Movies Serious Movie Discussion

[Rimbaud82]

Dune (2021)

Wasn’t a fan of this at all to be honest. I have never read the book and have never bothered to watch the much-maligned ‘84 version either, so I went in totally fresh. Frankly it was just incredibly dull - a sluggish retread of “white saviour” and “hero's journey” tropes, with one-dimensional characters and an emotionally hollow narrative, which doesn’t present anything interesting at all, and then ends just as things finally seem to be getting started…

Certainly it’s all very visually impressive and technically accomplished, but in terms of actually delivering an engaging story the film felt like a plodding bore, suffocated under the weight of its own ponderousness. There must be a reason that people claim this is an ‘unfilmable’ book and on the evidence of this film they seem to be right.

Jodorowsky’s Dune (2013)

Watching the new version of Dune put me in the notion to finally go back and watch this documentary. I was curious to see what the mad genius that is Alejandro Jodorowsky had planned to do with this same story. His version of Dune must be the most legendary film never made and this documentary lovingly recounts the story of it’s genesis and pre-production. It provides interviews from those involved, as well as a fascinating assortment of materials from the project - concept art, storyboards and so on.

Jodorowsky’s film was ambitious to say the least: a sprawling spiritual, psychedelic space opera starring Salvador Dali and Orson Welles. It sounds like a fairly loose adaptation, or at least one in which changes would have been freely made, but it sounds epic in the true sense of the word. Naturally the fact that the film stayed on paper rather than celluloid has allowed it to remain legendary, who's to say how it would have ended up in reality? It certainly sounds like a product of the 1970s that’s for sure.

It’s something of a celebration, but there is a bittersweet tone to the documentary too. Perhaps the plans were simply too ambitious given the time period (or perhaps even today). Ultimately though, it ends on a more optimistic note as an ode to the power of creativity and imagination and to Jodorowsky in general. All in all a pretty good documentary, if perhaps a tad uncritical and over-done in it's glorification.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Dune (2021)

Wasn’t a fan of this at all to be honest. I have never read the book and have never bothered to watch the much-maligned ‘84 version either, so I went in totally fresh. Frankly it was just incredibly dull - a sluggish retread of “white saviour” and “hero's journey” tropes, with one-dimensional characters and an emotionally hollow narrative, which doesn’t present anything interesting at all, and then ends just as things finally seem to be getting started…

Certainly it’s all very visually impressive and technically accomplished, but in terms of actually delivering an engaging story the film felt like a plodding bore, suffocated under the weight of its own ponderousness. There must be a reason that people claim this is an ‘unfilmable’ book and on the evidence of this film they seem to be right.

As much as anything to me it feels like a fundamental mismatch in style, I really liked Blade Runner 2049, maybe not as much as the original but I'd still say it was one of the best big budget hollywood films of recent years yet much of what worked there just doesnt here. Maybe the lack of sucess of that film pushed this further towards action blockbuster terratory as well but I feel like the style that worked in a narrative with a handful of characters were you had a lot of time for it to play out failed in one were its dealing with a much more plot and character heavy film.

2049's sucess really was I think based on its ability to draw out scenes of drama and general atmosphere were as Dune just doesnt have this time to work with, given just a few mins of screen time many character really struggle to make much impact for me and even the lead characters end up rather generic as do the locations.

 

[Rimbaud82]

As much as anything to me it feels like a fundamental mismatch in style, I really liked Blade Runner 2049, maybe not as much as the original but I'd still say it was one of the best big budget hollywood films of recent years yet much of what worked there just doesnt here. Maybe the lack of sucess of that film pushed this further towards action blockbuster terratory as well but I feel like the style that worked in a narrative with a handful of characters were you had a lot of time for it to play out failed in one were its dealing with a much more plot and character heavy film.

2049's sucess really was I think based on its ability to draw out scenes of drama and general atmosphere were as Dune just doesnt have this time to work with, given just a few mins of screen time many character really struggle to make much impact for me and even the lead characters end up rather generic as do the locations.

Definitely agree, I also quite liked Blade Runner 2049...felt it was well handled and about as good as you could hope for. The approach absolutely failed to translate in this film.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Boiling Point (2021)

An intense, claustrophobic drama dealing with the pressures and emotions of the restaurant business, along with the severe toil this can have on the personal lives of those within it. It is an incredibly stressful film; if I was being trite I’d say something like ‘this is Uncut Gems in a kitchen’. It should probably come with a trigger warning for anyone that has ever worked in hospitality.

What is probably most distinctive about “Boiling Point” is it’s bold formal style, with the entire film being shot in a single location with a single take. The kinetic energy derived from this approach might invite some comparison with Birdman (2014), but here it is much more technically impressive given that it really is one shot. It’s far from a gimmick too, the film's style perfectly underpins the narrative as events inexorably move towards their tragic conclusion.

The narrative is primarily from the perspective of head chef Andy Jones (Stephen Graham) as he is beset by personal and professional crises on one of the busiest nights of the year. However, it also spreads out to touch on the other members of staff who, of course, all have their own lives and own problems. Some of this is very brief, with the film only hinting at things beneath the surface, but the point is obvious - human beings contain multitudes.

For me “Boiling Point” was cooked to perfection, absolutely brilliant and with excellent performances across the board too. It perfectly captures the pressure cooker environment of a busy restaurant. All this for a bit of food?

 

[Rimbaud82]

Azor (2021)

“It echoed loudly within him because he was hollow at the core.... “ - Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness

Very very impressed by this sly, sophisticated political thriller. I say thriller, but the pace is positively sedate. Instead of heavy-handed drama and didactic hand-holding Azor gives us a subtle look at the darkness within the world banking system. The evil is always just out of frame, always inferred…and yet always there. With a controlled pace and a brilliantly unnerving score, it delivers a lingering undercurrent of quiet menace.

Set in 1980 at the height of the “Dirty War” executed by Argentina's ruthless military junta, the film brings us into the world of the country's high society; a world of empty elegance and greed in which furtive glances reveal more than words. Thousands of people have been murdered or ‘disappeared’ by the junta in their attempts to crush any resistance and an unsettling sense of unease lingers over everything, even the vapid normality of the ultra-rich. Yet, where there is money to be made there are bankers to be found…

Azor follows Yvan de Wiel, a private banker from Geneva who has come to Buenos Aires to replace his partner, who has vanished mysteriously and around whom sinister rumours swirl. A quiet, unassuming figure fraught with insecurities, he nonetheless does his best to follow in the footsteps of his more bombastic colleague. As he moves deeper and deeper into this shadowy world Yvan willingly gives himself over to his own heart of darkness. It becomes apparent that in spite of their sleek, polished appearance international bankers like Yvan are little better than the conquistadors of old.

In profiting from and choosing to look away from the evil they enable, international banking systems thus represent a more insidious kind of colonialism, the continuation of centuries old exploitation by other means

 

[Bullitt68]

The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021)

With Joel Coen’s first solo film project he delivers an absolutely stunning take on Shakespeare’s most cinematic play. I saw this in the cinema last night as part of the BFI London Film Festival and was extremely impressed.

I have this on my computer but haven't watched it yet, so I didn't read any further than you saying that you were impressed. I'll come back to this once I find time to watch it. I'm really looking forward to it. And you know what's wild? I've known for some time that Ethan Coen studied philosophy at Princeton and wrote about Ludwig Wittgenstein, and since Wittgenstein is one of my scholarly specialties, I've thought it'd be cool to write some sort of Wittgensteinian analysis of the Coen Brothers' stuff. Well, I put in a request to the Princeton library and I got a digitized copy of Ethan's 1979 BA thesis on Wittgenstein. It's fucking crazy to have a document like that. He was both incredibly smart and witty even as a college student. So I'll hopefully have a little Coen Brothers marathon in the next few months and when I do I'll take the opportunity to check out Joel's solo effort.

The Lion in Winter (1968)

This historical melodrama is decent fun, with some engaging performances but to be honest I found myself pretty tired of it by the end.

You would get tired of one of the most vibrant melodramatic scripts ever written, wouldn't you? I guess this is the downside to being the history nerd that you are. I imagine that watching movies like these is akin to watching martial arts movies with silly martial arts sequences - it's hard for you to get past the inaccuracies/liberties knowing what you know. For me, even as a super Hepburn fan, this one's never been one of my favorites, but I do enjoy her and Peter O'Toole squaring off and it's a pretty strong meditation on what happens when love morphs into hate.

 

[Rimbaud82]

I have this on my computer but haven't watched it yet, so I didn't read any further than you saying that you were impressed. I'll come back to this once I find time to watch it. I'm really looking forward to it. And you know what's wild? I've known for some time that Ethan Coen studied philosophy at Princeton and wrote about Ludwig Wittgenstein, and since Wittgenstein is one of my scholarly specialties, I've thought it'd be cool to write some sort of Wittgensteinian analysis of the Coen Brothers' stuff. Well, I put in a request to the Princeton library and I got a digitized copy of Ethan's 1979 BA thesis on Wittgenstein. It's fucking crazy to have a document like that. He was both incredibly smart and witty even as a college student. So I'll hopefully have a little Coen Brothers marathon in the next few months and when I do I'll take the opportunity to check out Joel's solo effort.

Damn I want to hear more about this Wittgenstein-ian analysis of their work.

You would get tired of one of the most vibrant melodramatic scripts ever written, wouldn't you? I guess this is the downside to being the history nerd that you are. I imagine that watching movies like these is akin to watching martial arts movies with silly martial arts sequences - it's hard for you to get past the inaccuracies/liberties knowing what you know. For me, even as a super Hepburn fan, this one's never been one of my favorites, but I do enjoy her and Peter O'Toole squaring off and it's a pretty strong meditation on what happens when love morphs into hate.

I would indeed, alas. I can't help it, but yes perhaps that is a part of it. Didn't hate it or anything, just wore thin before long.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Anyway, have a few flms to update...in old fashioned mega post fashion. Since this place totally died and @europe1 et al. got a life or something I am more or less firing these into the ether, but I write them for Letterboxd anyway so may as well stick 'em in here too for old times sake.

This Is Not a Burial, It’s a Resurrection (2019)

Absolutely wonderful, a singular stroke of genius from Lesotho filmmaker Lemohang Jeremiah Mosese.

The story is fairly simple when laid out: In Lesotho, an 80-year-old widow finds a new will to live when her remote village is threatened with forced resettlement due to the construction of a new reservoir. In her defiance she ignites a spirit of resilience within her community.

However, what makes this film so brilliant is it’s transcendent imagery, poetic texture and the drenching richness of its visual style. The story is simple, yet deeply moving and it perfectly intersects with the film's hypnotic pace and wonderful visuals. Every frame really is a painting.

The opening scene very much sets the tone: a jarring, ethereal shot of a mosotho warrior aiming a spear at a horse struggling to break free from it’s reins; then cut…now we are in a distinctly modern, neon drenched bar. The camera slowly pans around a number of drinkers slowly swaying to peculiar, almost otherworldly music. Finally it settles on a strange bard-like figure playing a lesiba (a traditional folk instrument, the source of the music). This individual acts as an occasional frame narrator, establishing the scene and providing a mythical, almost Homeric backdrop.

The logic and themes of the film are thus well established and play out as the narrative develops. This is Not a Burial is concerned with the importance of place and memory, particularly when faced against the destructive forces of progress. The old world versus the modern, and the forces which have shaped the latter. “Today we are knocking at the door of the modern world” says their local politician. “What about our graves?” asks our protagonist Mantoa. A modern world for who, and at what cost?

The narrative lingers with you afterwards, raising such questions and connections. Ultimately though, this is the sort of film that begs to be seen and experienced directly, by the soul rather than the intellect.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Good Time (2017)

There's not much point in me coming along now and rehashing what an acutely intense, stressful affair this film is. Needless to say it is not, in fact, a particularly Good Time but rather an electrifying thrill-ride from start to finish. You can certainly see the way in which the Safdie brothers would develop this style further with Uncut Gems.

Good Time makes good use wonderfully claustrophobic cinematography and an electric soundtrack, refracted through a grungy neon colour palette. It is suffused with a frenetic, feverish ambiance. What also helps carry things is the performance of Robert Pattinson, who is absolutely magnetic as Connie, a small-time criminal who 'looks after' his younger, mentally-handicapped brother.

It is a good film, but I wasn't quite as enamoured with it as I was with their more recent film. The 'Of Mice and Men' inspired story added a somewhat interesting dimension, but I don't think it is quite successful in fully portraying the psychological complexity it seemed to be aiming for. I also didn't really find the script as strong as Uncut Gems, a lot of the narrative elements simply feel far too absurd and contrived to land with any real impact. The intense atmosphere can only carry it so far. Pretty good, but not great.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Liborio (2021)

An enigmatic, meditative account of the Afro-Dominican folk hero known as Papá Liborio and the spiritual movement he founded in the early decades of the 20th century. Liborio is based on real events, but it takes a very opaque approach to the historical reality; eschewing awkward exposition of historical context in favour of a more grounded examination of the religious feeling it brings to life within the community.

Liborio is a local peasant who disappears during a violent storm. Presumed dead, funeral services are held in his honour. One day he suddenly reappears as a messianic figure with faith-healing powers. As word spreads through the region a self-sufficient community begins to coalesce around him, a kind of spiritual commune of shared labour and equitable distribution of resources. However, such a community is seen as a threat to the established order and the local landlord becomes increasingly concerned about the movement. Things come to a head when US Marines arrive in the region to restore “order” and bring “modernisation".

Apart from the opening sequence, events unfold entirely from the perspective of his followers. This narrative device serves to keep Liborio at arms length and he thus remains a puzzling, mysterious figure. Is he a madman? A charlatan? A revolutionary? A prophet? The film deals with this question with a very light touch. What is more important is not the ontological reality of these claims about Liborio’s divine powers but rather the impact this has on the poor Afro-Dominican population in the San Juan Valley.

It is a slow-moving, contemplative affair; perhaps not quite to the full extent of some “Slow Cinema” but definitely in that territory. There is more than a touch of Schrader’s transcendental style about it. The action is frequently quite mundane - collecting firewood, preparing food and so on - but the visual language of the film serves to heighten it’s more poetic, mystical sensibilities.

The “liborismo” movement survived for decades after the death of its founder (and still survives in some form up to the present). In telling the story of a marginalised people (what Eric Wolf calls “the People without History”) the film stands as a thoughtful testament to the importance of this kind of dynamic folk-belief as a form of creative opposition to colonial power. An impressive debut!

 

[Rimbaud82]

Skies of Lebanon (2020)

A moving portrait of love and loss in the midst of conflict. The film follows a young woman called Alice who, in the 1950s, packs up her things and moves from her native Switzerland to the unspoiled shores of Lebanon. In Beirut she falls madly in love with Joseph, a shy astrophysicist and the two soon settle into a life of idyllic contentment - marriage and a baby daughter all following in quick succession. However, the outbreak of violent civil war in the 1970s threatens to destroy the life they have built. This essentially is the crux of the film: an examination of history, memory and conflict through the narrow lens of the family sphere.

It was a charming, interesting film. I hadn’t heard or read about it beforehand so I was initially a bit taken aback by some of the stylistic choices. In addition to regular live-action, the film also makes use of quirky stop-motion animation and 2D backdrops. Mostly this is limited to the opening half hour or so depicting Alice’s life in Switzerland and her initial arrival in Lebanon. Clearly this dreamlike, quasi-fantasy aesthetic is supposed to deliberately contrast with the trauma of the civil war, and of course to reflect the nature of memory and nostalgia. After this things become a bit more grounded, though still with a few other metaphorical flourishes.

It works in points and overall I did like the film, but I’m not sure it was entirely successful. For instance, the film tries to avoid showing us the conflict directly. This is understandable given it is trying to convey the interpersonal effects in a fairly narrow way, but in the use of deliberately artificial, symbolic scenes to convey the competing factions it comes off a little trivial and almost flippant. I also think the narrative didn’t quite enable us to properly connect with the family. Things move a bit too quickly, and it’s all a little abstract. It could simply come off a tad precious in general too.

Ultimately though, even if it’s not a perfect film I think it has enough heart and charm to carry it through and it was certainly interesting enough that I’ll be looking out for future films from the director.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Katalin Varga (2009)

A wonderfully atmospheric, quietly unsettling revenge thriller set in the Carpathian mountains. The story unfolds according to the logic of a folk-tale; with characters who are practically archetypal and a stripped back, elemental narrative. The film begins with the eponymous main character Katalin Varga being banished from her home after her husband discovers that her son Orbán is not his. Ostracised by the entire village she is forced to set off into the wilderness to track down the real father. From here things move along at a languorous, deliberate pace, but always with something darkly foreboding lurking underneath.

The visual framing and use of landscape is fantastic - beautiful mountain vistas undercut by disquieting shots of deep, dark forests. More than any other aspect the sound design is probably the most impressive (and indeed it won an award at the Berlin Film Festival). It is so effective at creating a tension which builds and builds…until it is released by a sharp, brutal ending.

This was Peter Strickland’s debut film and in fact he self-financed the entire thing, filming it in only 17 days on a budget of £28,000. He speaks neither Hungarian or Romanian. A bit of a gamble clearly, but it definitely paid off. I actually wasn’t huge on Berberian Sound Studio (2012), but I loved this. Strickland’s interest in sound design is clearly apparent here too.

 

[Deleted member 499399]

The Matrix Resurrections
When talking to a friend who hadn’t seen the movie I was getting flustered and I think he picked up on it when he said” It’s just a movie though”. I was speechless still. I wasn’t sure how to answer that. I mean of course its a movie. It’s a movie of many stories told across a number of genres that I can’t quite put a number on. It’s also something of a puzzle box. Like a book full of metaphors and riddles and every time I solve one it reveals another. Is it a social commentary and political statement or an invitation to a philosophical journey towards self discovery? It’s been changing. Today if I had to answer what it is I’d say it’s an inspirational work. The story of an artist creating meaning in spite of a meaningless existence through her WORK. Like a spark that no matter how brief, for the moment it exists defies the darkness. A glorious triumph that refuses to be denied.

Maybe tomorrow it will be something else but that’s where I’m at today. I’ve read a lot of reviews and listened to too many podcasts and YouTube videos and I’ve found that nobody really agrees what this movie is even about except for the most dismissive “cash grab” or “it’s bad on purpose” types of commentators and there is clearly more going on than that.

I’m recommending people give it some thought.

 

[europe1]

Since this place totally died and @europe1 et al. got a life or something

Yeah sorry I've waned off Sherdog except for the play-by-play threads. It's the typical problem. To much to do. Only 24 hours in one day. And darnit Rimbaud do you manage to find some out-of-the-way movies.

I've been thinking about making mega-posts of my own... but do I really want to talk about how much Pasolini's Medea sucked? Do I? Does the existence of this movie even deserve being mentioned?

Pasolini was one of those people who wanted to "capture reality" by hiring amatures and filming nudity and all that. But, by god, watching this movie, I wondered if all that talk was just an excuse to cover up his lack of filmmaking ideas. This seemed an absolutely uncreative, unimaginative filmatization of the Greek myth. The storytelling is ropey as all hell -- lacking narrative propulsion and catarsis -- and instead of capturing a "pre-modern" vibe with his amaturism it just comes across as slapdash and embarrasing to watch. How could a poet have created something so... unpoetic?

More adept at capturing a "pre-modern" vibe was the Egyptian film: The Night of Counting Years (hey this seems like an Rimbaud82 film!). It's about a pesant villeage who frequently robs Pharoic graves to suppliment their income. They're not excactly living a hand-to-mouth existence... but are not far off, and selling their ancestors knicknacks allows the villigers to take a break and not have to work like animals all the time. So the conflict of this film is about the peasant economy vs a reverence for bygone people.

It's a good film but... it certainly falls to many common arthouse pitfalls. It easily feels meandering and drawn-out and... oftentimes it feels like the tone is saying more than the script.

Staying in Egypt (and the pre-modern), I watched Michael Curtiz's 1924 movie The Moon of Israel. I'm only bringing this up to say that this is Curtiz making a Cecil B DeMille film that is better than any Cecil B DeMille film in existence. Utter mastercraft. Genius flexing his muscles. Curtiz captures the fantastical, alien, and extravagant about the Ancient World... while also staying squared-in on his characters personal drives and passions. Elevated Curtis in my eyes.

Speaking of DeMille, I also watched his 1923 version of The Ten Commandments. Unlike the 50's version, this is a two-parter, the first third centering on Moses and the Exodus, and the last two thirds telling a modern moralistic parable centering on vice, virtue and family. Watching this, I 100% understood why DeMille ditched the modern segment in his remake. The Exodus segment is DeMille operating at his full cinematic power -- almost reaching Curtiz's level -- but, by god, the modern story, oh boy. I've never seen a movie plummet so quickly in quality as this one. When the story abruptly shifts to the 1920's, it's almost laughable in how trite and hokey it becomes. I was sitting gobsmacked as the awesomeness of the Egyptian world was replaced by "obey your mother" kitchen-sink moralizing.

Ten Commandments reminded me a lot of Gong Li's/Yimou Zang's Terracotta Warrior -- which does a similar ancient/modern shift. The ancient world's storytelling feeling imbued with a sense of legendary narratives and emotional power -- while the modern world is pretty garbage, hokey, and a real car-crash in quality.

Speaking of China Hong Kong, I remember @Bullitt68 high-praising The Assassin as one of Chang Cheh/Jimmy Wang Yu best films. After years of skulking through the interwebs, I finally found a copy. I... uhh... liked The Assassin well enough. But I can't conceptualize why this would be either men at the peak of their powers. It's very much one of those "ultimate devotion to my quest for vengeance! Super martyrdom in the name of virtue!" kind of story's. In term of chop-socky, it's one of those films that's a bit annoying in how they bring in supernatural elements last-minute out-of-nowhere when everything before that had been grounded combat.

Really liked "An Inspector Calls." Very much a surprise hit for me. Alastair Sim was pretty damn awesome. One of those detective movies with a sociological heart. I'm not even mad at the rug pull of an ending. Somehow it fits.

There's not much point in me coming along now and rehashing what an acutely intense, stressful affair this film is. Needless to say it is not, in fact, a particularly Good Time but rather an electrifying thrill-ride from start to finish. You can certainly see the way in which the Safdie brothers would develop this style further with Uncut Gems.

Good Time makes good use wonderfully claustrophobic cinematography and an electric soundtrack, refracted through a grungy neon colour palette. It is suffused with a frenetic, feverish ambiance. What also helps carry things is the performance of Robert Pattinson, who is absolutely magnetic as Connie, a small-time criminal who 'looks after' his younger, mentally-handicapped brother.

It is a good film, but I wasn't quite as enamoured with it as I was with their more recent film. The 'Of Mice and Men' inspired story added a somewhat interesting dimension, but I don't think it is quite successful in fully portraying the psychological complexity it seemed to be aiming for. I also didn't really find the script as strong as Uncut Gems, a lot of the narrative elements simply feel far too absurd and contrived to land with any real impact. The intense atmosphere can only carry it so far. Pretty good, but not great.

I remember Bullit68 really hating this movie<45>

Personally, I very much thought it a dress-rehersal for Uncut Gems, which was both very similar, yet also sublimely superior in every way.

Good Times I saw more as a dark comedy than anything. It's a movie all about the twists-and-turns of the story, one unfortunate happenstance toppling atop another. "How are things going to get fucked-up next!?" the audience wonders with a grin. Whopsi-daisy, looks like Robert Pattison is going to have to break into an Amusement Park at night! It's one of those movies that's better to laugh-with and get caught-in-its-flow-off rather than to think about it. Better for funny thrills than content.

Every time I even get a modicum of respect for Robert Pattison I remember how much I hated his silly-villian routine in The King and then all that respect vanishes.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

I remember Bullit68 really hating this movie<45>

Personally, I very much thought it a dress-rehersal for Uncut Gems, which was both very similar, yet also sublimely superior in every way.

Good Times I saw more as a dark comedy than anything. It's a movie all about the twists-and-turns of the story, one unfortunate happenstance toppling atop another. "How are things going to get fucked-up next!?" the audience wonders with a grin. Whopsi-daisy, looks like Robert Pattison is going to have to break into an Amusement Park at night! It's one of those movies that's better to laugh-with and get-caught-in-its-flow-off rather than to think about it. Better for funny thrills than content.

Every time I even get a modicum of respect for Robert Pattison I remember how much I hated his silly-villian routine in The King and then all that respect vanishes.

It is one of those films were I suspect part of the popularity was that it gave people on the arthouse circuit a chance to watch a bit of action.

As said though I did kind of view it as a bit of a dry run for something better and maybe showed both the strenghts and the weaknesses of Pattinson? I tend to think both him and Kirsten Stewart actually ended up in a very similar place post Twilight, both migrated to arthouse and I think both turned out to be very good at playing character roles with a good deal of charisma but perhaps lacked the range to reallty carry films by themselves?High Life and Personal Shopper I thought were both exellent but not sure you could say either of them depended on their leads to carry the film, not like say Johansson in Under The Skin.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Yeah sorry I've waned off Sherdog except for the play-by-play threads. It's the typical problem. To much to do. Only 24 hours in one day. And darnit Rimbaud do you manage to find some out-of-the-way movies.

How dare you :sniper:

I've been thinking about making mega-posts of my own... but do I really want to talk about how much Pasolini's Medea sucked? Do I? Does the existence of this movie even deserve being mentioned?

Pasolini was one of those people who wanted to "capture reality" by hiring amatures and filming nudity and all that. But, by god, watching this movie, I wondered if all that talk was just an excuse to cover up his lack of filmmaking ideas. This seemed an absolutely uncreative, unimaginative filmatization of the Greek myth. The storytelling is ropey as all hell -- lacking narrative propulsion and catarsis -- and instead of capturing a "pre-modern" vibe with his amaturism it just comes across as slapdash and embarrasing to watch. How could a poet have created something so... unpoetic?

I've only see a little Pasolini. Still really need to get round to The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964), but I did really enjoy his "Trilogy of Life". I will be sure to avoid this like the plague based on this review though.

More adept at capturing a "pre-modern" vibe was the Egyptian film: The Night of Counting Years (hey this seems like an Rimbaud82 film!). It's about a pesant villeage who frequently robs Pharoic graves to suppliment their income. They're not excactly living a hand-to-mouth existence... but are not far off, and selling their ancestors knicknacks allows the villigers to take a break and not have to work like animals all the time. So the conflict of this film is about the peasant economy vs a reverence for bygone people.

It's a good film but... it certainly falls to many common arthouse pitfalls. It easily feels meandering and drawn-out and... oftentimes it feels like the tone is saying more than the script.

This does sound interesting and I have duly added it to my Letterboxd watchlist

Staying in Egypt (and the pre-modern), I watched Michael Curtiz's 1924 movie The Moon of Israel. I'm only bringing this up to say that this is Curtiz making a Cecil B DeMille film that is better than any Cecil B DeMille film in existence. Utter mastercraft. Genius flexing his muscles. Curtiz captures the fantastical, alien, and extravagant about the Ancient World... while also staying squared-in on his characters personal drives and passions. Elevated Curtis in my eyes.

Speaking of DeMille, I also watched his 1923 version of The Ten Commandments. Unlike the 50's version, this is a two-parter, the first third centering on Moses and the Exodus, and the last two thirds telling a modern moralistic parable centering on vice, virtue and family. Watching this, I 100% understood why DeMille ditched the modern segment in his remake. The Exodus segment is DeMille operating at his full cinematic power -- almost reaching Curtiz's level -- but, by god, the modern story, oh boy. I've never seen a movie plummet so quickly in quality as this one. When the story abruptly shifts to the 1920's, it's almost laughable in how trite and hokey it becomes. I was sitting gobsmacked as the awesomeness of the Egyptian world was replaced by "obey your mother" kitchen-sink moralizing.

Never seen any Curtz, maybe I'll watch this at easter...always in that kind of notion around then.

I remember Bullit68 really hating this movie<45>

Personally, I very much thought it a dress-rehersal for Uncut Gems, which was both very similar, yet also sublimely superior in every way.

Good Times I saw more as a dark comedy than anything. It's a movie all about the twists-and-turns of the story, one unfortunate happenstance toppling atop another. "How are things going to get fucked-up next!?" the audience wonders with a grin. Whopsi-daisy, looks like Robert Pattison is going to have to break into an Amusement Park at night! It's one of those movies that's better to laugh-with and get caught-in-its-flow-off rather than to think about it. Better for funny thrills than content.

Every time I even get a modicum of respect for Robert Pattison I remember how much I hated his silly-villian routine in The King and then all that respect vanishes.

That's actually a really good point about it almost approaching dark comedy, think you could be on to something there.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Network (1976)

"You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it!"

A wonderfully biting satire of a TV news industry obsessed with ratings and profits over anything else. The film is prophetic in it's depiction of a world in which actually delivering the news is entirely secondary to providing entertainment. Far from a bastion of truth, the news becomes simply one aspect of an Adorno-esque culture industry which reinforces "one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars".

Excellent direction from Sidney Lumet and with fine performances across the board as well. A sharp, clever film, albeit almost disturbing in how accurate it's predictions would turn out to be. Very good, should have definitely got round to this one sooner!

 

[Bullitt68]

Damn I want to hear more about this Wittgenstein-ian analysis of their work.

Yeah, so do I. I have no clue when I'll have the time to do it, though. I've reached a point in my academic life where I'm starting get direct e-mails inviting me to write shit. It used to be I'd be scouring the Internet looking for calls for papers and then submitting stuff as a random nobody desperately hoping they'd pick my shit. Now, I just open my Inbox and I have invitations to write about Stephen Chow here, Bruce Lee there, and I'm realizing that I don't even need to try to be busy anymore. Busy is going to find me. Because, in the words of Ron Burgundy, I'm starting to become a big deal.

It's the typical problem. To much to do. Only 24 hours in one day.

I've been saying for years now that if they can't make days longer then they at least need to add an extra day to the week. 24/7 just isn't enough time!

Staying in Egypt (and the pre-modern), I watched Michael Curtiz's 1924 movie The Moon of Israel. I'm only bringing this up to say that this is Curtiz making a Cecil B DeMille film that is better than any Cecil B DeMille film in existence. Utter mastercraft. Genius flexing his muscles. Curtiz captures the fantastical, alien, and extravagant about the Ancient World... while also staying squared-in on his characters personal drives and passions. Elevated Curtis in my eyes.

He's a beast. One of those workhorse dudes who never got the respect for the true artist he was. The best classic "hidden gem" that I've seen in the last year or two was an under the radar film of his that I'd never stumbled upon before: The Unsuspected. If you haven't already seen it, you'll love it. The script is excellent, Claude Rains crushes it, and Curtiz directs the absolute fuck out of it.

I remember @Bullitt68 high-praising The Assassin as one of Chang Cheh/Jimmy Wang Yu best films. After years of skulking through the interwebs, I finally found a copy. I... uhh... liked The Assassin well enough. But I can't conceptualize why this would be either men at the peak of their powers. It's very much one of those "ultimate devotion to my quest for vengeance! Super martyrdom in the name of virtue!" kind of story's. In term of chop-socky, it's one of those films that's a bit annoying in how they bring in supernatural elements last-minute out-of-nowhere when everything before that had been grounded combat.

Haha, you finally tracked it down! To be fair, I only saw it once and it was whenever I started recommending it to you, but I do remember being wowed by it. This post certainly makes me want to rewatch it.

On the subject of martial arts movies, did you see that Criterion put out that big Blu-ray collection of the Once Upon a Time in China series? The original trilogy looks damn good and they even included Sammo Hung's Once Upon a Time in China and America, which I'd never seen in all this time that I've loved the original trilogy. It's not very good, but it was good enough and definitely fascinating with the culture clash angle.

And then you know what I'm doing right now? I'm in the process of putting together an edited collection for the academic publisher Bloomsbury titled Fighting Stars: Stardom and Reception in Hong Kong Martial Arts Cinema. Every major star from Kwan Tak-hing up to Donnie Yen will have a chapter devoted to them written by a different scholar. I'd almost locked down every chapter when the guy who was going to write about Jimmy Wang Yu had to drop out. When I started looking online to see if I could find a replacement, I stumbled onto the website for Tarantino's New Beverly Cinema and remembered that he wrote a big thing on Jimmy Wang Yu: https://thenewbev.com/tarantinos-reviews/wang-yu-superstar-super-director/.

So I reached out to the website guy who told me to contact Tarantino's agent. If I can't get a request directly to him to write a chapter on Jimmy Wang Yu for me, I at least want permission to reprint his write-up. How cool would that be? My first edited collection with a chapter in it by Tarantino?

Fingers crossed

I remember Bullit68 really hating this movie<45>

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/sherdog-movie-club-week-215-good-time.4116576/

This movie sucked two big fat nuts. Why don't people know how to write scripts anymore? And why work so hard to make a movie with a two million dollar budget look like it was made for two thousand dollars? "Film School Chic" isn't a thing you no-talent assclowns.

This was just a mess of a movie narratively speaking, and aesthetically speaking it was trying so hard, with its indie handheld camerawork and especially that God awful techno-sounding-nails-on-a-chalkboard-equivalent "score," to force a feeling of intensity that so clearly wasn't there that it made the lack of intensity all the more laughable and pathetic. After trying to do the O'Reily brothers shtick from Oz - and OG Emerald City inmate Poet even showed up as that ambulance driver - and doing it very badly, this movie turned into a shitty version of Judgment Night. I almost tapped out when the bandaged-not-brother went through that interminable flashback. Shoving in a new character who I couldn't give less of a fuck about - and giving me more information and backstory about him than the ostensible main fucking characters! - when I'm supposed to be investing everything into the brothers was the worst decision in a movie full of retarded decisions. When he jumped to his death (or fell - I was beyond caring by that point) I was relieved that I at least got one win out of this terrible movie.

I also didn't like Uncut Gems, but I tried searching and can't find my post about it. Basically, it was too predictable and full of manufactured, unearned "intensity" with a thoroughly humdrum performance from Sandler which only gets any credit because he's the comedy guy and so people think he should be awful if he ever does anything that isn't a Grown Ups sequel. He didn't suck, but he wasn't anything special, either, and certainly not strong enough to anchor a film so dependent upon the lead performance.

 

[Rimbaud82]

Nostos: The Return (1989)

Takes Homer’s Odyssey and strips it to the bone; strips away the stale familiarity it has gained over the millennia as a ‘foundational text’ of Western literature (not to mention as something taught in schools), until we are left with a story which resonates in purely poetic terms. The distillation of a dusty old myth as pure mȳthos. Simply wonderful.

Telling the story of Odysseus (who isn’t named) in the most abstract terms the film relies almost exclusively on impressionistic visual imagery. Nature perhaps plays the most important part of all, framing the narrative and threatening to swallow our hero at every turn. In fact there is essentially no dialogue; what little there is is spoken in a completely fictional language which evokes “the sounds of ancient Mediterranean languages”. Initially you find yourself reaching for subtitles that aren’t there, but before long it’s easy to give yourself up to the film's meditative approach.

Because it peels back the narrative to such a dramatic extent, we are left with an incredibly evocative, philosophical take on this classic story. It’s perhaps not the most complex thing in the world, but nor is it trying to be (and indeed why should it be). As the title suggests it grapples with the theme of nostos. In a literal sense this refers to the genre of an epic hero returning home by sea, but as the film makes apparent this is also the root from which we get nostalgia. There is the longing for the return itself - both a literal return home and a sentimental retreat into memory, but this is contrasted against an equally human impulse for exploration and wanderlust.

Alongside this there are other themes evoked - man’s place within nature, the brutality of war and the scars it leaves, and so on. But again, it is ultimately the visuals and poetry of the film that carries things. You get the sense that if Tarkovsky had lived for a few more years he would have loved this. It’s a uniquely cinematic take on the Odyssey, not one that simply recreates a written version. Beautiful.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

I have been hoping for years Nostos would get more of a rediscovery and a better release, it does I think still feel very contempory.