Movies Serious Movie Discussion

I thought Silence was pretty woeful, and although I am not religious it's the sort of shit I assumed I would be into. My original thoughts will be on some older edition of SMD.
 
I'v been tempted to give it a try but Marty's recent form and such "passion projects" generally not turning out well has held me back.
 
On Friday I watched

Calibre (2018)
vaughn-jack-lowden-marcus-martin-mccann-in-calibre-credit-anne-binckebanck-_-netflix-cropped1.jpg

Something fucked up happens to two lads on a hunting trip in a remote area of the Scottish Highlands, leading to some extremely tense situations... Don't want to give anything specific away, and it's not the most innovative film ever made anyway, but despite the somewhat predictable plot, the strong performances from the two leads and effective use of mood and tone meant that it was actually a very good film. I just stumbled on to it on Netflix, big fan of Martin McCann and it sounded intriguing so gave it a go. Recommend you guys do the same!

This wasn't bad.
 
i agree with everything in this post.

on will ferrell, i can only tolerate him as a supporting character. for my money, his best movie roles were in "wedding crashers" and "old school." when he appeared out of the shadows in "wedding crashers" i was legit excited. you put him in lead and you get a handful of very good scenes but he tires me out after about 8 minutes of absurdity.

i watched "the intern" on a lark in a hotel and enjoyed every minute of it. liked it way more than i would have expected. i really liked deniro's relationship with hathaway.

"Supporting character?" that's a Will Ferrell oxymoron..it's like I don't know you anymore.

1st Banana Free Spontaneo Old Milwk On his Impetus.

 
Some are born great
Some achieve greatness
Some have greatness thrust upon them
 
I'm with Kubi. One of his definitive masterpieces.

Though Duelists is a splendid film as well.



I would levy this stronger against Barry, though obviously, it's a fitting description for both movies.

Barry_Lyndon31.jpg

(an actual painting or a still from Barry Lyndon? The answer may shock you!)



lyndon3.jpg




Quit beating around the bush, moreorless. We all know who the true Oscar winner in both those films were.

The horny horse who was determined to upstage Carradine performance





This seems more like a more clear-cut win for Kubrick for me. Scott's film never reaches the dramatic heights Barry plays at. When Barry junior dies and everything afterward until the movie ends are some of the finest pieces of forlorn emotions ever put on screen. In comparison, you don't feel the same sort of sadness when Carradine has to leave his family and duel Keitel for one last time. (though in Duelists, the emotional punch is more Keitel's reaction to finally losing and forced to live by the terms Carradine sets down).

Also, from memory, I would also say that the Duelists don't exactly a bullseye with the execution of some of its story-moments. I'm thinking primarily of when Carradine goes to argue for Keitel being released. You sort of get the impression that he's doing this out of his own compulsions of honor, bringing a new dimension to the very concept. Keitel is the one who hounds after it -- who savagely demands satisfaction, ever forgetting about the cause of their original dispute and is merely being driven by the mad addiction of holding a vendetta. Carradine, however, acts as if he's opposed to all this. However, when he finds out Keitel is imprisoned and set for execution, he finds himself compelled to pull the strings. It shows that -- in a certain manner -- he's entrenched in this vendetta just as much as Keitel is, forced by own his honor to honor their rivalry even as he sees its madness and futility.

This is what I get Scott was going for. However, the emotions land rather haphazardly. It's not a perfect execution, not a perfect communication. Or that's what I remember thinking from watching the film 5 years ago.




It has the strange honor of possessing maybe the only realistic sword fighting scene in the history of film.


This is post and insight is a clear example why Kubrick is the greatest director and visionaries of the century. What he did, the depths he went to get these images and films. I put him for the longest time behind Orson Welles, just for the genius. They were just opposites in the ability to get done what they wanted to do. I don't think they're comparable in that sense. Welles blazed so much shit and got so much distortion and fingers in the ass at every turn, it's amazing his name's on anything. It's a contention I have hard time with, because fuck. Could you imagine either with a David Lean canvas and table spread. Kubrick in Barry Lyndon, my least favorite, in that you don't bring your girl to watch a Kubrick movie, but what's worse, after she gave in to fuck ya, it's still going in the background and she missed the cinematography, ...and

to be honest, Paper Moon, two fucking years earlier. Ryan O'Neal in Kubrick, I never got it. It works, what the fuck was he looking for, stucco, the only thing I could ever imagine was human paint, Gainsborough without a casting call. The lead as visual scenery for the camera, for the shot. Prostitution, not action. Johnny Bravo. It was way better than that, but as a fan Kubrick can wring you stupid in the processes.
 
meat fist clearly home alone with a fridge full of kokanee.
 
We were a sticky for damn near a decade and it's not until we're buried in the back pages of Mayberry that @Drunken Meat Fist finds us and makes a long overdue appearance. I don't think that there's much that I can recommend you that you haven't come across in your movie travels save for something new, which leads me to ask: Have you seen Ashby?



Not a masterpiece, but it's got a lot of charm, the kid's great, and, of course, Mickey Rourke's in it (with Eric Roberts' daughter, too, how cool is that?). The trailer makes it seem way more upbeat and quirky than it actually is. It's more of an offbeat coming-of-age tale than it is an upbeat teen flick. And it's a great character for Rourke that he plays perfectly.
 
Just back from the cinema. Saw:

7fe9a6_5025ac8e05a64488800e365e71f74cb6~mv2.webp


A documentary which takes the premise of a mother who took her son to be kneecapped as a starting point to look at post-conflict NI (Creggan estate in Derry to be precise). It's quite an intimate film in that it follows this one particular family (the O'Donnells) and the impact the punishment shooting has on them, including the son (Philly O'Donnell) and his paranoia and suicidal thoughts, the guilt of the mother etc. But it doing so it also explores the wider impact of paramilitary activity in estates like Creggan and the psychological issues of the post-Troubles generation (among whom suicide is unusually high). Basically the core question is how could a mother take her own son to be shot? What are the factors that could create that kind of scenario? Some of it is pretty obvious to people from here, but it's still raises a lot of important questions.
 
Watched Upstream Colour and I'm afraid to say I fall on the side that considers it mostly empty pretension. I mean yeah the details of the plot to just about make some vague sense but more in a kind of Matrix Sequels, who cares? fashion given the lack of weight behind them. That might be somewhat forgivable if the film really were the atmospheric visual extravaganza I'v heard it talked up as but honestly bar 1-2 shots in the woodland I didn't find it very impressive here at all, shadow depth of focus and lens flair do not genius make.
With you on that one. I liked some of what it was going for but it seem a little overdone.

Carruth has been pretty quite since, is that right?

Just back from the cinema, where I saw:

First Reformed (2018)
first-reformed-schrader-633x356.jpg


First impressions are that it was incredible, a modern masterpiece for sure. The plot concerns Ernst Toller (Ethan Hawke), a middle-aged pastor at an small, old church in upstate New York and the crisis of faith he experiences. He is haunted by the death of his son in the Iraq War and suffers from physical ailments (which later appears to be cancer), worsened by his apparent alcoholism. Although the specifics are not immediately clear, almost immediately you are given the impression that this is a man struggling with his faith and "the sickness unto death" (Kierkegaard is quoted later in the film) despite his role as a pastor. He begins to keep a journal to help, which are given in the form if voice-overs. I don't want to spoil the film by going into too much detail about what actually causes his "dark night of the soul", but he is asked by one of the women (Amanda Seyfried) in his church to speak with her husband, a radical environmentalist who has recently been released from prison and who wants her to abort their child. He has lost all hope and she asks Toller to speak with him. Soon a number of events occur which have a profound impact on Toller - leading him to question his faith, and deal with issues like mans search for meaning, pollution and global warming, the spiritual and profane, and so on. It's a very powerful film, one that leaves you with lingering questions after you leave the cinema.

The first thing I said to my friend was that it was like Diary of a Country Priest crossed with Winter Light with some Taxi Driver thrown in. It is very much in the mould of the first two films, stylistically it is very austere, it treats it's subject matter with seriousness, and there are several plot points (mainly early on) which are undoubtedly supposed to refer the view back to Winter Light. I doubt it was accidental. The aspect ratio of 1.37:1 would also seem to call back to those films. In some sense it updates the religious films of Bresson, Bergman, and Dreyer as well, for our own time period. The element of a diary/journal in a film like this obviously invites comparison with Diary of a Country Priest. The fear of nuclear annihilation in Winter Light becomes fear of global warming and the destruction of planet earth. The film thus seems to suggest that although the context is different, the anxiety and despair is the same. Not to say it is an utterly hopeless film, it deals with these complex issues but it is, of course, never fully resolved. The ending is extremely dramatic as well, I imagine some viewers might be polarised by it...but I found it very refreshing. The sort of film I just love to see in the cinema.

I caught this one too.

The ending was.. whoa.
 
With you on that one. I liked some of what it was going for but it seem a little overdone.

Carruth has been pretty quite since, is that right?.

It does feel like an overblown film school project to me full of random bits of symbolism that never seem to amount to very much. Actually what comes to mind most in terms of criticism is a lot of what I'v heard aimed at Tree of Life, not that I agreed with much of it in that case but I think its far truer here. basically the same kind of style but with far less substance and flair to it.

I'v not seen it but I spose I could understand a bit more of the hype behind Primer coming out in 2004 if its similar to this if only as a a pointing towards indepenant US/UK cinema going in a somewhat new direction. Now that you have the likes of Glazer and Lanthimos around though delivering such films with flair and substance why bother with a 3rd rate version with neither?

Actually pursaded me to watch Under The Skin again for the first time in a good while last week and it just towers over Carruth. I mean yes it demands some attension and thought but the plot is very easy to follow and dramatically it shows you the difference between subtly and merely being obtuse for the sake of it. Visually as well I think its on a far higher level than Curruth's art school clichés, X-file refferences and shallow focus for the sake of it. I mean it would have been very easy to just fall back to Johansons sex appeal for scenes like the "black room" but they end up being some of the more distinctive this decade IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Saw this earlier this afternoon -

The Rider (2018)
Qzv=S64vfmGvWbj6q55JPqV1siG4FyGgnkKvQWd2RXJux1537697920475.jpg


An excellent film. It's about a young rodeo star, Brady Blackburn, who is forced to question his sense of purpose in life after a severe accident which left him with a metal plate in his skull. Brady is told he should never ride again, but being prevented from doing what he loves, combined with the social pressures of being a 'cowboy', being tough and 'getting back in the saddle' begin to play on his mind. Interestingly enough, the film is mostly all true and actually happened to the lead actor Brady Jandreau (his real father and sister also star alongside him). Drawing from his real life experiences obviously allows Brady to really inhabit the role. The film is very restrained, but provides a subtle and moving look at Brady and his family, as well as the reality of the rodeo circuit. It seems to sit somewhere between a docudrama and a biography, while also containing elements of ethnography in it's portrayal of the masculine 'cowboy culture' of the real American West. It is very touching and very human without being mawkish or condescending. Visually, it also looked fantastic; full of sweeping vistas and dusty plains. It reminded me of Days of Heaven at certain points and you can't pay a much higher compliment than that.
 
Saw this earlier this afternoon -

The Rider (2018)
Qzv=S64vfmGvWbj6q55JPqV1siG4FyGgnkKvQWd2RXJux1537697920475.jpg


An excellent film. It's about a young rodeo star, Brady Blackburn, who is forced to question his sense of purpose in life after a severe accident which left him with a metal plate in his skull. Brady is told he should never ride again, but being prevented from doing what he loves, combined with the social pressures of being a 'cowboy', being tough and 'getting back in the saddle' begin to play on his mind. Interestingly enough, the film is mostly all true and actually happened to the lead actor Brady Jandreau (his real father and sister also star alongside him). Drawing from his real life experiences obviously allows Brady to really inhabit the role. The film is very restrained, but provides a subtle and moving look at Brady and his family, as well as the reality of the rodeo circuit. It seems to sit somewhere between a docudrama and a biography, while also containing elements of ethnography in it's portrayal of the masculine 'cowboy culture' of the real American West. It is very touching and very human without being mawkish or condescending. Visually, it also looked fantastic; full of sweeping vistas and dusty plains. It reminded me of Days of Heaven at certain points and you can't pay a much higher compliment than that.

Saw the trailer for this a while back and thought it looked very good. Thanks for the review. Will definitely look out for it.
 
I watched Presumed Innocent. It was an effective, entertaining film which reminded me of another thriller of that time period that I really enjoy No Way Out in that the lead character is assigned to lead a search for a killer only to end up being the prime suspect. The key difference of course being that we are well aware that Costner's character is innocent of the crime and root for him as he must stay one step ahead of the fabricated investigation to find a patsy to take the fall. In Presumed Innocent, we don't really know whether or not Ford killed his colleague for a large portion of the film.

I liked Ford's work in the film. It certainly had the typical elements of a Harrison Ford performance, but I respected that it was a quite different character than he often plays- more introspective, more flawed and vulnerable. But the real scene stealer to me was the awesome



Man that guy was a great actor. Really bummed me out to read his biography and be reminded of how young he was when he died. Awesome actor gone before his time.

One of those people who was wholly capable of very different genres.
 
Just finished

Cromwell (1970)

Creomwelll.jpg


Attempts to tell the story of the English Civil War and the foundation of the Cromwellian Protectorate. The main problem is that it is entirely and woefully inaccurate. Cromwell is the driving force behind literally everything that happens, whatever the reality. e.g. At the start he is included amongst the Five Members who were to be arrested by Charles I which immediately precipitated the Civil War (he was not), he is also shown as instigating Pride's Purge and forcibly removing opponents of the New Model Army from Parliament (he did not, the clue is in the name, it was Colonel Pride). There are other things that are simply wrong in terms of chronology, what battles happened when, who was doing what at what time etc. but I guess you can allow for some things on the basis that the film can't be overly long. They even cut out the entirety of the Second Civil War, but as I say you can forgive some condensing if you're trying to fit such a long period of time into 2 hours.

But I suppose that's the problem, the film tries to do too much and condense a long, complicated period into an overly simplistic story. That's the main issue for me, it's portrayal of Cromwell as a champion of the poor and oppressed, fighting for liberty and the founder of English democracy is just ludicrous. Then of course there is the fact that it portrays Cromwell as retiring to a quiet life in the country after the Regicide is pretty despicable considering the fact that in reality he was fighting a brutal campaign in Ireland and massacring civilians.

Mostly pretty meh. Harris was intense but pretty uninspiring as Cromwell. There's a lot of shouting. Though I did very much like Alec Guinness as Charles I, most of the best scenes involved him. For one he seemed more like an actual human being.

For me the films greatest quality is it's visuals. Athough the plot is severely lacking it does a great job bringing the period to life. The battles, debates in parliament, the trial and execution of the King were all stunning. So I did enjoy watching it for that reason alone, it does a good job when viewed as something like a moving painting.
 
Last edited:
Feel like I am the only person keeping the smd going lately lol, have the rest of yous not been watching any films

Anyway, today I watched:

The Magus (1968)

The+Magus.jpg


Well...I liked it on the whole, but I thought it was an extremely uneven film. It is an adaption of a book by John Fowles (who apparently hated the film, despite writing the screenplay?). I have not read it yet, though I had planned to, perhaps I should have read the book first. From what I have gathered the film has an extremely poor reputation.

In any case, it concerns a young man (Nicholas Urfe) who travels to Greece to take up a post as an English teacher. Soon, he is unwittingly dragged into a series of strange mind games by the apparent owner of a local villa. It is not clear if the man is a magus, a con-man, a director, a psychiatrist, or what. In typical post-modern style there is a blending of fact and fiction, questioning what is real and what is not. This actually makes it quite interesting and, for the initial portion of the film, this sense of mystery and intrigue was actually very compelling. There are some interesting scenes, and while the dialogue can be a tad overwrought it's not afraid to deal with serious themes. In a sense the entire film is completely and utterly pretentious - the plot, the style the dialogue, the set, and so on - but in a way that I actually found very appealing (up to a point). Perhaps that says a lot about me lol.

However, while I liked a lot of it I feel that the film basically falls apart in the final act. The psychological mind-games, and most of all the plot twists, become too much. Though of course I won't spoil any specifics. But, hey, it is postmoderist fiction so what can you expect, I would imagine the book can afford to go into more depth than a 2 hour long film. And while I wasn't totally satisfied it's certainly not as bad as some of the things I have read would suggest (e.g. an infamous Woody Allen quote).

At 'the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time' to quote from the T.S. Elliot poem used in the film. That basically sums it up, the ending brings little or no resolution but I would say it's a exploration worth doing.
 
Back
Top