The Personal Recommendation Hall of Fame IV

Tools    





We're not that far off, although I would probably give it a 3.5
I might have gave Zodiac a 3.0 or a 3.5 without the brutal killing scenes. For me the best part was learning what happened over the years with the investigation. Before watching the movie I had thought that the Zodiac killer was captured in the early 1970s, boy I was wrong!

Just for fun here's a link to my review of that other investigative film that I talked about The Post. (I gave it a 3.0)
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...84#post1899584



I might have gave Zodiac a 3.0 or a 3.5 without the brutal killing scenes. For me the best part was learning what happened over the years with the investigation. Before watching the movie I had thought that the Zodiac killer was captured in the early 1970s, boy I was wrong!

Just for fun here's a link to my review of that other investigative film that I talked about The Post. (I gave it a 3.0)
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...84#post1899584
Oooof, I... didn't like The Post. At all. I'll link a review later. Gotta have lunch.
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!



Women will be your undoing, Pépé



Captains Courageous (1937)

Harvey: I bet I know a lot of things you don't know. I know that's not French you're singing.
Manuel Fidello: That's right. About ten million people know it Portuguese.
Harvey: I bet you can't speak French.
Manuel Fidello: Right now, I sorry I speak English.

It's a very pleasant sensation when a film that you initially balk at brings you into its warm embrace.
That was, in a nutshell, my experience watching Rudyard Kipling's story Captains Courageous put to film by director Victor Fleming. The opening introduction into the spoiled, manipulative, privileged sh#t (that I utterly detest) little Harvey. Whom, from my limited understanding, having never read the story itself, is actually nineteen. Still, the studio changed the character's age to ten to accommodate having Freddie Bartholomew play the role. Which, with his character's arc, was a pretty d@mn good decision.
The second balking occurred with Spencer Tracy's unrecognizable accent. Even when discovering that his character Manuel was Portuguese, I kept thinking: Really? Really??
But, godd@mmit, and I don't know exactly where, it could have been the dialogue he had, or just Tracy doing a superb job, but, much like Harvey does, it was pretty hard NOT to fall in love with the guy.

Add to that a great backup list of characters; Lionel Barrymore as the epitome of the crusty sea-faring captain with a good heart beneath his barnacle hide, his son, Dan (Mickey Rooney), along with John Caradine playing the gruff antagonist 'Long Jack' to, what I was worried would be a condoning father but instead was a more compassionate, understanding one when it came to the necessary discipline of Harvey's teachers by Melvyn Douglas. Along with so many others. Bringing to life the characters of this, for good reason, excellent Kipling story.

Even though most of it was filmed in a studio sound stage, and I must rate them highly since it felt like being on a schooner instead of being staged. I also need to cheer the outside shots on the schooner. They were incredibly exciting and a little scary, with the waves thrashing about. The dropping of the dories in the water seemed pretty f@ckin dangerous all on their own, along with the "race" back to Gloucester as the boat tipped to the side. Very impressive, I must say.

Oh, also, I have an exceptional thank you for finally discovering and seeing what exactly a hurdy-gurdy is. Which Manuel plays when he sings, featured in the second image.

So, like so many surprises in past Personal Rec HoFs, this has been another addition to that endeared list.
YAYYYYY
__________________
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 concur with your review of The Post. Especially these passages:
The Post feels like Spielberg in auto-pilot. The film is so inert and lifeless, with little to no bite to it, that I couldn't help roll my eyes at some points near the end as forced monologues rolled by, and supposedly rousing speeches were said.

Hanks and Streep do their best, with the latter probably getting the better part. But Hanks? As much as I like him, he was just Hanks playing a character. I never saw him owning the role.
Yup felt the same, I think I kinda hit on some of those points too.

This has made me wonder, when was the last time that Spielberg really did a great picture?
Answer: Bridge of Spies, totally my cup of tea and worked for me.



I concur with your review of The Post. Especially these passages:
Yup felt the same, I think I kinda hit on some of those points too.

Answer: Bridge of Spies, totally my cup of tea and worked for me.
That's one I haven't seen, but I've heard mostly good things about it.



I don't think there was any ill intent either. Not at all.


As another aside, maybe "gratuitous violence" wasn't the best term to describe what I was thinking. I meant to say that I don't want to watch freaking disturbing scenes like the couple at the lake.
I watch the sickest of the sick but that's one of the most disturbing scenes I've seen.



I watch the sickest of the sick but that's one of the most disturbing scenes I've seen.
I'm glad you said that, now I don't feel so bad...I can watch cheesy stuff like Piranha (1978) or even The Shallows (2016), that doesn't bother me, but that Zodiac scene was tough.



I'm glad you said that, now I don't feel so bad...I can watch cheesy stuff like Piranha (1978) or even The Shallows (2016), that doesn't bother me, but that Zodiac scene was tough.
That’s the point, it’s supposed to be tough






Yes Zodiac is gratuitously violent, poorly directed and Jake Gyllenhaal gives a terrible performance....Normally I try not to respond to reviews but when they are so far off base I feel like it's important to justify my selection of Zodiac...a masterpiece.

Zodiac is a masterpiece, part of the Fincher serial killer trilogy (Seven, Zodiac, Mindhunter). Zodiac tells the real story of The Zodiac killer, a serial killer who taunts the police, newspapers, and citizens of San Francisco in the 1970's. As we all know the killer is never caught so the story is just about the killings right...WRONG.






The "lead" character of the story is Robert Graysmith, an individual who is only tangentially tied to the story yet becomes obsessed with it. It's a central theme of the film the role obsession and the effect of failure. Robert Avery is the first lead in the film, the man singled out by Zodiac and the first to leave the case. The film works as sort of a virus where the characters start at point A





And then slowly become unhinged and incapable of dealing with the consequences of not getting answers to this case.

And I mean who could care about the shot composition









The shots are beautifully framed...each murder scene is rendered with incredible establishing shot. These people are not getting away and the director makes it very clear why this is happening. So feel the isolation before the attack occurs.

But Fincher doesn't just go for cheap thrills, tension is a major aspect of the film. In one of the best scenes we get the story of Kathleen John's in which the scene starts off with tension and builds and builds and builds. Yet the scene is practically devoid of violence...it's atmosphere, the setting of the scene that creates the horror.



Zodiac is also special for it's meticulous work. This is a fully realized period piece in which you see the entirety of the area. The cars, homes, and people all feel like they were of this time. If the camera moves to another street you feel like it would be of the same time. Fincher mixes CGI/Digital/Classic film making in the story. Sadly this artform is rarely used directors nowadays tend to stick with a singular style but Fincher uses all three and all three well.

The final thing that makes this film great is the casting. Normally films have your basic 4-6 characters. This one has close to thirty characters, each fully realized and well established. They don't feel like cameo's but rather real people who existed..because they really were.



In one scene you see everyone's jobs (secretary, editor, publisher, writers) everything is established and the events are talked about. Gender, class, age are all accurate for the time period. And frankly if the film makes you feel uncomfortable..that's the point. And isn't the goal of art to show us our humanity all parts about it. The point of the film is to show the effects of obsession over violence to make you feel for the victims, if you were horrified that's the point.



And frankly if the film makes you feel uncomfortable..that's the point. And isn't the goal of art to show us our humanity all parts about it. The point of the film is to show the effects of obsession over violence to make you feel for the victims, if you were horrified that's the point.
I agree with pretty much everything that you wrote about what makes the film successful.

But I do think that everyone has a right as a viewer to draw a line between themselves and certain topics or portrayals.

I've watched certain films--films that made me uncomfortable and horrified me--and the result of watching them was that I was seriously depressed and upset for days or even weeks afterward. The friction between me and the film wasn't a productive friction. It just made me feel bad.

I argued above in other posts that I don't think that the film's use of violence is gratuitous. I think that the violence serves a purpose and that the sequences of violence are filmed artistically and with empathy for the victims. But it's anyone's right to say that the content of a film pushed them out of their comfort zone in a way that made it impossible for them to enjoy it.

(I also honestly think that when a film evokes those strongly negative emotions, it's harder to notice the artistry of it.)



Zodiac...Normally I try not to respond to reviews but when they are so far off base I feel like it's important to justify my selection of Zodiac...a masterpiece.
You should feel free to respond to the member's reviews. Interaction, that's part of this, we need more discussion not just movie 'book reports', we all should talk. And it's OK to disagree with me too, seriously it's not like I made the film (which makes no sense but you get the drift).

As we all know the killer is never caught so the story is just about the killings right...WRONG.
I don't know if you're implying that I said the film is all about the killings, it's not, that's just the part of the film I didn't like, hence I focused on it as well as other aspects.

The shots are beautifully framed...each murder scene is rendered with incredible establishing shot. These people are not getting away and the director makes it very clear why this is happening. So feel the isolation before the attack occurs.
The same beautifully framed shots could've been done from the police's POV. We could've seen in the distance by the lake, a lone car with it's doors wide open. As the squad car gets closer we see bodies, then as the police approach the scene we see the male still moving and female dead. That would've been more effective as it puts us in the same mind as the cops investigating the scene and would've still been plenty tense.

Jake Gyllenhaal gives a terrible performance
We agree there



Surprisingly I wasn't a fan the only time I watched Zodiac, although I suspect that I had a bad day. It's one of the number one movies I need to see a 2nd time.




The same beautifully framed shots could've been done from the police's POV. We could've seen in the distance by the lake, a lone car with it's doors wide open. As the squad car gets closer we see bodies, then as the police approach the scene we see the male still moving and female dead. That would've been more effective as it puts us in the same mind as the cops investigating the scene and would've still been plenty tense.
So you wanted him to redo Se7en? Fincher could have done the exact same thing but he chose to do something different. Although for someone who doesn't care for gratuitous violence you might not care for that one.





The difference between the two films is that Se7en is the story of the police officers hunting a fictional serial killer. Zodiac is the story of how a real serial killer terrified a community and the effect it had on the individuals around him.



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
The River (1951)

I had not heard of this film, although I have liked everything else I have seen so far from Renoir.

This was an interesting mix of melodrama and coming of age tale with a philosophical take on life, death, birth and the cyclical nature of things, interspersed with little bits of information about Indian culture and festivals. It is the story of three girls living in India by the river, two of them English and the third of mixed English and Indian heritage. The story is narrated by an older Harriet, looking back at herself as a 13 year old.

I thought there was a little too much narration, to be honest. It made me feel like I should be reading the book instead. When there is too much narration it is almost like the film isn't trusted to tell the story in its own terms without explaining everything. The film looks good, if a little static, the colours are wonderful. The acting is pretty woeful at times though.

I think it would be easy to dismiss from a modern perspective that this is an outsider's perspective on India - and indeed at times it does get a bit 'travelogue'-ish. But I think it has to be seen within the context of its time and it is mostly respectful and considered in its handling of the setting, while the focus is on the English and American characters. I feel like there are a few themes and relationships that don't get explored as fully as they could do, but it was mostly interesting to watch.

Glad to have seen this, I think the 50s are still a bit of a blind spot for me. I definitely think it is worth watching.



I think that The River (which I have watched twice) does a great job of evoking the feeling of a memory of childhood. It very much feels like memory as opposed to a flashback, if that distinction makes any sense.



....I've watched certain films--films that made me uncomfortable and horrified me--and the result of watching them was that I was seriously depressed and upset for days or even weeks afterward...
That has never happened to me, movies just don't effect me like that.

The lake side killing scene in Zodiac was very uncomfortable to watch but 5 minutes after it was over I didn't feel any type of anxiety or anything like that. I just want to be clear in that I'm not saying I was traumatized or anything by the movie.