16th Hall of Fame

Surprised you liked it Cricket. One thing i liked about it is

Sounds like I'll love it

__________________
"A film has to be a dialogue, not a monologue — a dialogue to provoke in the viewer his own thoughts, his own feelings. And if a film is a dialogue, then it’s a good film; if it’s not a dialogue, it’s a bad film."

- Michael "Gloomy Old Fart" Haneke

If anyone else has access to Fandor and needs a way to watch Three Monkeys, send me a pm. Half ass write up coming in a while.

14 reviews already from 8 different people. A nice start I would say.

Make that 15 from 9!



Connor Macgregor Reviews...Call Me By Your Name

INTRO: Everyone was raving about Call Me By Your Name before I watched it. The acclaim, the accolades, the sheer buzz around this film was intense. So when finally watching it, I had high expectations, and they were met pretty comfortably.

SUMMARY: In early-1980s northern Italy, amid the lush Mediterranean landscapes of a serene and golden summer, 17-year-old, Elio, visits the family's summer villa to spend his vacation with his father and Greco-Roman culture professor, Mr Perlman, his translator mother, Annella, and the American doctoral student who works there as an intern, Oliver. But, little by little, over the course of six fleeting weeks, a timid friendship between Elio and Oliver will prepare the ground for an unexpected bond, as the unexplored emotions of first love start boiling over. Could this sun-kissed romance in Lombardy be the prelude to maturity?

THE CAST: You have such a strong cast in this film. We'll begin with Timothee Chalamet who is very much the lead, and like Jennifer Lawrence in 2010, becomes a major star because of this film. His childlike innocence compared that with his growth into adulthood is captured perfectly in this film. It's very much a perfect coming of age film. Arnie Hammer is also great in the film, playing an older, cocky, yet confident male that is easily attractive both physically and personality wise. Their characters, Elio & Oliver make a beautiful couple as a result. This is also the film I discovered Esther Garrel, who is brilliant as Elio's sort of girlfriend Marzia, a young woman also growing up, and also confused in her own way. There's also the wonderful Michael Stuhlberg who plays Elio's father who is arguably one of cinema's greatest dads even if he doesn't really do much in the film.

SETTING: What makes CMBYN such a special film is its setting. It's arguably paradise like nothing else on earth. The house, the weather, the trees, the picturesque small sleepy town, you can almost feel the heat breaking through the screen, the water falling down your skin. The film's sensual power is untouched like nothing else in cinematic history. I've never felt like that before with a film, ever. Add the beautiful music by Sufjan Stevens (Mystery Of Love I can't stop playing) and you have a film that goes almost beyond a film in its connection with the viewer.

OVERALL: Call Me By Your Name is the type of film you watch to relax yourself with after a long hard day’s work. It’s LGBT theme is simple and effective, portraying itself as a love story first more than anything else. Absorbing and delightful, it’s a film that will leave an impression on you for a very long time.

RATING: 99% - A

I started They Shoot Horses yesterday. Will probably finish it today and post a review. Might watch something else too.

__________________

Call me by your Name (2017)

I didn't quite know what to expect. My two flatmates are gay, with very different ages (38 and 25) so I watched this with them when it came out in the cinema. Obviously it resonated in them more than it did with me, especially because they both had quite similar stories. However, I feel this is not a type of story that only gay men live, the same can happen in a straight couple (though not as common, I think). It achieves this because it just tries to be a simple love story, instead of a preaching film about the LGBT rights, which I found quite refreshing, and alone deserves a positive rating.

I liked the acting pretty much, especially by the lead couple. I found their chemistry to be really compelling and everything seemed really natural. The characters are portrayed as these annoying pseudo-intellectual guys, but I get where that comes from, even if I took a while to feel confortable with.

The sountrack is very very good and was one of the elements I liked the most about the film. It fits the setting and the story perfectly, making it easy to be absorbed by what goes on the screen.

Overall, I was looking at this as an average film with nothing wrong about it, but also nothing really extraordinary, but the last scene is a huuuge bonus in my opinion. That dialogue between Elio and his father gives the whole film a depth that was absent till then, in my opinion.

I didn't know anything about this going in and I haven't read anything about it since watching.

SPOILERS
Great job at gaining my interest immediately, and with the way it started, I thought it was going to be a thriller. It turns out to be an intense drama. It's the kind of story I really enjoy. No real complaints although I feel like I could have used more detail on some things, like what exactly happened to the son when he was injured, and what happened to the other son. I went back and forth on my feelings toward the mother. I thought it was awful what she did, but on the other hand she must have a miserable life. The way she became obsessed with the politician at first seemed odd, but then I thought maybe he was almost a representation of a much better life in general. On the other hand still, the whole family must be miserable since they apparently suffered a tragedy. It's just a life that makes you appreciate what you have. The slow burn of the events unfolding kept me on the edge of my seat. The filmmakers could have easily gone for some harsh knockout moments, but instead took an even-keeled approach. That probably makes for a better and more realistic movie. I would have said go for the gusto, because as much as I enjoyed this, it wasn't that far off from being a favorite. A couple of holy crap moments could have gotten me there. The cinematography and sound quality are superb and the performances are strong. It was a real good movie and a great nomination.

I'm very glad you enjoyed it cricket! As you've said, the cinematography and the sound design are fantastic. Every time I think about the film, the sounds of the train accompany my thoughts. I love me some miserable and depressing films, and I think Three Monkeys is among the best of them in that regard.

I almost nominated a movie that has a lot of similarities. It'll probably be my nom for the 17th.

3:10 To Yuma

"Even bad men love their mama."

A true western in it's very essence and a definitive must see for Western fans looking to venture into movies made within the past decade or so. The story is originally written by Elmore Leonard, a favorite writer of mine, and a remake of the 1957 version with Glenn Ford and Van Heflin (which I truly need to see since I've only saw it as a kid and scarcely remember or can truly appreciate it as I would now) so I cannot confirm how close to the novel or original movie it comes, but I do know, on it's own merits, I rate it very highly.

Leonard's characters are rarely, strictly good OR evil. They are human. And we see this and, in any good Western, we see a deeper message of honor, and doing what needs to be done, to the very end.
Ben Wade, played with roguish style by Russell Crowe is caught after committing a violent stagecoach robbery of Railroad funds.
To get him to the town of Yuma and the train to jail, Dan Evans, a nearly broken rancher/farmer, played with a believable mixture of humility and nobility (which ain't easy) of a simple man trying to provide for his family against odds determined to make him fail; is willing to come along for the price of paying off past debts to make it happen.

Along with some minor roles done wonderfully by Peter Fonda and Alan Tudyk, who also go to make sure that Crowe's character makes his train, a favorite scene-stealer, for me, is---

Ben Foster playing Crowe's #2 man, Charlie Prince with such a dangerous serenity in a VERY sharp coat, I simply f@ckin love his character.

As previously stated, this is reminiscent of the Old School Westerns and the Codes that rang true for them, sans any naivety, along with some great shoot outs and action scenes, there are some truly excellent dialogue throughout this film. As I say, a must see for Western fans and a very worthwhile film for those that are not, so much.

Great write up, @edarsenal !

So glad you still loved it. I also totally agree about Ben Foster. Obviously I saw the movie because I love Russell Crowe - and he is fantastic as Ben Wade - but Foster stole the show for me, too. Love that performance so much.

As to the 50s version, I watched it after becoming completely enamored with Mangold's take on the story - and was very disappointed. Although the basic story is the same, I found the characters far less engaging (though the 50s Charlie Prince had some decent lines) and absolutely HATED the ending, which is completely different from this one.

I finished They Shoot Horses earlier today, but am struggling with the write up. Still hoping to get it done tonight.

Sorry to hear that about the original. That sucks. Though I had a feeling that Crowe and Bale had REALLY delivered those characters far better without seeing the original.
I'd hate to think what the ending in the original is, since this one seems to ring true of the writer's style of endings.

Looking forward to hearing what you have to say about They Shoot Horses. I finished Waterloo Bridge yesterday and not sure if I'll have the time to post my review tonight or not.

I wasn't a fan of the original either. I'm looking forward to this one even more now that I know Ben Foster is in it. He's been great in everything I've seen him in.

They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (Sydney Pollack, 1969)
Imdb

Date Watched: 05/19/18
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 16th MoFo Hall of Fame, Nominated by @cricket
Rewatch: No.

Although I've known of this film for some time, it was only by its reputation as a quality film. I was completely ignorant of its content until I pressed play.

And I came away with very mixed feelings about it. I liked the sort of spectacle of cruelty that the dance marathon represented and how it reflects how much people enjoy watching others suffer and the lengths to which people will go in the name of entertainment or in the pursuit of money or perceived fame, whether it be from greed or desperation. But at the same time, the premise also meant that meaningful interaction between the characters - and, therefore, proper development of those characters - was limited. As a result, they came off to me as being very one dimensional and too much so for me to care about them. This was especially true for Gloria and as a result I felt nothing when the film came to a close.

None of which is to say that I think it's not a good movie. It's a well constructed film and I can kinda see why it clicks so well for others, but unfortunately it just didn't do that for me.

+

3:10 to Yuma (James Mangold, 2007)
Imdb

Date Watched: 5/20/18
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 16th MoFo Hall of Fame, nominated by me
Rewatch: Yes

I've never much considered myself a fan of Westerns. There are a handful of them that I really love, but overall I find the genre to not really suit my tastes. James Mangold's 3:10 to Yuma is a big exception to that and became an instant favorite when I first watched it eleven years ago.

It has all of the aspects of the genre that you expect to see - gun fights, drinking, beautiful women, horses, and gorgeous landscapes but all of those things are completely secondary to the relationships between the characters. And these relationships are what really draw me into the film.

The story centers around one particular relationship - the uneasy truce and growing respect between Russell Crowe's Ben Wade, an infamous outlaw who has been captured and is to be transported to Contention to board a train to Yuma prison, and Christian Bale's Dan Evans, a struggling rancher, husband, and father desperate to save his home and redeem himself in the eyes of his family, who has volunteered to escort Wade to the train for a price. I've never been a fan of Bale and would in fact list him among my least favorite actors, but in this role he is solid. His stoicism and restrained emotion work well to embody the self loathing and desperation of the downtrodden rancher who still holds on to his principles. Not surprisingly though, he is outshown by Russell Crowe who brings charisma, intensity, a cunning playfulness, and just a touch of sensitivity to a man that is also a ruthless killer and remorseless thief.

But the performance that impressed me most - not just this time, but the first time and every time - has been Ben Foster as Charlie Prince, Ben Wade's second in command with a cool swagger, a great sense of style, and fantastic lines. But more importantly, this cold blooded killer is also a man of dedication and unwavering loyalty. And as much as he deserved what came to him in the end, I couldn't help but feel a twinge of pity at the betrayal he suffered.

And that to me is what really makes it a great film. Things are not truly black and white. The characters are human, the lines between heroes and villains are blurred, and I am able to become just as emotionally invested in each.

+

obviously, I fully agree on every point about Yuma.
It seemed everyone really stepped up as far as the acting goes in this, along with every other great aspect about it.

I've got Yuma coming for next weekend.

if you upload the movies to pornhub they wont be taken down

Perfume: Story of a Murderer



I hadn't heard of this film coming into the Hall of Fame. For some reason I thought it was some goofy based on a true story tale, but now I know it is fiction.

It's problem for me is that it all seems a bit too farfetched. Yes, I know that there have been more insane things that people have done historically and also in make believe in movies, but it was really hard to make it seem like Anything realistic or logical even for this insane man to do. The hardest part perhaps for me was I wasn't all that convinced of the performance of Ben Whishaw. In order for me to like a movie about a madman, I need to like the performance of the actual madman, and he didn't do any favors. The idea is so out there that he needed to be convincing. Heck, he wasn't even convincing in his murders as they didn't seem all that realistic to me.

I did like the score of the film though and a complete kudos package goes to Dustin Hoffman for his performance as Baldini. He was the absolute highlight of the film for me. For the most part the cinematography was on point too.

I do think for the most part people will like this though. I can see it doing good. And I can't even really call it a bad film, just one I didn't care for although like I said there were some merits to it.