The 13TH Hall of Fame

Tools    





Nothing good comes from staying with normal people
So, that makes ten now. I've got Forbidden game, Captain fantastic, Dead poets, Spring, summer..., Nightmare alley and Maria Braun left. Are we all just waiting for me, or is there someone else who's got movies left to review?
__________________
Why not just kill them? I'll do it! I'll run up to Paris - bam, bam, bam, bam. I'm back before week's end. We spend the treasure. How is this a bad plan?



Legend in my own mind
Last 2 tomorrow for me
__________________
"I don't want to be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product of me" (Frank Costello)



Women will be your undoing, Pépé
I still have 5, or if blix and neiba is out, I have 3; Buffalo 66, Forbidden Games, and Marriage of Maria Braun, though my count shows 10 out of 16.
I have become the late mate of these HoFs recently lol
__________________
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



Buffalo 66:

Sorry that wasn't my cup of tea, Vincent Gallo is one of those actors that annoys me for no particular reason, I don't find him compelling nor funny, he just annoys me. I know that's an unfair criticism, but I don't pretend to be objective or to give a fair review of the quality of the film in general, I just talk about my appreciation of it which was very poor, I couldn't wait for it to end. I don't really know what else to say, I guess the film tries to be funny. Overall I guess the problem was that I didn't care for any of the characters (particularly Vincent Gallo), they all seemed stereotypes of human beings and it didn't work for me. Sometime it doesn't bother when character are stereotypes (for instance in Tarantino movies), but in those instance I am entertained by something else, there wasn't this ''something else'' in this film.

So sorry Camo, I know it's not a very fair criticism, but it's how I felt haha.
__________________
I do not speak english perfectly so expect some mistakes here and there in my messages



Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring.. (there are spoilers)

I just rewatched this film, I remember seing it 3,4 years ago and absolutely loving it for it's calmness, it's beauty, it's wisdom. I must say that it didn't really have the same impression, I found the buddhist monk to be an incredibly immoral man and the lesson he teaches to be pointless. In other words, what at 17 years old I saw as wisdom, I see it now at 21 as lack of rationnality. I'll explain by giving some exemples. At the beggining of the film, the master sees the child putting a rock on the back of different animals, instead of telling him right away he waits the day after, puts a rock on the back of his pupil and tell him to go back where he was the day before to free the animals. To me, that means that the animal do not have any intrinsic value, it is more important to him to teach his pupil a lesson than to free the animals of non necessary suffering (which was the reason why harming the animals was wrong in the first place). Other examples are this idea of constantly punishing people for their sin, you can see that in the young man when he feels ashamed to have sexual desires, or when the old monk commit suicide because he feels guilty that he failed to educate correctly his pupil I suppose. Also, I find his vision of ''the way of men'' which ultimately lead the young guy to murder is far fetched, I wouldn't say that the existence of jealousy implies murder impulse, I think it's more realistic to think that the character is a little bit of a psychopath than the way of man might lead to murder haha.

That being said it is a beautifully shot film, has a very calm feel to it and is pleasant to watch. I never read buddhist philosophy, it might be in agreement with it so if you're a buddhist and the message doesn't bother you then it might be a masterpiece haha.



....At the beggining of the film, the master sees the child putting a rock on the back of different animals, instead of telling him right away he waits the day after, puts a rock on the back of his pupil and tell him to go back where he was the day before to free the animals. To me, that means that the animal do not have any intrinsic value, it is more important to him to teach his pupil a lesson than to free the animals of non necessary suffering...
That's an insightful analysis. I hadn't thought of that, but now that you mention it, I agree. In Buddhism all life is sacred, so the monk would have first freed the animals from their suffering, then taught his student a lesson why it was wrong.



Nothing good comes from staying with normal people
Captain Fantastic

That's the best acoustic cover of "Sweet Child O' Mine" I've ever heard. Great vocalist, nice beat, lovely harmonies and a killer harmonica player.

It's the little things


Viggo Mortensen is another actor I've always liked, ever since I first saw him in G.I. Jane. Since then I've seen most of what he's done, always at least liking them and often finding them great. In this case, it falls to the liking side. I wasn't wowed by his performance here, but it's still a very good role. Playing the father of a family that just lost their mother, Mortensen has to pull them from the forest they've been living in since before most of the children were born and enter modern life, somthing the children, while well red and trained to survive in the wild, seem a bit unqualified for. They posses rudamentary social skills, but their lack of interaction with other people their own age (as well as a total lack of current popular culture) sets them at odds when meeting people in an urban environment. The actors portraying these children are fine, with the stand-out performance being MacKay, playing the eldest son Bo. Being the one with the most lines and the lion's share of the screen time, he's the one who gets the most fleshed out, it's not surprising that he stands out (to me, at least) as the most memorable character of the children. The girls, too, are both well played and have their own voices in the movie, but the younger kids blend together in my mind. I kept mixing up the two youngest kids, and it took me a long time to really nail down who was who.

As to the way the film was shot, I liked the intimacy of the campfire scene in the beginning, and how it was mirrored in the final shot with them all together again round the kitchen table. The quiet just before Mortensen interrupts their reading by going round the circle and checking their progress was a nice touch too, speaking to the ease with which they all could just sit there comfortably and enjoying each others company without feeling the need to fill the silence. Then to break that stillness with the impromptu creation of music that they, one after another, joined into showed just how broad their skills were. It does seem like Ben and Leslie did a good job of raising these kids, the unconventional means of which not withstanding.

It's a nice, warm movie about how our families shape us and, for good or bad, it can mold us into very specific individuals, both to help us and to hinder us in one way or another.

All in all, I liked this. It has its quirks, which I liked, while some lines just made me laugh and/or squirm uncomfortably a little.

Good pick, PG!



Other examples are this idea of constantly punishing people for their sin, you can see that in the young man when he feels ashamed to have sexual desires, or when the old monk commit suicide because he feels guilty that he failed to educate correctly his pupil I suppose.
I didn't get the impression that the old monk committed suicide because he felt guilty. His life was nearly at an end, and it was time to make way for his replacement. I thought it was a tradition, especially since the younger monk retrieved his remains, and placed them in an area of spiritual power, as though it were an expected part of his journey.

As for the old monk not saving the animals: yes, he could easily have freed each of them. However what lesson would that teach his pupil - that his actions have no consequences or that his mentor will always be there to fix his mistakes? I liked that the old monk set the stage for the child to decide himself, rather than stepping in. It forced the child to come to terms with suffering first hand, and to determine whether that suffering meant anything to him.



I didn't get the impression that the old monk committed suicide because he felt guilty. His life was nearly at an end, and it was time to make way for his replacement. I thought it was a tradition, especially since the younger monk retrieved his remains, and placed them in an area of spiritual power, as though it were an expected part of his journey.
Fair enough, I can see that. I guess my lack of spirituality affected my appreciation of the moment. Also, I don't see how it is mutually exclusive that the younger monk lives there and takes command in a sense while the older one still lives.

As for the old monk not saving the animals: yes, he could easily have freed each of them. However what lesson would that teach his pupil - that his actions have no consequences or that his mentor will always be there to fix his mistakes? I liked that the old monk set the stage for the child to decide himself, rather than stepping in. It forced the child to come to terms with suffering first hand, and to determine whether that suffering meant anything to him.
It's good for the younger monk, but not for the animals, particularly for the fish and the snake that died in agony. I personally do value animal now (I wasn't vegetarian anf aware of the animal liberation movement the first time I saw the film so it didn't really bother me, now it did haha).



Nothing good comes from staying with normal people
Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring

So much for monks being gentle souls who'd never hurt a fly.

First off, yes the animal cruelty put me at odds with the movie when I saw it. If you're going to harm animals during your movie, its not gonna get high remarks from me. The wierdest thing was the cat, though: he's shown to be in possesion of several brushes, why use the poor cat as a writing implement? You could clearly see it was uncomfortable and trying to get away (go figure) and it was just unnecessary cruelty.

As to the visuals, I've found that there seems to be two styles used proliffically in korean cinema, and that is idyllic settings when a story takes place in nature, and the dark, grimy grays of an urban enviroment. I can't remember a korean film I've seen that doesn't use this shorthand. Even in movies set in the urban atmosphere, if you reach a park or a forrested area, suddenly the mood brightens and color creeps into frame. This might be an asian stylistic motif rather than a strictly korean one, but it's shown up most often in korean movies for me. With this movie, everything looks gorgeous. Every season is portrayed in a very idylic light, even the winter. Spring is bathed in golden light and pink blossoms, summer in lush greens. Fall has all the markings of a seasonal greeting card with the leaves going in shades of red, yellow and orange, while the winter, cold and grey as it is, still shines with the white of the snow and the dark hues of the evergreen.

As the apprentice returned after his imprisonment and found the remains of his master, what he did with them struck me as something really beautiful. Carving a Buddah from the frozen waterfall, he afixes the remains in the forehead and puts the statue under the fall. There it will melt and carry his master down river and to a new beginning.

As a final note, I'd like to discuss the seeming restart to the cycle with the new apprentice copying the new master. Does this mean he'll go through the rest of it too? Is this how it always happens? Does each "Holy One" commit murder, only to end up as a wise man helping sick people?

When I saw this, I was reminded of Chow Yun-Fat's character "The Monk" from "Bulletproof Monk". After giving advice about women, he's asked how he knows about this stuff. He answers that he wasn't born a monk. Now all I can think is that this gentle man secretly is a wife killer. Thank you very much movie!

Overall, a beautiful movie with some big issues with treatment of animals. That fault, however, lies with the creator rather than the movie itself. It was nice to look at and had some absurdist funny moments. Maybe not a favourite, but it's not bad. A good enough pick, Nestorio.



Women will be your undoing, Pépé
Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring

So much for monks being gentle souls who'd never hurt a fly.

As a final note, I'd like to discuss the seeming restart to the cycle with the new apprentice copying the new master. Does this mean he'll go through the rest of it too? Is this how it always happens? Does each "Holy One" commit murder, only to end up as a wise man helping sick people?

When I saw this, I was reminded of Chow Yun-Fat's character "The Monk" from "Bulletproof Monk". After giving advice about women, he's asked how he knows about this stuff. He answers that he wasn't born a monk. Now all I can think is that this gentle man secretly is a wife killer. Thank you very much movie!



The wierdest thing was the cat, though: he's shown to be in possesion of several brushes, why use the poor cat as a writing implement?
In Korean folklore, cats ward against and can dispel evil spirits. I assumed that using the cat's tail instead of a normal brush to write out the heart sutra was an attempt to help cleanse the young monk's soul.



Nothing good comes from staying with normal people
Forbidden Games (Jeux Interdits)

Chlid-like innocence and grave robbery...two great tastes that don't taste great together?

I'm a bit confused as to what I realy think about this movie. The central concept was interesting, how a religous centric family can make a atheisticly raised child understand and come to terms with the concept of death seen their way, when she has none of their frames of reference to draw from. I say family, it's the youngest son in said family that tries to explaine what he's been taught about death to a girl even younger than him while he himself hasn't fully come to terms with it. Is it suprising that the result is a bit...left of center?

That they chose to hang the movie on two very young actors and their abilities, I found a daring gamble, but it seems it paid out, as they do have a chemistry between them that seasoned actors have struggled to match. Fossey manages to pull off a shell-shocked young girl who can't really fathom that her parents are gone, without making such innocence come off as stupidity, and Poujouly has a warmth and kindness to him, combined with a degree of both cleverness and cluelessness that makes him endearing. It's too bad then that I got absolutely nothing out of the rest of the cast. I know we're not ment to sympathise with them, but it's not really that, but the fact that they're all just so bland/uninteresting. Combine that with a ending that came out of nowhere and felt very rushed (apparently circumstances forced them to shoot it like this on account of time constraints? I'm not sure) and we end on something that felt overall like a big "meh" for me.

Good main actors, interesting concept executed well but finished poorly and a total lack of emotional respeonce from the other cast members. Not really my thing, it seems. Sorry, Costello.



Nothing good comes from staying with normal people
The Mariage of Maria Braun (Die Ehe der Maria Braun)

Love her or hate her, Maria Braun is a woman who knows what she want and she'll do anything (or, indeed, anyone) to get it, and for that she has my respect...if not my liking.

She was sympathetic in the beginning, doing what she had to to survive and even getting a job that didn't include a horizontal position. But after the news of her husbands death, I think something broke, and it didn't get better when he turned back up just after she found out that her new lover had gotten her with child. Post sentencing, she really turned into the Maria of the second half; calculating, cold, controlling, but still with a mission that we can get behind. She wants to build a life for her and her husband, but doing what is necessary to achive this warps the woman who got married in the beginning beyond recognition, to the point where lusting for control over her life seems to become the goal above all else. And when that hunger for automacy is revealed to be a lie, it has a massive consequence. Be it intentional or a mistake on her part, the news shakes her so that she blows herself up along with all that she fought to acquire.

Schygulla does a great job as Maria, but besides her I didn't feel much for the rest of the cast. They did well enough, but they utterly failed to make an impression. Combine that with the fact that the movie felt like a slog to get through, with a story you could've done in 90 minutes getting draged out over two hours, and I'm left rather cold to this movie.

All in all, a comanding if cold main character and a great performance from Schygulla, but only a mediocre pacing and other cast. Sorry to say, but I'm not that much of a fan.


EDIT:
After thinking on it for a day, I've come to the conclusion that I've been a bit hard on some of the castmembers, namely the men portraying Hermann and Karl. Both did a better job than I gave them credit for, with Karl being the one I feel worst about short changing. He did a good job, and he did seem to genuinely care for Maria. The scene where he gets rejected after confessing that the trip he'd planned was to propose to her was rough on him, and his attempt to get Hermann out of the picture, while desperate and in the end catastrophic, showed the length he'd go to in his efforts to be with her. To have her so coldly snub him, I wouldn't have been surprised if he'd gone down the route of rage and sudden violence. As is, he seemed a good man, if unable to take a no for an answer.



Nothing good comes from staying with normal people
Nightmare Alley

From the title, I expected a detective story of noir style, following a PI on the hunt for a killer...what I got was the story of the rise and fall of a talented hustler.

I don't know if I'm dissapointed or not.

The story itself wasn't hard to guess as we're introduced to our main character as he witnesses a freak show act with something referred to as a "Geek". Upon seeing the man playing the geek he wonders aloud what could drive a man so low as to take up that as a job. I now know where the main character is going to end up by the end of the movie. But it was the road to that end which interested me all the more. That actually raced past with surprising briefness, and never during that time did I feel bored or less than interested. I caught myself many a time sitting and collecting the pieces of the story and trying to anticepate the end. I guessed right on some of them, but I was far afield on some point. For instance, I sat waiting for the reveal that Zeena was the mastermind of his downfall, having worked with the psychiatrist and his wife to avenge herself for his role in the death of her husband. That was not correct, but we instead get a sort of non-ending where the story just stops going. I guess it suggests that he and his wife ends up where Zeena and Pete where when the movie started, but I never saw the wife showing any skills necessary to take on a solo act. With them, it was Zeena that read minds and Pete doing the calling. I don't see how this will work, with the performer being the drunk and the assistant running things. And yes, I get the callback to the beginning with the same question uttered, but it felt hollow, somehow. It didn't carry the same foreboading and mystery, because now we do know how it happened.

As to the performances (the acts, that is, rather than the acting), I've always been a fan of practical magic, and seeing behind the curtain is a treat I never tire of. Them explaining the code words, for instance, was really interesting, as it's a simple trick when you know how it's done (as with all types of performances like this) but when you're in the audience, it's almost enough for you to believe it.

As a final thing, did anyone else think that for a second Christopher Lloyd had started his carrer early? The actor playing Pete sounded so like him when he put on his acting voice and did his schpiel for Stan that I started to question when this movie came out.

Well, maybe not; while it is technically possible, Lloyd was nine at the time, so I guess that would have interfered with his elementary school scheduel.

A good enough story with a compelling cast, this was a fine movie. Good pick, CR!