Reply to Topic
Re: Andrei Rublev. Interesting take on the movie and Tarkovsky in general. Still need to see it! What am I doing with my life?
mark f's Movie Tab III
→ in Movie Reviews
The Class (Laurent Cantet, 2008)
This French film won 2008's Cannes Palme d'Or Award and the Best Foreign Language Oscar. It's a solid film and one you might think that I would appreciate better than my rating. However, although the film seemed to fly by much quicker than the 129 minutes, it just didn't quite convince me that it told a complete story about an entire school year. The acting is really good though, and that may even be because most all the teachers and students were mostly playing somebody not all that far from themselves. The lead actor was a real teacher (François Bégaudeau) who wrote the novel the film is based on. Now, I'm not trying to dis the film at all. It's very realistic, at least to me. This school is supposed to be something similar to a junior high school in Paris, which seems to cover 7th-9th grades. My school covers basically 10th-12th grades, but many of these students are similar to ones I see on a daily basis, except for the fact that my students are much more troublesome. I mean, the students in Blackboard Jungle (1955) make these kids seem like angels, and for the most part, they are. Now, I don't really want to get into the problems you can have when you try to communicate with another generation and they think you mean something blatantly sexual when you mean something much more innocent. That part I can also relate to, but the film really glossed over that section. Overall, I think it's a good film which I recommend but it does seem to omit some crucial details about the reality of inner-city modern schools although it gets the gist of them quite well.
This French film won 2008's Cannes Palme d'Or Award and the Best Foreign Language Oscar. It's a solid film and one you might think that I would appreciate better than my rating. However, although the film seemed to fly by much quicker than the 129 minutes, it just didn't quite convince me that it told a complete story about an entire school year. The acting is really good though, and that may even be because most all the teachers and students were mostly playing somebody not all that far from themselves. The lead actor was a real teacher (François Bégaudeau) who wrote the novel the film is based on. Now, I'm not trying to dis the film at all. It's very realistic, at least to me. This school is supposed to be something similar to a junior high school in Paris, which seems to cover 7th-9th grades. My school covers basically 10th-12th grades, but many of these students are similar to ones I see on a daily basis, except for the fact that my students are much more troublesome. I mean, the students in Blackboard Jungle (1955) make these kids seem like angels, and for the most part, they are. Now, I don't really want to get into the problems you can have when you try to communicate with another generation and they think you mean something blatantly sexual when you mean something much more innocent. That part I can also relate to, but the film really glossed over that section. Overall, I think it's a good film which I recommend but it does seem to omit some crucial details about the reality of inner-city modern schools although it gets the gist of them quite well.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Murmur of the Heart (Louis Malle, 1971) +
Now this one I feel I'm underrating by a half a box because it really is an almost perfect little film and one of Malle's best. Considering that the entire film leads up to an act of incest, it seems to be almost like watching the most natural thing in the world, at least as far as that could be considered natural. Of course, at some point in man's early history, incest must have been the normal way to reproduce, but this film somehow depicts something which seems to be nothing less than a sacred act of love. The mother (Lea Massari) has three sons and a husband who doesn't especially love her anymore. It's 1954, and the youngest son (Benoît Ferreux) is 15 and really getting interested in sex. He goes to a Catholic school, but at the instigation of his older brothers, he loses his cherry at a bordello and then becomes attracted to a couple of girls his own age. While spending some time at a hotel with his mother, the boy almost becomes obsessed with how perfect a female his mother is (as most boys do at some point), but when she realizes that he's "checking her out", she slaps him and makes it clear that it's just plain wrong. However, enough things happen to both the Mother and Son on Bastille Day that something transpires which will undoubtedly shape the rest of their lives, and I, for one, can see it as a unique occurrence, totally loving and positive. The French, They are a Funny Race!
Now this one I feel I'm underrating by a half a box because it really is an almost perfect little film and one of Malle's best. Considering that the entire film leads up to an act of incest, it seems to be almost like watching the most natural thing in the world, at least as far as that could be considered natural. Of course, at some point in man's early history, incest must have been the normal way to reproduce, but this film somehow depicts something which seems to be nothing less than a sacred act of love. The mother (Lea Massari) has three sons and a husband who doesn't especially love her anymore. It's 1954, and the youngest son (Benoît Ferreux) is 15 and really getting interested in sex. He goes to a Catholic school, but at the instigation of his older brothers, he loses his cherry at a bordello and then becomes attracted to a couple of girls his own age. While spending some time at a hotel with his mother, the boy almost becomes obsessed with how perfect a female his mother is (as most boys do at some point), but when she realizes that he's "checking her out", she slaps him and makes it clear that it's just plain wrong. However, enough things happen to both the Mother and Son on Bastille Day that something transpires which will undoubtedly shape the rest of their lives, and I, for one, can see it as a unique occurrence, totally loving and positive. The French, They are a Funny Race!
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The Good German (Steven Soderbergh, 2006)
Soderbergh's attempt to fashion an homage to WWII-era romances is surprisingly-entertaining, but at the same time, it's painted with too-many broad strokes and something which almost resembles an archness which makes it appear that it's actually above the genre for some reason. Just looking at the posters, one can see what's going on, although the film is probably more reminiscent of The Third Man in the plot machinations. Soderbergh shoots the film himself (quite handsomely in glorious black-and-white) as well as carrying out the editing personally. Thomas Newman, who's one of my fave contemporary film composers, does seem to misjudge his score a bit though. It's loud and intrusive at times, but never anything which Max Steiner would have ever done. Even so, I personally get just as much from the score as I could do without it, but it does add to the concept that the filmmakers somehow feel they're not too serious, although George Clooney and Cate Blanchett give appropriate performances and never seem to make light of their situations. I guess what's really missing from the film is the wit and tragic romance which is barely on display at all. I'd love to see Soderbergh make another attempt at this kind of film but with an original script idea next time (and I think Paul Attanasio (Quiz Show, Donnie Brasco, Disclosure) is one of our better mainstream scriptwriters.
Soderbergh's attempt to fashion an homage to WWII-era romances is surprisingly-entertaining, but at the same time, it's painted with too-many broad strokes and something which almost resembles an archness which makes it appear that it's actually above the genre for some reason. Just looking at the posters, one can see what's going on, although the film is probably more reminiscent of The Third Man in the plot machinations. Soderbergh shoots the film himself (quite handsomely in glorious black-and-white) as well as carrying out the editing personally. Thomas Newman, who's one of my fave contemporary film composers, does seem to misjudge his score a bit though. It's loud and intrusive at times, but never anything which Max Steiner would have ever done. Even so, I personally get just as much from the score as I could do without it, but it does add to the concept that the filmmakers somehow feel they're not too serious, although George Clooney and Cate Blanchett give appropriate performances and never seem to make light of their situations. I guess what's really missing from the film is the wit and tragic romance which is barely on display at all. I'd love to see Soderbergh make another attempt at this kind of film but with an original script idea next time (and I think Paul Attanasio (Quiz Show, Donnie Brasco, Disclosure) is one of our better mainstream scriptwriters.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Casque d'Or (Jacques Becker, 1952)
I watched this film three times. The first time through, I found it to be very simple and felt that I'd missed something although the chemistry between Simone Signoret and Serge Reggiani was palpable. The second time, I decided that it was a very powerful treatise on fate and how men are always battling over things without using their brains, The ending was more-powerful this time too, even though I already knew what to expect. The third time I watched it with my wife to get her reaction. She seemed to like it but found much of the plotting predictable. I decided that if it is "simple and predictable", then it's probably an archetypal plot, so the movie needs to be judged on its details. Much of it is ambiguous, but the central romance and the violent set-pieces are well-staged and probably why this film has grown in stature over the years. The scenes between Signoret and Reggiani are completely believable even though they are often silent. The scariest thing about the film to me is that it says that if you're going to be in an intense love affair then all your jealousies are also going to be intense too. (In this film, both sexes are often jealous.) Maybe I'm an old fart, but that usually doesn't seem to work for anything lasting, so I guess that means that if you get into an intense relationship, try to use your head before you violently react and destroy the possibility of lasting happiness.
I watched this film three times. The first time through, I found it to be very simple and felt that I'd missed something although the chemistry between Simone Signoret and Serge Reggiani was palpable. The second time, I decided that it was a very powerful treatise on fate and how men are always battling over things without using their brains, The ending was more-powerful this time too, even though I already knew what to expect. The third time I watched it with my wife to get her reaction. She seemed to like it but found much of the plotting predictable. I decided that if it is "simple and predictable", then it's probably an archetypal plot, so the movie needs to be judged on its details. Much of it is ambiguous, but the central romance and the violent set-pieces are well-staged and probably why this film has grown in stature over the years. The scenes between Signoret and Reggiani are completely believable even though they are often silent. The scariest thing about the film to me is that it says that if you're going to be in an intense love affair then all your jealousies are also going to be intense too. (In this film, both sexes are often jealous.) Maybe I'm an old fart, but that usually doesn't seem to work for anything lasting, so I guess that means that if you get into an intense relationship, try to use your head before you violently react and destroy the possibility of lasting happiness.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Little Dorrit 1 - Nobody's Fault (Christine Edzard, 1988)
My wife and I saw all six hours of this British feature film (in two parts with a dinner break in between) at the theatre in 1988, but I haven't watched it since. I couldn't watch Part 2 at the same time, but Part 1 seemed about how I remembered it before. It's painstakingly-detailed scriptwise, but it's actually a low budget film. The sets, costumes and extras are not what you'd call lavish, but the darkly-ironic plot and excellent cast smooth over some of those problems as well as a sound recording level which seems to fluctuate throughout the film. The centerpiece here is Derek Jacobi's turn as Arthur Clennam, a man who worked abroad with his father but returns home to run the family business after his dad's death. He almost immediately takes an interest in Amy Dorrit (Sarah Pickering), the seamstress of his mother (Joan Greenwood). He visits Amy and her family at a debtor's prison and takes a strong liking to "Little Dorrit"'s flamboyant father (Alec Guinness) and determines to find a way to get the old man out of prison. The emotions expressed in Little Dorrit are honest enough and it keeps your attention OK, but what gives it a little extra is the layer of black humor and almost madness which resides within some of the central characters. Part 2 seems less successful in my mind, partly because the first hour retells much of this film before going off to explain how the next part of the story transpires. If I get a chance, I will watch Part 2 and report back. Yes, that's a threat.
My wife and I saw all six hours of this British feature film (in two parts with a dinner break in between) at the theatre in 1988, but I haven't watched it since. I couldn't watch Part 2 at the same time, but Part 1 seemed about how I remembered it before. It's painstakingly-detailed scriptwise, but it's actually a low budget film. The sets, costumes and extras are not what you'd call lavish, but the darkly-ironic plot and excellent cast smooth over some of those problems as well as a sound recording level which seems to fluctuate throughout the film. The centerpiece here is Derek Jacobi's turn as Arthur Clennam, a man who worked abroad with his father but returns home to run the family business after his dad's death. He almost immediately takes an interest in Amy Dorrit (Sarah Pickering), the seamstress of his mother (Joan Greenwood). He visits Amy and her family at a debtor's prison and takes a strong liking to "Little Dorrit"'s flamboyant father (Alec Guinness) and determines to find a way to get the old man out of prison. The emotions expressed in Little Dorrit are honest enough and it keeps your attention OK, but what gives it a little extra is the layer of black humor and almost madness which resides within some of the central characters. Part 2 seems less successful in my mind, partly because the first hour retells much of this film before going off to explain how the next part of the story transpires. If I get a chance, I will watch Part 2 and report back. Yes, that's a threat.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
To Wong Foo Thanks For Everything, Julie Newmar (Beeban Kidron, 1995)
This is actually a low-key fairy tale about tolerance, being one's self, and always trying to help others in need. Brenda picked this one as a Swayze Tribute movie, and I found it more entertaining than I had previously. It's about two drag queens, Vida (Swayze) and Noxzeema (Wesley Snipes), who take under their wings a "drag princess", Chi-Chi (John Leguizamo) who has a few things to learn before she can become a queen. En route to Hollywood by car, the trio have a run-in with a bigoted sheriff (Chris Penn), and after their cadillac breaks down, they're forced to stay in the boondocks for the weekend. It's little wonder that the three "career girls" change the lives of the locals forever. Although there are some dramatic moments, To Wong Foo is basically a feel-good comedy. The key to the film's charms is that it always takes the characters seriously and rarely resorts to freakish caricatures for its humor (unless you want to count the one about abusive husbands, but I won't count that one). There is also a huge cast of actresses here: Stockard Channing, Blythe Danner, Melinda Dillon, Beth Grant, Alice Drummond, Marceline Hugot and Jennifer Milmore. People often call this a remake or a ripoff of the Australian film The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, and there are plenty of similarities and just as many differences, so to me, it doesn't really matter unless you're trying to collect some money from Hollywood for plagiarism.
This is actually a low-key fairy tale about tolerance, being one's self, and always trying to help others in need. Brenda picked this one as a Swayze Tribute movie, and I found it more entertaining than I had previously. It's about two drag queens, Vida (Swayze) and Noxzeema (Wesley Snipes), who take under their wings a "drag princess", Chi-Chi (John Leguizamo) who has a few things to learn before she can become a queen. En route to Hollywood by car, the trio have a run-in with a bigoted sheriff (Chris Penn), and after their cadillac breaks down, they're forced to stay in the boondocks for the weekend. It's little wonder that the three "career girls" change the lives of the locals forever. Although there are some dramatic moments, To Wong Foo is basically a feel-good comedy. The key to the film's charms is that it always takes the characters seriously and rarely resorts to freakish caricatures for its humor (unless you want to count the one about abusive husbands, but I won't count that one). There is also a huge cast of actresses here: Stockard Channing, Blythe Danner, Melinda Dillon, Beth Grant, Alice Drummond, Marceline Hugot and Jennifer Milmore. People often call this a remake or a ripoff of the Australian film The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, and there are plenty of similarities and just as many differences, so to me, it doesn't really matter unless you're trying to collect some money from Hollywood for plagiarism.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The Black Swan (Henry King, 1942) +
I've always loved this movie and this is the lowest rating I've ever given it, so maybe I've just watched it too many times. It's certainly my vote for the best pirate movie of the '40s. From Tyrone Power melting ice princess Maureen O'Hara to Laird Cregar's imposing Captain Morgan to George Sanders in a hilarious turn as a rival pirate captain and Anthony Quinn as his henchman, and let's not forget Thomas Mitchell as a loyal aide-de-camp to both Power and Cregar; the cast is excellent. The Ben Hecht script is witty and crammed with action and romance. Even the requisite "bath tub F/X" are done well with beautiful Oscar-winning Leon Shamroy color cinematography. In fact, this is one of the few American films made in the '40s where a man and woman (unmarried, yet!) are seen in bed together with neither one having a foot on the floor. Power and O'Hara have to pose as lovers to protect her from George Sanders who wants to take her as his own, so he constantly creeps into her bed chamber to make sure of their relationship. Power is actually sleeping in a makeshift hammock but hops into her bed whenever he hears the door creak open. (You've got to see it to see how entertaining the whole thing is.) Remember, "I always sample a bottle of wine before I buy it. Let's have a sip and see if you're worth taking along."
I've always loved this movie and this is the lowest rating I've ever given it, so maybe I've just watched it too many times. It's certainly my vote for the best pirate movie of the '40s. From Tyrone Power melting ice princess Maureen O'Hara to Laird Cregar's imposing Captain Morgan to George Sanders in a hilarious turn as a rival pirate captain and Anthony Quinn as his henchman, and let's not forget Thomas Mitchell as a loyal aide-de-camp to both Power and Cregar; the cast is excellent. The Ben Hecht script is witty and crammed with action and romance. Even the requisite "bath tub F/X" are done well with beautiful Oscar-winning Leon Shamroy color cinematography. In fact, this is one of the few American films made in the '40s where a man and woman (unmarried, yet!) are seen in bed together with neither one having a foot on the floor.
Power and O'Hara have to pose as lovers to protect her from George Sanders who wants to take her as his own, so he constantly creeps into her bed chamber to make sure of their relationship. Power is actually sleeping in a makeshift hammock but hops into her bed whenever he hears the door creak open. (You've got to see it to see how entertaining the whole thing is.) Remember, "I always sample a bottle of wine before I buy it. Let's have a sip and see if you're worth taking along."
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Hallelujah, I'm a Bum! aka Hallelujah, I'm a Tramp! (for our British friends with cultured sensibilities ) (Lewis Milestone, 1933) +
This was the first time I've seen this offbeat musical, and I have the feeling I may raise my rating with added viewings. It's set during the Depression where Bumper (Al Jolson) plays a tramp who's known as The Mayor of Central Park. His best buddy is Acorn (Eddie Connor), and Bumper constantly has political and economic discussions with a Marxist trashman named Egghead (silent comic Harry Langdon). Now the thing is that Bumper has another good friend in the actual Mayor of New York (Frank Morgan) who gives him money on a daily basis. The real Mayor has a beautiful lover named June (Madge Evans) who eventually attempts suicide when she feels that their relationship is doomed, but she's saved by Bumper who doesn't know who she is and now she's got amnesia to boot! This is the basic set-up of a sweet, funny romantic comedy with lots of songs and rhyming dialogue from Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart. On first glance and listen, it's not nearly as strong as the team's classic Love Me Tonight the year before, but it's very inventive, and I love the way the characters have absolutely no intention of getting a real job because they seem to know that they will lose all chance at happiness if they do. Milestone keeps things watchable, but he always was one of the most visual and visceral of the early talkie directors. My main complaint, I guess, is that the film isn't longer.
) (Lewis Milestone, 1933) +This was the first time I've seen this offbeat musical, and I have the feeling I may raise my rating with added viewings. It's set during the Depression where Bumper (Al Jolson) plays a tramp who's known as The Mayor of Central Park. His best buddy is Acorn (Eddie Connor), and Bumper constantly has political and economic discussions with a Marxist trashman named Egghead (silent comic Harry Langdon). Now the thing is that Bumper has another good friend in the actual Mayor of New York (Frank Morgan) who gives him money on a daily basis. The real Mayor has a beautiful lover named June (Madge Evans) who eventually attempts suicide when she feels that their relationship is doomed, but she's saved by Bumper who doesn't know who she is and now she's got amnesia to boot! This is the basic set-up of a sweet, funny romantic comedy with lots of songs and rhyming dialogue from Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart. On first glance and listen, it's not nearly as strong as the team's classic Love Me Tonight the year before, but it's very inventive, and I love the way the characters have absolutely no intention of getting a real job because they seem to know that they will lose all chance at happiness if they do. Milestone keeps things watchable, but he always was one of the most visual and visceral of the early talkie directors. My main complaint, I guess, is that the film isn't longer.
Last edited by mark f; 12-26-17 at 01:57 AM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Compulsion (Richard Fleischer, 1959)
This is another film version detailing the true-life Leopold and Loeb case which is also documented in Hitch's Rope and Swoon, among other films. Two rich teenage Chicago college students, Steiner [Leopold] (Dean Stockwell) and Strauss [Loeb] (Bradford Dillman), are out for as many thrills as possible, and since Steiner says that he wants Strauss to "command" him, things get well out of hand soon enough when they murder a boy and leave him naked, covered with acid and in a ditch. The problem is that somehow Steiner left his glasses at the crime scene. The District Attorney (E.G. Marshall) does his best to break all the boys' alibis and when he proves successful, the boys' families hire famous attorney Jonathan Wilk [Clarence Darrow] (Orson Welles) to plead the case against capital punishment in a strategic manner during the trial. Although the film begins slightly awkwardly, the basic story and acting soon make it highly-watchable, and then the final third of the movie has Orson Welles reciting an elegantly-condensed version of Darrow's argument against capital punishment which remains to me one of the finest such arguments and one of the best speeches in film history (unfortunately, it's not on YouTube). That argument, as well as Welles' killer final line, make the film something more than simple entertainment.
This is another film version detailing the true-life Leopold and Loeb case which is also documented in Hitch's Rope and Swoon, among other films. Two rich teenage Chicago college students, Steiner [Leopold] (Dean Stockwell) and Strauss [Loeb] (Bradford Dillman), are out for as many thrills as possible, and since Steiner says that he wants Strauss to "command" him, things get well out of hand soon enough when they murder a boy and leave him naked, covered with acid and in a ditch. The problem is that somehow Steiner left his glasses at the crime scene. The District Attorney (E.G. Marshall) does his best to break all the boys' alibis and when he proves successful, the boys' families hire famous attorney Jonathan Wilk [Clarence Darrow] (Orson Welles) to plead the case against capital punishment in a strategic manner during the trial. Although the film begins slightly awkwardly, the basic story and acting soon make it highly-watchable, and then the final third of the movie has Orson Welles reciting an elegantly-condensed version of Darrow's argument against capital punishment which remains to me one of the finest such arguments and one of the best speeches in film history (unfortunately, it's not on YouTube). That argument, as well as Welles' killer final line, make the film something more than simple entertainment.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The Children's Hour (William Wyler, 1961)
OK now, you have to trust me that this 1961 remake is better than the original although maybe "better" is the wrong word. This version, which is far more faithful than the same director's These Three 25 years earlier, isn't really any more entertaining or enlightening, but it's more faithful to Lillian Hellman's original play. These Three basically omitted the lesbian angle and turned it into a menage a trois so the Hays Code would actually pass it, but since the original play did seem to deal more with children's lies than sexual orientation, that earlier film is one which didn't really suffer all that much for quieting down the L-Word. As it is, these two flicks represent the same kind of adolescent dynamics and politics which the 2009 Where the Wild Things Are follows. They both detail extreme emotional lives where the youngsters can highly affect the lives of other youngsters and the adults responsible for them. In that way, Where the Wild Things Are is a much-more kid-friendly, and for that matter, it's even more adult-friendly, so please don't dis Spike Jonze' new flick because no matter how dark or blah you think it is, it can definitely be seen as something which is positive for both adults and kids. In The Children's Hour, Audrey Hepburn is her usual excellent self, but Shirley MacLaine really shines in the more difficult role and she also seems damned sexy too.
OK now, you have to trust me that this 1961 remake is better than the original although maybe "better" is the wrong word. This version, which is far more faithful than the same director's These Three 25 years earlier, isn't really any more entertaining or enlightening, but it's more faithful to Lillian Hellman's original play. These Three basically omitted the lesbian angle and turned it into a menage a trois so the Hays Code would actually pass it, but since the original play did seem to deal more with children's lies than sexual orientation, that earlier film is one which didn't really suffer all that much for quieting down the L-Word. As it is, these two flicks represent the same kind of adolescent dynamics and politics which the 2009 Where the Wild Things Are follows. They both detail extreme emotional lives where the youngsters can highly affect the lives of other youngsters and the adults responsible for them. In that way, Where the Wild Things Are is a much-more kid-friendly, and for that matter, it's even more adult-friendly, so please don't dis Spike Jonze' new flick because no matter how dark or blah you think it is, it can definitely be seen as something which is positive for both adults and kids. In The Children's Hour, Audrey Hepburn is her usual excellent self, but Shirley MacLaine really shines in the more difficult role and she also seems damned sexy too.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Woman of the Year (George Stevens, 1942) -
The last time I tried to discuss this flick, I was double-teamed by Loner and Yoda who both seemed to imply that the film was sexist and that it was a fait accompli that America's second most-important woman (Kate Hepburn) would completely give up her much too complicated career to become Spencer Tracy's "slave" and housewife by cooking waffles and toast at the same time. The reality of the film is this: After Tracy separates from his wife because he cannot live in her apartment where she's on call 24 hours a day and he's a second-class citizen, Kate attends the marriage of her father to the aunt who basically raised her as her own. During the ceremony, Kate breaks down emotionally listening to the words in the marriage and she comes to a realization that she may now understand why her husband left her. She goes to his apartment, tries to make him (disastrously) his fave breakfast and proclaims that she will give up her career to become his housewife/slave. Spencer Tracy explains to her that she needs to stop going from one extreme to another. He doesn't want her to be "Miss Tess Harding" (all career, no family) any more than he wants her to be Mrs. Sam Craig (all family, no career); instead he thinks she should be Tess Harding Craig, which seems blatantly obvious to me that he wants her to have both a career and a family. Go ahead and watch the ending again if you don't believe me.
.
The last time I tried to discuss this flick, I was double-teamed by Loner and Yoda who both seemed to imply that the film was sexist and that it was a fait accompli that America's second most-important woman (Kate Hepburn) would completely give up her much too complicated career to become Spencer Tracy's "slave" and housewife by cooking waffles and toast at the same time. The reality of the film is this: After Tracy separates from his wife because he cannot live in her apartment where she's on call 24 hours a day and he's a second-class citizen, Kate attends the marriage of her father to the aunt who basically raised her as her own. During the ceremony, Kate breaks down emotionally listening to the words in the marriage and she comes to a realization that she may now understand why her husband left her. She goes to his apartment, tries to make him (disastrously) his fave breakfast and proclaims that she will give up her career to become his housewife/slave. Spencer Tracy explains to her that she needs to stop going from one extreme to another. He doesn't want her to be "Miss Tess Harding" (all career, no family) any more than he wants her to be Mrs. Sam Craig (all family, no career); instead he thinks she should be Tess Harding Craig, which seems blatantly obvious to me that he wants her to have both a career and a family. Go ahead and watch the ending again if you don't believe me.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Nice to read your review of Casque d'Or mark, first time I can recall anybody even mention it on here since I joined 
"It's Alive!" (Larry Buchanan, 1969)
That rating is correct, and I believe that Buchanan probably deserves the Mantle of Worst Director of All-Time because I've probably seen at least four of his movies which I give the same rating. For example, I give "Year 2889" too, so I guess you can call that double feature a twofer-zero if you watch them! This is an alleged TV movie, but all that means is that it was a theatrical feature which ended up on TV because they were so cheap that that was the easiest way to make any money off of them. This film is par for the Buchanan course: it's utterly-ridiculous, horribly-acted, incompetently-directed, incredibly-cheap and I've already used far more words than the thing deserves. The only thing of any value in this film is that it does give one a brief look inside Onyx Cave, Arkansas, but since my intelligent father-in-law is from Arkansas, I'll be the first to say that it taints that state big-time. I don't know why I bother, but this film is so stupid that the bad guy throws the good guys into a cave where "It's Alive!". Meanwhile, his housekeeper moseys on in and provides them with food (with no bars between them) and then she walks away, and the prisoners can't seem to figure out to just follow her out the cave!!
That rating is correct, and I believe that Buchanan probably deserves the Mantle of Worst Director of All-Time because I've probably seen at least four of his movies which I give the same rating. For example, I give "Year 2889" too, so I guess you can call that double feature a twofer-zero if you watch them! This is an alleged TV movie, but all that means is that it was a theatrical feature which ended up on TV because they were so cheap that that was the easiest way to make any money off of them. This film is par for the Buchanan course: it's utterly-ridiculous, horribly-acted, incompetently-directed, incredibly-cheap and I've already used far more words than the thing deserves. The only thing of any value in this film is that it does give one a brief look inside Onyx Cave, Arkansas, but since my intelligent father-in-law is from Arkansas, I'll be the first to say that it taints that state big-time. I don't know why I bother, but this film is so stupid that the bad guy throws the good guys into a cave where "It's Alive!". Meanwhile, his housekeeper moseys on in and provides them with food (with no bars between them) and then she walks away, and the prisoners can't seem to figure out to just follow her out the cave!!
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Youth of the Beast (Seijun Suzuki, 1963)
To me, Suzuki is one of the great camp directors in Japanese history. When I call him a camp director, I don't mean that he makes silly monster movies with guys jumping around in monster suits. I mean that he carved out his own niche in police/gangster flicks and then went out of his way to make his films far-out, crazy and unlike those of his contemporaries. Suzuki films tend to be known for how far they can push the envelope, but in a weird or funny way as opposed to anything highly-dramatic or classic. Tokyo Drifter and Branded to Kill border on camp classics, and Youth of the Beast doesn't seem that far off to me, although I'll be the first to admit that it's better in just about any way a film can be better than another. Even so, where else will you see such things as the personalized mini-flame thrower, the upside-down swinging shooting contest and the scene where you call a razor-slicing dude the "Son of a Whore" when the last time he heard those words he carved up a face into what looked like Venetian Blinds? I've watched several more Suzuki films since my brother loves him, and I've written about and posted them in my Reviews section.
To me, Suzuki is one of the great camp directors in Japanese history. When I call him a camp director, I don't mean that he makes silly monster movies with guys jumping around in monster suits. I mean that he carved out his own niche in police/gangster flicks and then went out of his way to make his films far-out, crazy and unlike those of his contemporaries. Suzuki films tend to be known for how far they can push the envelope, but in a weird or funny way as opposed to anything highly-dramatic or classic. Tokyo Drifter and Branded to Kill border on camp classics, and Youth of the Beast doesn't seem that far off to me, although I'll be the first to admit that it's better in just about any way a film can be better than another. Even so, where else will you see such things as the personalized mini-flame thrower, the upside-down swinging shooting contest and the scene where you call a razor-slicing dude the "Son of a Whore" when the last time he heard those words he carved up a face into what looked like Venetian Blinds? I've watched several more Suzuki films since my brother loves him, and I've written about and posted them in my Reviews section.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
To Wong Foo Thanks For Everything, Julie Newmar (Beeban Kidron, 1995)
This is actually a low-key fairy tale about tolerance, being one's self, and always trying to help others in need. Brenda picked this one as a Swayze Tribute movie, and I found it more entertaining than I had previously. It's about two drag queens, Vida (Swayze) and Noxzeema (Wesley Snipes), who take under their wings a "drag princess", Chi-Chi (John Leguizamo) who has a few things to learn before she can become a queen. En route to Hollywood by car, the trio have a run-in with a bigoted sheriff (Chris Penn), and after their cadillac breaks down, they're forced to stay in the boondocks for the weekend. It's little wonder that the three "career girls" change the lives of the locals forever. Although there are some dramatic moments, To Wong Foo is basically a feel-good comedy. The key to the film's charms is that it always takes the characters seriously and rarely resorts to freakish caricatures for its humor (unless you want to count the one about abusive husbands, but I won't count that one). There is also a huge cast of actresses here: Stockard Channing, Blythe Danner, Melinda Dillon, Beth Grant, Alice Drummond, Marceline Hugot and Jennifer Milmore. People often call this a remake or a ripoff of the Australian film The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, and there are plenty of similarities and just as many differences, so to me, it doesn't really matter unless you're trying to collect some money from Hollywood for plagiarism.
This is actually a low-key fairy tale about tolerance, being one's self, and always trying to help others in need. Brenda picked this one as a Swayze Tribute movie, and I found it more entertaining than I had previously. It's about two drag queens, Vida (Swayze) and Noxzeema (Wesley Snipes), who take under their wings a "drag princess", Chi-Chi (John Leguizamo) who has a few things to learn before she can become a queen. En route to Hollywood by car, the trio have a run-in with a bigoted sheriff (Chris Penn), and after their cadillac breaks down, they're forced to stay in the boondocks for the weekend. It's little wonder that the three "career girls" change the lives of the locals forever. Although there are some dramatic moments, To Wong Foo is basically a feel-good comedy. The key to the film's charms is that it always takes the characters seriously and rarely resorts to freakish caricatures for its humor (unless you want to count the one about abusive husbands, but I won't count that one). There is also a huge cast of actresses here: Stockard Channing, Blythe Danner, Melinda Dillon, Beth Grant, Alice Drummond, Marceline Hugot and Jennifer Milmore. People often call this a remake or a ripoff of the Australian film The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, and there are plenty of similarities and just as many differences, so to me, it doesn't really matter unless you're trying to collect some money from Hollywood for plagiarism.
I added this movie to my watchlist for the Directed By Women Countdown. Hubby has seen it, and he likes it, but I've never seen it.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The Children's Hour was pretty great so glad you like it that much. I expected it to be a forgettable drama definitely didn't expect basically a horror film haha. Shirley MacLaine is amazing. Have to say though i'm really not a fan of Audrey Hepburn so far, i haven't liked her that much in anything including The Children's Hour. Not sure what's going on there as i've responded really positively to most of the other highly praised classic actresses, with the possible exception of Marilyn Monroe but i've only seen her in Some Like It Hot.
X
Favorite Movies
Agnes of God (Norman Jewison, 1985) +
Mayhem (John Lynch, 2017) +
An Exercise in Discipline: Peel (Jane Campion, 1986)
Despicable Me (Chris Renaud & Peter Coffin, 2010)
The Minions adore this movie.
It's a Great Life (Frank Thrayer, 1943)
Frozen (Chris Buck & Jennifer Lee, 2013)
The Unholy Rollers (Vernon Zimmerman, 1972)
The Last Picture Show (Peter Bogdanovich, 1971)
Teenager Cybill Shepherd wants to find a man to take her away from her boring Texas town. Her mom Ellen Burstyn has had problems with men for the most part.
Remorques aka Stormy Waters (Jean Grémillon, 1941)
The Wilde Wedding (Damian Harris, 2017) +
Little Women (George Cukor, 1933)
MGM Christmas Trailer (No Director Listed, 1937)
15-year-old Judy Garland sings "Silent Night" with St. Luke's Episcopal Church Choristers of Long Beach, CA.
A Girl's Own Story (Jane Campion, 1986)
The Bells of St. Mary’s (Leo McCarey, 1945)
The Cheaters (Joseph Kane, 1945)
A Christmas Carol (Edwin L. Marin, 1938)
Marley’s Ghost (Leo G. Carroll) informs Scrooge (Reginald Owen) he’s screwed.
Rural Hungary (James A. FitzPatrick, 1939)
The Beach Boys and Satan (Christoph Dreher, 1997) +
The Beach Boys: It's OK (Gary Weis, 1976) +
The Snowman (Dianne Jackson & Jimmy T. Murakami, 1982)
A boy’s snowman comes to life at midnight on Christmas Eve, becomes his best friend and takes him on exciting adventures.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
[center]Andrei Rublev (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1966) Art House Rating
To me, this is Tarkovsky's masterpiece, but I realize that some members believe that the man can do no wrong. To me, that seems really weird. Tarkovsky went out of his way to make films which people could not understand on any basic level. If I could somehow magically understand everything which an artist goes out of his way to make sure that I cannot understand on first appearance, then I would have to think that I was some sort of Idiot Savant.
To me, this is Tarkovsky's masterpiece, but I realize that some members believe that the man can do no wrong. To me, that seems really weird. Tarkovsky went out of his way to make films which people could not understand on any basic level. If I could somehow magically understand everything which an artist goes out of his way to make sure that I cannot understand on first appearance, then I would have to think that I was some sort of Idiot Savant.
Actually I would think 9 year old children would get out more enjoyment of his movies than experienced Hollywood fans who have developed strong prejudices about what movies are supposed to be based on watching Hollywood's style of film. Tarkovsky's movies are a different type of experience than Hollywood's rational style, which depicts linear rational narratives that are a clear representation of a ficticious event. Hollywood's movies are visual representations of novels. While Tarkovsky's The Mirror is abstract film and not representational film: there is no point in making a "novelization" of that Tarkovsky's film since it transcends the concept of rational narrative. While Andrei Rublev is a slightly more rational film but still deviates from a linear rational narrative. Solaris is almost a fully rational film and hence is closer to a Hollywood movie and because of that is regarded as more "accessible".
Anyway my approach to watching Tarvkosky's movies is to try watch it as if it were like visual music instead of trying to "understand" it. Music or abstract art is not a representation of anything concrete and a movie like The Mirror should also be appreciated in the same way. It is also something highly subjective as well, more subjective than Hollywood's movies.
Art movies are hit or miss with me: I was deeply impressed by Tarkovsky and Tarr's movies but I didn't care for Kiarostami's. In my case I felt a deep passion coming out of Tarkovsky's movies while I didn't feel anything but an uncomfortable feeling of aridity coming out of Kiarostami's movies. I even think now that 10 was a joke by Kiarostami to trick movie critics into thinking there was something deep in there (like a cinematic version of the Fountain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)).
While Tarkovsky perfected the concept of film in achieving the sublime through the beauty of sequence of live action cinematography, as a sculpture in time. Indeed, his movies are visual sculptures of time. Hence why I regard him as the greatest art filmmaker. While I regard Kurosawa as the greatest "Hollywood" filmmaker for perfecting movies as a medium of storytelling. It is not that I think that Tarkovsky couldn't do no "wrong" but that his movies represent the most powerful visual experience I ever got out of live action film.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
If you don't understand where a film is going, then how can you feel anything about it?
I agree that my enjoyment of a lot of films is based toward a feeling a film gives me more then understanding the thesis the movie wants to put forward. However, if a movie uses a stylistic language I don't really understand, that I don't see where it goes, I cannot really feel the way the director wants me to feel.
And I can assure you that a 9 year old would go to sleep directly in front of a Tarkovsky
I agree that my enjoyment of a lot of films is based toward a feeling a film gives me more then understanding the thesis the movie wants to put forward. However, if a movie uses a stylistic language I don't really understand, that I don't see where it goes, I cannot really feel the way the director wants me to feel.
And I can assure you that a 9 year old would go to sleep directly in front of a Tarkovsky
__________________
I do not speak english perfectly so expect some mistakes here and there in my messages
I do not speak english perfectly so expect some mistakes here and there in my messages
X
Favorite Movies
X