16th Hall of Fame

Tools    





I watched part of Poison for the Fairies yesterday. I'm going to try to finish it today and hopefully squeeze in Wait Until Dark as well, so I can return them when I go to the library to pick up Naked tomorrow.





Veneno para las hadas(Poison for the Fairies) (Carlos Enrique Taboada, 1984)
Imdb

Date Watched: 5/24/18
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 16th MoFo Hall of Fame, nominated by @pahaK
Rewatch: No


I had some very mixed feelings about this one. Although I was thankful for the relatively short run time, I found the majority of the film to be an absolute chore to get through. The acting by the two leads was pretty unconvincing to me, even for children, and I found Veronica far more annoying than at all creepy or sinister. Making matters worse was the awful sound quality. As the film went on, I began to wonder why this film is rated so highly.

And then the ending happened. I can't say that it came completely as a surprise as I expected it to culminate in something like that, but I didn't expect the cold and calculated method of it. I thought that was wonderful and really elevated the film, but not so much that I can say I actually enjoyed it. I'm probably overrating it in relation to my experience watching it, but those last few minutes were great and I do need to give credit for that.

-



Women will be your undoing, Pépé
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.

I honestly had NO IDEA where you'd be on this film, and sorry they lead didn't work for you. It IS true, if the madman isn't done well for the viewer, it's hard to give "involved" in what happens.
And yes, Hoffman is a great highlight to this film! I got such a kick out of him.



2022 Mofo Fantasy Football Champ
Wait Until Dark



My best comparison for it is a low tier Hitchcock film. It takes awhile for me to get invested in what happens and once I do, the film is pretty much nearing it's end.

I did enjoy the setting of the film and like Hashtag said, it was cool to see the film be in one location. Films like that have always worked for me, much like Rear Window or Dial M for Murder. It was a pretty cool location to use.

I don't want to say the acting is bad because it's not, it's just not that memorable a performance from Audrey Hepburn for me. On a favorites level this may be my lowest of the performances I've seen although it really isn't bad. She did play a believable blind woman certainly. I thoroughly enjoyed Alan Arkins performance, making it the second movie of this Hall of Fame where a supporting character outshines the main one for me.

The ending was ok I suppose. I don't necessarily get the type of it being sensational but at the same time I can see what makes it the highlight of the film since it does certainly build some nice suspense.

Perhaps I've been too critical, but in the end it's just a decent film for me with not much standing out.





Mr Freedom (1969)

I didn't hate it!...Actually, I laughed out loud at some of it. Mr Freedom was so gung-ho that it was hard not to like this overbearing, one track minded, ultra imperialistic bearer of democracy

There's some clever stuff here if you take this moviein context with the time in which it was made, and with the social-political changes that were happening in the world....French students at the time took to the streets in massive protest of the French government's policy which was seen as being nationalistic & imperialistic. The student protesters wanted among other things, self rule for the countries that were under French colonial rule. The protest were so forcefully, that France rewrote it's Constitution.

Today's movie watcher might not be aware of that fact, but the makers of this film clearly had those events in mind, thus labeling the French students as communist ciphers.

And of course Mr Freedom's idea that he will bring democracy to France by bombing half the country to destruction, thus making them negotiate, and accepting a U.S. style democracy, was the U.S. policy in the Vietnam war.

Hint...don't miss the LBJ mask that Mr Freedom has in his secret dressing room. The mask and the JFK wanted for treason poster, both at the start of the film make the intentions of the film perfectly clear.

The actor who played Mr Freedom was perfect for the role and the red headed French woman was a hottie! There's lots of fun crazy costumes and historical references in this strange political satire.

Interesting nom! Now we need to do a 1965-1975 social-political satire HoF, Mr Freedom would be perfect for that.




They Shoot Horses Don't They (1969)

This was a good nom for an HoF and I'm glad it was nominated. It's an important film from a well known director and yet it's not well watched so it's fresh.

But sorry to say I didn't care for the movie. I should have liked this as it's a period piece, which I enjoy, and the story premise is right up my alley too. But the movie just didn't work for me.

It felt like there was a missing 20 minute opening scene that would have set up the motives of the dance contestants. I kept waiting to find out what everyone's backstory was, but it never came. The movie left me emotionally distant. I felt like one of the spectators watching the dance contest...I could see the couples dance, but that's about all I knew of their lives.

I thought Gig Young was the stand out performance here. Red Buttons too, was a good character. But I'm starting to think Jane Fonda might not be all that great of an actress. She always seems to have this one note acting, she's indignant and pissed off in most of her movie roles. Come to think of it, that's the way she came across in real life too. And Michel Sarazin...he seemed like a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming truck.

With an opening scene that established some character back story and motivation, I think this could have been great...Still, I'm glad it was nominated as it's something I would have chosen to watch on my own.




I don't but it's repeatedly said in here.
I don't always feel I need to relate to a character to enjoy the movie. I could name many Hof movies that I liked without being able to relate to the characters. Raul's nom in the 15th L'Avventura, I didn't relate to those characters at all, I mean who could? But still I thought highly of the film and enjoyed watching it.




Mr Freedom (1969)

I didn't hate it!...Actually, I laughed out loud at some of it. Mr Freedom was so gung-ho that it was hard not to like this overbearing, one track minded, ultra imperialistic bearer of democracy

There's some clever stuff here if you take this moviein context with the time in which it was made, and with the social-political changes that were happening in the world....French students at the time took to the streets in massive protest of the French government's policy which was seen as being nationalistic & imperialistic. The student protesters wanted among other things, self rule for the countries that were under French colonial rule. The protest were so forcefully, that France rewrote it's Constitution.

Today's movie watcher might not be aware of that fact, but the makers of this film clearly had those events in mind, thus labeling the French students as communist ciphers.

And of course Mr Freedom's idea that he will bring democracy to France by bombing half the country to destruction, thus making them negotiate, and accepting a U.S. style democracy, was the U.S. policy in the Vietnam war.

Hint...don't miss the LBJ mask that Mr Freedom has in his secret dressing room. The mask and the JFK wanted for treason poster, both at the start of the film make the intentions of the film perfectly clear.

The actor who played Mr Freedom was perfect for the role and the red headed French woman was a hottie! There's lots of fun crazy costumes and historical references in this strange political satire.

Interesting nom! Now we need to do a 1965-1975 social-political satire HoF, Mr Freedom would be perfect for that.
sounds awesome



3:10 to Yuma (2007) R

I had mostly positive memory of this but it seems I got it mixed with some other film.



There's an outlaw leader played by Crowe who gets caught and is being taken to nearby town by some folks including a one legged rancher played by Bale. Rancher's had some bad luck and needs the $200 promised for the job. Outlaw's gang is also after them with the intent of freeing their leader.

To very large degree this whole films exists solely to have Crowe and Bale talking to each other. Crowe's character is charismatic, intelligent and sophisticated thief and murderer while Bale's rancher is a simple man who seems to have only two goals in his life - to keep his family afloat and to earn his son's respect. Interaction between the two could have been good but there are few glaring issues.

There's no proper reasoning for taking Crowe to that train to Yuma. It's not a good thing if the very concept of the film feels forced. This is amplified throughout the journey when his escorts start to die but no one seems to care. Only thing that matters is the pretentious dialogue between the two stars.

Crowe's character, Ben Wade, is also too capable in everything for this kind of movie. He's like a western Hannibal Lecter with some real feelings hidden inside - he's smarter, better shooter, more artistic, more everything than anyone else in the film. Yet for some reason he instantly befriends Bale's rancher and risks everything just to make Bale look good in the eyes of his son. The end just doesn't feel natural at all.

Techically the film is very nice. Acting is top notch as well. Everything looks good, sounds good and even the pacing is fine. The only thing that doesn't work is the script and especially the characters whose motives don't make any sense. A film that relies so heavily on dialogue needs characters that feel real and on that regard Ben Wade is, in my opinion, a total failure and drags the movie down with him.

Russell Crowe can't save badly written character that sinks otherwise promising film.




There's no proper reasoning for taking Crowe to that train to Yuma.
What were they supposed to do with Wade once they caught him?

As to the people holding him being killed off, what about them would make you think they cared much for each other? Dan cared about Dr. Potter and that showed, but he hated Tucker and wanted him dead. McElroy was a stranger who was revealed to have a very dark and violent past. Was he supposed to be sad about that loss?

Crowe's character, Ben Wade, is also too capable in everything for this kind of movie... he's smarter, better shooter, more artistic, more everything than anyone else in the film.
He's a notorious outlaw. You don't gain notoriety as a criminal by being stupid and lacking skills.

Yet for some reason he instantly befriends Bale's rancher and risks everything just to make Bale look good in the eyes of his son. The end just doesn't feel natural at all.
What exactly was Wade risking? He said himself he'd been to Yuma prison twice before and escaped twice before. His captors certainly weren't going to kill him and neither was his gang. It's obvious that he had no real intention of facing the gallows. It's also made pretty clear that he has no affection at all for the men he leads (and, except for Charlie, they don't hold any real affection for him either) and that he has some desire for a simpler life and has respect for Dan. I'd also say that "making Bale look good in the eyes of his son" is oversimplifying the matter. There was still the railroad man's promise to Dan's family for getting Wade on the train to consider - without that money and without Dan, Alice and the boys are doomed.

Obviously you're entitled to your opinions and I'm in no way saying that the film is flawless, but I can't agree with these particular criticisms.



What were they supposed to do with Wade once they caught him?
In Bisbee(?) there was a debate whether to kill Wade there and that idea was discarded on silly notion of his gang destroying the city in that case. Instead they decide it's better for few men to transport him to another town. It would have been safer, easier and more logical for the Pinkerton to just kill him in Bisbee.

As to the people holding him being killed off, what about them would make you think they cared much for each other? Dan cared about Dr. Potter and that showed, but he hated Tucker and wanted him dead. McElroy was a stranger who was revealed to have a very dark and violent past. Was he supposed to be sad about that loss?
I didn't mean them caring for each other but not caring about the fact that Wade was killing his escorts and thus proving himself to be a legitimate threat. Yet no precautions are taken at any point.

He's a notorious outlaw. You don't gain notoriety as a criminal by being stupid and lacking skills.
Sure, but in my opinion he was too much a superman. Prince had all the qualities needed to gain notoriety. Also Wade did some really stupid decisions considering how smart he was otherwise.

What exactly was Wade risking? He said himself he'd been to Yuma prison twice before and escaped twice before. His captors certainly weren't going to kill him and neither was his gang. It's obvious that he had no real intention of facing the gallows.
But it wasn't mentioned if he was facing gallows the previous times or just serving time. I doubt that during that era it didn't take years to carry out the death sentence and, with his reputation, it shouldn't be an issue to ensure his captivity for a few days or even few weeks. In my opinion it was a huge risk.

It's also made pretty clear that he has no affection at all for the men he leads (and, except for Charlie, they don't hold any real affection for him either) and that he has some desire for a simpler life and has respect for Dan.
Most of his men were still competent and presumably rather difficult to replace. It makes no sense he destroys his livelihood (on short term, at least) just because Bale's character got killed.

I'd also say that "making Bale look good in the eyes of his son" is oversimplifying the matter. There was still the railroad man's promise to Dan's family for getting Wade on the train to consider - without that money and without Dan, Alice and the boys are doomed.
This one I don't really get. I even said that Bale wants "to keep his family afloat and to earn his son's respect" so no disagreement here.

EDIT: Thought this more while taking a shower and I think I answered a wrong question, kind of, as we were talking about Wade. Up until Bale tells Wade about his son, while being strangled, Wade was going to go back to his gang and, if necessary, kill Bale. So for Wade it was all about how Bale's son would see his father.

Obviously you're entitled to your opinions and I'm in no way saying that the film is flawless, but I can't agree with these particular criticisms.
Of course. Discussion is good and I'm not saying my opinion is correct - it's just my opinion.



In Bisbee(?) there was a debate whether to kill Wade there and that idea was discarded on silly notion of his gang destroying the city in that case. Instead they decide it's better for few men to transport him to another town. It would have been safer, easier and more logical for the Pinkerton to just kill him in Bisbee.
Given the absolute ruthlessness of Wade's gang, it doesn't seem like a silly notion to me. It was also discarded mainly by McElroy, who had prior experience in dealing with Ben Wade. McElroy and Wade have history.


I didn't mean them caring for each other but not caring about the fact that Wade was killing his escorts and thus proving himself to be a legitimate threat. Yet no precautions are taken at any point.
I'm not sure where this "not caring" is coming from or what precautions exactly you're referring to.



Sure, but in my opinion he was too much a superman. Prince had all the qualities needed to gain notoriety. Also Wade did some really stupid decisions considering how smart he was otherwise.
As second in command, it seems safe to assume that Prince's notoriety would come mainly on Wade's coattails. He may be loyal to a fault, but he's didn't strike me as being a true leader and certainly not the brains of the operation. As to his decisions, to me his mistakes help to make him human. I'm not sure what you're wanting from the character here. Do you want a true superman or a flawed person?


But it wasn't mentioned if he was facing gallows the previous times or just serving time. I doubt that during that era it didn't take years to carry out the death sentence and, with his reputation, it shouldn't be an issue to ensure his captivity for a few days or even few weeks. In my opinion it was a huge risk.
It also wasn't mentioned how long he served before escaping either time. You'd think they'd have done a better job of ensuring the captivity of someone who'd escaped previously, but they apparently did not since he made it out a second time.

Most of his men were still competent and presumably rather difficult to replace. It makes no sense he destroys his livelihood (on short term, at least) just because Bale's character got killed.
On the other hand, it was already established that he had no qualms about killing his own men and he showed far more respect for Dan than he ever showed for any of them.

[color="Red"]EDIT: Thought this more while taking a shower and I think I answered a wrong question, kind of, as we were talking about Wade. Up until Bale tells Wade about his son, while being strangled, Wade was going to go back to his gang and, if necessary, kill Bale. So for Wade it was all about how Bale's son would see his father.
But even at the end, it's unclear as to whether Wade will actually go to Yuma. He gets on, but then gets back off again and seems clearly conflicted when facing William. He only makes his final decision when William turns away and goes to his dying father. At that point, Dan had already redeemed himself in his son's eyes so boarding the train at that point would have no effect on how William regarded Dan.



First I want to make one thing clear - I am nitpicking. At times I wish I wouldn't (I'd actually be able to enjoy far more movies then) but I can't help myself.

Given the absolute ruthlessness of Wade's gang, it doesn't seem like a silly notion to me. It was also discarded mainly by McElroy, who had prior experience in dealing with Ben Wade. McElroy and Wade have history.
But this isn't logical. If they seriously fear that Wade's men would destroy the town as revenge then how can they expect the escort to succeed? And whether it succeeds or not, why wouldn't the outlaws still take their revenge on the town? Wouldn't the only way to escape that fate be letting Wade free?

I'm not sure where this "not caring" is coming from or what precautions exactly you're referring to.
Even after killing the first escort he's still kept practically free (loose chains in front). As a result in Apache lands he very easily gets a weapon (and could have escaped at that point but, again for no reason, chose not to).

As second in command, it seems safe to assume that Prince's notoriety would come mainly on Wade's coattails.
I said he possessed all the traits gaining notoriety would require - prone to violence and means to deliver it. Of course his reputation in the story comes largely from Wade but my meaning was that one doesn't need to be a Renaissance man to gain notoriety, violence and cruelty will do just fine.

As to his decisions, to me his mistakes help to make him human. I'm not sure what you're wanting from the character here. Do you want a true superman or a flawed person?
I mostly want consistency. Whether he's a highly intelligent and calculating leader who has successfully robbed 22 coaches, kept his position as a gang leader and manipulates everyone around him with impeccable insight to other peoples' minds or then you could make him a more flawed man but it's pretty hard to be both. I find it unconvincing that all his supposed flaws miraculously manifest when, and only when, near Bale.

It also wasn't mentioned how long he served before escaping either time. You'd think they'd have done a better job of ensuring the captivity of someone who'd escaped previously, but they apparently did not since he made it out a second time.
Kind of yes, but we don't even know what he was doing time for. Maybe he wasn't considered that dangerous back then.

On the other hand, it was already established that he had no qualms about killing his own men and he showed far more respect for Dan than he ever showed for any of them.
Unless I'm mistaken he didn't kill any of his own men before the end (that one guy in the beginning was shot by a Pinkerton hiding in the wagon). I don't recall any obvious shows of disrespect either.

But even at the end, it's unclear as to whether Wade will actually go to Yuma. He gets on, but then gets back off again and seems clearly conflicted when facing William. He only makes his final decision when William turns away and goes to his dying father. At that point, Dan had already redeemed himself in his son's eyes so boarding the train at that point would have no effect on how William regarded Dan.
In a sense, yes but without him actually getting on board William wouldn't have had anything to show for his father's accomplishments. Yes, he would have known what his father did but in the eyes of the world he would still have been a son of a failed man. It's a matter of perspective whether he needed to get on the train or not to fulfill his observed duty to Dan.

Also, this really hasn't much to do with my complaint which is more about Wade even considering it's worth his freedom and lives of his men to either redeem Dan in the eyes of his son or to secure his family's financial status. When his gang arrived to Contention he was clearly going to leave with them. I think his decision to do otherwise is uncharacteristic and not logical.



Just to assure that this goes through



Connor Macgregor Reviews...Frances Ha

INTRO: I went in with low expectations for this film, not really thinking much about it or looking into the background in many ways. But man was I surprised. Really, really surprised.

SUMMARY: Frances lives in New York, but she doesn't really have an apartment. Frances is an apprentice for a dance company, but she's not really a dancer. Frances has a best friend named Sophie, but they aren't really speaking anymore. Frances throws herself headlong into her dreams, even as their possible reality dwindles. Frances wants so much more than she has but lives her life with unaccountable joy and lightness.

GRETA GERWIG: By far the main draw of this film is Greta Gerwig who plays Frances. She's a real, ditzy, quirky filled character with lots of personality and a happy go lucky attitude to life. While she might not be everyone's cup of tea, I found the character lovely to watch. She's not perfect, her life is very disorganised, and she really struggles to establish a social circle outside her best friend Sophie. Yet the character is positive, a go-getter, someone who never gives in to the sadness and melancholy of life. Greta Gerwig's performance is great, and very memorable.

PERSONALITY: Something also very important to talk about is the film's personality as a whole. The choice to go Black & White was brave, but also fitting. I couldn't imagine seeing this film in colour and it having the same effect on me when watching it again. The choice of music is fun and funky. I've never heard of David Bowie's Modern Love, so that was a fun listen to have in this film. I love the way the film is shot too, harking back memories of Woody Allen's Manhatten in a lot of ways. Strangely, I also really enjoyed the way the film was paced. It was natural, not forced, yet you had the idea that a lot of time had passed in such a small running time. Finally, there's the themes too. The fracturing of a friendship; New experiences; Living in New York. A lot of these are relatable and can be felt by many who've watched the film before.

OVERALL: Frances Ha is just a wild, fun, yet poignant film in many ways. It deals with friendship and surviving in an expensive and brutal city like New York, with collective and quirky performances from all side. Definitely an underrated gem.

RATING: 100% - A+



But this isn't logical. If they seriously fear that Wade's men would destroy the town as revenge then how can they expect the escort to succeed? And whether it succeeds or not, why wouldn't the outlaws still take their revenge on the town? Wouldn't the only way to escape that fate be letting Wade free?
Maybe the outlaws would, maybe they wouldn't, but they would at least be distracted for awhile by chasing after Wade's captors. Kill him on the spot and death and destruction would immediately follow. The men also seemed to have a decent amount of faith in their switcheroo scheme.


Even after killing the first escort he's still kept practically free (loose chains in front). As a result in Apache lands he very easily gets a weapon (and could have escaped at that point but, again for no reason, chose not to).
But he did escape in Apache territory. Once he got the gun, his first priority was in taking out the Apache that were shooting at him. Then he made his escape, but only after failing to procure the keys to the cuffs.


I said he possessed all the traits gaining notoriety would require - prone to violence and means to deliver it. Of course his reputation in the story comes largely from Wade but my meaning was that one doesn't need to be a Renaissance man to gain notoriety, violence and cruelty will do just fine.
Being prone to violence would not be not enough to gain notoriety as an outlaw - you have to successfully do that multiple times and either not get caught or to not stay caught for long - hence the need for intelligence and skill.

Being a renaissance man might not be required of any outlaw, but it certainly would be the traits that earned Wade the position of gang leader.

I mostly want consistency. Whether he's a highly intelligent and calculating leader who has successfully robbed 22 coaches, kept his position as a gang leader and manipulates everyone around him with impeccable insight to other peoples' minds or then you could make him a more flawed man but it's pretty hard to be both. I find it unconvincing that all his supposed flaws miraculously manifest when, and only when, near Bale.
Except we see almost nothing of him when he's not near Bale so we know very little about him beyond that relationship. We do know, however, that he'd been captured by law officials at least twice before, so this wasn't his first time slipping up. He's also still human and all humans are flawed.


Kind of yes, but we don't even know what he was doing time for. Maybe he wasn't considered that dangerous back then.
Yes, his prison time is a big question mark, but it seems to me that his two previous successful escapes would be enough to give him the confidence to believe he could do it a third time.


Unless I'm mistaken he didn't kill any of his own men before the end (that one guy in the beginning was shot by a Pinkerton hiding in the wagon). I don't recall any obvious shows of disrespect either.
I think you need to watch that scene again. The Pinkerton did not kill that man, Wade did.

As to disrespect, besides showing a willingness to kill anyone who screws up, he calls them all animals. Also, once the gang discovers they've been duped and it isn't Wade in the coach, it's only Charlie who is willing to go back the other way to save him. The others argue that it's too far to go and that Wade got himself caught and Charlie has to convince them to go with him. Charlie is the only member of that gang who shows any loyalty to anybody else in it.

In a sense, yes but without him actually getting on board William wouldn't have had anything to show for his father's accomplishments. Yes, he would have known what his father did but in the eyes of the world he would still have been a son of a failed man. It's a matter of perspective whether he needed to get on the train or not to fulfill his observed duty to Dan.
Now you're changing your argument. You said that he only did it to make Bale look good in the eyes of his son, but the son's mind had already been changed. If that's the case then it was only William who needed to know of Dan's courage and he saw it with his own eyes. No proof to show required and the eyes of the world be damned. But if he doesn't get on the train, there's no payout for Dan's family. They'll lose their home and Dan's death will be in vain.

Also, this really hasn't much to do with my complaint which is more about Wade even considering it's worth his freedom and lives of his men to either redeem Dan in the eyes of his son or to secure his family's financial status. When his gang arrived to Contention he was clearly going to leave with them. I think his decision to do otherwise is uncharacteristic and not logical.
I disagree. At that point, yes he intended to go with them, but he changed his mind multiple times between their arrival in Contention and him actually getting on the train. He was clearly conflicted between a desire to do something good and to be free again. Also once he'd decided to kill Charlie, he had to kill the rest of the gang or they would've turned on him.