Movies Serious Movie Discussion

[Rimbaud82]

I think the basic problem with In the Mouth of Madness is that it promises you incomprehensible evil and said incomprehensible evil turns out to be Jurgen Prochnow and two snarling Dobermans.

It's the classic problem of making Cosmic Horror. How do you depict something reputed to be inconceivable to man? The end-result is bound to fail to live up to that standard, meaning that any menace -- no matter how well-built it is -- will dilapidate.

Yep I definitely agree.

 

[moreorless87]

You do get the "ancient ones" of course which I think is actually one of the more effective lovecraftian scenes but I'd agree it does seem to be floundering around a bit before that point and might have been better served by staying a little more grounded.

The look of the film feels rather divided as well for me, I mean post Cundy/Big Budget Carpenter never quite had the same visual flair for me but there was still a certain grungy atmospheric look to his work were as here it seems a mix of that and mid 90's slickness. That "businessmen in offices and hotels with low contrast lighting" look that became too common, I wonder whether the "favourite colour was blue" scene was actually Carpenter taking the piss out of the trend in such films to give them a cool/blue tint.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Lesson From a Dead Language (1979)

You know you've come across an obscure film when there is only one single review on Letterboxd (and another solitary review on Mubi).

Set during the last months of the First World War, the film concerns a young officer of the Austro-Hungarian Army, Alfred Kiekeritz, who has been discharged from active military service due to his advanced consumption. He has been stationed in Turka to wait out the end of the war. This is a remote outpost in the Eastern part of Galicia, modern day Ukraine. In this town, very little happens apart from the odd supply train passing through, en route to some other destination. There are still a few duties which need attended to - mainly the guarding of Russian prisoners - but other than that there is nothing terribly important to occupy our protagonist. This is a thoroughly provincial setting. At one point a travelling circus rolls through but is attacked for it's 'degeneracy'. Kiekeritz is staying in a Jewish hotel in the town, where he must contend with bedbugs in addition to his tuberculosis and the oppressive, crushing boredom. Surely not the ideal setting to wait out your final days.

At this remote outpost on the edge of the Empire, Kiekeritz begins to suffer from hallucinations and delusions. He has feverish dreams recalling the glorious battles and military excitement of his past, along with other strange visions. As he nears death our young officer seemingly searches for some kind of meaning in his existence. An intellectual and an aesthete, he also begins to collect religious art - Christian icons and a small statue of Artemis. At one point he is invited to attend a seance, which delivers a chilling prediction…

It's a slow moving film, but manages to hold your attention throughout. Partly due to the excellent performance from the main character. Overall an interesting, subtle film which looks at death and life from a philosophical perspective. Takes a fairly nihilistic tone, but this is all grounded in the setting of the First World War.

 

[Rimbaud82]

The Stone Cross (1968)

This is a film of rugged poetry. Here we have an old Ukrainian peasant, Ivan, toiling in vain on his remote, mountainous farm struggling internally with his decision to emigrate to Canada in search of a better life. His land is barren and rests on a steep hill. This is a hard existence, and yet it is home. Leaving promises a better form of life, but it means leaving behind his friends and family, his homeland, it's soil and traditions and perhaps more than anything, his memories...

I found that the general theme invited some comparison with one of my favourite films The Emigrants (1971), but this is very different tonally. In one brilliant scene early on our peasant protagonist literally curses the camera as it looks down on him from above, with the camera - and thus the viewer - standing in for God himself. At night, after working his rocky fields, Ivan does not go to seek solace in his loving wife but instead sits around drinking strong spirits (horilka) with his buddies.

It is a stark, somewhat austere drama but one which ultimately possesses a strong humanistic element, grounded in it's cultural setting. A wonderfully lyrical depiction of this local culture and way of life thus frames a tale of psychological turmoil. Turmoil which is connected to the pain of leaving. This is driven home through the beautiful black-and-white cinematography. Of course, religion is another crucial aspect to the film, as it is for these peasant people, and this particularly comes to the fore in the films wonderful finale. A great film.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Beauty and the Beast (1978)

Well this is a bit different from the Disney film...

Much darker and psychologically intense than the children's version of the tale. The basics of the story are of course this same, so it does still play out like a fairytale. However, in this version the beast isn't simply frightening to look at, he must constantly repress his bestial urges to kill the woman he is falling in love with. In this respect the beast was portrayed almost like a schizophrenic, constantly at war with the voice in his head lusting for violence. Interestingly the beast is a bird-like monster, unlike other versions.

Tonally the film is very much grounded in the trappings of gothic horror, including a rather spooky soundtrack. The cinematography and visuals serve to enhance this dark gothic feeling as well. All in all does well to create a very foreboding atmosphere and breathe some new life into a story that is incredibly well known. Really interesting take on the story.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Suspiria (1977)

Wonderfully stylish horror from Dario Argento. This one is all about the aesthetic, generally light on real scares (though a few grim practical effects) but just a strange, unsettling tone throughout. Definitely a really interesting film, the brazen artificiality of everything - in terms of the set design and colour palette, even the performances - drew me back to Expressionism as a style of horror.

 

[Rimbaud82]

A Story of the Forest: Mavka (1980)

A beautiful, ethereal adaption of a play written in 1912, itself based on Ukrainian folklore. It's the typical kind of tragedy you would expect from a folk tale or from mythology. The basic plot is that Mavka - a forest nymph who dwells in the woods - falls in love with a simple country boy called Lukash after hearing him playing the pipes. The two are happy for a time. However Lukash's mother forces him to marry Kilin, an older woman, instead of Mavka. The Spirit of the Forest curses Lukash as a consequence of this infidelity, turning him into a wolf...

Stylistically the film is extremely dreamlike, pure poetry. Although a tragedy, it's very beautiful visually, filled with shots of dense forest, colourful flowers and dappled sunlight. It possesses a kind of a restrained intensity throughout. Behind this tragic romance there are several themes and conflicts which are brought out, some which remain relevant today. That of female independence vs repression as represented by the character of Mavka for instance. However, the main thing that came across to me was that of environmentalism and a concern for nature. This certainly is contained with the folkloric origins of the story - that of a world of forest spirits, the supernatural, dwelling just on the edge of human life. These spirits are not inherently evil or malicious, but extremely temperamental and easy to offend if one damages the forest or oversteps their bounds. The forest thus acts as a kind of numinous space, which frames this tragic love story.

In terms of the visual approach, the editing and the narrative flow I immediately was struck by a degree of similarity to Sergei Parajanov's masterpiece, Shadow's of Forgotten Ancestors (1965). I wasn't aware until I looked up this director afterwards, but he was actually the cinematographer on that film! So the similarities are clearly unsurprising. This doesn't reach the levels of Parajanov, though I have since read some of his earlier works might do. It can be a tad vague at points, though I suspect some of that could simply be to do with a lack of immersion in the folklore which it draws from. In any case the film contains it's own potency and is extremely beautiful, though tragic.

 

[moreorless87]

Suspiria (1977)

Wonderfully stylish horror from Dario Argento. This one is all about the aesthetic, generally light on real scares (though a few grim practical effects) but just a strange, unsettling tone throughout. Definitely a really interesting film, the brazen artificiality of everything - in terms of the set design and colour palette, even the performances - drew me back to Expressionism as a style of horror.

To me it almost ends up feeling like a music video to the Goblin soundtrack which was actually composed before the film was shot with Argento heavily involved. It seems much more concerned with building up an unsettling atmosphere than it does individual shocks and as you say playing on tropes in a way that verges on parody.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Onibaba (1964)

Has a few particularly ecstatic moments and the ending is quite strong, but I didn't love this as I was hoping I would. The story sets an intriguing premise - in feudal Japan two women, mother and daughter-in-law, survive in a war-torn wilderness by murdering samurai and bartering their possessions for food. They soon learn that their son/husband has been killed in battle. However, the man who delivers this news takes a liking to the younger woman, thus introducing an erotic charge to the relationship between the two which threatens to destroy their partnership. Yet, despite being able to appreciate a lot of the components, I just didn't quite connect with it.

It is a film about the horrors of war, or rather the damaging effects of war. We never see any battles, only the human aftermath. Much is implied rather than shown. Along with the erotic components - which are sweaty, almost violent themselves - it is a film fundamentally about human beings with only the slightest hint of the supernatural towards the end. It is more psychological. Yet overall I felt very disconnected from the film, apart from a few great scenes here and there. It is a very narrow, taut drama but for me almost minimalist to a fault.

I do have to say that visually it is quite spectacular though. This story is framed by the long susuki grass fields where it takes place. The grass is so all-encompassing it almost overpowers everything else, threatening to swallow the characters entirely. There are some outstanding shots of this unique setting. It's a really fascinating aesthetic.

Far from a bad film of course, but perhaps my expectations were too high going in.

 

[Drain Bamage]

Suspiria (1977)

Wonderfully stylish horror from Dario Argento. This one is all about the aesthetic, generally light on real scares (though a few grim practical effects) but just a strange, unsettling tone throughout. Definitely a really interesting film, the brazen artificiality of everything - in terms of the set design and colour palette, even the performances - drew me back to Expressionism as a style of horror.

Watch the new one too! Its very good, and very different

 

[Rimbaud82]

Watch the new one too! Its very good, and very different

Have heard some say it's brilliant, my mate told me to watch it too, but others - @europe1 chief among them - say it is complete shite.

 

[Drain Bamage]

Have heard some say it's brilliant, my mate told me to watch it too, but others - @europe1 chief among them - say it is complete shite.

Its a polarizing movie for sure.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Schalcken the Painter (1979)

Another high-point of the BBC ghost stories. This one is an adaption of a story written by Sheridan Le Fanu in 1839 (Le Fanu may be familiar to those who have seen the Dreyer classic Vampyr (1932), also based on a story of his). This one weaves Le Fanu's dark gothic tale with elements of docu-drama detailing the work of the real Schalcken, culminating in a chilling conclusion. With it's blurring of documentary and fiction I found that it seemed to follow in the lineage of Peter Watkins (most obvious his Edvard Munch from 1974). Though I understand that the director had produced similar works for other artists dating back to the 60s. The use of natural candlelight also brought Kubrick's Barry Lyndon (1975) to mind.

The story follows a young seventeenth century Flemish painter Godfried Schalcken, who forsakes love for ambition, but discovers that there is still a terrible price to pay for his choice.

It is an intriguing tale which brilliantly brings the sights and sounds of the Dutch Golden Age to life, and which explores the inherent horror of unfettered greed and ambition, particularly when they suppress true love and emotion. This also feeds through into some of the erotic undertones present in the film - brothels and nude models mostly - which might also be read through a feminist lens. All in all it is an interesting film which creates a wonderfully gothic atmosphere with a pervasive sense of dread, transcending it's documentary trappings in the process.

 

[europe1]

but others - @europe1 chief among them - say it is complete shite.

Me avoiding Rimbaud82's trolling attempts like a champ

To prove that I'm superior to Rimbaud82 in every way possible -- I'll now beat him at his own game.

A Man of Integrity is a banned Iranian film that was smuggled out of the country. As you no doubt have noticed, I have already won 50 arthouse points (20 for Iran. 30 for a banned film). The film primarily deals with petty-scale corruption in Persian society, centring on a man who stalwartly cannot allow himself to engage in malversation (see, malversation, that's a pretty complex word. Another reason why you should follow europe1 posts instead of that Wind Shakes the Barely guy. Can you ever remember HIM using a word like malversation? I think it's pretty clear that I am the bigger-brain guy!)

Anyway, it's an interesting movie in that way that it has very pronounced strengths yet also some niggling weakness. In form and picture, the movie is very beautiful, always framed and shoot in pulchritudinous ways. It also accomplishes what a moralistic movie should accomplish, that is to say, raise a moralistic ire, want to make you see the world improved. The acting is also very good. I know so because I have a degree in evaluating acting in Iranian.

Moreover, the main acting-guy has these really bulging eyes that are quite striking. They pop from his nogging almost like a depressurized fish. Funnily enough, his wife possesses the same bug-eyed look. So it's good that they have this super-subtle backstory about them bounding over their bulging eyes in there. Quite romantic.

On the bad side, there are some instances that I would find... melodramatic in there. (That is to say, situations happen to the protagonist instead of being the result of how he interacts with the world.) For example, at times the protagonists and his waifu runs into non-muslim and their woes -- and while there is no doubt that Iran is shitty towards those that don't subscribe to their favourite Middle Eastern deity, these moments also very much feel like podium-preaching from the director's part rather than being integrated with the character study going on.

Also, more pronouncedly, the ending... is strange. Almost like they were missing a reel or something. Suddenly things start coming without explanation. Considering the movie was smuggled out of Shah-town, this may very well be the case. But if it isn't -- then it's another example of a Director really needing to stretch the story-logic so to fit his designated theme into the narrative.

Also, there is a really weird segment about halfway through about some guy babbling about how Suspiria is like one of the best horror movies ever and sheer sensory experiences in film and is somehow even better than Argento's other masterpiece Profondo Rosso but I'm sure that has nothing to do with me authoring this post.

 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

So I've been in a weird dead zone the last week or so. I'm primed to write the last part of my PhD thesis but I also have to move to a new room in the place where I'm staying this weekend. I've opted not to start writing because I don't want to lose my momentum once I get going. That means I've been doing nothing but watching the clock waiting until I can move. Once I move, I'm going to go on a writing spree and probably not post in here for a week or two. I'll still be watching a movie or two a day, but I won't be logging them in here. Needless to say, I'll have a huge mega post once I'm done writing, but until then, here's a mini mega post to get my movie logging up to date.

@Caveat, Ricky, and ufcfan: I'm going to start with Nocturnal Animals because that's BY FAR the best movie I've seen of the current batch of movies I've watched. I'll admit, that opening credits sequence was fucked up and gross; I think anyone who utters the phrase "fat shaming" should be forced to watch that disgusting sequence on a loop Ludovico style.

But that wasn't going to dissuade me from watching. Funny enough, I mentioned how I'd been intrigued by that film, but that was just from the cast and the very basic plot of a woman reading a novel by her ex. If I would've known the movie spends a huge chunk of time in Straw Dogs land, I would've been even more pumped. I thought the conceit was brilliant and executed superbly. I did end up with a few complaints. First, I thought the main bad guy could've been creepier/more sinister instead of just being a jackass. Not saying he needed to be Hannibal Lecter or anything, but I think the film would've benefited from having its villain be more than a backwoods doofus who takes his shits on his porch. Second, I thought there could've been more of a relationship between Gyllenhaal and Shannon. Initially (probably because Straw Dogs was in my head), I thought Shannon was going to be a typical asshole cop not giving a shit about this loser who didn't fight to protect his family (in that first car ride, Shannon's basically emasculating him and conveying his complete lack of respect for Gyllenhaal) which was going to force Gyllenhaal to tap into some rage and go on a Dustin Hoffman-style revenge rampage. Instead, all of a sudden Shannon turns on a dime and becomes best friends with and avenging angel for a guy he was basically making fun of and it goes from Straw Dogs to Rolling Thunder. I get that Shannon got the cancer diagnosis, but even if you want to keep the movie's beats the same, then that initial car ride should've been written differently and they should've started off with something more like pity and sympathy from Shannon instead of disdain. The way it started made where it went implausible and contrived.

Still, those aren't so much complaints about what parts sucked. They're more complaints about what could've made the movie even better. I don't really have any true complaints. I was pissed when the movie ended with Gyllenhaal standing her up, but that was more about me wanting to see Gyllenhaal. I thought about it for a while and I ended up really liking that decision. It worked both for Gyllenhaal's character and for the story.

What'd you guys think? ufcfan, you mentioned the film having "some utterly shitty aspects to it" that "aggravated [you] at points throughout." Care to elaborate? And @moreorless87, I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that the film "denounces" Amy Adams' character. I think Gyllenhaal's character definitely denounces her - he'd already told her when they were together that they were perfect for each other but that she was just scared and was trying to push him away/run away to avoid having to work on herself (and fuck me did that hit home), and by the end of the movie, when he stands her up (assuming that's what happened), he basically confirms his strength (what she accurately characterized in conversation with her mother as "a different kind of strength") while at the same time demonstrating her weakness. That's still not what I'd call denouncing her character, though; it still leaves the open the possibility, after having acknowledged her weakness and her character flaws, of Adams finally committing to change and growth (of course, it also leaves open the possibility of her paying the bill, going home, waiting for her cheating husband to come home, and slipping right back into her miserable routine).

After Nocturnal Animals, I decided to have a little Gyllenhaal marathon. I next watched Enemy. The plot sounded awesome but unfortunately the movie wasn't very good. It definitely gets ambition points, but the relationship between plot and theme was rocky to say the least. It sort of felt like a cross between Persona and Eyes Wide Shut with Bergman's bizarre spider motif from Through a Glass Darkly thrown in for good measure. However, as a psychological thriller, I much preferred The Broken, which I thought did the unsettling doppelganger thing much better.

Then I watched Demolition and that was another awesome movie. I preferred Nocturnal Animals, but Demolition was a much better performance from Gyllenhaal. And it's just a fun movie. That sounds like a weird description given the plot of the film, but it's fun. Gyllenhaal's character has a great spirit that makes it fun watching him adapt to his new life. And his relationship with Naomi Watts' son was fucking great. The scene with them in the hardware store is hilarious.

Ending my Gyllenhaal marathon, I watched Life. I was disappointed by how unoriginal it was - they literally add zero new wrinkles to the formula - but they made the formula work very well.

Since Life had me in space, I decided for no other reason to shift from Life to Gravity. I avoided Gravity when it came out for two reasons: First, because I figured it'd have nothing beyond the space gimmick, and two, because the space gimmick wasn't attractive to me since I figured if I tried to see it in theaters (nevermind IMAX) I'd end up with motion sickness and have to leave or fight my way through an unenjoyable theater experience. Having finally watched it, I can say that I was right on both counts. Even on my computer, I was getting dizzy and nauseous at times. I will say that it was better than I'd expected, but once Clooney's gone, you've pretty much seen all the interesting stuff you're going to see.

The rest of my viewing was very random. I watched American Sniper. I've never really liked Bradley Cooper in anything, but I thought he did a fantastic job in that role. The movie, though, left A LOT to be desired. It felt like Clint wanted to do it less hagiography and more biography, but he never really struck a good balance between character information and character study. I think the drive for "realism" and the documentary-style chronicle of his tours of duty kept Clint from being able to really dive into the character's psychology and tell not the story of a guy in the war but this character's story. In short, he should've tried to make this film more in the mold of The Deer Hunter, making the war relatively incidental to the journey of his main character. I also thought the ending was retarded. Another instance of the movie just stopping.

Speaking of movies just stopping, Black Mass had a very similar problem. It was stuck between a documentary and a character study, only I thought Black Mass was a worse documentary and a worse character study compared to American Sniper. First and foremost, there was no clear sense of what the filmmakers thought about Depp's character, which left me wondering why I was watching (I'm sensing a pattern here as I watch these movies; I'm watching them close to random but I'm noticing the same problems, and they're often at the level of the script). Depp's performance was very strong, from the look and the voice to the subtler element of menace that he did a great job of conveying even in innocuous dialogue sequences. But the movie itself had no real forward propulsion. Compared to something like Goodfellas, where you're ramping up and find yourself wrapped up in that crazy coke-fueled world, or something like Casino, where you feel the weight of the impending fall, Black Mass just went along with what felt like no rhyme or reason. And unlike Scorsese's incredible ability to balance intense character studies and ensembles within single films (Casino being the best example), Black Mass had way too many characters floating around they clearly had no idea what to do with, chief among them Joel Edgerton's character, who it felt like they kept forgetting about and then had to scramble to shove back in at random points in the story. Until they decided they were done going along and randomly shoving shit in, at which point they just closed up shop and started putting text on the screen. The ending was basically a Wiki entry. Do filmmakers not know how to end movies anymore?

I also watched American Assassin. Back in my wannabe Tarantino screenwriter days, I'd actually considered doing a practice adaptation of a Mitch Rapp novel. I always liked the character and the book Act of Treason was particularly good. Much like Tom Cruise ending up as Jack Reacher, though, the problem with American Assassin is with the casting of the lead. Cruise simply isn't Jack Reacher; even so, he's still Tom Cruise, so the movies work as Tom Cruise action movies. American Assassin suffered from having an actor who wasn't the lead character but who also had nothing going for him in general. Very bland, no charisma, just...nothing. Michael Keaton, on the other hand, was fucking phenomenal. If you like him even a little bit, it's worth it to see him in this movie. The torture scene near the end is straight up "let's get nuts" awesomeness.

Then I watched It. No reason. I just saw it on the list and wanted to watch it. It was better than I was expecting but I still preferred the miniseries. I did get hit with one jump scare, but the movie wasn't genuinely creepy or unsettling. The miniseries, even with its low budget and huge helpings of cheese, actually manages to creep me out even now. The one thing the movie has over the miniseries, though, is the actual friendship between the kids. I thought the friendship dynamic was much better and more enjoyable in the movie. It'll be interesting to see how they handle the next chapter.

After It, to keep it in the horror family, I watched Dark Skies. I loved Felicity, so I've followed Keri Russell's career. I remember always thinking this movie looked like it could be cool but I never got around to it. I finally did and it actually was really cool. Kind of like Signs meets Paranormal Activity. And I was pleasantly surprised to see JK Simmons show up as the cynical, beaten-down CT'er.

Lastly, another random watch: I watched They Came Together. @Flemmy Stardust, if you haven't seen this, you need to watch it ASAP (BTW, you realize, Flemmy, that you've become the new aqua, always getting @'ed but never showing up ). I fucking loved this movie. Better than Wet Hot American Summer, better than The Baxter, even better than Wanderlust IMO. The first half-hour fucking slays. The cast is insane and the script is riotous. My favorite part is that, while it spoofs romantic comedies, rather than making fun of the conventions, they're clearly having fun with the conventions. It's a subtle distinction but it makes for a tremendous difference in tone. It's a fun and funny movie, and unlike The Baxter, it never loses its steam and is strong right up to the end. The highlight for me, though, is obviously Christopher Meloni struggling at the Halloween party to get out of his Green Lantern costume to take a shit



The QT school is dangerous. Sort of like Bruce Lee and Jeet Kune Do: They make it look easy but it ain't for everybody.

Honestly, my favorite breakdown of the writing process is courtesy of Edgar Allan Poe:

"Nothing is more clear than that every plot worth the name must be elaborated to its dénouement before anything be attempted with the pen. It is only with the dénouement constantly in view that we can give a plot its indispensable air of consequence, or causation, by making the incidents, and especially the tone at all points, tend to the development of the intention.”

However you want to go about it, however you want to connect the dots, that they connect - and to the end (fitting phrase) of conveying an explicit and discernible intent - is what's important. Maybe this is why I'm finding myself so disappointed with so much of what I'm watching. It rarely feels that plots are elaborated to their dénouement ahead of time, so that I rarely feel that air of consequence and rarely get a sense of a guiding intent.



With this in mind, I guess it's a means/ends issue. I don't have a problem with those ends - like I said, the ending of Take Shelter is a fucking home run as a sequence, as the driving home of that moment when the family clicks together - but I do have a problem with the means. His way of doing things isn't appealing to or satisfying for me.

I don't know if this comparison will resonate, but he reminds me a bit of Otto Preminger (@europe1, you out there? Does this comparison make sense to you?) in that, when he does what he came to do, he just stops caring. The difference is that, when Nichols stops caring, he stops the movie; when Preminger stops caring, he still goes through the motions and brings his films to a resolution. It doesn't always work (Fallen Angel and Angel Face come to mind) but when he forces himself to stick it out to the end (Laura and Advise & Consent come to mind) he demonstrates the MASSIVE difference it makes when you not only hit your theme but tie it in to a fully-functional story with no loose ends left dangling.



I was home in the States on a break, I had a packed DVR, I tried it, it wasn't doing anything for me, I moved on. Not an ideal viewing, so that's why I didn't just write it off, but for whatever it's worth, it didn't have me hooked from the jump.



Few things are more enjoyable for me than having movies throw my low expectations back in my face



Not budging on Star Wars. I'd sooner try Rango for Sigh.



This may seem like a distinction without a difference, but, for the record, I don't judge a movie's potential by who's starring but I do often decide whether or not to take the time to try a new movie based on who's in it.



The equivocation that I find problematic in Arrival is discernible here: If the aliens are "simply able" to "transcend" time with the faculties they possess, then no human being, Louise included, should be capable of their "level of sophistication" in the absence of those faculties. Sort of like those animal studies where scientists can get an ape to understand the concept of death, which is fucking insane...but that's still a far cry from being at our "level of sophistication." Louise being able to understand what they're trying to say, I can buy that, but her actually ascending to their level of sophistication and being able to perceive time just as they can in the evolutionary equivalent of the blink of an eye, that I'm not buying.



This would seem to be another problem: Doesn't she arrive already thinking she has an ex with whom she had a daughter who died? Wasn't she already seeing the future before the aliens even showed up? This would again seem to point up that equivocation: Is it because she possesses the same faculties as the aliens (if so, WTF?) or is it because she is able to grasp the language (if so, WTF with the flashbacks/flash forwards prior to her exposure to the language?)?



I never bothered with the sequel, but the first one didn't strike me as "God-tier choreography." A lot of it felt overchoreographed in the sense that, while I could appreciate the athleticism and the dance-like synchronization, I wasn't actually sold on it dramatically and therefore wasn't buying it as a fight scene.

Fine. Off the top of my head, purely in terms of the (hand-to-hand and not weapons-based) choreography, and excluding the Sensei, I'd say that among the best one-against-many fight scenes would have to be Jackie Chan in the parking lot at the beginning of and in the mall at the end of Police Story (the latter has got to be the GOAT, no?), Donnie Yen in the dojo in Ip Man, and Tony Jaa in the bone breaking scene in The Protector, while among the best one-on-one fight scenes would have to be Jackie Chan versus Benny the Jet in Wheels on Meals (got to be the GOAT, no?), Bruce Lee versus Bob Wall and Chuck Norris in The Way of the Dragon (Bruce and Chuck is cinematically the GOAT but in terms of pure choreography I've always thought the short fight with Bob Wall was his best work), and Gina Carano versus Michael Fassbender in Haywire (best one-on-one fight scene in recent memory).



This is very encouraging. I'll definitely be watching them both.



And I'm the opposite. Clearly, I have problems with the ending of Arrival, but it's automatically better than the ending of Midnight Special because at least they offered an explanation. I'd rather you try and fall a little short (or, hell, even a lot short) than not try and pass the buck to the audience.



Never saw Shotgun Stories, though I remember having it recommended to me in here along with Take Shelter way back when the latter came out.



Since it's Scorsese, it was one of the first movies to go on my list anyway.



Wow. Both you and Ricky think very highly of that movie.



Ok. FYI, I'm saving the superhero stuff until the end, so it'll be a while before I actually watch it, but I'll throw it in along with all the recent Spiderman movies and the post-Civil War Marvel stuff.

TLDR

 

[europe1]

Also... shit what else have I watched.

Sam Fullers Pickup on South Street was really good. One of those stories that focused on more sleazy, low-run, criminal protagonists that maintained their gritty edge but actually managed to make them likeable and seem heroic.

Clint Eastwoods Richard Jewell was another display of Eastwood able to make dramatic, well-acted and moralistic movies about sticking to principles and standards and such. Simple stuff but well-executed.

Cleopatra... easily the worst of the Cecil B Demille epics I've seen. Some semi-snappy dialogue but... the characterizations and storytelling and acting just isn't there. Perhaps the most grievous error is not being able to turn Cleopatra into some snappy comeback-girl with femme fatale streaks despite trying to do so. One of those pictures where Demille's instincts to focus on "love, lust and romantics" as the driving-force for political/historical events really misfired.

1917 really botched a lot of potentials. It focused way to much on making some moments just feel "magical." Like when the protagonists float through a river and then crawls out exhausted only to stumble on his comrades during Holy Mass. It aims for real-life poetics and the transcendental -- yet only manages paper-mache in how transparent and artificial it all seems. There is also the issue of Germans being presented as cartoonishly evil (burning pilot is dragged out of his soon-to-be-exploded vessel and the only thing he can think about is knifing brits to death). Which is really really unfortunate since the scenes that 1917 nails it nails brilliantly (like the dying buddy and it's aftermath.)

Sister of Gion by Kenji Mizoguchi (ie: dude who makes movies about prostitutes) is one of those movies that really stumble in the end. It does achieve some really good dramatics in exploring the lives of exploited women. However... I get the impression that the ending is there to underscore how perilous these women's lives are. That the proverbial rug can just be pulled out from underneath their feet no matter how good or bad they act. However, the actual impact of it all feels more like there is a missing reel somewhere instead of the movie pinpointing how exposed they are.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Me avoiding Rimbaud82's trolling attempts like a champ

To prove that I'm superior to Rimbaud82 in every way possible -- I'll now beat him at his own game.

A Man of Integrity is a banned Iranian film that was smuggled out of the country. As you no doubt have noticed, I have already won 50 arthouse points (20 for Iran. 30 for a banned film). The film primarily deals with petty-scale corruption in Persian society, centring on a man who stalwartly cannot allow himself to engage in malversation (see, malversation, that's a pretty complex word. Another reason why you should follow europe1 posts instead of that Wind Shakes the Barely guy. Can you ever remember HIM using a word like malversation? I think it's pretty clear that I am the bigger-brain guy!)

Anyway, it's an interesting movie in that way that it has very pronounced strengths yet also some niggling weakness. In form and picture, the movie is very beautiful, always framed and shoot in pulchritudinous ways. It also accomplishes what a moralistic movie should accomplish, that is to say, raise a moralistic ire, want to make you see the world improved. The acting is also very good. I know so because I have a degree in evaluating acting in Iranian.

Moreover, the main acting-guy has these really bulging eyes that are quite striking. They pop from his nogging almost like a depressurized fish. Funnily enough, his wife possesses the same bug-eyed look. So it's good that they have this super-subtle backstory about them bounding over their bulging eyes in there. Quite romantic.

On the bad side, there are some instances that I would find... melodramatic in there. (That is to say, situations happen to the protagonist instead of being the result of how he interacts with the world.) For example, at times the protagonists and his waifu runs into non-muslim and their woes -- and while there is no doubt that Iran is shitty towards those that don't subscribe to their favourite Middle Eastern deity, these moments also very much feel like podium-preaching from the director's part rather than being integrated with the character study going on.

Also, more pronouncedly, the ending... is strange. Almost like they were missing a reel or something. Suddenly things start coming without explanation. Considering the movie was smuggled out of Shah-town, this may very well be the case. But if it isn't -- then it's another example of a Director really needing to stretch the story-logic so to fit his designated theme into the narrative.

Also, there is a really weird segment about halfway through about some guy babbling about how Suspiria is like one of the best horror movies ever and sheer sensory experiences in film and is somehow even better than Argento's other masterpiece Profondo Rosso but I'm sure that has nothing to do with me authoring this post.

I wasn't trolling I just remember you berating @chickenluver for reccomending it last year. Honestly your post seems a little mean-spirited for no reason.

The film sounds very interesting. Don't think I have ever seen any Iranian films.

 

[moreorless87]

We could balance the thread by discussing the complex metaphysics of Stephan Seagal hitting someone with a snooker ball in a sock.

 

[Rimbaud82]

We could balance the thread by discussing the complex metaphysics of Stephan Seagal hitting someone with a snooker ball in a sock.

Will leave that one to @Bullitt68, he probably still hasn't forgiven me for not watching Out For Justice.

 

[KOQ24]

Also... shit what else have I watched.

Sam Fullers Pickup on South Street was really good. One of those stories that focused on more sleazy, low-run, criminal protagonists that maintained their gritty edge but actually managed to make them likeable and seem heroic..

I love Pickup on South Street.
I like how it really focuses on the criminals.