Rate The Last Movie You Saw
Reply to Topic
Empire of the Sun (1987): 8/10
A good war movie from a curious perspective.
Hook (1991): 8/10
I rate them the same but this one has MUCH more replay value for me (my 3rd viewing of it). A flawed gem, but (for me anyway) one of Spielberg's most entertaining films. Also, I have a big love for Hoffman's performance here.
A good war movie from a curious perspective.
Hook (1991): 8/10
I rate them the same but this one has MUCH more replay value for me (my 3rd viewing of it). A flawed gem, but (for me anyway) one of Spielberg's most entertaining films. Also, I have a big love for Hoffman's performance here.
X
Favorite Movies
I saw a couple movies recently...
I regularly take advantage of the interlibrary loan system and borrow movies for free. And my most recent viewings were of two movies from 1987 dealing with life among society's down and out.
BARFLY (1987) 7/10
starring Mickey Rourke, Faye Dunaway, Alice Krige, J.C. Quinn, Frank Stallone
directed by Barbet Schroeder
written by Charles Bukowski
IRONWEED (1987) 7/10
starring Jack Nicholson, Meryl Streep, Carroll Baker, Michael O'Keefe, Tom Waits
directed by Héctor Babenco
screenplay by William Kennedy, based on his novel
Overall, I thought both movies were very strong. But there were certain things about one movie that I liked more than the other. For example, I thought that Meryl Streep was very powerful and very moving in the role of Helen Archer in Ironweed. However, her performance definitely had the feel of a movie star doing a "turn." I was reminded of something rather catty that critic Pauline Kael once said about Streep, saying that she had made a career out of seeming to overcome being miscast. (I don't remember the quote word for word, and I'm probably paraphrasing.) Granted, that's rather harsh, and while she's not necessarily one of my favorite actresses, I think she's generally better than that. Her performance of the musical number He's Me Pal is also quite a stunner (albeit a momentary digression into fantasy). But for my money, Faye Dunaway was definitely right on the money with her performance as Wanda Wilcox. Between Dunaway and Streep, I think Dunaway takes the prize. If you remember Dunaway from her performances in '60s and '70s movies like Bonnie and Clyde (1967), Chinatown (1974), Network (1976), Eyes of Laura Mars (1978), or her gloriously uninhibited trainwreck of a Joan Crawford in Mommie Dearest (1981), you'll remember her very much as a powerful actress with a radiant glamour which definitely recalls old-school Hollywood. (Although that likeness probably has as much to do with the retro film noir ambience of Chinatown and the conflation of her own screen image with that of Crawford's post-Mommie Dearest as much as anything else.) But in Barfly there is definitely something disturbingly de-glamorized about her, something very much stripped down to barely functioning wires. Her elegently wasted Wanda Sykes is almost barely recognizable as the classic Dunaway of old, brilliantly spare and yet somehow spiritually aristocratic. In Barfly and Ironweed, both Dunaway and Streep deliver extremely moving portraits of alcoholic, ravaged women, but Dunaway's somehow feels much more authentic and is less "showy" (for lack of a better word) than Streep's.
On the other hand, I felt a great deal more emotionally moved by Ironweed than I did by Barfly. Somehow, in the Schroeder/Bukowski film, you get this feeling that the wasted and self-destructive behavior of Mickey Rourke's Henry Chinaski is something of an indulgence. Granted, you're not really given much insight into Chinaski's past, but you almost feel like there's a willful refusal of "normal" society's standards of what's generally considered to be sober, sensible, or productive. Sure, that's perhaps the whole point of the movie, a kind of sympathy with a "rebel stance" against the mainstream. But while I do empathize strongly with rebellious behavior myself, in Barfly's case I wasn't necessarily convinced that it was anything positive. However, the movie definitely has its charms. The acting is wonderful, the chosen filming locations are effective, and Bukowski's writing does have a certain wit. (There's also, I feel, something brilliantly and sneakily subversive about the casting of Frank Stallone as the belligerently macho bartender Eddie, who Rourke's Henry regularly gets into these admittedly rather pointless fistfights with. I rather like the idea of the brother of Rocky Balboa and John Rambo being cast as the face of traditional, all-American "ladies' man" machismo. Chinaski's rebellion against such an ideal is actually the one rebellious aspect of his character that I can identify with and relate to.)
With the Depression-era tale of Ironweed, on the other hand, you have characters with extremely tragic backstories, who carry a great deal of sadness and guilt with them. Jack Nicholson's Francis Phelan, for example, is wracked with guilt over accidentally dropping and killing his infant son, and he regularly sees the ghosts of dead people from his past. In a way, the characters from Ironweed seem to be much more tragically human than those in Barfly. In Ironweed, you feel like these people have legitimate - or at least understandable - reasons for clinging to the bottle, and their alcoholism seems more strongly rooted in personal tragedy and adverse social circumstance. Whereas in Barfly the drinking feels like so much faux-bohemian self-indulgence and a refusal of society's standards. Honestly, Chinaski seems to frequently resemble nothing so much as a fascination strain of bacteria under a microscope, while Nicholson's Francis Phelan feels more like a flawed, vulnerable human being with whom one sympathizes much more strongly. Henry Chinaski may make the a truthful statement when he says that "Nobody suffers like the poor", but Francis Phelan more strongly embodies the truth of that statement.
Ultimately, however, what prevents Ironweed from being completely superior to Barfly is its rather overly weighty, depressive and gloomy feel. There's very little of the energy and humor of Barfly. Ironweed is ultimately superior in its sense of humanity and vulnerability, but Barfly somehow manages to be just a tad more fun to watch!
"To all my friends!"
I regularly take advantage of the interlibrary loan system and borrow movies for free. And my most recent viewings were of two movies from 1987 dealing with life among society's down and out.
BARFLY (1987) 7/10
starring Mickey Rourke, Faye Dunaway, Alice Krige, J.C. Quinn, Frank Stallone
directed by Barbet Schroeder
written by Charles Bukowski
IRONWEED (1987) 7/10
starring Jack Nicholson, Meryl Streep, Carroll Baker, Michael O'Keefe, Tom Waits
directed by Héctor Babenco
screenplay by William Kennedy, based on his novel
Overall, I thought both movies were very strong. But there were certain things about one movie that I liked more than the other. For example, I thought that Meryl Streep was very powerful and very moving in the role of Helen Archer in Ironweed. However, her performance definitely had the feel of a movie star doing a "turn." I was reminded of something rather catty that critic Pauline Kael once said about Streep, saying that she had made a career out of seeming to overcome being miscast. (I don't remember the quote word for word, and I'm probably paraphrasing.) Granted, that's rather harsh, and while she's not necessarily one of my favorite actresses, I think she's generally better than that. Her performance of the musical number He's Me Pal is also quite a stunner (albeit a momentary digression into fantasy). But for my money, Faye Dunaway was definitely right on the money with her performance as Wanda Wilcox. Between Dunaway and Streep, I think Dunaway takes the prize. If you remember Dunaway from her performances in '60s and '70s movies like Bonnie and Clyde (1967), Chinatown (1974), Network (1976), Eyes of Laura Mars (1978), or her gloriously uninhibited trainwreck of a Joan Crawford in Mommie Dearest (1981), you'll remember her very much as a powerful actress with a radiant glamour which definitely recalls old-school Hollywood. (Although that likeness probably has as much to do with the retro film noir ambience of Chinatown and the conflation of her own screen image with that of Crawford's post-Mommie Dearest as much as anything else.) But in Barfly there is definitely something disturbingly de-glamorized about her, something very much stripped down to barely functioning wires. Her elegently wasted Wanda Sykes is almost barely recognizable as the classic Dunaway of old, brilliantly spare and yet somehow spiritually aristocratic. In Barfly and Ironweed, both Dunaway and Streep deliver extremely moving portraits of alcoholic, ravaged women, but Dunaway's somehow feels much more authentic and is less "showy" (for lack of a better word) than Streep's.
On the other hand, I felt a great deal more emotionally moved by Ironweed than I did by Barfly. Somehow, in the Schroeder/Bukowski film, you get this feeling that the wasted and self-destructive behavior of Mickey Rourke's Henry Chinaski is something of an indulgence. Granted, you're not really given much insight into Chinaski's past, but you almost feel like there's a willful refusal of "normal" society's standards of what's generally considered to be sober, sensible, or productive. Sure, that's perhaps the whole point of the movie, a kind of sympathy with a "rebel stance" against the mainstream. But while I do empathize strongly with rebellious behavior myself, in Barfly's case I wasn't necessarily convinced that it was anything positive. However, the movie definitely has its charms. The acting is wonderful, the chosen filming locations are effective, and Bukowski's writing does have a certain wit. (There's also, I feel, something brilliantly and sneakily subversive about the casting of Frank Stallone as the belligerently macho bartender Eddie, who Rourke's Henry regularly gets into these admittedly rather pointless fistfights with. I rather like the idea of the brother of Rocky Balboa and John Rambo being cast as the face of traditional, all-American "ladies' man" machismo. Chinaski's rebellion against such an ideal is actually the one rebellious aspect of his character that I can identify with and relate to.)
With the Depression-era tale of Ironweed, on the other hand, you have characters with extremely tragic backstories, who carry a great deal of sadness and guilt with them. Jack Nicholson's Francis Phelan, for example, is wracked with guilt over accidentally dropping and killing his infant son, and he regularly sees the ghosts of dead people from his past. In a way, the characters from Ironweed seem to be much more tragically human than those in Barfly. In Ironweed, you feel like these people have legitimate - or at least understandable - reasons for clinging to the bottle, and their alcoholism seems more strongly rooted in personal tragedy and adverse social circumstance. Whereas in Barfly the drinking feels like so much faux-bohemian self-indulgence and a refusal of society's standards. Honestly, Chinaski seems to frequently resemble nothing so much as a fascination strain of bacteria under a microscope, while Nicholson's Francis Phelan feels more like a flawed, vulnerable human being with whom one sympathizes much more strongly. Henry Chinaski may make the a truthful statement when he says that "Nobody suffers like the poor", but Francis Phelan more strongly embodies the truth of that statement.
Ultimately, however, what prevents Ironweed from being completely superior to Barfly is its rather overly weighty, depressive and gloomy feel. There's very little of the energy and humor of Barfly. Ironweed is ultimately superior in its sense of humanity and vulnerability, but Barfly somehow manages to be just a tad more fun to watch!
"To all my friends!"
X
Favorite Movies
I saw a couple movies recently...
I regularly take advantage of the interlibrary loan system and borrow movies for free. And my most recent viewings were of two movies from 1987 dealing with life among society's down and out.
BARFLY (1987) 7/10
starring Mickey Rourke, Faye Dunaway, Alice Krige, J.C. Quinn, Frank Stallone
directed by Barbet Schroeder
written by Charles Bukowski
IRONWEED (1987) 7/10
starring Jack Nicholson, Meryl Streep, Carroll Baker, Michael O'Keefe, Tom Waits
directed by Héctor Babenco
screenplay by William Kennedy, based on his novel
"To all my friends!"
I regularly take advantage of the interlibrary loan system and borrow movies for free. And my most recent viewings were of two movies from 1987 dealing with life among society's down and out.
BARFLY (1987) 7/10
starring Mickey Rourke, Faye Dunaway, Alice Krige, J.C. Quinn, Frank Stallone
directed by Barbet Schroeder
written by Charles Bukowski
IRONWEED (1987) 7/10
starring Jack Nicholson, Meryl Streep, Carroll Baker, Michael O'Keefe, Tom Waits
directed by Héctor Babenco
screenplay by William Kennedy, based on his novel
"To all my friends!"
BORDER (2018) Swedish
4/10
When I started this movie, I knew the main character, an outsider named Tina, had the ability to smell emotions. So I knew this had to be a mystery movie wherein which she trackes down nefarious do-gooders. But not long into the movie, she meets a man, who's does not smell like the rest of humanity. They both look rather similar and he gives her a come hither look. I think , oh no not a romance within which the outsider finds love that had been withheld. I am not a big fan of movies that are only romance. But as it progresses things get odder and the mystery plot goes back into effect and later the romance comes back as well. They work in tandem in a rather predictable way. The important thing is not the plot of the romance or the mystery but the exploration of Tina's character and what she learns about her past, herself and possibly her future. which is not predictable. At least not to me. I was quite riveted by this story and the characters, but I don't want to give anything away so that is all I can tell you. Is it bizarre? Yes, yes it is. Right now this is available on HBO/MAX in the USA.
Last edited by beelzebubble; 01-10-23 at 06:36 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Something Wicked This Way Comes, 1983
Will (Vidal Peterson) and Jim (Shawn Carson) live in a small town where Will's father, Charles (Jason Robards) is the librarian. One day a strange carnival rolls into town, headed by the mysterious Mr. Dark (Jonathan Pryce). Soon the carnival begins working a strange magic on the town, granting its citizens their dreams of youth and beauty and attraction, but at a terrible cost.
There's a whole slew of films that I watch these days and think about how much I would have enjoyed them--and been thrilled by them--if I'd seen them as a kid. This one certainly falls into that category. While I overall enjoyed it, I think that its peak audience is probably kids about the age of the two young protagonists.
The film is chock full of what I would consider modest thrills. The premise of the story is one as old as time: people getting wishes granted, but with a twist. The children's teacher, Ms. Foley (Mary Grace Canfield) is given back her youth . . . only to go blind moments later.
The characters are all engaging enough. The relationship between Will and Jim is interesting. They are good friends, but there is just enough history and friction between them that Mr. Dark is able to drive a wedge into the relationship. Similarly, the gentle affection between Will and his father is very sweet. Pryce is good as Mr. Dark, and his looks very much suit the film, as he at once seems to look young and old.
It would have been nice if there had been a bit more variation in the temptations of the circus. Basically all the middle-aged or older people in the town want to be young and hot. I'm not saying that's inaccurate as to what would be on a lot of minds given a magic wish, but it does add a bit of repetition to what happens. I would have liked to see some different flavor of temptation.
Some of the film's visuals are pretty good--mainly when they stick with more practical effects. This is especially true of a scene where the boys have to hide under a street grate while an angry Mr. Dark raves above them, eventually dripping blood down on them from a clenched fist.
Certainly this is a great example of the kind of "beginning horror" that's great for kids who aren't ready for the heavier stuff yet.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Something Wicked This Way Comes, 1983
Will (Vidal Peterson) and Jim (Shawn Carson) live in a small town where Will's father, Charles (Jason Robards) is the librarian. One day a strange carnival rolls into town, headed by the mysterious Mr. Dark (Jonathan Pryce). Soon the carnival begins working a strange magic on the town, granting its citizens their dreams of youth and beauty and attraction, but at a terrible cost.
There's a whole slew of films that I watch these days and think about how much I would have enjoyed them--and been thrilled by them--if I'd seen them as a kid. This one certainly falls into that category. While I overall enjoyed it, I think that its peak audience is probably kids about the age of the two young protagonists.
The film is chock full of what I would consider modest thrills. The premise of the story is one as old as time: people getting wishes granted, but with a twist. The children's teacher, Ms. Foley (Mary Grace Canfield) is given back her youth . . . only to go blind moments later.
The characters are all engaging enough. The relationship between Will and Jim is interesting. They are good friends, but there is just enough history and friction between them that Mr. Dark is able to drive a wedge into the relationship. Similarly, the gentle affection between Will and his father is very sweet. Pryce is good as Mr. Dark, and his looks very much suit the film, as he at once seems to look young and old.
It would have been nice if there had been a bit more variation in the temptations of the circus. Basically all the middle-aged or older people in the town want to be young and hot. I'm not saying that's inaccurate as to what would be on a lot of minds given a magic wish, but it does add a bit of repetition to what happens. I would have liked to see some different flavor of temptation.
Some of the film's visuals are pretty good--mainly when they stick with more practical effects. This is especially true of a scene where the boys have to hide under a street grate while an angry Mr. Dark raves above them, eventually dripping blood down on them from a clenched fist.
Certainly this is a great example of the kind of "beginning horror" that's great for kids who aren't ready for the heavier stuff yet.
Still, the library scene between Mr. Halloway (Robards) and Mr. Dark (Pryce) is still something I savor every time. Offering him all the years as he rips out the pages and throws them at him... "You're lost!!!"
"Give him a brief taste of Death... so that he may recognize it when it comes again."
Man, I loved that scene.
Anyway, the thing about everyone wanting youth had a lot to do with the theme of the book which is entirely about youth and how magical it is and how that magic goes missing as we age and very much about fathers and sons. The boys want to be older, the father (and so many others) wishes he were younger. Part of the reason Dark is able to tempt Will (though not as much as he is Jim, lacking a father) is because Will's father is so much older having fathered him later in life and he sees his father as an old man. I can't remember if that translated into the movie, but the reason the Carnival's main attraction restores turns back the years, specifically is because of the themes of youth and age. You may have caught all of that but I remember not all of that translated so well to the film and I can't remember how much of it came through.
If you haven't read the book, it's absolutely wonderful. Like virtually everything Bradbury ever wrote.
Post-script: Interesting reading now that Bradbury wanted Peter O'Toole or Christopher Lee for Mr. Dark. I think both would have been great but may almost have been too much for the scale of this film. Ultimately, I was pretty happy with Pryce.
And here's the problem right here: "As the film progressed, two differing visions emerged for the film, with Bradbury and Clayton wishing to stay as faithful to the novel as possible, while Disney wanted to make a more accessible and family friendly film. Bradbury and Clayton fell out during production after Bradbury discovered that Clayton had hired writer John Mortimer to do an uncredited revision of Bradbury's screenplay at the studio's insistence."
Last edited by Wooley; 01-10-23 at 10:33 PM.
Anyway, the thing about everyone wanting youth had a lot to do with the theme of the book which is entirely about youth and how magical it is and how that magic goes missing as we age and very much about fathers and sons. The boys want to be older, the father (and so many others) wishes he were younger. Part of the reason Dark is able to tempt Will (though not as much as he is Jim, lacking a father) is because Will's father is so much older having fathered him later in life and he sees his father as an old man.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
By http://www.impawards.com/2019/captain_marvel_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=56660636
Captain Marvel - (2019)
I have virtually zero comic book experience, and as such had no idea who this new member of the Marvel franchise would be. Another origin tale at this stage had me tearing my hair out at first, but this film slowly won me over with a thunderclap of a finish. We're thrown in at the deep end with Captain Marvel because we pick up on a story that seems to have started some time ago, but there's a reason for this that you'll get once you've seen the whole film. I'm sure those familiar with the character will have figured out where this was heading much faster than I did - and once again I'm being vague on purpose for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. Nice to see Ben Mendelsohn get a Marvel gig, and Brie Larson gets by with plenty of charisma. A de-aged Samuel L. Jackson (we're getting a portion of the next Indiana Jones film with a de-aged Harrison Ford) had me questioning where all of this ability to bring the past back to life will head in cinematic terms. Like I said, I was pretty much hating this at first, but by the end it had completely won me over. Oh, and Goose - you're a star! But are you real or completely CGI?
Bring on Avengers : Endgame!
7/10
__________________
Remember - everything has an ending except hope, and sausages - they have two.
We miss you Takoma
We miss you Takoma
Latest Review : Le Circle Rouge (1970)
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines; Or, How I Flew from London to Paris in 25 Hours 11 Minutes (1965)
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Apocalypse Now - A+
Blythe Spirit (1945, David Lean) - B
Waltz With Bashir - A
Licorice Pizza - A+
Blythe Spirit (1945, David Lean) - B
Waltz With Bashir - A
Licorice Pizza - A+
__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below
http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below
http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Argentina 1985
I watched it yesterday. It's technically well made, and the acting and casting in on point. But the whole things feels documentary like.
Some descriptions of the crimes committed by the military junta are hard to watch.
I see it won the best foreign film today at GG, & it might at the Oscars too.
I watched it yesterday. It's technically well made, and the acting and casting in on point. But the whole things feels documentary like.
Some descriptions of the crimes committed by the military junta are hard to watch.
I see it won the best foreign film today at GG, & it might at the Oscars too.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Sorry you didn't like this movie. I think the story is very clever and I think Roseanna Arquette was brilliant.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Worst movie of the 2020s so far?
__________________
COMING SOON...
My Top 100 Horror Movies of the 2000s: The Last Great Decade of Horror
COMING SOON...
My Top 100 Horror Movies of the 2000s: The Last Great Decade of Horror
'Capote' (2005)
Dir.: Bennett Miller
I know very little about Truman Capote, (was even unaware he wrote 'Breakfast at Tiffany's') and thought this film would fill in a lot of blanks. Phillip Seymour-Hoffman's performance is obviously brilliant, but in terms of the quality of the film it doesn't really grab the viewer. Dir.: Bennett Miller
It felt alot longer than the 2 hour running time. The content is mostly based around Capote's life and events leading up to writing the book 'In Cold Blood', in which he befriends a convicted serial killer who's early life is somewhat similar to his own.
But that's about it really. Not much else happens. We see glimpses of Capote's life in high society New York, his relationships, his fondness for alcohol and holidaying on the Spanish coast. But this film is neither a biopic, nor is it a 'slice of life' film that shows a few days or weeks in the life of someone, as films such as 'Blonde', 'Spencer' or 'Jackie' do so well. This sits somewhere in between. The film version of 'In Cold Blood' looks a more gritty, thrilling affair which may appeal more to my tastes.
It's not a poor film by any stretch, but it didn't really hammer home any particular themes or drama. Perhaps as Capote is more celebrated in the US as a legendary literary figure, the film would mean a little more if you grew up there.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Worst movie of the 2020s so far?
The theme of age--and the way that the boys covet age and authority--is definitely present, but it never feels fleshed out in a satisfactory way. At times it has the feeling of a Twilight Zone episode stretched to feature length. Not always in a bad way, but at times there are things that feel redundant.
By http://www.impawards.com/2019/captain_marvel_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=56660636
Captain Marvel - (2019)
I have virtually zero comic book experience, and as such had no idea who this new member of the Marvel franchise would be. Another origin tale at this stage had me tearing my hair out at first, but this film slowly won me over with a thunderclap of a finish. We're thrown in at the deep end with Captain Marvel because we pick up on a story that seems to have started some time ago, but there's a reason for this that you'll get once you've seen the whole film. I'm sure those familiar with the character will have figured out where this was heading much faster than I did - and once again I'm being vague on purpose for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. Nice to see Ben Mendelsohn get a Marvel gig, and Brie Larson gets by with plenty of charisma. A de-aged Samuel L. Jackson (we're getting a portion of the next Indiana Jones film with a de-aged Harrison Ford) had me questioning where all of this ability to bring the past back to life will head in cinematic terms. Like I said, I was pretty much hating this at first, but by the end it had completely won me over. Oh, and Goose - you're a star! But are you real or completely CGI?
Bring on Avengers : Endgame!
7/10
1. When she flies right through the big space-ship and blows the whole thing up.
One of my favorite frames ever from a Marvel comic, it was actually Nova who did it, but man I loved seeing it on the big screen and then she just flies up to Ronin and he's like, "Yeah, we out."
2. I hope you watched the post-credits scene(s).
I saw a couple movies recently...
I regularly take advantage of the interlibrary loan system and borrow movies for free. And my most recent viewings were of two movies from 1987 dealing with life among society's down and out.
BARFLY (1987) 7/10
starring Mickey Rourke, Faye Dunaway, Alice Krige, J.C. Quinn, Frank Stallone
directed by Barbet Schroeder
written by Charles Bukowski
IRONWEED (1987) 7/10
starring Jack Nicholson, Meryl Streep, Carroll Baker, Michael O'Keefe, Tom Waits
directed by Héctor Babenco
screenplay by William Kennedy, based on his novel
Overall, I thought both movies were very strong. But there were certain things about one movie that I liked more than the other. For example, I thought that Meryl Streep was very powerful and very moving in the role of Helen Archer in Ironweed. However, her performance definitely had the feel of a movie star doing a "turn." I was reminded of something rather catty that critic Pauline Kael once said about Streep, saying that she had made a career out of seeming to overcome being miscast. (I don't remember the quote word for word, and I'm probably paraphrasing.) Granted, that's rather harsh, and while she's not necessarily one of my favorite actresses, I think she's generally better than that. Her performance of the musical number He's Me Pal is also quite a stunner (albeit a momentary digression into fantasy). But for my money, Faye Dunaway was definitely right on the money with her performance as Wanda Wilcox. Between Dunaway and Streep, I think Dunaway takes the prize. If you remember Dunaway from her performances in '60s and '70s movies like Bonnie and Clyde (1967), Chinatown (1974), Network (1976), Eyes of Laura Mars (1978), or her gloriously uninhibited trainwreck of a Joan Crawford in Mommie Dearest (1981), you'll remember her very much as a powerful actress with a radiant glamour which definitely recalls old-school Hollywood. (Although that likeness probably has as much to do with the retro film noir ambience of Chinatown and the conflation of her own screen image with that of Crawford's post-Mommie Dearest as much as anything else.) But in Barfly there is definitely something disturbingly de-glamorized about her, something very much stripped down to barely functioning wires. Her elegently wasted Wanda Sykes is almost barely recognizable as the classic Dunaway of old, brilliantly spare and yet somehow spiritually aristocratic. In Barfly and Ironweed, both Dunaway and Streep deliver extremely moving portraits of alcoholic, ravaged women, but Dunaway's somehow feels much more authentic and is less "showy" (for lack of a better word) than Streep's.
On the other hand, I felt a great deal more emotionally moved by Ironweed than I did by Barfly. Somehow, in the Schroeder/Bukowski film, you get this feeling that the wasted and self-destructive behavior of Mickey Rourke's Henry Chinaski is something of an indulgence. Granted, you're not really given much insight into Chinaski's past, but you almost feel like there's a willful refusal of "normal" society's standards of what's generally considered to be sober, sensible, or productive. Sure, that's perhaps the whole point of the movie, a kind of sympathy with a "rebel stance" against the mainstream. But while I do empathize strongly with rebellious behavior myself, in Barfly's case I wasn't necessarily convinced that it was anything positive. However, the movie definitely has its charms. The acting is wonderful, the chosen filming locations are effective, and Bukowski's writing does have a certain wit. (There's also, I feel, something brilliantly and sneakily subversive about the casting of Frank Stallone as the belligerently macho bartender Eddie, who Rourke's Henry regularly gets into these admittedly rather pointless fistfights with. I rather like the idea of the brother of Rocky Balboa and John Rambo being cast as the face of traditional, all-American "ladies' man" machismo. Chinaski's rebellion against such an ideal is actually the one rebellious aspect of his character that I can identify with and relate to.)
With the Depression-era tale of Ironweed, on the other hand, you have characters with extremely tragic backstories, who carry a great deal of sadness and guilt with them. Jack Nicholson's Francis Phelan, for example, is wracked with guilt over accidentally dropping and killing his infant son, and he regularly sees the ghosts of dead people from his past. In a way, the characters from Ironweed seem to be much more tragically human than those in Barfly. In Ironweed, you feel like these people have legitimate - or at least understandable - reasons for clinging to the bottle, and their alcoholism seems more strongly rooted in personal tragedy and adverse social circumstance. Whereas in Barfly the drinking feels like so much faux-bohemian self-indulgence and a refusal of society's standards. Honestly, Chinaski seems to frequently resemble nothing so much as a fascination strain of bacteria under a microscope, while Nicholson's Francis Phelan feels more like a flawed, vulnerable human being with whom one sympathizes much more strongly. Henry Chinaski may make the a truthful statement when he says that "Nobody suffers like the poor", but Francis Phelan more strongly embodies the truth of that statement.
Ultimately, however, what prevents Ironweed from being completely superior to Barfly is its rather overly weighty, depressive and gloomy feel. There's very little of the energy and humor of Barfly. Ironweed is ultimately superior in its sense of humanity and vulnerability, but Barfly somehow manages to be just a tad more fun to watch!
"To all my friends!"
I regularly take advantage of the interlibrary loan system and borrow movies for free. And my most recent viewings were of two movies from 1987 dealing with life among society's down and out.
BARFLY (1987) 7/10
starring Mickey Rourke, Faye Dunaway, Alice Krige, J.C. Quinn, Frank Stallone
directed by Barbet Schroeder
written by Charles Bukowski
IRONWEED (1987) 7/10
starring Jack Nicholson, Meryl Streep, Carroll Baker, Michael O'Keefe, Tom Waits
directed by Héctor Babenco
screenplay by William Kennedy, based on his novel
Overall, I thought both movies were very strong. But there were certain things about one movie that I liked more than the other. For example, I thought that Meryl Streep was very powerful and very moving in the role of Helen Archer in Ironweed. However, her performance definitely had the feel of a movie star doing a "turn." I was reminded of something rather catty that critic Pauline Kael once said about Streep, saying that she had made a career out of seeming to overcome being miscast. (I don't remember the quote word for word, and I'm probably paraphrasing.) Granted, that's rather harsh, and while she's not necessarily one of my favorite actresses, I think she's generally better than that. Her performance of the musical number He's Me Pal is also quite a stunner (albeit a momentary digression into fantasy). But for my money, Faye Dunaway was definitely right on the money with her performance as Wanda Wilcox. Between Dunaway and Streep, I think Dunaway takes the prize. If you remember Dunaway from her performances in '60s and '70s movies like Bonnie and Clyde (1967), Chinatown (1974), Network (1976), Eyes of Laura Mars (1978), or her gloriously uninhibited trainwreck of a Joan Crawford in Mommie Dearest (1981), you'll remember her very much as a powerful actress with a radiant glamour which definitely recalls old-school Hollywood. (Although that likeness probably has as much to do with the retro film noir ambience of Chinatown and the conflation of her own screen image with that of Crawford's post-Mommie Dearest as much as anything else.) But in Barfly there is definitely something disturbingly de-glamorized about her, something very much stripped down to barely functioning wires. Her elegently wasted Wanda Sykes is almost barely recognizable as the classic Dunaway of old, brilliantly spare and yet somehow spiritually aristocratic. In Barfly and Ironweed, both Dunaway and Streep deliver extremely moving portraits of alcoholic, ravaged women, but Dunaway's somehow feels much more authentic and is less "showy" (for lack of a better word) than Streep's.
On the other hand, I felt a great deal more emotionally moved by Ironweed than I did by Barfly. Somehow, in the Schroeder/Bukowski film, you get this feeling that the wasted and self-destructive behavior of Mickey Rourke's Henry Chinaski is something of an indulgence. Granted, you're not really given much insight into Chinaski's past, but you almost feel like there's a willful refusal of "normal" society's standards of what's generally considered to be sober, sensible, or productive. Sure, that's perhaps the whole point of the movie, a kind of sympathy with a "rebel stance" against the mainstream. But while I do empathize strongly with rebellious behavior myself, in Barfly's case I wasn't necessarily convinced that it was anything positive. However, the movie definitely has its charms. The acting is wonderful, the chosen filming locations are effective, and Bukowski's writing does have a certain wit. (There's also, I feel, something brilliantly and sneakily subversive about the casting of Frank Stallone as the belligerently macho bartender Eddie, who Rourke's Henry regularly gets into these admittedly rather pointless fistfights with. I rather like the idea of the brother of Rocky Balboa and John Rambo being cast as the face of traditional, all-American "ladies' man" machismo. Chinaski's rebellion against such an ideal is actually the one rebellious aspect of his character that I can identify with and relate to.)
With the Depression-era tale of Ironweed, on the other hand, you have characters with extremely tragic backstories, who carry a great deal of sadness and guilt with them. Jack Nicholson's Francis Phelan, for example, is wracked with guilt over accidentally dropping and killing his infant son, and he regularly sees the ghosts of dead people from his past. In a way, the characters from Ironweed seem to be much more tragically human than those in Barfly. In Ironweed, you feel like these people have legitimate - or at least understandable - reasons for clinging to the bottle, and their alcoholism seems more strongly rooted in personal tragedy and adverse social circumstance. Whereas in Barfly the drinking feels like so much faux-bohemian self-indulgence and a refusal of society's standards. Honestly, Chinaski seems to frequently resemble nothing so much as a fascination strain of bacteria under a microscope, while Nicholson's Francis Phelan feels more like a flawed, vulnerable human being with whom one sympathizes much more strongly. Henry Chinaski may make the a truthful statement when he says that "Nobody suffers like the poor", but Francis Phelan more strongly embodies the truth of that statement.
Ultimately, however, what prevents Ironweed from being completely superior to Barfly is its rather overly weighty, depressive and gloomy feel. There's very little of the energy and humor of Barfly. Ironweed is ultimately superior in its sense of humanity and vulnerability, but Barfly somehow manages to be just a tad more fun to watch!
"To all my friends!"
X
Favorite Movies
X