23rd MoFo Hall of Fame

I know I said I wasn't going to speed through this HoF, but I did just watch The Great Mouse Detective haha.

I won't be keeping up this pace for long though. Next week I'm going to be pretty busy with extra shifts at work preparing for our upcoming inventory count, so I won't have as much time to watch the nominations until that's over with.

__________________

You just won't let me keep my lead, will ya?

I'll probably be slowing down here pretty soon, too. I'm knocking out some of the shorter ones now, but I'm in no hurry to rewatch Gangs of New York or Schindler's List.

__________________

I was curious if this would happen and it did. It's been a long, long time since I've popped an Ozu in. I've never LOVED an Ozu, but always enjoyed them. This time it was different, because it fully clicked for me. Ozu has a way of not moving his camera, yet it's still beautiful how he did it. When he did move the camera, it was, no pun intended, moving. As far as themes and metaphors and symbols, I'd say a lot of this stuff is over my head and I'm largely unequipped to even speak on it. I've done a little bit of reading on it, I've seen talks of the pillow shots, I noticed the low angles, I don't know what they all mean or why those were the decisions made, and I damn sure don't know what the vase is supposed to represent. I know they are all intriguing and visually stimulating and stand out in the crowd. How Ozu came to make such complex, compelling family dramas with what seems like the most simple and basic premises and little to no movment is fascinating to me. There is a whole lot of sadness boiling under the surface, but it's subtle. Setsuko Hara might be the only woman with the ability to play Noriko. She has a gorgeous smile with a radiant, glowing face that seems so pure and innocent. You believe her at all times, whether it be on the train, when she is angry with her dad or her friend, Aya, and especially the scene at night when she speaks to her dad who falls asleep and we take that look at the vase. I'm rambling here, but I don't have the same ability as Ozu to follow such a tight structure, locked in like a low angle shot of a corridor.

The Reflecting Skin



Some films stand no shot at winning Hall of fames and are still nominated and that's what we have here. And despite how goofy the film comes off to be, it still held my interest throughout the film.

The thing is, there's actually a lot of cool things about this film. Namely, the cinematography is actually really good and there's a lot of cool camera shots. I loved the shot where the woman vampire is seen and then is walking and blocked by the car. Makes it eerie to see what just will happen when we see her again (which was actually not really much but I had assumed something would have happened.) The shots of the wheat fields were pretty picturesque too.

Also cool to see a younger Viggo. I'm not a huge fan of him but I've grown to have some respect for his acting. The rest of the acting was pretty fair but nothing really stood out either. Did I like how the film ended? It was a pretty impartial ending although I'm not sure how I really would have liked to see it end myself. It was entertaining but I doubt that I would search this one out again. What it mainly has going for it is that it is really a different cinematic experience from anything else so it does stick out as very unique.

I just watched Christiane F. so now I'll have two reviews to write (the other is, obviously, my own nom). I didn't like the educational German drug story as much as I had hoped, but it's at least OK still. I'll need to see how it feels in a day or two.

__________________

The Great Mouse Detective (Ron Clements, Burny Mattinson, David Michener, and John Musker, 1986)
Imdb

Date Watched: 08/11/2020
Cinema or Home: Home
Reason For Watching: The 23rd MoFo Hall of Fame, nominated by rauldc14
Rewatch: Yes

I watched this movie for the first time back in 2015 and was thoroughly unimpressed. I was hoping that this rewatch would be an improvement. It wasn't.

I love animated movies and some of my favorite animated films are ones that other people don't consider to be all that great (and some of my least favorites are ones that other people consider great). But this? This to me just smacks of mediocrity. There's nothing especially bad about it (though I was rather annoyed at the clichéd and bullsh!t good mouse/bad rat dichotomy that I see in so much children's entertainment). But there wasn't anything good, either. The quality of the animation was unremarkable. The songs (though mercifully few) were forgettable and the characters were likewise forgettable. I don't have anything to say about the story, either.

And so I remain thoroughly unimpressed. I don't hate it, though. It's pretty innocuous. So I'll give it the same rating I gave it five years ago, which is pretty generous for what it is.

Yeah, obviously I knew you didn't like it. I think it could be a film that sort of relies a bit on nostalgia, making it a pretty daring pick for a Hall of Fame. But I wanted something a bit lighthearted this time I guess.

No worries. I'm always glad to see animation in a general HOF (even though I've never nominated one myself), but this just doesn't do it for me. I do expect it'll rank higher than Gangs of New York and Late Spring on my ballot, since I really didn't like either of those before. I also don't expect to like The Fisher King. Comedies are very hit or miss for me, plus I only like one of the four Terry Gilliam movies I've seen.

I'm not sure I've seen a Gilliam other than Python which I didn't like.

I'm not sure I'm looking forward to Gangs. It was alright but I remember it being hella long.

I've seen Monty Python (liked it as a kid, don't like it now), Brazil (hated it), Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (hated it), and 12 Monkeys (like it).

2 hours and 47 minutes (all the run times are listed on the second post of the thread).

It's the second longest movie in this HOF. Only Schindler's List is longer.

Schindler's is a great movie so it will feel rewarding for me.

The Reflecting Skin (1990)

The Reflecting Skin is a story of a young boy, Seth, in the rural USA during the '50s. It's a bleak and cruel journey through the nightmare of childhood.


Cinematography is stunningly beautiful with high contrast shots of yellow cornfields, vast blue skies, and dusty dirt roads framing the houses, cars, and people blotting the endless plains like black tumors. Unlike many films focusing so heavily on the visuals, The Reflecting Skin does not prolong its shots for no reason but retains fluent pacing throughout its modest runtime.

We don't get to see Seth's world from an objective point of view, but through a nightmare-lense focusing on the moments that define and mold his reality. In a childish, self-centered way his world revolves around him, and he fails to see how almost everyone, and not just him, is broken. He comes off as selfish, almost evil at times, but I think he's just a broken boy trying to find happiness in a world that's shown him nothing but hostility and contempt.

While the acting is the weakest aspect of The Reflecting Skin, my old review blew that critique out of proportions. Jeremy Cooper does a fine job as young Seth. He's better in scenes with adults or alone, but the scenes with other children feel a bit forced and weird at times. On this viewing, Viggo Mortensen didn't bother me at all. I felt that he was meant to be emotionally flat. No one really shines, but everyone gets the job done.

I love the visual style and ruthlessness of the story. The ending is great and definitely different from the norm. The Reflecting Skin is my favorite directing debut, and one of the best films about twisted and traumatized childhood.

Attachments

 

We now have at least one write-up from 11 out of 13 participants!

Have you seen either of the other films Philip Ridley has directed since then?

I'm sure I've seen Heartless and I didn't like it. Barely OK if I remember correctly. I don't think I've seen Darkly Noon.

Christiane F. - Wir Kinder vom Bahnhof Zoo (1981)
aka Christiane F.

I've known about Christiane F. for ages (I've had the VHS case on my hand in the mid-'80s), but I've never seen it before. Especially after the recent reviews here, I had high hopes for it, but at the same time, I was afraid it wouldn't live up to those expectations. In the end, it was worse than I had hoped but also better than I had feared.


There's only one major flaw in Christiane F., but it's so fundamental that it affects the whole movie. Far too often, it feels like an educational film about the dangers of drug use intended for school showings. Especially the dialogue is so underlining at times. I don't like pedantic movies, and this one comes off as way too preachy.

Technically, Christiane F. is better than I expected. In the beginning, Berlin has this decadent beauty, but the deeper Christiane sinks into her addiction, the uglier it becomes. It moves from the Sound club and David Bowie concert to the metro station and public toilets and grey streets littered with homeless junkies. The style supports the story almost perfectly.

Acting is mostly good, especially considering the number of first-timers and amateurs. Some scenes feel little forced (like the withdrawal scene with Christiane and Detlev), but I'm blaming the director for that. Natja Brunckhorst is quite perfect in the titular role.

I wish the film would have told the story and nothing else. Remove the corny dialogue about the dangers of heroin, and just show the downfall of this girl. And I know it's based on a true story, but the ending is terrible: you just can't build up to a suicide attempt and then end the film with a voiceover saying "I'm good. Drugs are bad, mmkay".

I'm still a little unsure of my eventual rating, but at the moment I'm leaning towards the idea that Christiane F. is a good movie, despite its one major and some minor flaws. Without a question, there's a lot of wasted potential.