Thread: The Big Screen - movies 2016 Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029772
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on
:
I have just watched the 40+ year old Young Frankenstein by Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder. It is a really terrible movie but I love it.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
In the House ("Dans la maison" (original title)) - based on a play about a school boy voyeur - disconcerting to say the least though also a commentary on class in French society.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
Yesterday I watched one of my prezzies from the kids: the 1932 film Island of Lost Souls, a version of HG Wells' 'Island of Dr Moreau'.
It was very good, creepy, atmospheric, and Charles Laughton as Moreau was suitably sadistic. The make up on the crowd of beast-men was particularly good too, and having no background music made the screaming more chilling.....
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on
:
Sitting here with tears dripping off the end of my nose - on a whim I've just watched Harvey Fierstein's Torch Song Trilogy - it is simply brilliant and doesn't seem to have aged much despite despite the nearly 30 years since it was released.
Anne Bancroft almost steals the show as the mother but it is such a strong cast she has competition - superbly cast, great performances and a brilliant screenplay - what more can you ask of a movie?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Torch Song Trilogy was one of the stepping stones on my path to becoming an advocate. And it is indeed very satisfying to watch Fierstein come toe to toe with Anne Bancroft. The kaddish scene is one of the great moment in film history.
In the age of Netflix, I can now add two recommendations to anyone who liked the above-- first, Angels in America, a three part HBO miniseries based on the play trilogy by Tony Kushner. The story revolves around a young man who is abandoned by his boyfriend after becoming increasingly more ill with AIDS. It is set at the beginning of the AZT trials, which becomes a big plot point, and uses dream imagery, magical realism, and (of all things) Mormon iconography to excellent effect. Also, remember that godawful gay- bashing flick, Cruising, that Robert DeNiro did? DeNiro totally redeems himself for that piece of crap in this production by chewing the scenery as a fictional version of "the incarnation of human evil", Senator Roy Cohn. Every year or so I get the urge to rewatch this, and it is at least ten years old.
The second recommendation is The Normal Heart, another HBO film, starring Mark Ruffalo. Be forwarned it is sad on top of sad, being a stark depiction of the early days of the AIDS epidemic, the infuriating politics surrounding it, and the treatment of patients. (It also featured some pretty frank sex scenes, being HBO and all). A particularly heartbreaking scene involves a man describing the heartless way his sick boyfriend (and later, his corpse) was treated by an NYC hospital. Gutting, infuriating, but if you can steel yourself, well worth it.
Also, a quick praise for Ms. Julia Roberts, who has grown out of romcoms into a surprisingly fierce actress. She is utterly convincing as a hard-- boiled early AIDS researcher who also runs one of the men's health clinics in New York.
[ 02. January 2016, 18:53: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
(Should also add that The Normal Heart is based on the controversial play of the same name, written by Larry Kramer, author of the famous "1,112 and Counting" manifesto that was a political rallying cry demanding more national attention to the AIDS crisis.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
I just watched The Testament of Dr. Mabuse (1933) (original German title: "Das Testament des Dr. Mabuse"). I was watching the DVD from the Criterion Collection which has wonderful extras such as the dubbed French language version and a special extra comparing the original with the edits made in the French and American versions). But what I watched was the German language original (with English subtitles).
This was Fritz Lang's second Mabuse film. The first was a silent film (in two parts) called Dr. Mabuse the Gambler (1922) ("Dr. Mabuse der Spieler"). Mabuse is a criminal mastermind plaguing Berlin in the 1920s. As a cute touch, in Testament Mabuse is in an insane asylum and, as part of his insanity, he does not speak. So a villain from a silent film remains "silent" in this sound film. (The same actor--Rudolf Klein-Rogge--was used.)
Another cute touch is a casting stunt. Testament was not Lang's first sound film. His first sound film was the classic M (1931)--in which Peter Lorre plays a child murderer hunted by police and criminals alike. On the police side, there is Inspector Lohmann (played by Otto Wernicke).
So it is a delight when the Chief Inspector in Testament is Inspector Lohmann! It is cute to think that the Berlin of Mabuse and the Berlin of M is the same place.
Testament has an interesting take. As a critic explained succinctly, Mabuse does not want to rule the world. He wants to destroy the world and rule the ashes. His plans are not to gain financial gain, but to cause chaos, fear and anxiety to break down social order. In short, he is a terrorist before it became all fashionable.
Lang would return to Mabuse one last time in The 1000 Eyes of Dr. Mabuse (1960). Sadly, Wernicke made his last movie in 1959 (and died in 1965) so Lohmann is not around for a re-match. The Inspector in 1000 Eyes is called Kras and played by Gert Fröbe.
While Lang stopped with the character there, Dr. Mabuse continued on in a series of spy thrillers in the 1960s (it was part of the James Bond craze of the time). The first of these, The Return of Dr. Mabuse (1961) (original "Im Stahlnetz des Dr. Mabuse") also featured Gert Fröbe--except this time he is called "Inspector Lohmann"!
[ 03. January 2016, 01:12: Message edited by: Hedgehog ]
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Went to see Quentin Tarantino's latest, The H8ful Eight, yesterday. No spoilers, but . . .
At about 2 1/2 hours, it's too long. It did hold my attention, though -- mostly.
The cinematography is great, especially the snow and blizzard scenes.
The acting is top-notch. With Tarantino you can never tell if the characters are reciting dialog or ad-libbing, but even so there are some memorable one-liners.
My biggest complaint, aside from the length and a couple of non sequiturs, is a decidedly deus ex machina ending involving a flashback. But the more I think about it, the more I conclude it was the only logical way to end the movie.
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on
:
I think I'm on some sort of nostalgia kick!
This afternoon I watched Beautiful Thing, the 1996 movie set in the Thamesmead Estate in south London about two teenage boys falling in love - I think I'm on a tear-jerker kick as well as it always does this to me, but they weren't dripping down my nose tonight - lots of laughs in it as well. Linda Henry is superb as Jamie's mother, a very strong performance from her.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
lovely and moving film
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Also, remember that godawful gay- bashing flick, Cruising, that Robert DeNiro did? DeNiro totally redeems himself for that piece of crap in this production by chewing the scenery as a fictional version of "the incarnation of human evil", Senator Roy Cohn. Every year or so I get the urge to rewatch this, and it is at least ten years old.
I think you mean Al Pacino. He was in both Cruising and Angels In America.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
YES, dammit, I did that thing where I corrected myself out of the right name. Sorry, Bob.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The Dark Knight - supposed to be the best Batman film but I loathed it - lots of violence.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
They have never yet made the Batman movie that does justice to the character. The drive for a mega-action-blockbuster ruins it.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
Kelly, thanks for those Netflix recommendations. I've wanted to see Angels in America and will look it up.
I saw "Brooklyn" recently, and it is a lovely film. A good story line, solid performances, and beautifully filmed.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
I think I'm on some sort of nostalgia kick!
This afternoon I watched Beautiful Thing, the 1996 movie set in the Thamesmead Estate in south London about two teenage boys falling in love - I think I'm on a tear-jerker kick as well as it always does this to me, but they weren't dripping down my nose tonight - lots of laughs in it as well. Linda Henry is superb as Jamie's mother, a very strong performance from her.
I saw this years ago, but unfortunately forgot most of it... Except Mama Cass. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(IMDB notification!) If you liked this, you may also like...
A Home at the End of the World, based on a Michael Connelly book ( author of The Hours.) It follows the love story of two men who meet as teens, when one of them becomes orphaned and the other convinces his mother to take him in. One is gay , the other is seemingly pansexual-- definitely panamorous --and they end up involved in a sort of three way marriage with a woman, including a resulting child. Corny as it sounds, it is a sweet exploration of what constitutes love and family.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
(Oh, and for cinematography nerds-- the above was filmed in varios urban/ rural locations in New York State, and the camerawork is gorgeous.)
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
I went to see "Big Short" based on events of the 2008 mortgage lending/bank crash. A beautifully savage comedy! However, despite moments of breaking the fourth wall and having economic facts explained by the likes of Anthony Bourdain, Selena Gomez and a big time economist, there are still things that happened that I don't understand. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
It is well worth seeing just to affirm to oneself how incredibly stupid nominally smart people are.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
I have just watched the 40+ year old Young Frankenstein by Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder. It is a really terrible movie but I love it.
A happy memory, sort of. I hate horror and suspense films: it was among the worst of them, but Gene Wilder was a beautiful antidote and the funny bits (almost the whole film) are still funny. It must have been 1975 when we saw it in New York.
We just saw Spotlight about the investigation by the Boston Globe of child abuse by priests in Boston - an excellent film that told the story well and without superfluous drama. Long, but it never dragged - very skilfully made.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
USA Today had a charming article about Mel Brooks a few months back.
Apparently, his kids don't want him to entertain the grandchildren by doing the Hitler salute, but he does it anyway.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
OK, you know a movie is really shitty when you have to keep reversing to catch the stuff you missed while you were surfing on the Ship.
Paramormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension.
I actually qualify as an unabashed fan of found footage horror.
I found the first five installments of this series pretty satisfying (especially # 3). But this latest pile of crap is a bunch of over expository, enigma- shattering bullshit. Just endless speeches that destroy the whole draw of FF-- that sense that you don't really know what is going on. And their decision to make the "badguy" visible was, IMO a huge mistake-- if they had left it at things moving around and people doing disturbing, unexplained things, cool-- but what they gave us was some wimpy punk version of a Ent.
Really bad follow up to an otherwise fairly decent representation of the genre.
[ 09. January 2016, 05:17: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
Yesterday I watched one of my prezzies from the kids: the 1932 film Island of Lost Souls, a version of HG Wells' 'Island of Dr Moreau'.
It was very good, creepy, atmospheric, and Charles Laughton as Moreau was suitably sadistic....
I saw it on television, that is to say Turner Classic Movies.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Speaking of H.G. Wells, I just finished watching the 1953 version of War Of The Worlds.
Pretty decent special-effects, I imagine that it blew the audiences away back in its era. And good battle scenes, military hardware etc.
But, my word, did that relgious theme ever grate. I love religious motifs in films, big time, but not in H.G. Wells! Especially when it's laced in with dialogue otherwise extolling the benefits of natural selection.
(And, yes, I realize that evolution and theology aren't neccessarily incompatible, but I don't think that's what they they were getting at in this film. It just comes off as awkwardly trying to talk about evolution, while not offending Christians.)
And as much as I'd like to report that things have improved since the 1950s, Spielberg's WOTW from a few years back does the same thing at the very end, with Morgan Freeman's narration.
[ 09. January 2016, 15:01: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Is that the version with the creepy moment when the time machine accidentally gets put into fast forward?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Is that the version with the creepy moment when the time machine accidentally gets put into fast forward?
I don't think so. There is no time machine in War Of The Worlds.
I think maybe you're thinking of...The Time Machine?
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Had just woken up.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
We saw The Hateful Eight yesterday. I was a bit concerned that it was listed as being 187 mins long, but it didn't drag - and the Odeon didn't have an interval, as some cinemas apparently did - and it was beautifully filmed. Typical Tarantino stuff, with moments of extreme, sudden violence, but I liked it.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
Suffragette is worthy, conscientious,
competent, and at times quite moving, but somehow falls short of the stature of its theme.
It s hard to imagine it ever making the list of 100 greatest films ever.
Its Lloyd George isn't sufficiently goatish or Welsh.
The only laugh is just before the credits, when there is a chronological list of when countries gave the vote to women - including Russia 1917 and China 1949.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
Over in the Star Wars thread, Trudy Scrumptious referred to the Bechdel Test for movies.
[Don't worry. The link does NOT go to the Star Wars thread--so no danger of spoilers. It is the link Trudy provided for the test itself.]
To quote from the link:
quote:
The Bechdel Test asks a few simple questions from a movie: Is there more than one named female character? Do they have a conversation? Is it about something other than a man? If the answer to all three questions is yes, then the movie passes the Bechdel Test.
I had never heard of the Bechdel Test before, but I find it an interesting test to use. It is sad the number of current films that do not pass the test, but what I find more interesting is the unlikely movies that do pass it!
Case in point: Murder on Flight 502 (1975). It was a made for TV movie. A note found in the first class lounge (after the flight is off for overseas) threatens multiple murders. It is not as interesting as it sounds.
To get the sense of the type of movie it is, the one flight attendant (actually, they call them "stewardesses" in the film) is on her last flight. Why? Because she is going to get married (tee hee!). And is she sad that she will be giving up her career? Nope. To quote her: "I have been liberated long enough!" The other female characters are similarly stock characters: the star-struck young woman; the Jewish grandmother; the cynical middle-aged drunk woman (who, when her fellow passenger tells her he doesn't want advice from "a drunken broad" replies that "under other circumstances I'd be offended at being called drunk!")
Yeah. It is a bad movie drenched with fairly blatant 70s-style sexism in it. And that is why it is amazing to report...it passes the Bechdel Test.
There are two flight att...oh, okay, "stewardesses", Karen White and Vera Franklin (so they are named characters). They have a conversation together--just the two of them, in the galley of the plane. Vera complains that a sharp serving fork has disappeared and she wants help looking for it. Karen tells her not to worry about it because who would bother to swipe a sharp instrument? Karen then tells Vera to help her put away the dishes. Later in the film, Karen and Vera also have a brief conversation dividing duties as Karen takes up a plate of food and Vera agrees to bring the coffee when it is done.
So they had a conversation that was not about men. Bechdel Test passed in a film that has no business passing it.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I would argue that it is a perfect example of how easy it is to pass the test. You don't have to make a high art film with a lot of amazing female characters, you just have to put enough women in the story to have a conversation with each other!
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
I saw "Brooklyn" recently, and it is a lovely film. A good story line, solid performances, and beautifully filmed.
So did I. It's a beautiful film. I might even try to see it again.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Bridge of Spies has not long been released here. It's been eclipsed by Star Wars, but I was very glad to have gone and seen it before its cinema run ended. Interesting parallels with contemporary issues of immigration and East-West relations.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
So they had a conversation that was not about men. Bechdel Test passed in a film that has no business passing it.
Alison Bechdel originally wrote that as a conversation between two lesbians in her fabulous comic strip "Dykes to watch out for". To spoil the punch line; "The last film I got to see was "Aliens".
And besides her strip which covers a group of Lesbian friends over decades, do read her best seller "Fun Home" a memoir of growing up as the child of a closeted gay man. It's now a Broadway musical so it may make it to film.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
It's a freaking fantastic book, and the musical score is fantastic. I hope it does make the big screen.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
We saw two at the Big Movies last week.
Revenant which we had really been looking forward to since my son thought the book by Punke was one of the best he ever read. We were not disappointed, and it's not my usual thing.
Star Wars which I thought was the most boring movie I've ever seen. Not the worst, it wasn't offensive in any way, but most boring. It seemed to have a total of about one script page of dialogue and a plot so simple I can't understand how it managed to have so many holes: Two nice parents have evil son for no explained reason? Rey has just been given a lightsaber and is better with it than two guys who have been trained in it all their lives? She understands Wookie speak? She has the best mind bending force ever? I know girlpower is beyond amazing but when it goes outside show rules it's a little like cheating the story.
To me, it was basically just two hours of running.
Running from Stormtroopers, running up and down the old space craft for no reason, running from Velociraptors, running from more Stormtroopers, running in aircraft from other aircraft, running through the woods. I commend all the cast for their stamina.
Someone in the old thread thought Carol was the most boring thing ever. I'll have to wait for the DVD since I live in a cultural wasteland where the theatres don't show it, but I know the book "The Price of Salt," from which it was taken, kept me up all night, heart pounding with fear and tension. It just goes to show how different tastes can be and with Star Wars getting 94% from Rotten Tomatoes, I doubt if we're going to get many more "Carol"s.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Big Eyes.
I quite liked it. Among the four Alexander/Karaszewski screenplays I've seen, it's the odd man out, in that Ed Wood, People Vs. Larry Flynt, and Man On The Moon dealt with narcissists who did things that they themselves found amusing, but which alienated others. Whereas Big Eyes deals with a modest person who does things that other people like, but fails to receive proper recognition.
The courtroom scenes are fairly similar to TPVLF, with the difference that this time, the buffoon is the villain.
Generally, I try to avoid Tim Burton, and I found that his trademark touches added little to this film(I really coulda done without the hallucination sequences). Recommended, overall.
[ 17. January 2016, 16:39: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I should check and see if that has gone to On Demand yet.
Anyway: Sundance line up!
I totally want to see Weiner-dog . Also, a number of intriguing sounding horror/ scifi things on offer.
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
I just saw 'The Lobster'. I don't regret seeing it, but it certainly was dystopian as promised though funny in parts. My friends and I talked a lot about it afterwards, though partly to cleanse it from our systems and not have nightmares tonight!
I felt unsettled, uncomfortable, on edge or disturbed through the whole movie. There was one scene I'm pretty sure no one in the sold out audience watched. On the plus side singles and couples will both appreciate the world we live in and that we don't live in the film's world.
If you see it don't get attached to anyone. Most of the characters aren't likeable, but you may still get upset. I would warn certain people not to see it, but am not sure how without giving away an important plot point.
Posted by basso (# 4228) on
:
I read a review in the SF Chronicle today of something called "The 5th Wave". A pan of a movie that seems to be a real stinker.
The reviewer (long-time Chronicle light Mick LaSalle) closes thus:
quote:
"The 5th Wave" is the first book in a trilogy...if we're not really vigilant, and look to the skies, and prepare, they're going to make at least two more of these things. We've got to beat back the invasion now...
which delighted me enough to share. We all love this kind of thing, right?
Posted by Marama (# 330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Someone in the old thread thought Carol was the most boring thing ever. I'll have to wait for the DVD since I live in a cultural wasteland where the theatres don't show it, but I know the book "The Price of Salt," from which it was taken, kept me up all night, heart pounding with fear and tension. It just goes to show how different tastes can be and with Star Wars getting 94% from Rotten Tomatoes, I doubt if we're going to get many more "Carol"s.
I'm in the camp that found 'Carol' at least very slow, if not quite boring. Heart-pounding it was not! The clothes are wonderful, Cate is of course good, but it should be at least three quarters of an hour shorter. A shame.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I went to see "Big Short" based on events of the 2008 mortgage lending/bank crash. A beautifully savage comedy! However, despite moments of breaking the fourth wall and having economic facts explained by the likes of Anthony Bourdain, Selena Gomez and a big time economist, there are still things that happened that I don't understand. It is well worth seeing just to affirm to oneself how incredibly stupid nominally smart people are.
Just saw it a few hours ago.
Yeah, I didn't really get what they were talking about most of the time, besides that the main characters were basing their actions on the assumption that lots of people would soon be unable to pay their mortages, and expecting to benefit from this.
So, if part of the purpose of the script was to explain to economic illiterates like myself the intricacies of the mortgage market, it failed. Even the metaphors didn't really work, eg. everyone in a casino betting on everyone else's bets doesn't quite line up with an overheated market, since people who buy debt are actually buying something, not just taking bets between themselves.
And while I liked the period aspects and fast pace, there was still something a little underwhelming about it that I can't quite put my finger on. I guess I've always bought the basic line that the people responsible for the mortgage crisis were bad(morally or competently), so I wasn't quite swept away by the supposedly hard-hitting revelations.
That said, I'll probably have to watch it again to get a clearer impression.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Lewis said a couple times that real evil is boring.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
Didn't someone (Iris Murdoch?) say the same thing about good?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Didn't someone (Iris Murdoch?) say the same thing about good?
I think there are numerous versions of that. Nietzsche wrote in The Antichrist that boredom was "the only kind of distress found in every Paradise".
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Lewis said a couple times that real evil is boring.
Hmm. Maybe that was part of the problem for me. The script was trying to generate excitement around events that, apart from their long-term signiicance(which we already know about anyway), just aren't that exciting.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
Watched a couple of films in the last couple of days.
Re-watched Truly, Madly, Deeply for the obvious reason. I've seen it before (once) and cringed because of the hopping scene. This time I minded that less (focus on the dialogue which is quite funny). Rickman is good of course. The film as a whole - enjoyed it but for me, not worthy of the hype it sometimes gets.
Anomalisa was... what? Hard to say what I felt about it without spoiling. Hard to say anyway because it messed with my head a bit. OK so as well as stop-motion animation this is a film that uses a "device" to make a point (which is very Kaufman I suppose). You could tell a similar story in live action without the device. Not sure such a film would get the same level of accolades then. Also, I kinda get that disquiet I feel over characters' actions and relationships is probably intended, it's the point it's trying to make I think, but it makes it hard to like the film. It's a sad, cynical, depressing point, even if accurate in some cases. I do admire it technically though.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Oh why not throw out a wild card?
I was surfing On Demand options, growing more and more bored with the same old shit, and finally started surfing through Streampix, which is like the second run B-movie $1.50 theater version of On Demand, and while checking out the Doc section I saw the title, "Shut Up, Little Man!"
I remembered this as a title of a very popular compilation comic put out by Fantagraphics, and vaguely remembered it had something to do with a couple of old men arguing with each other. When I saw cartoonist Daniel Clowes was one of the interview subjects, I remembered he was in on some of it, and I turned it on.
It starts out pretty simply-- a couple of guys move into a skeezy apartment on Steiner Street in San Francisco, and quickly learn that their next door neighbors (Ray and Pete, chronic alcoholic retirees and possible partners) argue all night. One of the guys makes an attempt to confront the loudest of the two men who live next door (Ray), and the resulting conversation drives him to record the man's rants , which now include lines like "Come and knock on my door ,you piece of shit, and I'll kill ya," for his own safety, and for possible submission to the police..
From there, the roommates begin to realize that the arguments are kind of entertaining, and they record them on a regular basis. When they make mix tapes for their friends, the include snippets of the recordings, and the friends start asking to come over so they can hear it live. The two audiophiles then make a master copy of the rants which they publish vie Matador Records (foolishly including a free use comment in their copyright info), and despite the fact that the internet did not exist at this time, the recording go viral via cassette tapes,spawn several comic adaptations (including the one I mentioned) two short films and a popular avante garde stage play.
The story drifts from the San Francisco underground art scene celebrating Found Audio to the obvious problems with "free use" and the whole idea of publishing surreptitiously recorded material in the first place. Also, after everyone has had a blast celebrating Ray and Pete, it suddenly dawns on them that they were living pretty sad lives.
The actual audio shared in the doc is pretty blood curdling-- it's kind of like if "The Odd Couple" was written by Edward Albee. The title phrase becomes a mantra. If you don't like gratuitous swearing don't even bother.
But I liked it because it was a neat little trip back in some to when you could run into Dan Clowes down at Comics and Comix in Berkeley, not signing anything but just picking up a few copies of Peter Bagge's latest before he hit the Billy Nayer Show at the Starry Plough.
The terrifying Ray, who dominates the audio with his high octane rants, actually shines when the director tracks him down and fill him in on his celebrity status, of which he is completely unaware. He reacts with grace, blowing off the idea of suing and insisting Brad Pitt play him in the move.
[ 24. January 2016, 04:50: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on
:
Saw The Hateful Eight last night. TP and I both appreciated the dialogue, the cinematography, and the layers of hate, prejudice and perfidy being peeled back bit by bit. I can see why it is not to everyone's taste - it's an old convention to have various characters stuck together in one place by circumstances, and it would probably seem interminable to action movie fans. But I think it will eventually become an appreciated part of Tarantino's full hand.
Great acting performance by Kurt Russell. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
You'll all wonder what Miss Amanda was thinking when she went to see Dirty Grandpa this past weekend -- but let me just say that I can't imagine what Robert De Niro and Zac Efron were thinking when they prostituted themselves into making it.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
You'll all wonder what Miss Amanda was thinking when she went to see Dirty Grandpa this past weekend -- but let me just say that I can't imagine what Robert De Niro and Zac Efron were thinking when they prostituted themselves into making it.
Serious question.
Would you say it's one of those films that's bad if one doesn't like the genre, or is it bad even by the standards of the genre?
What I mean is, I gather it's some sort of gross-out bromance, which a lot of people dislike just BECAUSE it's a gross-out bromance. But I actually like GOBs, so I'm thinking I might actually wanna see this one.
Pineapple Express would be an example of a GOB that I didn't like, simply because, while it conformed to all the genre conventions, the jokes just fell flat. Knocked Up would be an example of one that I like, though someone who dislikes the genre would probably hate it.
As for De Niro, it's long been apparent that he isn't crafting any sort of ongoing screen-persona for himself, where every role would have to be either a continuation of, reinterpretation of, or negation of, the "character" that is often thought to define him(bascially, some variation of "crazy ethnic criminal guy"). The impression I get is that he's an actor who likes to work, and doesn't really care what the job is.
[ 29. January 2016, 15:30: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
As for myself, I saw Boyhood a few hours back.
NormallY, I think Linklater is one of those directors who needs a the firm hand of commercialism to keep himself from going off on self-indulgent tangents. Suffice to say, I liked School Of Rock and Bernie, not so much Waking Life or the "Sunrise" films. (Slacker gets a pass for being an independent film.)
However, this one I didn't mind so much, even though it's probably closer to the Sunrise films than to School Of Rock. For reasons I can't quite articulate, it did manage to snag me into caring about the characters and their lives, whereas with Sunrise etc, I'm just like "Who the freak cares about some upwardly mobile artists and delivering self-absorbed momnologues about their romantic lives while on holidays in Europe?"
But it still probably coulda been about half an hour shorter.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I gather it's some sort of gross-out bromance, which a lot of people dislike just BECAUSE it's a gross-out bromance. But I actually like GOBs, so I'm thinking I might actually wanna see this one.
Not having seen the other films you mention, I can't comment. But this one was just coarse! Personally I don't see the humor in having Robert De Niro's penis shoved into someone's face scene after scene, but perhaps there are those who would.
quote:
The impression I get is that [De Niro]'s an actor who likes to work, and doesn't really care what the job is.
Neither do many prostitutes, or so I'm told. I rest my case.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Amanda wrote:
quote:
...Robert De Niro's penis shoved into someone's face scene after scene...
Okay, thanks. I'm booking my tickets right now.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Enjoy. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
Okay, this one came as a surprise. A little background first: I like old movies (i.e., movies from the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s). You Tube is a gold mine for movies from that era, so long as you aren't too particular about video quality. Honestly, some of these can get you seasick as the image dips up and down. So tonight I watched:
One Frightened Night (1935). With due respect, no big stars involved with this. The cast list includes: Charley Grapewin, Mary Carlisle, Arthur Hohl, Wallace Ford & Lucien Littlefield. It runs for about 65 minutes.
But the film is great! An old rich man (Grapewin) decides to avoid a new inheritance tax by giving a million dollars each to his niece, nephew, attorney, lawyer and doctor while he is still alive. But then the lawyer brings Grapewin's long-lost granddaughter Doris, to whom he decides to give his entire fortune. But then a second woman claiming to be the lost granddaughter shows up and (more or less at the same time) the first one mysteriously dies. Was she a fake committing suicide? The real one murdered? Something else? Truly, everybody on screen is a legitimate suspect. The mystery is tricky and the performances are good from all the cast. I plan to get this one on DVD. It's a keeper.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I've just seen 'War of Resistance' - the sequel to The Hiding Place about the Dutch students who sabotaged Nazi operations in order to save Jewish lives.
Wonderful, true story but bad acting and not enough editing.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Deep Impact made a deep impact on me - what do you do when a comet collides with earth?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
At the age of 4*, I FINALLY saw the 1933 King Kong.
I'd say it lives up to its reputation, if I'm able to put myself in the aesthetic mindframe of people for whom that quality of special-effects would seem groundbreaking.
I'm not sure if it's as racist as is sometimes alleged, since the idea of King Kong symbolizing sexually rapacious black males is somewhat complicated by his killing of blacks back on the island. Though I suppose that doesn't preclude his representing the swarthy tropics in general, intruding upon the civilized world.
One doubts that they could get an ape that size into New York without the reporters knowing about it before the unveiling. Ya gotta think the customs authorities would be all over their case.
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I FINALLY saw the 1933 King Kong.
I agree it still stands up as a good film, right up until the end:
"Twas Beauty killed the Beast".
It bloody wasn't, it was pretty much everybody else, especially whoever sent the planes in. Poor Fay Wray.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
At the age of 4*, I FINALLY saw the 1933 King Kong.
Oh, I am so conflicted here. I applaud anybody watching old movies. But, seriously, dude, unless that first number is at least a 5, I don't want to see the damn asterisk.
quote:
I'm not sure if it's as racist as is sometimes alleged, since the idea of King Kong symbolizing sexually rapacious black males is somewhat complicated by his killing of blacks back on the island. Though I suppose that doesn't preclude his representing the swarthy tropics in general, intruding upon the civilized world.
This is what I like to refer to as Contemporary Prejudice. It goes like this: "Gee, this is an old movie from decades ago. Decades ago everybody was a sexist racist unlike us in this enlightened contemporary age. Therefore, let us watch this movie and find out what is sexist and racist about it (because there must be), and we can then report on it to save future generations." As you say, the concept of Kong as "every black male" doesn't hold up to even the slightest serious thought. Yes, Kong is attracted to the white blonde woman. He has never, ever, seen a white blonde woman. She could have been Chinese and he would have reacted the same way. She was new. She was different. That's all.
quote:
One doubts that they could get an ape that size into New York without the reporters knowing about it before the unveiling. Ya gotta think the customs authorities would be all over their case.
"Anything to declare?'
"No." [ROAR!]
"What was that?"
"Just my pet. Had him since I was a child. Bought him in Hoboken."
"Oh, that's okay then. Pass."
But yes. The movie requires a ludicrous amount of suspension of disbelief. Fortunately, I am a Doctor Who fan, so that comes as second nature to me.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
quote:
I'm not sure if it's as racist as is sometimes alleged, since the idea of King Kong symbolizing sexually rapacious black males is somewhat complicated by his killing of blacks back on the island. Though I suppose that doesn't preclude his representing the swarthy tropics in general, intruding upon the civilized world.
This is what I like to refer to as Contemporary Prejudice. It goes like this: "Gee, this is an old movie from decades ago. Decades ago everybody was a sexist racist unlike us in this enlightened contemporary age. Therefore, let us watch this movie and find out what is sexist and racist about it (because there must be), and we can then report on it to save future generations." As you say, the concept of Kong as "every black male" doesn't hold up to even the slightest serious thought. Yes, Kong is attracted to the white blonde woman. He has never, ever, seen a white blonde woman. She could have been Chinese and he would have reacted the same way. She was new. She was different. That's all.
Well, there ARE other things in the movie that could lead one to conclude that the writers were trying to frame it as a racial narrative, even if King Kong himself isn't meant to be a stand-in for black males.
For example, before going out in their search for Kong, the film-director says "We are going to see something that no white person has seen before." Okay, that's probably true, but it could have been stated just as accurately as "...no occidental person". Granted, racializing the cultural-divide was probably the usual way of doing it in those days.
And even if Kong isn't meant to symbolize black men, it remains the case that Ann Darrow is abducted from the boat by black men, and that the Chinese cook reports this incident by running around yelling "Crazy black man on board!" It's kind of hard to read that as totally innocent, in a time and place where Jim Crow was still defended as neccessary to protect white women.
On the other hand, a somewhat more enlightened tact is taken by Denham, when, prior to discovering Kong, he expresses his belief that the natives must be onto something by saying "There is some truth to all religions". As opposed to the standard belief that non-Christians, and especially animists, are all a bunch of whackjobs.
[ 08. February 2016, 15:35: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
This is what I like to refer to as Contemporary Prejudice. It goes like this: "Gee, this is an old movie from decades ago. Decades ago everybody was a sexist racist unlike us in this enlightened contemporary age.
It isn't prejudice to note the racism in older works simply because it was de riguere. It is a bit blind if we condemn entire generations* for what we would likely have done were we born into that time and situation. However, it is not unimportant to note the societal issues contained in film, even when they are background rather than the focus.
Gone With the Wind is a fantastic film. It is well written, wonderfully acted and beautifully filmed. But it is not untoward to note that it ennobles a despicable cause, trivialises slavery and was made and viewed by people who thought black people were lesser than white. Nor is it unreasonable that some revile it for those messages.
*This is not an excuse for the behaviour, mind. But an acknowledgment of how behaviour works.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
This is what I like to refer to as Contemporary Prejudice. It goes like this: "Gee, this is an old movie from decades ago. Decades ago everybody was a sexist racist unlike us in this enlightened contemporary age.
It isn't prejudice to note the racism in older works simply because it was de riguere. It is a bit blind if we condemn entire generations* for what we would likely have done were we born into that time and situation. However, it is not unimportant to note the societal issues contained in film, even when they are background rather than the focus.
Gone With the Wind is a fantastic film. It is well written, wonderfully acted and beautifully filmed. But it is not untoward to note that it ennobles a despicable cause, trivialises slavery and was made and viewed by people who thought black people were lesser than white. Nor is it unreasonable that some revile it for those messages.
*This is not an excuse for the behaviour, mind. But an acknowledgment of how behaviour works.
I remember Watching GWTW with my mom as a kid, shortly after our Grade 3 teacher had taught us about the horrors of slavery(in relation to the life of George Washington Carver).
There's one scene which I remember as Scarlett being terrified by a Union soldier who had entered into her house, and I turned to my mom and said something to the effect of "You shouldn't feel sorry for those people, they owned slaves" and walked out. It was thirty years before I ever watched the movie again.
Granted, it wasn't the kind of thing I was really interested in anyway, apart from its relevance to film history, which was the only reason I ever bothered to watch it again. (And yeah, it's good.)
[ 08. February 2016, 19:41: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
My complaint is not with legitimate identifications of racism and sexism in movies. Certainly, there are both in King Kong. What I object to is those who try to shoehorn such things in where it is not. Kong himself is what he appears to be--a big ape. He is not an allegory for a race of people.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
However, it is not unimportant to note the societal issues contained in film, even when they are background rather than the focus.
Exactly! This is why it is so important to watch older movies. It comes as no surprise that a movie from the 1930s reflects the sensibilities of the 1930s. It would be more amazing if it did not. That is why one should watch it: to better understand the viewpoints and attitudes of the time. Watching Stepin Fetchit in a movie can (indeed, almost certainly will) induce cringing, as he frequently portrays a horrible stereotype of "the lazy black." But only by seeing it do you get a real sense of just how hideous the racist attitudes were at the time, and just why the Civil Rights Movement was so necessary.
Posted by Beenster (# 242) on
:
The Danish Girl - very beautiful and difficult - loved it. Still pondering on it all.
Dad's Army - fun but not so memorable. Catherine Zeta Jones was brilliant!
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
DEADPOOL!!!!!'
Go see it! Unless you are easily offended, think nudity is tre gauche, or that humour should have "class".
If an inserted stick prevents your spine from bending, it might not be for you.
But is is funny, well written and acted. Not Citizen Cain, but enjoyable as hell.
But read no reviews, if you like the trailers, you will like the movie.
[ 12. February 2016, 19:56: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
DEADPOOL!!!!!'
This is top of my To See list, but I have to coordinate diaries with my cinema buddy who wants to see it too. Normally it's the sort of film I'd go to by myself; I even have a voucher burning a hole in my pocket and I still probably won't see it this week. Aagh, the frustration...
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
DEADPOOL!!!!!'
This is top of my To See list, but I have to coordinate diaries with my cinema buddy who wants to see it too. Normally it's the sort of film I'd go to by myself; I even have a voucher burning a hole in my pocket and I still probably won't see it this week. Aagh, the frustration...
Saw it the first showing at the cinema, I was not waiting for anyone or anything.
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on
:
This is why I often go to the cinema by myself. Sometimes it's best just to please yourself. (Although I do like dissecting the film on the way home, so you pays your money, etc).
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:
This is why I often go to the cinema by myself. Sometimes it's best just to please yourself. (Although I do like dissecting the film on the way home, so you pays your money, etc).
I don't mind watching movies with someone who shares the same tastes that I do, and wants to watch the film in question. Otherwise, I'd just as soon watch them alone. Nothing more awkward than when everyone decides just to "go to the movies" as a social outting, and then half the people don't like the film that was chosen.
And, for that matter, I've never really gotten "going to the movies" as a social activity. I don't see why it should be such, any more than listening to music or watching TV. I guess since a lot of people associate movies with dating, there's a taboo aginst seeing them alone, like, it proves you're a social pariah or something. (More or less true in my case, ha ha, but it doesn't have to be that way for everyone.)
[ 14. February 2016, 16:08: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I just saw Hail Caesar. I enjoyed it a lot. It's a silly film and lovingly parodies the fifties Hollywood films. A lot of fun, if not purposeful.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
Ditto! I really enjoyed it. It reminds me of when the Coens were making truly funny films like The Big Lebowski and Raising Arizona.
But like Woody Allen, the Coens are a specific taste. Leaving the theater, I heard a guy grousing to his wife that they had wasted an evening; the film was a bunch of disconnected stories that weren't funny. I'd heard similar reactions ("unfunny") to Woody Allen movies. On Rotten Tomatoes 81% of critics rated it well, but only 46% of general viewers were positive. Then of course, critics would probably like a film where they got all the in-jokes.
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
I enjoyed Brooklyn (the film that is!). Beautifully captured the feeling of going aboard on a migrant ship - as I did years ago, though as a child rather than as a young adult. Particularly poignant was the later scene (in Brooklyn, USA) of the Christmas lunch at the church for local homeless men, at which Eilish (the newly arrived young woman from Ireland) served the old men (also originally from Ireland) who "built the bridges and the skyscrapers" but now only had each other; one of them sang (beautifully) an Irish song as the others sipped their bottles of Guinness.
Interestingly , as the Quebec Film Board were co-producers, the scenes of 1950s "Brooklyn" were actually shot in Montreal. Probably cheaper than in the USA or perhaps there are no 1950s streetscapes left in the real Brooklyn; I don't know since I've never been there.
The storyline was good too and kept moving by good editing. (A marked contrast to that of "Carol", which featured "shots" with the camera lingering on a pair of gloves on a table for a full 60 seconds, followed by an equally long linger on a static woman looking out a window, and so on for hours of end of nothing happening. It was me who called "Carol" the most boring film I'd seen for years!).
Credit also to the Irish actress with the unspellable first name (S--- Ronan) who played the central character; she can express much by a look, and carried the film well.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Spotlight.
Well-made, with a sobriety fitting the topic. I think the closest it came to comic-relief was Stanley Tucci's loud-mouthed crusading lawyer, which seemed maybe a bit of a stock figure, those I suppose that's what the real-life guy might be like. Judging by his website, he's not exactly subtle.
Apart from that, I did find the film kind of hard to follow, as the revelations come at you fairly rapid-fire, and sometimes overlap, so it wasn't always possible to tell what the relevance of it all was, in terms of furthering the investigation(besides that it all involves child-sexual abuse). But it manages to avoid avoid turning into one of those "serious" movies where every scene is delivered as if it were a thundering climax, which is always really exhausting to watch.
Interesting portrayal of Catholic culture in Boston, I suppose, though probably more enlightning if you haven't already seen that a zillion times in other movies.
[ 27. February 2016, 18:38: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
ArachnidinElmet: This is why I often go to the cinema by myself. Sometimes it's best just to please yourself.
I don't go to this kind of films.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Thanks for starting this thread. I love movies. I wish I could see more. I have access to Netflix but lately it is not getting all the hot movies--there are just too many streaming channels out there.. Nevertheless there are some good original programming on it.
Two things I love about movies are 1) the symbols one can find in a movie. Our congregation is going though Saving Mr Banks, the back story to how the movie Mary Poppins came about. There are just so many symbols in that movie every time I watch it I see something new.
2) I also like to watch different movies to see if there are incongruities or mistakes in them. Again, in Mr Banks there are many of them. True Grit has a number of them. In the original movie the eye patch Rooster Cockburn wheres goes from one eye to the other about half way through the movie It is said John Wayne's one eye got irritated (pink eye) and they had to switch the patch to the other eye. In the more recent movie there is one scene where the woman rides into the water with her sleeping roll strapped to her back. When she leaves the river, the sleeping roll is strapped to the saddle--and it is dry!
My kid's would just roll their eyes every time we watched a movie and, after, I would ask them what was the point of the movie. Now they all say they do that with their kids when they go see a movie--and their kids roll their eyes too.
I do hope this thread keeps going.
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on
:
Deadpool was fantastic.
They had me from the opening credits. It's just that kind of movie.
Surprised my daughter thinks it would be fine for her 15 yr old rather shy son to see. But hey, what do I know about education these days? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
ArachnidinElmet: This is why I often go to the cinema by myself. Sometimes it's best just to please yourself.
I don't go to this kind of films.
Yes, it's probably best to see those kinds of films by yourself as well.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Banner Lady wrote:
quote:
Deadpool was fantastic.
I coulda done without the barrage of anti-gay jokes and insults. I mean, "knob-gobbler"?
I suppose you could argue that's just the way the character talks, but I think the conventions of a superhero portrayal kinda dictate that the bar be set a little higher than it would be for a regular person, even for an antihero like Deadpool. We ARE supposed to be cheering for his witty ripostes, after all.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I just saw Hail Caesar. I enjoyed it a lot. It's a silly film and lovingly parodies the fifties Hollywood films. A lot of fun, if not purposeful.
They did a terrific job with the homages to so many genres of 1950s Hollywood. I think the "purposeful" side of it was a sort of reflection on sin and the truth - while the main character was a devout Roman Catholic who went to confession daily and agonized over lying to his wife about smoking, much of his job involved lying: all that covering up of the Hollywood stars' peccadilloes and generally carrying out the big bosses' bullying. An interesting juxtaposition of the silly little sins we can focus on while blocking out the big ones we are caught up in.
And big agreement on the good reviews here of Brooklyn. A beautiful film with wonderful performances.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
The storyline was good too and kept moving by good editing.
Agreed, but unhurried, which is probably why it never puts a foot wrong.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
Trumbo is a deeply unsatisfactory film, which valorises the communist targets of McCarthyite blacklisting while never raising the hard questions.
Why did people like Dalton Trumbo give their allegiance to Stalin in 1943 in light of obscenities such as the Ukraine Famine, the Great Terror and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and subsequent rape of Poland?
Sure, the USSR was fighting Nazism, but only because it was forced to, and at the outset of hostilities in 1941 had a far worse record of mass murder.
How could people like Trumbo deliver moralistic lectures about the threat to civil liberties in the US, while giving their allegiance to a country where they barely existed?
Why are we pressured to feel sympathy with the blacklisting of Hollywood writers and actors, while the deaths of millions of innocent victims (which are not offset by the execution of Ethel Rosenberg, tragic though it was) liquidated by the regime they supported go unmentioned?
Figures such as Malcolm Muggeridge, who resolutely exposed the Ukraine Famine AND gleefully ridiculed McCarthy, showed it was possible to take a consistent and decent liberal democratic line across both phenomena.
This film, by contrast, is a cowardly and dishonest.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Black Mass.
I liked it, and I don't really agree with the criticism that it romanticizes Whitey Bulger. Certainly not in the way that the Godfather films, or almost any Scorsese gangeter film, romanticizes the mafia. Except for one brief scene, you don't come away thinking that the Irish mob is made up of warm-hearted family men.
I suppose if you're the relative of someone who was murdered by Bulger, portraying him as anything less than the incarnation of Pure Evil is gonna seem like romanticization. For me, though, it certainly didn't make me wish that I could have sat down for a beer with the guy.
And I think this was the first time I've ever seen the word "Jai Alai" used outside of a crossword puzzle clue.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Banner Lady wrote:
quote:
Deadpool was fantastic.
I coulda done without the barrage of anti-gay jokes and insults. I mean, "knob-gobbler"?
I suppose you could argue that's just the way the character talks, but I think the conventions of a superhero portrayal kinda dictate that the bar be set a little higher than it would be for a regular person, even for an antihero like Deadpool. We ARE supposed to be cheering for his witty ripostes, after all.
Deadpool is supposed to be pansexual. The character is using these insults from the inside, so this could be viewed in a different light. It is certainly not a perfect defence, though.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Big ups to Chris Rock and his terrific, if slightly uneven, opening monologue to the Oscars.
Eddie Redmayne should have won. He was so adorable at the awards, I just wanted to hug him.
Pretty standard fair overall, though.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Banner Lady wrote:
quote:
Deadpool was fantastic.
I coulda done without the barrage of anti-gay jokes and insults. I mean, "knob-gobbler"?
I suppose you could argue that's just the way the character talks, but I think the conventions of a superhero portrayal kinda dictate that the bar be set a little higher than it would be for a regular person, even for an antihero like Deadpool. We ARE supposed to be cheering for his witty ripostes, after all.
Deadpool is supposed to be pansexual. The character is using these insults from the inside, so this could be viewed in a different light. It is certainly not a perfect defence, though.
Ah, this is based on the comic book? If so, I'm sure it has some validity, but that didn't come out(no pun intended) in the film, as far as I could tell.
And just for clarification, when Deadpool calls someone a "knob-gobbler", for example, it's understood that he himself has happily engaged in the implied activity on a few occassions, and may very well again?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I've just watched The Reluctant Fundamentalist which shows how our Prevent and other anti-terrorist strategies actually make matters worse.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Ah, this is based on the comic book? If so, I'm sure it has some validity, but that didn't come out(no pun intended) in the film, as far as I could tell.
According to Reynolds, the movie was only made because of the intense comic fan response to leaked test footage. So the movie was made for the fans who would know the background. I had not heard of Deadpool before the trailers appeared and what I know is from discussion of the movie development.
quote:
And just for clarification, when Deadpool calls someone a "knob-gobbler", for example, it's understood that he himself has happily engaged in the implied activity on a few occassions, and may very well again?
Well, here it becomes more difficult. The character is described as pan sexual but, from what I understand, does little more than flirt with male characters in the comics. So is it laddish humour, or true engagement with open sexuality?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Steve Jobs.
Danny Boyle's take on the life, or at least the mid-1980s to late 1990s of the life, of its titular character. Kind of starts in media res, assuming you know why it's such a big deal that something called the Mac was being launched in 1984 and how everyone was ga-ga over a Superbowl ad.
Strcutured around three different product unveilings, over a period of about fifteen years, it's stuck with a somewhat claustrophobic feel, as it rarely leaves the confines of its various conference halls, except for a few flashbacks. I suppose the family estrangement stuff is interesting, as far as it goes, but in the end it's really just another story about a guy reconciling with his kid.
Fairly informative about what is arguably the most consequential period in the history of one of the world's most consequential corporations. Not quite up to Boyle's usual standards, though, possibly because the story doesn't exactly match his style.
[ 01. March 2016, 13:59: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Oh, and...
Boulevard.
The last film of Robin Williams, about an older, married man coming to grips with his repressed homosexuality, via a platonic romance with a young street hustler.
No great shakes in the storyline department, though I WAS somewhat drawn into the cultural milieu of the main characters, middle-class professionals of a vaguely academic and artistic bent(Williams is a loan officer at a bank, but his wife and best friend are academic types who discuss Rushdie and Godard).
I thought the film wrapped itself up a little too neat and tidy, but I'd probably still recommend it.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Spotlight.
Well-made, with a sobriety fitting the topic. I think the closest it came to comic-relief was Stanley Tucci's loud-mouthed crusading lawyer, which seemed maybe a bit of a stock figure, those I suppose that's what the real-life guy might be like. Judging by his website, he's not exactly subtle.
Apart from that, I did find the film kind of hard to follow, as the revelations come at you fairly rapid-fire, and sometimes overlap, so it wasn't always possible to tell what the relevance of it all was, in terms of furthering the investigation(besides that it all involves child-sexual abuse). But it manages to avoid avoid turning into one of those "serious" movies where every scene is delivered as if it were a thundering climax, which is always really exhausting to watch.
Interesting portrayal of Catholic culture in Boston, I suppose, though probably more enlightening if you haven't already seen that a zillion times in other movies.
Just saw it (I found Stanley Tucci poignant, BTW-- someone who was forcing himself to be detached in order to properly do a job he cared immensely about, and that translated into irritation and brusqueness.)
As I am watching it for the second time in two days, I guess I agree about the "hard to follow" part, but I also agree with what you said about the way the film avoided being a splashy drama despite the subject matter-- it was a good choice to focus the narrative on the slow, cautious efforts of the Spotlight team to build their story while trying to stay under the radar of perhaps the most cagey, self-protective institution in the world.
I was really, really impressed with Liev Schriebier's portrayal of Marty Barron, less a bombastic justice warrior and more a quiet, relentless force of insistence, like wave erosion. Very different from how he is usually typed, and I thought he was amazing.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The Way about a man whose son dies whilst walking the Camino so decides to ake his ashes with him and finish the journey.
Very good about working through grief and the need to balance solitude with community.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
The Gift, a stalking thriller about an upwardly mobile couple tormented(or maybe not), by an unstable character from the past.
As with the best of the "terrorized family" genre(Fatal Attraction, Cape Fear, One Hour Photo), there is a moral ambiguity in terms of our sympathies for the supposed protagonists. This aspect is amped up considerably in The Gift, so that at times we're not exactly sure who it is we should be cheering for.
The ending gets a little too close to the "Omnipotent Serial Killer" cliche that I quite despise, but doesn't quite go over the brink.
Recommended if you're a fan of the morally-ambiguous-yuppies-being-chased-by-vengeful-nutbar genre.
[ 18. March 2016, 17:48: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
That movie was a total mind --****. Highly recommend it.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
In fact, I'm glad you mentioned One Hour Photo in relation to The Gift, because there are a lot of parallels. It's like they took the general ambiguity in the first film and made them more extreme in the second.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
I just went to see The Witch. I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would, since I'm not crazy about horror movies. This was a tale from the point of view of seventeenth century New England colonists. What would the situation be like if there were real witches that could prey upon well-meaning Christians, and the Devil was a being that could take earthly forms to lure the broken? This was a story to be told around the fireplace on dark, cold nights.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
In fact, I'm glad you mentioned One Hour Photo in relation to The Gift, because there are a lot of parallels. It's like they took the general ambiguity in the first film and made them more extreme in the second.
(SPOLIERS)
What I liked about The Gift, compared to One Hour Photo, is that it followed more felicitously what I consider to be the sine qua non of the Stalked Yuppie genre, ie. someone in the family brings the stalking on themselves.
In OHP, the camera-guy was stalking the family, independently of anything they did, right from the start. True, he cranked it up when he found out about the father's adultery, but he was probably gonna do that anyway eventually, given how unbalanced he was.
Whereas in The Gift, not only does the husband provoke the stalker in mid-life, by mocking his attempts at forming a friendship, but he's directly responsible for the fact that the guy is such a mess-up to begin with, due to the homophobic bullying he inflicted on him at school years earler.
Posted by M. (# 3291) on
:
Went to see Hail Caesar yesterday. Quirky little film, quite funny but I found it a bit slow. Macarius loved it. It was worth it for the pastiches of 50s films.
M.
Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on
:
Just saw 10 Cloverfield Lane. Properly creepy and claustrophobic. Excellent acting from the three main characters, especially John Goodman as the unpredictable and unhinged Howard. It can be watched in isolation from (prequel/sequel/sister film) Cloverfield; there are no spoilers and it's more psychological thriller than creature feature, but I think if you know what happens in the previous film it gives this one a different gloss.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Sunday Twofer:
1. I came home from shopping, turned on the TV, and went into the kitchen to put the shopping away. From there I could here what sounded like a documentary about a fine gospel singer-- this heavenly, gorgeous male voice signing old timey favorites like "Blessed assurance" and "Love Lifted Me"come in and sit down, and damned if the heavenly voice I had heard wasn't that of friggen Jack Black. Jack Black!
(According to the schedule, I was watching the movie Bernie. )
(Possible spoilers ahead0
*****
What I thought I was watching was a Christopher Guest style mockumentary spliced with a Coen Brothers dramatization of the fictional story. It was a pretty decent little black comedy-- Black plays a very popular, very community conscious mortician who winds up keeping company with a bitter, curmudgeonly widow (Shirley McClaine-- pretty ,much redoing Ouisa from "Steel Magnolias", character wise) after courting her affections following the death of her very rich husband.
Basically he's such a sweetheart and she's such a bitch that the DA requested a transfer of venue because nobody in town would convict the guy. Something I found fun is that some of the "interviews" seemed to be mixing in residents of the "fictional town" with the actors (who included Matthew McConaghy as the terse, pugnacious DA.
Here's the kicker-- as the movie neared the end, it went form the final VO of Black's character to a photo montage depicting the ACTUAL PEOPLE that the various characters were based on. Wasn't a mocumentary at all-- it was a fictionalization of a real murder, with dramatized bits. Half of the people I thought were actors were actual townsfolk giving actual interviews for the film.
Oh, and it was Richard Linklater who directed. Makes all kinds of sense now, doesn't it?
(and yes, given it was Linklater, I did Google the incident just to make sure the final montage wasn't one last punk.)
2. Once done with that, I came across Lady Day at the Emerson Bar & Grill-- an HBO production of Audra MacDonald'[s tony awarded one woman show-- she portrays Billie Holliday, channeling her both in voice and persona as she sings and narrates vignettes from Holliday's life.
Full disclosure-- I adore Audra MacDonald. In seeing other performances of hers I have been left with the feeling that is I were stuck at some boring baby shower, this would be the woman I would want to be sitting next to. Preferably with a couple of mimosas. She comes right through the camera with warmth and intimacy.
Ten minutes into this performance I was completely floored. She is breathtaking. Both singing and speaking she has a voice like a walking bottle of bourbon. She delivers her monologues with passion and vitality. Really, I can't do it justice-- Nexflix it.
[ 20. March 2016, 21:40: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
[QB]
she has a voice like a walking bottle of bourbon.[QB]
Perfect description! (Wish I'd thought of it.)
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Kelley Alves, I love Bernie so much I've watched it about four times! Just a gem of a -- whatever it is. I fell in love with the bucked tooth girl from the town who doesn't say a word but laughs all the time her friend is talking.
I finally got to see Carol. I'd been looking forward to it since I read the Patricia Highsmith novel two years ago. I loved it as I knew I would love anything directed by Todd Haynes, who can put you in a period atmosphere as though you were in a time warp, and Cate Blanchett, who can say so much with her face she barely needs dialogue.
It was the story that was the pleasant surprise. I was sure they would try to turn it into another, 'it's okay to be gay,' film, but they didn't. The screenwriter stayed with the feel of the novel, which was crime writer Highsmith's only non-mystery. Its theme is that falling in love feels very much like committing a crime. The recklessness, the paranoia, the fear, the step outside of conventional life.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
I'll add my voice to the chorus of acclaim for Bernie. For me, it kinda confirms my broad point about Linklater on the last page, ie. he does best when constrained by a traditional, commercialized, beginning-middle-end script.
And now...
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
[qb]I gather it's some sort of gross-out bromance, which a lot of people dislike just BECAUSE it's a gross-out bromance. But I actually like GOBs, so I'm thinking I might actually wanna see this one.
Not having seen the other films you mention, I can't comment. But this one was just coarse! Personally I don't see the humor in having Robert De Niro's penis shoved into someone's face scene after scene, but perhaps there are those who would.
Finally saw it. In Korea, it's known as "Oh My Grandpa", with the English words transliterated directly into the Korean alphabet for the posters.
Anyway...
Yes, it's pretty much a standard Gross Out Bromance, and more or less succeeds by genre criteria. That said...
I thought the plot leaned a little too heavily on some hackneyed stand-bys. I have no problem with a few cliche motifs(especially in a low-brow comedy), but entire scenes here seemed to depend on things like "Florida Spring Break Is Crazy" and "Drug Use = Hilarious", and "Lost Weekend Before Marrying An Uptight Square" for their comedic credentials.
And when the kid accuses his grandpa of lying about being a mere mechanic in the army, and asks him what he really did, I can't imagine I was the only person silently mouthing "Special Forces" before that revelation was delivered. Possibly, justifiable as a Meet The Parents reference. (Though I think that guy was CIA, and not nearly as debauched as the dirty grandpa.)
Finally, I did raise my eyebrows a bit when De Niro's twentysomething crush justifies her interest in him by saying "He's my Henry Miller". Given that she would almost certainly be referring to Tropic Of Cancer, where Miller appears as a man in his FORTIES. Whereas Dirty Grandpa is supposed to be in his seventies.
[ 21. March 2016, 18:15: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Kelley Alves, I love Bernie so much I've watched it about four times! Just a gem of a -- whatever it is. I fell in love with the bucked tooth girl from the town who doesn't say a word but laughs all the time her friend is talking.
Get this-- the opinionated woman was Kay McConaughey-- yes, Matt's mother. The girl next to her I assume was a real towns-person who was loving the characterization of Marjorie Nugent.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
No kidding! Now I have to get it out and watch it again.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
18 years late, I think, I just saw The End of the Affair.
What a beautiful Catholic masterpiece.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
medias
Posted by Bene Gesserit (# 14718) on
:
We just watched San Andreas. Complete hokum and totally predictable. Two stars.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Speaking about Bene Gesserit, I recently watched the two Dune miniseries. I'd seen the first one before, not the second one. Thoroughly enjoyable, and very faithful to the books.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
THAT is a recommendation.
(What the HELL did I mean by 'medias'?!)
Posted by Bene Gesserit (# 14718) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Speaking about Bene Gesserit, I recently watched the two Dune miniseries. I'd seen the first one before, not the second one. Thoroughly enjoyable, and very faithful to the books.
If they're the miniseries I'm thinking of, my only grumble about them was the eyes of the Fremen - the 'whites' should have been dark blue, and not had glow-in-the-dark irises. Then they would be the eyes of the Ibad.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Bene Gesserit: If they're the miniseries I'm thinking of, my only grumble about them was the eyes of the Fremen - the 'whites' should have been dark blue, and not had glow-in-the-dark irises. Then they would be the eyes of the Ibad.
I agree. They did this a bit better in the second mini-series.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Finally saw The Elephant Man for the first time.
It's definitely good, but sort of a weird hybridization of Eraserhead(foreshadowing what would eventually be seen as Lynch's signature style), and the Handicapped-Guy-Beats-The-Odds-genre. I don't think I've seen another Lynch film that was so forthright about hammering a rather trite moral message into the viewer.
Not that I fault anyone for taking issue with the mistreatment of John Merrick, but that's kinda the point. There aren't many people in the modern era who are gonna stand up and say "No, actually, I think degrading the disabled for fun is just fine!"
And it was hard not to think that the actress' introduction of Merrick to the audience at her play wasn't at least a little bit patronizing. Though I suppose in an era when freak-shows WERE generally viewed as just harmless entertainment, such a gesture might seem radical.
[ 30. April 2016, 17:38: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
The Elephant Man is brilliant.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Oh yeah, I'm not gonna argue that it's anything but superb, cinematically speaking. I'm just not sure what sort of point, if any, it was trying to make about the physically different, and how effectively it may or may not have done that.
At one point in the story, someone opines that having all the wealthy high-society folks come to visit Merrick in the hospital isn't so different from having people pay to see him in the freak show, but this line of thinking isn't really pursued much after that.
Except that we ARE apparently supposed to find it offensive when all the lower-class pub denizens pay the night porter to take them in to gawk at and ridicule Merrick. Obviously, deliberately humiilating someone is different than having polite chitchat with them, but it's still interesting how this distinction was drawn so clearly along clsss lines.
Full disclosure: I have long been suspicious of David Lynch's social and political outlook. I think he's pretty reactionary. The Norman Rockwell of horror films.
That said, he did produce what for me is pretty much the creepiest(in a good way) image in any horror film I've seen, "Bob" crawling through the girl's window in Fire Walk With Me. Actually, that whole film is pretty amazing.
[ 01. May 2016, 15:42: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
At one point in the story, someone opines that having all the wealthy high-society folks come to visit Merrick in the hospital isn't so different from having people pay to see him in the freak show, but this line of thinking isn't really pursued much after that.
I think it is - isn't he later captured by a circus and exhibited until the doctor rescues him?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
At one point in the story, someone opines that having all the wealthy high-society folks come to visit Merrick in the hospital isn't so different from having people pay to see him in the freak show, but this line of thinking isn't really pursued much after that.
I think it is - isn't he later captured by a circus and exhibited until the doctor rescues him?
That's not quite the chronology.
He's in a freak show at the beginning of the film, until the doctor pays the freak-show manager to take him to the hospital for study, and then blackmails the manager to stop him from getting Merrick back. The doctor than shepherds Merrick's intorduction into London's elite society.
The manager later kidnaps Merrick from the hospital, puts him back in the freak show, and takes him to the continent. He is then released by the other performers, and makes his way back to England, where he is again taken in by the doctor.
The climax of the film has Merrick being introduced at the performance by the actress, and applauded by the crowd. As far as I can tell, this scene is meant to be taken straight-up, ie. we're supposed to be happy that he has been welcomed back into English high society.
[ 02. May 2016, 06:38: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Finally saw Battleship Potemkin, about forty years after being slightly freaked out by turning on the TV early one Sunday morning and witnessing THAT scene, out of the blue.
Yeah, no question, it's good. Though, not the kind of subject matter I usually take to with any particular zeal, so I was glad that it was as short as it was. Actually, I think an hour and 15 minutes would be a good length for a lot of films to limit themselves to.
[ 08. May 2016, 17:50: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Trumbo is a deeply unsatisfactory film, which valorises the communist targets of McCarthyite blacklisting while never raising the hard questions.
Why did people like Dalton Trumbo give their allegiance to Stalin in 1943 in light of obscenities such as the Ukraine Famine, the Great Terror and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and subsequent rape of Poland?
Sure, the USSR was fighting Nazism, but only because it was forced to, and at the outset of hostilities in 1941 had a far worse record of mass murder.
How could people like Trumbo deliver moralistic lectures about the threat to civil liberties in the US, while giving their allegiance to a country where they barely existed?
Why are we pressured to feel sympathy with the blacklisting of Hollywood writers and actors, while the deaths of millions of innocent victims (which are not offset by the execution of Ethel Rosenberg, tragic though it was) liquidated by the regime they supported go unmentioned?
Figures such as Malcolm Muggeridge, who resolutely exposed the Ukraine Famine AND gleefully ridiculed McCarthy, showed it was possible to take a consistent and decent liberal democratic line across both phenomena.
This film, by contrast, is a cowardly and dishonest.
Saw it last night.
For what it's worth, there are serious left-wingers who object to the whitewashing of Stalinism by critics of McCarthyism. Granted, the WSWS is Trotskyist in orientation, so obviously they have good reason to hate Stalin and his followers.
Anyway, yes, I agree that, in analyzing the moral character of someone like Dalton Trumbo, it's useful to know how far he went, post-WWII, in defending the horrors of the Stalinist regime. I also thought the script set up a bit of a strawman in having Trumbo defend Communism to his daughter with "If your friend at school had no food, would you share yours with her?" As if the sharing of food was all that members of the CPUSA in the Sralinist period were required to believe in.
That said, taken on its own terms, I thought the film was fairly interesting and well-made. It filled in quite a few of the historical blanks about the whole HUAC/blacklist era, and provided an interesting window into the world of Hollywood leftists in that period.
And I was glad to see John Wayne shown, however fleetingly, as the ridiculous chicken-hawk he was. I have elsewhere read descriptions of he was practically in tears when begging the army to be given stateside assignments during World War II.
[ 21. May 2016, 16:57: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I'm drifting through the Seattle International Film Festival as work permits.
I saw a funny Belgian film tonight: "The Brand New Testament".
God lives in Brussels with his wife and daughter. He's a cranky old man who delights in tormenting people. His daughter escapes the apartment and gives everyone the time that they're going to die.
It's funny, with some wild and poetic scenes
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
99 HOMES
Fairly engaging social drama/thriller, implicitly set during the 2000s mortgage-meltdown, about a man who goes to work for the real-estate agent who foreclosed on his own home. Michael Shannon does a turn as an upscale corporate villain, which is a bit of a switch for me(I've usually seen him case as marginalized misfits).
Well-made, holds your attention, etc. If you like films based on currect socioeconomic issues, you might want to check it out.
[ 04. June 2016, 17:23: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Sorry, that should say "...cast as a marginalized misfit".
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
I have just raved about a new New Zealand film over on the NZ/Oz thread in All Saints. If you loved the scenery in Lord of the Rings, this is a film not to miss. A boy and his foster father (Uncle Hec - played by Sam Neill) on the run from Social Welfare (Child protection) and some nasty hunters. Some animals killed for food make it a bit bloody, but there is little violence apart from one fight. There is even the appearance of a huia , which, considering they have been though by most people to be extinct for 50 years. is quite amazing (yay Weta Workshop).
It's called Hunt for the Wilderpeople and I've already seen it twice.
I've also discovered there is a small boutique cinema 20 minutes walk from home, so I foresee more movie watching, possibility starting with
Love and Friendship. I wonder why the makers decided to correct Jane Austen's spelling of the title, I hope it isn't an indication of too many other changes.
Huia
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
HIGH RISE
Film adaptation of the only J.G. Ballard novel I have ever read, about an apartment tower descending into Goldingesque savagery and chaos.
The movie includes a lot of annoying add-ons that I don't recall as being part of the original plot, eg. the wealthy people on the top floors live like fake aristocrats, which does not really fit the period in which the story takes place. Eevan allowing that they're make-believe aristocrats, I don't think that was really a trend in mid-70s UK, was it?
Also, a rather ham-handed attempt at the end of making the whole thing into a metaphor for Thatcherism, even though the original story was set in the mid-70s, and the theme didn't seem like an attack on unbridled captialism so much as an attack on an over-organized society.
Judging by what I read on wikipedia, mine is a minority opinion on this. Still, I honestly can't say I'd recommend it, unless you're absolutely starved for thought-provoking cinema and will settle for anything.
[ 05. June 2016, 17:04: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
After all these years I finally watched 'When Harry met Sally.'
OK, it's as romcom, but what a pair of self-absorbed, self-obsessed...
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
I finally saw Easy Rider, how's that for a blast from the past.
I knew how it ended, so that wasn't a shock, but it was still a chilling reminder of human intolerance for the "other", and capacity for violence.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I finally saw Easy Rider, how's that for a blast from the past.
I knew how it ended, so that wasn't a shock, but it was still a chilling reminder of human intolerance for the "other", and capacity for violence.
One little thing that's always kinda bugged me about that film is how Hanson, the lawyer played by Jack Nicholson, says "This used to be a nice country. What happened?" But the rural racism and intolerance that they encounter are presumbaly things that have been part of American culture for a long time. (And were almost certainly worse back in the days of slavery etc).
The line would make more sense if the film portrayed rural America as bucolic, and then the characters drive into a big city somewhere, and encounter slums, pollution, general urban blight etc.
Or is the line meant to represent Hanson's own naivete about the past? Still, you'd think an ACLU lawyer would be someone who is aware of racism and intolerance in the American south.
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
I hadn't picked up on that, but now thinking about it, I think it's a reflection of naivitie in general, the longing of people to always look back to a Golden Age which isn't now. Just as today we look back on those "simpler, kinder days of yore", before all this violence and hatred, and forgetting that really it was pretty much the same way back then too.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Thanks for the opinion. Glad to hear another viewer's interpretation of that line. Yes, the "misguided nostalgia" reading is not without merit.
Anyway...
To ol' D.H. Lawrence...
[ 19. June 2016, 09:09: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
No spoilers here. All I will say below is what what you will know as you decide to rent and view either picture (never saw trailers for either).
Probably many saw the 2014 movie "Wild" where a woman played by Reese Witherspoon walks the West Coast Trail in the USA in a self-discovery kind of way and sorts herself. We saw this a year or so ago. But---
-- we saw from Netflix the movie "The Way" (2010) on the weekend, which focusses on an older man played by Martin Sheen who comes to collect the remains of his son played by Sheen's real life son Emilio Estevez from a Spanish village at the start of the Camino de Campostella.
Of the two, The Way moved me, and I felt comforted by it. Put in my place, where my sorrows of June (I posted about them here) were prodded in my perception into a more eternal understanding of the centuries of purpose and meaning from loss. Wild seemed more an adventure story to me in contrast. It may be my seasonal and situational vulnerability to The Way which gives me this opinion.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
The Nice Guys. Pretty entertaining comedy/thriller about two P.I.-types looking for a missing woman in late-70s LA.
The plot is pretty much a maguffin, but one that ties in to topical issues and controversies of the time, eg. automotive pollution, the buregoning adult-film industry etc. If you like period pieces that reference that particular time and place(more or less the same as Boogie Nights, though nowhere near as ambitious), this is probably worth a look.
[ 09. July 2016, 18:55: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Youth.
Robert Altman meets Terrence Mallick, in the bargain bin.
Michael Caine and Harvey Keitel are two old friends of artistic bent, on vacation together in the Swiss Alps, with an ensemble cast of other quirky characters seeking something or other. Paint-by-numbers poignancy ensues.
Near the beginning, we see a Buddhist monk meditating, and someone remarks that he's always trying to levitate, but never does.
SPOILER
Guess what he does at the end.
(I seriously debated whether or not that warranted a spoiler.)
In fairness, this has apparently been getting some good reviews. Presumably from critics who have Kahlil Gibran posters on their walls. (Actually, I kinda like KG myself, but Footprints woulda been too religious for my purposes.)
[ 11. July 2016, 16:14: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
I went to see a very good Kiwi picture last weekend: The Hunt for the Wilderpeople. It is about of a smart, rebellious, and creative kid named Ricky, lost in the foster system. By luck he gets placed in the perfect home for him with a couple on the fringes of the bush away from the temptations of the city. Bella is very out-going and affectionate and her husband Hec is hardworking and taciturn.
But things take a turn and Ricky and Uncle Hec wind up dodging the child (cough) protective people and a whole slue of search and rescue people for months in the bush. Just hearing Paula, Ricky's case worker, snarl her motto "No child left behind!! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
" when she can't haul in Ricky is priceless. If it comes your way, I recommend this film.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
I just watched The Bold Caballero (1936) with Robert Livingston. Quite the oddity. It is a Zorro movie, albeit possibly one of the least known.
So the character of Zorro was introduced in 1919 in Johnston McCulley's "The Curse of Capistrano." Douglas Fairbanks bought the film rights and made The Mark of Zorro in 1920. It was big success--so big that future re-issue of "The Curse of Capistrano" would use the title "The Mark of Zorro." Possibly, it also inspired McCulley to take pen in hand to write "The Further Adventures of Zorro" in 1922. This is pure speculation. McCulley, in his lifetime, wrote at least a dozen series characters and so he may have intended to return to the character anyway, even without the movie. What is clear, though, is that he adapted certain mannerisms that Fairbanks gave the character into subsequent stories.
Fairbanks then did a sequel, not based on any McCulley story, in 1925 with Don Q, Son of Zorro.
McCulley wrote more Zorro stories between 1931 and 1935. And then came The Bold Caballero. This movie was the first sound version of Zorro...and the first in color as it was originally issued in Technicolor. To understand how odd that is: in 1940, when the more famous The Mark of Zorro with Tyrone Power was made, they made it in B&W. Big productions like Gone With The Wind (1939) were done in color, but it is hard to understand why they spent the money to present The Bold Caballero in color. In fact, for all future re-issues of the film, the studio only released a B&W version (which is what I have on DVD).
Now, like any classic movie fan, I was contemptuous of the attempts to "colorize" old B& W movies. But for The Bold Caballero I would make an exception--it is supposed to be in color and restoring that color to it would not be offensive to me. But as it is, nobody is stepping up to do that. Or even issue the movie on a decent DVD. The copy I have is given as an "extra" on a DVD of a documentary about Zorro (and a remarkably bad documentary at that!). That gives you an idea as to how much this movie is ignored!
Still the movie has its points. Zorro has been fighting the evil German-accented Commandante in Santa Cruz (he admits that he is from Austria, to explain away the accent). A new governor arrives--which would take power away from the Commandante. The territory is given to the governor and his descendants. The Commandante has the new governor killed and the blame put on Zorro. The result? The governorship of the territory goes to the governor's descendant--his daughter Isabella. She vows vengeance on Zorro while being wooed by Don Diego, recently arrived from Mexico.
You can probably write the rest of the plot from there.
It is not a great film, and I can understand why it is largely forgotten today, particularly in light of the later Tyrone Power film. But it is still an enjoyable bit of nonsense. If you can keep yourself from thinking about the plot too much, it is not a bad way to spend an evening.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
Double post, but, hey, it has been over two weeks. Last night I watched Lost Horizon (1937, I think) with Ronald Colman. It is the restored version. I was struck by the speech of the High Lama explaining the motivation for creating Shangri La--in these days of individual acts of terrorism (as well as of religious extremists destroying cultural treasures), the speech is remarkably prophetic: quote:
It is the entire meaning and purpose of Shangri-La. It came to me in a vision, long, long ago. I saw all the nations strengthening, not in wisdom, but in the vulgar passions and the will to destroy. I saw the machine power multiplying, until a single weaponed man might match a whole army. I foresaw a time when man, exalting in the technique of murder, would rage so hotly over the world, that every book, every treasure, would be doomed to destruction.
Followed by:
quote:
Look at the world today. Is there anything more pitiful? What madness there is! What blindness! What unintelligent leadership! A scurrying mass of bewildered humanity, crashing headlong against each other, propelled by an orgy of greed and brutality. A time must come my friend, when this orgy will spend itself. When brutality and the lust for power must perish by its own sword.
The Lama goes on to explain that Shangri La's way of life is "based on one simple rule: Be Kind!" And then the speech ends with the hopeful:
quote:
Yes, my son; When the strong have devoured each other, the Christian ethic may at last be fulfilled and the meek shall inherit the earth.
Let us hope that we all find our Shangri La.
Posted by jedijudy (# 333) on
:
Daughter-Unit and I celebrated her birthday today, and as part of the festivities, we saw Star Trek Beyond.
We were very excited to see the movie and were not disappointed. There were several references to some of the other ST movies: The Voyage Home, Generations and Insurrection. There were some things that reminded us of the ST Voyager series, also. There's a heart warming tribute to Leonard Nimoy also, which was very moving to me, at least. I am, after all, one of his honorary Grandchildren. ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
The only complaint we had may have been a problem of the theater. The music and sound effects were louder than the dialogue, which made it difficult to follow some of what the characters were saying. I guess I'll just have to watch it again at a different theater...maybe IMAX 3D?
We were sad as we thought about not having Mr. Chekov (Anton Yelchin) any more. May he rest in peace. ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
I Just saw Star Trek: Beyond today too, and I agree with pretty much everything JediJudy said. I did think the movie had some plot holes, but I didn't notice them during the movie as it kept pulling me along. It was a lot of fun. And it is very sad we shall be seeing no more of Checkov.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I saw the new Ghostbusters. The movie had a reverse of typical rating; a considerably more positive review by critics than fans. I went in thinking this was due to misogyny and rabid, dork fandom of the original. I was correct. I walked out of the movie with a very positive view of the actors and the story in general. Afterward, I compared it in my head to the original and read reviews by the critics. And there are valid criticisms, it is not as good a movie as the original. But certainly better than Ghostbusters II. The actors were all very good, my favourite being Kate McKinnon's Holtzmann And the weakest being half of Chris Hemsworth's performance. It is not the same script as the original, and there are two key plot points that make this just a good, fun film instead of the classic that the original is. An extra 10 or 15 minutes devoted to addressing those could have made this film much more worthy of the canon.
Still, well worth seeing for a light-hearted laugh.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Regarding Star Trek: Beyond I thought it a cracking film as well. I think all three of the reboots have been excellent films, and while not perfect, they are as good as the best of the previous films. With the exception of Wrath of Khan. I do like how they continue to develop the characteristics of TOS crew into the new actors, Chris Pine even begins to sound more like William Shatner.
I do, however, wish Abrams would lose the bloody lens flares, though they are much reduced in this installment.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
After all these years I finally watched 'When Harry met Sally.'
OK, it's as romcom, but what a pair of self-absorbed, self-obsessed...
I think you're right, Leo. Apart from a few memorable scenes -- I love Billy Crystal getting caught singing show tunes by his old girlfriend and Meg Ryan looking off camera to the director when he starts ad-libbing the "too much paprika," scene -- it doesn't work well in the romantic half of the rom-com. We're left wondering if they've just settled for each other so they have dates for New Year's Eve. Meg Ryan is so talented, she played several different funny parts in the warmhearted, Joe and the Volcano, but she did a string of films where she acts so bitchy throughout that we wonder what the guy sees in her and quit rooting for the romance before it's over. French Kiss, for example, was just awful.
Now Reese Witherspoon is being wasted in a similar fashion. I agree with No Prophet that The Way is far better than Wild which doesn't have much point beyond showing Reese in more sad sex scenes than we ever wanted to watch. I read the book, too. Still sort of tedious.
Lil Buddha, thanks for the Ghostbusters, review. We've wanted to see it but the reviews have made it sound like a total dud. I always disliked Kristen Wigg on SNL because most of her stock characters were based on mentally ill or deformed people, but I thought she was okay in Bridesmaids and I like the other actresses.
That reminds me, I saw Bachelorette a few weeks ago on TV. Evidently it came out about the same time as Bridesmaids and was overshadowed. I thought Bachelorette was funnier, and had more heart. I loved Rebel Wilson's part.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
The Fog Of War. Basically, clips from an interview with Robert McNamara, padded with old news footage.
Maybe it's just me, but I wasn't quite buying what I guess some people assume to be the set-up of "Is he a tormented, guilt-ridden soul, or a cold-blooded sociopath?" For the most part, the things he said were what I'd expect someone with his career history to say.
I do remember watching a Larry King interview with McNamara back in the 90s, when he was doing the media rounds and trying to salvage his reputation by making penance for his role in the Vietnam War. At the time, I thought he was a little too casual about confessing his sins, especially in a confrontation with a caller whose borther had died in the war. The movie didn't really add anything to that, though.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Errol Morris's doc style is intriguing, though. He basically has some gizmo set up that allows the subject to look him in the eye during the interview while making it read as if the subject is looking the viewer in the eye when the film is presented. And he has his subjects pause before they respond so he can thouroughly edit himself out of the interview.
Spike Lee is on my list of good filmmakers, but I think he is one of the great documentarians ( in my book) because he really took on board the clean efficiency of Morris's approach while developing his own visual style out of it. But watching a Morris doc really help you see the power of telling a story with faces and camerawork.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Errol Morris's doc style is intriguing, though. He basically has some gizmo set up that allows the subject to look him in the eye during the interview while making it read as if the subject is looking the viewer in the eye when the film is presented. And he has his subjects pause before they respond so he can thouroughly edit himself out of the interview.
There were actually a couple of points in The Fog Of War where you could hear Morris' voice asking the questions, and it was interesting, because he did sound genuinely outraged. ("But hadn't we tried to invade Cuba a few years earlier?!") Until I read the wiki article about the film, I thought the interragator was standing in the same room as McNamara.
One thing I like about what I've seen of Morris is that for the most part he seems willing to allow the films to go where the subject matter takes them, and doesn't seem to be editing things to push his agenda along.
In The Thin Blue Line, there is a scene where a white woman uses a racial slur while talking about an interracial couple who had some involvement with the story, and Morris leaves it in, even though the woman is essentially on the same side of the debate as Morris is. A lot of directors would probably have tried to avoid using that footage, for fear of tainting their case by association.
And in The Fog Of War, I didn't get the impression that he was trying for any sort of Gotcha moment with McNamara. The closest was the scene comparing bombed Japanese cities to American ones, but since McNamara admits that he's probably a war criminal anyway, it's not really manipulation of the material.
I also like Spike Lee, but I don't think I've seen one of his documentaries. Thanks for the heads up.
[ 10. August 2016, 16:21: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
I spent this past weekend at the Capitolfest movie festival in Rome, NY. This was my third year in attendance. The facility itself is still a wonderful old (but restored) movie palace first opened in 1928 (although what you see today is the preservation of the more “modern” facelift the theater had in 1939). The theater still contains its original Möller theatre organ, one of only four such organs to still be in its original installation. It has been restored with all its bells and whistles. Literally. It is awesome to hear when played by somebody who knows the instrument.
The films this year were made between 1913 and 1937. The featured star was Gary Cooper (his films came from 1926 to 1930). Most of the 1913 offerings were Edison “Kinetophone” shorts (usually 5 or 6 minutes in length). These were Edison’s efforts at making sound movies (to put this in perspective, “The Jazz Singer” would not hit the theaters until 1926). The Edison process was complicated and did not work well, with the sound frequently slipping out of synchronization with the film. Fortunately, that was not a problem with these restorations, which had the film and sound digitally transferred. The shorts themselves are not of any great artistic merit, but it was still interesting to see early efforts at sound films.
One of the oddest entries at the film festival was a showing of Cary Cooper’s first starring role in 1927’s “Arizona Bound” (he had done bit parts and supporting parts before then). Why is that odd at a festival featuring Cooper? Because we only have about 90 seconds of that film (fortunately showing Cooper). The rest is lost. Think about that for a second. Gary Cooper is certainly one of the “big name” stars of movies...and yet we no longer have his first starring role. Support film preservation, folks!
Speaking of which, while Congress itself does little useful, the Library of Congress (“LoC”) does quite a lot of work in film preservation. Many of the films shown at this year’s festival had been restored by LoC, with others done by UCLA Film and Television Archive. It always tickles me that whenever the LoC or UCLA logo shows on the screen, the audience at the festival gives them a round of applause. Without their efforts, a lot more of our film heritage would be lost.
Having said all that, I have to admit that this year’s festival came off a little flat for me. In my prior two years, I saw films that I liked so much that I am still looking to see if I can get DVD copies (sadly, while LoC does great work in restoring, they do not issue DVDs of their restorations--somebody else needs to step up to do that). This year, while many of the films were fun to watch, I have no desire to own any of them. For example, there was “Dude Ranch” (1931), an amusing comedy. A dude ranch is losing customers because nothing exciting is going on. The owner hires an acting group to pretend to be outlaws, etc. to fool the guests. And then some real criminals show up. Eugene Pallette is in the cast and I don’t think he ever gave a bad performance. A Gary Cooper offering, “The Texan” (1930) was a Western based on an O. Henry story--so filled with lots of surprise twists and a good ending. “The Poor Rich” (1934) with Edward Everett Horton and Edna May Oliver (with support from Andy Devine) was another decent comedy offering. These are films worth seeing, even if not worth owning.
Bing Crosby starred in “Too Much Harmony” (1933). A musical, of course. Thin on plot and mainly just a chance to have Bing sing. But it served as a nice balance to another film that was NOT part of the festival but was being shown (at a small extra fee) at the Capitol’s digital theater next door--a new restoration of “King of Jazz” (1930). This was a musical revue (in Technicolor!): no plot, only a little dialogue and lots of musical numbers. The focus was on Paul Whiteman and his band--which included a trio called “the Rhythm Boys” one of which was Bing Crosby, just getting started. Again, a film I am glad I took the time to see, but not worth owning.
Last year, the festival showed an "all-black" film, "The Flying Ace" (1926), which was excellent. This year we were shown another so-called "race film" with an all-black cast, "Eleven P.M." (1928)--and it was a mess. Twenty minutes in I wanted to ask whether anybody had any idea what was going on in the movie. After the film, I learned I wasn't the only one. It starts with a reporter arranging to meet a group of people at 11:00pm--and then that storyline is apparently dropped as we focus on a dying criminal giving somebody money to raise the criminal's child on the straight and narrow. The money is stolen, the kid becomes a criminal, meanwhile another woman gives birth to a daughter, then the mother's life ends up in the gutter, while the daughter grows up to be menaced by the criminal child of the guy who died, and then somebody else dies and comes back as a dog....yeah, and I am making it sound far more sensible than it was.
The featured star for next year’s festival will be Fay Wray. Presumably they will not be showing “King Kong” (too obvious). She has been in films in each of the three years I have gone to the festival (“Pointed Heels,” “The Border Legion” and “The Texan”) so presumably those will also not be shown again. Still, she has quite a number of other films to choose from. It will be fun to see what they come up with.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
There were actually a couple of points in The Fog Of War where you could hear Morris' voice asking the questions, and it was interesting, because he did sound genuinely outraged. ("But hadn't we tried to invade Cuba a few years earlier?!") Until I read the wiki article about the film, I thought the interragator was standing in the same room as McNamara.
One thing I like about what I've seen of Morris is that for the most part he seems willing to allow the films to go where the subject matter takes them, and doesn't seem to be editing things to push his agenda along.
<snip>
I also like Spike Lee, but I don't think I've seen one of his documentaries. Thanks for the heads up.
He spoke? Wow, he must have been het up. Only time I heard Morris's voice in the docs I have seen was when he let his recording run for the Big Reveal in The Thin Blue Line, which made sense in terms of avoiding accusations of editing.
But again, your comment makes me think Lee is a big old Morris fanboy, as the only time you hear his voice in the entire six hours of his epic "When the Levees Broke" is when he cuts off a Gretna resident who is describing the virtual arsenal he had "ready for anything" when he was waiting for the Katrina residents crossing the Crescent City Connection. After he noted the fifth or sixth assault weapon, Lee gasped, "Who'd you think you were going after, Bin Laden?"
Well, there is a moment when you hear Lee and crew cracking up when a Yclosky homesteader breezily speculates that the arrival of her FEMA trailer depends on her giving the right official a blow job.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
lilBuddha, thanks for the thumbs-up for the new Ghostbusters. I hope to catch that this weekend.
Now, everybody run, don't walk, to see Florence Foster Jenkins (there's a preview in the link). Meryl Streep is flawless, Hugh Grant does a fine job, and the surprise to me was Simon Helberg (Howard Wolowitz on Big Bang Theory) is excellent as Madame Florence's accompanist. I didn't know that Helberg is an accomplished pianist. The film is based on the true story of a wealthy philanthropist and music patron during the 1930s and 40s, whose singing is beyond awful. (How Streep pulls that off is something to behold.) It's also a lovely story about the complicated relationships in her life.
Well worth seeing!
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Thanks, Mamacita! A friend and I were just trying to decide whether to go see it. I love all three leads. I've always said, "Howard," was the funniest of the "Big Bang," cast.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
I've been a fan, if that's the right word, of Florence Foster Jenkins for almost 40 years. I haven't had a chance to see the movie yet, but I've been psyched about it ever since it was announced. I really must see it soon.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Kelly wrote:
quote:
He spoke?
Yep. From IMDB...
quote:
Errol Morris ... Interviewer (voice) (uncredited)
He doesn't have a lot of lines, so I'm speculating that he kept his questions in just because at those particular points in the interview, he couldn't edit them out without making a hash of the continuity.
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I saw the new Ghostbusters.... I was correct. I walked out of the movie with a very positive view of the actors and the story in general.
I'm a huge fan of the original (being the annoying person who can say much of the dialog along with the film). And I thoroughly enjoyed the new version! It was a solid comedy in its own right, while also striking me as a loving homage to the original. The only thing that disappointed me was the size of the audience.
quote:
... there are two key plot points that make this just a good, fun film instead of the classic that the original is. An extra 10 or 15 minutes devoted to addressing those could have made this film much more worthy of the canon.
Would you be willing to unpack that a bit more? I'm genuinely interested in your comment.
And yeah, Ghostbusters II sucked.
ETA: As I was leaving the theatre, I overheard an earnest young woman discussing Ghostbusters As Metaphor. She was going on and on about the ghosts representing marginalized people of all kinds, and I wanted to turn around and say, "Oh, lighten up, forpetessake." But then I slept on it and ... hmmm... she could have a point....
[ 22. August 2016, 18:02: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on
:
Disney's The Jungle Book remake is released on DVD over here next week and I saw an advance copy today - it was fun but, for this admirer of Kipling's writing, a bit of a mish-mash with Disney desperate to show that they had read as many of the different stories in the two volumes as possible - what they didn't have was any sense of the place where most of the stories are set but then I suppose few people do - what amazed was the sudden appearance of high mountains, necessary for the landslide from The Miracle of Purun Bhagat - the story that reduces me to tears every time. Equating Mowgli with Toomai of the Elephants was quite a nice little touch
I was a bit dubious about Kaa, the python, being female but even more so when she turned out to be on the wrong side, a baddie! C'mon Disney, you can do better than that.
Anyway it was fun and I'll watch it again but I can do without the Bollywood style bursting into song every half-hour!
Full marks to young Neel Sethi for carrying off a difficult role almost on debut.
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on
:
I went to see Ghostbusters last night, and I had great fun! I enjoyed the cameos from members of the original cast (Bill Murray looked a bit worse for wear, though), and Charles Dance, and loved the characters.
I was probably the only person in the audience to squeek "Autons - run!" when the dummy under the theatre started to move, and I loved it when they decided they had to "reverse the polarity"!
I knew nothing about the four actresses before I went to see the film, but now I want to see more films with them.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Mamacita wrote:
quote:
Now, everybody run, don't walk, to see Florence Foster Jenkins (there's a preview in the link). Meryl Streep is flawless, Hugh Grant does a fine job, and the surprise to me was Simon Helberg (Howard Wolowitz on Big Bang Theory) is excellent as Madame Florence's accompanist. I didn't know that Helberg is an accomplished pianist. The film is based on the true story of a wealthy philanthropist and music patron during the 1930s and 40s, whose singing is beyond awful. (How Streep pulls that off is something to behold.) It's also a lovely story about the complicated relationships in her life.
Well worth seeing!
(POSSIBLE SPOILERS)
Just saw it a few hours ago. I quite liked it, but it sort of left a bad taste in my mouth, which I think might have been the point. I wasn't sure whether we were supposed to like or dislike Florence and her enablers.
On the one hand, yes, she's "signing with all her heart in it", as was said, but on the other hand, it's also the case that someone of lesser means would have been shown the proverbial door much earlier, rather than be allowed(through bribery etc) to believe that she was a talented singer.
So yes, it was sad that she was humiliated at the end, but then, she did manage to get a lot further in her singing career than would have an average working or even middle class yokel.
And, apart from all that, one aspect of the climax seemed rather non-sequitorial. It was made clear that her popularity among the soliders was based on how awful she was(ie. the old "so bad, it's good" justification for kitsch), but once she starts her performance at Carnegie Hall, they seem genuinely affronted at the poor quality of it, especially after Mrs. Stark starts in with her harangue.
It seems to me, however, that they should have been laughing and cheering right from the start, since the unintentional comedy of her performance was the whole reason they were there to begin with.
[ 28. August 2016, 17:23: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
I was a bit dubious about Kaa, the python, being female but even more so when she turned out to be on the wrong side, a baddie! C'mon Disney, you can do better than that.
I disagree, I will let Scarlett Johansson hypnotise me any day of the week.
(Code fix)
[ 29. August 2016, 08:16: Message edited by: Firenze ]
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
They were continuing what they did with Kaa in the cartoon.
Posted by Gill H (# 68) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eigon:
I went to see Ghostbusters last night, and I had great fun! I enjoyed the cameos from members of the original cast (Bill Murray looked a bit worse for wear, though), and Charles Dance, and loved the characters.
I was probably the only person in the audience to squeek "Autons - run!" when the dummy under the theatre started to move, and I loved it when they decided they had to "reverse the polarity"!
I knew nothing about the four actresses before I went to see the film, but now I want to see more films with them.
I had the same two geeky moments.
Did you stay right to the end?
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on
:
My Young Man had told me that there was a scene right at the end, so I waited, and ended up trying to explain who Zuul was to a mum and her twelve year old daughter who had stayed too.
I hope they get to do a sequel.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0