|
Post by Jeremy on May 14, 2021 13:48:53 GMT -8
This week on Stuff I Watched...
The Straight Story: I wax and wane on David Lynch quite a bit, but this film - arguably his least "Lynchian" work - was phenomenal. It's a benign and slow-paced yet intensely moving story about a man, a lawnmower, and a journey through the American heartland. Richard Farnsworth (in his final film role, before he tragically took his own life) anchors the film with a detached yet brutally human performance, and Sissy Spacek is great - if underused - as his daughter. Interestingly, this seems to be the one directorial work of Lynch's film career that works exclusively off someone else's screenplay, and he does a great job telling the visual narrative through simple yet evocative means. I feel like this film worked for me the way Nomadland (a movie that generally left me cold) did for many of the critics and award shows this past season.
The Fifth Element: I cannot recall the last time a sci-fi film annoyed me as much as this one. It's not especially bad, but the good aspects (notably the creative alien designs and visual effects) are overshadowed by a smug, self-absorbed script that sees fit to undercut its dramatic moments with unfunny comedy. And the third act relies entirely too much on Chris Tucker, whose character is simply excruciating. There was potential for a good story here, but it just sags under its own weight and mires itself in a lot of annoying humor and dull exposition. But hey, it's still better than Valerian and the City of a Thousand Trailer Shots.
Chinatown: It took me some time to get into this film - the first twenty or thirty minutes didn't do much for me - but it got consistently better as it went along. The script is well-structured and crackles with great dialogue - a '30s noir with '70s sensibilities - and a great cast makes it all sizzle. Some great directorial cues from He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named add to the film's permeant atmosphere, which radiates from the screen throughout. Special props to Jerry Goldsmith's score as well. Not every update to then-modern times of the film's release works (the sex scene is gratuitous and inadvertently diminishes the tension between the two leads), but it makes for effective and engaging pulp, with a finale that thrilled even though I had the film's final line imprinted on my brain ages ago.
Rashomon: This week's foreign film is a well-directed, well-acted, but ultimately frustrating film that didn't quite deliver on its promise (partly because my expectations were so high, and partly because I had been so conditioned by the film's style in other films and TV episodes that I was surprised by how the original text utilized it). The story doesn't tell an "alternate perspectives" narrative so much as it has its characters skew the truth to fit their own needs and wants, resulting in the same scenes being shown in entirely different ways. And the messages about truth and skewed perspectives feel pretty heavy-handed, as though they're trying too hard to make their point. Still a solid and undoubtedly influential film, but not as riveting as I'd hoped it to be.
|
|
|
Post by guttersnipe on May 16, 2021 16:39:51 GMT -8
Rashomon: This week's foreign film is a well-directed, well-acted, but ultimately frustrating film that didn't quite deliver on its promise (partly because my expectations were so high, and partly because I had been so conditioned by the film's style in other films and TV episodes that I was surprised by how the original text utilized it). The story doesn't tell an "alternate perspectives" narrative so much as it has its characters skew the truth to fit their own needs and wants, resulting in the same scenes being shown in entirely different ways. And the messages about truth and skewed perspectives feel pretty heavy-handed, as though they're trying too hard to make their point. Still a solid and undoubtedly influential film, but not as riveting as I'd hoped it to be. I think my favourite use of the Rashomon structure in pop culture is a episode of King of the Hill where Boomhauer's recollection indicates that he can't understand what anyone else is saying.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on May 17, 2021 9:03:50 GMT -8
Rashomon: This week's foreign film is a well-directed, well-acted, but ultimately frustrating film that didn't quite deliver on its promise (partly because my expectations were so high, and partly because I had been so conditioned by the film's style in other films and TV episodes that I was surprised by how the original text utilized it). The story doesn't tell an "alternate perspectives" narrative so much as it has its characters skew the truth to fit their own needs and wants, resulting in the same scenes being shown in entirely different ways. And the messages about truth and skewed perspectives feel pretty heavy-handed, as though they're trying too hard to make their point. Still a solid and undoubtedly influential film, but not as riveting as I'd hoped it to be. I think my favourite use of the Rashomon structure in pop culture is a episode of King of the Hill where Boomhauer's recollection indicates that he can't understand what anyone else is saying. There was also the Japan trip bit on The Simpsons where Marge asserts that Homer will like Japan, "you liked Rashomon!" "That's not how I remember it..."
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 19, 2021 20:04:07 GMT -8
As I've mentioned several times in the past, the best use of the Rashomon style on television is the Veronica Mars episode "A Trip to the Dentist." A perfect use of the structure, both for plot and character purposes. I believe the first time I ever saw the structure utilized - way back in the innocent days of youth - was in the Garfield episode "Twice Told Tale." It's a heavy-handed example, leaning on exaggeration for humor's sake, but it's an effective way to teach the structure to kids. (I also vaguely remember an Alvin and the Chipmunks episode that had the same premise, straight down to the main characters' house getting flooded with pudding. Was this a common occurrence in the '80s?)
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 2, 2021 20:07:34 GMT -8
Longtime readers of this forum may remember when I watched The Matrix. I found it visually spectacular, but the story and characters didn't click with me, and I was left with a lukewarm feeling overall. Years later, with a new film on the horizon, I finally decided to watch all the sequels. My thoughts:
Matrix Reloaded: Strong second act, with some impressively choreographed fight scenes and a thrilling ((if lengthy) spectacle along a California superhighway. Unfortunately, it too often disappears up its own keister with a lot of Platonic posturing and philosophical gobbledygook. And Neo is basically just a cardboard Superman with shades after the first film. Watchable but not nearly as smart as it pretends to be.
Matrix Revolutions: A genuinely bad close to the trilogy, this is a turgid slog from start to finish. Too much time spent on underdeveloped side characters battling faceless robots, toped off a ludicrous, poorly-directed climactic fight between Neo and Smith, make this a laughable endeavor - or it least would make it, if I wasn't so interminably bored. I thought the first 15 minutes were decent (if still overly self-serious), but it all goes to waste after that.
Animatrix: I fast-forwarded through parts of this, since some of the shorts were pretty boring. But others were solid. Some genuinely impressive animation (using a variety of techniques, some pretty advanced for the early 2000s) helps spruce up the unremarkable stories. I probably should have watched this one before the other sequels, but I ended up seeing it last. Oh well. Nothing great, but worthy enough, and easily the best Matrix film of '03.
I dunno. I'll probably see #4 when it debuts, but it's not at the top of my watchlist. The franchise definitely has some merits, but it's not one that really clicked with me. (And it's probably only my third-favorite Keanu Reeves franchise. At least Bill and Ted had the decency to end their trilogy well, even if it took them thirty years to do it.)
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jun 3, 2021 7:12:15 GMT -8
Longtime readers of this forum may remember when I watched The Matrix. I found it visually spectacular, but the story and characters didn't click with me, and I was left with a lukewarm feeling overall. Years later, with a new film on the horizon, I finally decided to watch all the sequels. My thoughts: Matrix Reloaded: Strong second act, with some impressively choreographed fight scenes and a thrilling ((if lengthy) spectacle along a California superhighway. Unfortunately, it too often disappears up its own keister with a lot of Platonic posturing and philosophical gobbledygook. And Neo is basically just a cardboard Superman with shades after the first film. Watchable but not nearly as smart as it pretends to be. Matrix Revolutions: A genuinely bad close to the trilogy, this is a turgid slog from start to finish. Too much time spent on underdeveloped side characters battling faceless robots, toped off a ludicrous, poorly-directed climactic fight between Neo and Smith, make this a laughable endeavor - or it least would make it, if I wasn't so interminably bored. I thought the first 15 minutes were decent (if still overly self-serious), but it all goes to waste after that. Animatrix: I fast-forwarded through parts of this, since some of the shorts were pretty boring. But others were solid. Some genuinely impressive animation (using a variety of techniques, some pretty advanced for the early 2000s) helps spruce up the unremarkable stories. I probably should have watched this one before the other sequels, but I ended up seeing it last. Oh well. Nothing great, but worthy enough, and easily the best Matrix film of '03. I dunno. I'll probably see #4 when it debuts, but it's not at the top of my watchlist. The franchise definitely has some merits, but it's not one that really clicked with me. (And it's probably only my third-favorite Keanu Reeves franchise. At least Bill and Ted had the decency to end their trilogy well, even if it took them thirty years to do it.) Even Jean Baudrillard hated the philosophy and said it was a misrepresentation of his work.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 1, 2021 19:52:16 GMT -8
Still here! And still watching movies, once in a while. Recent viewings include:
Brazil - Watched the director's cut. Immensely entertaining film, with visual inventiveness to spare - but the parts ultimately feel greater than the whole here. Gilliam invests a lot of effort into making each scene feel like a unique comedy skit with its own flavor of social satire, but at two-plus hours, it did start to feel repetitive after a while. I absolutely loved the first hour, but could have used some tightening in the back half. Still, would certainly watch again.
Drag Me to Hell - An enjoyable horror film with a consistent dose of mean-spirited humor. Goes to the gross-out well a bit too often, and ends on something of a whimper, but it's an entertaining film with great performances from Allison Lohman and Justin "Can You Even Do a Low-Budget Horror Movie Without Him" Long. Sam Raimi directs with visual energy and flair; I'm looking forward to seeing what tricks he has in store for the Doctor Strange sequel.
Rear Window - Perhaps the best Hitchcock film I've seen yet. A masterstroke of tension and paranoia, with deft commentary on the mundanities in everyday life. Starts out calm and unassuming, then gets better and better as it goes. Hitchcock does some of his best work when in a limited environment - in this case, the room with the titular window - and he makes the absolute most of it from start to finish.
The Godfather - I avoided this film for years, knowing that there was roughly a 10% chance I was going to enjoy it. But much like the Mafia family's targets, I couldn't run forever. The film is well-crafted and well-acted, as everybody says, but also terribly overlong and often laborious to sit through. That cannoli looked delicious, though. Did I mention that I really liked Rear Window?
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jul 1, 2021 21:46:00 GMT -8
Both Brazil and The Godfather were titles I first saw at the local movie theatre that ran cult films at midnight on Fridays and Saturdays (I burned many a Friday there in my late teens and early 20s). I saw the first two Godfather films there, but figured I'd had enough after that and didn't come back to complete the trilogy. I can't say it stuck with me much either.
Brazil on the other hand, I've seen multiple times now but I have to agree nonetheless. The second time I saw it in theatre, I walked out around 2 am because I'd seen the movie already within the last year and didn't know if I could make it the final hour. A friend however is deeply devoted to it and cites it as his favorite movie in which Bob Hoskins plays a utility worker. There are certainly bits to it that are unique in their humor, like just about everything involving the daughter Sam's mother's friend is trying to hook him up with (her facial expressions! the offering of salt far too early!) along with one of my favorite "not paying attention" lines in all of cinema:
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jul 3, 2021 13:04:56 GMT -8
The Godfather films (well, the first two, anyways) are well-crafted and certainly well acted, but they are also quite dry, and relatively humourless. Goodfellas is more my speed, as gangster epics go, because of its dark humour and more propulsive pacing and editing. Anyways, I quite prefer the second Godfather film to the first, but that one's even longer. Heh.
Rear Window remains my favourite Hitchcock to this day. Vertigo might be second-favourite.
Brazil is easily my favourite Gilliam film, buy I could see some folks finding the Directors Cut (which is superior, and makes far more sense, than the original theatrical cut) a touch too long simply because as creative and entertaining as the film is, the movie doesn't really expect you to empathize/sympathize with the central character all that much, keeping you at a bit of a satirical distance for its duration. He's kind of just a cog in the wheel, like so many others in the film. In an age where so much is done with green-screen, I do really appreciate the hand-made quality of that production, though. I imagine director Michel Gondry was pretty heavily influenced by Gilliam.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 3, 2021 19:24:13 GMT -8
Yeah, Sam's stance as a cog in the wheel may have worn me on Brazil after a while. It's funny to watch him frantically stumble through the film's creative world (which feels like Orwell by way of Monty Python - clearly a throughline of influence for Gilliam), but doesn't quite click on a deeper level.
I should add that I did not watch the director's cut by choice; it was the DVD released by the Criterion Collection, and the only version available at my library. I don't typically opt for director's cuts (I screened the two-hour version of Cinema Paradiso, even though HBO Max had the three-hour version available, because to heck with that) but I've heard a lot about how this version of Brazil features the best of both worlds - from both the US and UK version - so I'll happily take coherence over duration.
Re. Godfather, I found Goodfellas more entertaining, though that film also dragged for me after a while. I guess mob movies really aren't my speed. (Many Saints of Newark looks promising, though!)
Vertigo is the next film on my Hitchcock watchlist; I think it's the only one of his top-tier films I haven't yet seen.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jul 5, 2021 12:09:35 GMT -8
I should add that I did not watch the director's cut by choice; it was the DVD released by the Criterion Collection, and the only version available at my library. I don't typically opt for director's cuts (I screened the two-hour version of Cinema Paradiso, even though HBO Max had the three-hour version available, because to heck with that) but I've heard a lot about how this version of Brazil features the best of both worlds - from both the US and UK version - so I'll happily take coherence over duration. I think I've only ever seen the Director's Cut of Brazil, but I've heard that the original US theatrical cut was chopped all to hell by the studio, so I've never felt inclined to watch that version (which was available on the three-disc Criterion of the film that was released many years ago).
|
|
|
Post by Incandescence 112 on Jul 17, 2021 20:47:32 GMT -8
Yeah, Sam's stance as a cog in the wheel may have worn me on Brazil after a while. It's funny to watch him frantically stumble through the film's creative world (which feels like Orwell by way of Monty Python - clearly a throughline of influence for Gilliam), but doesn't quite click on a deeper level. I should add that I did not watch the director's cut by choice; it was the DVD released by the Criterion Collection, and the only version available at my library. I don't typically opt for director's cuts (I screened the two-hour version of Cinema Paradiso, even though HBO Max had the three-hour version available, because to heck with that) but I've heard a lot about how this version of Brazil features the best of both worlds - from both the US and UK version - so I'll happily take coherence over duration. Re. Godfather, I found Goodfellas more entertaining, though that film also dragged for me after a while. I guess mob movies really aren't my speed. ( Many Saints of Newark looks promising, though!) Vertigo is the next film on my Hitchcock watchlist; I think it's the only one of his top-tier films I haven't yet seen. Casino is like a lot like Goodfellas, except Robert De Niro is playing a far more interesting protagonist than Henry Hill. Not saying you'll love it necessarily--it is another three hour long mob movie from Scorsese, after all--but it's my personal favorite Scorsese film.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Jul 20, 2021 12:27:42 GMT -8
Rear Window remains my favourite Hitchcock to this day. Vertigo might be second-favourite. Boo! Y'all are wrong. I have not seen every Hitchcock film, I admit, but I cannot imagine someone seeing Rear Window, Psycho, Strangers on a Train, The Birds, or (my favorite) North by Northwest and thinking "yeah, but Vertigo is better." No sir. So much of the film is just joyless exposition - even after Madeleine's you-know-what, there's some fifteen minutes of legal deposition and psychoanalysis that's utterly prosaic and utterly redundant. And for my money, other than the infamous changing room scene, a lot of the more fantastic moments just look hokey - not so much because the special effects are dated, but because the film in aggregate is too hamfisted for those dribs and drabs of movie magic to register. Meanwhile, I love Body Double and The Crying Game, two films that clearly are riffing on Vertigo, and are better than Vertigo accordingly.
It's telling that Ebert's retrospective of the film focuses so much on Hitchcock's neuroses, because the one criterion on which this film trumps the rest of his oeuvre is in its status as a synecdoche on his vexed relationships with women. And you know, that's a valid lens of analysis, but I wouldn't say that the shallowness of its characters or the thinness of its plot or the mundanity of much of its cinematography is outweighed by the film's self-awareness of Hitchcock's sexism. (To use an extremely CT-friendly metaphor, imagine if I said Dollhouse was a better show than Buffy.)
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jul 20, 2021 18:47:56 GMT -8
Yeah, some folks think Vertigo is overrated. That's fine. It may also cater more to male viewers than female viewers. I'm very fond of North By Northwest (probably my third-favourite Hitchcock), but in some ways, it just feels like a glorified Bond film, creating a bit of a ceiling, artistically, for me. W/r/t Psycho, to be honest, the shrill score just kind of gets on my nerves after a while, and it doesn't really have a compelling central protagonist (Perkins' character is presented as an antagonist for most of its duration, and Janet Leigh leaves the picture early), and it also ends with some really clumsy, forced exposition. They're all really good films overall, though, as is Strangers On A Train. I've never considered The Birds to be anything more than second- or third-tier Hitchcock: to me, it's mostly a pretty generic thriller with very weak visual effects (though it does have a few stark, silent moments of tension).
Anyways, I haven't watched any of these films in some time, so I don't have any fresh thoughts on them.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jul 21, 2021 20:08:32 GMT -8
I watched Vertigo today, and I think I side more with Quiara here. It's not a bad film by any stretch, but I found it to be far from Hitchcock's best. The visual effects, when called upon to work their magic, look impressive, but the story surrounding them is overlong and overly expository (this film takes some 45 minutes to set up all its pieces before the plot kicks in) and it never quite generates the suspense or intrigue that defines the director's best work. It's well-told and delivers its third-act twist pretty well, but feels oddly disaffected, to the point that the titular conceit feels almost incidental to the overall plot.
Decent film, but color me surprised that it's considered one of Hitchcock's masterpieces.
|
|