Reply to Topic
I really loved the look of it, the premise, and the dynamics of the final confrontation. I would need a rewatch to see if it feels slower without the novelty of a first viewing.
Rate The Last Movie You Saw
This is hardly the focus of the movie and outside of that scene, it makes little to no impact on the plot or themes.
What the film is about is exposing national indifference to the treatment of Natives and disproportionate disappearances of Native women in this country (something of particular importance given hot topic political theater right now). The conflict is distinctly one of Native Americans and the film sidelined them entirely to victims or scenery. Given the nature of the films plot, setting and theme, this is a pretty damning oversight as they aren’t allowed to be anything more than a plot device in a story designed to expose their strife.
A great deal of what you’re putting onto this film is only textual given that exchange. Changing his race simply allows the people it claims to represent to be autonomous and have a horse in the race. It doesn’t change the dynamic of his job (protector from wildlife and outsiders), the plot, and only enhances virtually every other bit of subtext by making Natives both relevant but also emphasizing Olsen’s outsider-ness within this world.
Your argument about his being white being important is tantamount to “cuz if he weren’t white, they wouldn’t treat him as white” and… well, yeah. That’s what Olsen’s character is there for already.
Creating this film with a white savior and sidelining all natives isn’t demanding a different film be made. It would be the deletion of one conversation and changing “white” in the character description to “Native American.” Virtually nothing else in the film would change and it would make a substantial gain in representation and articulating the point it’s trying to make.
[edit] This isn’t even touching on how the film is built on the long tradition of having white leads in westerns that focus on Native Americans and waving it off as “he was raised by them since he was a young boy” or “he’s a half-breed”
And here’s an interview where Sheridan specifically outlines his purposes and goals for the film (which align with my claims):
https://www.interviewmagazine.com/fi...dan-wind-river
I’m just saying how he could have accomplished those goals more effectively and avoided classic racial pitfalls of genre filmmaking. Not make a completely different movie.
What the film is about is exposing national indifference to the treatment of Natives and disproportionate disappearances of Native women in this country (something of particular importance given hot topic political theater right now). The conflict is distinctly one of Native Americans and the film sidelined them entirely to victims or scenery. Given the nature of the films plot, setting and theme, this is a pretty damning oversight as they aren’t allowed to be anything more than a plot device in a story designed to expose their strife.
A great deal of what you’re putting onto this film is only textual given that exchange. Changing his race simply allows the people it claims to represent to be autonomous and have a horse in the race. It doesn’t change the dynamic of his job (protector from wildlife and outsiders), the plot, and only enhances virtually every other bit of subtext by making Natives both relevant but also emphasizing Olsen’s outsider-ness within this world.
Your argument about his being white being important is tantamount to “cuz if he weren’t white, they wouldn’t treat him as white” and… well, yeah. That’s what Olsen’s character is there for already.
Creating this film with a white savior and sidelining all natives isn’t demanding a different film be made. It would be the deletion of one conversation and changing “white” in the character description to “Native American.” Virtually nothing else in the film would change and it would make a substantial gain in representation and articulating the point it’s trying to make.
[edit] This isn’t even touching on how the film is built on the long tradition of having white leads in westerns that focus on Native Americans and waving it off as “he was raised by them since he was a young boy” or “he’s a half-breed”
And here’s an interview where Sheridan specifically outlines his purposes and goals for the film (which align with my claims):
https://www.interviewmagazine.com/fi...dan-wind-river
I’m just saying how he could have accomplished those goals more effectively and avoided classic racial pitfalls of genre filmmaking. Not make a completely different movie.
Ok, I'm just gonna let it go. I don't agree with you that it only matters in one scene. I don't think Sheridan's purposes conflict with what I'm talking about. But I also don't care that much, as I've said repeatedly, I just gave my opinion of the movie I saw. Arguing about the movie you think it should have been is exhausting me and I just don't care that much. So, go in peace, if you feel like you're right then keep feeling it and I'll just keep liking the movie I actually saw.
X
User Lists
All criticism of art carries at least an implied suggestion of how it should’ve been done instead. I’ll continue to think critically about films I watch, even those I enjoy like Wind River, especially when they attempt themes of social importance and make creative choices that undercut that attempt.
Have you seen Lugosi's Dracula?
I liked it Tacoma but the friendship didn't really seem plausible to me The hitman was far too volatile to get on with the placid hotel owner.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Yes, and I'm not a huge fan of it. That for me was a film that dragged.
__________________
X
User Lists
Speaking as someone who used to think it sucked, it plays a lot better in a Lugosi marathon/exploration than on its own, which helped me focus on the good parts (Lugosi, the castle scenes) and tune out the not so good parts (a good chunk of the rest of the movie, haha).
I didn't hate it or anything, but about halfway through I was dismayed to find that while it looked good, it was overall pretty flat.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Kairo, 2001
This horror film follows two different stories that eventually converge. A young man named Ryosuke (Haruhiko Kato) has just gotten a computer to get online, but the device connects to a strange website on its own where he he witness strange footage of people in their homes moving in an odd manner. Meanwhile, a woman named Michi (Kumiko Aso) investigates a computer disc that seems to be connected to the suicide of one of her friends.
Ghost in the machine stories have never really been my thing, and so despite repeatedly having this film recommended to me by people whose taste I trust, I've let it sit on the shelf.
What an absolute gem.
To begin with, the imagery in this movie is unbearably creepy and beautiful, all without having to go to the well of jump scares or overly-graphic violence. Yes, there are certainly some disturbing images and moments, but the majority of the tension comes from watching grainy footage of a woman slowly walking across a room, or from a character staring at a distorted stain on a wall. There's also fantastic use of layers and moments where we detect movement behind or around the main characters.
But on top of how good the movie looks and how spooky it all is, there is some really good character work and strong themes to do with loneliness and connection. It's weird watching this film where a man in his early 20s is just using the internet for seemingly the first time, and another character patiently explains to him how to bookmark a website. ("Or use this button, the Print Screen key!" she helpfully adds). The horror of the film has its own explanation and works on a literal level, but must of what happens in the film seems to evoke the fears that accompany the internet: young people getting lost in their screens, isolation, obsession.
The film also features a really powerful ending sequence and final act that goes somewhere I would not have anticipated.
I suppose my only criticism, and this is more to do with maybe this being a film not in my native language, is that it took me a little while to realize that there were two parallel stories playing out. I was pretty confused for a while about the cutting back and forth and I kept trying to understand how the characters were connected. I think it's good to know, going in, that the stories at first do not overlap.
Great movie, and if you've never seen it before I think it would make for a great October viewing!
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Have you seen Cure? I prefer that one by a smidge. Tremendously creepy film. I think JJ is a big fan as well.
Watch it again! Watch it again until you reach the exact same rating as me (7/10)!
I watched it on the big screen (as a double bill with Frankenstein) and the comparison was not flattering. And considering Freaks is one of my favorite movies and has such a vibrant personality, the flatness of Dracula is outright baffling to me.
I didn't hate it or anything, but about halfway through I was dismayed to find that while it looked good, it was overall pretty flat.
I didn't hate it or anything, but about halfway through I was dismayed to find that while it looked good, it was overall pretty flat.
X
User Lists
Have you seen Cure? I prefer that one by a smidge. Tremendously creepy film.
Watch it again! Watch it again until you reach the exact same rating as me (7/10)!
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
26th Hall of Fame (REWATCH)
Cinema Paradiso (1988) -
My reaction to this film when I watched it a few years ago was that its first hour was great, but the second hour made a couple poor choices which reduced it to a good film. I had a feeling my opinion would grow this time around, but unfortunately, it remained the same and, if anything, this rewatch solidified my opinion of it even more.
In spite of my issues with this film though, I don't consider it to be a bad film by any means, The aforementioned first hour, in fact, is about as entertaining and moving as any film has the right to be. Tornatore crafts such a humorous and vividly detailed film which is packed with a few different types of greatness. For example, some of the humor involving Alfredo and Toto resonated with me quite well, like the touches of humor thrown into some of their tense encounters in the first act or Toto helping Alfredo cheat on a test. These bits made their building friendship a blast to watch. I also enjoyed the emphasis given to multiple side characters who either attended the theater or were frequently seen outside it. There's a priest who orders Alfredo to cut all the inappropriate scenes from the films (kissing scenes, typically), a tramp who believes he owns the town square outside the theater, a man who spits on people from the upper balcony of the theater, a man who frequently gets pranked for falling asleep during the movies, and the general rowdiness of the crowd that attends the theater. It's clear that the theater is the centerpiece of the town and the main (well, the only) pastime for many of the town's citizens. Finally, I liked how the film saved most of its sentimentality for the ending. Complimented with Morricone's terrific score, it's almost impossible not to be moved during the final montage.
While the film's first hour is strong, the second hour makes some odd narrative choices which fail to capitalize on that potential. Since Alfredo's and Toto's friendship is established for most of the first hour, I found it strange how the second half shifted so much focus away from Alfredo. Instead, we get a romance sub-plot between Toto and Elena. Though I've yet to watch the extended cuts of this film, I've read a decent bit about them and my understanding is that they provide a better thematic significance for that sub-plot, so I may enjoy this film more if I watch those versions. Who knows. With the international cut though, that sub-plot took time away from what I liked the most about the film. To top it off, I also found certain elements of that sub-plot creepy, like Toto waiting outside Elena's house for (I think) 100 days in an attempt to get her to like him. After the focus finally gets back to Alfredo, he only stays onscreen for about five more more minutes and, while I found their conversations during those five minutes powerful, they ultimately left me asking for more. Granted, the final act is kind of effective and the aforementioned ending is terrific, but the middle act was a huge misstep and left me very cold. And it's a real shame, because the film had a lot going for it with the first hour. The second hour failed to follow up on that potential though.
In spite of my issues though, I'd still recommend the film. The strengths of the first hour and the ending were more than enough to save the day, so I did enjoy the film. Just like my first viewing though, I wasn't so crazy on the second hour. I'll likely check out the longer cuts in the future though to see if this film finally clicks with me.
Cinema Paradiso (1988) -
My reaction to this film when I watched it a few years ago was that its first hour was great, but the second hour made a couple poor choices which reduced it to a good film. I had a feeling my opinion would grow this time around, but unfortunately, it remained the same and, if anything, this rewatch solidified my opinion of it even more.
In spite of my issues with this film though, I don't consider it to be a bad film by any means, The aforementioned first hour, in fact, is about as entertaining and moving as any film has the right to be. Tornatore crafts such a humorous and vividly detailed film which is packed with a few different types of greatness. For example, some of the humor involving Alfredo and Toto resonated with me quite well, like the touches of humor thrown into some of their tense encounters in the first act or Toto helping Alfredo cheat on a test. These bits made their building friendship a blast to watch. I also enjoyed the emphasis given to multiple side characters who either attended the theater or were frequently seen outside it. There's a priest who orders Alfredo to cut all the inappropriate scenes from the films (kissing scenes, typically), a tramp who believes he owns the town square outside the theater, a man who spits on people from the upper balcony of the theater, a man who frequently gets pranked for falling asleep during the movies, and the general rowdiness of the crowd that attends the theater. It's clear that the theater is the centerpiece of the town and the main (well, the only) pastime for many of the town's citizens. Finally, I liked how the film saved most of its sentimentality for the ending. Complimented with Morricone's terrific score, it's almost impossible not to be moved during the final montage.
While the film's first hour is strong, the second hour makes some odd narrative choices which fail to capitalize on that potential. Since Alfredo's and Toto's friendship is established for most of the first hour, I found it strange how the second half shifted so much focus away from Alfredo. Instead, we get a romance sub-plot between Toto and Elena. Though I've yet to watch the extended cuts of this film, I've read a decent bit about them and my understanding is that they provide a better thematic significance for that sub-plot, so I may enjoy this film more if I watch those versions. Who knows. With the international cut though, that sub-plot took time away from what I liked the most about the film. To top it off, I also found certain elements of that sub-plot creepy, like Toto waiting outside Elena's house for (I think) 100 days in an attempt to get her to like him. After the focus finally gets back to Alfredo, he only stays onscreen for about five more more minutes and, while I found their conversations during those five minutes powerful, they ultimately left me asking for more. Granted, the final act is kind of effective and the aforementioned ending is terrific, but the middle act was a huge misstep and left me very cold. And it's a real shame, because the film had a lot going for it with the first hour. The second hour failed to follow up on that potential though.
In spite of my issues though, I'd still recommend the film. The strengths of the first hour and the ending were more than enough to save the day, so I did enjoy the film. Just like my first viewing though, I wasn't so crazy on the second hour. I'll likely check out the longer cuts in the future though to see if this film finally clicks with me.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The Rohl Farms Haunting (2013)
I think the only reason I carried on watching was because I thought it may lead to somewhere interesting, it really doesn’t and there’s no reason or explanation for anything that happened, for that matter their is no haunting or anything supernatural.. in the last part I just wanted the main character to get killed who had becoming extremely annoying, one of the worst found footage films I have sat all the way through, wish I hadn’t.
I think the only reason I carried on watching was because I thought it may lead to somewhere interesting, it really doesn’t and there’s no reason or explanation for anything that happened, for that matter their is no haunting or anything supernatural.. in the last part I just wanted the main character to get killed who had becoming extremely annoying, one of the worst found footage films I have sat all the way through, wish I hadn’t.
X
Favorite Movies
Cure is also very solid. I think that the theme of Kairo gives it the slight edge for me, but we're talking very little difference between two great films.
I'd already give it a 7/10, so mission accomplished!
I'd already give it a 7/10, so mission accomplished!
X
User Lists
Kanal, 1957
A group of Polish resistance fighters are pinned down by the German army, and decide that they must attempt to escape via the city's sewer system. Once down in the sewers, the relationships between the fighters begin to break down as their commander, a man named Zadra (Wienczyslaw Glinski) tries fruitlessly to keep morale up. Also in the party is a young wounded soldier named Korab (Tadeusz Janczar), with whom the guide, Daisy (Teresa Izewska) is in love.
My heart!
This film is really, really bleak. I was not prepared for just how rough things were going to get, and if you do check it out, brace yourself. But it was also really well acted, beautifully shot, and incredibly poignant.
As the film goes on, the sewer becomes a kind of hell (and at one point, as the men scramble over each other for fresh air, another man quotes Dante). The men and women are perpetually waist deep in sewage, willing themselves and each other to keep moving forward. With no sense of time or progress, loyalties begin to break down. And as the lack of food or water and the foul fumes of the place make themselves felt, the bodies of the escapees begin to break down as well.
But what's strange is that amidst all of the despair and betrayal, this is also a lovely film. And, yes, that does feel like an odd thing to say about a movie where the main characters are covered in poop for almost the entire runtime.
In particular, the sequences between Korab and Daisy are gorgeous. Yeah, it helps that both actors are incredibly attractive, with Izewska in particular somehow looking particularly luminous even as she slogs through a river of waste. Their scenes benefit tremendously from a very strong chemistry between the two of them--a suppressed vibe of sexual desire made wretched and impossible by their dire situation and the fact that Korab is seriously injured.
I have no criticisms of this one. It was deeply sad, but the sadness is not unearned. It is not misery for the sake of misery, but rather a look at the wretchedness of war.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Yes, and I'm not a huge fan of it. That for me was a film that dragged.
.
.
For me Drac has the advantage of the awesome pre-England scenes. The Mummy's opening scene is terrific but (too) brief.
But again, the last thing I want is to discourage someone's enjoyment of a Universal Horror classic, so please carry on.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
HOT TIP:
Some time ago I recommended the BBC version of Count Dracula (1977) on one of these threads, and it has just come to my attention that it is streaming on Prime in the US.
Louis Jourdan is moustache-free, but in most other respects it's a pretty faithful-to-Stoker adaptation. (and it looks great)
Some time ago I recommended the BBC version of Count Dracula (1977) on one of these threads, and it has just come to my attention that it is streaming on Prime in the US.
Louis Jourdan is moustache-free, but in most other respects it's a pretty faithful-to-Stoker adaptation. (and it looks great)
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The '73 Jack Palance version is pretty great as well.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The Green Knight
I was a little worried about this one. The first 15-20 minutes are so rote, conventional like a lesser Game of Thrones episode coyly, and self-consciously, sprinkled with what feels like a parody of A24isms (the early intertitles are particularly art school precious). But, as Sir John Cleese once declared, "It got better". I think a second viewing may show some intention to the stuffy conventions of the early parts of the film, in slippingly striking contrast to the more moody and ethereal second half of the film, reaching its pinnacle in the lovely extended set piece in the Lord and Lady's manor, exulting in the kind of rich atmosphere that was so conspicuously absent in the first act. I'm a little confused by some of the reviews which talk about "deconstructing myth". I feel quite the opposite. It revels in the slow intoxication of mythic construction. I was much happier the more the film indulged its surrealism, and much less impressed with its attempts at any kind of realism. David Lowery is a young filmmaker, and still a tad too self-conscious in his postures, but with quite an interesting career so far, with only Pete's Dragon being a complete misfire.
9/10