23rd MoFo Hall of Fame

Tools    





Let the night air cool you off

Hunger
(Steve McQueen, 2008)
Nominated By: MovieGal
96 mins, IMDb

I really enjoy when a film lets me know that maybe the hero isn't always right, whether it be in their actions or motivations. We get a little bit of that in Hunger during the long conversation between Bobby Sands and the priest. Both sides believe what they say, but they fail to understand each other. Sands says he does the right thing, but there is clearly a selfish motivation behind it. His choice of words when he says he knows he has the respect of the other boys after saying he did the right thing by drowning the hurt foal shows that, but that makes you think about this idea of doing the right thing for potentially the wrong reasons. It almost doesn't matter what you stand for, because ultimately it just matters that you make your actions and your life mean something to you. You keep yourself moving on by having something to fight for. Life goes by in waves, and from wave to wave you need to have that thing that you believe is worth fighting for. I don't know if I really agree with any of that philosophically, but it at least makes me think.

My knowledge on the history of the so called Troubles is very, very limited, so I don't know how accurate the film is or which side, if any, is the side to be admired. I'm just taking the film at face value and assuming the film is its own universe. Those who know more about Irish history would probably be able to get more out of this.

Outside of the long conversation, this film thrives in its documentary style filming. It looks very good despite also looking like the sh*t splayed and spread across the wall. It's uncompromising in how nasty and brutal it all is. It never feels like anything good will ever happen. For some reason, I like films like that. I probably shouldn't it, but I do.



Gangs of New York (2002)

I remember this felt lackluster when I saw it in the movies, and my rewatch attempt a few months ago was never finished (and don't get me wrong, I've plowed through a ton of worse films Gangs of New York). So, I was a little disappointed when this was nominated.


It's hard to point out a single issue with Gangs of New York, but most of it boils down to the idea that it doesn't feel like a movie made by someone as prolific as Scorsese. The script is all over the place with its poorly executed love story and stupidly cliched dialogue; casting is off (DiCaprio and Diaz have no chemistry, and neither of them even fit their roles); the whole is teetering in an uncomfortable balance between a B-movie and a historical epic.

For a revenge story, Gangs of New York has one big issue: it's difficult to sympathize with Amsterdam avenging his father, who died pretty much in a war of his choosing. The film tries to sell a story of just retribution and heroism while, to me, it looks more like a story of a life wasted. With all his flaws, Bill seems more honest and honorable than the backstabbing Amsterdam.

To put it short, Gangs of New York is below average epic. Some of its sets look good, but they also look distinctively sets rather than real places. Day-Lewis is by far the best thing in the film, but even his character is lazily written. It's one of the worst films by Scorsese.
__________________



Let the night air cool you off
Gangs of New York (2002)

For a revenge story, Gangs of New York has one big issue: it's difficult to sympathize with Amsterdam avenging his father, who died pretty much in a war of his choosing. The film tries to sell a story of just retribution and heroism while, to me, it looks more like a story of a life wasted. With all his flaws, Bill seems more honest and honorable than the backstabbing Amsterdam.
Great point.

It's not like this was a Lion King scenario where Scar betrays Mufasa, Amsterdam's father engaged in mutual combat and was the loser. I get the idea of wanting vengeance in that scenario too, but to then go about it in the way Amsterdam did is not the way to get the audience on his side. Unless the message is that morality is less important than getting what you want. Which, if that's the message, you might still be able to get me on your side. But, I think what's fair is fair, so if that is the case, I can't continuously be on Amsterdam's side against Bill. He gets caught trying to betray Bill because he, himself, is betrayed. I don't know if that is supposed to be some sort of poetic justice, or if it is a coincidence nobody recognized and we are just supposed to feel bad for Amsterdam.

Another thing, if we take the angle that the combat between Amsterdam's father, Priest, and Bill is mutual, but acknowledge that perhaps Priest had to fight to give his people, the Irish immigrants, some sort of claim to the area, there is still something lackluster to Amsterdam's motivations. If we take the aforementioned angle, it could be accepted that Amsterdam would want his revenge by any means necessary. However, it would also have to be that Amsterdam would care about his Irish people, and that would have to go somewhere too. It just doesn't though. Even when it is supposed to be heading that way with the reformation of the Dead Rabbits, it never feels like Amsterdam is truly motivated by helping his people. It always feels like he is only acting in his own self-interest in a rather unlikeable way.


Some of its sets look good, but they also look distinctively sets rather than real places.
Another good point. It sometimes has a cool look, but there is an authenticity missing in this film throughout. I know it's easier for Scorsese's other films to look legit, because a lot of them are set in a time that is either modern or close to it. In Taxi Driver, New York City plays a big role, and it is authentically New York City. It looks like the seedy armpit that it is. I understand that in Gangs, it would be a lot hard to nail that authenticity, but it is still essential. It feels very much like a theater set than a real place. Even with the onscreen violence, part of the time it felt like it wouldn't be too surprising if the gangs would have broke out in song at some point.



Gangs of New York (2002)

To put it short, Gangs of New York is below average epic. Some of its sets look good, but they also look distinctively sets rather than real places. Day-Lewis is by far the best thing in the film, but even his character is lazily written. It's one of the worst films by Scorsese.
I think Scorsese with his Gangs of New Yorkwas not trying for brutal realism, but was crafting a different style of film media than he was known for. I don't think Scorsese missed the mark, as to me it seems clear he was fully aiming to make a fun, broad epic with the emphasis on entertainment. It's his answer to Spielberg's style of film making and in that vein I'd say he succeeded. Though Cameron Diaz isn't up to the task at hand.



One Week Remaining

There are 7 days left in this Hall of Fame and half the participants still haven't finished. Those of you who have not yet finished need to really speed things up. You have until midnight Pacific Time next Saturday to get those movies watched, written up, and your ballots turned in!


@edarsenal @HashtagBrownies @jiraffejustin
@neiba @pahaK @Sarge @Siddon



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
The Fisher King (1991)

I never had heard of this till it was nominated so I had no clue what was it about. And for the first 20 minutes I was just looking at the screen stunned and thinking: what the hell am I seeing???
Then things got clearer and the film became more and more enjoyable. It's a perfomance film, which means every actor really needs to bring his A game or else the film falls flat. Luckily everyone here brings the right energy, which for the most part is almost psychotic! Williams' is obviously the best thing about it - every good comedy actor is always better doing dramas and this man is no exception. He finds a perfect balance of crazy and likable without ever losing his personal touch to the character. Bridges is also solid and the two women are a great counter-balance to the dynamic of the main duo.

While it didn't touch me the same way it might have touched other people I still had a great time watching this!

+









One of the things I love about Pedro Almodovar is he looks towards the past and takes old films and is inspired to make new ones. It's less about remakes and more about inspiration. The Skin I live In clearly takes quite a bit from classic horror films. What Pedro does that is so good is he takes the premise of what would be the classic story and then hides it so that it's the reveal. It's a brilliant tool and it works really well here because the actual third act is really nothing to write home about.



Almodovar does a great job with sexuality, this is a hard R film that had it take some extra steps could have been an NC-17 film and a classic. Pedro makes several choices to pull back (in some cases literally) to not make this sexual horror film too sexual and to horrific. This is likely Antonio Banderas's best work...certainly his best with Almodovar as your sympathies bounce between Vera and Robert.



Visually it's a great movie, it does the typical indie thing with four actors and a house but where the film elevates it's self is in the colour palette. It's a very sterile environment that gets these splashes of color, it makes everything kind of pop out.





A film that manages to find optimism in a hopeless scenario; Eleven million people had their lives violently ended, but at least one man managed to save a thousand of them. Filmmaking wise it’s solid all around; the soundtrack is iconic and the use of black and white allows for brilliant uses of lighting. For a war film the script is quite well balanced: I see so many war films that are either 100% torture porn, or mainly a character piece where scenes of the soldiers/victims suffering are lackluster. Schindler’s List manages to balance the scenes of suffering and the scenes of character in a way I’ve seen a few times with war films but not very often. When a film starts to be held as a classic, that often leads to them getting heavily scrutinised over others. I think this applies to Schindler’s List; but unlike other scrutinised beloved classics that may have objective flaws or leaps in logic, there’s nothing particularly wrong with Schindler’s List. Say it’s too sappy all you want, but that’s a pure example of the subjectivity of film.

Very good pick @Citizen Rules.





Gangs of New York (2002) received 10 Oscar nominations, it took 20 years to make and frankly it's due for a remake. It's a good film it runs 3 hours long and as an historical epic it does a wonderful job telling a story that spans 15 years. The film has a number of small flaws..Leo gets "disfigured" but then well it's gone. Interesting characters pop in and out while the boring ones hang around far to long...and the casting of German/Italian and German/Spanish actors as Irish is a poor choice on Scorsese's part.



But I love this movie, you see so many historical epics but you never see one that attempts to build massive set pieces. Creating an 1850's New York that looks and feels real in an incredible accomplishment. Yeah yeah I know they just repeat certain scenes (we get two assassinations attempts in event halls) and the shelling scene could have been done better.


I suppose most people take issue with the moralizing of the characters thinking that you need to have good or bad ones. We see Amsterdam's story so naturally we view him as the protagonist afterall he hasn't murdered anyone yet and Bill is an old killer. Yet each time you watch the film you are left to wonder what Bill knew and did he decide to die. Why did he make so many iffy and poor tactical choices. He hates the Irish but he continued to take them into his inner circle and work with them. Is this the story of the nature of corruption?


Part of me wants to watch this not with Goodfellas and Mean Streets but with Silence and The Last Temptation of Christ because I feel like the religious issues of the film are now more interesting to me. Anyways I applaud it for it's textual depths and I liked it alot.



...I love this movie, you see so many historical epics but you never see one that attempts to build massive set pieces. Creating an 1850's New York that looks and feels real in an incredible accomplishment...
Well said. The sets and the recreation of 1850s New York was a highlight for me. I mean we don't see many films about NYC in the mid 19th century so that alone was worth the watch for me.



Women will be your undoing, Pépé
I like that you said that and now that I think about it, it's apt to. Glad you appreciated the film.
[/left]
[/center]
I got that "A film that manages to find optimism in a hopeless scenario..." as well when I watched it.
__________________
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 got that "A film that manages to find optimism in a hopeless scenario..." as well when I watched it.
I like that sentiment, as it's one of my own personal philosophies, find good in all things if possible.

So yes I agree of course, but also I see the film as a more detached, clinical-historcial look at the Holocaust and Schindler. Almost like Spielberg said to the world: we need to document this story but in drama film form. I guess what I'm saying is kudos to Spielberg for not being his usual sentimental self. I think it's his crowning achievement in film making.



Jojo Rabbit (2019)

Even after the second viewing, I still don't know how exactly I feel about Jojo Rabbit. There's definitely more good than bad, but is it enough to raise it above OK. At the moment, I'm leaning towards yes.


First of all, the kids playing Jojo and Elsa are superb. They also have great chemistry together that makes their cinematic relation very enjoyable to watch. Jojo's mother fills the triangle really well, but I don't like Johansson's performance that much (especially the father scene is cringy). While I still don't think Waititi is the right actor to play Hitler, he didn't annoy me as much this time. Overall, the cast is good, but the kids are the real stars.

While it's true that Jojo Rabbit doesn't aim for any kind of realism, it sort of irks me how it twists everything to a modern Antifa agenda. For a comedy, it's easier to forgive such things, but I think it hurts the drama-side when Germans are always depicted either evil or stupid (except Jojo's mother). At least the film manages to be mostly entertaining, so I can't complain too much about this. I just think it wastes quite a bit of potential.

So, as a whole, Jojo Rabbit is quite an entertaining comedy that loses part of its potential by trying to steer its "difficult" subject within the boundaries of modern sensibilities. It manages to do it better than most, and it excels with its child characters. I actually liked this a tad more on the rewatch, which appears to be a common theme with this movie.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
I got that "A film that manages to find optimism in a hopeless scenario..." as well when I watched it.
I also got it. The difference is, I view that as a huge flaw.



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Hunger (2008)

Heavy film. I didn't know a lot about IRA, and the film also doesn't care to explain, apart from a few isolated remarks either from Sands and what I presume is Margaret Thatcher. However, the context in which all this happens isn't very important.

The first half hour of the film is a beautifully executed circular narrative which culminates in the presentation of our main character. After that, there's a build up for the dialogue scene which is the key element around which everything revolves and after that we are left with witnessing Sands growing weaker and weaker till he finally dies.

I like how the cinematography and structure are so minimalistic so the message doesn't get lost. Also the acting contributes to this, with no member of the cast being less than exactly what they need to be, Fassbender being obviously the main attraction in that regard.

I am not sure how much I liked this but at least I respect it very very much.




Women will be your undoing, Pépé
Watched The Night of Counting the Years but did not have enough time to write a review and that leaves me with my grand finale watch: The Skin I Live In