Movie Tab II

Don't feel too bad, the first time I saw Persona I had a similar reaction (in fact, I think I disliked it far more than you do). I've seen it many times since then and now I consider it one of my absolute favorites.

I guess I understand where one could find the hysteria of the characters in Woman difficult to relate to. But for me, the film's portrayal of emotional miscommunication and the failure of people to understand one another was very affecting and tragic. It is painful and difficult to watch at times but given its theme I think that's sort of appropriate.

Anyways, I just finished Stalker. I'm a little burnt out but I'll try to consolidate my thoughts the best that I can.



My first experience with Tarkovsky was just as challenging as I expected, and if you asked me to explain what Stalker means I'd be stumped. There's clearly a lot going on here. The central concept of faith vs reason (at least I think that's the main theme) is embodied by the writer and the professor. There's a lot of religious symbolism as well, i.e. biblical references, the crown of thorns that the writer wears at one point, and probably some other stuff that's slipped my mind. Other motifs that I have no idea what to make of include the mysterious black dog and the Stalker's telekinetic daughter. Essentially, I think Tarkovsky is trying to make some sort of a statement about the necessity of spirituality in society, particularly as an embodiment of hope for humanity. It's worth noting that he did make this movie within the atheistic USSR. Maybe the Soviet censors didn't pick up on Tarkovsky's message.

So, as you can see I'm quite scatterbrained about the meaning of Stalker. If someone can help explain things better for me that would be much appreciated. If nothing else, this is surely a great film from a technical perspective; some of the images are indeed beautiful and Tarkovsky engulfs you in his world in a way that few films do. As of right now, I think I'll give it a .

__________________
"Puns are the highest form of literature." -Alfred Hitchcock

The only Tarkovskys I've seen are Solaris and his short film Ubitsy. I have the Criterion for Rublev on the shelf, but waiting for the right moment. You talked about censorship but I know most of his films have even near restore to original, but I don't believe a big company has picked up Stalker yet, so maybe it isn't in its intended state. Anyway hopefully I get to that one, too. I'm about 10 minutes in to My Night at Maud's right now, Hitch.

__________________

Sweet! Can't wait to hear your thoughts on it.

What I've watched last week, including a truly great film.

The Great Gatsby (2013, Luhrmann)

Seems to me like there's barely any middle ground among people who've watched this. Very few praise the film as one of the best of the century, but most people - casual fans and revierw alike - appear to dislike it, or flat out despise it. From what I've read, they latter group believes that it's batsh!t crazy, but empty and drawn out madness, and that the spirit of the book is completely lost.

My honest opinion is that one shouldn't even try to recreate the magic of the book. You'd fail miserably. I've read the book a couple of times, and I dare say not even freakin' Kubrick or Leone would of been able to do recreate the particular vibe of the novel on screen. Luhrmann made the right choice of just shaping his own Gatsby universe and retell the story in his way. If you don't like that, you're going to dislike the film. If you do, you'll think it's great.

What I personally think is that this is a raucous, very atmospheric film that takes you on a rollercoaster ride during the first hour and then steadily builds up to its inevitably gloomy climax. I'll say right here and now that Luhrmann is one of the best in the business today in terms of creating a certain atmosphere. When Toby Maguire accepts Gatsby's invitation and he enters the party, you enter into a whole other universe of decadence. The way he creates that atmosphere of abundance and the party vibe is nothing short of truly brilliant. The costumes, the scenery, the music (shades of Moulin Rouge!), the bright colours, and the way he lets his camera float across the party scene is daring and flamboyant, but he pulls it off. And Gatsby's introduction to the viewer is very well done, worthy of his mythical character.


But inside the package, you also find a content that isn't entirely hollow. The gloom and despair are almost ever present throughout the film, and the way he builds up towards that climax (the verbal showdown between Buchanan and Gatsby lasts for over 20 minutes!) shows directoral prowess. And the modern hiphopsoundtrack with shades of historic instruments fits perfectly with the atmosphere Luhrmann tries to create. If it'd been a throwback to the music of Gatsby's age, it wouldn't fit in with Luhrmann's visio at all.

The one thing I disliked about The Great Gatsby, was perhaps the one thing you'd Always expect in this film, namely the voiceover. I know that Nick Carraway is the narrator of Fitzgerald' story, but I can't help but think the film could've done without. Everything Carraway's character in the film tells us through voiceover, can be deduced from what we see. I think it would of lent the film more emotional subtlety (which is contradictory enough, given this in-your-face film) that would of made the whole thing even more powerful.

Still, it was good enough even with that minor annoyance of mine. After Moulin Rouge! and Australia, Luhrmann further establishes himself as a director whose ability to create his own world (admittely, it's excessive and very caleidoscopic) on the screen is almost unparalleled in the business nowadays. If you don't like him now, you won't ever, because he's not about to change. I personally feel Luhrmann has just created his masterpiece. Much like Fitzgerald's creation was one of the great American novels of the 20th century, Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby is one of the great American films of the 21st century. *****, it might be in my top 5.




Other (vastly inferior) films I've watched last week:

Prometheus (2012, R. Scott):
Four Lions (2010, Morris):
The Tall Men (1955, Walsh):
Seconds (1966, Frankenheimer):
Star Trek: First Contact (1996, Frakes):

Drive Angry (2011): +
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013): -
Peeping Tom (1960):
A History of Violence (2005):
Back to School (1986):
Five Fingers of Death (1972):
Leon: the Professional (1994):
The Magnificent Seven (1960):
Ratatouille (2007): -
The Hangover (2009):
The Hangover Part II (2011): -
The Hangover Part III (2013): +

REWATCH: Valkyrie (2008,Singer)

Last time I saw this was in theaters, and my thoughts are the same. I respect the work put in this film far more than I enjoy. I find it to be one of the slowest WWII films, and perhaps any war film, out there.

Truth or Die (2012, Heath)

An entertaining horror flick, that is on the border of torture porn and, well not torture porn. The acting was actually good considering the rank of this film. The postcard twist was honestly pathetic, the end was a WTF moment.


Midnight Cowboy (1969,Schlesinger)

It's a decent film but I can't say it's a masterpiece, I love me some Hoffman, but the overall acting by the cast was average. I didn't sympathize with Joe Buck farther in the film since he just seemed completely lost. I didn't enjoy most of the flashback/dream sequences. It was well directed, but unmemorable in my eyes. Rating is a tad generous.
-

REWATCH: True Grit (2010, Coen Brothers)

Modern day gem! Best Coen film, and from the handful I've seen, the best western. I adore the cast and multi-dimesnional characters. No matter how minor they are. Damon, Brolin, Bridges, and Steinfeld, were all spectacular.
And no wonder. This used to be a top ten film of mine, and while it's not that great, it's the best of these few years of the decade.


La Collectionneuse (1967)/ My Night at Maud's (1969) (Both Rohmer)


Thoughts.
La Collectionneuse-
My Night at Maud's- -

New York Stories
Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola & Woody Allen, 1989



Life Lessons (Scorsese)
Best of the three. Excellent performance from Nolte as the jealous, possessive artist and some great use of music.

Life without Zoe (Coppola) -
Bizarre in conception, poor in execution. Both Marty and Woody use this as an opportunity to do something a little more out there but still in line with their traits as filmmakers - the former a brooding, introspective drama, the latter a wacky, high-concept comedy - but for reasons unbeknownst to me Coppola opts for a weak, almost story-less attempt at what seems to be a kids comedy. He wrote it with his then-18-year-old daughter, but it plays like a collaboration between a father and 8-year-old daughter, honestly. Every joke misses the mark, the performances are shoddy and it just seems completely out of place in the anthology.

Oedipus Wrecks (Allen)
Allen as we know him plus probably the most surreal plot point he's ever conceived. A fair few small laughs and a couple of big ones, not his best work, but certainly enjoyable.

Overall: . Interesting and enjoyable for the most part (sit through Coppola's segment through pure morbid curiosity, such a weird choice) but you'd be forgiven for expecting more from such an impressive group of filmmakers.

One of my all-time favourite films. I'd love to hear more about what you liked/disliked about it.

__________________
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."

I'd give Valkyrie a slightly higher rating, but that's based off memory, I quite enjoyed it but didn't think it was great. Probably a now.

This makes me want to watch the film again, that image from the film is brilliant by the way, just looks beautiful, I agree it's a great film but its an odd one for me in that it's a Coen Brothers' film that I have only seen once fully, definitely need to watch again, in terms of craft I think it's one of the most perfect films I have seen, especially modern.

__________________

This comment knocked me right out of my chair. You have got to be kidding me! Hoffman's performance is by far his best in any film, and IMO one of the best performances in film, ever.

__________________

Hoffman had a good performance, but overall, especially when it comes to minor characters, like the one Joe Buck asked money from, I thought they were overacting. I'm not saying the performances were all bad, but nothing stood out to me.

@Daniel. The scenery is beautiful in the film. It's shot in my home state so I guess I have to love it. And ya the casting was brilliant, I've never had a problem with anyone casted in a CB film though.

Breaking Bad and Sopranos are two of my favorite show, I've seen every episode of them and I didn't even watch the first season of wire all the way through. Still I remember a lot more about The Wire than those other shows, I think the premise and the setting is a lot more original than anything from Sopranos or Breaking Bad.

__________________

May (McKee, 2002)
Jigoku (Nakagawa, 1960)
Maniac (Khalfoun, 2012)
Close-Up (Kiarostami, 1990)
*Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang (Black, 2005)
La Chinoise (Godard, 1967)
The Steel Helmet (Fuller, 1951)
Exotica (Egoyan, 1994)
A Royal Affair (Arcel, 2012)

*rewatch

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Reincarnation Japanese horror

Hold On To Your Man (1933) Jean Harlow & Clark Cable

REWATCH Sleepy Hollow (Tim Burton) While this IS one of those "Based on" but, in truth, scarcely has anything to do with the original story, I must admit i DO like the film, the actors and the cinematic work


Kinky Boots rather enjoyed this one, not extrodinary, but quite enjoyable. After all, drag queens and stiletto heels, how can you NOT have a good time?


REWATCH Murder By Death Neil Simon's spoof of Great Detectives with a great cast and vaudvillian (sp?) wit


Forgot one,

Waking Life a rather intriguing lil flick. A young man dreams and encounters a long list of individuals who contribute various philosophies regarding inner awareness, dream lucidity, cosmic connections on a quantum level; all done in animated form.

Some films I want to see there, Tom Jones because it's in your Top 100, Pale Rider because it's Eastwood (recorded another early Eastwood, Play Misty for Me the other day too) and The Two Jakes because it's a sequel to Chinatown. Then Trainspotting because I know a lot of people like it, am I correct in saying most of your 2.5 ratings seem to be for films that you can admire from a certain level, like you appreciate the directorial effort but you don't think it comes together as a whole?

A 2.5 is not a full-on recommendation but it has something to make it worth watching. Trainspotting starts off strong and has some good visuals but doesn't really sustain itself. Still, it's superior to Requiem for a Dream.

Barton Fink (Coen Brothers, 1991) -
Possibly my new favourite Coen brothers film, must rewatch Fargo and O Brother soon though.

Intolerable Cruelty (Coen Brothers, 2003)
Madcap fun for the first hour with lots of laughs, but trails off toward the end.

Amadeus (Milos Forman, 1984)
Stunningly decadent production design and superbly written and (mostly) acted, but doesn't quite reach the dramatic heights that perhaps I was expecting.

McCabe & Mrs. Miller (Robert Altman, 1971) -
Marred a little by a stop-start viewing (my fault) but still incredibly intriguing with a brilliantly pessimistic conclusion. Great use of music too.

The Godfather: Part II (Francis Ford Coppola, 1974)
Similar to the first for me: I have never been too much of a fan of the genre but these are of course wonderful technical accomplishments across the board, they just don't seem to hit me as they do so many others. Still, it kept me engrossed for the entire running time. I did miss Brando somewhat this time around.



Shorts:
Night and Fog (Alain Resnais, 1955)
More (Mark Osborne, 1998)
Vincent (Tim Burton, 1982)
Day & Night (Teddy Newton, 2010)
Luxo Jr. (John Lasseter, 1986)
Mike's New Car (Pete Docter & Roger Gould, 2002)
Blackadder Back & Forth (Paul Weiland, 1999) -
Doodlebug (Christopher Nolan, 1997)
The Heart of the World (Guy Maddin, 2000)

That's where you're wrong.

I also prefer Trainspotting to Requiem but I think they both have some flaws.
It's hard to tell what's wrong with Trainspotting because I really like that film,maybe it is the fact that it mixed drama and comedy,so sometimes it's hard to take it seriously.
Now,Requiem For a Dream is depressing but it tries so hard to "tell the message" that sometimes it gets annoying.I don't understand people saying that this film is extremely shocking and that they will never do drugs.Are you really that affected?I tend to look more skeptical(but don't get me wrong,it is sad during the view).But I really love the way it is shot,it serves the story,yet I feel that people praise it for wrong reasons.

__________________
"Anything less than immortality is a complete waste of time."