30th Hall of Fame

Tools    





Women will be your undoing, Pépé
Oh cool, glad to hear you find a new-old favorite. Funny thing is the wife and I were going to watch Scrooge (1970) as part of our classic Christmas movies, but ran out of movie time. Now that Christmas is over and I'm exhausted from it, I need a movie vacation! So it's off to watch a HoF nom
How's this for a Christmas movie vacation? Watching my first Rectification List movie on the Countdown 1917 lol which, if I had the time BEFORE - I knew and watching it, seals it, it would've been on my voting list for the Countdown easily.
__________________
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



So, although I understand the "arranged marriage" angle is something we have to accept as part of the time and place the film is set in, I also appreciate that level of growth I noticed when contrasting it with Late Spring.

I think the big problem I have with Ozu characters is while they are very polite many of them are bland and forgettable. While forgettable is something that many films have for a week/month/year after watching them this film I couldn't track them through the film. This wasn't offensively boring as some of the other Ozu films I've seen. Did they even tell us who she got married to at the end?



I think the big problem I have with Ozu characters is while they are very polite many of them are bland and forgettable. While forgettable is something that many films have for a week/month/year after watching them this film I couldn't track them through the film. This wasn't offensively boring as some of the other Ozu films I've seen. Did they even tell us who she got married to at the end?
I don't think so. After the arrangement they had thought of falls through, we just see Michiko agreeing to meet other potential matches. Then they cut to her getting ready for the wedding ceremony (same happens in Late Spring). I actually like that for various reasons. First, because the point of the story is not who she marries with, but how she and her father face that crossroad. The second reason applies more to Late Spring, but is how the characters of Michiko and Noriko essentially "vanish" after they marry. I don't know if its intentional from Ozu, but I see it as a way to acknowledge how women essentially become "null" after marriage. In Autumn Afternoon it didn't hit me as much because although Michiko is a central character, the focus of the story was always Hirayama. In Late Spring it hit me harder because Noriko is the central character of the story through all the film. I think those cuts are an interesting directorial choice.
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!



I watched Ship of Fools today. As someone who loves black and white classics but has rummaged through most of those that are well known, I was looking forward to it. It feels a little older than 1965 and I think that's intentional since it's set earlier. I was very surprised early on by what different characters were saying, but after thinking for a bit I realized that Stanley Kramer was known for dealing with racial and social issues. One of the main characters is a dwarf, and he introduces the film early on by saying (paraphrasing) there are different types of fools onboard, maybe you'll see yourself. I liked that. There are a good amount of characters, pretty much all good performances, and we see existing relationships and relationships being formed. I liked this movie, but I was hoping for even more melodrama. I wasn't 100% riveted but I would watch it again.



I watched An Autumn Afternoon (1962) this winter evening. An Autumn Afternoon is the final film directed by the legendary Yasujirô Ozu. Ozu is a director I respect and I have purchased a few of his films, but he is not one of my all time favourite directors. I have rated any of his films higher than an 8/10, but I also have rated any lower than a 7/10. After viewing this film, that has not changed.

I thought An Autumn Afternoon is a well made film, but not one that I found all that interesting. I respect the film more than I actually like it. Performances are fine, although I didn't find anyone exceptional. I think Chishû Ryû gave the best performance. The story wasn't overly engaging or compelling. I didn't care that much about the characters or what happened to them. There were a few nice, effective moments though. The cinematography was quite nice. This is a lovely looking film.

Even though I wasn't blown away by the film, I still appreciate that it was nominated so I could finally get around to seeing it.




The Uninvited (1944)

I enjoyed the The Uninvited...and like last time I watched it over a decade ago I find myself both impressed and saddened.

There are two aspects of the film that caught my attention: One was the ambiance that the film creates with the isolated mansion perched percarisly on a cliff side over looking the ocean. I was fascinated by the isolation and the loneliness of the country side setting. The other aspect was Gail Rusell. She has this look of forlorn lost-ness, like someone adrift and in need of an anchor to keep her from floating out to sea. I've seen her in a couple of other films (Angel and the Badman and Wake of the Red Witch) and she has this quality that comes across the screen that makes her special. Gail Russell lead a troubled life and it always makes me sad to think about her and the way she ended.

Back to the film, as Siddon noted the cinematography, score and sets are top notch and make the film a stand out. I personally liked the character played by Donald Crisp who was Stella's father. He's a signpost with his closed-mouth behavior telling us there's something terribly wrong with the mansion or something wrong with his daughter. He sets the tone of danger and suspension with his cloistered behaviour. I have to agree that the character Holloway (Cornelia Otis Skinner ), a woman who owns a treatment center seems tacked on and that part of the story where Stella is sent against her will to the treatment center seems a bit clumsy.

I really liked The Uninvited, it's an impressive film from 1944. And it's an import film as it's the first serious ghost haunting movie to be made by Hollywood.



Women will be your undoing, Pépé
I watched Ship of Fools today. As someone who loves black and white classics but has rummaged through most of those that are well known, I was looking forward to it. It feels a little older than 1965 and I think that's intentional since it's set earlier. I was very surprised early on by what different characters were saying, but after thinking for a bit I realized that Stanley Kramer was known for dealing with racial and social issues. One of the main characters is a dwarf, and he introduces the film early on by saying (paraphrasing) there are different types of fools onboard, maybe you'll see yourself. I liked that. There are a good amount of characters, pretty much all good performances, and we see existing relationships and relationships being formed. I liked this movie, but I was hoping for even more melodrama. I wasn't 100% riveted but I would watch it again.
There were a number of scenes like that and some of the dialogue that really caught my attention and appreciation for this film to the point of nominating it. Glad it was an enjoyable watch for ya.





Ship of Fools (1965)

When MOFO did it's 100 western film countdown I was shocked and surprised that I was the only person that had Cat Ballou on it's ballot. I keep thinking about nominating William Wylers The Collector for one of these halls. And last year I finally bit the bullet and sat down and watched Doctor Zhivago . I bring this up because this is what 1965 in Hollywood was about. Sound of Music was the best picture (and the biggest box office hit) but going down the line in 65 you just had classic after classic and a true variety of films. It was the year of the epic
While you had these massive epics you also had some incredible small budget character pieces. Stanley Kramer decided rather than do a series of small character studies or a giant epic about the lead up to WWII...Kramer decided he was going to do both...balls....giant balls is what Kramer had in making this movie.

Kramer puts together an international cast to tell multiple stories aboard this Ocean liner heading for Spain. Now today we look at a film like this and realize how silly it is to try and tell love stories along with holocaust ones. You can't really do both well...but on the other hand you can admire the intent. You have a lot to unpack in this film Simone Signoret a french actress plays a Cuban countess exiled and sent to Spain to serve a sentence. She begins a romance with a disillusioned german doctor. Obviously the symbolism of a doctor with his heart breaking wasn't lost on me. You also have a love story between jewish actor George Seagel and gentile Elizabeth Ashley. It's a choice that perhaps doesn't age well but you can see what Kramer was going for.

The sexual relationships in the story are what's surprising to me. Kramer is really trying to balance things out andI'm not sure if Vivian Leigh's works compared to everyone else in the film. Like Lee Marvin is the American trying to get laid he feels of this world and that represents an American idea compared to all the other Europeans. Jose Ferer is also really good in this as the major anti-semite on the boat. He represents the hypocrisy and boorishness of the fascist. He's a great contrast between this guy that is basically doomed in the coming years and the "other" table with the Jew, the little person, and the guy married to the jewish woman.When the film touches on the fatalist nature of the coming war it works and it works really well.

B/B+




Ship of Fools (Stanley Kramer 1965)

This was the nom I was most looking forward to watching...I'd seen it some 15 years ago but remembered nothing about it. I knew it had an all star cast and was directed by one of the great 20th century directors Stanley Kramer (The Defiant Ones, On the Beach, It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World, Inherit the Wind, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner). Kramer directed one of my all time top films, his tour de force Judgement at Nuremberg. So I expected big things from Ship of Fools especially as it features three of my favorite actors: Lee Marvin, Jose Ferrer and Vivian Leigh.

I hate to say this but I was underwhelmed and found the movie middle of the road. I think the problem stems from Abby Mann's screenplay of Katherine Anne Porter's novel Ship of Fools. When a screenplay is adapted from a lengthy and complex multi-character novel the screenwriter has literally two choices: They can include the bulk of the characters by skeletonizing the characters down to just a few core characteristics thus removing most of their story arcs and nuances, so as to save on film runtime...Or the screenwriter can cut mercilessly until the side characters are removed from the movie's screenplay allowing the main characters to be more fully explored in the shorter time that movies offer. Ship of Fools does the former and retains all the characters albeit in very reduced story form.

It's that lack of character exploration that disappointment me the most. Consider the rich uncle who has left all of his money to his young poor nephew with one catch, the nephew doesn't get the money until the uncle has died. But we learn nothing of their relationship other than that single fact. Then there's Vivian Leigh, we're directly told by another character she's an aging coquette who's looking for a kind of love she'll never find. But how about letting the character's actions divulge this to us instead of having the film directly tells us through a monologue...That's what happens when a novel has the characters skeletonized down to mere whispers of their former selves. It would've been better to cut the secondary story of the Spanish labors who board the ship in Cuba. Their story could be interesting but not in the short time the movie has when one considers all the numerous characters that the movie includes.



Pros: There are some real strengths in Ship of Fools. Simone Signoret and Oskar Werner who were both Oscar nominated for best actor/actress for their work on this film. Their acting and their scenes together are worth the 'price of admission'. The way they are written says much without telling us their whole story, we 'get them' through their emotions and actions, that elevates the movie and was greatly appreciated by me.

The scenes with the Jewish man (Heinz Rühmann) and the dwarf who also narrates the film (Michael Dunn) were among my favorites. Those two character added needed humanity and warmth. They felt alive, they felt real as opposed to some of the other characters who seemed like contrived archetypes. I did like Jose Ferrer's likable but loudmouth bigot. The funny thing is he doesn't even know he's a bigot and that is a bit of clever writing.

Strangely both Vivan Leigh who I adore and Lee Marvin who's just plain cool both disappointed me in this film. I don't blame the actors as I know they have the chops, I blame the script.

Despite the overly long runtime and the unevenness of the movie I am very glad to have watched this and find myself wanting to explore more of Stanley Kramer's filmography.





Candyman (1992)

*Spoilers*

Love that sadness in Virginia Madsen's eyes. She carries that forlorn look through much of the film. I always thought she was attractive but I never knew just how good of an actress she was until now. She did more with an expression than most actors can do with a 1000 words. She made me care about her character's plight and that pulled me into the movie.

It's no secret that I don't care for most modern horror films, just not my bag. I have to say this movie held my attention and kept me interested from the start. That's something alot of movies don't do for me. So I appreciated it for that. I also appreciated that the film took a good amount of time building the premise of the backstory. I'm sure some horror fans wanted the film to jump right into those jump scares and gore kills, but for me the deeper physiological aspects of the film was what intrigued me.

It was a perfect choice to locate this in Chicago's Cabrini-Green projects. I had read about them when I was a teenager and as soon as I heard Cabrini-Green it piqued my interest. I also liked the concept that long held fears are transformed into a collective belief system by society and then passed down through the generations. I wish the film had ended at the funeral with the Cabrini-Green residents coming to 'pay their respects' to Helen, ending with the little boy dropping the hook into the grave...as to say that they were finally free of the fear they had lived in.



The first Candyman seriously impressed me. Loved how new and unique it was while relying more on weird-ass plot points than gore.



2022 Mofo Fantasy Football Champ
Dead Man's Letters



I kicked this thing off with the movie I knew the least about going into it. In a way it almost felt like a side movie to Stalker. Which would be great and might even be great to those who really enjoyed Stalker. The problem is I'm not a Stalker fan and I wasn't much of a fan of this either, actually I think I enjoy Stalker more. The movie just looks ugly to me. I get that part of it may be intentional but it just doesn't really have any value to me how the film looks. I feel like I'm just too bored by it. Maybe the story is supposed to really latch on to it's audience but I never really cared about what was going on or the consequences of some of the characters actions. I wish the Larsen character was more interesting as it perhaps could have helped.

I mean I do love some dark films, but this one just felt hopeless and desolate. I know things necessarily didn't turn that way in the end, but the mood the film had me in really never wavered even after we realized what had happened later on. There just didn't seem like a lot for me to work with on this unfortunately.




Candyman (1992) - Either
or
. I'll just say
for now.

*SPOILER WARNING*

When I first watched this, I felt some of its social commentary went over my head, but having read some reviews since then and having watched the recent film, I felt I had a decent understanding of what the film was going for. So yeah, I was looking forward to rewatching this. To my surprise though, its themes didn't come together for me with this rewatch and the character motivations felt kind of muddled and unclear in the end. I like the characterization of Candyman as a slasher of sorts who only kills people to make sure enough people believe in him, but the more I watched the second half, the more I found myself asking "How does any of this accomplish his goal?" The various murders he committed throughout the second half were all set up to make it look like Helen committed them, so how these killings were supposed to get people to believe in him again was beyond me. Then, when the film moved to the final act, his intentions suddenly changed to him destroying himself and making Helen into the new Candyman. And this is fine and all, but if that was actually his initial goal, why did he go through all that trouble in the second half when he likely had the power to kill Helen right away? I think the idea of a white person stealing an urban legend popular amongst black people is a good concept as it adds to the theme of black struggle, but Candyman's behavior/killing patterns were too random and shapeless for those themes to come together.

I'll give the film credit where it's due though as its strengths are quite plentiful. Firstly, while it's clear the film will be a horror film, I found it impressive how the changeover in the second half still came as a surprise and managed to change the tone without causing any dissonance in the process. Also, I'm not sure if the accounts of Virginia Madsen being hypnotized are true, but regardless of how the effect was achieved, the various close-up shots of her face looked terrific. Her forlorn and dazed expressions suited the film very well and were impressive to watch. I also enjoyed how the film didn't jump into the horror right away and took its time to introduce us to certain characters and provided enough time for the urban legend/settings to sink in. The early scenes at the Cabrini-Green Homes project, in particular, were rather memorable. Finally, the gore and the soundtrack were both great. Anyways, I don't know how much this reads as a positive review, but even though I elaborated a bit more on what I didn't like, I did enjoy the film. Again, the first half was very good and, issues aside, the second half its moments as well. I was just hoping for the film to come together better.

Next Up: Dog Day Afternoon
__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd



I've been to the Cabrini Green projects but I was so young I can't remember it. I do remember a funny song on Chicago radio, it went "Cabrini Green where the mayor sleeps", that's the only part I remember. The mayor at the time had moved there or something.



Let the night air cool you off
spoilers ahead for:

To Live and Die in L.A.


Director: William Friedkin

Other Friedkin films I've seen:

The French Connection (1971)
The Exorcist (1973)
Bug (2006)
Killer Joe (2011)

To Live and Die in L.A. makes five Friedkin films for me.

My rating - I'd go somewhere between
and
, with the truth being closer to somewhere underneath 3 and a quarter. There is a great chase sequence and a very wild, unexpected ending that moved the needle a long a way in a positive direction. The first half of this film was a little rough to get through as it seemed to be more about how many cliches could be stuffed in an hour. I was thinking that I was getting too old for that shit, but stuck with it, because a) that's what you have to do to participate in the hall of fame and b) something was still intriguing me about the film, something I didn't quite understand. Despite the cliches and some of the goofiness that comes from the 80s, there was still plenty of cool stuff going on, the main character, a cop who doesn't play by the rules, but always gets his man, has the coolest name in the history of dudes being dudes: Dick Chance. Willem Defoe wasn't asked to do a whole lot, but his charisma makes every scene he is involved in. Plus the cinematography was above average the whole film, which helps when characters are just standing around in a very 80s way looking very 80s. Also when Dick Chance took his shirt off, I'm not sure why, but I was honestly taken aback by how f*cking bodied up that guy was. Shoutout to that chase sequence going through parts of Los Santos I would drive through in San Andreas. Also shoutout to how quick and swiftly they did Dick Chance in there at the end, there is no other way a character like that can go out and you just keep going about your business unless it is like that. I don't think I'll ever love this film, but I am glad I got to see it.



The first half of this film was a little rough to get through as it seemed to be more about how many cliches could be stuffed in an hour. I was thinking that I was getting too old for that shit, but stuck with it, because a) that's what you have to do to participate in the hall of fame and b) something was still intriguing me about the film, something I didn't quite understand. .

Well like I said in my setup of the nomination this is a film you watch twice because the first half is riddled with cliche's. And then you go back and you see all the small things Friedkin slips in there that explains the third act. And it completely contextualizes the film



Women will be your undoing, Pépé



The Uninvited (1944)

Starting this off with one I was very highly intrigued to see and very much enjoyed.
I fully agree with CR's description of Gail Russell:

"She has this look of forlorn lost-ness, like someone adrift and in need of an anchor to keep her from floating out to sea." and like him, I've also seen her in Angel & the Badman and genuinely enjoy her ethereal, slippery connection between the living and the deceased in this film. A genuinely ideal casting for this part.
Along with Ray Milland's cavalier bravado, the rightfully concerned grandfather Donald Crisp regarding the haunted house, and Cornelia Otis Skinner's gothic Keeper of the Secret to Milland's kind-hearted sister, Ruth Hussey, there lies a significant diorama to stage this ghost story that for all of its intended horror there is a gentle love/respect for its subject matter and the interaction of ghosts and the living. The continual use of scents, specifically the smell of mimosa, whenever the ghost of Russell's mother is present, is something I loved seeing, giving substance and depth to how ghosts' presence creates more than just "cold spots" and moments of poltergeist (sh#t being tossed about).

There was also a certain tangible lightness to this unfolding of a dark tale of the initial cause of the haunting that is hard to describe but remains quite discernable for me—adding layers to what could have been simply a scary story into something more. And as someone who cares little for slasher horrors but thoroughly enjoys a good ghost story, this definitely hits the mark.

Thank you, my dear @MovieGal, for nominating this; it is a wonderful opening to this Hall of Fame. BRAVO




Lawrence of Arabia
(David Lean 1962)




Second watch and I'm even more impressed than the first time...and the first time blew me away. I'm so impressed that I don't know if I have the words to do this film justice.

When I watched this some years ago I was amazed at the cinematography. I just don't mean the beautiful desert locations I mean the choice of the camera lens which is often wide angle and the choice of the composition and the lighting...it's all sublime.

This time around I realized how powerful the script was. Especially the handling of the story of a man who would be a self proclaimed prophet and lead a people to their destiny. No one could have pulled this off like the odd and interesting Peter O'Toole.

But you know what struck me the most? Was how much Frank Herbert's 1965 novel Dune was inspired by this movie. Just watch David Lynch's 1984 Dune and then watch Lawrence of Arabia to see what I mean. I love the novel Dune and even Lynch's 1984 Dune so while watching Lawrence of Arabia I felt like I was watching a prequel to Dune. I mean that in the most positive way possible.





Women will be your undoing, Pépé


Ida (2013)

A sojourn of exquisite composition expressing all that is left unspoken or acted upon by Anna/Ida (Agata Trzebuchowska) of fanciful still waters and her bitter, taciturn aunt Wanda (Agata Kulesza) with solemn determination to search out the truth of a family tragedy.

I had decided to witness this completely blind, which was THE ideal way for me. I was wrapped up in every continually beautiful and captivatingly arranged shot in the perfect media for this, Black & White.
Such an experience does not always work if no substance equally captures the constructed long takes of every shot. For me, it did. Connecting easily with the characters, the emotions clamped down beneath veneers and the ones that seep out.

I have only just finished this stoic, reflective sojourn of poetic resonance and find words lacking that I wish to quote @Thief's final words of his review:
In the end, we realize that first, the journey never ends. Life continues, despite whatever pit stops we make along the way. And second, that regardless of where the journey leads you to at any point, it is what you make with what you find what counts; even if it's God or your own demons

A Truly Wonderful Nomination, BRAVO, my friend. BRAVO