28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Idioteque Stalker]

The graininess of certain '70s movies results from using fast film stocks in low lighting conditions. The movies are supposed to look that way to give an impression of documentary realism.

Black Christmas and Wanda are two grainy 70s movies I recently watched and liked. Black Christmas has a lot of directorial and lighting flourishes, while Wanda is a bit more austere and fits with the documentary realism angle you mentioned. The films operate on totally different wavelengths, but I prefer the look of Black Christmas.

[Dukefrukem]

The graininess of certain '70s movies results from using fast film stocks in low lighting conditions. The movies are supposed to look that way to give an impression of documentary realism.

Well then that stinks.

[baby doll]

Well then that stinks.That's a very Millennial bias on your part. In the '70s, graininess meant realism because that's how documentaries from the period tended to look (e.g., Harlan County USA); today, when most everything is shot digitally, realism means sharp resolution. Neither one is inherently more realistic; it's simply a matter of technological fashion--although personally, I find the softness of '70s films more aesthetically pleasing.

Incidentally, although Oshima's Ceremonies isn't especially grainy for the period, 35mm prints of the film have a softness that is nowhere apparent in the torrent I downloaded from KG, which makes the film look like it was shot yesterday.

[Irish]

Incidentally, although Oshima's Ceremonies isn't especially grainy for the period, 35mm prints of the film have a softness that is nowhere apparent in the torrent I downloaded from KG, which makes the film look like it was shot yesterday.

I've noticed this too, with different movies, but somehow hearing someone else say it really bums me the fuck out.

[baby doll]

I've noticed this too, with different movies, but somehow hearing someone else say it really bums me the fuck out.There's no substitute for celluloid.

[DFA1979]

Man I love the 1970s when it comes to film. That's my kind of decade.

[StuSmallz]

https://i.ibb.co/sJdBKHX/intro-1588270731.jpg (https://ibb.co/k6sd41P)


Your mind is the scene of the crime.


About every decade or so, a new, iconic sci-fi/actioner seems to be come out and completely capture the imaginations of both the critics and the general public alike, for better or worse; in the middle of the 80's, James Cameron's The Terminator shocked audiences everywhere with its dark, nightmarish visions of a post-apocalyptic future. At the end of 90's, the Wachowskis produced The Matrix, amping up the genre with a blend of unbelievable cyber-punk action and basic (but still intriguing) philosophical musings. And, at the turn of this decade, we saw the release of Christopher Nolan's Inception upon the world, a twisty, thrilling, visually sleek puzzle box of a film, one that expertly utilizes exciting, visceral action scenes in order to get audiences to more easily swallow its crafty, mind-bending, soft sci-fi concepts, creating a great example of the disappointingly rare breed of original modern summer blockbusters (in more ways than one), and a fairly iconic entry in modern popular cinema to boot.


It concerns itself with the story of Cobb, an expert thief who specializes in corporate espionage, albeit, an extremely unusual form of it; you see, instead of physically breaking into the headquarters of rival corporations and, say, stealing prototypes of their latest inventions, Cobb specializes in breaking into people's minds, utilizing his crack team of "extractors" to craft and inhabit ridiculously elaborate dreamworlds (which often consist of dreams within other dreams) in order to decieve their targets and abduct the innermost secrets from their very subconscious. When Cobb finds the ultimate "job" after being hired not to steal an idea, but to PLANT one, in the well-defended subconsciousness of a corporate heir, a seemingly impossible task known as "inception", he must assemble an elite team of mindthieves to create the ultimate dreamworld, an impossibly convoluted, labyrinthian realm of dreams within dreams within dreams, with an equally complicated, intricate scheme to go with it, all while the memories of his (not so) dead wife constantly haunt him, threatening to ruin the entire plan, and make him become lost for forever in an endless mental abyss, one where reality and fantasy cease to be seperate.


Explaining the film's story any further than that would surely spoil it (at least, more than I usually care to in my reviews), and more importantly, be very, VERY hard to do, not only because the film's extensive cast of characters create a lot of moving parts in the plot, but also just because of the basic rules that govern the film's various dreamworlds, which are numerous, and become ever more complicated as they continue to be unwrapped bit by bit as the film goes on, and new wrinkles are are added on top of the old ones, as the characters go deeper and deeper into the mindmaze that is the overall dreamland, and the multiple layers and threads of the dream converge in spectacular fashion. It is honestly often kind of confusing, especially when Nolan unnecessarily rushes through explaining certain important details, but despite that, I still understood enough of the basic gist of what was happening to keep the momentary bits of confusion from ruining the film, and it's still fascinating material on the whole, as Nolan created a lovingly detailed, fully fleshed-out cinematic concept here, having a lot of fun with experimenting and playing around with the possibilities of the various guidelines he created for the dreamworld, which makes for some surreal imagery that's rather striking in its sheer impossiblity (the ways the various dream levels interact with each other makes for a particular tour-de-force fight sequence in a hallway), and you can easily see every moment of the 8 years of painstaking development he put into the central idea.


Besides that, despite other flaws such as the often thrilling, but sometimes needlessly overlong fight scenes against the anonymous, disposable mental "projections" of the film's main target, or occasionally turning its characters into nothing more than robotic, emotionless exposition machines (which is necessary to an extent given the dreams' inherently convoluted rules, but Nolan still goes overboard with the over-explaining at times here), Inception still excels by making us to care about the people within it, and getting us to be as lost within the dreamworlds, as unable to tell fantasy from reality, as they are (which isn't surprising, seeing as over half the film takes place within one dream or another, which makes us forget what's real). During its most memorable moments, there's a raw, sincere undercurrent of emotion flowing through the film, as we witness the most secret, innermost pains and regrets of not just Cobb, but the other characters within it as well, and when they recieve their ultimate moments of emotional catharis or acceptance onscreen, we in the audience feel it just as much as they do.


Of course, most of the events that happen in Inception don't actually, er, happen, but that's part of the point; oftentime, our perceptions of reality matters just as much as reality itself, sometimes even more so, and it doesn't matter if something is "real" in the film or not if it it feels real. Of course, you can say that about any movie out there that's not a documentary, but Inception really makes a point of exploring that point at length, creating an unabashedly original blockbuster, not just in the sense that it isn't based on any existing property, or that it contains a fairly novel, refreshing core concept to hang a work of popular entertainment on, but also in the way that isn't afraid to challenge your basic perceptions of what reality really is, and make you, well, think while you're being entertained. When it comes to Inception, just forget what you know is real, and get ready to go deeper, into one of the better films of this decade.


Final Score: 8.5

[transmogrifier]

From my Top 50:

1950s - 1
1960s - 5
1970s - 11
1980s - 6
1990s - 19
2000s - 8
2010s - 0

I have seen exactly 39 films from 1939 or earlier, and 14 of those are from 1938 and 1939. It's one hell of a blind spot for me. The best of those 39 are Fury (1936) and The Thin Man (1934).

Much like the opera and ballet, I have no patience for silent film. Sorry, film fans.

[Morris Schæffer]

Man I love the 1970s when it comes to film. That's my kind of decade.

I'm not sure I'd wanna choose between 70's, 80's or 90's or whatever but I ain't gonna disagree with ya. It's a great decade.

[Peng]

Trying trans' exercise, from my top 50:

20s - 2
30s - 1
40s - 4
50s - 8
60s - 5
70s - 3
80s - 7
90s - 3
00s - 7
10s - 10

Tracks that I've always thought 50s may be my favorite decade, where as high number in both 00's and 10's is more a recency matter in high volume of films seen.

[Dukefrukem]

From my Top 50:

1950s - 1
1960s - 5
1970s - 11
1980s - 6
1990s - 19
2000s - 8
2010s - 0

I have seen exactly 39 films from 1939 or earlier, and 14 of those are from 1938 and 1939. It's one hell of a blind spot for me. The best of those 39 are Fury (1936) and The Thin Man (1934).

Much like the opera and ballet, I have no patience for silent film. Sorry, film fans.

You pull that data from lb?

[Idioteque Stalker]

From my Top 50:

1950s - 1
1960s - 5
1970s - 11
1980s - 6
1990s - 19
2000s - 8
2010s - 0


19 is a big number! Could it be that your Gen X is showing?

Mine looks more like Peng's:

10 - 11
00 - 8
90 - 4
80 - 6
70 - 7
60 - 4
50 - 3
40 - 1
30 - 2
20 - 2

[Dukefrukem]

Top 50 - I guess I tolerated the grainyness of Dog Day. I have a feeling it will be coming off my list after a rewatch. The rest of the 70s movies don't have grainy.

20s - 0
30s - 1
40s - 2
50s - 10
60s - 3
70s - 5 - Jaws, Alien, Close Encounters, Dog Day, Eraserhead
80s - 8
90s - 10
00s - 6
10s - 5

[Dukefrukem]

19 is a big number! Could it be that your Gen X is showing?


I can probably guess 4 of those off the bat.

The Game, Alien 3, Fight Club, Seven,

[Skitch]

I love 70s, 80s, 90s. All three have some shitty tropes, but whatcha gonna do?

Related to a different conversation about age and growing up through the tech boom, (covid aside) this is the best time to be a film fan. Unprecedented access and they're pumping movies out more than ever.

As a kid, every movie I got to see was an event. It was usually on tv and edited in half.
Once a blue moon my parents would make the half hour drive to the lowest rent theater because it was closest.
Then one day, the local convenience store got a vcr to rent out along with a small wall of tapes.
Then one day, WE got our very OWN vcr. Now I could tape movies off of tv!! (couldn't do vcr to vcr because who lives in enough opulence to own two vcrs, duh)
Then one day, vhs tapes started to become affordable and on the shelf in stores.
Then one day, I could drive, and I went to the fucking theater every damn chance I could.
And then one day, the internet.

I don't care what decades people love or hate. I feel blessed that I can watch movies from all decades whenever I want, and that most movies aren't lost to time. When I was a kid and watched a movie on tv, there was a chance I would never ever get the chance to see it again. That was the mentality. That was the reality. So I say love whatever decades or genres you love, and fuck anyone that tells you youre wrong. :D

[transmogrifier]

You pull that data from lb?

No, I have an Excel viewing log that Ive been using since 2004.

[transmogrifier]

19 is a big number! Could it be that your Gen X is showing?

Mine looks more like Peng's:

10 - 11
00 - 8
90 - 4
80 - 6
70 - 7
60 - 4
50 - 3
40 - 1
30 - 2
20 - 2

Absolutely!

I’m surprised to see the 2010s so high in these lists. Weakest decade ever.

[transmogrifier]

I can probably guess 4 of those off the bat.

The Game, Alien 3, Fight Club, Seven,

Two of them, sure!

[Dukefrukem]

Absolutely!

I’m surprised to see the 2010s so high in these lists. Weakest decade ever.

You know what. You're right. Inception should be in the 00s not the 2010s. My mistake.

Also, what are you 60s entries?

[Idioteque Stalker]

Also, what are you 60s entries?

DON'T ANSWER THAT!

The sanctity of the top 50 thread must be preserved.

[megladon8]

Never understood the argument that the first year of a decade is 1.

00-09 is the decade, to me.

[baby doll]

Top 50 by decade:

1890s: 0
1900s: 0
1910s: 2 (4%)
1920s: 4 (8%)
1930s: 6 (12%)
1940s: 7.5 (15%)
1950s: 6.5 (13%)
1960s: 5 (10%)
1970s: 4 (8%)
1980s: 7.5 (15%)
1990s: 3.5 (7%)
2000s: 3 (6%)
2010s: 1 (2%)

The 0.5s are Ivan the Terrible (1944/58) and The Decalogue (1989-90).

[transmogrifier]

DON'T ANSWER THAT!

The sanctity of the top 50 thread must be preserved.

I wasn't gonna :)

[transmogrifier]

Never understood the argument that the first year of a decade is 1.

00-09 is the decade, to me.

The technicality of the argument cannot really be disputed (there was no year 0, so the literal first decade is 1-10), but I don't care and still use 0-9 for convenience and the aesthetics of it all.

[megladon8]

The technicality of the argument cannot really be disputed (there was no year 0, so the literal first decade is 1-10), but I don't care and still use 0-9 for convenience and the aesthetics of it all.

Yes exactly.

I understand it, but for the purpose of categorizing film decades (clearly the most important use of decade categorization known to humans), 0-9 just makes more sense.

[Dukefrukem]

Never understood the argument that the first year of a decade is 1.

00-09 is the decade, to me.

Because it's a fact. There's nothing to interpret. So changing it for aesthetic preference is lazy.

[Dukefrukem]

DON'T ANSWER THAT!

The sanctity of the top 50 thread must be preserved.

Oh my top 50 all time list is different form my MC 50 list. I forgot about our lists. I've been forgetting about a lot of stuff lately.

[baby doll]

I go by 0-9 as well, but then grouping films by decade is inherently arbitrary anyway, especially since there are other calendar systems in existence besides the Gregorian (Hebrew, Iranian, Bengali, etc.).

[baby doll]

Top 50 by Japanese era:

Meiji (1868-1912): 0 (0%)
Taisho (1912-1926): 4 (8%)
Showa (1926-1989): 36 (72%)
Heisei (1989-2019): 10 (10%)
Reiwa (2019-present): 0 (0%)

[Dukefrukem]

Well Letterboxd agrees with you guys (https://letterboxd.com/films/decade/2010s/). But I'll stick to science.

[Peng]

Memento is pretty underrated as far as being mentioned as the best of the 90s. And for a decade often looked down as bad one for serious American cinema, Goodfellas is a great 80s film.

[Mysterious Dude]

A decade can be any period of ten years. There is no reason that every decade must start with a year ending in one. We are not "counting" decades from the year 1 the way we count centuries (i.e. the twenty-first century). Nobody calls the period from 1991 to 2000 "the 200th decade." 1990-1999 is as much of a decade as 1991-2000, but it doesn't make sense to call 1991-2000 "the nineties".

[transmogrifier]

A decade can be any period of ten years. There is no reason that every decade must start with a year ending in one. We are not "counting" decades from the year 1 the way we count centuries (i.e. the twenty-first century). Nobody calls the period from 1991 to 2000 "the 200th decade." 1990-1999 is as much of a decade as 1991-2000, but it doesn't make sense to call 1991-2000 "the nineties".

What I like most about this post is that it agrees with my opinion and I can pretend that this was my reason too. Thanks!

[StuSmallz]

That's a very Millennial bias on your part.Hey now, I'm 32, and I absolutely disagree with Duke here, so don't lump all of us in the same category as him ; ) At any rate, concerns about grainy cinematography aside (which I feel lends an appropriately literal grit to the films of that era anyway), the 70's has always been my personal favorite period for film (at least just when it comes to Hollywood), as it's always felt like the closest the industry has ever come to being a true golden age for directors, what with the relative amount of artistic freedom that was afforded to them during that period, sandwiched in-between the studio dominance of the Classical era, and the franchise/special effects spectacle/for-all-audiences blockbuster-based model that's driven Hollywood for these past 4+ decades during the Modern period, and I can't ever imagine feeling that the decade that comprised the bulk of the New Hollywood movement (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?7234-Stu-Presents-1967-1980-A-History-Of-New-Hollywood)was a weak one as a whole, in any way, shape, or form.

[Dukefrukem]

Hey now, I'm 32, and I absolutely disagree with Duke here, so don't lump all of us in the same category as him ; ) At any rate, concerns about grainy cinematography aside (which I feel lends an appropriately literal grit to the films of that era anyway), the 70's has always been my personal favorite period for film (at least just when it comes to Hollywood), as it's always felt like the closest the industry has ever come to being a true golden age for directors, what with the relative amount of artistic freedom that was afforded to them during that period, sandwiched in-between the studio dominance of the Classical era, and the franchise/special effects spectacle/for-all-audiences blockbuster-based model that's driven Hollywood for these past 4+ decades during the Modern period, and I can't ever imagine feeling that the decade that comprised the bulk of the New Hollywood movement (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?7234-Stu-Presents-1967-1980-A-History-Of-New-Hollywood)was a weak one as a whole, in any way, shape, or form.

All of that may be true and I don't disagree with it, but from a strictly visual ascetics, it's by far the least visual appealing technique in the last 100 years. Except for the part where it's sandwiched in between classic era and blockbuster specials. That was 20+ years after the 70s. There was much to be done in between.

Also, I'm not a millennial. :)

[Mysterious Dude]

I love the aesthetics of the 70's. To me, that's when movies really became modern. Movies like The Godfather, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Days of Heaven do not look "dated" to me, the way most movies from the 60's do. Even a kid's movie like Benji (not a great movie, maybe not even a good one) to me doesn't look like a movie. It just looks like the real world.

[Dukefrukem]

Here's a great example of my feeling. This looks awful. Shot in someone's basement with a handheld. Nothing cinematic about this.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzw1_2b-I7A&ab_channel=Movieclips

[transmogrifier]

Yes, a very dark basement with "Video Unavailable" projected on the wall :)

[Ezee E]

I love the aesthetics of the 70's. To me, that's when movies really became modern. Movies like The Godfather, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Days of Heaven do not look "dated" to me, the way most movies from the 60's do. Even a kid's movie like Benji (not a great movie, maybe not even a good one) to me doesn't look like a movie. It just looks like the real world.

THink this may be why I like the 70s also.
Of course, this can look absolutely terrible in certain cases.

But the movies you mentioned, Taxi Driver, Dog Day Afternoon... There's a much more lived in/realistic feeling that made movies feel more dangerous/real. What is missing is the "cinematic" feel of big opening titles, heightened acting, cinemascope look... So there's good with the bad of course, I just really like that 70s look.

[Dukefrukem]

Yes, a very dark basement with "Video Unavailable" projected on the wall :)

I LOLed!

[Dukefrukem]

THink this may be why I like the 70s also.
Of course, this can look absolutely terrible in certain cases.

But the movies you mentioned, Taxi Driver, Dog Day Afternoon... There's a much more lived in/realistic feeling that made movies feel more dangerous/real. What is missing is the "cinematic" feel of big opening titles, heightened acting, cinemascope look... So there's good with the bad of course, I just really like that 70s look.

What about another deterrent. Is it a product of the technology? Not necessarily an aesthetic choice? This is all before non-linear editing techniques.
Look at this take starting at 0:04. It holds on this one shot for over a minute during one of the more critical scene in the movie. Director's choice? Or the editor didn't want to cut anywhere because, "why cut?" Sure loses much of the steam here when you're so far away from the actor's facial reactions.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPd9PT9lqQI&ab_channel=MovieClips

[Ezee E]

What about another deterrent. Is it a product of the technology? Not necessarily an aesthetic choice? This is all before non-linear editing techniques.
Look at this take starting at 0:04. It holds on this one shot for over a minute during one of the more critical scene in the movie. Director's choice? Or the editor didn't want to cut anywhere because, "why cut?" Sure loses much of the steam here when you're so far away from the actor's facial reactions.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPd9PT9lqQI&ab_channel=MovieClips

Absolutely a director's choice to not cut. He easily could've cut to OTS shots or a closer 2-shot, but holding from a distance just holds tension better. Scorsese more or less reused this shot in Irishman. We hear the emotion in their voices.

[baby doll]

Hey now, I'm 32, and I absolutely disagree with Duke here, so don't lump all of us in the same category as him ; ) At any rate, concerns about grainy cinematography aside (which I feel lends an appropriately literal grit to the films of that era anyway), the 70's has always been my personal favorite period for film (at least just when it comes to Hollywood), as it's always felt like the closest the industry has ever come to being a true golden age for directors, what with the relative amount of artistic freedom that was afforded to them during that period, sandwiched in-between the studio dominance of the Classical era, and the franchise/special effects spectacle/for-all-audiences blockbuster-based model that's driven Hollywood for these past 4+ decades during the Modern period, and I can't ever imagine feeling that the decade that comprised the bulk of the New Hollywood movement (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?7234-Stu-Presents-1967-1980-A-History-Of-New-Hollywood)was a weak one as a whole, in any way, shape, or form.For the record, I'm also a millennial (born in 1984). I just find it funny when Duke, who is in denial about being a millennial, says something extremely millennial.

As for the New Hollywood period (roughly 1967-1980) being a "golden age" for Hollywood directors, putting aside specific instances where directors lost control over their films during this period (e.g., Elaine May with A New Leaf), I'm not sure that giving directors more artistic control automatically yields better films. In particular, the later films of Terrence Malick seem to me a cautionary tale of a great director almost be destroyed by not having someone to reign in his worst excesses.

[baby doll]

What about another deterrent. Is it a product of the technology? Not necessarily an aesthetic choice? This is all before non-linear editing techniques.
Look at this take starting at 0:04. It holds on this one shot for over a minute during one of the more critical scene in the movie. Director's choice? Or the editor didn't want to cut anywhere because, "why cut?" Sure loses much of the steam here when you're so far away from the actor's facial reactions.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPd9PT9lqQI&ab_channel=MovieClipsYour millennial is showing again. According to the website Cinemetrics, Taxi Driver has an average shot length (ASL) of seven-to-eight seconds, which is about average for the period: Faster than classical era films, which were designed to be seen on a big screen (Preminger's Fallen Angel has an ASL of over thirty seconds), but still slower than films made today which are designed to be played on an iPad while the viewer checks their Instragram account (Inception has an ASL of about three seconds). In other words, even with the rise of what David Bordwell has called Intensified Continuity in the 1960s and '70s, editors of the period still knew they had to let a scene breath, instead of hyping every single beat for all its worth as this results in the sort of rhythmic monotony that makes so many contemporary Hollywood films all but unwatchable.

[Dukefrukem]

Your millennial is showing again. According to the website Cinemetrics, Taxi Driver has an average shot length (ASL) of seven-to-eight seconds, which is about average for the period: Faster than classical era films, which were designed to be seen on a big screen (Preminger's Fallen Angel has an ASL of over thirty seconds), but still slower than films made today which are designed to be played on an iPad while the viewer checks their Instragram account (Inception has an ASL of about three seconds). In other words, even with the rise of what David Bordwell has called Intensified Continuity in the 1960s and '70s, editors of the period still knew they had to let a scene breath, instead of hyping every single beat for all its worth as this results in the sort of rhythmic monotony that makes so many contemporary Hollywood films all but unwatchable.

Is there a reason why you conveniently left out the Tax-Drive 6 second ASL? Or was that to fit your narrative better? If you think it's a dig at me, when you mention Inception's incredible low average shot length, you're fooling yourself. This is a totally legit criticism of this scene, not just from a narrative level (which is debatable) but from a technical level; especially with the microphone interference when he pulls the gun out. it's faulty direction.

[baby doll]

Is there a reason why you conveniently left out the Tax-Drive 6 second ASL? Or was that to fit your narrative better? If you think it's a dig at me, when you mention Inception's incredible low average shot length, you're fooling yourself. This is a totally legit criticism of this scene, not just from a narrative level (which is debatable) but from a technical level; especially with the microphone interference when he pulls the gun out. it's faulty direction.The 6.5 second ASL is just for the scene with Scorsese in the backseat, not the whole film.

As for "faulty direction," in this situation, sticking to the master has several advantages: It preserves the actorly interplay between DeNiro and Keitel, and it gives the shooting a certain abrupt matter-of-factness. There are other ways Scorsese could have covered the scene, but my suspicion is that he felt the advantages of an unbroken long shot outweighed the disadvantage of some minor technical errors that most audience members aren't going to notice. In other words, in contrast with contemporary Hollywood directors who shoot every dialogue scene in the same way regardless of what the scene is about, Scorsese's decision not to cut away from the master feels motivated by the narrative.

[Ezee E]

The 6.5 second ASL is just for the scene with Scorsese in the backseat, not the whole film.

As for "faulty direction," in this situation, sticking to the master has several advantages: It preserves the actorly interplay between DeNiro and Keitel, and it gives the shooting a certain abrupt matter-of-factness. There are other ways Scorsese could have covered the scene, but my suspicion is that he felt the advantages of an unbroken long shot outweighed the disadvantage of some minor technical errors that most audience members aren't going to notice. In other words, in contrast with contemporary Hollywood directors who shoot every dialogue scene in the same way regardless of what the scene is about, Scorsese's decision not to cut away from the master feels motivated by the narrative.

Precisely.

The decision for DeNiro to check his surroundings after the shot goes off, seeing that the streets are barren, but us seeing him rather than cutting to a 1st person shot, still adds to the closed-in, violent, inescapable environment that he's about to enter into.

[Dukefrukem]

In other words, in contrast with contemporary Hollywood directors who shoot every dialogue scene in the same way regardless of what the scene is about, Scorsese's decision not to cut away from the master feels motivated by the narrative.

I don't feel this is true at all. Why are you generalizing so much between these eras? And why are the 50s and 60s so appealing to my "Millennial" attention span but not the 70s? I'm seeing 8-10 ASL with Hitchcock using your precious CINEMETRICS.

[megladon8]

Why is it bad to be a millennial?

The only annoying thing about it to me is that boomers want to paint us as lazy and entitled, which is constantly disproven.

[Ezee E]

Cinemetrics, lol.

[DFA1979]

I'm not sure I'd wanna choose between 70's, 80's or 90's or whatever but I ain't gonna disagree with ya. It's a great decade.

Oh I love those, too. I do need to see more from the 1930s that's for sure.

[megladon8]

If I had to pick a "weakest decade" it would probably be the 2000s or 2010s.

But as time passes we tend to filter out most of the garbage and remember just the good stuff. So in 20 years I could have a very different opinion.

[DFA1979]

I'm 34 but I feel more like a young Gen X-er. I relate more to their movies, music and shows anyways. Saying that someone likes this movie or that movie because of their age bracket is pretty dumb.

[Skitch]

Im curious to see some of these nudity filled films from the 30s that came out before they started censorship stuff.

[megladon8]

Im curious to see some of these nudity filled films from the 30s that came out before they started censorship stuff.

Haven't really seen any of these, but I've seen some great movies from the pre-censorship era that are very frank about sex, relationships, etc.

Baby Face with Barbara Stanwyck is a great movie.

[Skitch]

Taking any recs from that era!

[baby doll]

I don't feel this is true at all. Why are you generalizing so much between these eras? And why are the 50s and 60s so appealing to my "Millennial" attention span but not the 70s? I'm seeing 8-10 ASL with Hitchcock using your precious CINEMETRICS.In general, I think one can see a steep decline in the quality of American cinema after 1960, which has accelerated in the last thirty years due to the introduction of digital editing in the early 1990s (and prior to that, digital sound mixing)--a change that Scorsese himself both helped to bring about and has had to respond to (see his oft-quoted line about Goodfellas being his version of MTV cutting). In this downward trajectory, Taxi Driver and other films of the New Hollywood period represent a transitional phase between the classical découpage of Ford, Hawks, Wyler, et al. and the unrelieved awfulness of mainstream filmmaking today. I'm not against fast cutting per se (I like Soviet montage films and the '30s films of Naruse and Ozu); what I dislike about contemporary Hollywood cinema is its monotony and formulaic approach to covering a scene. (I remember seeing The Prestige in theatres and finding it physically painful to watch because of how it was shot and cut.)

As for your ability to enjoy films of the 1950s, that just makes it all the more puzzling to me why you think this scene from Taxi Driver (which would be common in a '50s film) is so beyond the pale.

[megladon8]

Taking any recs from that era!

I hear Baby Face with Barbara Stanwyck is really good!

[baby doll]

I hear Baby Face with Barbara Stanwyck is really good!It's pretty good, at times great, though it predictably goes soft at the end.

[Skitch]

I hear Baby Face with Barbara Stanwyck is really good!

Me too!

[megladon8]

It's pretty good, at times great, though it predictably goes soft at the end.

That's what she said.

[Dukefrukem]

In general, I think one can see a steep decline in the quality of American cinema after 1960, which has accelerated in the last thirty years due to the introduction of digital editing in the early 1990s (and prior to that, digital sound mixing)--a change that Scorsese himself both helped to bring about and has had to respond to (see his oft-quoted line about Goodfellas being his version of MTV cutting).

Technology caused the decline of American cinema? Or quantity over quality is making it appear this way because of the abundance of film making technology.

[megladon8]

Maybe a bit of both?

I truly miss practical effects.

Yeah, yeah, you still see some interesting makeup and costumes.

But I doubt we will ever again see something like John Carpenter's The Thing, An American Werewolf in London, From Beyond, etc.

CGI can impress for sure, but I personally find we have sidelined (maybe even all out lost) an incredible art form in favour of the ease of computer effects.

I find fake looking practical effects (Terminator eye scene) much more charming than fake looking CGI (the entire Stephen Sommers filmography).

[Irish]

I agree with baby doll -- holding to the master is a great artistic choice -- but then Duke coining "cinemetrics" off the cuff while Skitch randomly shouts for movies featuring great-grandma's tits is fucking LEGENDARY

[megladon8]

I agree with baby doll -- holding to the master is a great artistic choice -- but then Duke coining "cinemetrics" off the cuff while Skitch randomly shouts for movies featuring great-grandma's tits is fucking LEGENDARY

Was there ever something more worthy of the MatchCut banner?

[Skitch]

I agree with baby doll -- holding to the master is a great artistic choice -- but then Duke coining "cinemetrics" off the cuff while Skitch randomly shouts for movies featuring great-grandma's tits is fucking LEGENDARY

Hey I resent that, I'm not sexist, I'm fine with dongs getting equal screen time

[Irish]

Ah, I misread. Duke didn't coin it. But "your precious CINEMETRICS" is still pretty legendary tho.

The thing I like about that "Taxi Driver" scene is that Scorsese puts us in the streets, both literally and metaphorically. Anyone who has lived in a big city has witnessed 2 guys about to throw down. The smart thing to do is to walk away. But this is a movie and we can't. Scorsese doesn't move the camera and he doesn't cut. We know what's about to happen and there's great tension in waiting for it to happen.

For American cultural disasters, my top 6 are:

1. The steadicam
2. The introduction of the federal highway system in the 1950s
3. The deregulation of the American airline industry in the 1970s
4. The popularity of primetime soaps in the 1980s
5. Increased globalization starting in the late 1990s
6. The creation of Bittorrent, circa the early 2000s

#1 and #4 had a huge effect on how movies are made and how people interpret them

#2 and #3 changed production logistics and allowed audiences to experience places they previously only saw in the movies.

[megladon8]

Curious about why steadicam was a bad thing?

[Irish]

Curious about why steadicam was a bad thing?

Steadicams are the great homogenizer, the photoshop brush of the film industry, the artistic equivalent of Instagram and Tik Tok.

The tool itself is value neutral, but it's overused because it's cheap. It obviates the edit, cinema's one unique attribute, and increasingly makes blocking a lost art. With digital, it's too easy to overshoot your coverage and "fix" everything in post.

[baby doll]

Technology caused the decline of American cinema? Or quantity over quality is making it appear this way because of the abundance of film making technology.I don't want to make a technological determinist argument that technology caused the decline of Hollywood filmmaking; rather, I would contend that digital technology has simply accelerated an already marked decline in quality. The root cause for this, I would argue, is that after the 1950s, television is increasingly seen within the industry as the ultimate destination for films and a training ground for young directors with the consequence that most commercial movies now are staged, shot, edited, and mixed like TV shows. This can already been seen at least as far back as Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark: The plots of these films are merely pretexts for a series of set pieces of roughly equal importance. In other words, every scene is hyped as a climax. The results can be diverting for a while, but at feature length, the films reach a point of diminishing returns pretty fast. (It doesn't help matters that films are longer now than in the classical era.) Moreover, there's a widespread attitude in the industry now of "We'll find it in post." That is, rather than cutting films in their heads before they shoot (as Ford did), directors now cover a scene from a multitude of angles and cross their figures. In particular, it should be obvious to anyone with eyes in their head that, as a director, Christopher Nolan has no idea what he's doing. Even in the simplest scenes, his choices about where to place the camera and when to move it are essentially arbitrary. His films lack the unity of action, meaning, and technique that distinguished the best films of the classical period (The Reckless Moment, Johnny Guitar, Rio Bravo, Wild River, etc.) because he hasn't put the slightest thought into his stylistic choices. If there's an epidemic of people looking at their cell phones in theatres (or rather, if there was before COVID), that's in part because the style of the films themselves encourages the sort of distracted viewership characteristic of watching television, where we're not supposed to attend closely to what's happening on the screen at every moment.

[DFA1979]

I donno guys to me a good movie is a good movie regardless of when it was made or how it was made.

[baby doll]

I donno guys to me a good movie is a good movie regardless of when it was made or how it was made.As Roger Ebert used to say, "A film is not what it is about, but how it is about it." The how is everything.

[DFA1979]

As Roger Ebert used to say, "A film is not what it is about, but how it is about it." The how is everything.

I think I remember him saying that. Anyways good quote, and very true.

[Morris Schæffer]

Haha Ebert, too bad he's not around anymore. What the heck! Shall I regale y'all with a random Ebert quote?

This one from Freddy Got Fingered:


This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels.

:cool:

[Dukefrukem]

As Roger Ebert used to say, "A film is not what it is about, but how it is about it." The how is everything.

Pffft. Entertainment first. How it achieves Entertainment second.

Or what I like to say: "leave your film school bs in film school"

[baby doll]

Pffft. Entertainment first. How it achieves Entertainment second.

Or what I like to say: "leave your film school bs in film school"I don't know what that means. How can you separate a film's entertainment value from the manner in which it presents its narrative? How can one separate, for instance, the jokes in Buster Keaton's films from the staging, camera placement, and Keaton's performances? In Steamboat Bill, Jr., the camera frames the house falling on Keaton dead-on in extreme long shot because that's the best angle for us to see both the house falling and Keaton's lack of awareness of it falling; framed from any other angle, the joke wouldn't be as funny, if it survived at all. The action of a film doesn't exist independently of the manner in which it's presented to the spectator, since we can only know the what of a particular film through its form and style (i.e., the how).

[Ezee E]

Pffft. Entertainment first. How it achieves Entertainment second.

Or what I like to say: "leave your film school bs in film school"

Isn't the point of film criticism to discuss, "Why/how it is entertaining?"

[Dukefrukem]

I don't know what that means. How can you separate a film's entertainment value from the manner in which it presents its narrative? How can one separate, for instance, the jokes in Buster Keaton's films from the staging, camera placement, and Keaton's performances? In Steamboat Bill, Jr., the camera frames the house falling on Keaton dead-on in extreme long shot because that's the best angle for us to see both the house falling and Keaton's lack of awareness of it falling; framed from any other angle, the joke wouldn't be as funny, if it survived at all. The action of a film doesn't exist independently of the manner in which it's presented to the spectator, since we can only know the what of a particular film through its form and style (i.e., the how).

See that's definitely something you picked up in film school. It's very easy to separate these things because once I'm done watching a film, I ask the question to myself, "was I entertained?" If the answer is yes, now I want to put pen to paper to understand why. It's so stupidly easy to do, I don't even need to know what the ASL is.

[baby doll]

See that's definitely something you picked up in film school. It's very easy to separate these things because once I'm done watching a film, I ask the question to myself, "was I entertained?" If the answer is yes, now I want to put pen to paper to understand why. It's so stupidly easy to do, I don't even need to know what the ASL is.Has there ever been a case where you attempted to understand why a film was entertaining and came to a conclusion other than the how of it?

Also, why are you so against learning things? Why is knowledge "bs"?

[Dukefrukem]

Has there ever been a case where you attempted to understand why a film was entertaining and came to a conclusion other than the how of it?

Also, why are you so against learning things? Why is knowledge "bs"?

Knowledge isn't BS (That was a nice spin zone you did there.). The way you are presenting knowledge is BS. The way you simplify my love for Inception down to the cuts per minute, and the only logical reason why I find it a great film, is because I'm a millennial, and because my attention span needs to have fast quick cuts, because my millennial brain is so ignorant to the KNOWLEDGE of CINEMETICS while growing up in the technology era.

If you want me to take a course in the relationship between quality filmmaking and ASL, point me in the right direction.

[baby doll]

Knowledge isn't BS (That was a nice spin zone you did there.). The way you are presenting knowledge is BS. The way you simplify my love for Inception down to the cuts per minute, and the only logical reason why I find it a great film, is because I'm a millennial, and because my attention span needs to have fast quick cuts, because my millennial brain is so ignorant to the KNOWLEDGE of CINEMETICS while growing up in the technology era.

If you want me to take a course in the relationship between quality filmmaking and ASL, point me in the right direction.That's pretty clearly a misrepresentation of my argument. My point was never that the only reason you like Inception is because you're a millennial, only that liking Inception is a stereotypically millennial opinion as the film exemplifies a style of cutting derived from TV that millennials are comfortable with (all taste being a matter of cultural training). And the reason millennials are generally comfortable with this style of cutting, and are often bored by the alleged slowness of older films, is in part because close-ups of faces are more legible on small screens (which is how people mostly watch films these days) than the intricate group stagings characteristic of classical Hollywood films, which were designed to be seen on a larger screen. Nor did I claim that fast cutting is inherently inferior to slow cutting (as I said earlier, I like Soviet montage films and '30s Japanese movies), only that the specific style of fast cutting and loud mixing which is now pervasive in contemporary Hollywood filmmaking is aesthetically inferior to classical découpage because it's formulaic and monotonous, and therefore tiresome to watch and listen to for an extended period of time. Classical films with higher ASLs don't consist exclusively of long, elaborate tracking shots (the 30-second ASL of Fallen Angel is clearly an outlier), but a mix of shorter and longer shots of various shot scales. Whether this argument is BS is a matter of debate, but its validity neither rests upon, nor is it disproven, by my having attended a film school and learned things there.

[Dukefrukem]

Nor did I claim that fast cutting is inherently inferior to slow cutting (as I said earlier, I like Soviet montage films and '30s Japanese movies), only that the specific style of fast cutting and loud mixing which is now pervasive in contemporary Hollywood filmmaking is aesthetically inferior to classical découpage because it's formulaic and monotonous, and therefore tiresome to watch and listen to for an extended period of time.

You stated the decline in quality of filmmaking after 1960 can be directly inferred by the ASL metric, and how modern filmmakers generalize their shots.

[baby doll]

You stated the decline in quality of filmmaking after 1960 can be directly inferred by the ASL metric, and how modern filmmakers generalize their shots.


I'm not against fast cutting per se (I like Soviet montage films and the '30s films of Naruse and Ozu); what I dislike about contemporary Hollywood cinema is its monotony and formulaic approach to covering a scene.The ASLs I cited provide evidence that cutting in Hollywood films has gotten faster since the end of the classical period, but in itself, this data point doesn't prove a whole lot. For one thing, the ASL is only, as the name suggests, an average. In a film with a high ASL there will still be passages of shot-reverse shot cutting and montage sequences and a film with a low ASL may feature the occasional long take. The important point is not so much that classical films tend to have higher ASLs than contemporary films but that they feature more variety in the length and scale of shots. (David Bordwell has described Intensified Continuity as a bipolar style, which alternates between extreme long shots and close-ups without any plan américains, medium shots, or two-shots.) Moreover, in the best films of the period, the director's choices about where to place the camera, when to move it, and when to cut to something else are always motivated by the narrative. If the decline of Hollywood filmmaking has accelerated since the introduction of digital editing and sound mixing, and I think it has, it's because the increased ease of cutting and layering means that less thought now goes into the decision of when to cut or when to stop layering tracks with the result that every film looks and sounds like every other film.

[Dukefrukem]

The ASLs I cited provide evidence that cutting in Hollywood films has gotten faster since the end of the classical period, but in itself, this data point doesn't prove a whole lot. For one thing, the ASL is only, as the name suggests, an average. In a film with a high ASL there will still be passages of shot-reverse shot cutting and montage sequences and a film with a low ASL may feature the occasional long take. The important point is not so much that classical films tend to have higher ASLs than contemporary films but that they feature more variety in the length and scale of shots. (David Bordwell has described Intensified Continuity as a bipolar style, which alternates between extreme long shots and close-ups without any plan américains, medium shots, or two-shots.) Moreover, in the best films of the period, the director's choices about where to place the camera, when to move it, and when to cut to something else are always motivated by the narrative. If the decline of Hollywood filmmaking has accelerated since the introduction of digital editing and sound mixing, and I think it has, it's because the increased ease of cutting and layering means that less thought now goes into the decision of when to cut or when to stop layering tracks with the result that every film looks and sounds like every other film.

So the millennial thing was just a jab at me then? Since it's not even part of your argument?

[baby doll]

So the millennial thing was just a jab at me then? Since it's not even part of your argument?I couldn't resist.

[Ezee E]

Need more moviemetrics that can stand the test of time like baseball's sabermetrics, lol.

I'm certain this can be applied to what wins Oscars for various categories, which I'm not too interested in to figure out myself, but that'd be fun.

[megladon8]

Why didn't Martin Scorsese use deepfake for the de-aging in The Irishman?

When a youtuber makes your effects look roughly 30000% better and more realistic than what your multi-million dollar production accomplished, there's a problem.

[Ezee E]

Why didn't Martin Scorsese use deepfake for the de-aging in The Irishman?

When a youtuber makes your effects look roughly 30000% better and more realistic than what your multi-million dollar production accomplished, there's a problem.

I saw that, and not to take too much away from Irishman, but it does just look like a snapchat filter on top of what was already there.

[megladon8]

I saw that, and not to take too much away from Irishman, but it does just look like a snapchat filter on top of what was already there.

But it looks better than the overly glossy, ripped from a PS2 cutscene stuff we got.

I havent seen the film, I've just watched several compilations of clips and deconstructions of the effects. And they did a really, really crappy job.

[Lazlo]

But it looks better than the overly glossy, ripped from a PS2 cutscene stuff we got.

I havent seen the film, I've just watched several compilations of clips and deconstructions of the effects. And they did a really, really crappy job.

I think it all works better in the film as things have time to play out and feel how it's all used in the narrative. Clips don't particularly do it justice. Plus: great movie!

[Ezee E]

But it looks better than the overly glossy, ripped from a PS2 cutscene stuff we got.

I havent seen the film, I've just watched several compilations of clips and deconstructions of the effects. And they did a really, really crappy job.

Yeah, but the point is that the fakecut didn't actually do any work to deage. They basically just added on top of what was already there. They didn't take the pre-cgi shots and apply their own.

[StuSmallz]

What about another deterrent. Is it a product of the technology? Not necessarily an aesthetic choice? This is all before non-linear editing techniques.
Look at this take starting at 0:04. It holds on this one shot for over a minute during one of the more critical scene in the movie. Director's choice? Or the editor didn't want to cut anywhere because, "why cut?" Sure loses much of the steam here when you're so far away from the actor's facial reactions.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPd9PT9lqQI&ab_channel=MovieClipsIt's interesting that you single out that shot for criticism, since, even speaking as someone who's never loved Taxi Driver as much as the general consensus,​ I've still always felt that that scene was probably the best in the film, and the way that shot plays out is part of the reason why, since I love the way that so much plays out in a single tracking shot, with the camera following the taxi/Travis all the way from the sidewalk to the first building's stoop and then to the other throughout all the action, never cutting away, but patiently letting the tension steadily build up throughout the shot, and any cutaways to close-ups would've likely only broken my sense of immersion in the scene, IMO.

Instead, if I was to criticize any scenes in Driver (besides the ones featuring unnecessary racial stereotypes (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?14-28-Film-Discussion-Threads-Later/page2794&p=625922#post625922)), it'd be the ones like when Travis chatted with Sport earlier (https://youtu.be/wD9_Sil8CDU), where the somewhat slack pacing makes it feel slightly more dramatically inert than it should've, which keeps the film from being as consistently engaging to me as, say, Raging Bull (although all that means is that Driver is "just" a 9-out-of-10 movie for me rather than being a straight-up 10, so it doesn't hurt the film a ton or anything). It's not a matter of the average shot length being "long" when measured by modern standards, though, as The Departed supposedly has an ASL of less than half of Driver, and I still found it to be pretty stylistically obnoxious at times, so I'd say it's more an issue of finding the right overall balance for the film in question; some go too far in one direction, some go too much in the opposite way, and some find the perfect ground in the middle for their own purposes.

[Dukefrukem]

It's interesting that you single out that shot for criticism, since, even speaking as someone who's never loved Taxi Driver as much as the general consensus,​ I've still always felt that that scene was probably the best in the film, and the way that shot plays out is part of the reason why, since I love the way that so much plays out in a single tracking shot, with the camera following the taxi/Travis all the way from the sidewalk to the first building's stoop and then to the other throughout all the action, never cutting away, but patiently letting the tension steadily build up throughout the shot, and any cutaways to close-ups would've likely only broken my sense of immersion in the scene, IMO.

Instead, if I was to criticize any scenes in Driver (besides the ones featuring unnecessary racial stereotypes (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?14-28-Film-Discussion-Threads-Later/page2794&p=625922#post625922)), it'd be the ones like when Travis chatted with Sport earlier (https://youtu.be/wD9_Sil8CDU), where the somewhat slack pacing makes it feel slightly more dramatically inert than it should've, which keeps the film from being as consistently engaging to me as, say, Raging Bull (although all that means is that Driver is "just" a 9-out-of-10 movie for me rather than being a straight-up 10, so it doesn't hurt the film a ton or anything). It's not a matter of the average shot length being "long" when measured by modern standards, though, as The Departed supposedly has an ASL of less than half of Driver, and I still found it to be pretty stylistically obnoxious at times, so I'd say it's more an issue of finding the right overall balance for the film in question; some go too far in one direction, some go too much in the opposite way, and some find the perfect ground in the middle for their own purposes.

I don't mean to be so harsh on that scene. I merely using that specific scene to emphasis (probably to hyperbole) my problem with films from the 70s, which all feel like they were cut the exact same way, with the exact same framing and the exact same grainy "realistic" tone, and some of the technical hiccups that result in it.

For shits, I'll give another highly praised scene that people cream their pants over but I tend to scoff at; Just imagine what a second camera could do here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67dK5g5pOtY&ab_channel=VittorioCory%3ATheV ampire

[baby doll]

I don't mean to be so harsh on that scene. I merely using that specific scene to emphasis (probably to hyperbole) my problem with films from the 70s, which all feel like they were cut the exact same way, with the exact same framing and the exact same grainy "realistic" tone, and some of the technical hiccups that result in it.

For shits, I'll give another highly praised scene that people cream their pants over but I tend to scoff at; Just imagine what a second camera could do here:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67dK5g5pOtY&ab_channel=VittorioCory%3ATheV ampireMaybe you better tell us what a second camera could do here instead of us imagining it, since in contrast with the scene from Taxi Driver, there are quite a few cut-ins to closer views of the beating to emphasize particular bits of action (e.g., Caan biting his brother-in-law's knuckles). It's not virtuoso filmmaking--and I'm not aware of anyone who's creamed their pants over this particular scene--but then it doesn't need to be: It's not a major event in the narrative, so there's no reason to draw it out into a self-contained set piece.

[Morris Schæffer]

Why didn't Martin Scorsese use deepfake for the de-aging in The Irishman?

When a youtuber makes your effects look roughly 30000% better and more realistic than what your multi-million dollar production accomplished, there's a problem.

Ego maybe? Filmmakers are like soccer coaches. No one tells them what to do. They don't need help, least of all from YouTubers. The CGI was a distraction for me too though.

[DFA1979]

So baby doll vs Duke was just boomer vs millennial?

[Skitch]

So baby doll vs Duke was just boomer vs millennial?

But im closer to boomer than either of them, yet im still far from boomer. Nah duke just got hooked by bd.

[Dukefrukem]

So baby doll vs Duke was just boomer vs millennial?

Pretty sure all three of us were born in the same year. Not shocked you didn't know that.

[Ezee E]

Watched that scene as well, and there's plenty of cuts. It's also not even in the top ten of referenced Godfather Scenes.

[Idioteque Stalker]

It's also not even in the top ten of referenced Godfather Scenes.

I would estimate it is, but I haven't seen The Godfather recently enough to actually argue that point.

[Ezee E]

I would estimate it is, but I haven't seen The Godfather recently enough to actually argue that point.

Off the top of my head:
-Michael avenges his father's death
-Opening Scene with Brando
-Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes
-Oranges
-Baptism with montage of deaths, "Moe Green Special"
-Tollbooth shootout
-Horse's head

[DFA1979]

Pretty sure all three of us were born in the same year. Not shocked you didn't know that.

Dude it's a joke making fun of the whole discussion. Do you folks think I do anything other than that these days?

[DFA1979]

But im closer to boomer than either of them, yet im still far from boomer. Nah duke just got hooked by bd.

I considered myself a Gen Xer. Anyways I think all those labels and the whole boomer vs millennial thing is dumb as hell.

[DFA1979]

I own the entire Godfather series in a nice DVD box set. I might as well finally watch 3 and rewatch the other two at some point since I'm going through my backlog anyways.

[StuSmallz]

As for the New Hollywood period (roughly 1967-1980) being a "golden age" for Hollywood directors, putting aside specific instances where directors lost control over their films during this period (e.g., Elaine May with A New Leaf), I'm not sure that giving directors more artistic control automatically yields better films. In particular, the later films of Terrence Malick seem to me a cautionary tale of a great director almost be destroyed by not having someone to reign in his worst excesses.Of course giving directors more artistic freedom in general doesn't automatically result in better movies, that goes without saying (which is why I didn't say it, heh). Part of the equation relies on who you give that freedom to; giving a bad director more leeway will still result in a bad movie, after all, but when giving it to directors like Nichols, Polanski, and Scorsese results in films like The Graduate, Chinatown, & Raging Bull, how can I argue against that? At any rate, even if the overall quality of a movie with a more director-driven vision is more or less even with that of a movie that's more of a studio product, I still feel that the former kind of film pretty much always tends to be more interesting experiences on the whole, at the very least. I mean, I don't consider either Batman Vs. Superman or Justice League (https://letterboxd.com/stusmallz/film/justice-league/) to be good movies, but while League is objectively less of a clusterfuck of a film, at least the former is far more endlessly fascinating to dissect in its ambitious failings, as opposed to the vanilla soullessness of the latter; in other words, I doubt moviebob's going to be able to make a super-detailed, multi-part, 3+ hours series of vids on the theatrical cut of JL anytime soon:


https://youtu.be/F9juReoJxI0

[megladon8]

Did anyone here see Lucy in the Sky?

There was an ad for it before Ad Astra. I thought it looked good, but the reviews are way worse than I ever would have thought.

[baby doll]

Of course giving directors more artistic freedom in general doesn't automatically result in better movies, that goes without saying (which is why I didn't say it, heh). Part of the equation relies on who you give that freedom to; giving a bad director more leeway will still result in a bad movie, after all, but when giving it to directors like Nichols, Polanski, and Scorsese results in films like The Graduate, Chinatown, & Raging Bull, how can I argue against that?I would make the argument, as others have (notably Robin Wood), that the elevation of certain Hollywood directors to capital-A Auteur status, or perhaps more precisely, the insistence of certain directors on imposing themselves on the public as auteurs--which has continued beyond the New Hollywood period, as evidenced by the careers of such tireless self-promoters as P.T. Anderson, Christopher Nolan, and Quentin Tarantino--results in a sort of creeping pretension, where talented, over-hyped directors (and some less talented ones) try to justify their outsized critical reputations by inflating the significance of their stories: It's not enough simply to tell an interesting story; one has to make a Statement. Coppola's films of the 1970s provide a good example of how good directors can go astray: The Godfather isn't just a skillful entertainment but a film about America, and The Godfather Part II brandishes the Statue of Liberty as a recurring motif just to remind the spectator that they're in the presence of Great, Ambitious Art. Even worse is Apocalypse Now, where Brando's Kurtz is so burdened with significance that he seems more theoretical than real. And what's the deal with all those arty double exposures of that Buddhist statue? What's that about?

[DFA1979]

I really should see the movie in the current banner at some point. I'm way behind on viewing French New Wave.

[Ezee E]

I really should see the movie in the current banner at some point. I'm way behind on viewing French New Wave.

It's the Frenchiest movie there is probably.

[baby doll]

Godard rated (features only):


Spicy
À bout de souffle (1960)
Vivre sa vie: Film en douze tableaux (1962)
Le Mépris (1963)
Le Petit soldat (1963)
Bande Ã* part (1964)
Alphaville, une étrange aventure de Lemmy Caution (1965)
Pierrot le fou (1965)
La Chinoise (1967)
Deux ou trois choses que je sais d'elle (1967)
Weekend (1967)
Sympathy for the Devil (1968)
Tout va bien (1972)
Ici et ailleurs (with Anne-Marie Miéville, 1976)
Sauve qui peut (la vie) (1980)
Passion (1982)
Détective (1985)
Je vous salue, Marie (1986)
King Lear (1987)
Nouvelle vague (1990)
Allemagne année 90 neuf zéro (1991)
Hélas pour moi (1993)
Éloge de l'amour (2001)
Notre musique (2004)
Film socialisme (2010)
Adieu au langage (2014)
Le Livre d'image (2018)

Warm
Les Carabiniers (1963)
Une femme mariée: Suite de fragments d'un film tourné en 1964 (1964)
Made in USA (1966)
Prénom Carmen (1983)
Soigne ta droite (1987)
JLG/JLG: Autoportrait de décembre (1995)

Mild
Le Gai savoir (1969)
Le Vent d'est (with Jean-Pierre Gorrin, 1970)
Comment ça va? (with Anne-Marie Mieville, 1976)
For Ever Mozart (1996)

Cold
Une femme est une femme (1961)
Masculin féminin: 15 faits précis (1966)
Vladimir et Rosa (with Jean-Pierre Gorrin, 1971)

???
Numéro deux (1975)

[Dukefrukem]

Do you only watch french films?

[Ezee E]

Do you only watch french films?

French and Spicy don't mix.

[baby doll]

Do you only watch french films?Not according to my Letterboxd stats (https://letterboxd.com/sukiyakiramen/year/2020/).

[DFA1979]

What's wrong with French cinema? Seems like a lot of what I've seen so far has been ranging from pretty good to fantastic.

[DFA1979]

It's the Frenchiest movie there is probably.

I'm down.

[Ezee E]

What's wrong with French cinema? Seems like a lot of what I've seen so far has been ranging from pretty good to fantastic.

Nothing wrong at all.

[megladon8]

White House Down is on TV while cooking dinner.

Oh my god, this is awful.

It might even be worse than Olympus Has Fallen.

[Skitch]

White House Down is on TV while cooking dinner.

Oh my god, this is awful.

It might even be worse than Olympus Has Fallen.

It is. OHF is way better.

I havent watched Labyrinth in forever. Showing it to my boys. I remember it being funny but holy shit is this movie fucking funny.

[Skitch]

Hmm. Maybe I should do a list of fucked up movies aimed at children. This movie is fucked up.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Hmm. Maybe I should do a list of fucked up movies aimed at children. This movie is fucked up.

Do it.

[Mal]

Did anyone here see Lucy in the Sky?

There was an ad for it before Ad Astra. I thought it looked good, but the reviews are way worse than I ever would have thought.

It is a fascinating disaster with some of the worst directing choices I've ever witnessed.

[Dukefrukem]

My wife loves it for Bowie.

[megladon8]

It is a fascinating disaster with some of the worst directing choices I've ever witnessed.

Jeez, you've made me curious.

Care to spoiler tag?

[Dukefrukem]

Hmm. Maybe I should do a list of fucked up movies aimed at children. This movie is fucked up.
Labyrinth, Dark Crystal, Neverending Story, Willow...Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

[Mal]

Jeez, you've made me curious.

Care to spoiler tag?
The entire movie and its story focuses on Natalie Portman as she loses touch with reality after coming home from a space mission... via changing aspect ratios. The script is terrible, no deep thoughts nor perspectives, all surface details. Natalie is trying really hard - her character just comes off as needy and horny for Jon Hamm, an attractive nothing character. The tone of the movie is so confusing, its trying to be funny occasionally, though dramatically, the director has no idea who the hero or victims are. Lots of attention to aspect ratios and thats it. THAT'S IT!

[megladon8]

The entire movie and its story focuses on Natalie Portman as she loses touch with reality after coming home from a space mission... via changing aspect ratios. The script is terrible, no deep thoughts nor perspectives, all surface details. Natalie is trying really hard - her character just comes off as needy and horny for Jon Hamm, an attractive nothing character. Lots of attention to aspect ratios and thats it. THAT'S IT!

Wow. That's incredibly weird.

Thanks for indulging me! Lol

In the end is it worth watching as a curiosity? Or a waste of time?

[Mal]

Wow. That's incredibly weird.

Thanks for indulging me! Lol

In the end is it worth watching as a curiosity? Or a waste of time?

An utter waste of time... but if you don't have to pay for it? Definitely watch.

[megladon8]

An utter waste of time... but if you don't have to pay for it? Definitely watch.

Cool! Sounds like a "movie that exists".

[megladon8]

When it comes to Natalie Portman sci fi, I'll stick to Annihilation for now.

Now damn, that is a fantastic movie. Think I've watched it 5 times.

[Mal]

Annihilation is fantastic. I should rewatch it again.

[megladon8]

Annihilation is fantastic. I should rewatch it again.

The ending "confrontation" always gives me the heebie-jeebies. That music, the uncanny valley of it. Just...*shudders*

[Skitch]

That movie is the shit. Best movie of that year. I've seen it 2 or 3 times...I'd like to see it more, but it's one I have to pace myself, so I dont get TOO used to it. It's so damn good.

[StuSmallz]

https://i.ibb.co/wQQMqnR/face-off.webp (https://ibb.co/8xx6wy0)

To catch him, he must

become him.

It's a sad, old, familiar tale; a foreign director starts their career off strong by taking advantage of the creative freedom afforded to them in their home country, but, whether it's a combination of a language barrier, culture clash over artistic sensibilities, or (most often) the interference of a meddling, overbearing studio system, when they come "across the pond" to try hacking it in Hollywood, the cinematic magic that they used to wield at will just seems like it's been denied entry at the border. And, even though he was already one of the most influential Action directors of all time based solely on the strength of his work in Hong Kong, John Woo ultimately proved to be no exception to that rule, as his immense talent was mostly wasted on forgettable Hollywood dreck in the 90's & 2000's, resulting in a string of Action-ers that were either so bland that it's almost impossible to believe that Woo had anything to do with them (Broken Arrow, anyone?), or resorted to self-plagiarization so blatant that they devolved into unintentional self-parody (doves AGAIN, Mission: Impossible II?). However, there was at least one worthwhile film produced by the director's Hollywood era, one that served as the world's biggest exposure to the blood-soaked glory that is "the full Woo", and proved that the director could've done so much better in the States if Hollywood had just let him be himself. That film in question? 1997's Face/Off, baby!


It tells the story of Sean Archer (John Travolta), an FBI Agent whose obsessive, years-long manhunt for "freelance" terrorist Castor Troy (Nicholas Cage) isn't merely born out of a sense of occupational duty, but out of an incredibly personal reason, due to Troy's murder of Archer's son in a botched assassination attempt six years ago. And, after an insane airport shootout, Archer seemingly manages to kill Troy (in the most over-the-top fashion as possible, of course), finally obtaining his long awaited vengeance. However, what little relief Archer might have felt is immediately dashed upon learning that Troy is not only still alive (albeit in a coma), but has also left behind a time bomb ticking away somewhere in Los Angeles, one big enough to wipe out the city of angels completely off the map. And so, with a tight time table and no other reasonable options, Archer must resort to an unreasonable one, by undergoing a state-of-the-art medical procedure that takes his face… off, and replaces it with Troy's, so he can go the deepest of undercover with his former "coworkers" to get the intel he needs, a development that gives the film's title an unexpectedly literal turn.


Of course, this fails to go to plan when Troy wakes up and engages in a bit of turnabout-is-fair-play-ism, escaping with Archer's face upon his own, resulting in the film's central premise/gimmick; John Travolta acting like Nicholas Cage, and vice versa, as the two leading men face off with their faces off, in a series of wild, escalating shootouts, chewing just as much scenery as the bullets destroy in the process. All of that being said, though, it is a gimmick that adds a lot to Face/Off, as the actors go all-out in getting into each other's characters (so to speak), with Travolta throwing out the relatively sleepy, subdued acting style that's often characterized his later career in favor of the kind of manic, coked-up energy of, well, Nicholas Cage, while Cage himself goes back and forth between letting the glum, straight-arrow Archer underneath shine through, while also indulging in the occasional freak-out that the actor's patented so well over the years, with the identity crisis he suffers through being caught between the two different personas rendering his arc surprisingly compelling, despite the ridiculous premise, with a lot of the acting riding that thin line between intentional and unintentional comedy so finely that it's often impossible to tell which it is, but it's so damn entertaining nonetheless, you end up not caring either way.


And as far as the film's style goes, Woo finds a balance between referencing his Hong Kong works with certain nods (did anyone say, "church shootout"?), while still finding ways to refresh it by retaining the (extremely) soft Sci-Fi elements of Mike Werb & Colleary's original script, evening out his own sensibilities with those of his collaborators in the process. However, with the additional creative freedom that Paramount afforded Woo on this project, the kind that he had never been blessed with in Hollywood before this point (or after), there's no denying that Face/Off is ultimately his baby, with the kind of gratuitous, beautifully violent slow-mo, gracefully acrobatic, dual-wielding gunplay he specialized back in HK, although pumped up with a Hollywood budget (hello, crashing jets!), along with the relationship-driven drama he specialized in, through the various character dynamics such as Archer's domestic troubles with his neglected wife and moody daughter, and even Castor gets a nice, personal moment here when he mourns the death of his on-the-spectrum brother by tying his shoelaces together for him, just like always (just after shooting a guy in the head for unintentionally downplaying the tragedy of it, that is). All in all, Face/Off ia a wonderfully entertaining, glouriously unhinged Sci-Fi/Action hybrid that fully submerges us into its particular (un)reality, and packs the craziest thrills and biggest emotional punches of any of Woo's American films, and so, keeping all of that in mind, are you ready? For the big ride this film offers, baby? Because I know I am.

Final Score: 8

[DFA1979]

I echo Annihilation being great. I thought it was more sci-fi than horror.

[StuSmallz]

While I felt that the lighthouse sequence in Annihilation (https://letterboxd.com/stusmallz/film/annihilation/) somewhat overshadowed the rest of the film (as its use of periodic creature attacks to punctuate events made it feel a bit more formulaic by comparison), I did enjoy the movie on the whole anyway, and that scene is legitmately one of the best cinematic climaxes I've witnessed in recent memory:


https://youtu.be/8SLV6UdWoI4

[megladon8]

The first three movies I ever saw John Travolta in were Face/Off, Broken Arrow and Pulp Fiction.

Even though he spent the majority of his career playing heroes, he has been forever cemented in my mind as a villainous actor because of those roles.

[DFA1979]

I liked Travolta as the bad guy in Swordfish. He is fantastic in Blow Out.

[StuSmallz]

The first three movies I ever saw John Travolta in were Face/Off, Broken Arrow and Pulp Fiction.

Even though he spent the majority of his career playing heroes, he has been forever cemented in my mind as a villainous actor because of those roles.He was quite good at it it in Face/Off, too, really leaning into the gleeful sadism of Castor Troy's personality; I remember talking with a friend about Travolta a long time ago, and how (at the time) I felt he was a pretty wooden actor, only for him to say that he was good in Face/Off, then I finally watched it for myself a little while later, and I immediately thought "Damn, he was right!" in response.

: D

[megladon8]

I liked Travolta as the bad guy in Swordfish. He is fantastic in Blow Out.

Blow Out is incredible. I was about to say that I would love to see Travolta and De Palma team up again because they both did some of their best work together...but I feel like neither of them are capable of the heights they had then.


And Stu - agreed! I thought Travolta was a lot stronger than Cage in Face/Off.

[baby doll]

The first three movies I saw John Travolta in were Look Who's Talking, Look Who's Talking Too, and Look Who's Talking Now.

[Philip J. Fry]

1327984110015492096
Legend.

[megladon8]

I ordered the new BluRay release of the 80s Rutger Hauer sci fi action flick Split Second, and Amazon sent me 2 copies by accident.

Would anyone like the second copy?

First come, first served :)

[Skitch]

I ordered the new BluRay release of the 80s Rutger Hauer sci fi action flick Split Second, and Amazon sent me 2 copies by accident.

Would anyone like the second copy?

First come, first served :)

YES YES YES!!

[megladon8]

YES YES YES!!

Sweet, send me your address.

[Philip J. Fry]

1328810028980006912
I'm sad now.

[Mal]

A Rainy Day in New York is *probably* the worst Woody Allen film (haven't seen Wonder Wheel nor his tv projects). Terrible acting from everyone. Inane, parody-level plot points and fumbled communication between people that would never, ever happen. Above all, Timothee Chalamet is absolutely awful- I'm convinced nobody read the script when they signed up for this and Allen didn't even bother to direct. I can forgive when Allen is doing his usual thing but this? This is trash.

[DFA1979]

Wait Woody Allen is still making movies? Why?

[Mal]

Wait Woody Allen is still making movies? Why?

International funding? His movies always do fine abroad regardless of the press here.

[Ezee E]

Is it that Chalamet movie? That's been made for quite some time.

[Mal]

Completed in 2018. And his newest movie is already completed, released in September in Spain.

[baby doll]

I've seen both Wonder Wheel and Crisis in Six Scenes, and while neither one is exactly good, they both have points of interest that arguably make them worth seeing, at least if you're a Woody Allen completist. If nothing else, the former proves that Miley Cyrus is an eminently capable comic actress, who can be charming and sexy even when she's given terrible material to work with. The kid's a star. As for Wonder Wheel, it feels less like a film about the 1950s than a product of a 1950s sensibility. It's an awkward, creaky, almost embarrassingly sincere movie, and on that level, it's kind of fascinating.

[DFA1979]

International funding? His movies always do fine abroad regardless of the press here.

I just didn't think he had anything left to say, really.

[Yxklyx]

So what streaming service would have Hal Hartley's films?

[megladon8]

When a Stranger Calls was phenomenal, and I can't believe it isn't spoken of more. Also can't believe I hadn't seen it before now.

That opening 20 minutes holds up very well. The man on the phone is terrifying. A few of his lines made the hair on my arms raise. Creepy, creepy, creepy.

Loved the two left turns the movie takes in plotting. It helped that I knew absolutely nothing going in. I found it all very fresh and original, even today.

Beautifully shot and scored, too. Not often you get a horror / slasher from this time period that looks and sounds as good as this one does.

Great stuff. One of the best movies I've seen this year.

[transmogrifier]

Timothee Chalamet is absolutely awful

I've only seen him in Lady Bird and Little Women, and I found him completely annoying.

[Mal]

I've only seen him in Lady Bird and Little Women, and I found him completely annoying.

I loved him in those and Call Me By Your Name. Indifferent about him in Hot Summer Nights.

[megladon8]

Agreed with those finding him annoying.

It's perplexing that he is who Hollywood has chosen as the next big thing.

[DFA1979]

Yeah I also loved him in CMBYN and Lady Bird. He was supposed to be an ass in Lady Bird anyways.

[Idioteque Stalker]

There's a fun list on letterboxd called "The 1001 Greatest Films, Ranked as Objectively as Possible." I decided to watch all the movies in the top 100 I hadn't seen before. Only Yesterday was a pretty amazing start--the more I see from Isao Takahata, the more he rivals Hayao Miyazaki as Ghibli master.

Three more until I've finished the top 100, but these won't be easy. A City of Sadness is hard to find, Satantango is crazy long (looks to be a fancy new blu ray release in January that I'll wait for), and The Leopard looks boring... and long. I guess the Leopard is up first.

[baby doll]

There's a fun list on letterboxd called "The 1001 Greatest Films, Ranked as Objectively as Possible." I decided to watch all the movies in the top 100 I hadn't seen before. Only Yesterday was a pretty amazing start--the more I see from Isao Takahato, the more he rivals Hayao Miyazaki as Ghibli master.

Three more until I've finished the top 100, but these won't be easy. A City of Sadness is hard to find, Satantango is crazy long (looks to be a fancy new blu ray release in January that I'll wait for), and The Leopard looks boring... and long. I guess the Leopard is up first.City of Sadness would probably be a top ten film for me. I first saw it on 35mm at a cinémathèque screening in South Korea in 2009, where a surprisingly large audience turned up for it and people seemed to be enjoying themselves (there's actually quite a lot of humour in the film considering the title, and more than a touch of melodrama)--which just goes to show that American critics who find Hou's films inaccessible are racists who are ignorant of Taiwanese history and don't want to learn.

Sátántangó is mostly wonderful but I always start to get a little antsy around the six-and-a-half hour mark. I'm like, "Okay, could we just wrap this up already? This is not the place where you want a long (if funny) scene of two cops translating a snitch's report into official language." Incidentally, the book is a flat-out masterpiece.

I haven't read the book The Leopard is based on (I've owned a copy of the English translation for years) but the movie is pretty great, although it took me a few viewings to warm-up to it. The first time I saw it was as a teenager and it was the dubbed, shortened American release because that was the version they showed on Canadian TV at two in the morning. Needless to say, the longer Italian version is much better but it still feels slightly choppy to me, at least in its transitions from one episode to the next (Visconti's original cut no longer exists and I suspect it was a bit smoother). Senso and L'innocente are also great and much shorter.

From the top one hundred, I've seen everything except Come and See, the long version of Fanny and Alexander, Carpenter's The Thing, The Exorcist, and Cinema Paradiso (either version).

Needless to say, the guy who wrote the list sounds like a complete idiot.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Millennium Mambo is another Hou I've been wanting to see for a while, but after your recommendation I'll bump City of Sadness up the queue a bit--after I brush up on my Taiwanese history of course.

Of the films you haven't seen, Come and See is the only one I love. Fanny and Alexander in particular was a recent disappointment for me. It's quite nice to look at, but I don't go to Bergman for domestic drama.

[baby doll]

Fanny and Alexander in particular was a recent disappointment for me. It's quite nice to look at, but I don't go to Bergman for domestic drama.Scratching chin emoji.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Scratching chin emoji.

Fanny and Alexander seems to me an outlier for Bergman in terms of narrative and thematic content. I'm sure it meant a lot to Bergman himself, but I am much more interested in the existential conflicts depicted in Wild Strawberries and Winter Light, or the intense character studies in Scenes from a Marriage and Persona, than I am worried Alexander might get disciplined by his step-father.

[megladon8]

I loved Fanny & Alexander.

Firmly believe the mini series is the only way to watch it.

[Yxklyx]

I don't like Cinema Paradiso - it's too cloying for me. The ending almost makes it worthwhile.

[Skitch]

Philip J Fry your sig says you recently watched Fight Club for the first time? Thoughts?

[Morris Schæffer]

Speaking of The Leopard, I finished that right now. I assumed because of my Italian lineage on my dad's side, and my general appreciation for family epics that it would be up my alley. But it was not. Felt as long as it was. The emotional pull wasn't there in the least, its subject matter only occasionally engaging. Yeah, the ballroom scene, I guess there is some meaning in there, something about the Lancaster character regretting Passing into oblivion as a new era looms but I didn't feel this was conveyed succesfully. I just had the distinct impression it was just folks dancing and talking for 45 minutes. Although the rooms and clothing looked rather opulent I guess.

[Idioteque Stalker]

I've been watching some anime. My Neighbors the Yamadas was my favorite, and is another home run for Takahata. It's a disgrace that this movie ranks so low on Ghibli lists (I suppose it's the sit-com-esque episodic structure and/or minimalist art style?), but for me it felt completely true to life, even during the outrageous flights of fancy that I've come to expect and love from Takahata. It's also clearly Ghibli's most hilarious movie. The remote control tai chi as well as the "did you forget your umbrella" scenes had me cracking up.

Then I watched Castle In the Sky, which had amazing action scenes throughout, but aside from the pirate mother (and the silent robots) I didn't connect with the characters as much as I did in similar Miyazaki action films like Nausicaa and Princess Mononoke.

I just finished A Silent Voice, and now I feel like a total crybaby. The first half hour was hard to get through due to all the bullying, but man did this movie turn into an empathy-generating machine. The "X"s covering everybody's face, then drifting away one by one as the main character manages genuine connection, was a simple yet incredibly effective visual motif. This is the type of movie that inspires me to reconnect with an old friend.

Your Name is up next.

[Skitch]

Yo Your Name is fucking awesome. I blind bought it because I found a cheap copy. One of the best blind buys in my collecting life.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Your Name is a mild yay for me. The hijinx were neat for the first half, and it looks really good throughout. Didn't care as much for the second half, and as the movie was ending my overarching thought was: "Wait, when did this become a romance?"

Perfect Blue is up next.

[transmogrifier]

Perfect Blue >>>>> Your Name

[Skitch]

Perfect Blue >>>>> Your Name

Yeah...youre not wrong...but both are really good.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Perfect Blue. Wow. Satoshi Kon just made a big impression. It may not stick the landing quite like Black Swan, but when it comes to films about young starlets, the pressures they face, and the torturous process of creating a new public identity, Perfect Blue is just as compelling as Aronofsky's touchstone--and far more disturbing. (I guess Aronofsky even bought the rights to Perfect Blue in order to recreate the underwater bathtub scream in Requiem? Seems unnecessary, but okay.) I'd like to reassess Paprika and get to know Kon better in general. It appears Tokyo Godfathers is a Christmas movie, so maybe that will happen soon.

Either Mind Game or Wolf Children is up next.

[Dukefrukem]

So this Elliot Page announcement is pretty big.

[Skitch]

Perfect Blue. Wow. Satoshi Kon just made a big impression. It may not stick the landing quite like Black Swan, but when it comes to films about young starlets, the pressures they face, and the torturous process of creating a new public identity, Perfect Blue is just as compelling as Aronofsky's touchstone--and far more disturbing. (I guess Aronofsky even bought the rights to Perfect Blue in order to recreate the underwater bathtub scream in Requiem? Seems unnecessary, but okay.) I'd like to reassess Paprika and get to know Kon better in general. It appears Tokyo Godfathers is a Christmas movie, so maybe that will happen soon.

Either Mind Game or Wolf Children is up next.

I would recommend The Triplets of Belleville to add to that list.

[Skitch]

So this Elliot Page announcement is pretty big.

I wish him the best. I have a friend in the same situation. It can be rough. People are assholes.

[Ezee E]

Ten years ago, every late night show would've been making jokes about it. So we've come a bit further since that at least.

[Idioteque Stalker]

I would recommend The Triplets of Belleville to add to that list.

I showed this to everyone I knew in high school. I'm a fan. Would be a nostalgia trip to watch it again.

[Skitch]

I showed this to everyone I knew in high school. I'm a fan. Would be a nostalgia trip to watch it again.

Good! That was a random blind buy for me. What a picture!

[Skitch]

I'm watching Peppermint, now on Netflix. Its not good, but who cares. SCAR...WHAT THE FUCK shotgun has she got?? I've never seen one like that. Its like that shortened barrel tech that loads from the back I think? I've seen that in rifle but not in shotgun.

[Irish]

Celeb culture is a temperamental beast but it's wild to me how quickly people turned on Christ Pratt when he hasn't done [much] of anything at all.

eg:

- @KaylaAncrum (https://twitter.com/KaylaAncrum/status/1334240581497856004): "Jack Black could replace Chris Pratt in anything that clown has ever been in"

- Mercury News (https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/12/03/chris-pratt-faces-new-twitter-hostility-this-time-for-not-being-jack-black/): "Chris Pratt faces new Twitter hostility — this time for not being Jack Black"

[Idioteque Stalker]

Yeah, when did that happen...

[Skitch]

Celeb culture is a temperamental beast but it's wild to me how quickly people turned on Christ Pratt when he hasn't done [much] of anything at all.

eg:

- @KaylaAncrum (https://twitter.com/KaylaAncrum/status/1334240581497856004): "Jack Black could replace Chris Pratt in anything that clown has ever been in"

- Mercury News (https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/12/03/chris-pratt-faces-new-twitter-hostility-this-time-for-not-being-jack-black/): "Chris Pratt faces new Twitter hostility — this time for not being Jack Black"

You should let it go. No need to spread this kind of animosity. :D:D

[Idioteque Stalker]

Irish is Chris Pratt confirmed.

[Ezee E]

Irish is Jack Black as Chris Pratt

[transmogrifier]

As someone whose real first name and family name are single syllables, I have an affinity for both Jack Black and Chris Pratt. Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, and Paul Rudd too.

Fuck Benedict Cumberbatch and Leonardo DiCaprio for real though.

[baby doll]

As some one with a six-syllable last name, I have a special affinity for Apichatpong Weerasethakul.

[DFA1979]

Celeb culture is a temperamental beast but it's wild to me how quickly people turned on Christ Pratt when he hasn't done [much] of anything at all.

eg:

- @KaylaAncrum (https://twitter.com/KaylaAncrum/status/1334240581497856004): "Jack Black could replace Chris Pratt in anything that clown has ever been in"

- Mercury News (https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/12/03/chris-pratt-faces-new-twitter-hostility-this-time-for-not-being-jack-black/): "Chris Pratt faces new Twitter hostility — this time for not being Jack Black"

They aren't wrong, though. Jack Black is definitely more talented than Chris Pratt.

[bac0n]

They aren't wrong, though. Jack Black is definitely more talented than Chris Pratt.

To be fair, though, Jack Black sets a pretty high standard. Hell, the man is more talented than me.

[dreamdead]

Watched Jia's Xiao Wu on the Criterion Channel last week and was really impressed with the craft that Jia brought to his debut feature. It roamed yet it remained interesting, it questioned the changing mores of Chinese life even as it highlighted flaws with the older ways too (namely the indifference of the police system and how it treats our protagonist initially) and it featured one of the sweeter relationships in his filmography, with MeiMei and Xiao Wu's slow shift from tolerance to expectation around her, only to see that good shattered by others' moneyed interests. It also has a typically awesome ending shot, which is just wonderful. Makes me want to revisit Platform at some point, which I'd found slow on first viewing.

Also watched Kore-eda's Still Walking, which was surprisingly bittersweet. Felt like the melancholy spirit throughout earned its slightly uplifting ending, even if I like other of his works more.

[Peng]

Watched Jia's Xiao Wu on the Criterion Channel last week and was really impressed with the craft that Jia brought to his debut feature. It roamed yet it remained interesting, it questioned the changing mores of Chinese life even as it highlighted flaws with the older ways too (namely the indifference of the police system and how it treats our protagonist initially) and it featured one of the sweeter relationships in his filmography, with MeiMei and Xiao Wu's slow shift from tolerance to expectation around her, only to see that good shattered by others' moneyed interests. It also has a typically awesome ending shot, which is just wonderful. Makes me want to revisit Platform at some point, which I'd found slow on first viewing.

I've watched five Jia's so far, and this remains his most playful. Platform is my least favorite for your reason above, even if it is still very interesting both conceptually and formally enough for me to finish it.

[baby doll]

I haven't yet gotten around to Xiao Wu, but from what I've seen of Jia's films, Platform strikes me as the most moving, mysterious, and inexhaustible of his films to-date (although The World and 24 City aren't far behind).

[Philip J. Fry]

1335974825744019456

[Idioteque Stalker]

My anime escapade continues.

Mind Game was unlike anything I've ever seen. Seriously, what a trip. Highlights include the climactic escape sequence (can't imagine how long that took to animate) and rapid-cut bookends showing little key moments in each character's life. There's maybe one or two too many trippy non-sequitur moments inside the whale, and I could've done without the two mangina/penis shots, but otherwise this was among the best animes I've seen recently.

When Marnie Was There I didn't connect with at all. Boring movie with muddled themes. Bad title too. Music was good. I think I'll skip The Secret World of Arrietty as well as Mary and the Witches Flower.

Barefoot Gen was hard to watch. The famous bombing of Hiroshima scene was appropriately disturbing. I'm glad I watched it once, but I'd prefer to never watch it again and I really wish the voice actors didn't yell every single line.

Either Redline or Mirai is up next.

[baby doll]

When Marnie Was There I didn't connect with at all. Boring movie with muddled themes. Bad title too. Music was good. I think I'll skip The Secret World of Arrietty as well as Mary and the Witches Flower.Arrietty the Borrower is a much better film than When Marnie Was There.

[Skitch]

Mind Game was unlike anything I've ever seen. Seriously, what a trip. Highlights include the climactic escape sequence (can't imagine how long that took to animate) and rapid-cut bookends showing little key moments in each character's life. There's maybe one or two too many trippy non-sequitur moments inside the whale, and I could've done without the two mangina/penis shots, but otherwise this was among the best animes I've seen recently.

Oh man Mind Game was dope. I don't like it nearly as much as some anime, but to me represents one of my favorite things about animation...animation can be anything.

[Morris Schæffer]

I saw Ron Howard's The Beatles: Eight days a week yesterday. I'm a fan of the music and the band, and that these 4 guys from Liverpool could just become an overnight sensation and take the US by storm is just really damn awesome. So, I'm watching it and there's a few short interviews with random folks like Whoopie Goldberg, Richard Curtis, and suddenly Sigourney Weaver. And I'm like, love her, but couldn't they find anyone more relevant to this documentary? I just felt a bit arbitrary. And suddenly WHAM! Black and white footage, lasting 3 seconds, probably 1966, of the future Ellen Ripley just having the time of her life at a Beatles concert. So cool. :cool:

[Idioteque Stalker]

Now that I've taken a good peek beyond Studio Ghibli, anime seems bigger than ever and I'm not sure how long I'll be able to go without more. But after ten films by ten different directors, this particular anime binge is over.

Mirai wasn't the most visually impressive of the films I saw, but I can immediately see why Mamoru Hosoda is so beloved. This was an earnest and challenging movie about discovering one's role in a family, with tiny poetic moments that came and went before I could realize I was on the verge of tears (the kid comforting his mother as she slept hit me hard). I'm excited to dig into Hosoda a lot more: Wolf Children and The Boy and His Beast seem most promising to me (Hosoda is credited as writer), but by all accounts Summer Wars and The Girl Who Leapt Through Time are great as well.

If you require character depth, Redline isn't for you (the leads in particular are eyeroll worthy). But if you're a fan of cool machines powering up to critical levels, kinetic speed/violence/destruction, and Speed Racer-esque blink-and-you'll-miss-it editing trickery then Redline could very well be the greatest anime ever. Awesome and dumb--I wish I'd known about it in college.

I. Stalker's official December 2020 anime binge rankings:

1. Perfect Blue
2. My Neighbors the Yamadas
3. A Silent Voice
4. Redline
5. Mind Game
6. Mirai
7. Barefoot Gen
8. Castle In the Sky
9. Your Name
10. When Marnie Was There

FWIW, seems like Prime Video has the best anime movie selection of the big streaming services. I've found enough cool stuff to fuel an entire second binge.

[Skitch]

Have you seen Jin Roh: The Wolf Brigade? I'm still not sure what to make of it, but the artistry on display is gorgeous.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Have you seen Jin Roh: The Wolf Brigade? I'm still not sure what to make of it, but the artistry on display is gorgeous.

I haven't seen it, but it's on my radar and free on Prime Video. I'll make sure it's among the selections for my next anime binge, along with Pom Poko, Robot Carnival, Belladonna of Sadness, Tokyo Godfathers, and something from Momaru Hosoda.

[Skitch]

I didnt get much out of Robot Carnival other than nostalgia for the hand drawn. It was worth a watch. The first short was the best. Add Mamouru Oshiis Memories to that list. That flick is sweet.

[baby doll]

I haven't seen it, but it's on my radar and free on Prime Video. I'll make sure it's among the selections for my next anime binge, along with Pom Poko, Robot Carnival, Belladonna of Sadness, Tokyo Godfathers, and something from Momaru Hosoda.Pom Poko is great. I haven't seen Tokyo Godfathers but the John Ford original is worth checking out (especially if you're looking for a movie to watch at Christmas).

[Dukefrukem]

MUST LISTEN NOW

https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/1977533/tom-cruise-covid-mission-impossible-rant/

[megladon8]

Good for him.

[Dukefrukem]

Good for him.

You mean: "Ohhh good for him"

[megladon8]

I don't get it?

[Ezee E]

I don't get it?

Bale

[Mal]

Bale-out and Howard Dean remixes gonna have a third in Cruise Covid control

[Peng]

Finally completed the Lethal Weapon franchise, after only having watched the first one once back in 2009. Surprisingly sturdy action-comedy series, and the one I like the least still has the hallmark of what makes others work (just that more than a few scenes of that one finally crossed over into played-for-laugh police brutality that makes my skin crawl too much).

Lethal Weapon (1987) - 8/10

First watch was on a USA bus trip over a decade ago, and I'd forgotten how Christmas-y this is, even more than the ubiquitously-memed Die Hard. And coming back to write on this after finishing out the franchise, I was struck by how much of a difference a Shane Black script makes. The buddy chemistry, the cleanly staged and elaborated action, and the comedy remain consistent staples throughout the films, but Black gives this first outing a darker, more existential edge that gives the film a tight internal arc, making it still the best of them. The effect of Murtaugh's family on Riggs is somehow improbably moving, aided by Glover's easy-going presence and Gibson's performance, which is quietly observant in most of the family scenes, the better to let his yearning bubbling up beneath the hardened facade.

Lethal Weapon 2 (1989) - 7/10

As Riggs' character arc that drives the initial relationship between him and Murtaugh basically ended in the first film, this sequel instead wisely turns up the camaraderie between them, and also between other characters as well, both at home and the station. The result is half the film having an infectious hang-out atmosphere with a cast that's a pleasure to spend time with, and often very funny banter. Less successful is the main crime half, in which the film can't juggle the jokey tone into establishing it as serious driving plot, especially when some heavy reveals come later on. At least the action remains ace, even as it grows bigger and more cartoonish than before. And they put the best one up first too, with that gleefully escalating opening car chase.

Lethal Weapon 3 (1992) - 5.5/10

I'd never know for sure, but I imagine even years ago most of Riggs' antics here would already trouble me, pushing the already toeing-the-line edge of the second film to actively crossing it in this one. Watching this now, especially in this year, I just can't stop wincing for people at the receiving end and it greatly sours the film. A shame, really, because the mix of sturdy action/goofy comedy outsides of that aspect remains as winning as ever, and Rene Russo is a great addition to the team.

Lethal Weapon 4 (1998) - 6.5/10

Funniest of the four, asides from racist jokes revolving around Uncle Benny (although knowing this has Asian villains going in, I was expecting much worse considering it's a 90s actioner with Mel Gibson), as the series now evolves fully into a sit-com with always good action. The second one still ranks higher because it has a more consistently good-time hangout atmosphere, but this might have a better villain plot. Donner still aces the action scenes throughout as well, with this one's insane freeway chase among the franchise's best.

[Dukefrukem]

Funny, I like the 3rd the best.

[DFA1979]

My favorite is Lethal Weapon 2. I love the first two, like the third one and dislike the 4th.

[Skitch]

Like the first and second. Always struggle to remember the third one but still recall liking it. Remember liking the fourth one even though the idea of those two defeating Jet Li (without guns) is over-the-top ridiculous. Sidenote...I own 1-3 on laserdisc. Like a BOSS

[Skitch]

Gut memory analysis:

Part 1: Riggs is seriously crazy
Part 2: Riggs is three stooges crazy. He'll be aight. Another dead girlfriend?? DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
Part 3: Something about a housing development and Rene Russo is hot and is this the one where they fuck you at the drive thru? Because my god do they fuck you at the drive thru
Part 4: I recall a sick car chase (of course it's ridiculous, the all are) that may be on the list with Matrix 2, Bad Boys 2, etc. Riggs hangs off a roof at some point and makes jokes...because hes crazy [sigh], jet li murders the dick outta some people but gets his ass kicked by two old farts. Some poor bastard worked his ass off to produce a urine sample and some little sumbitch stole his sample and dumped it out and stomped on it

[Philip J. Fry]

Pom Poko is great. I haven't seen Tokyo Godfathers but the John Ford original is worth checking out (especially if you're looking for a movie to watch at Christmas).Tokyo Godfathers is great, especially on Christmas.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Tokyo Godfathers is great, especially on Christmas.

I'm going to make this happen this year.

[Morris Schæffer]

Huge Lethal Weapon fan. Parts 1 and 2 are tops, 2 four star movies no doubt.

[Dukefrukem]

It's just been revoked.

[Philip J. Fry]

I'm going to make this happen this year.Awesome...

[StuSmallz]

I've never seen any of the Lethal Weapons in their entirety, but I at least enjoyed The AV Club's write-up for the original (https://film.avclub.com/the-first-lethal-weapon-we-re-never-too-old-for-this-s-1798253509) in the excellent series they did on the history of the modern Action movie. Also...

It's just been revoked."Uh, Peter, she didn't really set you up for that Lethal Weapon line."

"Oh... I'll have what she's having!" (https://comb.io/0HJkth)

"That's... better?" (https://comb.io/0HJkth)

[Dukefrukem]

I've never seen any of the Lethal Weapons in their entirety, but I at least enjoyed The AV Club's write-up for the original (https://film.avclub.com/the-first-lethal-weapon-we-re-never-too-old-for-this-s-1798253509) in the excellent series they did on the history of the modern Action movie. Also...
"Uh, Peter, she didn't really set you up for that Lethal Weapon line."

"Oh... I'll have what she's having!" (https://comb.io/0HJkth)

"That's... better?" (https://comb.io/0HJkth)

Thank you Stu. I'm glad I can count on someone here who recognizes my Family Guy referencing Lethal Weapon reference.

[Skitch]

Thank you Stu. I'm glad I can count on someone here who recognizes my Family Guy referencing Lethal Weapon reference.

Oh I got it. One of the funniest moments ever. I died when I saw that when it came out.

[Dukefrukem]

Oh good. Rep for you too then.

[DFA1979]

Yes that Family Guy scene is hilarious. I may have referenced it at work a couple times.

[Morris Schæffer]

Since we're not going anywhere tonight due to covid, it Will be the first time I Will watch Die Hard on Christmas day. The ultra HD version no less. My GF hasn't seen it yet so that ups the excitement, I promised her it's a christmas Flick. To make sure she wasn't gonna decline this mouthwatering proposal, I offered to watch a real Christmas movie with her. And so it happened that yesterday evening, at eight o clock, we watched Christmas Chronicles together. Absolutely Horrendous, which I didn't Tell her. Told her I'm a big Kurt Russell fan and that he made it watchable. Which he didn't. And that's when you know you're watching a bonafide turd.

[Idioteque Stalker]

My second anime binge has begun with a whimper:

Tokyo Godfathers was heartfelt, with vividly-written characters living at the fringes of society, and just enough sentimentalism to feel appropriate for Christmas-time while avoiding Hallmark movie vibes. It wasn't nearly the revelation Perfect Blue was, but I'll be glad to revisit it in the future.

I'm quickly becoming an Isao Takahata nut, so I was quite deflated when Pom Poko was unable to rise above its cutesy characters and deliver a fresh take on the man vs. nature dilemma (it certainly doesn't help that only a few years later Ghibli would release the much more thrilling and eloquent Princess Mononoke, which deals in similar themes). The incredible parade sequence about halfway through the film pushed it into "mild yay" territory for a moment, but then the direct-to-audience address at the end--which makes Smokey the Bear look like a master of nuance--solidified it as the first Takahata movie I can't endorse.

Robot Carnival simply isn't what I'm looking for in anime. It may be endearing to think of this anthology as massively creative people (which everyone involved obviously is) playing around with action figures of their own imagination in a limitless sandbox--but in reality it comes across like a bunch of proto-Michael Bay cybertronic nonsense. "Clouds," in which a robot solemnly walks through crude sketches of the history of the universe, was the clear highlight for me. The music reminded me of earlier Final Fantasy games. I should've taken Skitch's advice and skipped it for Memories.

Jin-Roh: The Wolf Brigade or Belladonna of Sadness up next.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Irma Vep, hot damn. Best movie I've seen in a long time. What a delicious mess, what a glorious wtf ending. I haven't been an Assayas fan up to this point, but oh boy am I glad I gave this a chance. A masterpiece if you ask me.

[megladon8]

Holy crap Split Second is an awful piece of garbage. How it is rated over 6 on IMDb is a mystery for the ages.

But, Jen and I had a freaking HILARIOUS moment watching it.

Rutgers Hauer's cop partner keeps going on and on and on about all the sex he is apparently having. Every day, every night. Sex sex sex.

Then a minute or two later Hauer makes a comment to the guy, "I don't know what it is about you that reminds me of my mother."

And Jen blurts out "must be all the sex he's having."

Sweet lord, we both laughed until our throats hurt.

[megladon8]

A few I saw over the last couple of weeks...

Split Second - brutally bad. I was hoping for more of a kind of Stone Cold type so bad it's good, but it is far worse and less fun. The dialogue is horrid, especially the constant pushing of Hauer's character as some "do what I want, I'm my own boss" type tough guy. His behavior would have gotten him punched in the throat, not admired.
The creature is weird, and its explanation is even weirder. I honestly want to watch the movie again just to see if I can figure out what exactly it was supposed to be. Is it a mutant? Is it from hell? Is it an alien? Why does it develop psychic connections with the people it harms?
Kim Cattrall is hot. That's about all this movie has going for it.
Felt like a committee of Canon-grade studio execs watched Alien, Blade Runner and The Terminator over a long weekend coke bender then on Monday morning said "let's do that! All of them! At once! Here's 20 bucks, get started!"

A Christmas Carol (1938) - Alistair Sim is still the definitive Scrooge to me, but this was enjoyable and well made. It was too distracting, though, seeing Reginald Owen in primitive old man makeup. And why did they make Bob Cratchitt out to be some kind of dumb, impulsive oaf? Didn't much like that portrayal of him.

The Shop Around the Corner - while this came in a box set of Christmas movies, this is more of a "movie that happens to take place at Christmas time". Sharp dialogue and good performances. Surprisingly mean spirited at times. Pretty good.

You've Got Mail - it's...okay I guess? Hanks and Ryan always have great chemistry. This is just very slight. Much tamer than the Stewart version above.

Anna and the Apocalypse - everything except the music is pretty good here. But that's a big deal, with it being a musical and all. The songs all feel very cheap and "pop song from 2002". Almost High School Musical quality. Only one song really stuck out (No Such Thing as a Hollywood Ending). Had some fun gore and kills, but yeah...the musical sections just didn't work.

The Year Without a Santa Claus - continues the tradition begun in Rudolph, of Santa being kind of a dick. The Miser Brothers are really what make this memorable. It's more Rudolph, so I enjoyed it, but could see where people who aren't fans of the classic stop motion holiday films wouldn't find anything here to change their minds.

[Morris Schæffer]

I wonder what Hauer's best non-Blade Runner movies are that he made after his Dutch era and in which he was the lead. I do like Ladyhawke, weird score notwithstanding and The Hitcher is kind of effective.

But then? Maybe Blind Fury? Wanted: Dead or Alive? The Ostermann Weekend? The Legend of the Holy Drinker perhaps? His TV movie Escape from Sobibor is a pretty gruelling concentation camp movie.

[Skitch]

Blind Fury is so cool

[Spun Lepton]

Cool Hand Luke -- 8/10
First ever viewing, marking another classic film off of my "cinematic blind-spots" list. Enjoyed it. Curious to look at some theme discussions about it. Caught all kinds of religious imagery.

[Skitch]

Really entertaining movie. Struther Martin is a treasure.

[DFA1979]

Cool Hand Luke -- 8/10
First ever viewing, marking another classic film off of my "cinematic blind-spots" list. Enjoyed it. Curious to look at some theme discussions about it. Caught all kinds of religious imagery.

Great flick. That one is quintessential Paul Newman. Also yey George Kennedy.

[DFA1979]

Forgot to report that The Muppet Christmas is very delightful. Some elements do not exactly work but overall this is lots of fun. Michael Caine is a pro for going along with this movie-I can imagine that after he was given the pitch he said "Hell, why not?"

I also love the giant Ghost of Christmas Present Muppet. Plus having Gonzo be the narrator was a fine choice. 9/10, check it out.

[Mal]

hey, anyone want to recommend me a movie or two? I don't have a current watchlist beyond whats expiring on streaming services.
Check my letterboxd to make sure I haven't seen it if you want.

[Dukefrukem]

hey, anyone want to recommend me a movie or two? I don't have a current watchlist beyond whats expiring on streaming services.
Check my letterboxd to make sure I haven't seen it if you want.

Not sure I want to after your Volcano rating.

[StuSmallz]

hey, anyone want to recommend me a movie or two? I don't have a current watchlist beyond whats expiring on streaming services.
Check my letterboxd to make sure I haven't seen it if you want.Ever seen The Last Picture Show? I watched it for the first time a few years ago as I was doing research for my New Hollywood project, (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?7234-Stu-Presents-1967-1980-A-History-Of-New-Hollywood!) and while this may be setting expectations for it too high, it still immediately became one of my favorite films as soon as it was over.

[Skitch]

hey, anyone want to recommend me a movie or two? I don't have a current watchlist beyond whats expiring on streaming services.
Check my letterboxd to make sure I haven't seen it if you want.

I'm gonna check out the new Arrow transfer of Versus soon. Love that movie.

[baby doll]

hey, anyone want to recommend me a movie or two? I don't have a current watchlist beyond whats expiring on streaming services.
Check my letterboxd to make sure I haven't seen it if you want.Perceval le Gallois.

[Idioteque Stalker]

hey, anyone want to recommend me a movie or two? I don't have a current watchlist beyond whats expiring on streaming services.
Check my letterboxd to make sure I haven't seen it if you want.

I'm still giddy from Irma Vep. On HBO Max.

[Spun Lepton]

Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior -- 8/10

Haven't seen it in decades. Final action scene is killer.

[Morris Schæffer]

Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior -- 8/10

Haven't seen it in decades. Final action scene is killer.

It's rumoured to arrive in a brand new 4k edition this year in celebration of its 40th anniversary. Since the 1979 original saw its ultra HD debut a month ago, that rumour could be right on the money. Yep, I'm one of those guys who still loves to buy stuff.

[Peng]

Over the holiday:

Happy Feet (2006, rewatch) - Half a star dropped from my memory (used to be 4, now 3.5/5), as the much maligned resolution is more of a wet blanket than I remember. Not so much what happens, just how rushed and sudden the whole development and its ending are. But man, this still looks so gorgeous considered it's 3D animation from almost 15 years ago, and Miller treats this directorial work seriously, bringing along his own brand of flowing kineticism and nimble "camera" movement to frequently stunning effect. 7.5/10

Happy Feet Two (2011) - The craziest thing George Miller has directed is not Pig in the City or Fury Road, it's this. Hard not gawk at an auteur on steroid, but I'm not much of a idiosyncrasies-for-their-own-sake guy if the execution is this sloppy (Can't warm up to Zemeckis' Marwen thing either). At least the first one has a sense of build-up, whereas this feels like a director's big-budget run-on improvisation that only comes together in the climatic set-piece. Before then we're subjected to interminable half-baked stuff, especially the two krills absolutely unrelated to the main storyline, who might be catnip to full-bore auteurists but are just so irritating for me to actually watch. 5.5/10

Still Walking (2008) - Haven't realized how much my favorite of Koreeda's 2010's run, After the Storm, is a very loose reconfigure of this, right down to having Kirin Kiki and Hiroshi Abe play mother and son again as well. Beneath one of his most serene, lightly gorgeous surface are some very astute observations about everyday frustrations and heartache in growing up and apart from your family. The director does a masterful job quietly staging all the roiling emotion that can arise from large family gathering, and also the casual cruelty that only someone as close to you as your family can display or dish out (most notably conveyed through Kirin Kiki's excellent performance in two scenes, one revealing a song's origin and another her reason for inviting an outsider every year). My new favorite Koreeda in place of After Life, and a fine, fine film to start 2021 with. 9/10

[megladon8]

Surprised as heck to report that Bumblebee was...kind of awesome?

To say it is the best Transformers movie by a very wide margin isn't exactly the highest compliment, but it's actually a great movie. Feels like a John Hughes movie mixed with the Transformers cartoon. Great energy, super corny in a sweet, sincere way. Steinfeld does a great job carrying the movie, and her relationship with Bumblebee feels genuine as it develops.

Action is better than anything Bay did in 5 films.

Really good stuff. Very surprised.

[Mal]

Ever seen The Last Picture Show? I watched it for the first time a few years ago as I was doing research for my New Hollywood project, (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?7234-Stu-Presents-1967-1980-A-History-Of-New-Hollywood!) and while this may be setting expectations for it too high, it still immediately became one of my favorite films as soon as it was over.

I have, not in many years, but I might be due for a rewatch as I went on a Bogdanovich binge most of this past year, thanks to AMC's The Plot Thickens podcast with Ben Mank.

[Mal]

I'm gonna check out the new Arrow transfer of Versus soon. Love that movie.


Perceval le Gallois.


I'm still giddy from Irma Vep. On HBO Max.
Thank you all, I've been meaning to see Irma Vep but haven't got around to it.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Some friends and I are doing the Criterion Challenge on letterboxd. (https://letterboxd.com/bslaby/list/the-criterion-challenge-2021/) 52 categories, one for each week. First week is a movie from 1984, second week Kurosawa, later on a horror, a silent, directed by a woman, from Eclipse series, etc. Anyone here interested in joining?

[Mal]

Some friends and I are doing the Criterion Challenge on letterboxd. (https://letterboxd.com/bslaby/list/the-criterion-challenge-2021/) 52 categories, one for each week. First week is a movie from 1984, second week Kurosawa, later on a horror, a silent, directed by a woman, from Eclipse series, etc. Anyone here interested in joining?
Absolutely!

[Dukefrukem]

I wish I could commit to something like that.

[megladon8]

We're in (Jen and I).

Should I make a thread?