- Joined
- Jul 3, 2010
- Messages
- 49,143
- Reaction score
- 31,095
Merry christmas SMD!!
Herzog collection better have Jack Reacher.
Movies Serious Movie Discussion
- Thread starter Bullitt68
- Start date
Herzog collection better have Jack Reacher.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 54,517
- Reaction score
- 18,334
Finally got around to watching some Mizoguchi in The Life of Oharu(just about the only easy one to pickup in the UK) and was definitely impressed. I was expecting something a bit more traditional but its not only quite subtly acted when it wants to be but does feel along way down the road to modern "slow cinema". Some very atmospheric scenes within it that wouldn't feel out of place in a Tarkovsky film, I can definitely see the comparison that's made between them in terms of long takes with flowing camera work.
Guess this means I'v going to be poor picking up more Mizoguchi at a premium.
Guess this means I'v going to be poor picking up more Mizoguchi at a premium.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 42,762
- Reaction score
- 8,162
To be fair, had The Dark Knight not been snubbed, Black Panther would not have gotten nominated. There was such a backlash to the snubbing back in early 09 that academy outright changed the rules for best picture nominations and the field expanded from 5 nominees to a potential 9 or 10 and has been like that ever since.
If we were looking at a restricted field of 5 nominees, Black Panther would almost assuredly not have made the cut.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 54,517
- Reaction score
- 18,334
I'd like to think that but I have a nasty feeling it could come close to winning BP.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2009
- Messages
- 31,514
- Reaction score
- 9,066
Haven't done a mega-post in ages. But here goes!
Ended up watching two Bergman movies. From the Life of the Marionettes and The Silence.
From the Life of the Marionettes (1980) was pretty darn bad. So some guy is sexually impotent. His wife loves him but is in an open relationship to satisfy her own sexual needs. The failure to perform eventually drives him to murder since he can't get rid of the psychological guilt and depression he feels over not being able to fulfil this function. The movie presents itself as some sort of investigation into why he did it, a psychological study, basically. Unfortunately, all of this feels painfully over-dramatized and over-intellectualized. Bunch of smart-sounding words and dream-sequences and shit. It's all rather inorganic and false-ringing. So, yeah, just a psychological study that doesn't seem convincing -- and not at all interesting on any other level.
The Silence (1963) I was more ambivalent about. Having read the Wikipedia-entry beforehand, I was expecting some sort of religious movie. What I got seemed thoroughly interpersonal. A bunch of people who live in emotional isolationism, unable to connect with each other on an earnest plane (similar to the father in Through the Glass Darkly). Either because of personal barriers or lack of a common language. This feels like the most hopeless of Bergman flicks I've seen. Both the women want to feel some sort of connection (though maybe not necessarily with each other) but are unable to. You get the impression that Anna uses sex and Esther uses academia as something to fill their emotional void. Even in the end, after Esther (assumingly) has died, Anna seems set on ignoring her sister's outreach. Mostly I'm just surprised how well the son is handling all of this. He connects with Esther and doesn't seem to suffer any trauma due to his social isolationism or the neglect of his mother (maybe that's the ray of hope in the film?)
Eh, this is one of those films that I would probably have found more impressive a decade ago. Honestly, most of my impression was. "yeah, I get it". It just doesn't do much of an impact even though the movie is fine in what it is.
While I was busy ignoring my Bergman campaign, I broke into another auteur oeuvre, Jean Renoir! Honestly, I can't think of much to say about his pictures, but here goes.
The first of his films that I saw was The Southerner, which I suppose was a terrible mistake since from what I heard it's the most un-Renoir of all his films. Still, I liked it. Sort of a riff on Ford's Grapes of Wrath without the politics. Going knee-deep into a rural American family during times of poverty and migration to a new home. Nailed the human feelz, and all that.
That said, Rules of the Game was a pretty darn fantastic film. Thoroughly hilarious and thoroughly endearing. Sort-of a funny Gosford Park but done with much more theatrical-pazzaz and forward-momentum. It's one of those films that manages to both be completely invested and sympathetic towards its characters but simultaneously critical of the underpinnings of their class. The opening was great too, but kind of feels like it belongs in another (more blatantly comedic) movie.
The last Renoir film I saw was Boudu Saved from Drowning, which I suspect is one of those movies that has suffered terribly from the passing of time. It's basically some hobo who movies into a burgess family and sullies their urbane ordinance with his uncouth ways and ill-manners. I imagine it was quite shocking in its day. Today, it's just an unfunny and silly comedy. On a thematic level, it seems just to be some message about that you can't take the hobo out of the hobo, no matter how much culture you surround him with. Disappointing movie considering the qualities of the last two.
Double Indemnity didn't suck as much as @Bullitt68 claims it does, but it's no top-level Noir on any level. Honestly, it didn't leave much of an impression on me. Just a fairly suspenseful and exciting crime-story involving murdering the husband of your fling. Frankly, I thought there was better chemistry between the male leads (MacMurray-Robinson) than with the Stanwyck-MacMurray romance.
A Noir that had much more of an impact on me was Kansas City Confidential (1953). One of those really tough, hardboiled entries in the genre. In the prologue, you have the police trying to beat a false confession out of the innocent protagonist, that kind of hardboiled. What's amazing about the film is that it feels almost Leone-esque in its execution. The director has gathered together some of the striking and most shifty-looking faces in Hollywood and films them all in gritty close-ups (even got Lee Van Cleef to complete the Leone parallel!). It stumbles a bit near the ending, but definitively a hidden gem in the genre.
On the Orson Wells-front, I watched Black Magic (1949) (where he directed some scenes uncredited). The signs of a troubled production are all over this flick. There is a lot of shoddy craftsmanship (things happening off-stage, things being explained through exposition, deus ex machina galore). But when it's good it's straight-up gleaming. You can practically see when Wells takes over the reins as a director (I love how subtly unhinged the court-scene gets when they bring out the invalid actors). Cagliostro is the sort of smarmy villian Wells is great at portraying. Nancy Guild was also great in the dual-role,
Two movies that I did not just get the greatness of: The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant and Three Colours: Red. Petra Von Kant just seemed like a tad boring character-study, about how one grows emotionally dependant on other people and all its pitfalls (attraction to youth and such). It's lack of effective drama just prevented these character to ever have a hook. Maybe I'm just too divorced from the feyness of all these gay theatre-people to really be able to connect to them (the Afro-fetishism that keeps popping up in Fassbinder's movies is also pretty disgustingly depicted). In comparison, Three Colours: Red was much better, but I still have trouble seeing what is so special about these trilogy outside being really solid drama-pieces.
Most disappointing movie of this post was Outlaw King. This flick had some major positives going for it in its great historical verisimilitude and immersion (something I've always craved), not just to clothing and armour but also to things like customs and rituals of Medieval life. That's where all the effort seemed to have gone to. If you ever want to see a movie where bad directing and bad acting ruins everything, then this is the picture (there is this scene where Chris Pine is at the beach and they inform him of his brother's death and he makes the most unconvincing sad-face in history). So yeah, the movie just meanders terribly and fails to garner any momentum.
A film that I thought was really good despite its flaws was A Countess of Hong Kong (we're back in auteur-land with Chaplin now). Firstly, bullish bulldog Marlon Brando is dreadfully miscast for the role he's supposed to play. He's this upper-class diplomat but he's way to physical and gruff to embody a man of this status. The movie really needed someone who can project class and decorum (like Cary Grant). In this vein, his love-hate dichotomy with Sophia Loren just feels unsupported on his part. Loren definitively anchors the film though. Get's the classy Chaplin combination of pathos and humour going, yearning for a better life while getting stuck in slapstick comedy. Also, that moment where they just casually unveil that Brando has a wife was really damn effective.
Lastly, a few weeks ago, eminent SMC member @Cubo de Sangre asked us what our top 5 tearjerkers of all time where. Cravenly I avoided making a list. Well, if I would make that list now, then Once Were Warriors would definitively be on it. Damn that was a powerhouse of a movie! The combination of a domestic abuse drama and the whole Maori question of identity really resulted in a magnificently emotional film-experience. And the acting was just off-the-charts. I especially think of the main actresses blood-curling scream during the climactic moment. Scenes like that are just haunting. I've always held Rogy Ebert at a pretty low regard, but he's definitively correct when he wrote: "You don't often see acting like this in the movies. They bring the Academy Awards into perspective."
Theme is fantastic too
Ended up watching two Bergman movies. From the Life of the Marionettes and The Silence.
From the Life of the Marionettes (1980) was pretty darn bad. So some guy is sexually impotent. His wife loves him but is in an open relationship to satisfy her own sexual needs. The failure to perform eventually drives him to murder since he can't get rid of the psychological guilt and depression he feels over not being able to fulfil this function. The movie presents itself as some sort of investigation into why he did it, a psychological study, basically. Unfortunately, all of this feels painfully over-dramatized and over-intellectualized. Bunch of smart-sounding words and dream-sequences and shit. It's all rather inorganic and false-ringing. So, yeah, just a psychological study that doesn't seem convincing -- and not at all interesting on any other level.
The Silence (1963) I was more ambivalent about. Having read the Wikipedia-entry beforehand, I was expecting some sort of religious movie. What I got seemed thoroughly interpersonal. A bunch of people who live in emotional isolationism, unable to connect with each other on an earnest plane (similar to the father in Through the Glass Darkly). Either because of personal barriers or lack of a common language. This feels like the most hopeless of Bergman flicks I've seen. Both the women want to feel some sort of connection (though maybe not necessarily with each other) but are unable to. You get the impression that Anna uses sex and Esther uses academia as something to fill their emotional void. Even in the end, after Esther (assumingly) has died, Anna seems set on ignoring her sister's outreach. Mostly I'm just surprised how well the son is handling all of this. He connects with Esther and doesn't seem to suffer any trauma due to his social isolationism or the neglect of his mother (maybe that's the ray of hope in the film?)
Eh, this is one of those films that I would probably have found more impressive a decade ago. Honestly, most of my impression was. "yeah, I get it". It just doesn't do much of an impact even though the movie is fine in what it is.
While I was busy ignoring my Bergman campaign, I broke into another auteur oeuvre, Jean Renoir! Honestly, I can't think of much to say about his pictures, but here goes.
The first of his films that I saw was The Southerner, which I suppose was a terrible mistake since from what I heard it's the most un-Renoir of all his films. Still, I liked it. Sort of a riff on Ford's Grapes of Wrath without the politics. Going knee-deep into a rural American family during times of poverty and migration to a new home. Nailed the human feelz, and all that.
That said, Rules of the Game was a pretty darn fantastic film. Thoroughly hilarious and thoroughly endearing. Sort-of a funny Gosford Park but done with much more theatrical-pazzaz and forward-momentum. It's one of those films that manages to both be completely invested and sympathetic towards its characters but simultaneously critical of the underpinnings of their class. The opening was great too, but kind of feels like it belongs in another (more blatantly comedic) movie.
The last Renoir film I saw was Boudu Saved from Drowning, which I suspect is one of those movies that has suffered terribly from the passing of time. It's basically some hobo who movies into a burgess family and sullies their urbane ordinance with his uncouth ways and ill-manners. I imagine it was quite shocking in its day. Today, it's just an unfunny and silly comedy. On a thematic level, it seems just to be some message about that you can't take the hobo out of the hobo, no matter how much culture you surround him with. Disappointing movie considering the qualities of the last two.
Double Indemnity didn't suck as much as @Bullitt68 claims it does, but it's no top-level Noir on any level. Honestly, it didn't leave much of an impression on me. Just a fairly suspenseful and exciting crime-story involving murdering the husband of your fling. Frankly, I thought there was better chemistry between the male leads (MacMurray-Robinson) than with the Stanwyck-MacMurray romance.
A Noir that had much more of an impact on me was Kansas City Confidential (1953). One of those really tough, hardboiled entries in the genre. In the prologue, you have the police trying to beat a false confession out of the innocent protagonist, that kind of hardboiled. What's amazing about the film is that it feels almost Leone-esque in its execution. The director has gathered together some of the striking and most shifty-looking faces in Hollywood and films them all in gritty close-ups (even got Lee Van Cleef to complete the Leone parallel!). It stumbles a bit near the ending, but definitively a hidden gem in the genre.
On the Orson Wells-front, I watched Black Magic (1949) (where he directed some scenes uncredited). The signs of a troubled production are all over this flick. There is a lot of shoddy craftsmanship (things happening off-stage, things being explained through exposition, deus ex machina galore). But when it's good it's straight-up gleaming. You can practically see when Wells takes over the reins as a director (I love how subtly unhinged the court-scene gets when they bring out the invalid actors). Cagliostro is the sort of smarmy villian Wells is great at portraying. Nancy Guild was also great in the dual-role,
Two movies that I did not just get the greatness of: The Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant and Three Colours: Red. Petra Von Kant just seemed like a tad boring character-study, about how one grows emotionally dependant on other people and all its pitfalls (attraction to youth and such). It's lack of effective drama just prevented these character to ever have a hook. Maybe I'm just too divorced from the feyness of all these gay theatre-people to really be able to connect to them (the Afro-fetishism that keeps popping up in Fassbinder's movies is also pretty disgustingly depicted). In comparison, Three Colours: Red was much better, but I still have trouble seeing what is so special about these trilogy outside being really solid drama-pieces.
Most disappointing movie of this post was Outlaw King. This flick had some major positives going for it in its great historical verisimilitude and immersion (something I've always craved), not just to clothing and armour but also to things like customs and rituals of Medieval life. That's where all the effort seemed to have gone to. If you ever want to see a movie where bad directing and bad acting ruins everything, then this is the picture (there is this scene where Chris Pine is at the beach and they inform him of his brother's death and he makes the most unconvincing sad-face in history). So yeah, the movie just meanders terribly and fails to garner any momentum.
A film that I thought was really good despite its flaws was A Countess of Hong Kong (we're back in auteur-land with Chaplin now). Firstly, bullish bulldog Marlon Brando is dreadfully miscast for the role he's supposed to play. He's this upper-class diplomat but he's way to physical and gruff to embody a man of this status. The movie really needed someone who can project class and decorum (like Cary Grant). In this vein, his love-hate dichotomy with Sophia Loren just feels unsupported on his part. Loren definitively anchors the film though. Get's the classy Chaplin combination of pathos and humour going, yearning for a better life while getting stuck in slapstick comedy. Also, that moment where they just casually unveil that Brando has a wife was really damn effective.
Lastly, a few weeks ago, eminent SMC member @Cubo de Sangre asked us what our top 5 tearjerkers of all time where. Cravenly I avoided making a list. Well, if I would make that list now, then Once Were Warriors would definitively be on it. Damn that was a powerhouse of a movie! The combination of a domestic abuse drama and the whole Maori question of identity really resulted in a magnificently emotional film-experience. And the acting was just off-the-charts. I especially think of the main actresses blood-curling scream during the climactic moment. Scenes like that are just haunting. I've always held Rogy Ebert at a pretty low regard, but he's definitively correct when he wrote: "You don't often see acting like this in the movies. They bring the Academy Awards into perspective."
Theme is fantastic too
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 26,524
- Reaction score
- 4,550
Great minds think alike. I've been watching a ton of shit over the last week or so and was thinking about posting something in here, too. Now I'm definitely going to get on that and give your mega post some company
- Joined
- May 26, 2004
- Messages
- 3,315
- Reaction score
- 1,376
Will Ferrel’ish Fred MacMurray is badly miscast in DI, Stanwyck does not do well at all when she has to overact and witty dialogue written by Raymond Chandler (who hated this project) is really annoying. The original story by James M Cain was gritty and no-nonsense and was considered too immoral to be filmed in 40’s Hollywood. Wilder had to make it more humorous and melodramatic to get it pass production code. Too bad. I love the book. Maybe it gets a good remake someday like The Postman Always Rings Twice (also James M Cain story) did.
Stanwyck and MacMurray work really well together in Douglas Sirk’s There’s Always Tomorrow btw. MacMurray plays the role of a toy manufacturer, which suits him really well as actor.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2009
- Messages
- 31,514
- Reaction score
- 9,066
While the Nicholson version is undoubtedly better than the 40's version (it has crazy Nick after all), I don't even think that one is a very good movie.
Hey, a movie that I liked Stanwyck in, they exist after all!
I had forgotten about that one. Yeah, I agree, they're really good in that one. When I first saw it, I thought to myself that this has to be some sort of arch-example of emoting being more effective in black-and-white. Then I was more Sirk movies and realized it's probably just the Sirk-effect instead
- Joined
- May 19, 2014
- Messages
- 7,419
- Reaction score
- 1,085
@europe1 stop watching Bergman films I haven't seen!
As for Renoir the only of his I have is The River which I wasn't terribly impressed by on the whole.
Outlaw King I thought was surprisingly decent, automatically better than Braveheart because it had least approaches historical "accuracy" and authenticity, at least to a certain extent, there's still a lot of inaccurate stuff. But better than you usually see, it at least captures a somewhat realistic tone. But I also agree that the acting was a bit wooden which let the whole thing down, plus it seems strange to end when they did and not bring events up to Bannockburn (I suppose they will make sequels?). Though I guess it was either take that approach, or try and cram several years of events into one film.
And I agree about Once Were Warriors, plot wise it's all a bit melodramatic but it manages to hit so hard because of the performances, as well as the dichotomy between Maori culture and history and their modern poverty and urban degradation as you say.
As for Renoir the only of his I have is The River which I wasn't terribly impressed by on the whole.
Outlaw King I thought was surprisingly decent, automatically better than Braveheart because it had least approaches historical "accuracy" and authenticity, at least to a certain extent, there's still a lot of inaccurate stuff. But better than you usually see, it at least captures a somewhat realistic tone. But I also agree that the acting was a bit wooden which let the whole thing down, plus it seems strange to end when they did and not bring events up to Bannockburn (I suppose they will make sequels?). Though I guess it was either take that approach, or try and cram several years of events into one film.
And I agree about Once Were Warriors, plot wise it's all a bit melodramatic but it manages to hit so hard because of the performances, as well as the dichotomy between Maori culture and history and their modern poverty and urban degradation as you say.
- Joined
- May 26, 2004
- Messages
- 3,315
- Reaction score
- 1,376
I thought Mamet’s script was spot-on. Nicholson was a little bit overwhelming as usual and the movie was maybe directed slightly over the top to accomodate his presence. Anjelica Houston was a treat as the lion tamer.
Hey, a movie that I liked Stanwyck in, they exist after all!
For a Sirk movie it’s almost down-to-earth until that one delirious shot ofI had forgotten about that one. Yeah, I agree, they're really good in that one. When I first saw it, I thought to myself that this has to be some sort of arch-example of emoting being more effective in black-and-white. Then I was more Sirk movies and realized it's probably just the Sirk-effect instead
a toy robot plunging down.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 19, 2014
- Messages
- 7,419
- Reaction score
- 1,085
Tonight I watched (because it was showing on Mubi)
The Virgin Spring (1960)
Another brilliant Bergman film. With typical subtlety it tells the story of a father's revenge after his young daughter is raped and murdered on her way to deliver candles to church. Initially unbeknownst to both of them, her killers end up seeking refuge in the fathers farm; when the act is discovered naturally things go as you might expect...The story was adapted from a 13th century Swedish folk-song (which I only found out after), and it has the same kind of elemental feel as a folk song. It is a brutal film, though the action (which occurs very rarely) is pretty tame by our current standards. Of course that is not important as despite being a story of revenge the drama is of the existential and religious variety. Although the film is quite sparse, even simplistic in it's plot and style, it is very rich psychologically and emotionally. It is an extremely moving depiction of family trauma and religious faith (and doubt) in a medieval Sweden teetering on the brink between Christianity and Norse Paganism.
The Virgin Spring (1960)
Another brilliant Bergman film. With typical subtlety it tells the story of a father's revenge after his young daughter is raped and murdered on her way to deliver candles to church. Initially unbeknownst to both of them, her killers end up seeking refuge in the fathers farm; when the act is discovered naturally things go as you might expect...The story was adapted from a 13th century Swedish folk-song (which I only found out after), and it has the same kind of elemental feel as a folk song. It is a brutal film, though the action (which occurs very rarely) is pretty tame by our current standards. Of course that is not important as despite being a story of revenge the drama is of the existential and religious variety. Although the film is quite sparse, even simplistic in it's plot and style, it is very rich psychologically and emotionally. It is an extremely moving depiction of family trauma and religious faith (and doubt) in a medieval Sweden teetering on the brink between Christianity and Norse Paganism.
- Joined
- May 19, 2014
- Messages
- 7,419
- Reaction score
- 1,085
Il Gattopardo (The Leopard, 1963)
The rich visuals and opulence of the Sicilian nobility masks the fact that this is a society in decline. It traces the fortunes of the Prince of Salina during the Italian Risorgimento and Visconti perfectly captures this moment of crisis and change, sensed by Don Fabrizio. It is not a bleak film - of course there is also an enthralling love story - but there is a pervading melancholy and, like the book, it ultimately possesses a very elegiac tone.
It does a fabulous job of bringing the book to life on the whole. Stylistically it is incredibly rich as I said, and the scope of the film is incredibly epic, even operatic. But I would also say that that's the only reason I would take a few points off. In a sense it's an unfair criticism, but when the adaption from a book is so literal then inevitably it is going to fall short in terms of representing the inner nature of the main character, Don Fabrizio. There are a few scenes with slightly clunky dialogue as they try to render audibly to the audience what is represented as thought in the book. But on the whole a great film, I am a huge fan of the book and I loved this as well. Although his lines were dubbed, Burt Lancaster puts in a great performance as Don Fabrizio, his mannerisms and expression convey the character very well for the most part
The rich visuals and opulence of the Sicilian nobility masks the fact that this is a society in decline. It traces the fortunes of the Prince of Salina during the Italian Risorgimento and Visconti perfectly captures this moment of crisis and change, sensed by Don Fabrizio. It is not a bleak film - of course there is also an enthralling love story - but there is a pervading melancholy and, like the book, it ultimately possesses a very elegiac tone.
It does a fabulous job of bringing the book to life on the whole. Stylistically it is incredibly rich as I said, and the scope of the film is incredibly epic, even operatic. But I would also say that that's the only reason I would take a few points off. In a sense it's an unfair criticism, but when the adaption from a book is so literal then inevitably it is going to fall short in terms of representing the inner nature of the main character, Don Fabrizio. There are a few scenes with slightly clunky dialogue as they try to render audibly to the audience what is represented as thought in the book. But on the whole a great film, I am a huge fan of the book and I loved this as well. Although his lines were dubbed, Burt Lancaster puts in a great performance as Don Fabrizio, his mannerisms and expression convey the character very well for the most part
- Joined
- May 19, 2014
- Messages
- 7,419
- Reaction score
- 1,085
- Joined
- May 19, 2014
- Messages
- 7,419
- Reaction score
- 1,085
Tonight I watched
Further Beyond (2016)
A fascinating essay film in the tradition of Welle's F for Fake. Ostensibly dealing with the making of a biopic about the life of 18th century Irish tenant farmer-cum-Chilean viceroy Ambrose O'Higgins, it looks variously at the nature of film-making itself, of History, time, memory and the things which make up the Self. Extremely meta in it's deconstructionist approach, but never cold or overly intellectual. Pushes the boundaries of what film and so-called documentary film is and can be.
Further Beyond (2016)
A fascinating essay film in the tradition of Welle's F for Fake. Ostensibly dealing with the making of a biopic about the life of 18th century Irish tenant farmer-cum-Chilean viceroy Ambrose O'Higgins, it looks variously at the nature of film-making itself, of History, time, memory and the things which make up the Self. Extremely meta in it's deconstructionist approach, but never cold or overly intellectual. Pushes the boundaries of what film and so-called documentary film is and can be.
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2017
- Messages
- 2,394
- Reaction score
- 2
Thank you good sir.
- Joined
- May 19, 2014
- Messages
- 7,419
- Reaction score
- 1,085
Orlando (1993)
Watched this last night because it was on Mubi. It's an adaption of Virgiana Woolf's novel from 1928, about a young aristocrat (and poet) born as a man at the time of Elizabeth I and who lives for centuries, changing sex into a man along the way as they meet some of the key figures of English literary history. I've not read it, but it sounded quite interesting and apparently is largely a satire.
As for the film, I found it be quite clever and witty (presumably borrowing from the tone of the book), but other than a few particularly stunning scenes it just didn't leave a strong impression. I wouldn't say it was a bad film by any means and the themes of gender, equality, identity are worth pursuing (particularly at the time the book was written, though I suppose current day politics explains it's sudden reappearance...), but considering it's a tale of an individual whose life spans four centuries I actually found a lot of it quite shallow, particularly it's treatment of it's historical figures. The cinematography was very good, but I just didn't connect with it. I suppose the book has more time to delve into the themes it raises, perhaps it's just difficult to adapt, or perhaps there are other's who would get more out of it. Interesting enough, and far from a bad film, but just seemed to be lacking something.
Watched this last night because it was on Mubi. It's an adaption of Virgiana Woolf's novel from 1928, about a young aristocrat (and poet) born as a man at the time of Elizabeth I and who lives for centuries, changing sex into a man along the way as they meet some of the key figures of English literary history. I've not read it, but it sounded quite interesting and apparently is largely a satire.
As for the film, I found it be quite clever and witty (presumably borrowing from the tone of the book), but other than a few particularly stunning scenes it just didn't leave a strong impression. I wouldn't say it was a bad film by any means and the themes of gender, equality, identity are worth pursuing (particularly at the time the book was written, though I suppose current day politics explains it's sudden reappearance...), but considering it's a tale of an individual whose life spans four centuries I actually found a lot of it quite shallow, particularly it's treatment of it's historical figures. The cinematography was very good, but I just didn't connect with it. I suppose the book has more time to delve into the themes it raises, perhaps it's just difficult to adapt, or perhaps there are other's who would get more out of it. Interesting enough, and far from a bad film, but just seemed to be lacking something.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 19,784
- Reaction score
- 0
@Bullitt68
I finished Hannibal and it's great for sure but season 3 was very uneven for me. The Hannibal in the cage, and bringing Will back was money of course, but the pale imitation of Manhunter was more annoying than interesting. Armitage was flat out terrible, and the blind woman interactions made me want to fast forward.
I did like the ending however. Fuller is currently pitching a season 4 to networks, so we'll see where this goes. I definitely want to see Will dealing with all this, but I hope they dont go full homosexual relationship, and instead keep it as a dependency based on psychopathic empathy
I finished Hannibal and it's great for sure but season 3 was very uneven for me. The Hannibal in the cage, and bringing Will back was money of course, but the pale imitation of Manhunter was more annoying than interesting. Armitage was flat out terrible, and the blind woman interactions made me want to fast forward.
I did like the ending however. Fuller is currently pitching a season 4 to networks, so we'll see where this goes. I definitely want to see Will dealing with all this, but I hope they dont go full homosexual relationship, and instead keep it as a dependency based on psychopathic empathy
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 54,517
- Reaction score
- 18,334
Really though I think as with the Dekalog Kieślowski shifts in style considerably across those films. Red is I would say him in his more straight forward dramatic mode where as personally I think his greatest strength is when he combines that with more atmospheric visuals as in Blue, The Double Life of Veronque or Dekalog episodes like 1, 3 and 5.
I finally stopped being cheap and bought Criterions version of Edward Yang's A Brighter Summers Day and definitely wasn't disappointed. Its even longer than Yi Yi clocking in at very close to 4 hours yet I would say is probably a better starting poitnt having a more energetic story(60's school gang drama) feeling almost a bit mini series like. Again it really is outstanding visually, Yang definitely has his own style but I think more than a little Tarkovsky influence here in long atmospheric takes.
Honestly whilst I'v picked up on some hype for years I'm supprised Yang doesn't get more of it. I kind of expected Hong Kong style drama with a bit more ambition from him with the praise being more relative to a lower standard but not a bit of it, just based on those two films I think he's up their with the greats.
Last edited:
