What the fuck is wrong with you Tenet haters? Don't you know what fun is!? FUN!? Yeah this movie has problems. But the only major one is the antagonist. This is a spy time-hijinks movie. Act like it!
I'm gonna go see a Jackie Chan movie in reverse and see if its just as fun as this!
What the fuck is wrong with you Tenet haters? Don't you know what fun is!? FUN!? Yeah this movie has problems. But the only major one is the antagonist. This is a spy time-hijinks movie. Act like it!
I'm gonna go see a Jackie Chan movie in reverse and see if its just as fun as this!
Ha! Agree to disagree. Hereditary was a masterful film. Way too good for a debutant filmmaker. One of the best movies of the last decade and one of the best horror films ever made.
As far as adaptations of ‘Shakespeare on Screen’ I have to say that I think Polanski's take on Macbeth is probably the finest that I have seen. It is also my favourite Shakespeare play by far. No doubt there have been better performances of the play in other mediums (for television or on the stage, obviously). Likewise, there have been other good filmic adaptations of Shakespeare's work. However, I think that with this film Polanski achieved a perfect distillation of Shakespearean language and content in a distinctly cinematic fashion. Jon Finch isn’t quite Ian McKellen, but he puts in a pretty convincing performance as Macbeth all the same; while Francesca Annis is excellent as a particularly seductive Lady Macbeth it must be said. Polanski’s version of the Macbeth tale is particularly dark, bloody and brooding and perfectly captures the real horror of the play - both the psychological horror of a man racked by guilt, tortured by the consequences of his actions and the real, physical horror of Shakespeare’s violence. This grim tone is further reinforced by the films’ visual language, full of desolate, foreboding landscapes.
While obviously drawing on Shakespeare’s own conception of evil and the tragedy of unbridled ambition, Polanski brought plenty of his own ideas and experiences to the table. Of course, much has been said about the real-world tragedy which contextualised the making of the film. The brutal murder of his pregnant wife at the hands of the Manson family must have influenced his mindset at the time of making the film. No doubt the content of Macbeth must have chimed well with his sense of utter despair and absurdity. However it would be wrong to try and imply that this outlook resulted in some hyper-bloody, sensationalist take on Macbeth as a result. The two simply fit, resulting in a brilliant cinematic achievement. Having only seen Rosemary’s Baby (1968) from Polanski beforehand I have to say I rate this even higher.
In the film Polanski doesn’t give us any violence that is not already present in the original play. When it is shown it is simply shown for what it is. It is extremely visceral, even if fairly tame by our 21st century standards. “Human evil, cruelty and violence exist, and this is what it looks like” is simply what Polanski seems to want to convey with these scenes. As with the original play, the witches are present as a kind of undercurrent of otherworldly evil. Yet with the ambiguity surrounding their exact role in instigating the bloody events, the one thing that is certain is that these are things men do to one another (and indeed, do to women). From this perspective I’d say that the violence of Polanski’s Macbeth is necessary rather than gratuitous.
In Macbeth's case the most obvious filmic contender is Kurosawa's wonderful transposition of the play to Japan's bloody Warring states period with Throne of Blood (1957). That film is fresh in my mind too as I rewatched it the night after this. In adapting the broader strokes of Shakespeare’s work to a particularly Japanese setting (of course dropping the language in translation) I’d say that film is it’s own achievement, but as far as getting at the core of the play itself I preferred Polanski. I have yet to see the Orson Welles version from 1948 so I will no doubt try it soon as well.
Downloaded a blu ray rip of Welles Macbeth, so tonight either gonna watch that or another one I have been meaning to watch for ages The Name of the Rose (1986). Been in a medieval mood of late.
I have to admit I preffer Shakepear plot inspiration ala Kurosawa rather than direct adaptation including his dialog which just feels too wordy for its own sake but Polasnki's film does create a very effective foreboding atmosphere that gets across most of the films drama.
I have to admit I preffer Shakepear plot inspiration ala Kurosawa rather than direct adaptation including his dialog which just feels too wordy for its own sake but Polasnki's film does create a very effective foreboding atmosphere that gets across most of the films drama.
I do love Throne of Blood too and think it works perfectly as a translation of Shakespeare's plot and themes to the Japanese cultural/historical context - it helps that those themes adapt perfectly to both the Sengoku period and to the kind of Buddhist influenced philosophy of nothingness and impermanence that Kurosawa's gives to it.
Still never seen Ran because Lear is a Shakespeare play I haven't seen or read yet, and I wanna do that before I watch an adaptation of it.
I also might rewatch the Fassbender version of Macbeth from 2015 soon too, haven't saw it since the cinema. To be honest I don't remember much about it, I don't remember thinking it was particularly great but nor do I remember thinking it was awful. I also have the obscure Bela Tárr version downloaded from a while back lol. I do like to do mini-binges where I watch several versions of the same thing like this, to see how different filmmakers portray things.
Honestly I'v found other superhero franchises have really paled next to the better MCU films over the last 6-7 years. Both Nolan's Batman and the X-Franchise(bar Logan) now tend to come across as rather self important and wooden, neither for me really got under the skin of their characters nearly as successfully as the MCU did fro around Ironman 3/Winter Solider onwards. By the time of End Game it was pretty impressive managing to have the climax of a franchise be about 3/4 character focused scenes rather than just larger and larger CGI battles.
Watched the Second Sight remastered release of Roeg's Walkabout a couple of times now and honestly I think that might have elevated it above Don't Look Now as my favourite film by him and arguably the purest example of his style(maybe the opening of Eureka might have a case). I wonder whether the choice of subject was almost a reaction against his time as a cinematographer on Lawrence of Arabia, similar kind of desert environmental work but replacing the stately epicness with his roving camera movements and editing.
I think the Nolan trilogy is the exception of non-MCU films of the past couple of decades that really hold up well. For me, The Dark Knight is as good or superior to even the best MCU films.
Batman Begins is a very good origin story film much like Iron Man or Doctor Strange which are among the best solo hero origin films.
And people crap on The Dark Knight Rises (@Bullitt68 points out a lot of the great elements of it), but I think it’s got way more positives than negatives. I’ll rewatch Hardy’s scenes from time to time and while some of the MCU films have weak villains, every Nolan trilogy film had good to great ones.
Ledger and Hardy are awesome in those films. Cillian and Neeson and Wilkinson deliver in Batman Begins.
X-Men movies have been very hit and miss over the years. First X-Men film does nothing for me. It’s passably decent as a team hero film and it is contextually important because it, along with Spidey, helped pave the way for the MCU.
Last Stand is mediocre at best. The Wolverine gets a lot of love but I view it as a dull one. X-Men origins is trash. Apocalypse is a waste of time.
I think X2, Logan, Days of Future and First Class are all quite enjoyable though. Same goes for the Deadpool films.
I also might rewatch the Fassbender version of Macbeth from 2015 soon too, haven't saw it since the cinema. To be honest I don't remember much about it, I don't remember thinking it was particularly great but nor do I remember thinking it was awful. I also have the obscure Bela Tárr version downloaded from a while back lol. I do like to do mini-binges where I watch several versions of the same thing like this, to see how different filmmakers portray things.
I do love Throne of Blood too and think it works perfectly as a translation of Shakespeare's plot and themes to the Japanese cultural/historical context - it helps that those themes adapt perfectly to both the Sengoku period and to the kind of Buddhist influenced philosophy of nothingness and impermanence that Kurosawa's gives to it.
Still never seen Ran because Lear is a Shakespeare play I haven't seen or read yet, and I wanna do that before I watch an adaptation of it.
I don't think you need to have seen/read Lear to understand Ran personally, I mean the fundamental plot of Lear your suiely aware of and I don't think the film depends upon knowledge of the play for its drama.
As with MacBeth its really more about tone than anything else, the characters tend to remain rather simple in favour of alot of atmospheric scene setting which sells the drama.
I think the Nolan trilogy is the exception of non-MCU films of the past couple of decades that really hold up well. For me, The Dark Knight is as good or superior to even the best MCU films.
Batman Begins is a very good origin story film much like Iron Man or Doctor Strange which are among the best solo hero origin films.
And people crap on The Dark Knight Rises (@Bullitt68 points out a lot of the great elements of it), but I think it’s got way more positives than negatives. I’ll rewatch Hardy’s scenes from time to time and while some of the MCU films have weak villains, every Nolan trilogy film had good to great ones.
Ledger and Hardy are awesome in those films. Cillian and Neeson and Wilkinson deliver in Batman Begins.
X-Men movies have been very hit and miss over the years. First X-Men film does nothing for me. It’s passably decent as a team hero film and it is contextually important because it, along with Spidey, helped pave the way for the MCU.
Last Stand is mediocre at best. The Wolverine gets a lot of love but I view it as a dull one. X-Men origins is trash. Apocalypse is a waste of time.
I think X2, Logan, Days of Future and First Class are all quite enjoyable though. Same goes for the Deadpool films.
I would still give credit to the original X-men film for coming up with alot of the formula for a standard superhero film, its not verty remarkable in itself but in retrospect I think it moreso than Riami's Spiderman has tended to be the path thats been followed more in terms of style/tone. X-2 I think has a bit more to it but character wise its still pretty slight, feels like its depending too much on its political angle to sell its drama for me and the less said about the third film the latter.
I do enjoy Nolans films and I'd agree Rises really wasnt much of a dropoff relative to the first two but I do still feel he never quite got a handle on his characters to the degree the MCU(or Logan) has at its best, the Russo and Gunn films most obviously. The Marvel films might be nominally lighter in tone but I think the Russo's and Gunn managed to reach a stage were the characters were generally behaving very naturally rather than being pushed around by the plot or depending on any political references.
Again i think it shows in End Game where you have the first 2 hours of the film are largely character drama with the plot very much taking a back seat. I spsoe revealing of my nature but the wallowing in the gloom of failure was the best part of the MCU.
I don't think you need to have seen/read Lear to understand Ran personally, I mean the fundamental plot of Lear your suiely aware of and I don't think the film depends upon knowledge of the play for its drama.
As with MacBeth its really more about tone than anything else, the characters tend to remain rather simple in favour of alot of atmospheric scene setting which sells the drama.
So I got round to this last night, one I’d been meaning to watch for a while largely because of the Medieval setting. Unfortunately it was pretty much meh for the most part. Early on it certainly had its moments where I was actually becoming quite invested in the mystery and the attempts of our protagonists - William of Baskerville and his young apprentice Adso of Melk - to solve it. It’s an interesting conceit, even if it doesn’t amount to much more than Sherlock Holmes in a Medieval abbey. I’ll say that Connery is actually pretty damn excellent in the role of a rogue Fransiscan. Though I’ll also say that Christian Slater is absolutely dreadful as his young novice Adso, I was in a constant state of cringe watching him to be honest.
For me those early moments where I was invested in the mystery totally dissipated as the film went on as the whodunnit gradually shifts to a whydunnit. The problem wasn’t so much that I didn’t care about the whydunnit, but rather that I found it to be pretty ridiculous. I have heard some praise the film for its authentic medieval atmosphere. I did not find that at all. The film ultimately just falls back on boring cliches and stereotypes about the Medieval period. The peasants are unwashed neanderthals, the church is a collection of evil, greedy men, and the other monks are dour joyless zealots in stark contrast to the positively modern, enlightened figure of Connery’s William of Baskerville (hang ups about women aside). It’s not that this stuff has no basis at all in reality - the Benedectine conception of monastic life was very different from that Fransciscan and likewise the debates shown have their basis in real controversies. However, in the film there is zero nuance. Characters and their motivations are portrayed in a basically cartoonish fashion and for me it was simply boring by the end.
I haven’t read the book, so not sure how faithfully it follows those portrayals but I imagine it contains more of intellectual interest to carry things along. The film only has the mystery to be solved and in the end it simply wasn’t that engaging. Not dreadful, but nothing to write home about either.
I have heard some praise the film for its authentic medieval atmosphere. I did not find that at all. The film ultimately just falls back on boring cliches and stereotypes about the Medieval period. The peasants are unwashed neanderthals, the church is a collection of evil, greedy men, and the other monks are dour joyless zealots in stark contrast to the positively modern, enlightened figure of Connery’s William of Baskerville (hang ups about women aside).
I'm sorry, I think what you meant to say was "ultimately falls back on a totally badass, super-mythologized depiction of the medieval era."
I suspect that this is one of those examples when expectations clash with what is delivered, and the discongruity arises from that rather then the film's quality itself. Yeah, taken as a history simulation, you'll find plenty of things to needle at. However, if you just take the film as a work of aesthetics and atmosphere, it's masterful!
I mean, the director toured Europe looking for the strangest faces he could find just to put them in his movie. It's almost Leone-esque in how he focuses the camera on the peculiarities of their lineaments. It all conjurers an mythologized atmosphere of the Medieval era that I can't see surpassed anywhere else. It's as if the monastery is some sort of trove of lost-knowlage stewarded by the strangest examples of mankind you can find.
(This dude was a DJ in southern France btw)
And Ron Pearlman!
Since Rimbaud82 went to such trouble to hurt me. I'm going to hurt him back by insulting his favorite person in existence, Ciro Guerra! (you know... that dude who directed Embrace of the Serpent).
So I saw his newest film and it's woefully unimpressive.
It's based on a novel with the same name (that I've read). And all I can say is... this feels like a prime-example of the director being such a fan of the novel that he's more concerned with sacrosantly transporting its content to the big screen then he is making a good filmatization. Every theme, character and situation is there but feels woefully underserved, as if bereft of weight or impact. It's a good example of how meaning and profoundness is generated very differently in prose than it does visuals.
Johnny Deep wore some spiffing glasses though.
Lastly... Le Trou (1960)
This is like the greatest chill lounge movie of all time.
It's a prison-escape movie. However, unlike normal prison-escape movies where the protagonists dig themselves out of jail... this movie is deadset on showing you most of the actual digging! It's freaking great!
You see them bludgeoning themselves through the outer layer.
Down to the gravel.
Holes get big!
Though to be fair. It's not all digging. Sometimes they file through bars as well.
To show the directors artistic abilities, you sometimes get to see the hole from the other end, on the opposite side as the cavity is being made!
I can't understate how chill this movie is! Watching all this hammering, bludgeoning, thwacking and clobbering is downright therapeutic! The non-digging parts of the movie also have this really chill ambiance to it. I was actually wondering why the protagonists even wanted to get out of jail in the first place! They were looking to have such a swell time!
So yeah, a really great example of a movie that is 100% procedural. It's all about doing the task, witnessing the escape step-by-step in all of its details, even the most minute ones.
Also, I don't know why, but one of those French cons reminded me of a dollar-store Kirk Douglas, which is all you really need to have a good time!
I'm sorry, I think what you meant to say was "ultimately falls back on a totally badass, super-mythologized depiction of the medieval era."
I suspect that this is one of those examples when expectations clash with what is delivered, and the discongruity arises from that rather then the film's quality itself. Yeah, taken as a history simulation, you'll find plenty of things to needle at. However, if you just take the film as a work of aesthetics and atmosphere, it's masterful!
This could be true. Strictly in terms of mood and atmosphere it was very strong, especially to begin with. As I say I was initially quite drawn in by it, but yeah as thinks went on my opinion soured. Perhaps I just had the wrong impression going in as you say. Have you seen the recent BBC series adaption?
I mean, the director toured Europe looking for the strangest faces he could find just to put them in his movie. It's almost Leone-esque in how he focuses the camera on the peculiarities of their lineaments. It all conjurers an mythologized atmosphere of the Medieval era that I can't see surpassed anywhere else. It's as if the monastery is some sort of trove of lost-knowlage stewarded by the strangest examples of mankind you can find.
Hahaha yes I was thinking of mentioning this, so many fucking bizarre looking people. Ron Perlman was especially annoying to be honest, felt like he was almost playing the same damn ape that he played in Quest for Fire (1981) only occasionally mumbling nonsense in some weird language (the same director I am only now realising!!).
The other lads where incredibly bizarre as well though, it certainly added to the sense that there was something pretty goddamn weird about this monastery in particular.
Since Rimbaud82 went to such trouble to hurt me. I'm going to hurt him back by insulting his favorite person in existence, Ciro Guerra! (you know... that dude who directed Embrace of the Serpent).
So I saw his newest film and it's woefully unimpressive.
It's based on a novel with the same name (that I've read). And all I can say is... this feels like a prime-example of the director being such a fan of the novel that he's more concerned with sacrosantly transporting its content to the big screen then he is making a good filmatization. Every theme, character and situation is there but feels woefully underserved, as if bereft of weight or impact. It's a good example of how meaning and profoundness is generated very differently in prose than it does visuals.
I thought this looked somewhat interesting when I saw the trailer a few months ago (maybe over a year ago who knows with covid) before a film I can't even remember now. I haven't heard of the book but from the tone and look I was actually really surprised to learn that it was Guerra. To be honest I will always love Embrace of the Serpent, but having seen Birds of Passage (2018) and his tv show Green Frontier (2019) I have to say it seems more likely that while he clearly has interesting ideas, Embrace of the Serpent was clearly a high water mark for him. Though I guess you can't write a director off just yet. Shame though, this film did look kind of interesting and I was probably going to go see it when I can. Hell I guess I still will.
Lastly... Le Trou (1960)
This is like the greatest chill lounge movie of all time.
It's a prison-escape movie. However, unlike normal prison-escape movies where the protagonists dig themselves out of jail... this movie is deadset on showing you most of the actual digging! It's freaking great!
You see them bludgeoning themselves through the outer layer.
Down to the gravel.
Holes get big!
Though to be fair. It's not all digging. Sometimes they file through bars as well.
To show the directors artistic abilities, you sometimes get to see the hole from the other end, on the opposite side as the cavity is being made!
I can't understate how chill this movie is! Watching all this hammering, bludgeoning, thwacking and clobbering is downright therapeutic! The non-digging parts of the movie also have this really chill ambiance to it. I was actually wondering why the protagonists even wanted to get out of jail in the first place! They were looking to have such a swell time!
So yeah, a really great example of a movie that is 100% procedural. It's all about doing the task, witnessing the escape step-by-step in all of its details, even the most minute ones.
Also, I don't know why, but one of those French cons reminded me of a dollar-store Kirk Douglas, which is all you really need to have a good time!
Liked this a lot actually. Have never even seen any of Kaufman's famous work like Synecdoche, New York (2008) but I found this one very engaging. Obviously very much falling into a general postmodern, absurdist kind of tone.
For a film ostensibly about a failing relationship it's not so much propelled by the drama between the characters as by the sheer strangeness of their interactions. Even from the start things seem a little off between the couple and they only get weirder and weirder when they reach the boyfriend's family farm. Nothing appears to be as it seems...However, while this constant shifting did frequently throw me off somewhat, it was more like an enjoyable puzzle.
In any case I didn't think it was really all that difficult to follow once I grasped the main contours of Kaufman was getting at. To me it was fundamentally about the ravages of time and the unreliability of memory. The film simply struck me as an exploration of this general theme and the surreal, postmodern aspects of its style essentially an outward manifestation of internal memory loss - presumably connected with dementia, alzheimers and so on. Connected to this it also seemed very much concerned with the things which make up the self, particularly the self we wish to portray to others - on some level we internalise our interests, the authors we like and so on, quoting from them as if we had written them ourselves. We are the books we read, and at least in some regard reflect how we want others to perceive us. This idea comes through quite strongly in the various conversations the characters have about the art, films, philosophy, and so on. Of course, the self is also built up by our past experiences and relationships, whether with our parents or others.
Trying to not delve into any specific spoiler talk either, but it's not to say I understood every single thing about the film. It clearly revels in ambiguity to a certain extent and opens itself up to more specific interpretations - there is a lot to unpack no doubt - but in broad stroke terms the ideas are relatively clear. All in all I thought it was a very enjoyable, intriguing experience watching it.
I thought now would be a good time to finally go back and watch this Kaufman's earlier film, heralded by many as a total masterpiece. Having quite enjoyed I'm Thinking Of Endings Things and having a bit of penchant for meta-fiction generally (Flann O'Brien, Pirandello, Raymond Queneau etc.) I was fully expecting to love this film.
Unfortunately, although it has several interesting ideas, some postmodern wit and a few good moments throughout, it really just failed to land with me. I found it more interesting in theory than in reality and though the execution can be very clever at times, to me just felt like a chaotic jumble of drab, nihlistic themes. Far from delivering any gut-wrenching emotional impact the ending climax just made me glad it was over in all honesty. Perhaps I will give it a second chance in the future, but very disappointed by this one considering all I had read.
I'd love to know @Bullitt68's thoughts on this one tbh.
Not even gonna bother writing a particularly lengthy review for this one, just a wonderfully bizarre, witty and endearing film. Reflecting back no doubt there are some big ideas that the film grapples with - existential questions, critiques of celebrity culture and so on - but this is all firmly in the back of the mind when watching.
A jaded puppeteer with a pet-monkey keeping wife gets a job as a file clerk on the 7 1/2 floor of a New York office building where, behind a filing cabinet he discovers a hole in the wall which acts as a portal straight to John Malkovich's brain. Just reading the description it is absolutely insane, and yet the film contains such charm and wit that you somehow are willing to accept it all. I loved it.
I would say my favorites of all those meta arthouse films during the 00's(and a bit either side) are Synecdoche, Her and Spotless Mind because they have a strong dramatic core to them, all the meta stuff is really just a framing for that rather than the main attraction. Helps I think that Synecdoche has Seymore Hoffman in his very best form but really its a film about fear of and then acceptance of death, the condition he's living with across the story is mortality and his attempts to create some grand peice of art fail by not accepting it.
Haven't been in here for a while, but for research purposes for my "Authorship in Hollywood Cinema" class I've (re)watched a ton of shit from the first handful of directors I'm covering - Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Tim Burton, and Michael Mann - so I'll definitely come in here with a megapost in the nearish future.
I don't remember anything about it except not liking it. Broadly speaking, I don't like Kaufman. Didn't like Being John Malkovich (don't remember much except not liking it), didn't like Adaptation (don't remember anything except not liking it), didn't like Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (don't remember anything except not liking it), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was good not great (and I don't really remember much), and didn't like Synecdoche, New York. I generally don't like what he does or how he does it. And I have no plans of watching anything else of his or rewatching anything of his that I've already seen. He's just not for me.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
