Movies Serious Movie Discussion

[Rimbaud82]

Notice how he never followed up on this point! I sense some tension in the Rimbaud's household. Stay strong bro! Don't let your relationship fall apart over one movie!



Ah heck yes this movie is just replete with subtle moments of characterizations.

Barry Lyndon really can be quite a shit at times (never can forget that time he blew tobacco-smoke in his wife's face). But he's also a person of profound personal wants and desires. Namely, his desire to have a child and find a father-figure.

The movie starts with his father being killed in a distance while he was a child. Then we're introduced to him sitting between a statuette of a child with his cousin (eww!).

The two people he shows most affection for (save his son) are his father figures, Captain Grogan and Chevalier du Balibari.

View attachment 806799

Now, hold onto your... Austrian hotel chair because I'm about to go all conspiratorial, tin-foil hat on this story.

Watching Barry Lyndon... I've grown kind of obsessed with the idea that the narrator is lying about Barry Lyndon's own thoughts and desires.

Now I can't quote the movie verbatim but I would like to present these two instantes of examples of my well-funded, non-crazy paranoia.

The first is the time where Barry stays the night with the German widow. As soon as he rides away, the narrator dismisses the occurance between the two as a tawdry little thing. Something disreputable, a fulfillment of base desires.

But... looking at Barry and the German widow's interactions... honestly, up until that point in the movie, Barry had never looked happier! And the widow seem to really dug him too! I don't think at all it's a coincidence that she's cresting a baby as they have their moment of intimacy since a son is what Barry desires the most and spending this night with her and the kid only enforced the fact that what he really wants is fatherly bliss.

Basically, the voice-over guy completely misread the emotional profoundness of the situation. He looked at it through the lens of a genteel, upper-crust aristocrat where non-marital one-night-stands are by definition disreputable and tawdry.

The second example is when Barry meets the Chevalier. The voice-over guy claims that Barry starts crying due to the "splendor of his appearance, the nobleness of his manner, and the friendliness of his voice."

View attachment 806799

But... the Chevalier doesn't display any of those qualities! He's just some pudgy guy whose sitting these eating his lunch! And he's not especially friendly with Barry either until Barry starts to weep and he embraces him.

Basically... the voice-over guy highlights the Chevalier's "aristocratic" aspects as to why Barry reacts so strongly to him. When, in fact, it's the opposite, he's just some unpretentious Irishman who Barry instantly recognizes as another father-figure. Not an aristocrat, but a card-cheating rouge just like himself.

Again... the voice-over guy takes the viewpoint of the 1800's century genteel culture. He's judging Barry after those cultural mores and therefor often impart the wrong message about Barry's nature!

In conclusion: I would like to say that I'm not crazy. In fact, I'm the only one whose not crazy!

Those are some damn fine theories europe. On my phone now so can't type much, but I honestly can't find anything to disagree with in what you said. I was certainly thinking that as far as the father figure element, but the unreliable narrator is an interesting idea. His voice gives such a sense of calm and certainty, there is a gravitas there. We are given the sense he knows what hes talking about. But I can certainly see what you mean, and that could be Kubricks way of transposing the literary technique to film.

 

[Yotsuya]

Watching Barry Lyndon... I've grown kind of obsessed with the idea that the narrator is lying about Barry Lyndon's own thoughts and desires.

Damn, no wonder the movie is so intriguing! I haven't seen this in a long time, but my recollections are that Barry Lyndon has strong influences from Nabokov, who is known for his use of unreliable narrator, and Voltaire's Candide, that has one of the funniest, most biased narrations ever describing tragedy and miserable twists of fate.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Notice how he never followed up on this point! I sense some tension in the Rimbaud's household. Stay strong bro! Don't let your relationship fall apart over one movie!

Ah heck yes this movie is just replete with subtle moments of characterizations.

Barry Lyndon really can be quite a shit at times (never can forget that time he blew tobacco-smoke in his wife's face). But he's also a person of profound personal wants and desires. Namely, his desire to have a child and find a father-figure.

The movie starts with his father being killed in a distance while he was a child. Then we're introduced to him sitting between a statuette of a child with his cousin (eww!).

The two people he shows most affection for (save his son) are his father figures, Captain Grogan and Chevalier du Balibari.

View attachment 806799

Now, hold onto your... Austrian hotel chair because I'm about to go all conspiratorial, tin-foil hat on this story.

Watching Barry Lyndon... I've grown kind of obsessed with the idea that the narrator is lying about Barry Lyndon's own thoughts and desires.

Now I can't quote the movie verbatim but I would like to present these two instantes of examples of my well-funded, non-crazy paranoia.

The first is the time where Barry stays the night with the German widow. As soon as he rides away, the narrator dismisses the occurance between the two as a tawdry little thing. Something disreputable, a fulfillment of base desires.

But... looking at Barry and the German widow's interactions... honestly, up until that point in the movie, Barry had never looked happier! And the widow seem to really dug him too! I don't think at all it's a coincidence that she's cresting a baby as they have their moment of intimacy since a son is what Barry desires the most and spending this night with her and the kid only enforced the fact that what he really wants is fatherly bliss.

Basically, the voice-over guy completely misread the emotional profoundness of the situation. He looked at it through the lens of a genteel, upper-crust aristocrat where non-marital one-night-stands are by definition disreputable and tawdry.

The second example is when Barry meets the Chevalier. The voice-over guy claims that Barry starts crying due to the "splendor of his appearance, the nobleness of his manner, and the friendliness of his voice."

View attachment 806799

But... the Chevalier doesn't display any of those qualities! He's just some pudgy guy whose sitting these eating his lunch! And he's not especially friendly with Barry either until Barry starts to weep and he embraces him.

Basically... the voice-over guy highlights the Chevalier's "aristocratic" aspects as to why Barry reacts so strongly to him. When, in fact, it's the opposite, he's just some unpretentious Irishman who Barry instantly recognizes as another father-figure. Not an aristocrat, but a card-cheating rouge just like himself.

Again... the voice-over guy takes the viewpoint of the 1800's century genteel culture. He's judging Barry after those cultural mores and therefor often impart the wrong message about Barry's nature!

In conclusion: I would like to say that I'm not crazy. In fact, I'm the only one whose not crazy!

I should get around to reading ther novel at some stage, not really the kind of thing I normally bother with but it would be interesting to see how it reads as the author is mentioned as a satirist and liberal in some respects but quite anti irish in others

As you say I think the film gives the impression of the narrator as the upper class english view of the character and his motivations whilst what we actually see seems to suggest something rather different. I suspect its a very sizeble influence on Yorgos Lanthimos, most obviously The Favourite of course but also alot of his earlier films were you get the sense of the divide between how people communicate and there real natures. The Lobster for example feels a bit like Barry Lyndon but instead of genteel aristocracy its simplifed modern views of relationships providing the divide, you see in Colin Farrells performance he's someone relatively normal emotionally but trapped in a world were he can't ever express that or can only do so clumsy.

I think you see it most clearly in the way Lord Bullingdon is protrayed in Kubricks film, for the genteel class of the time he would have been the hero of the story but Leon Vitali's character is shown as arrogant, elitist and cowardly. The negative side to Barry is shown mostly as a product of his chasing those genteel standards and ultimately he refuses to kill Bullingdon out of mercy but Bullingdon doesnt shown him the same.

Kubrick did often tend to cast based on a previous performance I'd say, Malcom McDowel I'm sure got Alex in Clockwork Orange due to If... and I suspect Ryan O' Neil got Barry due to Paper Moon, showing an outwardly roguish character who still gives the impression of morality and niceness under neither.

I'd point out as well that Ryan O'Neil in Barry and The Driver is pretty much the basis for Ryan Goslings career.

 

[Yotsuya]

Looking good:

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Finally got around to watching Guadagnino's Suspria remake last week, better than I expected although I still think brought down a bit by the directors ultimate lack of imagination and the uneasy mix of art/pulp.

The most obvious point I spose is that whilst in copies the rough plot of Suspria it actually feels like its drawing more on Possesion in terms of the dour cold war Berlin setting and the attempts to link into the political situation. The casting of Dakota Johnson does make alot more sense watching the film though, she always seemed much too comatose as an actress for such a role but ultimately Mai Goth's Sara ends up taking the traditional horror lead far more.

Shifting to modern dance rather than ballet does make a good deal of sense in that much moreso than the original you get the sense it links into the witchcraft more effectively. I have to admit though I felt the actual discussions of it betrayed the directors "haute" background a bit though, they seemed much too self absorbed expecting us to take indistinct talk about the nature of the art seriously, "free yourself from the ground" and the like, Swinton is typically exellent otherwise though.

I did generally find the first half pretty effective but ultimately I found it a bit of a disappointment by the end. The twist itself is interesting but again I just didnt think Guadagnino was quite up to the job as director, ultimately a bit too "Gucci auteur". Compared to arthouse horror like say Glazers Under The Skin of Clare Dennis's Highlife or indeed the original film I think he runs out stream in terms of his visuals when he tries to ramp them up and something like the low frame rate in the climax feels like a cop out to me. I don't think he ultimately really knows what he's aiming for either more "something something, Berlin wall, something something, feminist power, something something, holocaust, etc" and hoping it will add up, its wasnt a total mess you'd think it could have been but I didnt think it really came together either.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Finally got around to watching Guadagnino's Suspria remake last week, better than I expected although I still think brought down a bit by the directors ultimate lack of imagination and the uneasy mix of art/pulp.

The most obvious point I spose is that whilst in copies the rough plot of Suspria it actually feels like its drawing more on Possesion in terms of the dour cold war Berlin setting and the attempts to link into the political situation. The casting of Dakota Johnson does make alot more sense watching the film though, she always seemed much too comatose as an actress for such a role but ultimately Mai Goth's Sara ends up taking the traditional horror lead far more.

Shifting to modern dance rather than ballet does make a good deal of sense in that much moreso than the original you get the sense it links into the witchcraft more effectively. I have to admit though I felt the actual discussions of it betrayed the directors "haute" background a bit though, they seemed much too self absorbed expecting us to take indistinct talk about the nature of the art seriously, "free yourself from the ground" and the like, Swinton is typically exellent otherwise though.

I did generally find the first half pretty effective but ultimately I found it a bit of a disappointment by the end. The twist itself is interesting but again I just didnt think Guadagnino was quite up to the job as director, ultimately a bit too "Gucci auteur". Compared to arthouse horror like say Glazers Under The Skin of Clare Dennis's Highlife or indeed the original film I think he runs out stream in terms of his visuals when he tries to ramp them up and something like the low frame rate in the climax feels like a cop out to me. I don't think he ultimately really knows what he's aiming for either more "something something, Berlin wall, something something, feminist power, something something, holocaust, etc" and hoping it will add up, its wasnt a total mess you'd think it could have been but I didnt think it really came together either.

Europe loved this or did I make that up?

Didn't look too appealing to me, though I only watched the original within the last year anyway.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Europe loved this or did I make that up?

Didn't look too appealing to me, though I only watched the original within the last year anyway.

I think theirs definitely enough interesting stuff in it to make it worth watching and not much that actively "bad", free in UHD on amazon prime if you have that as well.

 

[Yotsuya]

Europe loved this or did I make that up?

My Chud powers know no bounds!!

 

[Yotsuya]

uneasy mix of art/pulp.

Yeah, the mixture was not blended perfectly...

I don't think he ultimately really knows what he's aiming for either more "something something, Berlin wall, something something, feminist power, something something, holocaust, etc" and hoping it will add up, its wasnt a total mess you'd think it could have been but I didnt think it really came together either.

...but I think there was more method to the madness than this. Took me several days to make sense of the themes though.

 

[Yotsuya]

I saw Fulci's Conquest last week for the fourth time and still loved it. For the first time I actually realised it's influences: It's Clash of the Titans meets Quest for Fire double rip-off with cruelty of the Stone Age combined with classical antiquity mythic stuff!

 

[europe1]

Looking good:

Honestly I don't think you can make a Diabolic movie in this day and age. That ultra-technicolor look that Bava brough is just to defining and stylish. Everything pales in comparison.

Just finished Heaven's Gate for the first time. Not a 100% masterpiece like Barry Lyndon, but that cinematography though... Incredible combination of naturalism and expressionism using mainly natural light combined with scenery and set pieces that seem almost unreal. Can't recall anything quite equal right now.

Oh for sure it's Cimino at his most visually sumptuous.

Let's not talk about the rest of the movie, though.

I should get around to reading ther novel at some stage, not really the kind of thing I normally bother with but it would be interesting to see how it reads as the author is mentioned as a satirist and liberal in some respects but quite anti irish in others

I've tried getting into quite a few of those 19th century adventure novels (not Luck of Lyndon though) but... the patrician prose-style always kills my interest. It feels so... disconnected and overly formal that I just can't dig it.

Colin Farrells performance he's someone relatively normal emotionally but trapped in a world were he can't ever express that or can only do so clumsy.

I'd point out as well that Ryan O'Neil in Barry and The Driver is pretty much the basis for Ryan Goslings career.

I was going to say: "Hmm... not sure I agree there. O'Neil in The Driver is way to quietly intense for Gosling" but then I googled Driver to try and find pictures to state my case (especially thinking of when Detective confronts him in his apartment) but all I find is O'Neil making puppy-dog eyes so I guess you're correct after all.

I have to admit though I felt the actual discussions of it betrayed the directors "haute" background a bit though, they seemed much too self absorbed expecting us to take indistinct talk about the nature of the art seriously

To me, this is an absolutely unforgivable sin that the film all to readily commits.

Europe loved this or did I make that up?

My Chud powers know no bounds!!

I saw Fulci's Conquest last week for the fourth time and still loved it. For the first time I actually realised it's influences: It's Clash of the Titans meets Quest for Fire double rip-off with cruelty of the Stone Age combined with classical antiquity mythic stuff!

None of those four things have enough mist in them to explain Conquest. That movie is 99% cloudiness.

For real though, I love Conquest. Out of all the Conan rip-offs, it's the only one whom seems to nail a mythic/primal-world quality to itself.

 

[Yotsuya]

Let's not talk about the rest of the movie, though.

Maybe I was so spellbound by the cinematography that I was in forgiving mood, but I liked the movie overall pretty much even with it's failings. The mysterious story arc of the main character was intriguing. Reminded me a bit of There Will Be Blood with the difference, that Daniel Day-Lewis can actually act and Kris Kristoffersson is just charismatic but that Cimino actually had a strong ending thematically and dramaturgically even if his lead actor had no idea how to handle the material.

Honestly I don't think you can make a Diabolic movie in this day and age. That ultra-technicolor look that Bava brough is just to defining and stylish. Everything pales in comparison.

Well the thing is, that Diabolik comics aren't like that, so there's a lot of room to make a different type of adaptation. By the looks of the trailer the movie goes for monochromatic look with emphasis of the fetishistic and sadistic elements of the comic. I really hope they loose the rip-off potpourri theme.

None of those four things have enough mist in them to explain Conquest. That movie is 99% cloudiness.

I watched the Code Red bluray. It was just as blurry as the VHS!

For real though, I love Conquest. Out of all the Conan rip-offs, it's the only one whom seems to nail a mythic/primal-world quality to itself.

That's right! And the barbarian sidekick was the Conan element. Didn't think of that.

 

[Highway99]

10/16: The Invisible Man Returns (1940)

10/17: Rockula (1990)

10/18: And Now the Screaming Starts (1973)

 

[europe1]

10/16: The Invisible Man Returns (1940)

10/17: Rockula (1990)

10/18: And Now the Screaming Starts (1973)

Sorry man. I've got nothing.

In the future plz only watch movies that I've watched. Thx in advance.

You do realize there is a movie with Karloff and Lee where Barbara Steele dresses up as a blue-skinned Demoness, right?

EDIT: Don't really know why I highlighted that movie because it's not very good.

 

[Highway99]

Sorry man. I've got nothing.

In the future plz only watch movies that I've watched. Thx in advance.

You do realize there is a movie with Karloff and Lee where Barbara Steele dresses up as a blue-skinned Demoness, right?

EDIT: Don't really know why I highlighted that movie because it's not very good.

These movies are what happens when you start scrolling around looking for movies to watch at midnight.

I can easily get hooked into watching a silly ass movies, such as in the case of Rokula. When it says the movie is about a vampire who starts a rock band to save the love of his life and in doing so break a curse of eternal virginity...I gotta watch that

 

[Highway99]

10/19: Hocus Pocus (1993)

10/20: Videodrome (1983)

10/21: JD's Revenge (1976)

 

[europe1]

10/19: Hocus Pocus (1993)

10/20: Videodrome (1983)

10/21: JD's Revenge (1976)

Only one I've seen was Videodrome and... I like it just like everyone else does. Many Cronenberg movies have this sense of being good more as a collection of individually very memorable scenes as opposed to something cohesive which I definitively think is the case with Videodrome. The theme of psychological/bodily degradation arousing due to new tech opening up greater avenues of hedonism feels more illustrated then explored, if that makes sense.

Redhaired woman very hot though.

 

[Highway99]

Only one I've seen was Videodrome and... I like it just like everyone else does. Many Cronenberg movies have this sense of being good more as a collection of individually very memorable scenes as opposed to something cohesive which I definitively think is the case with Videodrome. The theme of psychological/bodily degradation arousing due to new tech opening up greater avenues of hedonism feels more illustrated then explored, if that makes sense.

Redhaired woman very hot though.

Well you made far more sense out of it than I did. I thought it was about a magic stomach pussy that ate pp7's.

 

[Rimbaud82]

War and Peace (1966)

Holy shit...

...was pretty much my initial reaction after finishing this wildly ambitious seven hour long adaption of Tolstoy's most famous tome. I am honestly not sure I have ever seen a film that is on such an awe-inspiring, epic scale as this one. I have seen multi-part films with a similar running time (for instance Jan Troell's quiet masterpiece The Emigrants / The New Land), and of course there are big blockbusters which aim for a similar grandiose scale (not to say they are good films). Bondarchuk's War and Peace swings for the fences on both fronts and totally hits the mark.

With this epic run- time, innovative film-making techniques and a deep sense of authenticity (featuring genuine priceless antiques from the era) it brings both the book and the historical reality it depicts to life in unparalleled fashion. Just a totally singular experience. Perhaps it's even unfair to compare it to any similar films. The whole project had the entire state apparatus of the Soviet Union behind it and would have been totally inconceivable within a conventional Western production model.

But cold war politics aside, it really is a spectacular film. Over the whole of the seven hours we are given a curious brew of aristocratic romance and historical drama (with more than a pinch of melodrama), as well as absolutely immense battle sequences which I would not hesitate to say are easily the best I have ever seen. Maybe the only thing I can think of which even comes close are those in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. And if I need to add the obvious point, that film uses modern CGI to achieve it's sense of scale. Bondarchuk on the other hand was able to film with thousands of real soldiers. Thousands of real human beings! I was almost speechless. At times it felt like we are being shown real footage of the Napoleonic Wars.

These battle scenes are incredible, all the more so when combined with the excellent cinematography and innovative camera techniques, but as in the book they perfectly underscore and undercut the petty intrigues and romance of Moscow's high society. And alongside all of this this there are also philosophical inquiries into man's place in the world, the nature of suffering, of love, and various other grand questions.

It's a testament to the direction of the film (and to the book of course) that this doesn't come across as trite nonsense, which it might easily have done. In these sequences the film is actually somewhat reminiscent of the work of Soviet Russia's more famous auteurs. At least it hints towards that. It's like arthouse tendencies suddenly appearing intermittently throughout a Hollywood blockbuster. And yet in this film it works seamlessly in capturing the myriad aspects of human existence, both the particular and the general, much in the way Tolstoy does in the original book.

Boy, what a film.

 

[Rimbaud82]

The Church (1989)

Pretty dreadful for the most part. One for Argento fanatics only I would wager (he acted as producer).

It opens in the 12th century with a woeful, cliched depiction of Teutonic Knights massacring an entire village and burying the dead in a pit. It's cringe-worthy nonsense. Anyway, apparently on top of this pit someone decided it would be a good idea to build a church. Centuries later renovations on the church begin to reveal it's the sinister secrets lurking within...

And basically from this we get a daft, nonsensical supernatural mystery which fails to excite any kind of interest. Some bits were better for a laugh to be quite honest, particularly as the schlock starts to ramp up in the latter portions. There were maybe one or two scenes which were somewhat unsettling, or even intriguing. The soundtrack was alright at times. That's about all I can say for it, just a dull, empty film which ties itself in knots.