21st Hall of Fame

Tools    





Hopefully I've made my point clear. I'm backing out of this thread now so that you can all enjoy your HoF without this controversy.
__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.



I'm not talking about banning all movies that have been banned somewhere. I'm just saying that movies that have a valid reason for being too extreme or offensive shouldn't be allowed in some HoFs. There should be a limit to what is allowed, and if someone nominates a movie that is offensive for a legitimate reason, then maybe they should be asked to change their nomination for that HoF, rather than expecting someone to drop out because of something that's not their fault.
The problem here is the obvious fact that different people are "legitimately" offended by different things. I'm well aware that my threshold for being offended is considerably higher than average but regardless of that, I'd find it very questionable to ban widely available R-rated films from any HoF (except something wildly hypothetical like PG HoF).

Disqualifying films due to their offensive nature is a very slippery slope. In addition to this Pretty Baby debate you've already mentioned violence but where do we draw the line? Blasphemy could easily offend the believers, racial slurs and racism seem to be a no go today and extensive cursing surely makes some people blush.

In my opinion, entering any Hall of Fame means a possible requirement to watch something I don't like. I accept that and, as far as I've understood, so do most of the other participants. I really don't see a need to change that. I just don't see being offended such a big deal.
__________________



Oh, I almost forgot that I also watched Being There today. After reading the description on IMDb I wasn't expecting much so at least I can't complain about not meeting my expectations. I'll try to write a review in a few days.



Disqualifying films due to their offensive nature is a very slippery slope. In addition to this Pretty Baby debate you've already mentioned violence but where do we draw the line? Blasphemy could easily offend the believers, racial slurs and racism seem to be a no go today and extensive cursing surely makes some people blush.
Not to mention the such horribly offensive/sinful things as promiscuity and homosexual relations.

Yeah. Don't want to watch certain types of films? Wait until the nominations have been announced, research them, and then make a decision about whether you wish to participate or not. Allowing late entries seems to have become the norm anyway.



I'm well aware that my threshold for being offended is considerably higher than average but regardless of that, I'd find it very questionable to ban widely available R-rated films from any HoF (except something wildly hypothetical like PG HoF).
The majority of R-rated films in the US end up being 14A here instead of 18A anyway, so even between English-speaking countries there's clearly a difference in what general audiences will find acceptable. Whenever someone mentions a film being rated R I always wonder if it's a "real R" or a PG-13 with 1 too many swear words. The rating is basically meaningless to me haha.

Now that you mention it though, I could see a "Family/Children's Films" HoF existing. I wouldn't participate, but it's a plausible HOF idea.



Put simply, the day we start banning controversial films - for any reason- is the day I quit being a participant. Full stop.
I don't think anybody is pro-ban though, and surely not enough to make it actually happen.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Put simply, the day we start banning controversial films - for any reason- is the day I quit being a participant. Full stop.
Ditto.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Being there might be one of the most soothing and calming films I've ever seen xD All hail Peter Sellers! What a terrific performance!



Pretty Baby



I figured like others since this was so "controversial" I would start with it. I definitely think that those "scenes" really had no place in a film like this and I felt rather creepy even seeing things like that which obviously have no place in film, and certainly no place in today's standards. Even '78 seems a bit late for nudity like that but who am I to judge on these matters.

The film as a whole though really doesn't do anything for me either. The performances really aren't that good. I'm not trying to dog Brooke Shields at all but when you have the best performance in the film at only 12 years old and run circles around your fellow actors and actresses that were also part of the film, that can't be a good thing. Of course there's a few Brooklyn Prince sort of performances in films that make it great but Florida Project also had Dafoe if you catch my drift. Sarandon and Carradine really didn't bring much at all to the film for me.

Plus, I just wasn't convinced on the relationship of Carradine and Shields anyways. If I was I suppose it would have made the film quite creepy, so I'm not really sure what to think of that anyways.

I'll just leave it as a film that wasn't completely terrible yet it didn't do anything for me and will end up being quite forgettable.



A shame because the last Hall of Fame I didn't rate anything under a



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Being There (1979)


This film has a simply but somewhat risky premise. The fact that the main character is somewhat retarded and still manages to fool so many people to the point he is considered for being president of the United States only works if the script is clever and takes the ideia seriously (or if you're George W. Bush )

By not making every statement of Chauncey into a supposedly clever one, rather waiting for the right time, the film becomes credible and the premise is supported well enough. The rest, is a magnificent perfomance by Peter Sellers. It's not easy to be as detached as Chauncey demanded Sellers to be, but he excells on it. The result is that we start loving Chauncey and feeling good everytime he is on screen, exactly how all the other characters felt around him.

I found myself smiling peacefully as the film was ending (and what beautiful and clever last shot that was) and I think that was the entire purpose of it.

+



Think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?


Moonstruck (Norman Jewison, 1987)
Imdb

Date Watched: 01/05/2020
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 21st MoFo Hall of Fame, nominated by edarsenal
Rewatch: Yes.


One of these days I might watch an edarsenal nomination and really love it and be thankful for having been exposed to it. Today is not that day.
And when that day comes, you and I are buying lottery tickets and hitting the HUGE jackpot! LOL
__________________
They say: that after people make love there's a kind of melancholia, the petite mort, the little death. Well, I'm here to tell you, after a romantic night with yourself there's a very acute sensation of failed suicide. ~Dylan Moran





A wonderful blend of silent era noir and cutting edge CGI gives us 1998's Dark City. The film features a collective of strong actors from Ian Richardson, Jennifer Connely, and William Hurt are all very strong as Rufus Sewell runs through this permanently night world. One of the things I really like about CGI from this era is that the story works around the effects not the other way around. Playing around with the new toys doesn't always work some of the scenes are laughly bad looking at it 20 years later. But what does work is the world still feels so beautiful because it's not just CGI but practical effects and solid artistry.


The film is not all good though...the biggest weak spot is Keifer Sutherland doing a horrible Peter Lorre impersonation. Every line reading is filled with an asthma attack that when we get the dreamscape scene where Sutherland acts normally it just makes the early 3/4ths of the film weaker. I also wish William Hurt's character was the lead as I found him to be a much more compelling figure than Sewell. For my noir picks I always prefer the detective putting the story together over the man on the run. And while the film does fall apart in the final act with CGI that is just horrible (Star-ship Troopers and Event Horizon came out a year earlier and they got space shots right) this was still a pleasant revisit and watch for me.





A wonderful blend of silent era noir and cutting edge CGI gives us 1998's Dark City. The film features a collective of strong actors from Ian Richardson, Jennifer Connely, and William Hurt are all very strong as Rufus Sewell runs through this permanently night world. One of the things I really like about CGI from this era is that the story works around the effects not the other way around. Playing around with the new toys doesn't always work some of the scenes are laughly bad looking at it 20 years later. But what does work is the world still feels so beautiful because it's not just CGI but practical effects and solid artistry.


The film is not all good though...the biggest weak spot is Keifer Sutherland doing a horrible Peter Lorre impersonation. Every line reading is filled with an asthma attack that when we get the dreamscape scene where Sutherland acts normally it just makes the early 3/4ths of the film weaker. I also wish William Hurt's character was the lead as I found him to be a much more compelling figure than Sewell. For my noir picks I always prefer the detective putting the story together over the man on the run. And while the film does fall apart in the final act with CGI that is just horrible (Star-ship Troopers and Event Horizon came out a year earlier and they got space shots right) this was still a pleasant revisit and watch for me.
Keifer Sutherland was a weak spot in regards to his acting. Like he was always gasping for air when ever he delivered his lines.
Other then that, the film was amazing



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Tree of Life (2011)

There aren't many films of the last 20 years that I'd consider as classics. Tree of Life is one hell of an exception. Much like Stalker or 2001: A Space Odissey it achieves a level of intellectual and spiritual depth that can only be aspired by a few directors working today.

The story is like a trip to Jack's memory, and how his father and mother made him the man he used to be. Behind all this there's a search for the meaning of life and a constant relation with deity.
I'd divide this into 4 chapters: the introduction, where we know of Jack's brother death and how that triggers the spiritual travel Jack will do; the Universe sequence, in a sense similar to the dream sequence of 2001 but with a completley different purpose. It's perhaps the most beautiful chapter of the film with stunning visuals and a beautiful soundtrack. While it's not apparently connected to the rest of the film, I think it's there to give us a particular state of mind to what is going to happen next and that's reason enough for me to love it; the core of the story, where we witness Jack's childhood and how Nature (represented by his Father) and Grace (his mother) made him into the person he is; and the Conclusion which I think is there to show how Heaven should be, with all the people he loved being there and how it was Grace (represented by his Mother) the one who would take him there. There's also a strong comparison between the masculine and feminine sides of the world, which is something that has interested me for quite a while!
The cinematography (Lubezki ) and the soundtrack are simply mindblowing, the acting is great by everyone involved but it's the vision that matters here, the same way Kubrick's vision is the core of 2001.

+



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Dark City




No need to tell me to revisit one of my favourite films of all-time...but I'll also throw in that Dark City is one of the best sci/fi films of all-time.

Proyas blends a creepy film noir with futuristic science fiction in this dark and engaging mystery. This film should be seen by more people in general. Despite a wonky third act involving mean stares and water ripple psychic energy blasts, Dark City has few faults (for me). The Strangers are creepy, effective villains that want to play Doll House with our lives.

The miniatures, the practical effects, the atmosphere, everything works well blending together to create a "masterpiece". I'll admit, this is not a perfect film, but it is a perfect film for me.

Roger Ebert has only done a few commentaries for films and this is one of them. He championed it back in the 90's and I'd suggest people give it a listen.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Tree of Life




If I were to make a time capsule and put 5 films in; Tree of Life would make that list. Not because I like the film, or because I think it's some kind of brilliant achievement. I'd put it there because it captures something very few films do. It captures a time in human history that can't be experienced anymore. Say what you will about the beginning and ending of this movie, but the slices of life moments in-between are some stunning filmmaking.

What this movie means to me and what it means to you can be two completely different things, it most definitely means something else entirely to Malick and I'd go on record saying this is his best film. He might have let those types of accolades get to his head because his camera work has been trying to recapture that lightning in a bottle moment he had on Tree of Life. His floating "spying" on life essence here doesn't translate well to his other works. The exception might be The Thin Red Line.

Tree of Life is an astounding film, but one that lacks so many things as well. It's hard to put this film is a box...unless that box is a time capsule of course.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Wedding Crashers




Would a film where a man sexually assaults a woman be played for laughs? No? Then I don't see why a sexual assault against a man seems to be okay. Back in the mid 2000's though, it was hilarious.....right?

Wedding Crashers is a film that I do find funny. Seeing Bradley Cooper play a jerk before he became famous is fun and Rachel McAdams is stunningly beautiful as always. She has the down to Earth charm about her that makes every film she is in at the very least...watchable.

Wilson and Vaughn have great chemistry together, this is obvious. They tried to recapture that glory with The Internship and that film didn't seem to ignite any laughs. Wedding Crashers does though and I can totally see why. Raunchy comedies are a love it or hate it variety and I oddly enough find myself in the middle.

On a side note: My wife saw this film multiple times with an ex-boyfriend....after they broke up. Maybe that has a hand in my opinion on this piece.