33rd Hall of Fame

Due to the considerable amount of complaints I've been receiving, and the fact that some want to withdraw from this Hall of Fame while Siddon is still a part of it, I've decided to ban him from further participation. Because he's reviewed so many of the films already, and is so close to finishing, I've extended him the possibility to still send in a ballot after he watches the remaining films, rather than disqualifying his entry. I've also extended the courtesy of him posting once more, if he needs to say anything, but absolutely no more than that. If he comes out with fighting words, it'll be disqualification and further sanctions.

I didn't want to have to do this, but with the situation the way it was I felt like shutting the whole thing down - and it's been pointed out to me privately that this wouldn't be fair to everyone else. Siddon broke the rule of not sticking to the actual films, and bringing the person who nominated them into the discussion - which caused the predictable trouble that always does. This upset too many people in the end, and so I had to act.

@jiraffejustin @John W Constantine @edarsenal @beelzebubble @cricket @Citizen Rules @rauldc14 @ScarletLion @Hey Fredrick

__________________

Just in case anybody thought I was serious about putting whomever nominated a Statham film for a HoF on blast or that they should be banned from future HoF's, I thought it was kind of obvious but just in case it wasn't - So I wasn't tearing anybody down. I don't do that kind of stuff, never have since I've been here and it also wasn't a troll nomination. I think it's a really good, fun movie that a lot of folks here haven't seen. I'm pretty careful about picking films based on who's participating. I try not to pick anything too extreme, maybe to the point of being vanilla. I know some people have problems with certain types of films that I find entertaining so I try to steer clear of nominating any of my favorite cannibal, revenge, slasher, gore flicks with tons of gratuitous nudity and pointless sex even if they are pretty good. However, if you want some recommendations for your own private viewing of some great cannibal, revenge, slasher, gore flicks with tons of gratuitous nudity and pointless sex I could probably find a few good ones for ya.

I think you should start nominating cannibal, revenge, slasher, gore flicks. I almost nominated the 1990 Candyman, which is pretty tame, all things considered, but went with something more dramatic. I think I might start nominating a horror film every now and then, because that would be representative of what I think belongs in the hall of fame. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre deserves a spot next to Casablanca.

And thinking of that made me think of this: I think maybe we should consider theme hall of fames non-canon and allow winners of those in the general halls. I've recently changed my stance on that as before I was on the other side of the fence. But that might be another topic for another day in another thread.

Siddon has told me he isn't going to respect my decision and go on posting anyway. His nom is disqualified.

1. You've been reported to the moderator. Feel free to post the full PM if you wish.

2. The rule of questioning the motivation of posters submissions is a rule I clearly attempted to follow. However you have informed me that many of you conspire not to contribute in these Halls because of me. From my perspective that seems to me that I need to question every ballot, every review, every poster and that the rule of not questioning the motivations of posters is a bad one. Is it possible that people are voting personally, I'd like to think no...It's sad that you guys are out to get me. But when the person running one of these says...people are out to get you and this is the third Hall in a row where I've had my ballot threatened to throw out...had my film watched with subtitles and held off from being used and now some strange "ban". A guy has to wonder.

3. You made it clear that I was not allowed to defend myself in this thread. Or I'm only allowed to defend myself based on your standards. We can go back to the motivation rules...if you are saying I'm going to remove you from a Hall if you say something I don't like that sets a dangerous precedent. Where is the line and what gives you the right to do that. The idea that you only want your friends in these Hall's doesn't even seem remotely okay in my eyes.

4. Your "ban" doesn't address the last two reviews I am going to post. Which I have every intention of posting. I'm also going to discuss my nominated film with any person that chooses to watch my pick.

5. If people have a personal problem with me...I don't care. If you don't like me you don't have to talk to me. I'm not really seeking out conversations with people that hate me. I've dealt with a number of things and accusations on this forum and I've moved on...but I keep notes and don't forget.

6. What is not in dispute is I will finish the hall, write the final two reviews and submit the ballot. And if my work isn't recognized I'm not just going to shut up about it. I'll bring it up...all the time in every hall of fame. I'm not doing this to be a dick but I will not be bullied out of threads and have my time wasted. I think it's very telling that many of you are complaining in private but not to my face.

I also hope the irony of trying to remove Macbeth from this Hall isn't lost on many of you.


Oops....just made a second post I brokes a rule.

I really think there is an easy fix here:

Let's not kick Siddon out. If you think he's an annoying prick, just ignore him. These games are supposed to be about the movies and not the people nominating them. I don't take into consideration who nominated a film when I judge it, because that person doesn't have anything to do with the film. Unless there is something that happened in the thread that was deleted or something going on behind-the-scenes, I don't think Siddon didn't anything that really deserves a banning. I don't know if general unpleasantness is enough.

There are people who want out of this Hall of Fame because of Siddon and his behaviour. That's what prompted me to think things over, people don't want to do this anymore, and as of now I don't either. It's no fun. It's just fighting all of the time. I'm tired of it, and so are a good many of us.

Guess I have to break the rule again by responding.

It's not okay to say I don't want to post in this thread because Siddon is also participating in this thread. Calling my "behavior" into question for reviewing films and discussing is this not the point of a discussion board. I stand by every review I have ever made, and I've been very consistent about the things I don't like.

If people wish to leave this thread because I'm in it, that's something that person needs to be accountable for. You are the sum of your actions. But spare me the sanctimony that I'm doing something wrong. The idea that I'm breaking some nebulous rule when you just admitted that people are campaigning to remove me from this thing that I've dedicated my time to.

I can deal with not being liked or friends with anyone here but don't play the victim when you are clearly just being a bully.

There Will Be Blood (2008)

When There Will be Blood starts Daniel Plainview is a man near death. Working as an oil man he works in a pit digging and trying to get oil. It's established early on that Daniel can die at any time from falling debris. During an early scene in the film the man working beside him is killed and Daniel is left with a baby in a bin. We then see Daniel elevate himself as a salesman of sort, selling himself to different communities to get work. He pitches himself well but if things don't go well he moves onto the neighbor. This is working fine for him until one day a man shows up to sell him.

A lot of there will be blood feels biblical. It's broken up into little chapters each one offering a bit a parable. And while the stories are simple the inferences between each one is not. Plainview is not a simple villian or an anti-hero or a hero. He needs to justify his actions but he's also a man boiling with rage. It feels like the old testament, but I do believe he's a man worth condemning.

Paul Dano plays the role of a preacher and a brother and his parallels to Daniel are fascinating. One of the things I forgot is how Plainview still uses him. When one of his men is killed he tells him to find his family. It's a throwaway line but it sums up Plainview's character. He claims that he knows the men that work for him...but that was a lie. Dano goes on his own journey off screen and the ending offers as many questions as it does answers

This isn't my favorite PT Anerson film, I think it's part of his religious trilogy (The Master. Magnolia, and There Will be Blood). You can kind of see it's visual short cuts but the story is so rich and the performance...do you really care.

A

Let's movie on!

I like movies. Most of the time.

I'm in this boat. I don't see any reason to ban somebody when you can just put them on ignore. That's why it's there. He's got one movie left. Put him on ignore for the rest of the HoF or forever if you want and let's move on.

I either don't remember or wasn't part of past HoF drama. I re-read Siddon's posts here starting with his write-up of God's Little Acre, and personally I didn't see anything offensive or controversial. Is it possible that some of you overreacted due to past issues? Judging the posts in this thread as a sole entity I just don't see anything problematic.

I am with jiraffejustin and Hey Frederick!


As netizens, we must learn not to feed the trolls!

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Fred Dobbs and local worker Bob Curtain both down on their luck in the town of Tampico, Mexico in the 1920's decide to take a chance on the prize of gold after being shafted on labor from their previous employer. With the guidance of another local, Howard, the three set out in search of fortune in the mountains of Mexico. But with bandits, other prospectors, and one of the other group members unmined greed to deal with, finding gold may be the least of their problems.

One of Hollywood's essentials, one of the essential Bogart films, this has all the ingredients of this classic era of films. I will admit it begins to teeter towards overstaying it's welcome towards the finale but everything that comes before eases any bad feelings or criticisms that I have for it. Great choice.

Shoplifters

(2018, Kore-eda)

Hatsue, an elderly widow uses her home and husbands pension to help support a group of characters. They just happen to have a knack for shoplifting things they need to get by. One day, Osamu and Shota, during one of their daily operations happen upon a young child, Yuri, who has been locked out of her home. Osamu and Shota intend to bring Yuri along just for a dinner in their and the others home, but when they discover Yuri might be a victim of abuse they decide to not return her to her parents.

Since the 2010's countdown last year I've slowly been catching up this area of cinema. I believe this may have been one of the first I decided to check out. It has a lot of tenderness that I have found common in most of these stories I've seen since then. It's hard to determine just where I stand with the choices that have made some of the countdowns recently but overall I found this pretty good, not great as some of the others I've watched but something I'll continue to pursue in the future.

I had never heard of this so going in I just checked the genre and saw comedy, drama. Oh, okay. So I'm watching it and I just keep waiting for the comedy which, for me, never came. So it didn't work for me that way but did it work as a drama? A little but it was kind of all over the map with all the characters and their stories. The father of the family, Ty Ty (Robert Ryan), has a bit of goofy in him, digging holes all over his backyard for the past 15 years looking for buried gold and kidnapping albino's but the rest of his family is a real mess.

Ty Ty's son is married to Griselda (Tina Louise), who is still all about her alcoholic ex, Will (Aldo Ray), who is married to Ty Ty's other daughter, Rosamund. He's unemployed from the local mill and dreams about getting it up and running again and he is still all about Griselda. All the flirting between the two drives Ty Ty's son nuts, Rosamund doesn't seem to like it either and Ty Ty doesn't care. He has a one track mind about that buried treasure. Later in the film, as Ty Ty needs some money he hits up his third son for some cash and HE tries to snag Griselda as well, right in front of everybody. This son turns out to be the worst of the bunch.

Robert Ryan seems a little out of place to me, digging hole, after hole, after hole while trying to keep this family together. His character was a little too God goofy for my taste. He was kind of if you just ignore everything around you and be a good person, God will take care of everything type of believer. If everybody's on the same boat that may work but that's rarely the case and it isn't the case here and he should be able to see that. Tina Louise did pretty good as the woman everybody lusts for. I thought she was the best character in the movie even if it seems like the director may have told her to do nothing more than wear this and breathe deeply. Aldo Ray is fine as the alcoholic ex of Griselda but Vic Morrow is under used and Buddy Hackett, who I think is usually very funny, is kind of cringy comic relief as the vote chasing, wannabe Sherriff and husband to be of Ty Ty's third daughter.

A real mixed bag for me. Parts of it I really enjoyed but some left me wondering what does this have to do with anything? I liked the second half more than the first. The first half was a little odd but the second half fell more in line with a straight family drama and that's where I felt the movie was at it's best.

Aftersun

(2022, Wells)

In the 1990's, Sophie travels to a Turkish resort for a vacation with her father. Calum, Sophie's father, had moved away to London after separating from her mother. While on holiday Sophie has the chance to meet new people and even make friends with a young boy staying around their resort. She also has a chance to witness some of her fathers personal issues such as signs of depression, anxiety, and hints of inner turmoil. Although he tries to hide these things from Sophie under a sense of personal contentment their relationship experiences many different forms of emotions throughout their brief time together.

This movie really deals in the feels department. It seems to be in search of finding a fathers vulnerability under his guise of contentment for his choices. But as the film begins to pull back the layers of its characters is for me when it really hits it's stride. I really like the performances from the two lead characters so much that it kept my attention open until that gut punch of an ending.

Great write-ups! I see a consistent remark for the finale of The Treasure of Sierra Madre, so since I was a pup since I last saw this, I'll be curious to see this aspect.
I just read the above review of G'sLA from @Hey Fredrick. It hits a lot of similar points with my viewing, and I will cover them in my review (fingers crossed), which I'll post this weekend. Along withThe Bank Job and A Man For All Seasons, the last two were very enjoyable revisits.


As for the current drama, here's my rambling two cents...


Hosting is both a joy and, when sh#t stirs, a complete frustration. My respect and love go out to @PHOENIX74 and the agitation that brought him to his ruling. I value him as I have valued every host to these HoFs, and his presence as a participant is sincerely cherished.
When it comes to @Siddon, he is, like a number of straight-shooting, will let you know bluntly if they don't like something MoFos I respect. He's a f@ckin d#ck at times and never quietly but to the f@ckin heavens in no uncertain terms. But I take it as the entire parcel of who he is. Blunt, brutally honest reviews are unforgiving mirrors of shared movie experiences. I don't always agree, but I appreciate the perspective as I do all the other reviews of all the MoFos I peruse. And since he is precisely the same when it comes to things he likes, it means just a little bit more when it occurs with a film I nominated. I like that.

My view of drama within any forum is that it is inevitable, especially when we nominate beloved films that we wish to share. It can, and at times, hurt like a b#tch when it gets torn apart or dismissed. From my beginnings here, I have been wonderfully overwhelmed with the far-reaching scope of genres that are shared and represented here on this movie lovers' forum. And with such a variety of tastes, there will be conflict. For the most part, it is a passionate and respectful discussion. Sometimes, we fight, we argue. Though I have to say, for the most part, for those of us who have long-running histories in HoFs, the fights are aired and addressed, and for the most part, combatants leave the field with their dead and dying, for the remainder of us, to quote @rauldc14: "movie on." Amen, brother. Which is my hope. For the benefit of those directly involved, matters are aired, addressed, and some form of resolution, if possible, reached as those of us not directly involved, movie on.

Um, on a minor side note regarding disqualified films and with all respect and courtesy intended. When they are films I was genuinely dreading seeing due to my preferences I'm happy to avoid them. On the times that they are films I was genuinely looking forward to seeing, I hope to, though, to date, I never have. Being an enthusiastic lover of Shakespearian films and still unfamiliar and very f@ckin curious to see Polanski's rendition, this may be the rare opportunity to do just that. It probably won't be. But if it does... that's why.

__________________
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