The Personal Recommendation Hall of Fame IV

Tools    





Women will be your undoing, Pépé
Glad you enjoyed it! I'm always happy to accept hugs and kisses!



A hidden gem from a surprising source. . . how doubly cool is THAT!?!

No idea why, but I would never have guessed you.

Thank you SO MUCH, Allaby!! That was an Instant, Highly Rewatchable, Fun Favorite that I'll be sharing with my roommate -- very VERY soon.
__________________
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



Nice job Okay to get on the board with 2 big reviews of 2 big classics.

I haven't seen Platoon in a while but I've considered it a favorite since I first saw it at the movies as a teen.

I always thought Shawshank was a bit overrated. I saw it as just your average good movie. Then the last time I watched it I loved it. It's like comfort food.

The Thin Blue Line is the first documentary I can remember watching when my wife picked it out in the 90's. I enjoyed it but obviously it's been a while.

I liked The Lives of Others but another watch would probably help.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible


The Lives of Others, 2006

In 1980s East Germany, a man named Wiesler (Ulrich Muhe) works for the Stasi, spying on and interrogating those suspected of anti-government or anti-Communist activities or views. Wiesler is efficient and cold in his work, until he is assigned to conduct surveillance on a playwright named Dreyman (Sebastian Koch) and his wife, Christa (Martina Gedeck). Wiesler begins to develop a fascination, and almost an affection for the couple, which leads him to begin interfering with the investigation.

I quite enjoyed this drama-thriller.

One of the things that I really enjoyed about it was how it showed that even within a supposedly rule-bound, rigid system, the human element will always influence things, for better or worse. From the very beginning, the surveillance begins in part because a government official lusts after Christa. From there, Wiesler cannot help but be moved by the ideas and emotions expressed by Dreyman, and from there cannot resist giving the course of events a little nudge.

I also appreciated the way that the film showed how unforgiving the government system was. From the first moment Wiesler chooses to omit damning information from one of his reports, it's very much an in-for-a-penny/in-for-a-pound situation. Wiesler's fate becomes intertwined with Dreyman and Christa. The us versus them mentality of the government has created a situation where Wiesler must choose a side, and once he bends the smallest bit, he is on an irreversible slide.

I also really liked the lesser theme of art as resistance. Dreyman has stayed on the right side of things because of his general perceived loyalty to communism. But he has one friend who has been blacklisted, and another who is under intense scrutiny because of ideas they have expressed in their works. Christa, an actress, is also acutely aware of her career and self-expression being something that hangs by a thread in this society. There is a thread that runs through the film, as Dreyman is given sheet music for a piece called Sonata for a Good Man by the friend who was blacklisted. Later, Wiesler is very moved listening to Dreyman perform the piece on the piano. The title of the song will come to play a role in the final act of the film.

I didn't really have any specific complaints about this one. Initially I had a mixed response to the final 10 or so minutes, which serve as an epilogue to the rest of the film and involve some jumps in time. At first I found myself grumbling that I wished they ended the film in the "present" of the film. But as I've thought about it, I do think that the last 10 minutes provide closure and completeness to some of the major themes of the film and the character arcs.

I think that there was a very predictable way that this film could have gone, which would be the spy falling in love with the person they were watching. I do think that Wiesler develops a platonic love or affection for Dreyman, and by removing any overt notions of romance or lust, it becomes clear that what Wiesler is responding to in Dreyman is his ideals and his bravery.

Really solid film I've been meaning to get around to for a while.

Glad you liked it Takoma! That was my pick for you!

And damn, amazing job finishing!



movies can be okay...
I more meant that
WARNING: spoilers below
her daydreaming takes on a more bizarre tone when she's imagining herself actually dancing on the way to the gallows, or when she is on trial for murder. That's when it begins to feel less like something a normal person would do.
See I loved that personally. That was Selma's way of escaping the cruelty around her. We see her break down completely in the last scene because she has no music or sounds to dream in. And mind you I wouldn't describe Selma as the average person either, far from it, but that's why there's a movie about her type of character in the first place. She's too kindhearted for our world, she's fantastical so her logic is not your average logic that's for sure.




It was just weird to me that she declined when her boss offered to help her find a job in a different department, that just seemed strange to me. I'm also talking about
WARNING: spoilers below
lying about who her father is in court, or giving the doctor a name that isn't her son's real name and then waiting to tell anyone about it.


I also felt an odd disconnect in terms of her relationship with her son. It felt cruel to me that she cut him off toward the end.
I don't remember her firmly declining another job but moreso just being disappointed at that moment knowing where her life is probably now heading.

About that father part, I don't think Selma really cared that much about the trial process or even fully understood it. She's not gonna give the court a straight answer because she's Selma and she's gonna give the most dream-like and fantastical answers to your so serious questions. She's gonna tell the truth, as long as it doesn't come against her feelings, her promises or her principles. She's honest, but not in a logical way. Her self interest and safety is so low on her priority list that she'd rather unintentionally troll the jury. And I'm sure she would hate to be pitied by the court either. But to be technical, we don't even know if Selma even knows her father's real name, at that time she probably just said the first name that came out of her head, and I'm sure she was very happy with giving that person as an answer.

Also she didn't register the payment with her son's real name because she knew she was gonna be found out, and that was I guess a precautionary measure to lessen the probability of anyone finding the money whether it be the opposing lawyers or her friends. And we even see that once her friends found out about it they tried to pay off a lawyer for her instead, which is exactly what she didn't want to happen.

Overall though, I think a lot of people's problems with Selma's character is that they treat her too much like the average person when she's too simple for that. I don't think the way to go about her is to analyze her every action logically because one will probably end up hating her like that.
__________________
"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



movies can be okay...
I watched The Thin Blue Line (1988). Directed by Errol Morris,
It's also important to mention that in this doc there's the first ever (or one of the firsts) re-enactment scenes in documentary format. I feel there's even more firsts in this movie, hell its whole format feels pretty unique to me (obviously a lot of documentaries after this has took something from it) and still stands out. It's the usage of score, the noir feeling, the depiction of truth and memory with the re-enactments. It's one of my favourites.



movies can be okay...
Was some of that reaction a bit that it had been overhyped? Maybe. But I thought a lot of elements of the film were kind of hokey.
Honestly no. Even had the film been completely unknown, I would've had the exact same reaction to it. I'm just surprised that it's this film at the top and not any of the others that are just as similar.



The next batch of films I've seen;
King Kong I kind of agree with seanc about the characters but I still loved it. Seen 3 Kong movies (70's and Jackson's) and this is my favorite.

The Full Monty was my original pick for Citizen alas someone had the same idea and beat me to it. It's a movie that has grown on me because like CR said, it's got heart. If you've ever wanted to see Robert Baratheon strip to Joe Cocker's "You Can Leave Your Hat On" this is the movie for you. Robert Carlyle is a gem.

Alice in Wonderland I also noticed that Citizen hasn't seen many Disney Classics and I almost went that route with Pinocchio but again, chickened out. Alice is probably my least favorite of the old classics but it's still very good. A fine compliment to a PBJ with mushrooms sandwich.

Point Break dumb fun. They don't make em like this anymore! I like it for all the reasons neiba hates it.

Heavenly Creatures I know LotR was a monstrous success but these are the kinds of movies I wish PJ was still making. Or his gore fests. Both leads are fantastic and that ending sticks with you for a long time.

MASH is probably my least favorite Altman film but it seems to have a lot of fans. I should probably try it again sometime.

Platoon is a very good movie but it has its issues. I view it the same way I do JFK. Great movie but Stone did a couple things that rub me the wrong way. Agree with Okay that Sheen is the weakest link but Berenger as Barnes is outstanding.

The Thin Blue Line is a film I recommended in the first PRHoF and it didn't go over all that well. Everything that was new and fresh about TTBL has been done to death ever since, in both tv and film. I really like it but it does feel dated.

...and the King novellas. Now, I had read Different Seasons a few times before the movies were made so that did affect my opinion.

Stand By Me I haven't seen in decades. I don't think it's a bad movie it just doesn't do anything for me. From what I remember it follows the novella pretty close but that was only my third fav story from the book anyway.

The Shawshank Redemption is my fav story of the four. I was underwhelmed the first time I watched it mostly because of Tim Robbins (my feelings on him are floating around here somewhere) and it did change a few things from the novella. Nothing major but Dufresne had multiple cell mates and had to navigate a couple different wardens in the book. It just added a little more oomph to the ending as his struggle seemed even more difficult than the movie portrayed. Over the years I've come to really like the movie as the book has been fading from my memory a bit.



See I loved that personally. That was Selma's way of escaping the cruelty around her. We see her break down completely in the last scene because she has no music or sounds to dream in. And mind you I wouldn't describe Selma as the average person either, far from it, but that's why there's a movie about her type of character in the first place. She's too kindhearted for our world, she's fantastical so her logic is not your average logic that's for sure.
Oh, totally agreed!

I wasn't complaining about it. Quite the opposite. I think that it adds to the darkly comic aspect of the film and also shows you that this is really an ingrained part of how Selma copes with stress.

I don't remember her firmly declining another job but moreso just being disappointed at that moment knowing where her life is probably now heading.
Right after she is fired, her boss says he will get her another job in a different department so that she won't have to operate machinery. Considering she was still short of her goal for the money she was saving, it seemed a little odd to me that she didn't accept his offer.

About that father part, I don't think Selma really cared that much about the trial process or even fully understood it. She's not gonna give the court a straight answer because she's Selma and she's gonna give the most dream-like and fantastical answers to your so serious questions. She's gonna tell the truth, as long as it doesn't come against her feelings, her promises or her principles. She's honest, but not in a logical way. Her self interest and safety is so low on her priority list that she'd rather unintentionally troll the jury. And I'm sure she would hate to be pitied by the court either. But to be technical, we don't even know if Selma even knows her father's real name, at that time she probably just said the first name that came out of her head, and I'm sure she was very happy with giving that person as an answer.

Also she didn't register the payment with her son's real name because she knew she was gonna be found out, and that was I guess a precautionary measure to lessen the probability of anyone finding the money whether it be the opposing lawyers or her friends. And we even see that once her friends found out about it they tried to pay off a lawyer for her instead, which is exactly what she didn't want to happen.
But I think that the two examples above are slightly contradictory, don't you? A woman who doesn't understand the process or severity of a
WARNING: spoilers below
murder trial
is also the same woman who is going to be premeditated enough to use a false name for a transaction because she is anticipating opposing counsel tracking down money? I thought that her giving the false name was meant to be one of her whims, but it just felt a bit off because of the potential to derail her plans with her son.

Overall though, I think a lot of people's problems with Selma's character is that they treat her too much like the average person when she's too simple for that. I don't think the way to go about her is to analyze her every action logically because one will probably end up hating her like that.
I think that I had mostly accepted her as a person who lives with her own rules and by her own internal logic. (I didn't mention this in my review, but having her play Maria in the community theater production of Sound of Music was a nice touch). It's not at all that I hated her--I actually felt very deeply for her because she was trying to live her life in a loving and honorable way--but it was frustrating watching her make the wrong decisions. At certain points when the movie was throwing things at her where you knew she was going to make bad choices it tripped a little into feeling manipulative



I watched Humanity and Paper Balloons (1937). This Japanese drama is directed by Sadao Yamanaka, who tragically died from dysentery a year later at the age of 28. It is about the lives and struggles of the poor in the slums. It is a bleak, but fairly effective story. I thought the performances were pretty good. It's a well made film, but didn't quite grab me the way I would have hoped. I'm glad that I watched the film and would recommend it to anyone who appreciates classic Japanese cinema.



I remember watching Humanity and Paper Balloons twice within a month, once for the 30's countdown and then another because it was nominated in a HoF. It's good, I like it.



Quick! Let's all just throw another round at Takoma!
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!



movies can be okay...
Oh, totally agreed!
But I think that the two examples above are slightly contradictory, don't you? A woman who doesn't understand the process or severity of a
WARNING: spoilers below
murder trial
is also the same woman who is going to be premeditated enough to use a false name for a transaction because she is anticipating opposing counsel tracking down money? I thought that her giving the false name was meant to be one of her whims, but it just felt a bit off because of the potential to derail her plans with her son.
No I don't think it's contradictory because in my eyes during the trial she doesn't care about the potential consequences as long as her goal is fulfilled with the money or the promise or whatever, but afterwards especially when she lacks the music and escapism that shields her from fully confronting her inevitable fate, that's when the true severity of the predicament she's in truly hits her. I also agree with what you said earlier, that there's a part of her that wants to die, and in my mind I think she's happy to die for the cause that she did.



--but it was frustrating watching her make the wrong decisions. At certain points when the movie was throwing things at her where you knew she was going to make bad choices it tripped a little into feeling manipulative
I totally get what you're saying, and this is something that Von Trier relishes in. I'm sure if he heard you express how manipulated you felt he would throw a party for you, that's what the man does, he aims to hurt and go to extreme ridiculous and absurd levels just to do so.



movies can be okay...

The Thin Blue Line is a film I recommended in the first PRHoF and it didn't go over all that well. Everything that was new and fresh about TTBL has been done to death ever since, in both tv and film. I really like it but it does feel dated.


This is true, but personally I never felt the outdatedness. It's not like TTBL introduced re-enactments and that's it. It introduced it in such a unique way while combining a lot of elements to make it so unique, and I don't think I've ever seen that anywhere else since (which is a good thing, because if I did it would feel completely like a rip-off). Actually, 2020's The Father reminds me of TTBL, at least in the department of depicting memory and reality. (I prefer The Father fyi)



I totally get what you're saying, and this is something that Von Trier relishes in. I'm sure if he heard you express how manipulated you felt he would throw a party for you, that's what the man does, he aims to hurt and go to extreme ridiculous and absurd levels just to do so.
Exactly. And there is a way to do that where it feels "natural" (like in the first half of the film where we see her struggling to continue doing her job despite her vision issues). But I get antsy when it starts to feel "obvious" in the manipulation.

I still thought the film was really powerful, if only because Bjork's performance is so magnetic that her character never feels artificial. With a less compelling actress, I honestly think that this would have been a genuinely bad and entirely unpleasant film.





Brief Encounter (1945)

Fred Jesson: Whatever your dream was, it wasn't a very happy one, was it?

A wife has a brief encounter with another woman's husband at a train station and they fall in love over the course of a couple of weeks in sunny England. Not sure what to make of it. Is it a love story because if it is it was a little depressing.

I get that people can fall in love pretty quickly sometimes but this moved too fast so I didn't really buy into it. They meet at the train station, where the Dr. removes a piece of dirt from Laura's eye and that's it for the first meeting. Then they meet up again go out to lunch where the Dr. starts talking about all the lung diseases he's studying, she feels stupid for not understanding much of what he's saying and BOOM! they're in love. The rest of the movie covers their weekly hook ups and the stress all the sneaking around is causing them. The movie is told from Laura's POV, with lots of voice overs, so we get into her head much more than Dr. Harvey and it's safe to say she isn't ready for the game. There's a lot of crying and "We shouldn't be doing this but we can't stop doing this!"

I didn't really like either of the main characters. I thought they were snotty and, sorry, but it's hard to be sympathetic towards people who create their own problems. We get a little glimpse into Laura's home life with a husband who is not really there for her, he's quite distant but harmless, but nothing from Dr. Harvey's home except a few of words about how his wife looks. There are a couple of characters I did really like and that was Mrs. Bagot, who ran the tea stand at the train station and her "friend" the ticket taker/security, Albert. Both of them were great, I loved all their little back and forths which were a bit naughty and fun. I perked up everytime they showed up.

I liked the ending at the train station when Laura's blabbermouth friend shows up (none of her friends can stop talking - EVER!). I thought it was a fitting ending.



The Decline of Western Civilization



This documentary chronicles a few punk rock bands back in 1979-1980. If I liked punk rock, I probably would have loved this. As it is, it was a pretty good watch. I can't say I learned anything or that there was anything special to it. You meet some bands and see them perform. For the most part, from the members to the fans, these people come off as morons and losers. That's ok because that's a lot of us, including myself, at an earlier stage in our lives. The mayhem of the performances was better than the music, although some of the music was decent. I was more into the getting to know the band members part. I was never that disillusioned but it's interesting to see that part of the population.

-



HIGH NOON
(1952, Zinnemann)



"People gotta talk themselves into law and order before they do anything about it. Maybe because down deep they don't care. They just don't care."

High Noon follows Will Kane (Gary Cooper), a marshal at a small town who is about to retire and move to another town after marrying Amy (Grace Kelly). But things change when he finds out that Frank Miller, a ruthless outlaw with a vendetta against him has just been released and is set to arrive on the noon train.

Unlike other westerns, High Noon is a more introspective film as it follows Kane's unsuccessful attempts to recruit a posse to aid him against Miller, while also questioning his own decisions from the past and his current decision to stay and fight. It is in this process that his predecessor, Martin (Lon Chaney) tells him the above quote. Instead of bringing words of comfort and inspiration, he lays it all bluntly: people just don't care.

You gotta admire the boldness of the filmmakers for sticking to this story of isolation and lack of heroism, particularly in the middle of the 20th Century. Through most of the film, you see a Kane that's not only alone, but afraid and insecure. I've only seen one of the other Best Actor nominees that year, but I have no issues with Cooper winning. He did so much with only his eyes and his expression.

In addition, director Fred Zinnemann does a great job of keeping up the tension right from the opening frame. The dread of the arrival of these outlaws is heightened also by the excellent editing by Elmo Williams and Harry W. Gerstad, and the score by Dimitri Tiokin. All of those contribute greatly to keep you on the edge with very little actual "action".

I do think that the conflict between Kane and his deputy Harvey (Lloyd Bridges) deserved a bit more attention, and maybe more could've been done with Kelly's character. I also don't think that Miller (Ian MacDonald), who we finally meet in the last 15-20 minutes, had a commanding presence for the amount of expectation the film lays on his arrival. Still, a damn fine western.

Grade: