|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 30, 2022 18:05:48 GMT -8
I see Persona is on HBO Max. And a tight run at 83 minutes. Will check it out.
(Lots of Bergman films on HBO Max, in fact. And a healthy selection of Kurosawa as well. I don't know if either of these directors are quite my speed, but good to know there's an easy means of checking out their filmography.)
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 30, 2022 18:21:16 GMT -8
You probably wouldn't be into the Kurosawa samurai films. I think you might like High and Low, though, as it's a stylish crime thriller.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 30, 2022 19:13:01 GMT -8
Yeah, High and Low is in my watchlist. Looks interesting. Though it's only available on Criterion Channel at the moment, and I'm not subscribed to that.
Seven Samurai has popped up on my HBO Max sights every now and then, but a 3.5 hour film about feudal Japan really doesn't sound like my idea of a good time. (For what it's worth, my record with 1950s Japanese cinema has been pretty spotty across the board; Rashomon was fine, Godzilla was eh, and - brace yourselves - I got bored with Tokyo Story after thirty minutes.)
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on Apr 30, 2022 20:19:37 GMT -8
I wonder if you'd be into Stray Dog? I admit I am only familiar with it from its description as "the first buddy cop film" (not a description I would associate with Kurosawa!) but it's the film I've noted as my likely starting point for Kurosawa.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 30, 2022 22:15:56 GMT -8
(For what it's worth, my record with 1950s Japanese cinema has been pretty spotty across the board; Rashomon was fine, Godzilla was eh, and - brace yourselves - I got bored with Tokyo Story after thirty minutes.) Heh. You're not going to shock me at this point by telling me that a quiet, restrained, observational family drama that very much emphasizes Art over Entertainment bores you, Jeremy. I'm sure it would bore a lot of people. Anyways, of the most acclaimed Ozu films, I'd say you'd probably have a better chance of engaging with Late Spring, as it focuses more heavily on a particular daughter-father relationship, and is thus a touch more overtly emotional. But I think, for the most part, Ozu's work is too quiet and dry for you to get into. As for High and Low, there are probably even some police-procedural scenes in that fairly long film that might test your patience a bit, but the second half of the film has more of a stylized thriller vibe. Truth be told, you'd probably get more out of Japanese genre flicks from the late 60s and 70s, as they're a bit more propulsive and, well, weird, in nature.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 1, 2022 5:57:10 GMT -8
Truth be told, you'd probably get more out of Japanese genre flicks from the late 60s and 70s, as they're a bit more propulsive and, well, weird, in nature. Like Nobuhiko Obayashi's House? That film was extremely weird yet very entertaining. That may be more along the lines of what I'm looking for. Also, I see HBO Max just added High and Low to their library today. That's pretty cool. They also just added a whole bunch of Yasujirō Ozu films. (Did he create a Calendar Season Cinematic Universe?) As you say, I may not vibe with his films, but it's nice to have easy ways to watch them.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 13, 2022 15:43:12 GMT -8
Some quick hits:
The Passion of Joan of Arc - My second attempt at a full-length silent 1920s film, and certainly better than The Jazz Singer. (I will get to Metropolis soon; need to get the time and headspace for it.) Poignant and personal in its depiction of the final hours of Joan of Arc's life, enhanced by the effective (if somewhat overabundant) use of lengthy facial closeups. Unquestionably groundbreaking in its time, and a lot of the key beats still hold up nearly a century later, as does Renée Jeanne Falconetti's wonderful performance. And did I mention it's only 80 minutes?
Network and Nightcrawler - I weirdly happened to watch these films back to back, and couldn't help noticing their similarities in their critique of the American media ecosystem. Network is an eerily prescient satire of a world where standard nightly news gives way to anger and bombast on the airwaves, to a public eagerly lapping up every rant, and the line it draws to Aaron Sorkin's later works is impossible to miss. Nightcrawler is a modern dissertation on the decline and fall of local news, with networks focused less on facts than on shock value and exploitation. Both these films are depressing despite their high entertainment quotient, and both leave viewers with a lot to mull over.
The Hateful Eight - By now I've grown accustomed to Quentin's Tarantino-isms - the cinematic homages, the peppery dialogue, the sudden bursts of outrageous gore - and there was very little in this film that shocked me. (Well, except the choice to cast Channing Tatum in that one brief role.) While a lot of it what we see onscreen is certainly impressive, the film is fatally overlong and disturbingly mean-spirited, even by QT's typical standards. A great gaggle of actors who generate a lot of sparks for the camera, but it's all a little too much. (And no, I did not and will not watch the extended TV miniseries version; I'm not that crazy.)
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on May 13, 2022 18:55:37 GMT -8
Yeah, Hateful Eight is pretty mean-spirited. You can't go much darker than having two former enemies bond over their shared misogyny (which is shown to override one's blatant racism towards the other). Mind you, given how violent these people are, it would almost be patronizing (story-wise) if the characters pulled their punches in dealing with Jennifer Jason Leigh's character, just because she's a woman, because she's also a horrible murderer. And the claustrophobic setting (once they arrive at the lodge) is naturally going to make viewers feel its length more acutely.
What does make me laugh is how some folks didn't understand why QT used the super-wide format for a film mostly set inside. It should be fairly obvious, given how the shots set up, with multiple characters in the foreground and background, staggered side-by-side. It's genuinely a great-looking, immaculately-framed film.
But it's also probably the nastiest variation on an Agatha Christie-style mystery in existence.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 14, 2022 18:23:25 GMT -8
See, I love Agatha Christie-style mysteries - enclosed space, colorful suspects, long-winded speech in which the central character goes through process of elimination to find the killer. (I was even a fan of Kenneth Branagh's recent Death on the Nile, despite its inherent cheese factor.) And I wasn't expecting Tarantino to go that route with one of his films, so that was an interesting surprise.
But yes, the implicit message that white men and black men can put aside their differences over their shared hatred of women is fairly messed up. Heck, Inglorious Basterds had some startlingly frank instances of violence against women (notable in that both major female characters are murdered by Nazis), but it didn't quite seem to have the undercurrent of provocative misogyny that Hateful Eight did.
The film really feels like a compendium of all the best and worst of Tarantino - straight down to the needlessly overstretched conversations that drew out the film's length. (The exchange between Samuel L. Jackson and Walton Goggins about the Lincoln letter sounded like it was written by Aaron Sorkin on acid.)
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on May 14, 2022 21:46:26 GMT -8
Yeah, anyone who's resistant to QT's at-times self-indulgent character monologues would probably have a hard time with that carriage ride in particular.
I think I've seen the film twice. Once at the Vancouver premiere, in glorious 70mm (the longer Roadshow version) -- it looked spectacular, inside and outside the lodge -- and then once more in a regular (digital projection, shorter version) theater. I remember audience members laughing a lot, both times, during the pitch-black final stretch, especially at the slo-mo bit with SLJ. I think I'll give it one more look at some point in the next few months, to see how it plays on home-video. If anything, the movie nailed down for me that Michael Madsen has given pretty much the same performance in every film in which he's appeared. He's got a limited range, but works well enough within that range, in these sorts of roles.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 30, 2022 6:21:46 GMT -8
Warning - unpopular opinions ahead!
Reservoir Dogs - Quentin Tarantino's first and shortest movie, and while it can certainly be contextualized as the former (a lot of his standard pop-culture and violence tics are there, just not at the same level as his later works), it really doesn't feel like the latter. We spend its entire run around a bunch of generally repulsive characters in a very dull, style-over-substance story that is not boosted by the way it toys with chronology. Undeniably skillful in presentation (particularly for a debut feature), and pretty gutsy for its time, but it did very little for me. The strongest attribute is the '70s-flavored soundtrack - it's tough to really dislike any film that plays Coconut over the end credits.
The Godfather Part II - I think I liked this one slightly more than its predecessor, but still... really not my jam. These films are just so dry and relentlessly one-note in tone (though this one does provide a little variance in presentation with the Italian flashbacks), to the point that it's very difficult to invest in the main protagonists, much less the wide supporting cast of characters whose names I've already forgotten. The third act does feature some well-executed emotional payoffs, which would be more resonant if I were invested in the first two. The performances and music are above reproach, but when all is said and done, this is a 200-minute movie (which I had to break up into four separate viewing chunks, a la The Irishman) in which I hardly cared about what was happening onscreen.
The Apartment - Dreadful movie that destroyed my faith in humanity. Okay, I'm kidding about this one. It's a delightful film with great performances and a cracking good sense of humor. Also perhaps the most Jewish example of a Christmas movie ever made, which adds a whole extra layer to the hilarity. Though I've only seen a few of his films so far, Billy Wilder is quickly becoming one of my favorite mid-20th century directors, and this film does a great job showcasing his knack for detailed comedy (arguably more than Some Like It Hot, which was perhaps a tad too broad in its humor). Similarly electric are the performances of Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine, both at their peaks. Wonderful film, and hopefully this makes up for my opinions on the other two.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on May 30, 2022 11:41:45 GMT -8
Oh, as you didn't respond much to Pulp Fiction (a vastly superior film to Reservoir Dogs, IMO), I fully expected you to be lukewarm-at-best on Reservoir Dogs. It's a movie that leans much more heavily on in-the-moment behaviour than personality, and can be a bit exhausting. And homoerotic subtext (with Keitel and Roth) aside, it's also very much an aggressively alpha-male movie, which can have limited appeal. So I gather Django Unchained is the only QT movie you've yet to watch now? You'll probably enjoy that one considerably more, though I'm sure you'll still have your quibbles. But hey, you don't see too many buddy-comedies set during the era of American slavery!
As for The Godfather franchise, yeah, it's pretty dry, and most of the characters, though they possess authority, aren't particularly charismatic. But let's be honest: generally-speaking, you're just not into the crime milieu, especially when it lacks colour. And that's fine.
And I'm with you on Some Like It Hot. It's fun, but awfully broad. The Apartment is pretty great, though. Might want to check out Double Indemnity, Ace In The Hole, and Sabrina. Stalag 17 is quite good as well. You might find The Lost Weekend a bit of a chore, as it's focused primarily on alcoholism, and doesn't, to the best of my recollection, have much humour. I'm pretty sure you've already seen Sunset Boulevard.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 30, 2022 12:47:29 GMT -8
Yeah, Django is the only QT film I still haven't seen. Will probably watch it sometime this week and then do a full ranking of his filmography.
And yes, my resistance to crime fiction is well established (even with The Sopranos, I liked the family drama much more than the Family drama). I should say that, while I could see myself rewatching Goodfellas someday - didn't fully connect with it, but it had memorable characters and a good entry point in Henry Hill (RIP Ray Liotta) - I really don't have any inclination to revisit The Godfather. It's the kind of film where I would probably enjoy the discussion surrounding it more than the film itself.
I've seen Sunset Boulevard (great film), and I definitely plan to check out some of the others. A lot of them don't seem to be available on major streaming platforms, though - weird, as you'd think HBO Max would get a few through their TCM deal. But I'm sure they'll pop up at some point.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 10, 2022 12:56:40 GMT -8
This week we got...
Once Upon a Time in the West - Extremely well-crafted and often gorgeous film, hampered only by the gargantuan runtime, which the film tries justifying with a lot of long and deliberate silent facial closeups. Tells a complex story with a lot of grey-shaded characters - understandably notable in its time for the lack of clear heroes - but I did find myself getting antsy after a spell. Still, it's the better of the two 165-minute Westerns I watched last week.
Oldboy - Oh, this was a fun movie to track down. Not streaming anywhere in the US, not even available for digital rental or purchase. I eventually managed to find a DVD copy (though even that took some digging) and gave it a look. Haven't seen any of Park Chan-Wook's other films before, but this one proves he has an eye for stark, raw character drama and innate claustrophobic editing. He also delights in disturbing and unsettling the viewers (I may have FF'ed over a scene or two), and this film pulls no punches with its R rating. (South Korea seems to produce a lot of bleeped-up movies and TV shows, although I guess their paranoia is understandable considering what lurks directly to their north.) Great film, but I'm skeptical that I'll ever watch it again.
Barton Fink - Largely works as a cynical and darkly satirized look at Hollywood screenwriting, though understandably polarizing due to its third-act shift. Either you buy into the film's bizarre denouement or you don't, and I mostly did, even if I wasn't entirely clear on what the script going for. By this point, I've mostly settled with the idea that the Coens are gonna Coen, and I'm okay with that. And I like the film! Apologies to anyone who expected a deeper analysis.
The Godfather Part III - The completist in me felt compelled to round out the trilogy, particularly since I could watch the 2020 recut (Godfather Coda), which at 158 minutes seemed like a walk in the park compared to the other two. But while I could at least respect the first two Godfather films from a distance, this one was just a clanging, cloying mess of bad writing, confused plotting (what is even going on during the last hour?), and one particularly awful performance. I know I'm not the target audience for these films, and opinions on this third installment are all over the map, but I really don't get the praise here - particularly among fans who evangelize the prior two films. Fat Tony's role was entertaining, but that's basically it.
That's all for the moment; I'll do my complete ranking of Tarantino movies shortly.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Jun 10, 2022 14:46:43 GMT -8
Praise for The Godfather Part 3? I mean, I'm sure some critics gave it a passing grade, but in general, it's considered far-and-away the weakest of the three films, and completely inessential. It may have gotten a Best Picture nom, but that was based on legacy rather than the contents of the actual film (and plenty of mediocre films get BP noms anyways).
|
|