34th Hall of Fame

Rocco and His Brothers, 1960

My feelings about this one are very similar to my first viewing, but with far, far less sympathy for the family this time around.

I usually write my reviews without having taken notes, and so sometimes I don't have an exact recollection of things from early in the film. I had not remembered this exchange between Vincenzo and his fiance, Ginetta (Claudia Cardinale):
“And as Mamma says, if a real man wants a woman he takes her without asking.”
“He what?”
“He takes her, without asking her or anyone.”
“With me you have to ask every time!”

I know that many have noted the idea that the family moving to the North is what corrupts them (and Rocco himself basically says this later in the film), but I think that this exchange lets us know that they are bringing with them a toxic, oppressive concept of how love and sex and relationships work. A scene where Simone steals from Rocco's employer, then seduces her so that he can steal again reveals his character early on. If Simone had stayed where he was, he would have still been an abusive, manipulative, rape-y leech.

I'd also forgotten the dynamics of the attack scene on Nadia, something that Simone does after an embarrassing loss in the boxing ring. The way that Simone frames the assault as being a punishment for Rocco, and just how awful Rocco's reasoning afterward is.

"How could I know Simone loved you so much?" "His good nature" "Simone needs you". His significant non-response to Nadia asking: "Don't I count for anything?"

I also like, given how movies often like to frame women who do sex work, just how normal Nadia is. When she realizes that Simone has stolen jewelry to give it to her, she finds a way to return it. Her sometime profession (because she stops doing sex work when she gets together with Rocco) is a reason for the characters in the film to be contemptuous of her, but her general behavior, demeanor, and morals aren't that different from the more "acceptable" women in the film. The only time we see her behave in any kind of "trashy" way is after, you know, her boyfriend watches her get raped and does nothing about it except tell her that she should totally get together with her rapist. Also, both times Nadia is attacked, there are men who witness it and literally do nothing. The idea that her behavior is shameful is laughable in the face of what the "legitimate" characters do.

I do think that the brilliance of this movie is in the other three brothers. Even though they obviously don't get as much screen time, they are kind and functional, and far more clear-eyed about Simone's behavior than Rocco ever manages to be. When Ciro tells Rocco that Simone is a "bad seed" and that they need to get some distance from them, and Rocco's like "Aw, no! He's just demoralized!", I could only shake my head. Simone and Rocco are in their own version of a dysfunctional relationship, and Rocco's idea of helping his brother only leads to more pain and suffering. At least as the film goes on it seems like young Luca is getting a sense of just how much of a loser Simone is. I don't think that the environment ruins Simone, so much as it just gives him different opportunities to be the man he was always going to be.

It's interesting to watch this film right after Leila's Brothers, another movie where family dysfunction and selfishness threaten to derail the wellbeing of the family for years to come.

__________________
Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain ... only straw. Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain? Scarecrow: I don't know. But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't they? Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.

As much as I enjoyed the movie and thought it was extremely well made, shot, acted, I do agree with what you said about the happy ending part.

That's odd, I can still read the spoiler. I don't know what I did wrong?

At Play in the Fields of the Lord (Hector Babenco, 1991)

I was a bit nervous about this one going in given films with this premise have a history of being exploitative but thankfully that aspect isn't nearly as bad as it could be. I definitely appreciate that this swerves away from the white saviour narrative and digs into the morality of missionary work and its use as a tool for colonialism. You could argue the tribe is still presented as a bit of a freak show (I don't make that argument) but I do think they could have been fleshed out a bit more, they feel a bit like a prop at times and obviously the spray-tanned white dude playing a Native American is weird and distracting but that's the worst thing in a movie that could've been so much worse. The cast otherwise is pretty good though, Kathy Bates and John Lithgow are appropriately irritating and Aidan Quinn, who I was completely unfamiliar with, really makes this work. Daryl Hannah does kind of feel like she's just here to get her t*ts out unfortunately but hey, Tom Waits is here mumbling through his lines for a bit and we love that. One thing that I saw in every Letterboxd, even the positive ones, was that the length was an issue and I don't get that at all. I think movies are almost too efficient with their runtimes these days, The Brutalist for example is 3.5 hours but feels like 90 minutes and none of it stuck with me. This on the other hand, even though I don't love it, is still way more memorable to me and while it feels as long as it is I think that's a good thing. Even more impressive given there's like 3 locations in the whole movie. So yeah, nothing here blew me away or anything but its well enough made and its very watchable. I think this might be one of those reviews that sounds more negative than it is and I'm sorry about that but to reiterate, I enjoyed this. Oh and another thing, "Why did god have to make mosquitoes?" is objectively very funny last words.

I watched this movie in middle or high school, and I absolutely cannot remember why. Anyway, as you can imagine it made for like a whole week of movie watching and we all handled the mosquito line and with great sensitivity and respect.

she really thought she was cooking with that scene.

That is a fascinating history lesson about Inside Moves' obscurity. I have IFC to thank for discovering it, which played it fairly often in the '90s. Remember when they actually played independent movies? I wonder if there's a list of what they played back then because it's stuff that may not even be streaming or on VOD to this day.

Let's look at their schedule today: they're playing Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, Grease, Footloose and a bunch of Everybody Loves Raymond reruns. Yeah, real independent, huh...

A young couple and their son join another missionary couple in South America to Christianity the indigenous people of Brazil. Along with Christianity, they bring other things. Along with them, a pilot named Moon, becomes a God in their own eyes. This is a test of faith for the young couple as their son catches malaria and dies. Along the way, they lose faith and hope.

I liked this film and it reminded me of two others I have watched that deals with Christianizing foreigners, both The Mission and Silence.

I view this as, outsiders come in , bring Christianity, then bring in government to control the people. To civilized them into the mainstream of the world but along with this, comes communical diseases, which they have no antibodies to fight off this condition. It reminded me of why the people of North Sentinel Island, off the coast of India, has regulations in place. Without antibodies, their culture dies off.

There are several underlying parts to the film and I don't want to give them away.

It was a good watch and it was nice to see it.

@Citizen Rules, I would recommend the other two films with similar storyline. However, Silence is a very brutal film in some of its content.

Edit: One of the best things about The Mission is the soundtrack. The Great Ennio Morricone.

At Play in the Fields of the Lord (Babenco, 1991)

This was definitely one that slipped under the radar until this HoF despite being a decently loaded cast I remember from this era of movies. Agree with the story focusing more on a morality of these characters when faced with different circumstances. 3+ hours is sometimes a challenge but a multi view for the main characters helped ease that from viewing. Obviously extra points for the shooting locations. Would not mind reading the novel someday.

I think it's because it's a quote inside of a spoiler tag, rather than the other way around.

Goldeneye, 1995

James Bond (Pierce Brosnan) is called into action when a secret organization called Janus starts making bold moves to claim a Cold War ere weapon called the Goldeneye. Bond’s mission brings him into the orbit of the deadly Xenia Onatopp (Famke Janssen), strong willed computer programmer Natalya (Izabella Scorupco), and comes to involve the supposed killing of his former partner, Alec (Sean Bean).

Winning characters and performances can’t quite overcome a so-so script.

Bond movies have something of an uphill battle with me, as generally speaking he is not a character I like all that much. Arrogance and a rakish grin might do it for some guys and gals, but I find it more smarming than charming (yes, I know “smarming” is not an adjective). I also don’t compartmentalize franchises well, so there are egregious things from other films that weigh on any new film I watch in the series.

That said, the cast in this film and the overall vibe did a LOT to battle the biases I bring to this series. Brosnan in particular is a really perfect fit for the lead, exuding a calm and a degree of detachment that fits well with the dire situations he must navigate. Everyone being horny for Bond is always a bit hokey, but I find it much more believable with the dynamics established by the film. Aside from a cheesy bit of Bond seducing a psychiatrist who has been sent to evaluate him, the flings are fun and well-anchored into the story.

Backing up Brosnan’s lead performance is a fantastic supporting cast of characters. Janssen’s pain-loving Onatopp is an absolute treasure. She’s here to play baccarat and crush men with her thighs, and the baccarat table is closed. Natalya, who narrowly survives a brutal massacre at her workplace, is a much-needed relatively-realistic character. She falls for Bond, yes, but she repeatedly voices her disgust and discomfort around the way the various characters resort to violence. (Am I alone in thinking that the film could have used ten times more of Minnie Driver’s country-singing mistress, Irina?).

Also on hand are Robbie Coltrane, Joe Don Baker, Gottfried John, Alan Cumming, and Judi Dench. Dench lends a grounding energy to her brief scenes, while Cumming and Baker give a sillier twist.

The movie also takes some winning swings at large scale setpieces, starting with a delicious bungee jump down the face of a large dam. There’s also an absurd chase sequence involving one party in a battle tank. I also liked the borderline Looney Tunes visit to Q’s laboratory.

But I was a bit disappointed to find that the story frequently swallowed up these fun characters. There were several times that the film jumped from one scene to another in a way that didn’t totally mesh for me. The overall plot of the film isn’t hard to follow, but there’s something fundamentally disjoint. The individual setpieces are all fine, but the connective tissue leaves something to be desired. I think that it comes together well in the last 15 minutes or so, getting all of the characters together in a single location.

A general effect of this sense of disconnection is that the movie starts to feel like it drags in the second half. While the very ending worked well for me, I spent a good 30 or so minutes really feeling the length of the film.

I also didn’t think that some of the motivations and statements by the main antagonist made a lot of sense. If a character is going to accuse someone of betraying a friendship, it’s kind of critical that we get some sense of that friendship. When you’ve only seen two characters sharing about 2 minutes of relatively light-hearted screentime, there’s just not a lot of weight to claims of friendship.

I enjoyed this film, which for the most part neatly side-steps most of the issues I’ve had in the past with the Bond franchise.

I'm going to repost an edited version of my At Play in the Fields of the Lord review from my Back to the 90s! thread with some added commentary.


A unique movie with a crummy title. I image people passed this movie by because they believed it was a Christian themed movie, it's not. A movie title can kill a movie and At Play In the Fields of the Lord was only released in 25 theaters before the studio pulled the plug on it. As a result it's not well known today.

Unlike so many newer movies that are cinematic roller coaster rides, At Play In the Fields of the Lord slowly unfolds a tale of indigenous people in the Brazilian jungles and how the encroachment of well meaning but misguided missionaries and western civilization ends up causing these gentle people of the jungle real hardships. Impressively the movie was entirely shot in Brazil, that was so appreciated by me. It looks amazing as there are no studio shots, matte shots or fakey cg.

This is a movie that requires one's full attention as it's subtle story telling that has many different levels to it from the easily observable on the surface themes, to the more complex subtleties.

Two other quick notes about Goldeneye:

1) My gosh did I get a nostalgia bomb from those cartoon avatars on the computers. Just zapped me right back to games like Wolfenstein 3D.

2) Not the movie's fault, but just inevitably some lines do not age well, like the almost final line of "Maybe you two would like to finish de-briefing each other at Guantanamo?" Yikes, lol.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions - it's an aphorism that's explored in relation to the effects various characters and institutions have on a tribe of Niaruna natives in the deep Brazilian Amazon River basin in At Play in the Fields of the Lord. Leading the way there, as always, is capitalistic endeavour. Gold miners are coming into contact with the tribe and those surrounding it, always a danger to both parties - so officials task a couple of gung-ho pilots, Wolf (Tom Waits) and Native American Lewis Moon (Tom Berenger) with frightening the tribe away by bombing the area. This unhappily coincides with the arrival of born-again Christian evangelist and missionary Martin Quarrier (Aidan Quinn), his wife Hazel (Kathy Bates) and their son Billy (Niilo Kivirinta). The missionaries are aided by an already established couple, Leslie Huben (John Lithgow) and his wife Andy (Daryl Hannah) along with the local catholic priest Father Xantes (Nelson Xavier). Their endeavour is complicated when Lewis Moon parachutes his way into the Niaruna's tribal lands, convinced that his Native American background gives him a biological and cultural link with these people, who he can help guide. A series of unintended consequences to the actions of all involved leads to tragic results.

Here's a movie that really could have benefited from the Terrence Malick treatment, which would have brought something otherworldly from the Amazon and all those who naturally reside there. Director Héctor Babenco is at least South American himself, but his film lacks the magic that would have pushed it over the top and turned it into the Oscar-nomination machine it was really meant to be. Peter Matthiessen's novel At Play in the Fields of the Lord had been begging for a cinematic adaptation ever since it was published in 1965, and producer Saul Zaentz had nursed the project the moment the book came out, such was his belief in the material - spending $1.4 million himself on grabbing the rights after MGM finally let them go. It's not a case of abject failure - the movie is fine - it's just that a film of this size and scope obviously aims at being the big Best Picture Oscar winner at the end of the year, and At Play in the Fields of the Lord ended up facing the ignominy of not recieving a single nomination. It ended up playing briefly in 25 movie theaters before quietly shuffling away - a box office disaster that basically brought no return from it's near $40 million investment. It didn't deserve that - it's worth seeing, even though it falls short.

I was left somewhat unmoved by Aidan Quinn's performance as Martin, and that's despite the fact that he takes to chewing the scenery in some scenes - he's neither an extraordinary character who is cut down to size nor an every day man who is enlightened by something larger than himself. At least, he doesn't seem to be. Instead we just get some confused, nondescript guy who is argumentative to an extreme at first and then not quite sure what he really believes in anymore or who he is. Then there's Tom Berenger of Irish ancestry playing a Native American - not the best of looks - but to be fair to the actor himself, he probably does the finest job out of the lot. Lithgow is good as Leslie Huben, and Kathy Bates steals a whole slew of scenes as Martin's tightly-wound wife Hazel - including one daring nude scene (who doesn't get a nude scene in this film?) where she basically adorns herself as an ad-hoc native once she's completely lost her mind and dances around the missionary site babbling. I swear it took me around 20 seconds before I realized that this was Hazel, and the moment seemed more suited to Saturday Night Live skit than this film - but perhaps that's just my very own immature way of looking at such an unusual moment in it.

The film was shot by a Brazilian cinematographer - Lauro Escorel - on location in Belém, Pará, Brazil. I couldn't imagine this being shot anywhere else but on location - and the Amazonian scenery is at once forbidding and entrancing. There are some absolutely breathtaking aerial shots, and they have proper context seeing as a few of our characters are pilots. What adds something special to it is Zbigniew Preisner's haunting score - the one aspect of the film I could point to and call absolutely brilliant. The film's main theme is a wistful tune that very much speaks of both paradise lost and the death of dreams - it's almost sad and mournful, but in any other context it also eludes to the natural beauty of this part of the world and it's people. There's a very sweet melody played on an oboe that captures the mood perfectly. Preisner ended up being nominated for a Golden Globe and LA Film Critics Award for his work - but missed out on an Oscar nomination, and is in fact yet to be nominated for an Academy Award. These sights and sounds are definitely in the film's favour and go a long way to making it an enjoyable (if, albeit, long) watch.

I think the central message of the movie is a worthy one - it doesn't simply pull out the obvious colonial expansion lecture, but also points to those of us from different cultures who do our own harm while intending all along to help. That's where Martin and Lewis Moon are two sides of the same coin, both coming to an understanding about the many forms colonial destructiveness can take - religious, biological, cultural and otherwise. They do more to destroy the Niaruna than the men with the bombs do, and in the process lose a lot of their faith as to who they are and what they stand for. Martin isn't portrayed as some religious zealot, but instead is considerate and intelligent - unlike the Hubens he learns from the native people, but is still hated because of what he represents, as is Lewis Moon. We can never shake off who we really are, as Moon seems to do initially when he comes to be regarded as a Niarunan God after "falling from the sky" by parachuting from his plane. This is why we're really better off without any contact with prospective alien races out there in the cosmos - these clashes of culture are by their very nature destructive. It has been that way throughout the world, as the world has become a smaller and smaller place.

In the end, if you'd asked me at the start of the film what I thought was going to happen by the end I'd have pretty much guessed it - there was an inevitability to the whole affair. It's an interesting enough film, and has enough going on in all departments to justify watching it at least this once though - surviving in the jungle has always been a topic that has interested me. These missionaries who forgo the comforts of home so they can eke out an existence in the middle of the Amazon, enduring disease, awful food, mosquitos, bugs, uncertain relationships with natives, rain, mud, heat and lord knows what else - I'm always interested in movies about them, and as such was interested in this film. It didn't turn out to be a masterpiece, but the story it tells is deserving of being told - although not based on any actual historical incident, it does pay homage to a very difficult period of our history as a species, and there is still quite a reckoning ahead of us on that front that will be extremely difficult for coming generations to confront. In that sense, it's a bit of a shame At Play in the Fields of the Lord wasn't a big Best Picture-winning masterpiece. Perhaps we find the whole subject a little easier to swallow when it's in the form of a sci-fi blockbuster like James Cameron's Avatar.

__________________

Inside Moves



This is one of those movies that feels a bit emptier to me than it should given the circumstances of its characters. But by the end of it, I really grew to appreciate the friendship between Roary and Jerry. By the end I wish I would have cared more about their bond. The movie does have a dated feel to me, and I'm kind of the opposite of everyone else, this 70s/80s era isn't one of my favorite film eras. Sometimes it all just feels too vanilla to me. I do like the feel of Donners films and by the end I'm fairly bought in, even if the ride to get there was bumpier than I would have hoped for.

At Play in the Fields of the Lord -

There are many movies about conflicts between colonists and indigenous tribes from the early '90s, likely due to Dances with Wolves being a hit. Not all of them work - see (or rather, don't see) Medicine Man - but many are quite good like this one. What makes it stand out? It's in Native American "convert" Lewis Moon's conversation with missionary Martin Quarrier: "why do you want to change them? If the Lord made the Indians as they are, who are you people to make them different?" The movie lays out the consequences of doing so and mostly succeeds at tying them together.

People change in this movie, but are any of them Indians? I don't think so, at least not in the health sense (more on that later). At the personal level, in the hard to like Hazel Quarrier, we see how beliefs and prejudices become curses in a way that genuinely shocked me. I like how the changes at this level are not all negative, at least not in a better world. From stepping into a Catholic church for the first time to skinny-dipping, Andy exemplifies the open-mindedness resulting from expanding your horizons. As for Martin, had things gone differently, he might have become a different kind of crusader, i.e. one for indigenous people's rights. Does everyone change in this way? No, but in lead missionary Leslie, we see in disturbing fashion how easily potential change is dismissed with scapegoats like "Satan." There's also changes unrelated to conscious actions; in short, disease. Besides not sugarcoating its devastation to both parties, the movie wisely explores how each one rationalizes disrase and how it belies the missionaries' aims. I predicted that the most popular quote - and reason to stay up at night - on IMDB is "then why did God make the mosquito," and I was right. Finally, we have changes that would not occur if greed were not a thing, which we already know impacts much more than lives, culminating in an indelible image that is hopefully not all we will leave behind on this planet when we're gone.

This is not the first and will not be the last story about the consequences of not leaving well enough alone. While this is not the best story like this, it still deserves credit for staying true to history, and again, proving that the fallout does not only affect the natives. What keeps this from being better is its excessive running time, which you really feel in its meandering third act. Also, I'd like to say this movie has one of the best casts I've seen lately, but then, there's Daryl Hannah's deer in the headlights performance. The "colonists vs. the indigenous" trend is one of the '90s most interesting ones, with Dances with Wolves and maybe The Last of the Mohicans being the only ones the average movie lover will remember in the long run. This one may not reach their heights, but Universal should have promoted it more anyway.

Rocco e i suoi fratelli aka Rocco and his brothers (1960)

I've been placing My Blind Grab Nom on Jab's Movie Challenge for about three years in hopes of finally watching it. In summary, it is an excellent film that I will never watch again. I do not regret watching it, and I am thrilled to have finally done so.

My initial excitement was enhanced by its placement following Leila's Brothers and quickly rewarded within moments of their arrival by train. The dysfunction is beautifully hidden beneath the closeness of familial love, coping with a difficult move to the city. I was enamored. Very beautifully shot, there is a leisurely introduction to the brothers' spectrum of persona, from good and earnest ones to the bully/coward and, for me, the far more despicable, his enabler, played by Alain Delon. These two extremes of masculine toxicity are the reason I will never see this again. Rocco's misguided martyr and brotherly love mushroomed my initial rage and disgust at Nadia's rape to a litany of WTF?! for the remainder of the film.
Annie Girardot's performance of Nadia was extraordinary. The nuances were captivating, from the carefree woman in need of a coat to the two brothers' culminating victimization. I definitely need to find more of her work.

__________________
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

I recently watched another film where someone referred to as a "saint" did some pretty heinous stuff. I'm starting to think that my definition of "a saint" and the Italian film industry's definition of "a saint" are very much not the same.