Last Watched

User avatar
rischka
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:43 am
Location: desert usa
Contact:

Re: Last Watched

Post by rischka »

which is basically my first tsui hark film
wha-wha-WHAAAAAAT :shock:

i finally caught up with the criterion dragon inn and i must say it looks one helluva lot better than the crappy vhs rip i first saw 10 years ago, if not the revelation that a touch of zen was (only cuz so much of that was filmed in the dark)

Image

Image

Image

Image

can someone tell me if new dragon gate inn is worth watching?? Brigitte Lin, Tony Leung Ka-fai, Maggie Cheung, and Donnie Yen. probably enough reason

btw i want to make a dedicated hong kong section. then maybe holymanm will come back :mrgreen:
:lboxd: + ICM + :imdb:

ANTIFA 4-EVA

CAUTION: woman having opinions
Joks Trois
Posts: 361
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:51 am

Post by Joks Trois »

Halloween (2018): People honestly thought this rhythmless crap was well made? Yeh there are some long shots, but none of them are good. David Gordon Green always struck me as being a bit of a poser, but his films are often well edited and have some atmospheric content. This has nothing. Jamie Lee Curtis is OK, but the material she was given is complete garbage. Reads like a bad first draft. It picks up in the final act, but overall it is a really poor effort, and the fact that it has drawn so many favourable comparisons to Carpenter's original merely confirms my suspicion that his classic remains insufficiently appreciated (formally). 4.5/10
Last edited by Joks Trois on Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
thoxans
Posts: 1350
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:48 pm

Post by thoxans »

rischka wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:24 pmwha-wha-WHAAAAAAT :shock:
ikr
User avatar
nrh
Posts: 1682
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:04 pm

Post by nrh »

rischka wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:24 pm
can someone tell me if new dragon gate inn is worth watching?? Brigitte Lin, Tony Leung Ka-fai, Maggie Cheung, and Donnie Yen. probably enough reason

btw i want to make a dedicated hong kong section. then maybe holymanm will come back :mrgreen:
new dragon gate inn is really fun! i'm partially so fond of the movie because it was the first tsui hark film i saw on the big screen, and he was there to give a long career overview interview, and the experience really kicked off a period where i fell in love with his movies.

i'd say it's the most straightforward pop movie of his big wuxia films of the period, riffing on the king hu of course but also stuff like the shaw brothers cannibal inn movie black tavern. and despite not having a credit tsui directed at least 60% of it.

i can't stand flying swords of dragon gate inn though, which might be one of his worst films.
User avatar
rischka
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:43 am
Location: desert usa
Contact:

Post by rischka »

nrh wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 5:00 pm
rischka wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 10:24 pm
can someone tell me if new dragon gate inn is worth watching?? Brigitte Lin, Tony Leung Ka-fai, Maggie Cheung, and Donnie Yen. probably enough reason

btw i want to make a dedicated hong kong section. then maybe holymanm will come back :mrgreen:
new dragon gate inn is really fun! i'm partially so fond of the movie because it was the first tsui hark film i saw on the big screen, and he was there to give a long career overview interview, and the experience really kicked off a period where i fell in love with his movies.

i'd say it's the most straightforward pop movie of his big wuxia films of the period, riffing on the king hu of course but also stuff like the shaw brothers cannibal inn movie black tavern. and despite not having a credit tsui directed at least 60% of it.

i can't stand flying swords of dragon gate inn though, which might be one of his worst films.
ok great thanks! will get to it then
:lboxd: + ICM + :imdb:

ANTIFA 4-EVA

CAUTION: woman having opinions
User avatar
Silga
Posts: 986
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2018 3:28 pm
Location: Vilnius, Lithuania

Post by Silga »

China Moon (John Bailey, 1994) 5/10

Not much to admire in this one. A rather pedestrian neo-noir with tired clichés, missed opportunities and so on.

What's likeable is, of course, Benicio del Toro and Madeleine Stowe. Well, to be frank, Stowe is so distractingly beautiful that it makes one forget about the misgivings in the plot.

Some nice photography too. Maybe it helps that film's director John Bailey is cinematographer himself (American Gigolo, Cat People, Mishima).

Image

Image
User avatar
wba2
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 2:34 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by wba2 »

Joks Trois wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:04 pm Halloween (2018): People honestly thought this rhythmless crap was well made? Yeh there are some long shots, but none of them are good. David Gordon Green always struck me as being a bit of a poser, but his films are often well edited and have some atmospheric content. This has nothing. Jamie Lee Curtis is OK, but the material she was given is complete garbage. Reads like a bad first draft. It picks up in the final act, but overall it is a really poor effort, and the fact that it has drawn so many favourable comparisons to Carpenter's original merely confirms my suspicion that his classic remains insufficiently appreciated (formally). 4.5/10
Agree completely. I saw this at the cinema, cause a film I wanted to watch was wrongly advertised, and I had nothing else to do to bridge the gap until it actually started. So I went in without expectations. I mean, how bad could it be? Boy was I wrong. The word ineptitude strikes me as ideally suited to describe works like this. To think that this film is anything like a hommage to anything that has to do with the Halloween franchise, is to think that drunken rambling while pissing in your pants is a form of self-reflection. I haven't seen all the Halloween movies, but this one must surely be the worst of them. Also my first Gordon Green, and my impression of his "directing" in this is utter helplessness and cluelessness. The film actually feels like it was directed by no one (which is imo the worst possible critique of a director)...
To please the majority is the requirement of the Planet Cinema. As far as I'm concerned, I don't make a concession to viewers, these victims of life, who think that a film is made only for their enjoyment, and who know nothing about their own existence.
User avatar
arkheia
Posts: 241
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:10 pm
Contact:

Post by arkheia »

Image Image
Image Image
Rain or Shine (1930)
dir. Frank Capra
7/10 Letterboxd review


One of Capra's early talkies, a carnival comedy of the 'show must go on' variety crossed with Capra-brand individualism. There's a lot of interesting elements to appreciate even if the sum total of its parts didn't quite cohere for me. Check out this tracking shot, moving between interiors and exteriors just a few years into talkies. Unfortunately it's a screen-recording so the clip doesn't have any sound but apparently the shot was dubbed in post, which is partly why the camera follows behind Cook so we don't see his mouth move as much.

https://streamable.com/gz8yz
User avatar
...
Posts: 1234
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:50 am

Post by ... »

Hey, I just watched that last night too! One of the things I dig about that tracking shot is that Capra had another like shot a little later with Smiley leaving the circus. The second one is cut off too soon to give it full weight of purpose, but it suggests Capra linking Bud's arrival to invite Mary to a would-be engagement dinner and Smiley's dismissal for causing havoc at the dinner. It's a neat idea, just needed a bit more to drive it home.

The rest of the movie is somewhat marred for being a Joe Cook showpiece, distorting the overall story to make extended space for Cook's comedy routines, and the almost nine minute dinner sequence becomes increasingly painful as it goes on since it is humiliating Mary for little good reason. The story, thankfully, recognizes that and keeps Smiley from being in the right or getting his way in the end, but as it unwinds it's tough to sit through since the "funny" isn't all that amusing at this late date.

There is some other really good stuff in it or about it too in how well it fits Capra's later movies, with the protagonist being on the line between selfishness and sacrifice and crowds that can turn to mobs in an instant. The pay off for the turpentine horse story as the end exchange was solid as well and really helped the movie recuperate from the dinner scene. The rest of the resolution just prior to that exchange is so odd, but sort of compelling for it. I mean the way Mary's part of the story is wrapped up with so little emphasis is just not how it would be done later, but as the story is really just about Joe there is something fitting about it too for not pandering to emotion more.
User avatar
arkheia
Posts: 241
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:10 pm
Contact:

Post by arkheia »

You're right, I was thinking about that second tracking shot too, I believe this is the one you're referring to?

https://streamable.com/mcris

The shot also holds a secondary significance in tying back to this earlier scene of Mary leaving Smiley to accompany Bud.

https://streamable.com/l3uor

The stationary frame lingers on Smiley watching her leave, grounding the stagnation of his repressed jealousy. Then when we arrive at the second tracking shot, we understand the movement of the camera as a change in character as he becomes somewhat conscious of how his actions have hurt Mary, in contrast to the inertia of his selfishness in the earlier scene.

The dinner set-piece does drag a bit (the whole bit outdoors with Amos re-enacting Smiley's partnership scam felt a bit unnecessary to me). I'm half tempted to reason that there's a slight justification to the scene's uncomfortable duration in order to place the audience further within Mary's perspective and sympathetic to her humiliation, if not already made clear in the several cut-aways to her teary reaction at the dinner table. The way Capra frames the sequence, the camera gradually moves out of the scene, beginning at first with frontal shots level with Smiley as if we're sitting across from him at the table.

Image Image

Then as the chaos develops and Capra intercuts Mary's hurt reaction shots

Image

the camera detaches itself from Smiley and aligns itself with Mary's end of the table.

Starting here:
Image

then moving outward to here:
Image

to finally to here:
Image

Capra even locates Mary's seating next to Bud's mother (through which we implicitly understand she's seated across from Bud's father)

Image

So when we see Bud's parent's disgusted reactions, it's from her POV that we're meant to empathize with

Image


Of course, the sequence is a bit ambivalent about the whole thing since the camera still centers around Cook's prolonged gags. It seems like we're supposed to both identify with Mary's discomfort at Smiley's behavior and also view his various gags as comedy.

The turpentine bit is a good pay-off with Smiley's reveal about the horse feeling like a recapitulation of his characterization as an asshole, perhaps tempering his character arc with a reminder that he's not completely different from before. [general spoiler warning coming up in 3... 2... 1] I think it's interesting to contrast Smiley with other Capra protagonists who skirt economic disaster before getting reigned back in at the last minute in a hollow net of security. Smiley sits with Amos in the ashes of the circus, it's understood that he's lost everything for himself but we must also remember he's lost everything for Mary and Bud as well not to mention the other performers. The understated, perhaps even unacknowledged resolution to the Smiley-Bud-Mary love triangle occurs in Bud driving Smiley back to rescue Mary from the fire, as if to say that in moments of crisis, personal differences are set aside in order to 'do the right thing'. The final shots show the circus cars riding off into yet another stormy night, we're back to where we started with dogged perseverance in the face of any and all obstacles, 'the show must go on' can-do spirit. What's interesting about this is how Capra's idea of optimism presents itself here at the suppression of anything beyond Smiley's own reality and at the sacrifice of narrative closure. We're not given resolution to Mary and Bud's characters because as you said, "the story is really just about Joe".
Joks Trois
Posts: 361
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:51 am

Post by Joks Trois »

wba wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:23 am
Joks Trois wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:04 pm Halloween (2018): People honestly thought this rhythmless crap was well made? Yeh there are some long shots, but none of them are good. David Gordon Green always struck me as being a bit of a poser, but his films are often well edited and have some atmospheric content. This has nothing. Jamie Lee Curtis is OK, but the material she was given is complete garbage. Reads like a bad first draft. It picks up in the final act, but overall it is a really poor effort, and the fact that it has drawn so many favourable comparisons to Carpenter's original merely confirms my suspicion that his classic remains insufficiently appreciated (formally). 4.5/10
Agree completely. I saw this at the cinema, cause a film I wanted to watch was wrongly advertised, and I had nothing else to do to bridge the gap until it actually started. So I went in without expectations. I mean, how bad could it be? Boy was I wrong. The word ineptitude strikes me as ideally suited to describe works like this. To think that this film is anything like a hommage to anything that has to do with the Halloween franchise, is to think that drunken rambling while pissing in your pants is a form of self-reflection. I haven't seen all the Halloween movies, but this one must surely be the worst of them. Also my first Gordon Green, and my impression of his "directing" in this is utter helplessness and cluelessness. The film actually feels like it was directed by no one (which is imo the worst possible critique of a director)...
DGG isn't a very good director, but his smaller 'art films' show at least some ability to blend images and sound in a semi-interesting, if derivative, way, but for some reason his commercial films are really badly made. Slightness has always been a problem for him though, just like it is for most so called American 'indie' directors. Their films are invariably milquetoast, most likely because they are boring people themselves. Even Van Sant doesn't fully escape this fate.

RICHOCHET: Holy shit. This is an underrated film. Much better than Highlander, which is dated and terribly overrated. Marketed as a tense cat and mouse thriller, it's actually closer to the lurid work of DePalma with its jet black humour, absurdist tone and self consciously over the top acting. Lithgow gives one of his best gonzo performances, tearing up the screen with reckless abandon, and Washington is much looser here than he is nowadays, before he started trying to be 'respectable'. He becomes genuinely unhinged in the tense final scene atop an electrical tower.

Mulcahy's work is quite impressive here. He uses dissolve in ways that links Washington and Lithgow (similarities, contrasts etc) and intensifies their conflict. He also uses space in a disorienting way, but it's unfortunate that the available versions are not in their correct aspect ratio of 2:35. You can literally see key visual information missing from frames at times, which is especially apparent in a scene with Washington tied to a chair that moves from a tight medium shot to a really wide shot suddenly. Apparently his cut was also a lot more violent, and I'd love to see it because this is pretty crazy stuff in its current form.

6.5/10. Maybe a 7.
Last edited by Joks Trois on Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:51 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
...
Posts: 1234
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:50 am

Post by ... »

What I found interesting about Smiley's character is that he's shown as being essentially unflappable, even keeled no matter what the circumstance, save for when it comes to Mary. He's shown as both a decent guy, but also a happy grifter, ready to do whatever it takes to get by without thinking about it much. The turpentine gag pay off though gives a hint that he's all too aware of his role in the fiasco that is the end result. He saved Mary and tried to take the brunt of the mob's reaction, but in the end, he has to know he poisoned his own horse. He rides off with what remains of "his" circus after sending Mary off with Bud without any fanfare at all and no real indication of who might remain with the crew after the strike. Smiley, as he so frequently said, pays all the bills and as they all came due at once, he's paying for it.

Smiley and the circus seems to fit well within Capra's collection of other oddballs that he holds up as being a signal characteristic of the American ideal, a place where eccentricity not only can thrive, but defines the wide net of values that makes the US what it is. That group or ideal is always threatened by the influence of money or the ideals of wealth. Like Bud's parents, riches don't inherently lead to bad behavior, but the class difference can provoke it. What was interesting about the dinner party was how accepting Bud's parents initially were of Mary and the circus folk until Smiley and his confederates started acting up. The only question was whether bad manners was sufficient reason alone for Bud's parents to change their views so completely. Smiley was betting on that proving the rich are truly different, but Mary's reaction gives reason to feel Smiley was in the wrong and his unprovoked disturbance potentially did cross into something more than the difference between rich and poor.

How the movie audience reacts to Smiley and Bud's parents unsettles things a bit, laughing with Smiley could make the antics seem more innocent at their root than if one feels discomfort for Mary. Bud's parents remain mostly generic figures leaving them to be seen more as representing an ideal Mary hopes to attain than people in their own right. The movie plays off that a bit further by having Bud remain absent for much of the remaining film, leaving it to the audience to decide if he was wholly genuine in his interest for Mary, as she believed, or if he'd stick with his parents rather than risk losing their support. His return shows Smiley's assessment of Bud at the start of the film as being misguided. Bud isn't circus folk, but that doesn't mean he's not good for anything.
User avatar
Roscoe
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:29 am
Location: New York

Post by Roscoe »

THE FAVORITE -- Yorgos Lanthimos' picture of intrigues among the ladies at the court of Queen Anne. Rachel Weisz, Olivia Colman and Emma Stone all do very good work here, but it's an uphill battle against the familiarity of the story. It isn't exactly hard to see where this is going to end up. Good fun overall, and I'll cop to liking that odd little final flourish.
These matters are best disposed of from a great height. Over water.
User avatar
Roscoe
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:29 am
Location: New York

Post by Roscoe »

POISON -- the trio of stories from Todd Haynes that caused a lot of fuss when first released. HERO, HOMO and HORROR are all intercut, INTOLERANCE-style, in a brutal and beautiful picture of the things we do to each other for sex and power. It still packs a punch, no doubt about it.
These matters are best disposed of from a great height. Over water.
User avatar
sally
Posts: 3603
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:11 pm

Post by sally »

joão bénard da costa - others will love the things i've loved (manuel mozos, 2014)

gotta love something that finds pessoa in lubitsch. not sure about the recommendation to watch johnny guitar 68 times though.
Joks Trois
Posts: 361
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:51 am

Post by Joks Trois »

Roscoe wrote: Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:04 pm THE FAVORITE -- Yorgos Lanthimos' picture of intrigues among the ladies at the court of Queen Anne. Rachel Weisz, Olivia Colman and Emma Stone all do very good work here, but it's an uphill battle against the familiarity of the story. It isn't exactly hard to see where this is going to end up. Good fun overall, and I'll cop to liking that odd little final flourish.
A friend of mine described it as a more artistic version of Mean Girls. Not sure if that's a good or a bad thing, but I must say that I'm getting a little tired of these 'comedy of manners' style films, and Lanthimos is a typical old fashioned Euro film maker that has a hatred for the upper class. He is only in his 40's, but he may as well be in his 80's. Ideologically, he belongs to the same generation as Pasolini. So yeah, I'm not that excited about The Favourite, but curiosity will probably get the better of me.

7 Women: Like Johnny Guitar, I suspect this film appeals greatly to a certain kind of auteurist that enjoys films from canon directors that are slightly different from the norm and reverse gender roles. I found Bancroft's macho schtick to be a bit kitsch and laughable. I also felt the studio setting detracted somewhat from the intensity of the scenario. Overall it's quite good, but the idea that it's a kind of masterpiece is unfathomable to me. 6/10


TWODEAD: I found Johnny Guitar to be the worst kind of old Hollywood kitsch. It blows me away that that film is taken seriously, and I like Ray.
User avatar
Roscoe
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2018 10:29 am
Location: New York

Post by Roscoe »

INVENTION FOR DESTRUCTION -- Karel Zeman's animations and camera trickery are the thing here, and they're an absolute delight. The storytelling is rudimentary at best, and the performances aren't worthy of the designation. I was very very taken with the look and the tricks, the full-out embrace of artifice was most exhilarating. For physical media fans -- the Second Run Blu-Ray is region-free, and just gorgeous.

In re: JOHNNY GUITAR: it has always struck me as being just dreadful, with occasional flickers of EdWoodian pleasure. The adoration it gets just mystifies.
These matters are best disposed of from a great height. Over water.
User avatar
MatiasAlbertotti
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:37 am

Post by MatiasAlbertotti »

I watched "The lobster" from Lanthimos yesterday, and I thought it was interesting, with some nice cinematography. It's the second Lanthimos I've seen and I have find his dialogues and the acting direction a bit off-putting. It worked in "The lobster" for me, but I didn't liked those same two things in "Killing of a sacred deer". I do agree with Joks on what he said from his ideology, still when I watch his movies, I find myself thinking of Kubrick, maybe it has to do with a certain clinical approach and detachment to themes and subjects. I don't know, at least I want to watch more from him, probably will watch "The Favorite" at the theater since my wife wants to watch it.

Also I started my "100 movies from the 40s in 2019" with Bresson's "Angels of sin". It was not premeditated, it was on the TV and found it by luck. I liked the early Bresson, everything he's going to be working on his later films is already there, all of his interests and obsessions. The first sequence when the Mother Superior walks out of jail with Ines and is being followed by thugs under the rain is great noir.
Joks Trois
Posts: 361
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:51 am

Post by Joks Trois »

^^Kubrickian detachment perhaps, but not his compositional skill or his edge really, although Lanthimos certainly fancies himself 'edgy'.

QUINTET: I was expecting a bit of a dud and was pleasantly surprised. I liked the Vaseline smeared edges, almost Sokurovian before Sokurov, and the atmosphere of doom and gloom is consistently sustained. The acting is hit and miss and the screenplay could have been tightened up, but the consensus is wrong on this one. It's very flawed but fascinating just the same, both as a departure from norm for Altman while also foreshadowing his minimalist 80's work. It's also comparable to Stalker, which came out the same year, but it's far more pessimistic. Maybe a 6.5/10.

I'd take it over The Player any day! Short Cuts too.
Last edited by Joks Trois on Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
...
Posts: 1234
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:50 am

Post by ... »

Instead of counting down at the end of the old year, I found myself counting up some past years as a start to the new thanks to Mubi streaming Jem Cohen's Counting. It was a fine way to start 2019. Nothing all that profound about the movie, the underlying attitude and ideology is familiar enough, but no less welcome for that. Cohen has a good eye for interesting images and found some nice correlations between sound and sight that added some potency to his travelogue.

The scene in NYC, for example, where he captures passersby reflected in store windows while the soundtrack is a congressional hearing on US surveillance of its citzens was a nice touch, suggesting the narrowness of the line between observation and surveillance. Some of the scenes has Cohen adopting a tourists perspective in choice of what is being visited, but captures the mundane and sometimes odd day to day actions that happen in the shadow of the landmarks, viewing them at off hours, off season, or just from a different vantage point than the more usual view. For example, he views Coney Island in winter and backgrounds the buildings of Red Square to images of fakes, architectural and some impersonators who happened to be in the area as he filmed.

The movie is broken up into 15 different segments, each from a different place and time. It imposes no narrative demand save for what one takes from each static shot and the sounds which accompany them. The shot lengths vary, but are generally not exceptionally long as Cohen cuts between different views and times at the sites of each segment. And as is fitting for a movie dedicated, in part, to Chris Marker, there are cats. Not at all a bad way to start a new year.
User avatar
...
Posts: 1234
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:50 am

Post by ... »

I'd take it over The Player any day! Short Cuts too.
Not so sure the consensus is so much wrong about Quintet as it is way off on its estimations of Short Cuts and The Player. Double ugh, or should I say double smugh.
Joks Trois
Posts: 361
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:51 am

Post by Joks Trois »

greg x wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:35 pm
I'd take it over The Player any day! Short Cuts too.
Not so sure the consensus is so much wrong about Quintet as it is way off on its estimations of Short Cuts and The Player. Double ugh, or should I say double smugh.
They are definitely overrated films. I've never understood why they are compared favourably to his 70's films, presumably by people who haven't seen his best work or have bad memories. Quintet at least tries to achieve something cinematically. The Player and Short Cuts look like cheap TV films.
Lencho of the Apes
Posts: 1900
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:38 am

Post by Lencho of the Apes »

I think the negativity that attached itself to Quintet was because it pushed against peoples' expectations in a way they didn't welcome. Superficial audience members wanting populist foksy Nashville feels... If Three Women got a pass, it was... well, I can't really say. Because Bergman?
The opposite of 'reify' is... ?
User avatar
arkheia
Posts: 241
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:10 pm
Contact:

Post by arkheia »

At its face, Quintet seems like an odd pivot for Altman - a large-scale post-apocalyptic dystopia centered on a small-scale board game - maybe that alone made contemporaneous audiences/critics a bit too dubious to earnestly grapple with it. There's a fine video essay re-appraisal of the film here:

https://vimeo.com/287370660
Joks Trois
Posts: 361
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2018 9:51 am

Post by Joks Trois »

^^Thanks. I'll have to watch it.

UNBREAKABLE: Rewatch. Not sure why I bothered. M.Night is to blame for overly serious modern genre films that are nowhere near as intelligent and thoughtful as their creators think rather than Nolan. His cinema, or at least his early work, is the place where solemnity and stupidity meet and become mutually reinforcing. He has some technical skill, that's largely why he is praised, but Unbreakable is adolescent material with delusions of grandeur, a lame parable that is painfully slow and completely non-revelatory. 4.5/10

HIGH AND LOW: Makes Friedkin and Fincher looks like complete idiots. 8.5. Maybe 9. Colossal storytelling and amazing cinematography. The way Kurosawa negotiates space in the first 50 mins (of one setting) is extraordinary, and the ending is devastating. A real punch in the gut. Impossible to forget and casts a long shadow over preceding events. This is how you mix genre and social critique correctly.
Last edited by Joks Trois on Wed Jan 02, 2019 5:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
kanafani
Posts: 1606
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:08 pm
Contact:

Post by kanafani »

Yesterday I watched The Spider and the Fly (Robert Hamer, 1949), a thriller with a couple of awesome heist/chase set pieces, a compelling cop/thief cat/mouse dynamic, and a fun love triangle. Why this movie is seen by practically nobody is a mystery to me. I stumbled upon it in a couple of letterboxd lists. The director also made Kind Hearts and Coronets... Def worth a look. Now please resume your Quintet discussion.
User avatar
sally
Posts: 3603
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:11 pm

Post by sally »

well i'm going to lower the tone even more.

watched the toto/fernandel film THE LAW IS THE LAW (perfectly balanced comedy about state borders, as if i don't see enough about that every day anyway right now) but i'm still chuckling that the name of the divisive town is assola.

also watched a danish short (thief of hearts, lauritzen, 1917) and probably over-reading the take on spectatorship and ownership and art from theatre to cinema, it's all entrances and doorways and peeping and mirrors and thieves and creepy possessive staring, and the cutest hiding from a bad man, but the main point is that i google translated the wikipedia entry:

This first Erna Schøyen game will be a radiant success. The act is witty and original, the instructor has fart and Fart over the cheerful situations and the performance is so perfect that everyone must get over and be defeated by the "heart thief" - the famous dancer Elva Marja
User avatar
rischka
Posts: 6580
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 3:43 am
Location: desert usa
Contact:

Post by rischka »

fart AND Fart?? wow. impressive

i'm going to start over with the 3 hour bollywood extravaganza jewel thief as i skipped a whole day and am lost in mistaken identities now :cry:

Image

Image
:lboxd: + ICM + :imdb:

ANTIFA 4-EVA

CAUTION: woman having opinions
User avatar
sally
Posts: 3603
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 8:11 pm

Post by sally »

maybe 'gas them to death' is the danish equivalent of knock em dead?
Lencho of the Apes
Posts: 1900
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:38 am

Post by Lencho of the Apes »

Or something like "We'll fa(h)rt, fart, fart on the Autobahn."
The opposite of 'reify' is... ?
Post Reply