Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2024 10:10:36 GMT
I've always thought "fans" of certain filmmakers/actors/stories/genres giving an easy pass to some objective failures was a bit silly. A mediocre/BAD work is just that, why should we pretend otherwise... but a certain film that I've been thinking about so much here recently, might just be the one that is convincing me otherwise. So, what are the strongest, flawed films in your canon of cherished ones? those that you see the problems with 100% but still can't help but to be swept away by? ![](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Em7HdkeW4AARxbo.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Feb 9, 2024 10:27:21 GMT
I've always thought "fans" of certain filmmakers/actors/stories/genres giving an easy pass to some objective failures was a bit silly. A mediocre/BAD work is just that, why should we pretend otherwise... but a certain film that I've been thinking about so much here recently, might just be the one that is convincing me otherwise. So, what are the strongest, flawed films in your canon of cherished ones? those that you see the problems with 100% but still can't help but to be Very good question and I'd have to mull it over but one I've talked about on here and I'm (mercilessly) teased about by my friend (is she though?) is Blow Out I could argue it as Best American film of the 80s......I love it to death......but......there is no reason for Nancy Allen to go with John Lithgow except to get to that ending.........now that's a Greeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeat ending .......but the sequences prior need something more tight and a rewrite ........it has great sequences that mask its narrative flaws.......... Now people do stupid things in real life all the time - people constantly do the unexplainable, look at this board ffs ![:gonemad:](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/1i_vReyDmEdV6yn5zMWP.gif) - but within the context of the movie and movie logic - it's hard to justify within this narrative ![](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/5126ps7O7yS._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 9, 2024 11:27:32 GMT
Brian de Palma's The Black Dahlia should, by rights, have been a classic. The source novel is one of the best true-crime books ever written, the production design is top-notch, the score is one of the best of the decade, the cinematography is staggeringly good and my favourite of any noir, and Mia Kirshner's performance as the titular character is an all-timer supporting turn. Everything was in place for this movie to challenge L.A. Confidential for the throne of the best Ellroy adaptation.
But.
De Palma makes some key errors that undercut the film hard. Primarily, he casts Hilary Swank as the femme fatale (for which she has the wrong energy), but there is also this ridiculous notion that she resembles Kirshner's Dahlia to the point that it becomes a running theme of the movie that fuels Hartnett's character's obsession, and it's nonsensical. What's worse is that de Palma had Kirshner on tap who was gifted at playing femme fatales and who could've easily just doubled up and played the Madeleine character as well, just distinct enough from the doomed Elizabeth Short so we know they are two different characters but also blur the lines a bit to put the audience in Bucky's shoes. He also makes some odd editing choices throughout the film which do feel like studio cuts; the entire back third feels particularly sliced-and-diced in this manner. I like Hartnett, Eckhart and Johansson in their respective roles, but each one gets saddled with some rickety line-delivery that plays to the cheap seats at times, and I feel if de Palma had scaled back a bit on his, well, de Palma-ness, it would've improved everything that much more.
Fiona Shaw, though, no notes. A 10/10 psychotic ham feast I will quote endlessly till the day I die.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 9, 2024 11:36:00 GMT
Brian de Palma's The Black Dahlia should, by rights, have been a classic. The source novel is one of the best true-crime books ever written, the production design is top-notch, the score is one of the best of the decade, the cinematography is staggeringly good and my favourite of any noir, and Mia Kirshner's performance as the titular character is an all-timer supporting turn. Everything was in place for this movie to challenge L.A. Confidential for the throne of the best Ellroy adaptation. But. De Palma makes some key errors that undercut the film hard. Primarily, he casts Hilary Swank as the femme fatale (for which she has the wrong energy), but there is also this ridiculous notion that she resembles Kirshner's Dahlia to the point that it becomes a running theme of the movie that fuels Hartnett's character's obsession, and it's nonsensical. What's worse is that de Palma had Kirshner on tap who was gifted at playing femme fatales and who could've easily just doubled up and played the Madeleine character as well, just distinct enough from the doomed Elizabeth Short so we know they are two different characters but also blur the lines a bit to put the audience in Bucky's shoes. He also makes some odd editing choices throughout the film which do feel like studio cuts; the entire back third feels particularly sliced-and-diced in this manner. I like Hartnett, Eckhart and Johansson in their respective roles, but each one gets saddled with some rickety line-delivery that plays to the cheap seats at times, and I feel if de Palma had scaled back a bit on his, well, de Palma-ness, it would've improved everything that much more. Fiona Shaw, though, no notes. A 10/10 psychotic ham feast I will quote endlessly till the day I die. De Palma was well over a decade out of his prime when he made The Black Dahlia, and he was unfortunately one of those auteurs that when the decline set in, it was pretty much permanent ( something similar could be said for Oliver Stone). Great source material gets fucked up in movies all the time. If you don't have a director at the top of their game, firing on all cylinders, things can always go South. I never had huge expectations for The Black Dahlia because De Palma was not that guy any longer.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 9, 2024 11:39:54 GMT
Brian de Palma's The Black Dahlia should, by rights, have been a classic. The source novel is one of the best true-crime books ever written, the production design is top-notch, the score is one of the best of the decade, the cinematography is staggeringly good and my favourite of any noir, and Mia Kirshner's performance as the titular character is an all-timer supporting turn. Everything was in place for this movie to challenge L.A. Confidential for the throne of the best Ellroy adaptation. But. De Palma makes some key errors that undercut the film hard. Primarily, he casts Hilary Swank as the femme fatale (for which she has the wrong energy), but there is also this ridiculous notion that she resembles Kirshner's Dahlia to the point that it becomes a running theme of the movie that fuels Hartnett's character's obsession, and it's nonsensical. What's worse is that de Palma had Kirshner on tap who was gifted at playing femme fatales and who could've easily just doubled up and played the Madeleine character as well, just distinct enough from the doomed Elizabeth Short so we know they are two different characters but also blur the lines a bit to put the audience in Bucky's shoes. He also makes some odd editing choices throughout the film which do feel like studio cuts; the entire back third feels particularly sliced-and-diced in this manner. I like Hartnett, Eckhart and Johansson in their respective roles, but each one gets saddled with some rickety line-delivery that plays to the cheap seats at times, and I feel if de Palma had scaled back a bit on his, well, de Palma-ness, it would've improved everything that much more. Fiona Shaw, though, no notes. A 10/10 psychotic ham feast I will quote endlessly till the day I die. De Palma was well over a decade out of his prime when he made The Black Dahlia, and he was unfortunately one of those auteurs that when the decline set in, it was pretty much permanent ( something similar could be said for Oliver Stone). Great source material gets fucked up in movies all the time. If you don't have a director at the top of their game, firing on all cylinders, things can always go South. I never had huge expectations for The Black Dahlia because De Palma was not that guy any longer. I've argued before that Brian de Palma was never that guy. He has talent but he can never get out of his own way, and he makes some ridiculous choices sometimes for no reason other than him suddenly remembering "oh wait, I'm Brian de Palma, I need to do this."
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Feb 9, 2024 11:47:41 GMT
De Palma was well over a decade out of his prime when he made The Black Dahlia, and he was unfortunately one of those auteurs that when the decline set in, it was pretty much permanent ( something similar could be said for Oliver Stone). Great source material gets fucked up in movies all the time. If you don't have a director at the top of their game, firing on all cylinders, things can always go South. I never had huge expectations for The Black Dahlia because De Palma was not that guy any longer. I've argued before that Brian de Palma was never that guy. He has talent but he can never get out of his own way, and he makes some ridiculous choices sometimes for no reason other than him suddenly remembering "oh wait, I'm Brian de Palma, I need to do this." De Palma always had his weaknesses as a filmmaker, but I thought Carlito's Way was a near perfect film ( elegiac and even romantic, for a Gangster film). Scarface is deserving of it's pop culture classic status. The Untouchables is pretty surface level, but undeniably entertaining. And of course, Carrie. He's done too much significant work for me to be dismissive of him, but yeah, when he hit the wall, it was pretty bad.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 9, 2024 11:52:25 GMT
I've argued before that Brian de Palma was never that guy. He has talent but he can never get out of his own way, and he makes some ridiculous choices sometimes for no reason other than him suddenly remembering "oh wait, I'm Brian de Palma, I need to do this." De Palma always had his weaknesses as a filmmaker, but I thought Carlito's Way was a near perfect film ( elegiac and even romantic, for a Gangster film). Scarface is deserving of it's pop culture classic status. The Untouchables is pretty surface level, but undeniably entertaining. And of course, Carrie. He's done too much significant work for me to be dismissive of him, but yeah, when he hit the wall, it was pretty bad. Carrie's the only film of his where I feel his natural sensibilities actually managed to marry almost perfectly with the material. He's made other good movies, but I do feel those movies would've been equally as good or better in other filmmakers' hands.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Feb 9, 2024 13:26:54 GMT
The Cat in the Hat
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2024 14:26:31 GMT
NS The Black Dahlia but it sounds like something 2006-Chris Nolan would've crushed.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 9, 2024 14:33:08 GMT
NS The Black Dahlia but it sounds like something 2006-Chris Nolan would've crushed. I don't really see it myself, although it does have an essential dead woman in it, which is up his alley.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2024 15:05:04 GMT
NS The Black Dahlia but it sounds like something 2006-Chris Nolan would've crushed. I don't really see it myself, although it does have an essential dead woman in it, which is up his alley. Well Memento, Insomnia and The Prestige all have noirish elements... the latter has that older period setting starring Johansson and looks sharp and beautiful too, but what you pointed out there is the closure definitely
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lavender.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_lavender.png)
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,571
Likes: 1,409
|
Post by Film Socialism on Feb 9, 2024 17:02:44 GMT
brian de palma has like 10 incredible films and are least two of those (Femme Fatale & Redacted) are from this century; i don't think he's ever really lost his edge, he just misfires on occasion.
anywho i guess Showgirls is the obvious answer to this question even though it's got a pretty reasonable reputation right now, but I'll also mention The Thing by carpenter which was considered a flop by most metrics at the time
|
|
|
Post by Kings_Requiem on Feb 9, 2024 17:20:01 GMT
The one that comes to mind immediately is Public Enemies from Michael Mann. The director of Heat bringing the story of John Dillinger to the screen had all the makings of another classic. A huge cast of big names including Johnny Depp as the titular character. A funny thing happened, it didn't light the world on fire and most people seemed to be indifferent to it.
I certainly see why people feel like it didn't live up to expectations. Maybe the story doesn't delve deep enough into the minds of the characters, maybe the digital photography clashes with the time period the story is set in, whatever it was there's no doubt people had issues with the film.
Now, I loved it then and still do and believe it's the last great film that Mann has made.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 9, 2024 17:51:31 GMT
The one that comes to mind immediately is Public Enemies from Michael Mann. The director of Heat bringing the story of John Dillinger to the screen had all the makings of another classic. A huge cast of big names including Johnny Depp as the titular character. A funny thing happened, it didn't light the world on fire and most people seemed to be indifferent to it. I certainly see why people feel like it didn't live up to expectations. Maybe the story doesn't delve deep enough into the minds of the characters, maybe the digital photography clashes with the time period the story is set in, whatever it was there's no doubt people had issues with the film. Now, I loved it then and still do and believe it's the last great film that Mann has made. Public Enemies suffered heavily from two major failings. The first is the casting of Christian Bale as Melvin Purvis. As with 3:10 to Yuma, Bale's capacity for playing the straight man to a more flamboyant, outsized co-lead shows his weakness as an actor because he's absolutely fucking boring with what should be a juicy part. I don't think Depp's amazing as Dillinger but at least he's trying something; Bale's comatose throughout the whole movie and gives nothing. The second is the digital cinematography, which makes everything look so cheap and phony. It doesn't feel like a lived-in world at all; nothing pops and has the feel and vibrancy of that era. I think Mann's style was the absolute wrong way to tell this story. And it's a shame, because most everything else about it works. Cotillard's incredible (my win that year), the background supporting parts are all cast extremely well (Jason Clarke's Red Hamilton and Stephen Graham's Babyface Nelson most notably), but those aforementioned weaknesses utterly cripple this movie out of the gate and it can't recover.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Feb 9, 2024 18:06:44 GMT
ok, I'll finally admit that Asteroid City is a bit up-it's-own-ass with the theater framing and the B&W scenes tend to muddle what the story (or I guess the "play") is about with its grief/trauma metaphors. It's a film within a play within a documentary. ![:gonemad:](//storage.proboards.com/6692321/images/1i_vReyDmEdV6yn5zMWP.gif) I get why people were turned off by it, but I love every single minute of it. for a more classic example, I'll go with Tony Richardson's Tom Jones (1963) which is an interesting case. I think even at the time its BP win was surprising and its reputation has only soured since. It's sunk into relative obscurity and most of those who have seen it don't seem to care for it. Controversial for its editing gimmicks and gags but I saw Richardson's French New Wave-inspired playfulness as embodying Tom's freewheeling hedonism. Finney's Jones is one of the most charming bastards ever put to film and the movie around him serves as as tribute to his freedom. It's silly and doesn't take itself seriously, it's gloriously-acted by a game ensemble of Brits having a good time, and it embodies cinematically the adventurous spirit of picaresque novels. ![https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/554faa2de4b02d0d0240270a/1528259036822-I0TGFL10CBH9068F7HZZ/image-asset.jpeg](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/554faa2de4b02d0d0240270a/1528259036822-I0TGFL10CBH9068F7HZZ/image-asset.jpeg)
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Feb 9, 2024 19:31:11 GMT
Cloud Atlas.
Very divisive upon release, never really had a chance to make its money back at the box office, one of the most ambitious American films of the century, and I absolutely adore it.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Feb 9, 2024 19:37:42 GMT
Cloud Atlas. Very divisive upon release, never really had a chance to make its money back at the box office, one of the most ambitious American films of the century, and I absolutely adore it. It's a masterpiece and the real failure was society for not embracing it.
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Feb 10, 2024 6:55:25 GMT
Southland Tales (2006) and Sucker Punch (2011) are the two first that came to my mind. Both are idiosyncratic and ambitious and parts of them may not really work, but I find both incredibly interesting and I absolutely love them despite their flaws. Also, the two Jean Claude Van Damme collaborations with Tsui Hark, Double Team and Knock Off, especially the latter, mainly because Tsui Hark goes crazy with the camera. I mean Knock Off has a shot of Van Damme putting on a shoe form the pov of Van Damme's foot. How can you not love a film with a shot like that (and that's just only one example)?
|
|
|
Post by taranofprydain on May 11, 2024 15:06:47 GMT
OK. One I can think of that I really liked in spite of big flaws was James L. Brooks' 1994 film, I'll Do Everything. It was definitely a troubled production, as it was originally filmed as a musical (with songs written by Prince, Carole King, and Sinead O'Connor), but all the songs were eliminated after test audiences winced at the numbers. Its release was yanked from Christmas 1993 to February 1994, it flopped at the box office, the reviews were mixed at best, it has a low rating at Letterboxd (below 3), its almost completely forgotten, and, well, it does have the most terrifying non-homicidal portrayals of a child you'll ever see.
But what is left is still endlessly intriguing to me with a typically fascinating Nick Nolte performance and a terrific supporting turn by Julie Kavner popping against a very precisely written satire of Hollywood that is filled with great dialogue scenes. It's just one of the smartest big studio comedies of its era. It's definitely a rough journey due to that alarming little girl, and I don't think most will care for it, but I really do think its severely underrated.
|
|
BlackCaesar21
New Member
You're barking up the wrong acorn!
Posts: 159
Likes: 110
|
Post by BlackCaesar21 on May 13, 2024 11:50:21 GMT
Killers of The Flower Moon; DiCaprio gives an odd performance which I'm still undecided on whether it works or not plus the romance subplot is severely underdeveloped BUT I'm still quite fond of it. I think it's better than most Scorsese films made this century besides Silence and has lot of things going for it. Wish Scorsese had more time because I think he could do something similar but much better
|
|
|
Post by franklin on May 14, 2024 2:08:18 GMT
Nah, Flower Moon doesn't belong here. Wildly disagree.
Anyway, my favorite failure is 1941 by Steven Spielberg. It's still really enjoyable.
|
|
sophiefox
Junior Member
Posts: 292
Likes: 204
|
Post by sophiefox on May 14, 2024 18:17:21 GMT
David Lynch's Dune - it's messy and turgid and overambitious, perhaps, and i can totally see why even Lynch himself thought it was a failure but i can't help it, i just love it. the vibes that this film radiates just grip me and haunt me and mesmerise me, this archaic dark sinister atmosphere that evokes a strong sense of doom and despair. it's rough around the edges and flawed, sure, but it just feels so much more real and tangible than Villeneuve's honed version imo.
|
|