16th Hall of Fame

You sure you weren't mistaking Dustin Hoffman as a chick He did have lots of make up on!

Naked



Starting to feel a little bit like Miss Vicky in this Hall of Fame but this one was a pretty big disappointment for me. Yes the direction by Mike Nichols was quite solid and there was a good lead performance by David Thewlis, but outside of that I really wasn't entertained. And that's what I need most from movies is to be entertained and engaged, not worrying about how much time until it ends, which I unfortunately was wondering often frankly. I know Swan and Camo love this movie so I was a bit shocked it didn't work much for me. Partly thought that may be to me having no interest in the secondary characters of the film. They were all so bland to me. I also thought the swearing was a bit forced in the film. Not the end of the world, but it seemed like it was just trying to be more "cool" than anything else. Because of the respect of Thewlis and Nichols it isn't a terrible grade from me, but I still left disappointed.

-

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (Tom Tykwer, 2006)
Imdb

Date Watched: 6/11/18
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 16th MoFo Hall of Fame, nominated by @edarsenal
Rewatch: No

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer is a very sensual yet deeply unsettling film with very dark themes. I really loved the look of it, with its rich colors and admirable attempt to bring scents to the screen. I did go into it with some reservations, however. I expected to be very much put off by the considerable amount of narration as well as by its fantasy elements. I also found myself caring very little for its characters and yet I still was very much engrossed in the story it told.

Or, at least, I was for the first two hours or so. Unfortunately, however, I was much less enraptured by the end of Perfume, where its fantastical elements pushed a bit too far and my ability to suspend disbelief was stretched beyond its limits. As is generally the case, the fault here probably lies more with me than with the film, but it is what it is. Still, I really enjoyed about 80% of it - and that's much more than I can say for a lot of movies.

__________________

Yeah James Mangold sure did pull out some great former child actors.


Ben Foster (the blonde bad guy)




Logan Lerman (the son...discovered by Mel Gibson in The Patriot)




Christian Bale

and THAT I take as very high in praise since there were SOOO many aspects of this that you'd not care for Vicky, so I am pretty d@mn happy that you did find some enjoyment in it.
YAY

__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes

~Mr Minio

What's everyone got on deck next? Probably 3:10 to Yuma for me.

Is that a rewatch for you or a first time?

All I have left is a rewatch of Call Me By Your Name. I'm still aiming to have my ballot in by this weekend. I probably won't get to it tonight, but maybe tomorrow or Thursday.

First time.

Very excited because I think it will be something I like.

Hopefully it is. You've had a rough time so far with films, perhaps that'll be the one to turn the corner.

I do need to knock a few more in the Foreign HoF while have noticed that Frances Ha AND Call Me By Your Name is on Netflix stream, so, perhaps. . .

I have two left. There are 11 noms, right?

I have Wait Until Dark (1967) which I'll watch soon. It's a rewatch and I did like it alot on the 1st watch.

And I have Naked (1993), but I'm going to wait until close to the deadline to watch that one.

Call Me by Your Name (2017) n

I didn't expect to like this very much and it matched those expectations.

So Call Me by Your Name is a film about a summer romance. It's so rooted in the everyday, ordinary life that there's no feeling of escapism at all and for me that almost always means boring movie experience. I think the romance itself is well written and characters feel believably awkward (unlike in majority of Hollywood romances) but there's nothing exciting (for me at least) in this slice of life.

From technical point of view I think the film was way too long. It should have ended with Elio sitting at the train station (1:53 and something) but there's a long pedagogical wrap up that adds nothing. Also prior to that the film was already dragging and could have used some heavy editing; there's no need to stretch a light summer romance to epic proportions. The romance being homosexual doesn't automatically make the film deeper.

Acting was great. It really felt like watching actual people instead of rehearsed actors. I don't think the acting style would work on that many films but here it was perfect match. I didn't feel much chemistry between Elio and Oliver though (it may be because they're both men but I don't think so, or just an unwanted side effect of the way they're acting). Cinematography and direction were good too. Soundtrack was OK (except for that terrible song during the end credits).

There was one little thing that annoyed me too. It's not exactly this film's fault (maybe I'm wrong and it's my fault to even assume so) but I doubt the film would be so praised if it wasn't about a gay romance; if Elio had been a 17-year-old girl whose parents were supporting her romance with their 30+ year-old summer guest. I don't personally mind the age difference either way but I assume more people would if Elio had been a girl.

A down-to-earth romance that takes way too much time to tell its simple and light story.

It may be a simple way of seeing it, but for me the escapism automatically came with the beautiful location.

Naked then finishing with They Shoot Horses Don't They


James Mangold is a favorite director of mine, I've given two of his films in Copland and Logan. Elmore is also one of my favorite writers so the combination of those two made me enjoy this film tremendously. This was a rewatch for me.

The first hour of the film is damn near perfect, the assembling of the fellowship and elimination of the group is great. I love a good one by one elimination (also done in Mangold's fantastic Identity). I found the second hour to be a bit problematic, I thought the pacing fell off once they entered the Chinese work camp and the finale left me a bit cold.

I think the movie has a central theme of morality, decisions and the deaths sort of correlated with the faults and flaws of man. But they sort of got rid of that at a certain point and I found the ending to be a bit too predictable and heavy handed.

I think it would have been a five star and a classic had they stayed on theme and spoiler

Call Me By Your Name (Luca Guadagnino, 2017)
Imdb

Date Watched: 06/13/18
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 16th MoFo Hall of Fame, nominated by @MovieMad16
Rewatch: Yes.

I first watched this film about two months ago. I'd had high hopes for it, but somehow struggled to connect and was ultimately disappointed, though I did appreciate the look of the film and thought it was well crafted. I'm not sure what exactly went wrong last time, but after tonight's rewatch I can confidently say that the issue then was something other than the film.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say that I truly loved it this time around, I was completely engrossed in the story and felt strongly for Elio's journey. I think Timothée Chalamet did a splendid job of portraying the curiosity, confusion, and longing of a young man coming of age, discovering his sexuality, and summoning the courage to pursue what he wants. I was also a lot more taken with Armie Hammer's performance here as the conflicted Oliver and bought into the romance between them.

And, as before, I still loved the look of the film. The breathtaking backdrop of Italy was the perfect setting for the doomed love affair, and the pastels and muted colors leant the whole thing a dream-like quality that was very fitting. The music too, really helped to enhance the film and add to the feelings of excitement, discovery, and loss.

I'm really glad that I decided to give Call Me By Your Name this second chance instead of letting my previous experience be the only impression I get of it. I don't know that it will ever be a personal favorite film, but it is one that I now both respect and genuinely enjoy.

+

Ballot sent.

Waterloo Bridge (1931) n

A theatrical melodrama set in WW1 era London.

I had to watch this in two pieces because the audio made it quite difficult to comprehend dialogue (as a matter fact this was mostly an issue with Kitty so the problem was much smaller during the latter part of the film). Otherwise the Youtube copy was rather decent.

I found the main characters hard to like or even take seriously. Roy was stupefyingly naive and Myra was stereotypical "I don't deserve to be happy because..." pessimist. It just felt awkward how things evolved between the two especially when pretty much everyone else but Roy knew what was going on.

I was bored quite a bit by the endless proposal rejection cycle that didn't seem to have anything to say nor did it really deepen the characters either. Roy's stepfather was annoying one joke pony with his bad hearing. Kittty (as much as I understood what she was saying) was like an evil fairy whispering her filth to Myra who, despite of actually being rather decent person, probably believed herself to be like Kitty (at least that's how I interpreted her unwillingness to get married).

I don't know how I felt about the end. Usually I'm in favor of dark and tragic twists but here it seemed a little forced. It might be because the execution of the scene was bad but I don't think it did fit the film that well.

Visually I thought the film was too theatrical; most of the city and indoors sets were built and framed just like in a stage (there were exceptions but too few to my liking). Acting was also theatrical and neither of leads seemed very natural.

A dull melodrama about the hopeless love of two disturbingly pathetic characters.

That's because.... A) it was based on a stage play....And B) in the 1930s movies were often done as extensions of the stage. It's the style.

Just like hip hop is a style today or big band was a style in the 40s. It's OK if someone doesn't like the style...but in the framework of what the film was trying to do and in the time it was made, I think it succeeded.

I kinda get it but still there are plenty of old(er) films that aren't so explicitly like that (i.e. it's not that people in the 30s couldn't make movies otherwise). So it's a stylistic choice and as such one that I don't like.

That's cool. We all can't like all of the same things. I repped your review, even though you didn't like my nom, I still appreciate an honest opinion

Man, I seem to not like most of the noms