26th Hall of Fame

Tools    





Understandable. This is NOT the usual Angel that comes down to guide and nurture via gentleness, kindness, with a deep adherence to morality. Angel-A is NOT Clarence and Andred this definitely NOT George Bailey from It's a Wonderful Life. LOL
For what it's worth, I still found the film conceptually interesting and I'd be interested in seeing another film like this. Though I was left rather cold to some of what went on, I do think the unconventional characters were intentional and another viewing may get me to enjoy it a bit more. Who knows.



Think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?
For what it's worth, I still found the film conceptually interesting and I'd be interested in seeing another film like this. Though I was left rather cold to some of what went on, I do think the unconventional characters were intentional and another viewing may get me to enjoy it a bit more. Who knows.
No harm nor foul and I do appreciate that a first view does go down a seldom path and thereby for some, a bit offsetting. Hence the review as an Introduction right from the get go.
__________________
What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer.



Guy who likes movies
I just finished watching Angel-A (2005). Directed by Luc Besson, the film stars Jamel Debbouze and Rie Rasmussen. It's about a man struggling with his life and deep in debt who meets a beautiful and mysterious woman who helps him get his life together and solve his problems. I enjoyed this. I really liked the beautiful black and white cinematography. I thought both Debbouze and Rasmussen were very good in their performances. This was an interesting and entertaining story, told in a charming, playful way that really worked for me. Good nomination.



The Celebration (1998) -


I was looking forward to revisiting this film and, fortunately, it was just as great as I remembered. I found myself impressed by the mystery of the family, but even more so by the terrific style and the cinematic technique Vinterberg employed throughout the film. Initially, the rough and unpolished camera shots (which I don't consider to be a flaw, btw) and unorthodox camera angles and shooting positions mildly impressed me. As the film went on though, my admiration over those aspects grew more profound. As more revelations about the family were revealed and as the party guests kept turning on each other, the bizarre camerawork resonated with me in the best way possible as it matched the craziness of the situation at the birthday party. Some people may be distracted by its noticeable low budget, but I actually think the film's low budget contributes to its greatness. The grainy cinematography added to the craziness of the film as it lead to many shots feeling reminiscent of a grainy horror film made in the 70's or the 80's. I can't imagine the film giving off the same effect with a higher budget. If I had to nitpick something, it might be better to build to the unorthodox cinematography as opposed to utilizing it right at the start of the film. This isn't to say I disliked the unorthodox cinematography in the first act per se, but since it worked best for me when paired with the family conflict, it might have been cool to have the camerawork escalate in weirdness, with it growing more unorthodox and dreamlike as the story grew more bizarre. However, this minor issue was ultimately lost in the grand scheme of everything I loved about the film, so I don't mean to imply this matters much. Just some food for thought.

Next Up: Cinema Paradiso



@rauldc14 Also, you're the only person who hasn't submitted a review yet. Of course, there's no rush or anything. Just checking in to make sure you're still with us.



Here’s looking at you, kid.
The Wizard of Oz: Victor Fleming (1939)

I have seen this film countless times growing up, as well into my adult years and it never lets me down. I love this movie, it’s one of the movies of why I love movies. As I get older, I will say it becomes more noticeable of how geared towards children it is but even so, this film is timeless.

The cast is wonderful, as well as the makeup/costumes and score, but what impresses me the most is the set design and the cinematography. This film is utterly gorgeous. I don’t know how many times this film was “updated” from its original quality or if ive ever even seen it in its original form but it really has some stunning visuals, without even mentioning it made in 1939.

As I said before, this film is timeless, I absolutely adore it and i believe it’s one of the most important movies in film history and I will watch it again and again.

Update: I can not wait till I have upgraded my entertainment center to 4K, especially to watch this film!



@rauldc14 Also, you're the only person who hasn't submitted a review yet. Of course, there's no rush or anything. Just checking in to make sure you're still with us.
Was on vacation and just got back. Sorry I forgot to mention that.



Here’s looking at you, kid.
I’ve been slacking on my reviews myself, just turned in my Wizard of Oz review but I still need to write up a “Not Quite Hollywood” and “The Passion of Joan of Arc”.

Both were amazing films but I have realized I am going to find it hard to list these films/documentaries in order, because I would choose a film over a documentary any day. Then again, “Not Quite Hollywood” was a high octane, explosive cluster**** of ****, blood and mayhem. Definitely added over 15 films to my watchlist due to that single documentary!



Tower

WARNING: spoilers below
Tower: My second watch of a very powerful doc. I had never heard of this incident until seeing this for the first time. Really love the style and how it unfolds. The rotoscope style into the real people makes when they begin speaking very powerful. Dropped tear more than once. Especially when the pregnant woman says she forgives the shooter. Incredibly powerful moment. The other thing that makes this really powerful is the sound design. The constant gun shots through two thirds of the film is astounding.



Here’s looking at you, kid.
Not Quite Hollywood :Mark Hartley (2008)

Wow, wtf did I just watch….. and this was just the documentary about said films.

This doc was about ozploitation, a genre I have not had the pleasure of watching or even heard of up until now, besides basically watching it indirectly through one of Quentin Tarantinos films.

Not Quite Hollywood definitely took notes from its subject matter, just like the films, this doc was a high octane **** fest of debauchery, explosions, sex and karate. It just never took a breath, from beginning to end, this doc was in high gear, outdoing it’s previous scene from explosive **** fest to nuclear psycho zombie apocalypse bending over Pamela Anderson, while on Meth, all while driving on an out of control train driving 255 mph, which ends up crashing into a volcano.

Point is, this doc was a lot, but at the end of the day, it did it’s job, because I am definitely interested in the genre of film and will definitely be watching some films in the near future!



Think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?




And Then There Were None (2015)

Ten little Indian boys went out to dine; One choked his little self and then there were nine.
Nine little Indian boys sat up very late; One overslept himself and then there were eight.
Eight little Indian boys traveling in Devon; One said he'd stay there and then there were seven.
Seven little Indian boys chopping up sticks; One chopped himself in halves and then there were six.
Six little Indian boys playing with a hive; A bumblebee stung one of them and then there were five.
Five little Indian boys going in for law; One got in Chancery and then there were four.
Four little Indian boys going out to sea; A red herring swallowed one and then there were three.
Three little Indian boys walking in the zoo; A big bear hugged one and then there were two.
Two little Indian boys sitting in the sun; One got all frizzled up and then there was one.
One little Indian boy left all alone; He went and hanged himself and then there were none.


Besides the convenience of splitting up a 3-hour version of Agatha Christie's top-selling murder mystery, as far as my own time restraints, the three episodes created a more definitive First, Second, and Third Act of a theatrical performance, for me.
A familiar nuance to a number of BBC productions of similar settings that I've always and continue to enjoy.
To the point that it is rather easy to break down, each episode should one be inclined.

Since I've never read any Christie mysteries I do not know how closely a representation this production was to the root source. It is, very much, a more realized, in-depth exploration of the story and the many characters that are all strangers with one simple common thread; they've all been brought together to be murdered for past crimes that they had each had gotten away with. Or so they thought.

I think my favorite was the First Act with the introductions of each of them and the reason for them all being there is revealed in a recorded message citing each and every one of their crimes, played for all to hear after dinner.
The building tension and dread are done exceedingly well as the first few begin to be taken out. Building even more through the Second as alliances are made and mistrust begins to grow rampant. Is the murderer in hiding? Who the hell are these Owens that invited them here? Or is the murderer there, amongst them?

And since this IS a murder mystery, I will not delve into it but I will express how, like the first two, the finality of the murders and the reveal were quite enjoyable to witness in the Third Act.





Angel-A (2006)

If ever there was a mixed bag award for these types of Hall's it would go to Angel-A because this is a very complicated and difficult film to critique. I mean I am truly conflicted on how I feel like the quality of this work was and if it should even count as "good" or if the work is "evil" if not borderline racist. If you were to describe the film in a synopsis an muslim abroad is saved by a white angel. So that's one layer of problems...the fact that the "angel" also prostitutes herself, drinks alchool, and runs around half naked is a provocative concept but you've got this dirtier aspect to it with the casting choice. The films central metaphor is a problem and that's tough for me as a reviewer.

I can see where Besson is going with his work, Rie Rasmussen is very good borderline a star making performance. She has an incredible screen presence and the story with her is engaging. Besson also uses a less is more aspect with the special effects, you feel like you are watching an ad campaign for perfume at times...and I say that in a good way. Besson's trademark femme fatale lets you know this is his work though tonally it's questionable. I'm really kinda of struggling with this film.

Aside from the films politics which I could somewhat put aside, the thing that will keep from ranking this highly is it is just to much like other films (Wings of Desire, Before Sunrise, It's a Wonderful Life). A film like this needs to be original but it's so reminiscent of earlier works from other filmmakers. When you steal from classics it's hard to look past that and judge the film as a whole.

I get why people will like this film but for me I'm very uneasy about it.



Daisies



Another Hall of Fame where something is nominated that really doesn't have business being in these things. These two acting ladies were terrible, their voices could be the most annoying in movie history. If there is a point to the movie then that's cool but I really didn't care either way. Any scene with food involved is just pure trash. How one can ever be hungry during this movie would be beyond me. They don't even act like real humans. I can give it a half star for how some of the film looks, but that's all I can do. I'll say it again but I think films like this are an honest deterrent to what we are trying to do here, even if somebody likes it we are basically already knowing what has taken last place before the results are even in. As for my favorite part of the movie? The end credits.

-



And now, everyone in this Hall of Fame has submitted at least one review. Hooray! Let me know if I missed any of your reviews, by the way.



Daisie

Another Hall of Fame where something is nominated that really doesn't have business being in these things.
These two acting ladies were terrible, their voices could be the most annoying in movie history. If there is a point to the movie then that's cool but I really didn't care either way. Any scene with food involved is just pure trash. How one can ever be hungry during this movie would be beyond me. They don't even act like real humans. I can give it a half star for how some of the film looks, but that's all I can do. I'll say it again but I think films like this are an honest deterrent to what we are trying to do here, even if somebody likes it we are basically already knowing what has taken last place before the results are even in. As for my favorite part of the movie? The end credits.

-
Raul you're one of my favorite members and I respect anyone's right to have a different viewpoint...but I got counter the idea that Daisies doesn't belong in a Hall of Fame.
Both me and my wife enjoyed the movie and I'm often very picky about what I like as everyone knows. And if you look at it's IMDB page you can see it's highly rated and those ratings are from 11,000+ votes. It's not like it's an Ed Wood Jr movie. I mean it's not trying to be realistic, you know Wes Anderson isn't very realistic either but people still like him. It's cool you hate the film, but I do disagree that movies like Daisies don't belong in an HoF.




I know you don't like to rate movies much but are you saying it's like over a
for you?



I know you don't like to rate movies much but are you saying it's like over a
for you?
Good question, if I was doing a full review which someday I will, it would be a
that's subjectively...But objectively (art house rating) I'd say it's a
, though I tend to rate by subjectively.

I expected to hate it, and was bored by the first scene where the girls act like robots with ratcheting sounds, but after that I warmed up to it. I thought the food stuff was funny, gross but funny. It was just so weird how they had this food fixation. I thought it was a very creative, experimental, free-form movie that fits what society was experiencing in the late 1960s.