The Movie Trade-off Tab

I probably liked this a bit more than you did although I do agree with your critiques. I kinda like this genre and it's a little different and better than a lot of what's out there.

By the way, what do you think of The Reflecting Skin? I haven't seen it in awhile and my opinion may be different now, but I remember really hating that movie!

I should have your movie watched in a day or two.

I got the Lee Van Cleef flick in the mail today, will watch tonight after the game, and post review tomorrow.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

Animal Kingdom David Michod



Animal Kingdom follows a 17 year old trying to survive in a collapsing crime family. While I thought some individual scenes worked at least cinematically, overall I really didn't enjoy much of this film at all. I really felt like the character development was poor, I never got on board with the introverted teenager and his story. He was often times way too awkward for the films own good.

I thought Guy Pearce did a fine enough job with his part, I couldn't shake that he has already played a similar detective type role (albeit different time period) in LA Confidential that is just leagues above this performance. Everything else felt really pretentious and the twists became annoyingly predictable once initiated.

Can't show much love for this film at all,

__________________
If I had a dollar for every existential crisis I've ever had, does money really even matter?

Meet Me in St. Louis



I think the reason I hadn't seen this movie up till now is that I didn't really care for the music very much. However hearing it in the context of the movie made it fun and I enjoyed it more. It's a really sweet funny movie and Judy Garland is as charming as all get out. Also it's visually appealing and I love the costumes.

The children might have been a little too precious at times, but I still enjoyed their misbehavior and subsequent resolutions. Over all it's a really feel good charming family film and I'm glad I finally watched it. Thanks Mark F.!! 3.5/5

Kustom Kar Kommandos





I’m sure this film would have more kick for me if I was interested in cars or dudes. But I still enjoyed it. Distinct look, and very well sustained throughout- there isn’t a second out of place, which I suppose is easier with a 3 minute film.

Is there much there beyond almost 300-level homoeroticism and- what’s the word for wanting to shag cars like that British spanner does? (Autoeroticism is taken.) I’m not sure. I saw a car that looks like it would be hellish to drive. And I wondered- could I pull off a powder blue t-shirt and trousers combination? (No.) Also, I expect here it is an allusion to violent, vain, gross masculinity, but is everything with the acronym KKK racist? I was inclined to think so. Once I talked to a woman from the South who ran a clothes shop called Kim’s Klassy Kloset, and seriously, how can you not notice the initials... Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, trying to stretch out the review to about 20 times the length of the script (INT. PINK DREAM, NIGHT. Buff guy buffs car, crotch, they ride off together.)

So, back to Krusty’s Komedy Klassics. I see fetishization of man and car, loving care. The car roaring young male sexuality. Great kitsch (I didn’t want to use that word, but with the look of the film I have to) colours- there’s total confidence in the direction, visually and in the subject matter. I don’t have much else, but I did like this a lot more than most of the Andy Warhol cinematic stuff I’ve seen, and that might have made Anger happy.

Thanks for the recommendation(s) Dog Star Man. One day I'll get the chance to watch Dog Star Man. Did you like that film?

Haha, nice review stevo

Zelig (1983)

I just couldn't get into this. It seems exactly the type of film I'd like; very subtle humour, the type where it's all about the writing. But it was seemingly too subtle: I failed to laugh once. Well, I giggled a few times.

I might give it the benefit of the doubt and watch it again sometime, to see if I have a different response to it.

Yeah, I know that feeling when it comes to Zelig. I generally like Woody's 80s output, but Zelig rubbed me the wrong way. I didn't find it laugh-out-loud funny, but I could appreciate the cleverness and nonchalant way in which everything was told and presented. I just wasn't involved in the story and the directing wasn't too good. Allen's true strength lies in his screenplays and I think some of his movies - including this one- would've benefitted of having someone else in the director's seat.

I'd rank his 80s output as follows:

1. Crimes & Misdemeanors (1989)
2. Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)
3. Radio Days (1987)
4. The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985)
5. Broadway Danny Rose (1984)
6. Stardust Memories (1980)
7. Zelig (1983)
8. Another Woman (1988)

A Single Man
(directed by Tom Ford, 2009)



*** This movie was singled out by ash_is_the_gal ***

Ponder this: You're gay and it's the 1960's. You've had a male lover for the past 16 years who lives with you. He decides to go away on a little vacation to see his family - and of course he can't bring you - and what should happen on that vacation? He gets into a car crash and dies. And what should the typical, closed minded 1960's family do about you, his secret male lover? Not invite you to the funeral, of course. Your partner went away on a little trip and you had no idea you would never see him again.

But that's not entirely what A Single Man is about. This movie deals with the lover who was left behind, George (Colin Firth), a college professor in Los Angeles. It's been eight months since his partner died and he can't take another day -- life is just too painful for him now. He has a gun and he's planning to kill himself at the end of the day. He goes to school and does his usual routine, but something is off about him -- everyone notices that he's not in good shape. As the day goes on, we meet other characters he knows, including his best friend Charley (Julianne Moore), who wishes George was straight so they could have had a relationship together, and a young student that George teaches who appears to have a little crush on him and is following him around everywhere.

Ash has heard me give comments about this movie, already - I told her I liked it, but the truth is, it's not something that will blow people away. Despite the terrible situation that Colin Firth's character finds himself dealing with, there really could have been a lot more depth brought to the table. Speaking as someone who really understands the pain this guy has gotta be going through, I do think that a lot of opportunities for crafting together a truly unforgettable film about being gay and losing your partner in a horrific manner were wasted.

For starters, the suicide plot is stupid. It's pretty apparent that this guy is not gonna kill himself. Don't worry - that's not a spoiler - you'll realize this early on. I also think that having the film take place only on one single day limits the scope we could be seeing in regards to what this guy really is like, how he handles himself and what kind of agony he truly experiences. A Single Man is a depressed version of Pee Wee's Playhouse -- you've got your Miss Yvonne character (Julianne Moore), traipsing around with her big hair and her own self-contained horniness, in which she flirtatiously hits on one specific best male friend, but doesn't go far with it. You've got your random hot Latino character that pops up briefly - in this movie's case, it's a male prostitute played by Jon Kortajarena. You've got all these other characters that stop by Colin Firth's house and it's all within a single day. It's just not really brilliant, exciting, deeply emotional and memorable material. Something like this - a movie with that kind of storyline - something not really done before, at least not in a mainstream motion picture - could have become a complex, rewarding, very engaging and very epic event. Instead, it's a party film. It is a stylistic, gay American Beauty without the originality and complexity of that film. It's a movie that features Colin Firth and Julianne Moore dancing around together as a highlight - and most of the time, Colin Firth's character is cold, or, at least, detached.

The movie tries to show him warmly opening up to the world and to the people around him before he's supposed to go off and kill himself, but the devices they use for this are typical -- "You have very pretty eyes", "Do you know how much your cheerful attitude has always made me happy?", "You're better looking than James Dean, you know?" -- it's a Isn't the World a Great Place? film. It's the wrong kind of story for this material.

It makes good use of what its doing, for the most part, and there's some things about this movie that are worth checking out -- thoughts about getting older and death, in particular -- but sadly, if you skip A Single Man, you're not missing much. It truly is a terrible situation that Colin Firth's George character is going through, but I wish they really had drawn us into him and his life and how it's been going since the time his partner died instead of focusing on a "last day of your life" scenario. I mean, if he's really suicidal -- and he has every right to be and this could have truly been shown, especially since they bothered to set this movie in the 1960's -- why wasn't his last day more depressing? Why couldn't we have seen the darkest of the dark? Trust me -- that's a very possible reality. Not everything is sunshine and lollipops and college age boys in fuzzy sweaters suddenly stalking you and undressing themselves in front of you. Sometimes life stinks and there's no Febreze.

Jesus Of Montreal 1989 directed by Denys Arcand




I just wanna say thanks to Stevo because I enjoyed this film quite a bit.I was defiantly surprised by it because I had a hard time getting in to it at the beginning but I kept watching and ended up really enjoying it.Jesus of Montreal is a film about a group of actors who want to do something meaningful with their careers,so they decided to a play for the Catholic church and of course the play doesn't sit well with the church but the ever day viewer absolutely falls in love with the play and it becomes quite a success.This film isn't really about Jesus or who Jesus is but its more about how different everyday normal people see him and the film touches alot of subjects like commercialism, selling out, spirituality, theological scholarship, fidelity, loyalty.The story is wonderful and the ending was quite moving.I have never heard of director Denys Arcand but I am defiantly gonna check out more of his work.I almost forgot the acting was great and the main character Daniel played by Lothaire Bluteau was amazing he did a great job playing the role of Daniel.



"Doing Tragedy is Dangerous"

One of my Top 100.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Okay, I watched Sweet Smell of Success (1957) at Brodinski's recommendation.

Tony Curtis plays an ambitious press agent (Sidney Falco) who has to bow and scrape to feed the media machine (represented by Burt Lancaster's role as megalomaniacal Broadway columnist J.J. Hunsecker) with scandals. The world of the movie is defined in stark terms with Hunsecker setting himself up as some sort of ivory-tower kingmaker (or breaker) and Falco somewhere in the middle as he willingly plays the game by Hunsecker's rules, cowing to threats and ruining people. Though he's not an nice person it must have been an appealing role for an ambitious actor since he gets to wear many faces and does a lot of backstabbing. He also gets to say a lot of good lines, but overall the story and acting felt a bit too easy and unambiguous to me. I would mainly recommend the film for James Wong Howe's cinematography of Manhattan and the excellent lighting (always dark yet with crisp contrasts, with rich shadows that seem to be teeming with life and activity.) Even the way he lights people adds some depth, like the way he manages to make it seem that Falco can turn the sparkles in his eyes on and off at will.

overall grade: +

Hmm, I expected a higher rating, lines. I don't know why you find the acting to be easy and unambiguous. Lancaster didn't usually play this type of role as far as I know and he pulls off one of the greatest evil characters of all time. J.J. Hunsecker is a man without redeeming qualities; no way you could ever root for this guy. The performance by Tony Curtis as Sidney Falco is one he never equaled imho. What is so terrific about it, is that Falco is in fact just as devious, cunning and cold-hearted as Hunsecker, but somehow you develop a kind of sympathy for him as the story progresses. That's moral ambiguity right there. How is it possible that we hate one guy for being cruel yet sympathize to some extent with another guy who is equally cruel?

And yeah, the story progresses logically and is quite simple. But I don't care. The dialogue is SO overwhelmingly good, the lead performances jaw-dropping, the cinematography is beautiful as you said yourself and that jazzy score is perfect.

I'm trying to get out of rooting for/against someone as the main point of the movie (which it often seems to be in this one). Movies aren't about characters and egos (the way Hunsecker thinks) but about images and self-awareness. It's hard for me to explain what I mean by that or by "ambiguous" (as opposed to just confused?) acting, but an example of an actor who I think is ambiguous in the way I mean -- that is, able to carry multiple selves and simultaneously obfuscate/reveal his emotions -- would be Marlon Brando. To me, the final scene between Brando and Rod Steiger in On the Waterfront looks like complex acting while the chemistry between Curtis and Lancaster felt relatively staged and flat. I feel this way about the acting in a lot of older movies so I suspect it's not so much a matter of "good" vs. "bad" acting as a paradigm shift to acting that is perhaps more internally layered.

Boiling it down to a score is always misleading because while watching this movie there are hundreds of little details I noticed consciously and subconsciously, and a few of them I liked (the lighting, Manhattan), a few of them I disliked (I thought the handling of the sister was somewhat boring and obvious) and then the rest which I have much more complicated feelings about than like/dislike.

For lines:

So Brando and Steiger "looks like complex acting" while Curtis and Lancaster "felt relatively staged and flat". Was there a reason you used two different verbs to describe your thoughts about the acting? Usually "looks" seems less real than "felt". Anyway, it's a silly question but I think it explains that you may not overly concern yourself with anything resembling objective excellence in a film-watching experience. I'm a crazy person who still believes that plot, character and dialogue are very important parts of a film. I don't think they're just remnants from literature and theatre. Oh, I love photography, editing, music, and all the other things which are more specific to cinema but it still has to engage me on something more than a "technical" level. Aesthetics, yes, I understand we all have our own and our own conception of what they mean concerning the various arts, so I won't criticize a person's aesthetics too often, but I just want to say that my ratings may be what I give a film but I'm trying to tell somebody else what they might think of it rather than just what I think of it. I'm realizing more and more as I've been posting at various movie forums down through the years that many people seem to disagree with my concepts of film ratings and criticism. They seem to like movies more for the subject matter, the extremeness, the country of origin, and the cast than almost anything else. However, I still occasionally come across people who appreciate my film recommendations. Oops! Now, I'm really starting to ramble here. Sorry, lines, Brod and everybody.

P.S. I think what I really wanted to say was that even though I often underrate "classics", I think lines underrates them much more often than I do.

That's fair, though I do think about it more than you suspect. If there is such a thing as objective excellence, I don't think it can be achieved by ticking items off of a list, such as plot, character, dialog, and the ones you categorized as "technical."

If you mean to say that I'm prejudiced against this cast or this film for not being foreign or "extreme" or something, I'm just going to have to say I strongly disagree and bite my tongue from saying anything more.

(I'm aware that this is a creative reading of your post, but it's no worse than you did to me.)

Rocky
(1976, John G. Avildsen)



man, i seem to have watched a lot of boxing films lately. it seems kind of crazy that i'm just 3 years shy of 30 and am only just seeing this film for the first time, but alas, i've never been a fan of Stallone - and this is one of my biological father's favorite films of all time, so i think negative association was at play here. plus, believe it or not, i actually caught the last half of Rocky 2 on television once many years ago and was all, "Rocky? meh."

man, was i ever wrong. at first a little too slow with a few scenes where the dialogue ran on too long, this film quickly took an upward turn and became riveting. the cast of characters worked perfectly together - they were all so perfectly flawed, but still very real. Stallone played the character of Rocky Balboa so well that i was really convinced he was just a 'meathead boxer' rather than the guilty party of such a great script.

i think one of my favorite scenes is when Mick shows up at Rocky's door offering to train him after he turned him down before, and the way Rocky shouts him down the street after. it was just so gut wrenching and classy the way Rocky runs after him after and makes amends.

anyway, i'm glad Sexy had me watch this film. it's not really about boxing at all, really - or should i say, all the way through to the very last scene it is apparent that Rocky is so much more than just a boxing film.

I am so happy that you liked it. You should watch Rocky II now.

noooooooo!

I always kinda liked Rocky II more, but when I watched Rocky again the other day, I thought... hmm... I dunno. It is definitely the best sequel. Rocky III is good, too. Rocky IV, though... that's an MTV special.