|
Post by DeepArcher on Apr 27, 2020 3:03:19 GMT
Sorry We Missed You (2019): It's good but ... some scenes are kinda ridiculous in how they insist that these are not well-intentioned people turned into worse versions of themselves by a ruthless systems but rather they are all good people and it's the system that's bad ... there's not a moment where we can question a character's morality despite all their struggles, and even if there is the character who's done something wrong will immediately plead forgiveness as if Loach doesn't trust the audience to properly judge the characters. The entire film is very direct in a didactic way and holding the hand of the audience through the murky subject matter ... again, Loach just seems afraid that the audience won't take away what he wants us to, and doesn't trust us to evaluate the film's commentary on our own ... an absurd amount of scenes will have characters explaining to us directly how we are supposed to feel about them and what's happening. And yet ... I was entertained in spite of all that, it's compelling and the performances are impeccable.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Apr 27, 2020 21:03:58 GMT
The 13th Warrior (1999)-
Decent action adventure but very thing on plot and conflict- 6/10
The Lost Weekend (1945)-
A vivid portrayal of the effects of alcoholism and failure of living up to your talent. Very well written and directed by Billy Wilder except for the "that's enough, wrap it up" ending. Ray Milland gave an excellent performance- 8/10
|
|
Drish
Badass
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 1,752
|
Post by Drish on Apr 27, 2020 23:32:04 GMT
I did a double feature of Scream and When a Stranger Calls (1979) and had a blast. Scream is so funny with some really goofball characters and wacky dialogues, Courtney Cox's "Oh, God, Kenny. I'm sorry, but get off my fucking windshield!" had me dying . The latter is more serious, more grim and has some really haunting score. Tony Beckley and Carol Kane were amazing. I found Crimes and Misdemeanors okay. I wasn't into some of those philosophical blabbers it had but loved Landau's arc and his performance. The last scene was really good too. Serpico was great, with probably my second favorite Pacino performance from what I have seen.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Apr 28, 2020 1:18:53 GMT
Crazy in Love (1992) - a generous 6ish/10 TNT movie. Like a soap opera - every scene has a big reveal and a life-or-death level of drama. It’s too much. Martha Coolidge (Valley Girl) directs this flatly but there are some good scenes enlivened by using unbroken shots. The cast does the heavy lifting - Holly Hunter is amusing as a sexually teed documentarian, borderline psycho actually; Bill Pullman who’s really good here in a smaller role as her tense husband; Gena Rowlands is absolutely lovely as HH’s mother, a local weatherwoman (would’ve loved a whole movie just about her); Herta Ware is a convincing kook as HH’s grandmother; and Frances McDormand comes around as HH’s sister. It’s a damn good cast, royalty - except for the godawful, creepy robot Julian Sands.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Apr 28, 2020 7:00:48 GMT
Killing Them Softly - still love it. One of the most underrated ensembles ever.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Apr 28, 2020 18:29:08 GMT
Laws of Gravity (1992) 8/10, maybe more? Wish it didn't take me so long to see this - loved it. Shot in 12 days, which is remarkable. Not a false performance or scene. It's an absolutely buzzing movie, with handheld camera and constant overlapping dialogue and activity, it looks and sounds like scruffy real life. Yet it tells a clear, inevitable, tragic story, the pieces come together, and just like how several individual scenes create a kidding atmosphere that sours into peril, so does the complete arc. Peter Greene gives a great, controlled, charismatic perf - his character is banded with these dumb, adult delinquents, but he's just smart enough to know better. We buy him as this tough street dude who's finally starting to level and mature.... And who knew Greene, a sharply talented very daunting actor, could work so well in the romantic scenes too, like when he kids with Edie Falco (who's also very good here!) in bed trying to kiss her, "Your nose got in the way." pacinoyes Viced - Who I know are fans! I didn't know this was up on Prime, looking remastered and everything. Should be a bigger deal, but no one is talking about it, wtf! It was hard as hell to find beforehand....
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Apr 28, 2020 21:08:10 GMT
Sweet Smell of Success (1957)-
A very talky film but filled with interesting characters and performances. Pretty good ending- 7.5/10
|
|
|
Post by evilbliss on Apr 28, 2020 21:18:56 GMT
Laws of Gravity (1992) 8/10, maybe more? Wish it didn't take me so long to see this - loved it. Shot in 12 days, which is remarkable. Not a false performance or scene. It's an absolutely buzzing movie, with handheld camera and constant overlapping dialogue and activity, it looks and sounds like scruffy real life. Yet it tells a clear, inevitable, tragic story, the pieces come together, and just like how several individual scenes create a kidding atmosphere that sours into peril, so does the complete arc. Peter Greene gives a great, controlled, charismatic perf - his character is banded with these dumb, adult delinquents, but he's just smart enough to know better. We buy him as this tough street dude who's finally starting to level and mature.... And who knew Greene, a sharply talented very daunting actor, could work so well in the romantic scenes too, like when he kids with Edie Falco (who's also very good here!) in bed trying to kiss her, "Your nose got in the way." pacinoyes Viced - Who I know are fans! I didn't know this was up on Prime, looking remastered and everything. Should be a bigger deal, but no one is talking about it, wtf! It was hard as hell to find beforehand.... Where did you watch it? Can't find it anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Apr 28, 2020 21:41:15 GMT
Laws of Gravity (1992) 8/10, maybe more? Wish it didn't take me so long to see this - loved it. Shot in 12 days, which is remarkable. Not a false performance or scene. It's an absolutely buzzing movie, with handheld camera and constant overlapping dialogue and activity, it looks and sounds like scruffy real life. Yet it tells a clear, inevitable, tragic story, the pieces come together, and just like how several individual scenes create a kidding atmosphere that sours into peril, so does the complete arc. Peter Greene gives a great, controlled, charismatic perf - his character is banded with these dumb, adult delinquents, but he's just smart enough to know better. We buy him as this tough street dude who's finally starting to level and mature.... And who knew Greene, a sharply talented very daunting actor, could work so well in the romantic scenes too, like when he kids with Edie Falco (who's also very good here!) in bed trying to kiss her, "Your nose got in the way." pacinoyes Viced - Who I know are fans! I didn't know this was up on Prime, looking remastered and everything. Should be a bigger deal, but no one is talking about it, wtf! It was hard as hell to find beforehand.... Where did you watch it? Can't find it anywhere. I swearrrrr it was on Prime yesterday..... but not anymore??? What happened? EDIT: Seems to be back on Prime evilbliss , at least for now!
|
|
|
Post by Mattsby on Apr 28, 2020 22:53:18 GMT
"As a detective he was all wet"Sherlock Jr (1924) - 8/10 , at the very least. One stunningly staged, inventive, witful scene after another. The print on TCM-demand right now is as crisp as could be...
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 29, 2020 0:55:07 GMT
Bad Education - 7/10
Hugh Jackman giving the movie performance of his life - in a role that is exactly what Tom Hanks could have used a decade earlier - where he twists all his ingratiating likability into something far more unpleasant and uncomfortable. At its best this film suggests his personality quirks (excessive grooming and dress) are actually linked to his closeted homosexuality - and both are in play in his criminality - his way of controlling, rewarding and manipulating. He's like a student who has learned how to ace a test for a certain teacher - he's outfoxed the system.
Unfortunately a few highly improbable scenes and a matter of fact approach undercut that subtext and so does the Nancy Drew school reporter - and those scenes feel interminable.......but overall not a bad way to kill sometime and a surprising effective lead turn.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2020 2:55:51 GMT
The Hole (1998) - on the subject of overflowing. Really great stuff.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 29, 2020 10:22:32 GMT
Fallen (1998) - 5.5-6.0/10 - - re-watch
I don't know how this movie failed for me - it's right up my alley - an appealing all-time leading man playing a role entirely in his wheelhouse (this was Denzel's 4th cop/private eye role in ~20 films at this point) in his peak leading man period years (he was in his mid-40s here) with a stupendous supporting cast (Goodman, Gandolfini, Sutherland, Elias Koteas), written by a guy who can write this kind of stuff (or he could back then anyway), directed by a smooth pusher of product.
The setup is pretty great - sort of a Se7en sequel in some ways - a mix of cop movie and horror movie and at first everything is working just fine......but it spins out of control, then wastes the setup, veers into really convoluted, silly and almost inappropriately satirical elements and feels really long too.
I always talk about "satanic-cop" or investigative films never work when they always should work in theory. This is like Angel Heart where it's so good at the start (and Angel Heat is better too at first) it breaks your heart when it fizzles out.
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Apr 29, 2020 15:07:11 GMT
Patriot Games - re watched this one on Netflix the other night and without question its my favorite Jack Ryan film (mainly because Harrison Ford was the best to portray him. And Sean Bean plays a great villain ) 8/10
The Saint - 1st time watching this one all the way thru and didn't really care for it tbh. Val does his best but it was just a bland "thriller" imo. Perhaps the new reboot with Chris Pine will be an improvement but I have my doubts. 5/10
|
|
|
Post by evilbliss on Apr 29, 2020 19:09:17 GMT
Where did you watch it? Can't find it anywhere. I swearrrrr it was on Prime yesterday..... but not anymore??? What happened? EDIT: Seems to be back on Prime evilbliss , at least for now! Ugh, I don't have it.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Apr 29, 2020 23:04:51 GMT
Day for Night (1973): Catching some stuff due to leave Criterion Channel at the end of the month. This was good! Super fun movie following a hectic film shoot and all of its colorful characters, with a shit ton of funny scenes that also operates well on a meta-level. Enjoyed the hell out of it and a great reminder that I really need to watch more Truffaut.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Apr 30, 2020 4:38:53 GMT
The Hunger (1983): Thought this was too weird for its own good at first but it got captivating and kinda creepy as it went along if still ridiculous at some points. The cinematography is out-of-this-world, hypnotic score is great, and I thought the makeup effects were quite good too. What a bizarre and fascinating movie! Cool stuff!
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Apr 30, 2020 6:16:36 GMT
The Platform (2019)
Clever idea, very interesting but flawed. Mainly based on gore and with a dubious ending.
6/10
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Apr 30, 2020 12:31:12 GMT
The Graduate (re-watch)
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Apr 30, 2020 19:44:44 GMT
The Duellists (1977)-
Beautifully shot and acted but i wasn't too into it- 7/10
|
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,641
Likes: 4,343
|
Post by Archie on Apr 30, 2020 20:27:53 GMT
The New World (rewatch) - I'm bumping my rating from an 8 to a motherfucking 10/10. This film is a miracle.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Apr 30, 2020 21:54:40 GMT
DeepArcherlol I've watched the same two films the past couple days. Had to get them in before they left Criterion Channel. Day for Night - A nice little movie that unfortunately felt a bit too flighty for me to really think of it as a particularly strong entry in Truffaut's filmography. As an ensemble dramedy, it works nicely with every performer game to their roles even if they aren't given all that much to chew on beyond the broad stroke defining the characters. I was particularly left disappointed at how thin Truffaut's director character is which largely leaves it at a remove from the shenanigans the character gets into and therefore not feeling as much an integrated part of the "family" but more of an observer and commentator of events. I would have thought Truffaut would have more to say within his role as a director as more than someone who needs to wrangle together a film for love of the work but as every bit as involved in the fleeting emotional rollercoaster as anyone else. Though I largely agree with Truffaut in his calling Godard a shit following the latter's criticisms of this film and Truffaut as a whole, I do think Godard was right in pointing out that Truffaut pulled his punches by having the director be the only one who doesn't have a messy personal life alongside the film's production. Still a solid film, just one that left me wanting. The Hunger - Incredible opening! David Bowie, Catherine Deneuve, Bauhaus, the black and blue aesthetic, and that back and forth editing, I was thinking to myself, "holy shit, did Tony Scott make a masterpiece right out of the gate?" And while he didn't quite stick the landing, he did show that his commercial stylizing can work on the big screen. He's doing everything he can to make a decent but bare bones script come to haunting light, setting the stage for the last nearly 40 years of goth aesthetics. I'd verge on loving the film if the studio-mandated ending didn't shit the bed by muddying up the film's nicely woven message regarding fear of aging with what happens to Susan Sarandon's character. For all the gloss and effects Scott throws in to provide some semblance of a satisfying climax, it doesn't make any sense and plain doesn't work. Everything leading up to it, though, a hell of a good time.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Apr 30, 2020 21:56:25 GMT
House of Games (1987): A case of theatricality working really well since the film is all about the staging of events anyway. Sort of wish it had a bit more verve to it for a film about conmen but I guess the more toned-down approach is more appropriate for a film that's really about ... the disillusionment of living in a world based entirely around the transaction and exploitation ... and there are still a lot of great moments and it has a classically satisfying ending to cap it all off.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Apr 30, 2020 22:03:25 GMT
Day for Night - A nice little movie that unfortunately felt a bit too flighty for me to really think of it as a particularly strong entry in Truffaut's filmography. As an ensemble dramedy, it works nicely with every performer game to their roles even if they aren't given all that much to chew on beyond the broad stroke defining the characters. I was particularly left disappointed at how thin Truffaut's director character is which largely leaves it at a remove from the shenanigans the character gets into and therefore not feeling as much an integrated part of the "family" but more of an observer and commentator of events. I would have thought Truffaut would have more to say within his role as a director as more than someone who needs to wrangle together a film for love of the work but as every bit as involved in the fleeting emotional rollercoaster as anyone else. Though I largely agree with Truffaut in his calling Godard a shit following the latter's criticisms of this film and Truffaut as a whole, I do think Godard was right in pointing out that Truffaut pulled his punches by having the director be the only one who doesn't have a messy personal life alongside the film's production. Still a solid film, just one that left me wanting. I see your point but I enjoyed how Truffaut played the director "character" and I think if we got a glimpse into his personal life it would've muddled what the film really is. He's not making 8 1/2 after all, and he's not exploring filmmaking as a creative auteurist process so much as looking at a bygone (well, bygone from his perspective maybe, obviously not "bygone" anymore) era of more traditional & classical movie production of the director as a technician and craftsperson solely making sure everything is in its right place. For the film he was going for, I think the director acting as a "manager" of sorts worked really well. I do get the criticism though.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on May 1, 2020 0:37:27 GMT
Day for Night - A nice little movie that unfortunately felt a bit too flighty for me to really think of it as a particularly strong entry in Truffaut's filmography. As an ensemble dramedy, it works nicely with every performer game to their roles even if they aren't given all that much to chew on beyond the broad stroke defining the characters. I was particularly left disappointed at how thin Truffaut's director character is which largely leaves it at a remove from the shenanigans the character gets into and therefore not feeling as much an integrated part of the "family" but more of an observer and commentator of events. I would have thought Truffaut would have more to say within his role as a director as more than someone who needs to wrangle together a film for love of the work but as every bit as involved in the fleeting emotional rollercoaster as anyone else. Though I largely agree with Truffaut in his calling Godard a shit following the latter's criticisms of this film and Truffaut as a whole, I do think Godard was right in pointing out that Truffaut pulled his punches by having the director be the only one who doesn't have a messy personal life alongside the film's production. Still a solid film, just one that left me wanting. I see your point but I enjoyed how Truffaut played the director "character" and I think if we got a glimpse into his personal life it would've muddled what the film really is. He's not making 8 1/2 after all, and he's not exploring filmmaking as a creative auteurist process so much as looking at a bygone (well, bygone from his perspective maybe, obviously not "bygone" anymore) era of more traditional & classical movie production of the director as a technician and craftsperson solely making sure everything is in its right place. For the film he was going for, I think the director acting as a "manager" of sorts worked really well. I do get the criticism though. Yeah, that the film plays out more as a look of more workmanlike filmmaking instead of a personal lens is part of what left me disappointed, especially after reading Truffaut say in interviews how much the film is his story as a director and the film-within-a-film bearing resemblances to his own The Soft Skin. Even if he didn't want the director to be a direct analogue, it still felt like there was a severe under-exploration on the part of that role compared to everyone else, and as I said before I already thought everyone else was fairly thin to begin with but at least had some grounding internal conflict.
|
|