The 29th Hall of Fame

Anomalisa (2015)

I actually watch Marcel the Shell with Shoes On a couple days ago which is very much a similar type of film to Charlie Kaufman's Anomalisa. Anomalisa is basically a story of the disenfranchised and disaffected...a middle aged man who works in customer service is on a business trip. We find out very quickly that to him everyone talks the same and he is trapped in a sense of ennui.

During the course of his trip he runs across a woman that actually sounded different (played by Jessica Jason-Leigh) a psychically and emotionally scared insecure woman. The charm and power of a film like this is that it blends the mundane horrors of life with fantasy scenes. This is one of those films that you almost want to study to try really dig into metaphors and visuals.

This is also a film that you likely couldn't make live action. The sexual scenes in the film are fairly graphic and would read very differently if it were live action. I also love the design of Michael Stone a man basically running out of time his son looks like he had him in his mid-forties so it adds another element to the character's frustrations and desperation for a better life. You really feel the sense disillusionment in the story. Michael has almost fetishized Lisa while Lisa's flaws and vulnerabilities are put on display. This movie reminded me a lot of the film Naked but it almost felt more real to me because the characters were so grounded.

Just getting back into this thread. This x100!

Goldfinger (1964)

One of the things we don't talk about with James Bond is that the first four bonds were directed by only 5 different auteurs. Guy Hamilton took over the franchise and went on to direct several other Bond films. While it's been a while since I watched the two previous versions the biggest thing that sticks out in this film is that it feels more like an epic. The film is littered with these massive set pieces, automated sets...a cast of hundreds if not thousands.

The joy of watching Goldfinger is that you have these huge sets and each scene is played out. Hamilton almost treats the film like a silent where your eyes are following the action and getting a sense of humor and whimsy that I don't think we saw in the earlier films. And while I certainly can't agree with the films politics it is a win/lose situation. Bond is dealing with a group of thugs who are all the same race something that we've really lost in the last 25 years. This isn't a multi-ethnic group of mercenaries...these Chinese villains and shockingly the plot could be played today.

I enjoyed Gert Frobe's performance he's very much an anti-bond. His humor and deviousness were a joy to watch. I was not however a big fan of Honor Blackman's Pussy Galore which felt like a Katherine Hepburn impression and likely hidden joke. But for me the star of the film is the set pieces and blocking. The Gangster in the room scene is one my favorites the whole presentation to mass murder is just fantastic.

This isn't my favorite Bond movie but it's what the good Bond are supposed to be like.

Just curious what your favorite is?

You Only Live Twice...while it has it's problems for today's audience I love every shot and scene in this one.






To me a fight scene like that is so much better than all the jump cuts and fancy gun work. Oh and the guy he's fighting...that's The Rock's grandfather Peter Maivia.

No offense to my friends on the Bond subject. I think it's an important thing to talk about because it's bigger than film. For those who disagree with my perspective, I do see the angle that you care and that's a positive.

I thought it was funny that after talking about that Bond scene, I watched The Year My Voice Broke. If rapey is indeed a real word, that's how I would describe much of this film. It is upsetting because of the realism. Danny is the nicest guy in the film, yet he spies on Freya undressing, steals her underwear, tries to hypnotize her into wanting him, and looks under her dress. It reminded me of Shame (1988), another Australian film which is a powerful long time favorite of mine about a town where the men are abusers of women. The Year My Voice Broke is a totally different movie, but I kept thinking it could have been the same town.



I thought the threat of rape, sexual assault, and general creepiness hung over the entire film, and that's a good thing. It's a coming of age film, but it's without the typical humor that comes with those movies and that's one of the things that makes it different. I found it to be a very bleak film, in the way many kitchen sink dramas are. Where is the hope for these people? Also, the accepted behavior seems to be something that is passed down from generation to generation. The film never quite goes too far, and it's interesting to note that it was a made for TV film. This may have hurt it a bit for me, because although there are powerful moments, I never got the harrowing gut punch that would make a film like this a personal favorite.

For the second time in this HoF I had to look up a young actor because I thought I recognized him. Sure enough, Noah Taylor starred in 2010's Red White & Blue, a dark independent film that I very much enjoyed. Taylor is good here, but I slightly preferred the other two main performances. The look of the movie is perfect for the subject matter. This is a very effective and well done film. That it lacked something that will stick with me and make it a favorite is not a criticism. Has anyone seen the sequel, Flirting (1991)? That looks like a film that's worth watching as well.

To be fair, the rape scenes in those other films are done by characters who we obviously aren't meant to sympathize with or like. Goldfinger is a different case as James Bond is clearly meant to be a good character, so I'm guessing that's why ueno had a different response to this film.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

I was wondering this because I hadn't seen the other 2 films, but you're clearly right on with people who criticize Bond in this regard. I just think there's a lot of grey in scenes like this. There are a lot of women who like forceful men. Obviously as a general rule what Bond does is wrong, but part of the character of Bond is knowing what women really want, and it's important to remember that it's fantasy. I think claiming Bond raped Pussy Galore could be looked at as demeaning to her, because what kind of woman falls for her rapist. I think the best argument for the scene being a negative is that it could influence real life men to behave a certain way, but of course then we open up a whole other can of worms.

On the other hand, if you're from a younger generation and your initial reaction is to be offended by that Bond scene, you're most likely a good person.

Agreed, I don't mean to imply I disagree with you per se. As I said up above, though I initially had issues with this scene, you convinced me that it's not problematic.

My argument though is more or less that I don't see a double standard with ueno criticizing this film and not the other two films (as I think Siddon was suggesting). I think the scene in Goldfinger operates on a much different context than the ones in the above two films he mentioned, so I understand why she responded differently to the films.

The issue is in The Painted Bird a woman dies from having things shoved up her vagina by an angry mob of women. In Goldfinger Bond wrestles with Pussy they kiss and fade out. It's very strange to be outraged over one and not the other...

When you type in Goldfinger controversy this comes up
https://www.itv.com/goodmorningbrita...rlds-gone-nuts

So we have to ask ourselves reading Ueno's reviews is there information in those reviews to indicate that Ueno is actually watching the films or if they are trolling the thread.

Ueno is definitely not alone in this criticism.

Now I want to see The Painted Bird. Thanks Siddon!

As I said up above, while worse behavior is certainly depicted in The Painted Bird, I think the distinction between the two films is with the portrayal of the perpetrators. The rapists in The Painted Bird clearly aren't meant to be good people and I see nothing in the film which suggests that you're supposed to like them. In Goldfinger though, Bond clearly is meant to be a good person, so I think this is why ueno had different reaction to the two films. I don't know if you meant to imply that this was a double standard, but if that wasn't your argument and if your argument is just meant to be 'I don't understand why someone would criticize one thing and not the other', this may be the answer to your question.

As someone who follows ueno on Letterboxd, she actually watched Goldfinger over a year before joining this Hall. Here's her original review of the film, if you're curious: https://letterboxd.com/ueno_station54/film/goldfinger/.

Also, in regards to the bolded part, I find it rather weird to say that when your review of ueno's nomination feels far more suspicious in that regard. In spite of a couple brief descriptions of some aesthetic elements in the film (which one doesn't even need to watch the film to be aware of), you discussed so little of the actual merits of the film and it instead came off as a swipe towards ueno (and the rest of us who enjoyed the film, given the final sentence). If you want to talk about lack of info in a review which indicates that someone didn't actually watch a film, I think a far greater argument could be made for your review.

To be very clear though, I like both you and ueno quite a bit and I consider you both to be great contributors to these Halls. I like reading both your commentaries towards the films in these threads and I hope to see you both in future Halls. I don't think that either of you are trolling us, but I do think you two really need to get along with each other better. The jabs you guys have made towards each other are unfun to read through.

I agree 100 % with this. I don't think anyone here is "trolling" or pretending to watch the movies and not actually watching them. I hope we can all get along going forward.

The thing is...I question the very existence of any merit to Robot. IF you give me something to critique or talk about I will but a three hour cheap sci-fi slapstick comedy.

We've had people in the past do just that. We call them nom bombers, they join HoFs knowing that every member is required to watch their movie, but thy're not serious about watching the other members movies. One member in the past was collectively banned from the main HoFs for doing just that.

I like Ueno as a person and have had good conversations with them. I like Ueno noms too and enjoyed them for the most part. But I have to question their motives for joining the main HoF when they constantly dump on just about every movie nominated in the main HoFs. I also wonder why someone who seems to hate the noms and has said they hate movies with stories and hate movies with character development wants to so readily join and be forced to watch them all?

These post by Ueno:
5th Short HoF

Hall of Infamy


So according to Ueno's own words their goal is to nominate 'BS' and be a 'bitch' in the main HoFs, while hating all the noms. That to me is not fair to the rest of the members.

Yet in the Short HoF and the Hall of Infamy they seem to enjoy themselves and give the noms in those Hofs their due considerations.

I'd like to ban Ueno personally because I don't think she takes these seriously. If she hates 90% of the films I don't get the motive for joining.

Again, just my two cents.

Ueno can respond to the rest of your post if she wants to, but in regards to this, that's not true. Here are her current ratings for the films in this Hall:

A Moment of Innocence: 4/5
Invasion of the Body Snatchers: 3/5
Vengeance is Mine: 3.5/5
Enthiran: 4/5 (that's her nomination though)
The Year My Voice Broke: 3.5/5
Adam's Apples: 2/5

That's undoubtedly not hating all the nominations.

I understand the suspicion, but I think we ought to take Ueno's word about watching the movies with no evidence to the contrary. We're talking about an active and quality forum member who just has a taste and personality that's a little different than some of us. There's a lot of value in that.

No one had defended Ueno more than I have in past HoFs. I defended their noms and Ueno as a member. I like Ueno but I think they are just playing games here. I think Ueno would be more happier participating in the Hall of Infamy's, I can tell Ueno had a good time there and seemed to be actively positive about that HoF. But when someone readily post they are being a bitch and nominating crap in the main HoFs...I think that is a red flag.