Swan's 2018 Film Diary

→ in
Tools    





I prefer not rating movies, but I also noticed not as many people seem to enjoy my thread anymore, which is a bummer to me. Considering going back to ratings because of this.

You guys suck.
Like Chyp i usually only read the ones i've seen so i haven't had much to comment on recently. Call Me By Your Name was very good, touching film and it looked gorgeous. Personally i thought Hammer gave the best performance but they were all good anyway.

Not sure about The Post. Spielbergs really hit or miss for me and i don't think as highly of Streep as everyone else. Plus i've been getting sick of straight portrayals of stories i'm already familiar with and i really can't see Spielberg doing much else with it. I'll watch it though and hopefully i'm wrong.



“Sugar is the most important thing in my life…”
If you are a 60-70 year old, you will give The Post a standing ovation.



Not sure about The Post. Spielbergs really hit or miss for me and i don't think as highly of Streep as everyone else. Plus i've been getting sick of straight portrayals of stories i'm already familiar with and i really can't see Spielberg doing much else with it. I'll watch it though and hopefully i'm wrong.
I love Spielberg. I think in lesser hands The Post wouldn't have been as great because the script isn't that stunning, but he makes it really intense and does a lot of great directorial flourishes.



The Treasure of the Sierra Madre -
+
(John Huston, 1948)

[REWATCH]



I will start with a criticism about myself. I have noticed I can talk passionately about a lot of films, but one style I had a hard time "critiquing" is classic American cinema. I'm not sure why because I like it just as much as any other kind of cinema.

I love The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, but I can only think of a few things to say about it. What I will say is I love, love, love Bogie's performance in this. His descent into madness is one of the best ever put on screen, but the character is fascinating and well-drawn from the start. Huston's writing and directing deserves it's due for that, too. I like how near the end it breaks up who we follow, and for a short period (SPOILER) we just follow the bandits (who we have barely familiarized ourselves with) and lose sight of the main characters a bit. That might sound contrary to what you're "supposed" to do in filmmaking, but it works so well.

Aside from that, I don't know what to say. Maybe it's because I'm not as well-versed in classic American cinema as I'd like to say I am. Need to up my game pronto.

Hey mark f, can you share some thoughts on the film?



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
How many films as old as this have you seen in the theatre and what do you notice is different from seeing today's movies in the theatre? i wrote this specifically the last Top 100 Countdown we had.

Sierra Madre was my #3. I watched it many times as a teen and is probably the one movie which made me such a humongous Bogie and John Huston fan. The plot, taken from the mysterious B. Traven's novel, goes through all kinds of complications - being an out of work American in Mexico, getting ripped off by another American, learning about gold from an knowledgeable old-timer, wanting to throw water in Bobby Blake's "ugly mug", worrying about your goods and having to take "look sees", being scared about gila monsters, taking votes on whether to share your gold with an interloper or kill him, dealing with a spitting bandido in a gold hat who defiantly won't show you any stinking badges, performing some weird resuscitation and becoming a medicine man, going murderously beyond paranoia, betting on who can stay awake the longest, learning about a small Mexican town's quick legal system, dreaming about fruit harvests, dealing with strong northers and laughing about fate (among many others). Bogie is at his most terrific yet he's matched by grizzled Walter Huston and honest Tim Holt. John Huston mixes on-location reality and wonderful cinematography with detailed sets, rear-screen projection and obvious stunt men for knockdown fistfights. For a movie with such a dark and serious theme, it's amazingly fun and witty. And remember to never try to put one over on Fred C. Dobbs.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



You can't win an argument just by being right!
They are very realistic, but in a good way. Especially the first. I don't remember a single super-shakey headache-inducing moment in either films.
I am completely over shaky cam which is why I got well and truly over the genre, but I dont recall noticing it in this. It's probably there but didnt distract or make me throw the remote on the floor in a tantrum.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
I prefer not rating movies, but I also noticed not as many people seem to enjoy my thread anymore, which is a bummer to me. Considering going back to ratings because of this.

You guys suck.
Keep it going. I dont give movies or tv a number either. What I rate today might be completely different tomorrow so for me it's a pointless exercise.



How many films as old as this have you seen in the theatre and what do you notice is different from seeing today's movies in the theatre? i wrote this specifically the last Top 100 Countdown we had.
Damn that's a good question and I wish I was thinking about it while watching. My answers are probably going to be lame. I noticed more wide shots that captured the characters and their walks. I only mention that because I remember reading a little forward from Robert Towne about the importance of how a character walks, and how you can read a lot about them from that. I don't feel like I see that in much of the run-of-the-mill stuff coming out these days, but maybe I'm wrong there. Alas, I vividly remember how Dobbs walked in this, and it was kind of the slumped walk that showed a lot of wear and tear.

Also, despite the darkness of the film, it ended on a positive note that felt really appropriate and not forced and I think if it were made today it might have ended far more cynically. I actually like the cynical nature of some modern films, but I also like the positivity of older flicks. I read a quote from Jean-Pierre Jeunet basically saying it's harder to make a positive film than a cynical one. That might be true, that might not be, but the quote resonated with me.

Bogie is at his most terrific yet he's matched by grizzled Walter Huston and honest Tim Holt.
Yes! I forgot to mention them, but they are really really great as well.



The Darkest Hour -
+
(Joe Wright, 2017)

[NEW WATCH]



Not bad necessarily, but I struggled to get through this one. Perhaps it's my problem with political dramas - they rarely captivate me. To be sure, Oldman is good, but not the best of the year. I also found Joe Wright lacking in his ability to engage the audience, because while I do think I tend to be uninterested by movies like this, I also think a really great director could still manage to pull me in. For instance, The Post seemed like something less than captivating to me, but I saw it because it's Spielberg, and sure enough his ability to engage the audience proved better than ever. Joe Wright doesn't quite have that same capability, though there were plenty of directorial flourished I liked here - mostly stylistic. I will say the subway scene near the end was the best scene in the film, to me.



I can see how one wouldn't like it, but it really worked well for me. I wonder how I'll feel about The Post.
I knew you liked it and can see why, but like I said I have a hard time with movies like this myself.



Phantom Thread -

(Paul Thomas Anderson, 2017)

[NEW WATCH]



Every time PTA comes out with a new movie, and I see it, I become tempted to call it one of his best. Interestingly, as time goes on, that feeling persists. Maybe because the majority of his filmography consists of "one of his best" films. Phantom Thread is no exception. A love story where the love is a truly demented and dysfunctional one. And Greenwood's score - one of the best he's yet done - exemplifies that. The formal and elegant music has a sinister underbelly that reflects the characters and the setting so well. Daniel-Day Lewis is great in his last performance, but to me the star of the film is by far Vicky Krieps, and the lack of recognition for her around awards season (as far as I've noticed) is a terrible thing.

PTA is at the peak of his mastery here, the best quality to me being the humility he displays (a far cry from the flashy self-indulgence of Magnolia). It's as if he wanted to let everyone else - Day-Lewis, Krieps, Manville, and even Greenwood and his score - steal the audience. And though the directing may never show itself off, it never the less stands strong in it's mastery. PTA, at this point, is humble because he's confident.



I dislike PTA for the most part but that was an awesome review man

Big props
__________________
''Haters are my favourite. I've built an empire with the bricks they've thrown at me... Keep On Hating''
- CM Punk
http://threemanbooth.files.wordpress...unkshrug02.gif



I dislike PTA for the most part but that was an awesome review man

Big props
Thanks dude. I shouldn't say this because I try not to discourage seeing any film, least of all one like this, but if you aren't a fan of his other stuff I'm not sure this one will be for you either. I found it mesmerizing and calmly paced, but you might not be so captured by it.



Awesome. As long as my world doesn't fall in I should be seeing it tonight.

Why do you find Magnolia self-indulgent? Is it just because it isn't as opaque as his later stuff?
__________________
Letterboxd



You can't win an argument just by being right!
[center][ A love story where the love is a truly demented and dysfunctional one.
I went out with a musician who was completely freaking insane and the promos for this remind me of him so I'm not sure if I can cope watching it. Just way too similar anmd it might trigger me/



Awesome. As long as my world doesn't fall in I should be seeing it tonight.

Why do you find Magnolia self-indulgent? Is it just because it isn't as opaque as his later stuff?
I feel like PTA was kind of "getting things out of his system" with Magnolia. If that makes sense. I just think he goes overboard with everything, shows off too much. It's not very controlled. Boogie Nights is flashy too but I think that one is a masterpiece, so I don't think it's because it's different from his later stuff. Anyway if anyone is going to make an overly-long, self-indulgent mess I'd want it to be PTA, because at least he'll bring his writing chops to it. But it's still my least favorite thing he's done.



Paddington -

(Paul King, 2014)

[NEW WATCH]



This first one made me a casual fan, but definitely a fan nonetheless.

Paddington 2 -

(Paul King, 2017)

[NEW WATCH]



"If we are kind and polite, the world will be right."

That cute little bear is an inspiration to us all. If the first film in the series made me a casual fan, this one makes me want to jump to the front of the bandwagon. It boasts a sweet warm-hearted sentimentality rarely seen in the often cynical modern film culture (which is a perfectly fine thing in and of itself), at times calling back Chaplin and Wes Anderson, but wholly it's own too. There's not a negative bone in it's body; the darkest part is when the grandma pulls out a rifle... that turns out to be made of plastic!

Full of cleverness and bound to make just about anyone's spirit go aflutter, Paddington 2 is one of my new favorite family films.