16th Hall of Fame

Good. I don't have a Youtube account so I couldn't sign in to check...even though I'm plenty old enough

Yeah, it didn't pop up for me either. I'll try to look it later today.

Thanks @Citizen Rules

Mr. Freedom (1968) n

A satire about USA, its (foreign) politics, capitalism and all other evil things of the West.



Mr. Freedom is like a simple sketch that goes on and on overstaying its welcome by a large margin. It has a handful of witty or funny ideas but not nearly enough to carry its 95 minutes. I suppose the message and ideological preaching was more important to William Klein than making a good film.

In the film we have Mr. Freedom, an American superhero and an agent of Freedom Inc. whose job is to spread freedom across the globe and defend the American interests. In France there's been a rise of Anti-Freedom activity and Mr. Freedom is sent to deal with it. Along with the French opposition Soviets and Chinese cause problems to Mr. Freedom.

In theory the concept could have resulted in a good movie but in practice it didn't. Everything from writing to acting to directing is just so terribly sloppy. On the ideological level the film is also pretty confusing. Sure, Vietnam War was a fiasco but Klein's portrayal of USA as a fascist nation that'll bomb everyone who disagrees with them doesn't really grow on me, especially as he's simultaneously bowing far to the left. At least I got the impression that he only doesn't hate Freedom but also freedom.

A failed satire that's more interested in preaching than being funny and entertaining.

Still over a month but hoping to see more reviews soon from @neiba @MovieMad16 @Okay @HashtagBrownies @edarsenal

The rest of us are pretty much cruising.

I'll try and get something out at the weekend. That or early next week.

Seriously, moving. Takes a lot out of ya.

Sloppy....what film did you watch

















Also while I have no doubt you were "confused" by the US foreign policy I would remind you that the film was shot in 1967, it went to the festivals in 1968 and was released in 1969. The Vietnam war didn't end until 1975, it's very much a protest film.

Planning to watch 3:10 to Yuma tonight.

I'm well aware of this (hence the failed satire). To me the film was like a modern internet straw man - Klein created his fascist US with Nazi eagles and all and tried to make fun of his own creation (delusion?) instead of rooting his protest to reality at all. To me it was basically a daydream about communist uprising in France (yes, there were some parallels with Vietnam and the film's France on that regard).

So it was a failed satire...and then you described what satire is. It seems to me that you couldn't remove your own personal bias towards the films politics. You should be objective enough to look at art and see it's values without needing to agree with it's message.


You wanted what it to be more grounded...the movie has a villainous Jesus and a giant inflatable Dragon. If they could have made a giant straw man they would have put it in the film.

yeah, I am SERIOUSLY slacking right now.
Will be correcting that.

__________________
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

I was expecting to not enjoy this that much as I can't stand Westerns, but this was a pleasant surprise. It wasn't half bad. Both of our leads were written and performed very well (Bale's character was really interesting). The action was pretty good (Especially at the ending). While alot of people are praising the scenery, something about it seems a little dull to me. I much preferred the scenery of Mangold's Logan, which takes place primarily in the desert also. I definitely agree with Cricket on this being more of a 'popcorn flick' than a 'piece of art'.

That's all I can say about it really. Interesting nom Vicky.

+

Just a couple of things more as I don't want to get too involved in this discussion.

1) I'm sure my personal bias affects my enjoyment. That is true with everyone (though unlike some I rate films purely on entertainment value).

2) My comments about sloppy were objective. I don't think the film has much technical / artistic value. It is very simplistic sketch stretched to film length with bad acting, writing, directing and cinematography. It being a satire is no excuse for its flaws.

3) I don't want it to be more grounded. I just want it to have something legible to say about its target instead of just yelling "US / capitalism are evil, join the red revolution" in few different ways.

4) A good satire (in my opinion) does not just make one side a caricature of evil while worshiping the other side without a question. Instead of good satires I'd rather group it with propaganda films made in Nazi Germany for their equally sophisticated evaluation of their targets. I don't know the exact dates when Mr. Freedom was shot but stuff like Prague Spring makes its approach feel very hypocritical.

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006) R

Last HoF16 film besides my own nomination which I'll rewatch later. A filming of a book where the main character is almost completely defined by his olfactory experiencing of the world. Definitely not an easy subject for a film.



Jean-Baptiste Grenouille is a man with the most acute nose in the whole world. His world is defined by scents instead of images or sounds. After encountering (and killing) a young woman who's scent entices him he wants to learn to preserve such precious scents and ends up as an apprentice perfumer in Paris.

After realizing that the master Baldini is unable to teach what he needs to know he goes to city of Grasse, a perfumers' Mecca of sorts. There he learns to preserve the human scent and ends up killing multiple girls in the process. Finally he captures the most exquisite scent from a wealthy merchant's daughter but is also captured himself. What follows is a weird demonstration of the power of the scents he's collected and mixed into a magical perfume.

I find the subject little silly but it certainly is quite unique. The film manages to portray JBG's olfactory world surprisingly well; it's not as deeply explored as it was in the book but at the same it doesn't get as much in the way of the story either. Ben Whishaw does excellent job as the main villain even though I could have lived with little few closed eyes by him. Visually the film about smell works nicely.

After reading the book just prior to this rewatch there are few things that did bother me in this otherwise excellent filming. By far the greatest issue is the humanization of JBG who in the book is totally alienated from the rest of humanity. With this comes the simplification of his motives as well as him being at least a little sympathetic in the film.

I don't know why the whole Grasse part of the story is completely re-written. There's much that doesn't make sense in the movie's interpretation. Also lots of satire about the church, nobility and people in general has been omitted but that's mostly a time issue, I believe (though I really missed the fluidum letale).

Technically the movie is solid. Script is mostly fine with some exceptions mentioned above and the fact that it feels little rushed at times. Supporting cast is good. Even the narrator works while I usually dislike them. The ending doesn't work as well as it works in the book because of the changes made to JBG.

A bold attempt to film an "unfilmable" book. It has its flaws but so has the book. In the end I give this exactly the same rating as I gave the book.

+

Very glad to hear a more detailed review from someone who has read the book. Nicely done, @pahaK!
I haven't read the book and have heard a few snippets from those who have regarding bringing a story regarding scent to film.
You definitely have me curious about what actually happens in Grasse in the book, though.

I'm glad you liked the film overall, but statements like this always bug me. Art is nothing more than creative expression and when the intent behind that expression is solely to entertain it does not cease to be art. It's fine to prefer films that convey and inspire greater depth of thought, but to say that a film like 3:10 to Yuma is not art is pure pretension.

__________________

Mr. Freedom

Completely got the satire of this film and what it was going for. The Grandstanding, We're Completely Right and We'll Bomb You if You Disagree, sexist, racial superiority, full tilt Capitalism, and cocky swagger of a bully let loose.
They pretty much hit every button and, letting the lead character beat it to submission while glamorizing the brutality as an honorable duty.

Having the Embassy in a large store and every speech as a commercial sales pitch made me chuckle.
While the comic book extremes could put someone off, it was THE vehicle to really express the satire going on in this film.
Along with the ideal person portraying Mr. Freedom. He did an excellent job as the hero blinded by his own sales pitch.

While a some of the inside jokes may, possibly, be lost to recent viewers, almost fifty years later, the warning of blind patriotism for its own sake and the refusal to perceive anyone else other than to be bombed into submission still remains pertinent.

One helluva a wild nom, @Siddon!

Basically the same thing happens (JBG kills girls to collect their scents) but all the details (details here in very broad sense) are different; JBG's live and work are very different (even though nominally his job is same in the both versions), there's much more about the city's reaction to murders (some hilarious stuff too), Richis is far more detailed character and his escape from the city is much better rationalized and Druot's execution for the crimes makes more sense too. The movie is far more kind to townsfolk of Grasse in my opinion.

THANK YOU for the breakdown!!

I watched Poison for the Fairies 2 days ago, but I've been struggling to write anything about it. I'll definitely post something very soon though.

__________________
"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

Poor wording on my part. All films are obviously art, some are just made for a fun experience more than others.