14th Hall of Fame

actually I DID like it. Opened with that. Just realized that I answered previous questions and made a sizable review leaving little to no room to express that I DID like the movie.
The final remark was more of a "d@mmit I need to say at least, this--"

__________________
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

Just teasin ya

I gotcha

Passengers (Morten Tyldum, 2016)
Imdb

Date Watched: 9/5/17
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 14th Hall of Fame, Citizen Rules's nomination
Rewatch: No

This is not a film that I am likely to have ever watched on my own as I typically avoid live-action science fiction, save for the occasional action flick like Demolition Man and The Fifth Element or emotional dramas like Her or Eternal Sunshine. I'm also not overly fond of either of the film's stars, so I wasn't exactly looking forward to this.

However, I was actually a little surprised by how much I enjoyed this. I certainly didn't love it but never found myself feeling bored either. I was invested enough in the story and the characters to keep me interested, but not enough that I felt any strong emotion towards any of them. I also liked the look of the film. I thought the design of the ship was very interesting and some of the effects, particularly the pool scene when the gravity failed, were really well done.

There were a couple of things that bugged me though - particularly the character of Gus. I found myself rolling my eyes a bit at this obvious deus ex-machina. It struck me as a bit of lazy writing to have another pod fail just as things were getting particularly hopeless and, out of the thousands of people on the ship, of course that pod contained someone with the knowledge and security clearance they needed to solve their problem. And just as suddenly as Gus Ex Machina appeared so he was disposed of.

Another thing that bugged me was an obvious issue that was ignored. Jim and Aurora sure had a lot of sex and he certainly wasn't wearing a condom. Was Aurora sterile? Did the ship have an inexhaustible supply of birth control on board? Seems like sooner or later she'd have gotten knocked up a time or two and the poor kid(s) would be cursed to grow up with nobody but mom and dad. I would've liked to have seen that issue addressed.

I'm kind of on the fence as to how to rate this. I don't think it's great, but I did enjoy it more than the other noms I've watched so far.

I guess I'll give it an unenthusiastic -

__________________

The possibility of there being offspring was something that didn't even cross my mind. Helluva good point.
The vegetation definitely had a productive time. . . yet, they didn't? Hmmm

How do you know he wasn't wearing a condom? It was a PG13 film, nothing was shown Aurora was probably using the same birth control as Christina Ricci in your movie. Or any female movie character for that matter.

That's a good point and I would agree, Gus was a throw away character.

Other female characters aren't stuck on spaceships for the rest of their lives. They can go to a pharmacy and buy more. If the pharmacy runs out, they can order more - because they're on Earth where these things are manufactured. Aurora is on a space ship with a finite amount of supplies. This same argument can be made for condoms.

Also, we're meant to believe that Aurora and Jim are in love and we know that they're going to spend the rest of their lives together. It stands to reason that there's a good chance she's going to end up pregnant at some point either by accident or because many people see starting a family as a natural progression of a romantic relationship. I would've liked to have seen the issue addressed in some way.

Her tubes were tied...or some other futuristic birth control...It's the future so for me it's a non issue as it's never shown to be a problem so it doesn't need a solution. I mean the same could be said for toilet paper.

No the same could not be said for toilet paper. Running out of toilet paper would suck, but it would not have the moral implications that a potential pregnancy would.

Bringing a child into that situation is pretty much on par with waking Aurora up. Any child born to them would be at least approaching old age by the time the ship neared its destination and the crew woke up.

I just don't see it that way. I do get the point that Gus was a deus ex machina, but there was no need to talk about their birth control.

The film openly questions the morality of Jim's choice, even likening it to murder, yet ignores the very real possibility of an equally immoral situation. To me that is something that should have been addressed in some way.

A Night on Earth

I have seen a couple of Jarmusch films, one of which, Cigarettes and Coffee, for me seems like an excellent springboard to this movie; where the various stories play out with a consistent factor. For the aforementioned movie, every story - and there were a lot of them, consisted of what the title supplies. For this, it is a taxi with the focus on the driver themselves.
And much like C&C the stories aren't outlandish or incredible. They are, for the lack of a better description, every day. And Jarmusch seems to have a fascination with the every day and those of us that traverse that road. He doesn't glamorize or even satirize, he simply delves in, observes, and then pulls away. Displaying moments in life without judgement or evaluation.
An interesting premise and one that could get boring and yet, never really does. Is it the dedication of the actors who bring out all the nuances? I don't know, but it seems there is a greater depth and none appear cliche or incomplete. For me, anyway.

I can't really make a case for a favorite of these 5 locations/stories since each had something worthwhile for each of them and something endearing as well. I should break them each down, but it would various ways of saying: I like this one, liked that one, oh, was good, so was that one. . . lol
I also liked the segue of using a line of clocks with the city names above them and with each new story, it would wind back the minutes to show that, while in different time zones, all of them occurred simultaneously. Nice touch, that.

This was a solid Jarmusch film and one I was thankful to have the opportunity to watch. Thanks @Nestorio_Miklos

For those of you who haven't seen Night on Earth yet, it is scheduled to air on TCM at 3:45 AM (Eastern Time) on Saturday, September 9th.

(That's this Friday night/Saturday morning, in about 2 days).

CHECK YOUR LOCAL LISTINGS FOR THE CORRECT TIME IN YOUR AREA!!!

__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.

I'm going to try to get Night on Earth, Mommy, and Lone Star watched over the next few days as I need to return them to the library soon. That'll take me to 9/12 watched.I have Friday, Saturday and Sunday off, so I'll have plenty of time for it. I may take a break after that and just watch whatever I feel like for a bit.

Night on Earth (1991) : Night on Earth is a comedy by a director Jim Jarmusch, with a very distinctive format. It is divided into five vignettes ; LA, NY, Paris, Rome and Helsinki, where each is focused on a certain city and a everyday life of its taxi drivers, providing us with a real international experience. Even though structurally intriguing, the film is naturally exposed to a fluctuating quality of its stories. Still most of them are on a satisfactorily level . Problematic communication between taxi drivers and their passengers stands out as the main thematic pattern, mainly caused by their cultural and demographic differences. Thus for example, we're following a taxist of a German descent in his desperate quest to acclimate to " American culture " with a little help from vulgar but good-willed resident of Brooklyn or an ironic " Paris episode " where a taxi driver becomes so infatuated with his blind female passenger, that he ultimately gets into a car crash. Situtations which characters find themselves in are deprived from any dramatic effect, giving us a credible insight in a temporarily relationship between drivers and passengers, as well as their everyday life. Jarmusch's expression is rather short and satirical with a great dose of irony and contrast, but at the same time visibly sensible and unquestionably humanistic. I will enclose couple of my short comments for each city in the follow up ...

LA : Narratively, by far the weakest episode. Wynona Ryder was a rather strange casting choice as a tomboy taxi driver. The exchanges between her and Gena Rowland were unimaginative and forced . Nonetheless a solid introduction into much superior and complex following stories.

NY : Very amusing episode with a great dynamics between Giancarlo Esposito and Armin Mueller-Stahl. The way morally uncorrupted Helmut is trying to adapt to LA's dazzle and material culture is strangely endearing watch. I was pleased to read that Helmut was indeed driving the correct way on his way to Manhattan.

Paris : Solid vignette, primarily highlighted by its dialogue full of irony.

Rome : Roberto Benigni's comedic genius was on full display here. I was not suprised at all that most of his monologues were unsripted. Definitely a laugh fest and a testament to Benigni's sumptuous talent.

Helsinki : Film's most emotional episode that teaches us there's always someone whose life is more complicated than ours. Great performance by Matti Pellonpää and a great conclusion to the story.

Episodes ranked :Rome >NY = Helsinki > Paris >LA

Barton Fink (1991) : Barton Fink is a peculiar film that isn't really discreet with its influences. If I had to describe it, I'd say it combines coloring from "The Shining", claustrophobic ambient from "Repulsion " and quirkiness from the early work of David Lynch. One would think that aforementioned elements combined would make for an amazing film, however that is not the case. What " Barton Fink " lacks is naturalness and actual clarity and coherence. Film can only endure a certain amount of symbolism and methaphors without becoming meaningless and forced. Coen brothers fell into this trap by becoming too cute with it and overly focusing on a stylish elements and atmosphere to the point where all of those bizzare sequences, manic characters and surreal elements felt imposed and distasteful. I actually liked the comedy and early scenes with John Turturro and John Goodman, however that was abandonded early on in order to make this film into a symbolic exaggeration. And that's where the film lost me and there was no compelling plotline to make up for it. I have to give credit where the credit is due though. The set designs were absolutely beautiful and John Goodman absolutely nailed his role. Still I can't get rid of an impression that this is one of those films that isn't really as deep as it presents itself. After I finished the film, I felt empty and confused. I couldn't really make what this film was about. Was it a Hollywood satire ? Was it an ode to creators block ? Was it just an artificial nonsense ? I have no idea... I believe this is a film that needs to be seen multiple times in order to be critically evaluated properly. Right now, I'll just leave my thoughts as they are, despite my struggle to comprehend this film.

I've rewatched Barton Fink, which puts me at 4/12. I'll get my thoughts up tomorrow.

__________________
Letterboxd

I finished Barton Fink earlier. I'll post my thoughts sometime in the next few days.

I have mixed feelings on this one. It took me about 20 minutes to warm up to it. The opening scenes were so chaotic and weird that I didn't know what kind of movie this was going to be.

It got better when we learn of the boy Pehran and his sickly little sister and supportive grandmother. I liked their family dynamics, and liked the actors. I also liked his attempts to marry Azra, I though his scenes with Azra and his sister were the most heartfelt. But wasn't he a bit young to be thinking about marriage?

On the hand I'm not a fan of movies that deliberately throw in cute/weird/symbolism stuff just for the sake of doing it and this film does it a lot. White is a big symbolism in the film...there's: Azra's mom saying shes a prized catch as she's very white....white bread, white cheese & some other white food (which I forgot was said to be like wanting what you couldn't have) white turkeys are a dream of unattainabilit,y as is the white veil behind the taxi.

Maybe it was the film quality of the video I had but some of the people seemed to move kind of jerky or abrupt manner. Like the hanging scene which was not funny, but seemed to be filmed in a way that the film makers thought was humorus. Same with the scene at the wake of Pehran when his son breaks a window and steals the coins from his eyes. It seemed like the frame rate was sped up which made that scene look like a chase scene from TV show Benny Hill. I don't know how else to describe it, but the effect was it felt like the film was being weird for comic effect. But the story is anything but comic with the two siblings being separated from their family and each other. With the gang of pick pockets being controlled by the rich criminal in the white suit, it reminded me of Oliver Twist.

One thing for consideration, all of the Gypsies (Romani people) are shown to be ignorant,superstitious, vindictive, thieves who squabble and fight with each other, that would seem to be a negative stereo type and one that has been said for ever about Gypsies. I don't believe this is who these people are and the film seems to ridicule them.

The film most definitely doesn't ridicule Gypsies. Kusturica himself grew up in an area populated with Gypsies and was fascinated with their freedom and general lifestyle ever since. They have been a major inspiration for his work and he even included them as main protagonists in his later absurdist comedy " Black Cat, White Cat ". If anything he was one of the rare people to give this marginalized ethnic group a spotlight and accurately display the poverty they live in. I also wonder, if this film was so offensive towards their culture , why would so many actors of Gypsie descent work on this film or even moreso continue to appear in later director's work, like Ljubica Adžović for example who refused to work for any other director other than Kusturica. As rough as this may seem, activities like prostitution and child trafficking do happen and are oftenly associated with the aforomentioned ethnic group. I don't mean it as a generalization, but that's just the way it is. Gypsie criminal gangs are in minority, but they do exist. However the film wasn't even about that. It was about the Gypsies's philosophy, their obssesion with good life, their dreams, their hopes, constant pursuit of hapiness, perfectly captured in a direct quote from a film "And what's a gypsy without dreams? A roofless church.... A silent church tower." Director's sympathy towards Gypsies is undeniable and with some exaggerations for comedic effect their lifestyle is depicted fairly accurately. Nothing offensive about that. But that's fine, the moment I nominated this film I realized it will be hard for Angloamericans to truly appreciate and understand its essence. It's Culture is depicted at its most pinnacle, it trascends what you really think about the culture or whether you are somewhat related to it. I partly nominated this film because it's mostly unknown outside of Eastern/Middle Europe and I wanted it to receive some exposure, however I'm beggining to realize this will be an unpopular nomination. I'm truly curious to see if anyone here will like it.