You Were Never Really Here was quite the experience
Had a Kubrick vs Scott runoff watching Barry Lyndon and The Duelists back to back, result inconclusive.
I actually think Scott has an edge in terms of sheer beauty of compositions
I don't really find fault with Ryan O'Neil as whilst no its not a eye catching performance its never intended to be.
Your blasphemy has me wanting to demand satisfaction...
If by not "eye catching" you mean he doesn't have any standout scenes, then I've got to point out that gut-wrenching scene with him at his son's deathbed recounting his favorite war story for him, trying to do it with the same jubilant gusto but failing to keep his profound sadness at bay. Nobody was taking the Best Actor Oscar away from Jack that year, but on the strength of that scene, O'Neal at least deserved a nomination. Plus, his non-verbal acting was on point from start to finish. I love that pathetically dejected shot of him watching Nora dancing with Captain Quin. And he also non-verballed the fuck out of that duel scene with Bullingdon at the end.
Had a Kubrick vs Scott runoff watching Barry Lyndon and The Duelists back to back, result inconclusive
the first 45 mins and the last 15 mins really do look like a series of landscape and interior paintings
Kubrick is arguably more striking
with an excellent performance from Keitel, Kurbick having a kind of grim impersonal inevitability about events. In that respect I don't really find fault with Ryan O'Neil as whilst no its not a eye catching performance its never intended to be.
Dramatically you could argue there the opposites I spose, Scott's film conventionally stronger
Scotts I think some of the best sword fighting
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.
(an actual painting or a still from Barry Lyndon? The answer may shock you!)
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.
You Were Never Really Here was quite the experience
Which one would you say there? the second duel that ends really quickly/unexpectly
Just rewatched Ordinary People to see if it holds up.
Everybody is really good. Strong performances. A somewhat standard tragic-death/survivor's guilt story, elevated by the dialogue and small, impactful moments of characterization.
Mary Tyler Moore and Donald Sutherland are incredible as a couple whose marriage is crumbling. Hutton is believable as a psychologically tormented teen.
Judd Hirsch is excellent as a therapist.
The story and character arcs are all well defined and clear without hitting you over the head with messaging; it leaves each character's morality and state of mind in turmoil.
It's really an acting showcase at its core but it's also an emotionally impacting film. As you said, the performances of all four of those lead actors were phenomenal. Mary Tyler Moore is extremely impressive in that because if you've ever watched reruns of Dick Van Dyke Show or Mary Tyler Moore show, the persona she typically played was nothing like the character she embodies in Ordinary People. Much is asked of her in that role and she delivers. It's also a tough one because it's a character that ends up outraging the viewer to an extent while you have to also empathize with her and understand the nature of what she is going through.
Hutton is great. The scenes between Hutton and Hirsch (such an awesome actor) are among my favorite scenes in the film. This one particularly brings the feels.
I remember reading some critic's assessment of Hirsch where he said that the guy went from theater to TV to film and accolades would follow wherever he went. I'm a big fan of Taxi and Hirsch is a legend as far as I'm concerned. Glad he's still around and still acting.
Sutherland, in turn, is terrific in that film. There's a lot of subtle suffering and nuance to his performance. Always found it odd he was the only one not nominated for an academy award.
you were always my favorite fuck, @Ricky13.and of course, my perennial hatefuck, @HenryFlower.
Watched a bunch of stuff last night in virtually random order. I rewatched Step Brothers, and @ufcfan4, I'm still not crazy about it. The laughs are sporadic and they're not very hard. Obviously, I love them watching Above the Law, which gets it a ton of bonus points, but it just doesn't have the hilarity of Anchorman or Talledega Nights. Lower tier Ferrell for sure.
I also rewatched Big Daddy. That's a pretty damn good movie. It doesn't have the hilarity of Happy Gilmore or The Waterboy, but it's very funny and it's got a lot of heart. And fucking hell Leslie Mann was (and, to be fair, still is) hot as shit. The cleavage game was on point in that movie.
I finally got around to watching The Intern. De Niro is the fucking man, obviously, but I was surprised at the quality level of that movie. No masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but De Niro's character was well-conceived and well-written (that he was well-acted goes without saying), he and Anne Hathaway worked well together, and the story wasn't half bad even though it kind of fizzled out by the time it got to the lame (non-)ending.
And then I ended the night with a rewatch of the always and forever awesome Road Trip. From the second I saw the first trailer for that movie, I knew that I'd love it, and I still do. Tom Green killed it ("Unleash the fury!"), Seann William Scott killed it ("Did I say two fingers? Better make it three"), Andy Dick killed it ("Would you like a fresh towel? Maybe you could roll that up and smoke it"), and holy shit did Fred "The GOAT Angry Dad" Ward kill it. On the strength of Secret Admirer and Road Trip, Fred Ward is the Fedor of angry movie dads. And his delivery of the line "I'm not mad" is one of my favorite line deliveries, both on its own and in context, in any movie ever
I spose a testament to how far every ruble
but the theme of national suffering is pretty familiar and easy to pick up on
I do have to say in visuals Tarkovsky has both western rival beat here for me, maybe the monochrome photographer in me taking(especially for a lot of the woodland scenes)
oldschool Hollywood grandeur of the bell casting