|
Post by guttersnipe on Jan 11, 2021 16:04:43 GMT -8
I wouldn't expect you guys to actually do this, but this kind of thing reminds me of several years back when my disc rental service hosted a 2012 Finnish film called Purge... and the site soon filled with dozens of one-star reviews from angry punters aggrieved at their misfortune at having watched* a subtitled European film instead of that daft-looking suburban nightmare movie.
* a bit of
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jan 11, 2021 16:45:45 GMT -8
This week, on Stuff I Watched: There Will Be Blood (2007): ...none of it hit me beneath the surface level ...this just wasn't my kind of film. Cinematic purists, feel free to turn thy noses upward. I'm absolutely fine with this, as I've always felt that feel is a big part of art. I'd much rather that people are honest about not warming to something than pretending to do so (or even feeling obligated to do so) when the treatment comes off as distant, esoteric or calculated. I'd agree with J.C.'s statement that you might find The Master even more hard work, as it's practically Greenaway-cold. Shall we rank the films of PTA? 1. Boogie Nights2. Magnolia3. The Master4. Punch Drunk Love5. Hard Eight6. Phantom Thread7. There Will Be Blood8. Inherent Vice
Phantom Thread is also ice-cold and bloodless. Again--I feel the same way about it as Jeremy does about There Will Be Blood. Boogie Nights is easily his best, though...perhaps not to Jeremy's taste.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jan 11, 2021 16:48:42 GMT -8
Snipe -
Yeah, it would appear that some folks can't process words and facial expressions on the SAME SCREEN AT THE SAME TIME. (The horror, the horror...) I mean, I can sort of understand when the subtitles are moving at a rapid rate (a family member of mine had trouble keeping up with a few scenes in Parasite), but so many of the foreign-language films that get more widely-distributed in North America are leisurely-paced, and more focused on visuals than words. Regardless, I've always been of the opinion that if a filmmaker throws a series of lines out in rapid succession, they're prepared for the possibility that many viewers won't keep up. So they probably shouldn't cram too much pertinent information in there all at once, if they want the viewer to stay invested.
As for PTA's work, some folks find his second and third films to be his peak, while other find his later films more mature and formally-inventive. And most of his films, even the early ones like Boogie Nights, tend to lean on repetitive behaviour to one degree or another, sometimes for laughs, sometimes not. And Magnolia, while not without cleverness, very much wallows in misery for its duration.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 11, 2021 20:47:09 GMT -8
I'm certainly interested in checking out some of his other films, at any rate, given that I did respond very well to Punch Drunk Love. (Magnolia finds its way on my watchlist every now and then, but I have an intense phobia for movies that are over three hours long.)
And despite some reservations, I can already tell he's a more talented filmmaker than that other Paul Anderson.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Jan 12, 2021 0:26:41 GMT -8
Shall we rank the films of PTA? 1. Boogie Nights2. Magnolia3. The Master4. Punch Drunk Love5. Hard Eight6. Phantom Thread7. There Will Be Blood8. Inherent Vice Page one, of course.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jan 12, 2021 0:47:14 GMT -8
Shall we rank the films of PTA? 1. Boogie Nights2. Magnolia3. The Master4. Punch Drunk Love5. Hard Eight6. Phantom Thread7. There Will Be Blood8. Inherent Vice Page one, of course.Wow, a lot to unpack on that giant list. Just at a glance, I'm with you on the top Allen, Bergman, and Fellini. I have to say I'm a bit surprised you rank Woody Allen in your Top 100 filmmakers, given how his work tends to be all over the place on the qualitative scale, especially in the last 25 years. But he's certainly been prolific. Also, Jeremy, if you haven't already, be sure to check out Terry Gilliam's Brazil (Extended, NOT THEATRICAL, Cut) Easily his best film, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Jan 12, 2021 6:22:09 GMT -8
Yeah, Woodrow has been spearheading the list ever since I set it up years ago as a simple Top 100. Consistency is a big issue, and was pretty much the only way I could arrive at ranking the tiers. And whilst it is true that Allen spreads himself too thinly, the pedigree of his best work was always going to keep him high, in the same way that Francis Ford Coppola's filmography contains enough masterpieces to cement him as one of the greatest directors ever, even if there's a lot of bookending mediocrities. By comparison, someone like Dario Argento doesn't enjoy quite so rosy a position as his highs aren't as high and he spent far too long in the absolute doldrums. As such, there's a lot more shuffling around of the Joe Studios* in the lower-end tiers than the top ones, which have stayed largely the same for ages. (I recently augmented the Honourables list, and very nearly abandoned the tiers system in favour of alpabetising the lot just to save my sanity. But I persevered.) * I watched a documentary this week about the impact and proliferation of superhero movies in which a guy referred to Jon Favreau and Joe Johnston as the "invisible hands" that kept the MCU tone and style consistent, which I think is kinda harsh but fair. Snipe - Yeah, it would appear that some folks can't process words and facial expressions on the SAME SCREEN AT THE SAME TIME. (The horror, the horror...) I mean, I can sort of understand when the subtitles are moving at a rapid rate (a family member of mine had trouble keeping up with a few scenes in Parasite), but so many of the foreign-language films that get more widely-distributed in North America are leisurely-paced, and more focused on visuals than words. Regardless, I've always been of the opinion that if a filmmaker throws a series of lines out in rapid succession, they're prepared for the possibility that many viewers won't keep up. So they probably shouldn't cram too much pertinent information in there all at once, if they want the viewer to stay invested. Sometimes I feel like donning a mortarboard and pointing out that intertitles were used for the first four decades of cinema, so reading off a screen is more consistent with the original concept of film. I'm sometimes inclined to do the same when subjects are raised about monochrome, country-of-origin or runtime, because whilst gradual normalisation has led us to believe that a typical film is an American colour and sound feature, it'd be more accurate to describe cinema as French, very short, black-and-white and silent. I don't actually do that, of course, unless I feel like putting some blowhard on the naughty step.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Jan 12, 2021 6:40:48 GMT -8
To be honest, it's not so much Dano as what he's given to work with. I just don't feel the character has much dimension, and is just there purely as a foil for Daniel Plainview. Phantom Thread is on Netflix in Canada, but I imagine a different streaming service in the States. That said, if you want to see something lighter and more playful from PTA's filmography, perhaps check out Inherent Vice (if you haven't already seen it). It shares some qualities with The Big Lebowski, being a shaggy-dog detective story. Joaquin Phoenix is a lot of fun in it. The Master, on the other hand, might leave you colder than TWBB did: it leans heavily on behavioural repetition, which can prove a bit exhausting (it looks great in 70mm, though). Anyways, I watched First Cow and If Beale Street Could Talk yesterday. Both fine films. I'll now return them to the library and pick up Portrait of a Lady on Fire (which I've been meaning to watch forever) and The Hunt. I preferred The Master quite a bit to There Will Be Blood, just because I didn't feel like TWBB had much to dig into from a character perspective from either of the main people. "Look at this portrait of unadulterated capitalism" isn't really an interesting topic for me. The Master on the other hand does feel like it cares more about actual human beings and psychology, even though the angle that it approaches it from is colder than TWBB was.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jan 12, 2021 22:56:36 GMT -8
I preferred The Master quite a bit to There Will Be Blood, just because I didn't feel like TWBB had much to dig into from a character perspective from either of the main people. "Look at this portrait of unadulterated capitalism" isn't really an interesting topic for me. The Master on the other hand does feel like it cares more about actual human beings and psychology, even though the angle that it approaches it from is colder than TWBB was. I could see that, and Jeremy may indeed slightly prefer The Master. But I don't think he'll respond strongly to it either, particularly given the emphasis on behavioural repetition I mentioned. He might not like Phantom Thread either, but I found it the more engrossing of the two. Mind you, I haven't watched Phantom Thread a second time yet, so we'll see how it holds up for me when I do. I think I've seen Boogie Nights about five times. Magnolia three times, and Punch Drunk Love and TWBB and The Master at least twice. And I enjoyed Inherent Vice far more than a lot of critics (and apparently folks here) seemed to, but part of that was probably down to appreciating PTA's lighter, more frivolous approach on that. Sometimes his work can feel too rigid, especially in recent years.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 13, 2021 18:37:18 GMT -8
Phantom Thread is pretty good, and I certainly enjoyed it more than There Will Be Blood. It has a likable core relationship at its center, and even if Daniel Day-Lewis is still playing an obnoxious character, he feels grounded and human, and his character is well-served by the story. Vicky Krieps (whom I was previously unfamiliar with) is also very good as the film's heart. It's a well-done romantic drama, with an effective score and a good sense of humor.
That said, I don't think I found the film quite as engrossing as others seem to. It doesn't vary much from its established tone, which proves once again that Paul Thomas Anderson is great at maintaining consistency (within each film), but meant that little about it felt especially remarkable. And so while it wasn't boring, I did find myself a bit disconnected by the time the film reached its end.
Still an overall worthwhile experience, and probably a film I'll watch again at some point.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jan 13, 2021 18:46:26 GMT -8
I haven't seen too many films where a couple grows closer after one poisons the other. Heh. I enjoyed the shifting power dynamics of that relationship, as well as how his sister exerted dominance over him.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jan 13, 2021 20:00:48 GMT -8
Yeah, I thought the film would tip too hard in one direction (toxic and domineering husband dismisses wife who only wants to be loved), but the film balanced things out nicely as it went along. I can't say I felt a ton of sympathy for Day-Lewis' character, but I enjoyed the way his passion and profession (man respected and revered by women, albeit for non-sexual reasons) made for an unusual and uncomfortable dynamic with Krieps. The actors totally sold it.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Feb 22, 2021 10:37:53 GMT -8
Considering the state of the country, I concluded that rewatching Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb was an ethical and informed political decision to make. Sure, fluoridation has been supplanted by Floridians convinced of a deep-state operation to engage in sex trafficking through a pizza place, but the threat is still Communism and we still must ultimately answer to the Coca-Cola corporation.
I wonder at times if this movie has been partly ruined for me just because of the place it occupies in the comedic zeitgeist where like Monty Python and the Holy Grail and This is Spinal Tap, you don't necessarily need to see it to have seen it. I still laughed pretty hard at a few intervals and enjoyed Peter Sellers in three (almost four) roles, but ultimately I think it remains watchable just because it's good and weird filmmaking, well-acted throughout, and the humour is dry enough to make paying attention rewarding even if I expected more visual gags (I was raised on Airplane and The Naked Gun, my bad).
It's still on Prime streaming for another week I think.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Feb 22, 2021 19:54:41 GMT -8
I'm debating whether to give Dr. Strangelove another shot while it's still on Prime. I tried watching it some years back, but just didn't connect with it at all and shut it off after about 30 minutes. But maybe I've grown more emotionally mature since then. (And maybe frogs will sprout wings and fly to Zimbabwe, who knows.)
In any case, there is no shame in loving cheesy visual comedy - Airplane! is great. (Naked Gun was good too, but the TV show was better.)
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on Feb 23, 2021 13:09:24 GMT -8
Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
I expected more visual gags. I always love the moment where Buck is trying exasperatedly to get his voice heard and tumbles over backwards and absolutely nothing is made of it.
|
|