Last Watched

[Roscoe]

JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS -- the scrambled Greek Mythathon with a score from Bernard Herrmann and animation from Ray Harryhausen, and a good time overall. If only the male lead had any charisma at all, he's just a stick. I like the little reminders from the Gods/Screenwriters about the myths outside this story. Hercules' departure gets a line that "the gods have other plans for him" and the final romantic clinch between Jason and Medea prompts a rueful remark from Zeus, no less, that we'll just let them enjoy their happiness while it lasts...

Was there just nobody with any charm available to play Jason? Oh well. Still, those skeletons mean business, man.

[rischka]

looka these old dudes. i mean if you don't like goodfellas or casino don't watch cuz it's like pt 3 but i couldn't think of a better gift for dysfunctional family christmas

goodfellas was my favorite film of many years. and godfather 2. and heat. it's like a family reunion

[greennui]

The de-aging thing was pretty seamless but that's mostly because they looked ancient even at their youngest in the film! No matter how much you digitally smooth their faces their bodies and they way they move still look old as well. De Niro's blue eyes were really distracting and never looked real.

[rischka]

agree the blue eyes looked weird. this was their concession to the title i guess? lol. otherwise i didn't really notice the de-aging but agree they never looked 'young'

[thoxans]

the irishman (martin scorsese) ok, so, it was fine, you know, nothing wrong with it really, but, you know, idk, it was just kinda ok, you know? the perfs are fine. pacino and pesci are both good. de niro is de niro, but with odd colored contact lenses like a teenager trying to be cool circa 2004. seeing some of the cast from the sopranos was neat, i guess. this is obvs supposed to be the third part in an unofficial trilogy of films that obvs includes goodfellas and casino, both of which are far superior to this. the focus on the cars was nifty. the glove box as a place to hide treasure. marty's direction is, ummm, there, i guess. i mean, he directed it and all, but other than the content of the film, it pretty much coulda been directed by anyone. now, for a serious question: how in the world did they ever spend $140mil on this? seriously. did de niro, pacino, and pesci each get paid $40mil apiece to star in this? no offense, but for a film - even at 3+ hours - that relies so heavily on shot reverse shot, and doesn't have any outrageous set pieces or cgi (aside from the deaging bit, which i agree, isn't distracting at all; everyone just looks old all the time, no matter what, just a few less wrinkles here and there), how do you throw around $140mil to put this thing together? idk. call me old and cynical, but i just don't understand what the kids are up to these days...

[rischka]

whatever toxins. i don't discount the wave of nostalgia boosting my pleasure in the film. i feel like marty told the story of america

[thoxans]

it was def enjoyable. i liked the irony of the opening tracking shot. marty has gone from tracking through the copacabana to tracking through an old folks' home. likewise with that last shot, obvs an inversion of that famous shot from the godfather. it's very much a film about demythologizing the world of crime (and maybe that's why the aesthetics seemed so staid). marty's intention wasn't to make a flashy gangster epic that audiences might confuse as a glorification of the 'lifestyle.' this was much more a takedown of everything that's preceded it, in terms of its particular genre. like this was marty's the man who shot liberty valance. my og comments might make it seem like i didn't like it, but rarely do i ever watch a 3+ hour flick in a single day, so i have to say i was hooked

[...]

Yeah, yeah, mythology gangsters America etc, that's cool and all, but is The Irishman cinema?

[Evelyn Library P.I.]

Yeah, yeah, mythology gangsters America etc, that's cool and all, but is The Irishman cinema?

Lol ! Post-60s American gangster movies bore me to no end. I appreciate Scorsese's talent when he's not in gangland, but as to whether Scorsese remaking the same movie he made in 1973 again in 1990 and again in 1995 and again in 2006 and now again in 2019 counts as cinema, I'd say, "The pictures are made to satisfy a specific set of demands, and they are designed as variations on a finite number of themes."

Incidentally, it's so strange that Scorsese's criticism of Marvel is that the pictures are designed as variations on a finite number of themes when that very quality, designing variations on a finite number of themes, is taken to be the cardinal virtue of auteurs who express a personal vision in film after film. Like Hitchcock, Hawks, and, uh, Scorsese.... But then that's the problems we run into when we make defining something as cinema into an evaluative claim rather than just a value-neutral description of media type.

[...]

Joking about The Irishman aside, the issue Scorsese raised does really point to an issue with genre movies overall to some extent, at least for genres that are fairly narrow in definition like superhero movies and westerns, more or less. I got into a long argument about this over on Metafilter defending Scorsese's claim because I do think there's something to it, even though I'm not sure he even fully realized what the basis of the problem is given he hasn't sat through many or any superhero movies, but as you point out, his argument does have that other side when taken on its face about how certain schools of movie appreciation also favor the same kinds of things he appeared to argue against.

[Evelyn Library P.I.]

Far be it from me to prejudge and criticize a movie I haven't seen, mind you / lol . I'm intrigued by thoxans's reading that this one is meant to be unmistakably a takedown of the mythologizing gangster films that preceded it, that could win me over fast.

Yeah, I'd have to think more about it, but Scorsese certainly is barking up a tree worth barking up. I certainly wouldn't want to be taken to be defending Marvel as personal art or as virtuous commerce (though they are well-made genre movies, not theme parks, and clearly fit the bill of collective theatrical viewing experiences for teenagers and twenty-somethings). I guess I'd find myself in more sympathy if Scorsese had clearly been chewed up and spit out by capitalist production methods in filmmaking, but I don't take him to be outside the mainstream or clearly working against the system, so it's harder to not just see it as factional in-fighting among competing brand names.

[rischka]

Irish-Man, Irish-Man
Does whatever the Irish can.
Need a killer? Listen bud,
He's got alcoholic blood.



Hoffa Man Hoffa Man
Builds a Union because he can
Has big plans for his Pension Fund
Little does he know he's moribund
Look out! Here comes Hoffa Man

twitter had fun with this theme over the holiday

[Evelyn Library P.I.]

Dammit, now I want to see The Irishman after all to think about Scorsese's discourse on art v. commerce as potentially reflected in a film about factional infighting among gangsters, plus reflections on mid-century American political/cultural history plus Scorsese's always interesting stylistics, when I'd convinced myself I could skip it. But it's 3.5 hours long Dammit, Marty! I'll try to set aside a day this winter's break, perhaps.

I also thought I didn't want to see Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and then rischka came through with that very compelling screengrab of Brad Pitt... and that could make me a Tarantino fan again too, lol.

[...]

I actually think the theme park analogy is pretty apt. The deal is that Disney and the other major "franchise" movie making studios aren't really interested in making movies as movies so much anymore, they're looking for ongoing product lines that are cross marketable and, importantly, that never resolve themselves. There is no there there other than a continual state of plentiful minor expected pleasures across a fairly predictable spectrum of generally innocuous interpersonal lines and a contradictory variety of suggestive possible hooks to lure viewers towards other "readings" that can never cohere into anything meaningful because there is no real resolution involved, just continual deferment and referencing. The MCU/Star Wars and the rest are theme parks for maintaining a fairly strict sense of emphasizing the immediate pleasures while purposefully avoiding anything more complex. In that sense, I think, Scorsese is definitely on to something, while still leaving some other areas open to question around other/older films.

[Joks Trois]

Incidentally, it's so strange that Scorsese's criticism of Marvel is that the pictures are designed as variations on a finite number of themes when that very quality, designing variations on a finite number of themes, is taken to be the cardinal virtue of auteurs who express a personal vision in film after film. Like Hitchcock, Hawks, and, uh, Scorsese.... But then that's the problems we run into when we make defining something as cinema into an evaluative claim rather than just a value-neutral description of media type.

There is a huge difference between Ozu and Marvel, and no amount of American style 'relativist analysis' will close that gap. Anglophones are so obsessed with doing this. It's almost a sin to admit that some things are better than others. It just reeks of insecurity to me, even cowardice. It doesn't matter whether you are trying to be 'objective' or not. There is just a fear of putting those kind of opinions out there in countries like America. It is fear, no more. That's why I'm glad that Coppola, unlike Scorsese, did not try to retract or modify his statement about Marvel and films of that type. He has more balls than Scorsese, and that has always been the case.

As for The Irishman, I just finished watching it. I liked it, but it isn't any kind of masterpiece in my view. The melancholy tone of the final section actually reminded me a bit of Once Upon a Time in America, only without the overt sentiment.

[Evelyn Library P.I.]

I agree! The point I was trying to make was NOT that the MCU are of equal artistic merit with Hitchcock or Hawks, still less Ozu. Hitchcock and Hawks are manifestly better. The point I was trying to make was that Scorsese did not succeed in clearly and convincingly distinguishing what he liked about Hitchcock and Hawks from what he liked about the MCU and that this is a problem with his argument. That doesn't mean that the conclusion he's arguing for is untrue, it just means that how he's getting (or asking us to get) to his conclusion is faulty. I think it would be easy to make a compelling argument for why Hitchcock and Hawks are better than the MCU, Greg goes some way above, but Scorsese did not succeed in doing that.

[Joks Trois]

^^Agree, but I wonder if it's because he felt that it would ultimately fall on deaf ears? To really understand the difference, you would have to go into the particulars of form etc. You don't even have to go as far back as Hawks or Ford to do that. You can merely compare Dick Tracy and Burton's Batman films to Marvel to highlight the differences. The former are connected to cinema's past; Marvel films, ultimately, are not. No German expressionism or noir in Marvel or anything of that nature.

TOBACCO ROAD: Surprisingly good. I don't usually like Ford's comedies either, but this one was charming, and it was visually stunning at times too, even if it was merely recycling many shots from Young Mr.Lincoln at times. Probably my second favourite Ford comedy after Steamboat Around The Bend. 6.5/10. Maybe 7.

[Roscoe]

THE NEW WORLD, Malick's timewarp into Colonial Jamestown, in a sparkling 35mm print of the 150 minute version at Museum of the Moving Image as part of their Malick festival. I've always admired the film, for me Malick's final masterpiece before his descent into madness. It worked as it always does on me, leaving me limp, damp-eyed and wobbly-voiced.

[Roscoe]

Needed some fun in a hurry, so went to see KNIVES OUT, the comedy mystery thriller in theaters at the moment. Good fun mainly. One bit of gratuitous reverse snobbery at a great work of literature made me scowl, one nod to a great work of American musical theater had me as happy as I've been in the cinema in a while (I want to know who suggested that that character start belting that song). Some odd little touches here and there, like a picture of Ricky Jay on display in one shot. The plot is one of those everything and the kitchen sink things, and once you see where it's going you'll be nodding your head in advance. Enjoyable.

[Roscoe]

RAGING BULL on the big screen, and a splendid experience again. The expressionist soundtrack continues to amaze. Those howls and thumps and rumbles all over the place, I keep hearing things in the film that I never heard before, little lines of dialogue keep announcing themselves with each viewing. Repeat viewings reveal more, each time.

[nrh]

still trying to sort through my reactions to the irishman. it's a marvelously engaging film, the story of frank sheeran's not-quite-rise packed with incident and detail even if the plot as it were moves ahead ever so slightly, and it's hard not to admire the perversity of revising the beloved goodfellas as a chamber piece funeral for the genre (and perhaps for a certain kind of american post war prosperity). i get what thoxans is saying about it being a 180 million dollar movie that relies so much on short/reverse shot, much of it in bars and hotel rooms and suburban houses, but i liked how precisely these scenes are constructed, how much they rely on the rhythm of the dialogue, even if this does occasionally feel a little bit constricted, a little bit like the tv of a decade or so ago.

so not sure why i'm holding the film a little bit at arm's length. it's not just that there have been so many funerals held for this genre in the past few years, although that's probably part of it. the de-aging is sometimes barely noticeable and sometimes odd and the constant feeling of very old men playing younger (sometimes de niro moves like he's wearing led shoes) makes it feel as peculiar as dennis potter's blue remembered hills, which i think works in the film's slightly ghostly favor.

partially i never felt the hoffa/sheeran relationship, so close to the heart of the film, really clicked - pacino and de niro are both great, the contrast in their performance styles works very well, but sometimes in their most crucial scenes it feels like neither man is engaging with the other, like they're barely in the same room together. which, since pesci is the mvp of the whole film, skews the balance of the betrayal...and perhaps more importantly i am not sure the segue from the incident packed body of the film to the hollowed out nursing home sequence really worked at all; i wouldn't go so far to call it hollywood crocodile tears like filipe but it's nowhere as effective as the more ironic ends of casino and goodfellas. in fact the real end of sheeran's life, not only confessing to hoffa's murder but throwing out several crackpot theories of his death in desperate search for a book deal, is much sadder than the refusal to confess here.

who knows. i'll probably watch it again. almost certainly would have liked it more if i'd been able to ignore seemingly everyone talking about it over the last few weeks.

[rischka]

(sometimes de niro moves like he's wearing led shoes)

[flip]

One bit of gratuitous reverse snobbery at a great work of literature made me scowl

that joke was hilarious. i agree with the rest of your review, knives out is about as good as a hollywood comedy mystery can be these days. also saw last christmas in cinema, it's not great but it's better than it should be, sometimes very funny which i don't say about many new films, but i don't have the tolerance for that much george michael. both films briefly engage with modern politics (brexit and xenophobia in last christmas, the alt right and "sjw"s in knives out) for no obviously good reason, real immersion-breakers for me, in both the political content seemed completely divorced from what the film was otherwise trying to do.

[Joks Trois]

Pacino's brilliance with dialogue is all over the 'It's what it is' scene, which is my personal favourite scene in The Irishman. Almost verges on parody, but that's part of its greatness, that it narrowly averts it. It is reverse shot, but there is some tension, especially because of the performances. Great scene. Rewatched it several times on Youtube.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CBte9Pl1m1c

[Zulawski]

It is what it is.

That line will go down in film history no doubt. Coming to terms with failure...

[kanafani]

Guess I'm in the minority, but Irishman felt like an amusing but unnecessary movie to me. A collection of 'greatest hits' gangster scenes with varying levels of staleness. It fits the Netflix model of rehashing/recycling a formula that has worked in the past.

[nrh]

had for some reason been watching old episodes of the british avengers tv series, and became curious about captain kronos: vampire hunter, the only writer/director credit from that show's main writer brian clemens (and, in 1974, one of the final hammer films).

it's an odd movie. the melding of horror and swashbuckling action (with some euro-western flavoring), the playing with vampire tropes (there are many species of vampires, the main villains drink youth instead of blood and can walk around in sunlight and so on), the feel that it's supposed to be the start of an ongoing franchise, all make it feel like strangely modern would be cult filmmaking, even as the downbeat british countryside and hair root it firmly in the '70s. though i guess a certain '70s audience would think of it as being a warren comics or 'tomb of dracula' vibe.

the flaws - mostly the occasionally awkward acting, budget issues and some irritating double entendres lines carried over from the avengers - are pretty evident but at its best there are moments of the threadbare fantastic that wouldn't feel out of place in one of the better jean rollin movies. as late hammer films genre mix it's definitely stronger than legend of the 7 golden vampires at least.

[sally]

the chess player - raymond bernard 1927

wow. epic. mechanical illusion intersecting with the heart. all the stuff i like. why have only 85 people seen this?

[liquidnature]

mfw i finished watching the four-hour version of Greed after two weeks

[Joks Trois]

"partially i never felt the hoffa/sheeran relationship, so close to the heart of the film, really clicked"

Sheeran is a bit of a dull character too.

Dragged Across Concrete: Zahler is a frustrating director. He tends to overwrite dialogue and his films are way too long and visually inconsistent. He can stage action well, but sometimes he has no idea how to block a scene. What he does know though is how to direct actors and create some interest in his morally ambiguous characters. Gibson does his best work in years as an aging, racist cop, and Vaughn is good too. If this was shorter, it would have had more impact.

6 or 6.5/10.