17th MoFo Hall of Fame

Tools    





"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



Strangely after typing that above response to cricket, neither method of using the mention tag worked when I tried to add it to that review just now.

Maybe it's simply because I forgot to add it before hitting submit the first time? I guess you can't edit them in after the fact. Or maybe the universe is just having a laugh haha.
I'm under impression that later edited mentions don't work, only the ones in the original post.

Wow it didn't look like it worked in the preview

Thanks!
Yeah, it's kind of confusing that the mentions don't show correctly in preview.



Hope Jay checked in. Really do want to see his nomination.
If it's something you really want to see, then obviously you should watch it anyway because it won't be a waste of time for you. I'll be pissed if he fails to check in though because I really, really don't like it and already suffered through it again.



If it's something you really want to see, then obviously you should watch it anyway because it won't be a waste of time for you. I'll be pissed if he fails to check in though because I really, really don't like it and already suffered through it again.
I'll be pissed too if he doesn't check in, but for the opposite reason, I really liked his nom. I was thinking it might be my #1 of course I haven't seen all the noms yet. @Jay Redrum come on bro you can do it



If it's something you really want to see, then obviously you should watch it anyway because it won't be a waste of time for you. I'll be pissed if he fails to check in though because I really, really don't like it and already suffered through it again.
Yeah I know but it's football season meaning I watch maybe 2-3 movies a week till January usually. So not as much time.



Yeah I know but it's football season meaning I watch maybe 2-3 movies a week till January usually. So not as much time.
If he gets disqualified, it won't affect the deadline I've set - so you'll have more time to watch the films that are still in the running and potentially leave you with time to watch other films as well.



@Miss Vicky

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford


I had seen 2 other movies from the director; Chopper which I loved, and Killing Them Softly which I hated. This movie came out between them and is a big jump up in scale. First thing that hits me is that it all looks and feels right, as if I was plunked down into this world. I believed it all. As it would turn out, I'll think about this when I think about the best looking movies I've seen. This is accomplished even with some drab settings, like houses with not much detail to them. The acting is phenomenal, something I expected going in, and the cast is well chosen. I thought it was a great story even if it was sometimes drawn out. At times I did feel it's length. I'm mixed on the narration. I think it was perfectly suitable but I feel like a different voice could have been more effective. The musical score was a little tame and could have been a little more unforgiving at times. For a while there, I thought we might be headed for some brokeback territory, but the characters were well defined and it all made sense. There's a lot of tension with the sporadic violence being felt as real and serious. Overall I think it's a great movie that I'm underrating. I could see myself upping it with another viewing.




The Aviator


I watched this with my wife a couple of years back and neither one of us liked it. That despite the fact that Martin Scorsese is my favorite director. There's other movies of his I don't care for like Shutter Island and Bringing Out the Dead. I was hoping I'd have a better experience this time around but I wasn't expecting to.

Going into it this time, one thing that piqued my interest was how they portrayed the filming of Hell's Angels, a good movie I just watched a couple of years ago. The way it turned out, I was more surprised by what they left out than interested in what was included. One interesting part about the making of Hell's Angels was how sound was added so late in the process, and that was shown. It wasn't a huge deal that they failed to mention that the movie contained a color scene that would be the only one Jean Harlow would ever do, but I at least noticed it. Most shocking and noticeable was the complete omission of any mention about the three pilots and one mechanic who lost their lives. Additionally, Hughes himself suffered a skull fracture, among other injuries, and if you go by this movie you'd never know it happened. I don't care about perfect accuracy in biopics, and this isn't a movie about the making of Hell's Angels, but these were some things that stood out to me.

I am a fan of DiCaprio's, especially since his brilliant turn in The Departed, but I felt this movie was too big for him. I never saw the character instead of the actor, and it came off as phony. I adore Cate Blanchett, and I think she was a solid casting choice, but it just didn't work for me. I thought she came off as over the top, also phony, and again I saw the character rather than the actor. Not helping matters was the fact that I've always found Katharine Hepburn to be unappealing. Adam Scott simply didn't belong in this movie while most others were in thankless roles with no opportunity to shine. The only actor I thought did well for themselves was Alan Alda. When he was talking and Leo remarks about the painting of the llama, I felt like yelling shut up and let him talk. Most of the actors do have some decent moments, as they are talented, but as a whole I they were subpar.

It's an epic production and it shows. That doesn't mean I was impressed. It's a great looking movie for the most part, yet there were times when I wondered if I was being fooled. The score is nice and era appropriate, but sometimes I thought it was overkill. I thought many of the details were well done, like the cars and the costumes.

The story is not one that interests me so the long runtime is a burden. I wouldn't say it bored me, yet it certainly didn't excite me. The OCD parts of the film simply made me anxious and I couldn't care less about the romances. There are some good scenes such as any that involved planes up in the air, the comparison of "mammaries", and the dinner with Baldwin's character. The plane crash was the most exciting part of the movie, even if it came off as a bit contrived with the glimpses of people in the houses that were being hit. It was a nice touch having Jude Law's Errol Flynn get into a fight, and I really enjoyed all the references to old movies and actors, especially since I recently became familiar with them.

I don't watch many movies that aren't at least rated R, and obviously I like even less than that. This movie was a little family friendly for my normal taste. I wouldn't say I totally dislike the movie, but I certainly don't like it either. I also wouldn't call it a bad movie, but surprisingly, I don't think it's very good either.




The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford


...First thing that hits me is that it all looks and feels right, as if I was plunked down into this world. I believed it all.

...I'll think about this when I think about the best looking movies I've seen. This is accomplished even with some drab settings, like houses with not much detail to them.

...The acting is phenomenal, something I expected going in, and the cast is well chosen.

....I thought it was a great story even if it was sometimes drawn out. At times I did feel it's length.
Glad to see another fan here! Too bad Jay Redrum seems to have dropped out. This might have been my #1 film. I like what you said up there and agree too.



I liked The Aviator much more than you, but still that was a well written review, very detailed and a good read. A couple questions

What did you think of the teal/aqua color in some of the early parts of the movie?

You said this:
I don't watch many movies that aren't at least rated R.
Do you think if this was rated R that you would have liked it better? (assuming it's the same movie & story, just with some R nudity and F bombs) would that make a difference to you?



What did you think of the teal/aqua color in some of the early parts of the movie?


I liked that, and while the rest of the movie looked good, it looked as expected. With a movie like that, I want something different. I probably would have liked it more in black and white.

You said this:Do you think if this was rated R that you would have liked it better? (assuming it's the same movie & story, just with some R nudity and F bombs) would that make a difference to you?
I wouldn't necessarily point out swearing or nudity, but I seem to prefer darker and edgier, with whatever way that shows itself.



I liked that, and while the rest of the movie looked good, it looked as expected. With a movie like that, I want something different. I probably would have liked it more in black and white.
I could see that. Or maybe like faded old color.


I wouldn't necessarily point out swearing or nudity, but I seem to prefer darker and edgier, with whatever way that shows itself.
I see, you mean the story itself. Yeah it could lend itself to that...Howard Hughes reportedly had a number of teenage actresses under contract that he literally kept under lock and key (so to speak) and apparently had flings with some of them. Did you see Rules Don't Apply (2016)? That's with Warren Beatty as an older Howard Hughes looking back on his life. Not great, but might be interesting to anyone who wants to see more on Howard Hughes.



I doubt you would like it. Both me and Gideon reviewed it and we both gave it a


Here's my review if you're interested: Rules Don't Apply
I'm surprised I missed one of your reviews. Anyway, it doesn't sound like something I'd like.



This is my review of The Innocents from 4 years ago. I will update my thoughts at the bottom of this post.




The Innocents
(1961)



Based loosely on the 1898 classic novella, The Turn of the Screw by Henry James. The movie is inaccurately referred to as a horror film. It's a Gothic story, with either a psychological twist or a supernatural one. The film cleverly allows the viewer to ultimately decide if the ghost are real or a figment of the young governesses imagination. The Innocents has more in common with films like Rebecca (1940) or Wuthering Heights (1939) than it does with other early 1960s horror films.

Deborah Kerr is well suited to play the young governess hired to care for two young children at a 19th century British country estate. She seems like a proper British governess, cloistered and responsible, yet with a pensive more hidden side.

The cinematography of The Innocents is sublime. Each scene is composed like a work of art. The lighting is beautiful. The special effects and optical effects are remarkable. The story itself is intelligent and thought provoking, giving the viewer the chance to finalize the meaning of the story for themselves.


Update: After watching this again last night, I realized how much Citizen Kane had inspired the cinematography of The Innocents. I seen that in three different film techniques:

The three way dissolve, where a scene ends and fades briefly to another object or face, then that quickly fades and the next scene fades in. It creates a sense of time dilatation.

The deep depth of field focus, where a foreground subject is in-focus and close to the camera lens, and located off to one side of the composition. Then in the far background diagonally on the opposite side is the second subject, also in focus.

The third was the close up of the lips in a montage that looked very much like the lips saying 'rose bud' in Citizen Kane.

I just thought that was interesting...The Innocents has exceptionally well done lighting/composition and camera work. It's a thing of beauty to watch. I believe the old estate mansion was real. Maybe it was a set, but it sure looked real to me and that helps make the film's ambiance.

Deborah Kerr is perfectly cast here and so are the kids. Yes, the boy Miles is annoying in his pompous overly self import way, but that works for the film, as he's effectively the antagonist. The one performance that didn't work for me was the house keeper. I'm not sure if it was the actress or the way her part was written but she didn't really add to or enhance the film.



What really stood out was the films' script by William Archibald and Truman Capote. I've read your guys' reviews and some of you have said that the governess was sexual repressed and imaged all of the ghost, that could be...

I have a different take...I think the script suggest that the children were victims of sexual abuse, especially the male valet seems to have molested the boy which then causes the boy to act out at school in a way that gets him labeled as corrupting the other boys. Then it seems the governess who has an over active imagination and is from a religious home, can't handle the truth of the child molestation and so invents in her head an alternative answer that involves the dead possessing the children.

That's what I love about this movie, it's so intelligently ambiguous that the meaning can be interpreted a number of different ways.

Great nomination!
Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	Deborah-Kerr-Innocents-1961 (5).JPG
Views:	159
Size:	65.9 KB
ID:	48791  



Ghostwatch

The most interesting things about Ghostwatch is the history involving it. It managed to trick lots of people into making them think it was real and freaking everyone out. While not on the same scale, you could say it did for Brits what my favourite horror film did for America (If ya know what I mean *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink*). Very glad to see Craig Charles in this as I love Red Dwarf.

You can't really blame them either, because it's so damn authentic. First of all it has that very colour diluted camera quality, style of end credits and bizarrely fast frame rate that all BBC material had back then (Why do fires look green on DVD releases?!). It isn't paced like a film either, it's paced like an actual 24 hour broadcast. Nothing particularly interesting happens until the REALLY spooky parts, as if it was made to adapt to people randomly clicking into the show (Like all live broadcasts).

I guess this adds to the fear factor of the film as well. There's a certain level of uneasiness to seeing the people in the room acting very posh and professional and Craig Charles having fun with the crowd while chaos is ensuing in the house. The inclusion of Pipes randomly appearing in the background of some scene was a great idea. Imaging being one of the people who thought this was real and seeing that, you'd s*it yourself!

Also the last 15 minutes are f*cking insane.

+
__________________
Muh letterbox: https://letterboxd.com/HashtagBrownies/



The Hawks and The Sparrows



Pretty painful watch to be honest. It was only 88 minutes long but it honestly felt a lot longer. The two main leads just came off as goofy to me, and maybe that was something that was intentional from Pasolini but I didn't care for it. The voice of the crow was even worse. The worst part that got an eyeroll from me was the scene where they hopped to "talk" to the birds. Just was a joke scene to me that was pretty silly. I actually disliked the music too which was strange since it was by someone pretty critically acclaimed. I'd say the way Pasolini tells his story feels more a chore than anything rather entertaining, not sure if that's how all his films are or just this one. There were a lot of attempts at humor but those all fell flat for me too. It's been awhile since I've seen a movie that I've disliked as much as this in a general Hall of Fame, but ultimately that's how I feel about it.