24th Hall of Fame

Tools    





I fully agree with the bolded part. In response to your last paragraph. I mean, ultimately it's not. If I decide to put a gun in my mouth tomorrow, it's done, no matter what anyone says. I don't think the state should be sponsoring such things though.
But it is. And that is what the film is about.

The main character can't put a gun in his mouth. His death would require the assistance of another person or persons.

What they are asking in the film is that people who provide assistance to someone ending their own life not be charged with murder or other crimes.

There is a big difference between sponsoring something and regulating it.



The Day of the Jackal

This is as solid as political assassination thrillers get. Don't let the "political" dissuade you because it's neither complicated nor boring; in fact, it's simply a cat and mouse game between the titular identity thief, master of disguise and would-be French president killer and British and French law enforcement. It's an exceptionally good-looking movie thanks to cinematography that makes its European locales appear as big, lively and as beautiful as they actually are and in a way that made me wish I was watching the movie in a theater. Also, from the way the camera follows the Jackal's inconspicuous journey to his target to making you feel like a fly on the wall during the police's conferences, DP Jean Tournier's work is appropriately voyeuristic and oddly empowering. Edward Fox's performance as the Jackal is another highlight for how he makes him plain enough to not stand out yet charismatic and charming enough to always succeed at fulfilling his...umm...human needs (however, another quality of his performance is how he makes you question if that's what he's doing or if it's all part of his plan). Again, I was never bored even though the movie is all about the boring stuff, i.e. the details and how the good guys or the Jackals of the world's success comes down to noticing and accounting for them. The movie explores this in obvious ways like an inspector deciphering the Jackal code name, in subtle ways like the minute calibrations he makes to his rifle's sight scope and - most importantly - always entertainingly. In short, Im an enthusiast of 20th century history, confidence trickery and good old-fashioned genre entertainment and this movie pleased me very much on all those fronts. Oh, it's also bound to please those who enjoy spotting 'that guys" and "that gals." Keep your eyes peeled for Delphine Seyrig, Michael Lonsdale and Derek Jacobi.
__________________
Last Great Movie Seen
Blow Out (De Palma, 1981)



But it is. And that is what the film is about.

The main character can't put a gun in his mouth. His death would require the assistance of another person or persons.

What they are asking in the film is that people who provide assistance to someone ending their own life not be charged with murder or other crimes.

There is a big difference between sponsoring something and regulating it.
What comes to mind is the scene where the lawyer is saying technically suicide is against the law but people who attempt it and fail aren't prosecuted. He went to great lengths to make sure no one would be culpable for his suicide. The fact that it wasn't mentioned leads me to believe no one was probably held responsible for his. Also, if your main focus was the taking of your life, and not being a soldier for the cause, you wouldn't record it.

I agree there is a difference between sponsoring and regulating. I would call it a fine line and not a canyon though.
__________________
Letterboxd



What comes to mind is the scene where the lawyer is saying technically suicide is against the law but people who attempt it and fail aren't prosecuted. He went to great lengths to make sure no one would be culpable for his suicide. The fact that it wasn't mentioned leads me to believe no one was probably held responsible for his. Also, if your main focus was the taking of your life, and not being a soldier for the cause, you wouldn't record it.
I strongly disagree.

He cares a lot about the people he is leaving behind. By recording his death and explicitly stating that he broke the task apart so that no one person was the one to "help him", he is doing his best to keep them from going to jail for helping him.

Consider that, for example, if he were just found dead with a poisoned glass of water, someone whose fingerprints were on that glass could be charged not just with assisting a suicide, but with murder. There would be no one there to say whether he knowingly drank the poison.

If you read about the real case, there was one of his friends in the room with him when he died. She came forward about it when the statute of limitations on charging her had run out.

And after 20+ years of suffering, his wanting to die and being a "soldier for the cause" are deeply connected. He doesn't only care about his own death--he cares about other people who might be in his position.

I think the question, "Is it possible to morally/ethically allow people to take their own lives?" is a tricky one. I think that it is easier to accept when you are talking about someone who is terminally ill and/or dealing with an untreatable condition that causes severe pain and degeneration.



I strongly disagree.

He cares a lot about the people he is leaving behind. By recording his death and explicitly stating that he broke the task apart so that no one person was the one to "help him", he is doing his best to keep them from going to jail for helping him.

Consider that, for example, if he were just found dead with a poisoned glass of water, someone whose fingerprints were on that glass could be charged not just with assisting a suicide, but with murder. There would be no one there to say whether he knowingly drank the poison.

If you read about the real case, there was one of his friends in the room with him when he died. She came forward about it when the statute of limitations on charging her had run out.

And after 20+ years of suffering, his wanting to die and being a "soldier for the cause" are deeply connected. He doesn't only care about his own death--he cares about other people who might be in his position.

I think the question, "Is it possible to morally/ethically allow people to take their own lives?" is a tricky one. I think that it is easier to accept when you are talking about someone who is terminally ill and/or dealing with an untreatable condition that causes severe pain and degeneration.
Really good point about him recording himself. Kind of embarrassed I didn't think of that.

I am enjoying this conversation, but kind of wished we weren't having it because it is making me concentrate on the stuff I didn't like and think less of the movie.



cricket's Avatar
Registered User

The Secret in Their Eyes (2009)

Sorry to say this one didn't do anything for me. I didn't hate it or object to it, I just found it dry and flawed. The writing for the spoken dialogue was banal and sounded all the same regardless of the character speaking it. I didn't believe these people talked this way, hell I don't believe anyone talks that way. It seemed like a case of a poorly written film as far as the dialogue goes. The plot too was half backed and hard to buy into.

The film looked like it was all shot in three or four different rooms and at no time did I feel like I was in Argentina...And for the flash back scenes I certainly didn't feel like it was 1974. The romance part was a wash and the notion that 'love is in the eyes', pfft! I mean the husband of the murdered woman had revenge in his eyes. The twist ending was daft like something out of Tales from the Crypt. And the whole idea that the killer was found by an old photograph were he was glaring at the murdered woman years earlier seemed like a plot point from Murder She Wrote.

The only time the film got interesting was at the 1 hour 20 minute mark when it was revealed that the corrupt officials had employed the murderer as an anti-leftist rebel buster, or whatever he was called. But we never really see any of this, were just told about it.

I much preferred State of Siege (Costa-Gavras 1972).



Sorry you didn't like it more as it seems you missed everything that fans of it love. Not that you missed it but it's more about feeling.



Sorry you didn't like it more as it seems you missed everything that fans of it love. Not that you missed it but it's more about feeling.
It seemed like I should've liked it, I expected to. I didn't pick up on any stirring feelings. I'm not saying they are not there, but I didn't feel any romance or remorse over missed romance. Even though I do know there was some dialogue about the missed romance opportunity. Usually I'm a sucker for romance too.

Can you tell me what the film means to you? And why you chose it? ( I haven't read your review yet so if you say there I'll catch it later).

I'll post back later I have to get back to work.



cricket's Avatar
Registered User
It seemed like I should've liked it, I expected to. I didn't pick up on any stirring feelings. I'm not saying they are not there, but I didn't feel any romance or remorse over missed romance. Even though I do know there was some dialogue about the missed romance opportunity. Usually I'm a sucker for romance too.

Can you tell me what the film means to you? And why you chose it? ( I haven't read your review yet so if you say there I'll catch it later).

I'll post back later I have to get back to work.
I chose it because I do think it's incredible, and for me it's very unique in that it's basically a thriller but it effects me emotionally.



I chose it because I do think it's incredible, and for me it's very unique in that it's basically a thriller but it effects me emotionally.
To elaborate on this a bit, I really appreciated that the plot was that of a thriller, but a lot of the film's focus was on the emotional state of the characters and the tragedy of miscommunication and regret.



cricket's Avatar
Registered User
To elaborate on this a bit, I really appreciated that the plot was that of a thriller, but a lot of the film's focus was on the emotional state of the characters and the tragedy of miscommunication and regret.
You say elaborate, I think, "wording it much better than I can"



To elaborate on this a bit, I really appreciated that the plot was that of a thriller, but a lot of the film's focus was on the emotional state of the characters and the tragedy of miscommunication and regret.
I chose it because I do think it's incredible, and for me it's very unique in that it's basically a thriller but it effects me emotionally.
Thanks Cricket and Tacoma.

I had a hard time with some of the subtitles as they were white font and in some scenes they were overlayed across a desk with white paper, which made me miss some of the words or even sentences.



Think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?
The Day of the Jackal

This is as solid as political assassination thrillers get. Don't let the "political" dissuade you because it's neither complicated nor boring; in fact, it's simply a cat and mouse game between the titular identity thief, master of disguise and would-be French president killer and British and French law enforcement. It's an exceptionally good-looking movie thanks to cinematography that makes its European locales appear as big, lively and as beautiful as they actually are and in a way that made me wish I was watching the movie in a theater. Also, from the way the camera follows the Jackal's inconspicuous journey to his target to making you feel like a fly on the wall during the police's conferences, DP Jean Tournier's work is appropriately voyeuristic and oddly empowering. Edward Fox's performance as the Jackal is another highlight for how he makes him plain enough to not stand out yet charismatic and charming enough to always succeed at fulfilling his...umm...human needs (however, another quality of his performance is how he makes you question if that's what he's doing or if it's all part of his plan). Again, I was never bored even though the movie is all about the boring stuff, i.e. the details and how the good guys or the Jackals of the world's success comes down to noticing and accounting for them. The movie explores this in obvious ways like an inspector deciphering the Jackal code name, in subtle ways like the minute calibrations he makes to his rifle's sight scope and - most importantly - always entertainingly. In short, Im an enthusiast of 20th century history, confidence trickery and good old-fashioned genre entertainment and this movie pleased me very much on all those fronts. Oh, it's also bound to please those who enjoy spotting 'that guys" and "that gals." Keep your eyes peeled for Delphine Seyrig, Michael Lonsdale and Derek Jacobi.
You hit quite a number of points that I love about this film: how it goes about the "boring stuff" and yet it is NEVER boring. That's a helluva trick to pull off. Keeping you caught up in the mundane details. I was very impressed and pleased by that.
__________________
What to do if you find yourself stuck with no hope of rescue:
Consider yourself lucky that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far, which given your present circumstances seems more likely, consider yourself lucky that it won't be troubling you much longer.



cricket's Avatar
Registered User
Hard Times



It's been so long since I've seen this that the most I can say is that some parts were vaguely familiar. I knew I liked it, and I loved the similar Every Which Way but Loose as a kid as well.

Not to sound sexist, but I see this as a guy movie. Walter Hill is just that kind of director. There's not a lot of juicy female roles in his filmography. I'm a fan and I've seen 17 of his films, including bigtime and longtime favorite, The Warriors. He has some duds, but more often than not he hits, and the beginning of his career was his best stretch.

They shouldn't have even bothered with the female roles in this film because the end result wasn't worth it. That's not why anyone watches this movie anyway, it's for the boys and the fights. What I really appreciate about the fights is that we don't get the silly and over dramatic come back from the brink of death to win scenes. They are done in a very believable fashion. I got a kick out of Sean saying he doesn't like violence but he wishes there was more in the movie, because I'm the complete opposite in both regards. As always, it was a pleasure to watch Bronson, Coburn, and Strothers, and there are several other familiar faces that I was glad to see. This is not a great movie, yet it is kind of awesome.




Think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?



The Secret in Their Eyes aka El secreto de sus ojos

I wish I had read Takoma's review regarding the "things not there" before watching this, and thereby enjoying that aspect as well. But, since I'll most likely watch this again in the future, it'll be an additional layer of enjoyment to my eventual rewatch.
Something I found intriguing and thereby stuck with me, regarded how they figured out who the killer was by how intently he would stare at the victim in old photographs. And then, later on, looking through old photos, you seeing Esposito doing the exact same thing with Irene. It wasn't creepy, per se, but added to the nuance of the title to this film. Something that I found myself doing even more consciously than what is my wont when watching any given mystery/thriller. Studying people's reactions as things occur. This film did some wonderful "red herrings" in the eyes of everyone. Finding so much more going on beyond what is said and how things came about.

What I also found intriguing was that the investigation into the murder and rape was almost secondary to the interconnections of those in the story. Something that is normally added filler to draw us into a story, I found it holding its own on an equal plane to the investigation.

Surprisingly, I wasn't as emotionally choked up with the departing train scene (which I did enjoy) as I think I should have been. But, I did find the phone call of the husband looking for the killer and conversing with the killer's mother definitely did affect me greatly.


As did the twist. Even more so, HOW it played out in silence. Which, again, played upon the title and all that occurs within the eyes. A VERY effective scene.

[email protected] Fine Nom, @cricket!



Think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?
Hard Times



It's been so long since I've seen this that the most I can say is that some parts were vaguely familiar. I knew I liked it, and I loved the similar Every Which Way but Loose as a kid as well.

Not to sound sexist, but I see this as a guy movie. Walter Hill is just that kind of director. There's not a lot of juicy female roles in his filmography. I'm a fan and I've seen 17 of his films, including bigtime and longtime favorite, The Warriors. He has some duds, but more often than not he hits, and the beginning of his career was his best stretch.

They shouldn't have even bothered with the female roles in this film because the end result wasn't worth it. That's not why anyone watches this movie anyway, it's for the boys and the fights. What I really appreciate about the fights is that we don't get the silly and over dramatic come back from the brink of death to win scenes. They are done in a very believable fashion. I got a kick out of Sean saying he doesn't like violence but he wishes there was more in the movie, because I'm the complete opposite in both regards. As always, it was a pleasure to watch Bronson, Coburn, and Strothers, and there are several other familiar faces that I was glad to see. This is not a great movie, yet it is kind of awesome.

Exactly.



I just watched The Whisperers. It was one of the films I expected the least in this HoF so it being perfectly OK was a positive surprise. As usual, a proper review in distant near future.
__________________



In a Glass Cage (1986) -


This is definitely the most controversial film to be nominated in this thread. There's already been a lot of discussion on this film. Both positive and exceedingly negative. I wasn't looking forward to this film going into it, but while it was definitely a hard watch, I did enjoy a decent bit about it.

To get it out of the way, yes, this film is a hard watch. While I don't think certain things should be off-limits from being portrayed in movies (pedophilia is a real thing which goes on in the world, so I think it's completely fine for media to portray it), the way the film handled this was nauseating. During the pedophilia scenes, the film didn't use stunt doubles, camera techniques, etc. so that the child actors wouldn't actually experience the pedophilia. The young actors were, in fact, disrobed and sexually touched onscreen by an older man. These scenes were disturbing and I ended up looking away from the screen during those scenes. After researching it, I saw that a child psychiatrist authorized the film during production, but this didn't make those scenes any easier to watch for me.

Given this, I don't think I'll rewatch this film. However, there are some genuine strengths I'll like to address which I think the film deserves credit for.

For one, the film offers a compelling dynamic between abuser and abused, specifically how an abuser's behavior can be contagious for their victims. This dynamic largely applied to Angelo as, due to the abuse Klaus treated him with many years prior, Klaus's personality transferred over to him. Angelo then attempted to replicate the same behavior that Klaus treated him with. While the pedophilia scenes were hard to watch, this undercurrent of cyclical abuse made them disturbing for thematic reasons, not solely for visceral reasons. This dynamic also applied to Rena as she acted nave throughout the film, occasionally treating Angelo as her lover and underreacting to the heinous acts he committed around her. The ending was a compelling culmination to her arc, in particular.

I also appreciated the visuals and production design of the film. The entire film was shot with a blue tint. While colored filters normally don't do much for me, I think this look worked since it contrasted with the blood in the film, making Angelo's murders, while hard to watch for reasons mentioned above, all the more shocking. I also liked the gothic look of the house, especially when Angelo modified it in the latter portions of the film to make it more creepy (starting a bonfire inside the house or putting up a wire fence around the staircase). Regardless of what one thinks of the objectionable elements of the film, there's still this aspect to enjoy, at the very least.

Overall, this film was incredibly disturbing and it's unlikely I'll watch it again due to the pedophilia scenes, but I also don't think it was a waste of time by any means. Its themes on the cyclical pattern of abuse and its visuals and production design impressed me quite a lot.

Next up: La Dolce Vita



Good review. I also don't want to watch In a Glass Cage again, which is why I put the used DVD in the local BetterBooks donation bin...which, unfortunately, is at the local YMCA.
Hopefully, it doesn't actually go to the YMCA.



I will NEVER watch that again.

I did just finish rewatching Barry Lyndon though. Review a bit later coming.