task of judging each chapter against the others. Unfortunately the war parts with Narwal(the mother) are especially strong yet the chapters with the twins are significantly weaker. I do wonder if the story would have been better served with an extra half hour a rearrangement of the chapters and better development with one of the characters(when you see the film you'll know who I'm talking about).

The other way the film could have been better is if they just cut the twins subplot entirely because the film attempts to attribute characters where character doesn't really exist and that makes you really feel the runtime.





So I also wanted to read other peoples on Lean on Pete and answer the some questions.

Since I'm not overly familiar with American geography, I'm not sure how harrowing young Charley's journey was, though the film did a fine job showing how it affected him both physically and mentally.
The geography was my biggest issue with the film. The unnamed city it ended up in doesn't make any sense based on going from Portland to Laramie.

As for how harrowing the journey was, Wyoming is about the size of Germany so if he was going south to north or west to east you're talking about basically crossing Mongolia.

Wild the movie with Reese Witherspoon that was a three month hike so this would have been 30-40 days. They keep the whole thing iffy with the car break down.

Stealing in America is this easy? I was also impressed with how Haigh is able to land this without it edging into sentimental.
Once again we are getting into geography the small crimes crossing state lines and getting away with breaking into peoples houses wouldn't be a surprise. The more dubious issue is that the police would be looking for him as a witness to the murder.

It could have had 20 minutes cut out as it felt too long for what was happening on the screen. By eliminating the scene of the two war veterans living in the middle of the desert the movie would've had better pacing.
Well you need to explain how he could have survived in the dessert for a week, let alone several weeks which is what you would have to believe for the narrative.

Lean on Pete is a tricky film because while it's good the problem with a film like this is the fantasy aspect of it all. It's pretty hard to believe that the characters would survive that journey without any training or supplies. Yet on the other hand the film is clearly trying to be as serious as possible and focuses on other realistic aspects of life for poor and lower class people in America.

This was a good film to watch with Incendies because misery loves company and this succeeded where Incendies failed and failed where Incendies succeeded



Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels


My family love Guy Richie films and Jason Statham, so it's about time I saw this, and man, it was great.

Going into it I was a bit worried the many different plots would make it very confusing to follow. That didn't happen though, I was able to follow it the entire way. If you like your guns and gore, this is the film for you. Lots of shots of the characters toying with guns and or using them.

What I love about these types of British films is the hilarious performances: They're always getting angry, saying c*nt and other bizarre things like 'U Wot?' and 'You Sausage Nigels!' (That one was actually from Crank 2, but it still counts).

But damn, this film was entertaining as hell! Probably from it's brilliant script and performances (Piss off, you nonce!). It's a bit like a Shakespeare comedy in a way: Everything goes wrong in a hilarious manner due to minor human screw-ups. The last 30 minutes or so are way more suspenseful than it has any right to be. I was clutching my blanket and thinking *OH S*IT* about every 5 minutes.

It also ends on an absolutely stellar cliffhanger.

An insanely entertaining film, the best kind of film. @edarsenal

+





The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (Andrew Dominik, 2007)
Imdb

Date Watched: 09/30/18
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 17th MoFo Hall of Fame, nominated by @Jay Redrum
Rewatch: Yes.


I blind bought The Assassination of Jesse James on DVD about ten years ago after reading rave reviews about it - and regretted it immediately. It's over two and half hours of aggravating narration, a snail's pace, and that damned whiney ass little bitch Casey Affleck. I HATED IT.

So I was none too pleased when that private message appeared in my inbox nominating it for this Hall of Fame, but - because it is my personal policy to watch all nominations in a HOF whether I've already seen them or not - I forced myself to endure it once more. I wouldn't say that I quite hated it this time around, but I sure did dislike it a lot. There were some aspects of the film that I actually really liked and - with some fairly major changes - this could have been something I'd love. First and foremost, the cinematography is absolutely gorgeous. It's a very beautiful film to look at. The performances are mostly quite strong too and had the focus of the film been absolutely anybody but that whiney ass bitch, my experience would have been much improved. I could have been quite engaged with Jesse and the other non-bitches were it not for that constant voiceover narrator telling me things I either didn't need to know or should've been shown - thus reducing my experience of much of the film to a level no better than a History Channel reenactment.

-



What I love about these types of British films is the hilarious performances: They're always getting angry, saying c*nt and other bizarre things like 'U Wot?' and 'You Sausage Nigels!' (That one was actually from Crank 2, but it still counts).
I would say it's from Lock Stock, but still counts for Crank 2.



The world doesn't owe you a damn thing
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels


The last 30 minutes or so are way more suspenseful than it has any right to be. I was clutching my blanket and thinking *OH S*IT* about every 5 minutes.
WARNING: "I've always loved --" spoilers below
the music they use for the shootout at the thugs' apartment. The build-up is fantastic!



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Amélie




Why I nominated Amélie.

One of the most beautifully shot films I've seen. The camera movement is fluid like water and not a single shot is wasted here. Jean-Pierre Jeunet is known for his camerawork in his films, but he hasn't been able to match the majesty that is presented with this piece. You see hints of it in his other works, but he is working on another level with Amélie.

He incorporates colours purposefully and beautifully. There are three main colours in the film; green, red and yellow. They just so happen to be the main colours on the poster too. He's able to use these colours to his advantage that when he inserts something different, you immediately take notice. In her place for example is a bright blue lamp in the background. This was added with CGI, to bring your focal point to something new added to the image. When she is in the movie theatre she is bathed in blue light, she is living another life outside of her normal day to day activities. The red green and yellows are gone and blue has taken over.

I see people comparing it to Wes Anderson, I guess it has the same quirkiness to it. Yet Amélie has a more innocent, whimsical, fantasy feel. Anderson has a more static and framed camera, where Jeunet flows around the scene making the camera feel part of the world. Wes Anderson is a painting** and Amélie is a play. Audrey Tautou is simply delightful and perfectly captures the sense of wonder that Amélie projects.

I'm surprised at the amount of dislike for this film on here. Maybe people went in high expectations. I always hate doing that. It alters your view of it. Had people gone to see this film without hearing a single thing about it, maybe they would have liked it more, even loved it?

** I love Wes Anderson movies too.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



Looks like we now have 14/15 participants on the board with at least one write-up, which is great.

However, we also have a couple of people who have not posted in this thread in 9 days. Private messages will be going out tomorrow if they've not checked in by then.



I'm surprised at the amount of dislike for this film on here. Maybe people went in high expectations. I always hate doing that. It alters your view of it. Had people gone to see this film without hearing a single thing about it, maybe they would have liked it more, even loved it?
The first time I saw the film I had never heard of it before. My room mate bought it on DVD and asked if I wanted to watch it. I wasn't a fan.

Then, years later, it came up during one of my film classes, and I had to write a paper about it. Everyone was talking about how great it was, and I tried to psych myself up to watch it. I figured I might appreciate it after having learned more about film. While I did think the cinematography was great, overall I liked it even less than I did before, and it was really a slog to get through. At least I got high marks on that essay.

The same thing happened with Juno, actually. The same roommate asked me to watch it with her. We did, and I didn't like it. However one of my film professors loved it, so I ended up watching it again, with the same result haha.



I don't think I really had any expectations going into Amelie the first time, either. I'd seen the trailer for it on TV plenty of times, but had no opinion of it based on that. Then someone randomly gave me a VHS copy of the movie and I watched it and didn't like it.

I'd hoped to like it this time around since I've since seen some of the director's other films, which I liked well enough, and have also become more accustomed to watching non-English films than I was the first time around. Nope, it's official. I don't like the movie.

Also, out of curiosity, are there people on this forum other than me that have compared it to Wes Anderson or have I just become pluralized (twice now) for the sake of being vague?



Also, out of curiosity, are there people on this forum other than me that have compared it to Wes Anderson or have I just become pluralized (twice now) for the sake of being vague?
I think Ed quoted that part of your review, and Hashtag referenced having seen people comparing the style to Anderson's (though he might have just meant you + Ed's quote). So technically it has been mentioned by multiple people.

Or maybe you're a collective, and don't realize it? haha



Amélie (2001)


Of all the rewatches, I was a bit concerned about this one. I remember loving this when I first watched it but that was going back a good bit. CR mentioned earlier in this thread that young guys like this film which was certainly true in my case.

Had nothing to worry about, it's still an incredible colourful film. I just love the colour palette and I think Jeunet takes influence from the right amount of sources. The nods to and mimicry of Jules and Jim are actually great and I don't even like that film. The way shots are framed to express Amélie's almost escapist fantasy work really well. So vibrant and quirky.

There are times where I think Jeunet is throwing everything at the wall to see what hits. In the sense that I find myself wondering if a scene is creative or just over the top. It's like he sits around a table with screenwriters, they throw out ideas and Jeunet just says "Yep. All of the above." I feel that way with all of his films. I admire it but I totally understand why it grates on people.

What other director does that sound like???