22nd Hall of Fame

Tools    





Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
The Last Picture Show

"Wouldn't hurt to have a better home town."

I didn’t particularly enjoy this the first time I watched it, but it was a while ago and I couldn’t really remember it in much detail beyond a few scenes. I’m sorry to say I didn’t particularly enjoy it this time either.

Made in the 70s but made to look 20 years older…sometimes it felt like the whole idea was to make it look like a 50s film and then shock you with 70s nudity in a kind of effort to get to get to some kind of grim hidden reality behind 1950s censorship. There was a whole lot of mostly unpleasant sex stuff going on in this film. I don’t know that being graphic about things necessarily makes it more honest than something like, say, Splendour in the Grass. The kissing scenes were weird, why did they all do such weird things with their faces? Was it another attempt to be like 1950s films?

I didn’t much like the look of the film, or the sound, or the pace. There was something a bit oppressive about it which was perhaps intentional, to evoke the bleak and oppressive nature of the town, but stopped me from enjoying it. Just about everyone in this film is unlikable as well, which made it a bit of a slog. Nobody shows the slightest bit of empathy for anyone else (until Sonny near the end with the truck scene and that whole ending felt like one bleak step too far).

It did well in showcasing the hopeless feel of living in a small town without much of a future. It’s mostly about the teenagers, but it was the adults with their disillusionment who provided more of the poignancy. The scene I liked best was Ruth after her hospital appointment, “My god, you don’t know a thing about it.” Basically all the adults talking to the teenagers about life summed up – see also Jacy’s mother telling her to sleep with Duane so she’ll see he isn’t anything special, or Sam the Lion saying marriages are unhappy about 80% of the time. This was the polar opposite of rose-tinted nostalgia and it’s interesting to contrast it to something like American Graffiti, released only a year later.

I thought the picture show would feature more in the film, to be honest, given the title. Interesting choice of Red River as the last picture in The Last Picture Show – since it’s basically a film about people leaving Texas.



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
Question about The Last Picture Show:

WARNING: "The Last Picture Show" spoilers below
Was it Jacy's mother who Sam the Lion had had an affair with, the married woman he talked about to Sonny earlier? What she says to Sonny later certainly seems to suggest so, but in that case why did he leave the Joe Bob the preacher's son all that money? I thought at the time it was because he'd had an affair with the preacher's wife and might have been Joe Bob's real father. Maybe he had affairs with lots of people!



So I just watched Dronningen. It is not at all what I thought it was going to be, based on the 3 sunny looking screenshots I saw of it before hand. That's a good thing though, since I thought it was going to be some sappy romantic film haha.

Question about The Last Picture Show:

WARNING: "The Last Picture Show" spoilers below
Was it Jacy's mother who Sam the Lion had had an affair with, the married woman he talked about to Sonny earlier? What she says to Sonny later certainly seems to suggest so, but in that case why did he leave the Joe Bob the preacher's son all that money? I thought at the time it was because he'd had an affair with the preacher's wife and might have been Joe Bob's real father. Maybe he had affairs with lots of people!
WARNING: "Last Picture Show" spoilers below
I was wondering the same thing. I thought she confirmed that she was the one he took swimming, but I didn't get why he left the money to the preacher's boy. Maybe he had another reason that wasn't explained in the film? It's apparently based on a novel, so there was probably some backstory cut out.



So I just watched Dronningen. It is not at all what I thought it was going to be, based on the 3 sunny looking screenshots I saw of it before hand. That's a good thing though, since I thought it was going to be some sappy romantic film haha.
I would never ever nominate a sappy romantic film. I can barely stand watching them, so I sure as hell wouldn't be putting y'all through such misery.

(but I'll gladly make y'all suffer in other ways though)





État de siège (State of Siege) (Costa-Gavras, 1972)
Imdb

Date Watched: 05/22/2020
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 22nd MoFo Hall of Fame
Rewatch: No


I don’t even know what the hell to say about this movie. It took me a long damn time to get through it - much longer than its actual runtime - because I kept dozing off. I slept fine last night and I didn’t feel particularly tired, I was just bored. Extremely bored.

Granted, political thrillers are not generally my cup of tea anyway, but this particular political thriller was severely lacking in character development and also lacking a story that held any interest for me. Not that there was a whole lot of story to speak of. Most of the first half was just a bunch of incessant talking. By the time things actually started happening, I was too disconnected to care.

Not that any of that is to say that this is a bad movie. It may very well be a great movie for someone who does care about the story. But I just couldn’t. I also was not particularly impressed by any of the technical aspects of the film. I have no complaints about the cinematography, set design, score, etc., but have no praise either.

I think the only thing that could get me to rewatch this film would be a really bad bout of insomnia, and then only in the desperate hope of it making me fall asleep again.





Warning: Spoilers for Dronningen below!

My question to those when you see it, near the end Anne sees Gustav in the mirror. Was it a flashback or what was going on there?
WARNING: "Ending" spoilers below
I assume it's her conscience feeling haunted by him, since she was indirectly responsible for his death.



I have quite a bit written on Dronningen that I'm going to edit down before posting, but pretty much the entire thing is spoilers. I typically try to avoid talking too much about the plot in my reviews, but I'm not entirely sure how to approach this film without discussing what happens.



Warning: Spoilers for Dronningen below!


WARNING: "Ending" spoilers below
I assume it's her conscience feeling haunted by him, since she was indirectly responsible for his death.
That’s also how I interpreted it.





Queen of Hearts / Dronningen (2019)
Directed by: May El-Toukhy
Starring: Trine Dyrholm, Gustav Lindh, Magnus Krepper

Dronningen is a beautifully uncomfortable film that plays on sympathy and expectations to deliver a poignant message about abuse. From the very first frame to the last, there is palpable tension in the air that generates a feeling of unease. It gives the early scenes a sense of impending disaster, and once the subject matter becomes more troubling, that atmosphere compliments the story perfectly. The lighting is cold at first, though it starts to warm up with more earthy tones once the central relationship progresses, before reverting back to that empty and distant appearance for the final act.

Warning: Spoilers below this point.


These changes in colour mirror Anne's character, as well as her feelings towards her husband and step-son. She is unfulfilled in her marriage, and her interactions with Peter make it clear that neither of them are completely happy. Her situation is framed sympathetically, and the audience is seemingly meant to root for her self discovery and sexual reawakening. Gustav on the other hand is introduced as a bratty, trouble making youth. After initially acting out, he finds acceptance and an opportunity for a new life. He's fantastic with his step-sisters, and has a caring family he belongs with. He slowly becomes more likeable so that there's a greater impact when everything is ripped away from him.

The growth of their relationship is incredibly difficult to watch, but as inappropriate as it is, it pales in comparison to Anne's handling of the situation later on. Given that she works with abused children and young adults, her choices are even more damning. She knows what she's doing is wrong, but doesn't hesitate to turn on Gustav anyway. It's this transition from being a problematic protagonist to a truly vile and despicable human being that really makes the film stand out. It challenges viewers' perceptions, and succeeds in what it set out to accomplish. The tragic ending leaves Dronningen on a grim note, but it's a fitting conclusion to such a dark story.

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	dronningen.jpg
Views:	484
Size:	99.6 KB
ID:	64833  





Shine (Scott Hicks, 1996)
Imdb

Date Watched: 05/23/2020
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 22nd MoFo Hall of Fame
Rewatch: No


I should probably preface this review by stating that I am not a musician, nor am I a fan of the piano or of classical music in general.

I am, however, a sucker for a good biopic and for a story of someone who rises above adversity. I’m also just a little bit biased when it comes to performances from Geoffrey Rush. Now, Rush is not an actor whose work I actively seek out (mostly because I’m a shallow bitch who loves eye candy and he is definitely not eye candy), but in no performance I’ve seen has he ever failed to put his all into a role. That’s true whether he’s playing the Marquis de Sade (if you haven’t seen it, go watch Quills!), an undead pirate captain, a speech therapist, or a prudish, uptight writer at the end of his rope who stumbles his way into a friendship with an ex-groupie who gives great hand jobs (check out The Banger Sisters for a decent laugh). Shine is no exception and Rush very much earned all the accolades he got for it.

But there’s more to it than just Geoffrey Rush’s jaw-dropping performance. There’s a very human story of abuse, mental illness, passion, and understanding. Ahwell posed the question of whose passion is it? Was it David’s or was it his father’s? The answer that I think is closest to the truth, or at least to the truth as the film presents it to be, is both. I think David and his father shared that passion but his father went beyond just molding and focusing David’s drive to succeed and instead used it as a way to punish and imprison him.

As to the music, once again I know very little about classical piano, but I thought the repetition of Rach 3 and the focus on that as being the thing that drives Helfgott, was very fitting. That piece of music was a poignant representation of Helfgott. It’s passionate, it’s complicated, and it’s got a manic energy that is at once mesmerizing and a just a little intimidating.

The film though, of course, is not without its flaws. It does slide into cliche and it wraps up far more tidily than I would like, but with such a strong central performance these things are easy for me to overlook. And it’s easy because when I watch a film, I ask only one thing of it: Make me care. Make me feel something. And Shine succeeds admirably.




P.S. Hey @edarsenal - I actually really enjoyed a nomination of yours that wasn't a rewatch! What's the world coming to?!



WACO

THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

I don’t know what this review will amount to because I honestly don’t know how to approach this. And not just because it is a documentary, but because there was a lot about it that I just didn’t like and didn’t care for. So as nicely and inoffensive as I can put it, I really don’t want to waste my time talking about it. This one just isn’t for me. But as already stated by others, I certainly admire the attempt at nominating something different, so for that I have a lot of respect. The film just happened to not be for me.

First of all, while there are many Americans on this forum and I don’ want to get shot for my opinion here, I just can’t stand the “freedom speeches” that so many of the people give in this documentary… that twisted sense of having a right to do whatever you want because you have the “freedom” to do so because you are an American citizen with American rights or whatever. But anyways, I’m sure most commonsense Americans also hate the kind of people who misuse the term or hail it as a holy grail of possibility, which can bend the rules of the law because “rights” and “freedom” are their own law. Jesus Christ. And on the topic of Jesus Christ, I’m really not a religious person myself, though I don’t mind people who just mind their own business and believe whatever they want to believe. It is of course a shame that there are people out there who ruins it for those who peacefully pray or calmly practice their religion… but yeah, this documentary definitely showed everything wrong with religion… and with the American government… and the American gun law and culture… and so on and so forth.

But even for all these eye and ear aching problems – which really isn’t that much a problem of the documentary as a piece of work – then the very biased angle certainly was a problem for the documentary itself. It is one thing to choose the angle you want to focus on throughout the documentary and then to completely wash away important aspects of the bigger whole. This documentary just didn’t focus enough on the Davidians as the “bad guys” or at least the grander discussion present about possible sexual abuse, power abuse and whatnot. It seemed to glance over that way to quickly with some quick “facts” from people that either believed it wasn’t true or that it was actually okay for underage girls to get married when the parents give their consent. There was so much more to all this, but instead the documentary quickly became all about what the government did wrong and how the Davidians were the obvious victims. I felt there was too much left out leading up the actual “main event” of destruction and death and tragedy. And the points made against the government and the ATF, FBI and whatnot seemed to drag on for too long, going over the same points and shoving the apparent evidence in your face. This repetitive pandering just wasn’t as apparent when the other side of the story was discussed. And that annoyed me.

Because yes indeed, this is a great tragedy in American history. Clearly. There is no doubt about it. And there is no doubt either, that a lot of what was done by the government in terms of handling this situation was completely wrong and out of order. Even without all evidence it is clear to see that something was extremely wrong and extremely suspicious when it came to the handling of the situation, as well as the aftermath with them clearly struggling to prove their innocence in this tragedy. And that is honestly also why I’m even more saddened, angry and annoyed that the approach to the tragedy wasn’t more balanced. I don’t like how it tries so hard to shove its opinion down my throat. It just didn’t work for me. I was interested in the overall evidence and the discussions, not the constant attempt at getting me to feel a certain way – complete with the overly manipulative music during the end credits.

I hope I didn’t rub anyone the wrong way with this. I mean, isn’t this what a documentary can do? Make you feel a certain way, whether that is due to the subject matter, the handling of the subject matter or just your own personal standpoint contradicting with whatever you see on screen… I just wish my feelings – and the documentary – had been mainly about the tragedy itself and not the general biased presentation of it. Wacko indeed... whoever or whatever one wants to assign that term to...



2022 Mofo Fantasy Football Champ
I see myself nominating a doc somewhere down the line. Like I said I'm really glad it finally happened it just didn't hit on a personal level.



Also, I have to go the animation route sometime too, because it's severely misrepresented in the generals.
I’ve nominated two animations in generals so far but they didn’t gel too well... may choose another one down the line.



The trick is not minding
I may be the only one who is impressed by Waco here haha. Oh well, Thems the breaks sometimes.
I do feel Genocide is much better, and there are certainly better docs out there as well, but Waco (and I’ll be reviewing it shortly) is much better I think then some people are giving it credit for.
Documentaries are a tricky thing in general, as they don’t follow any typical formula, which is among the reasons why I love them.
Still....it’s better then Super Size Me haha



Women will be your undoing, Pépé


Shine (Scott Hicks, 1996)
Imdb

Date Watched: 05/23/2020
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: 22nd MoFo Hall of Fame
Rewatch: No




P.S. Hey @edarsenal - I actually really enjoyed a nomination of yours that wasn't a rewatch! What's the world coming to?!

wait -- WHAT?! You enjoyed it?!?!?!?!





OH NO
You're right - what IS the world coming to?!
Such a phenomenon could have all kinds of unheard of repercussions. . . this could be the very end of the world?!? Dogs and cats, living together, total chaos!!
__________________
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