28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[B-side]

YOU'RE now that you mention it.

[Watashi]

Up and The Illusionist are both great.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO NOW?!

[megladon8]

I began watching Godfather III last night.

I basically went in thinking "it's probably not as good as the other two, but there's just no way that it's as horrible as its reputation makes it out to be."

But, no, about an hour in, it really is just bad.

Pacino's Corleone does not feel at all the way he did in the first two entries of the film. It's not a case of a character aging and maturing, it's just not the same character.

Andy Garcia is laughably over the top, and Joe Montegna is permanently ingrained in my mind as "Fat Tony", so I can't help but chuckle almost every time he says something.


But really where the other two films were earnest depictions of a life in crime, this feels more like a caricature.

[Sven]

But really where the other two films were earnest depictions of a life in crime, this feels more like a caricature.

Hmmm... is the third one not earnest too? And I've always felt that the first two are quite exaggerated, eschewing realism for a larger-than-life operatic feel.

[number8]

Yeah, I definitely would never call any of the Godfather movies anything close to a real or earnest depiction of a crime family. It's extremely romanticized.

[megladon8]

Hmmm... is the third one not earnest too? And I've always felt that the first two are quite exaggerated, eschewing realism for a larger-than-life operatic feel.

I see what you mean, Sven, and I agree about the "larger-than-life operatic feel".

All three are meant to be taken in earnest, I'd argue, but I find the execution seriously lacking in the third installment, to where the attempts at that same operatic feel, end up more goofy. Andy Garcia is just so, so over the top here, and I am glad that the plans to continue the franchise with his character in Michael's place didn't come through.

In the first two films, Michael is one of the more subdued characters. Sonny, Fredo, the Don's of the other families - they all had that over-the-top feel, while Michael was the balance to that. Andy Garcia's Vincent is just too much.


Actually going back to the "Fat Tony" character from "The Simpsons", if the first two films were the romanticized depiction of mafia life of power that we see in Homer's daydream ("Grazie...that's a tasty donut") then the third film is the episode where Fat Tony and the Don are after Krusty ("Home Goes to Klown Kollege"), which ends with Homer and Krusty riding a mini tricycle across a bartop, their heads hitting each wine glass and playing the theme from The Godfather.

[Sven]

Actually going back to the "Fat Tony" character from "The Simpsons", if the first two films were the romanticized depiction of mafia life of power that we see in Homer's daydream ("Grazie...that's a tasty donut") then the third film is the episode where Fat Tony and the Don are after Krusty ("Home Goes to Klown Kollege"), which ends with Homer and Krusty riding a mini tricycle across a bartop, their heads hitting each wine glass and playing the theme from The Godfather.

:lol: You just blew my mind, and reminded me of some great times with Homer and the gang.

[megladon8]

Thanks dude. :lol:

I was quite proud of that paragraph. I thought it illustrated pretty well what I was trying to get at.

[D_Davis]

And I want a book that I can flip through randomly, read either backwards or forwards or upside down, and not feel like I missed a major plot point that puts me at a disadvantage for the duration of my reading.

OK

[balmakboor]

And I want a book that I can flip through randomly, read either backwards or forwards or upside down, and not feel like I missed a major plot point that puts me at a disadvantage for the duration of my reading.

I assume from your avatar that you've already read some Burroughs.

[DavidSeven]

I liked The Godfather Part III. It's not one of the best movies of its decade, so in that sense it's a letdown by comparison, but I still think it's a technically competent and engaging film. S. Coppolla's negative impact on the film is also overstated, imo.

Been some years since I've seen it though.

[megladon8]

I think I prefer The Conversation to any and all of the Godfather films.

[Raiders]

I think I prefer The Conversation to any and all of the Godfather films.

Good man.

I think I prefer The Conversation to any and all films.

[megladon8]

Good man.

I think I prefer The Conversation to any and all films.

It really is one of the greats, I agree. Every time I watch it I like it more.

In fact I think I'm going to have to bring it up to my room tonight, to throw on after I'm done Godfather II.


It and The Royal Tenenbaums cement Gene Hackman as my all-time favorite American actor.

[Boner M]

Thoughts?

I missed the first 4 hours, but it was a thorough masterpiece regardless.

[Qrazy]

I missed the first 4 hours, but it was a thorough masterpiece regardless.

Well I personally think that I am right and that you are wrong.

[Boner M]

Well I personally think that I am right and that you are wrong.

I can understand not getting into it. It's pretty shapeless, and doesn't really have a centre or of any sort - narrative or thematic or otherwise. But I found the breathless, gushing "and then this happened..." pileup of all the numerous story threads to be hypnotic... the stories and characters are often very familiar and the film's execution classical, and yet Ruiz is able to alchemise these recognisable tropes and approaches into inducing an almost liminal state. It's a masterful fantastic balancing-act of a film.

[Derek]

I can understand not getting into it. It's pretty shapeless, and doesn't really have a centre or of any sort - narrative or thematic or otherwise. But I found the breathless, gushing "and then this happened..." pileup of all the numerous story threads to be hypnotic... the stories and characters are often very familiar and the film's execution classical, and yet Ruiz is able to alchemise these recognisable tropes and approaches into inducing an almost liminal state. It's a masterful fantastic balancing-act of a film.

It's only inherent flaw appears to be that it's not Russian.

As for coming in late to films, I kinda understand where Spinal is coming from. I missed the first second of Eye Myth, so I really can't fairly judge that one.

[Eleven]

Of course the two authors brought up are ones Cronenberg has adapted. Of course. Consider myself collage-pwned.

[balmakboor]

Of course the two authors brought up are ones Cronenberg has adapted. Of course. Consider myself collage-pwned.

I think Cronenberg's two most interesting films too.

[Qrazy]

It's only inherent flaw appears to be that it's not Russian.

As for coming in late to films, I kinda understand where Spinal is coming from. I missed the first second of Eye Myth, so I really can't fairly judge that one.

Har har, but no it's flaws are these... reposted:

Sorry to say that Mysteries of Lisbon was not that good. It wasn't a complete failure, but it's unbelievably tedious for the majority of the film (4+ hour film). The acting/drama was largely poor, in this one Ruiz really needed to pick up his beats. His actors are forced to hold individual moments for awkward lengths of time which often gives the work an incredibly amateurish feel.

The feature was originally made for TV and it shows. The lighting is pretty close to top shelf but almost the entire film occurs in mid shots and a couple tight long shots. People walk around in and talk in rooms. That's the long and the short of it. Still the film isn't a complete waste. By the end the narrative does come around almost full circle and there is a certain sense of emotional inertia to the various plot threads of the tale. It's not a very good story really. It's redundant (but that's part of the point I suppose), needlessly lengthy and just kind of silly.

But there are singular scenes, moments and shots in the film which work. Here Ruiz quite likes using the whole frame as much as possible, or at least the two far sides of the frame. He frequently will employ extreme close-up left or right frame and then a long shot in the other half of the frame. Every once in a while this approach works well tonally, but at other times it also feels like he's just trying to force some stylistic life into an otherwise dull experience. A couple of lengthy tracking shots embarrassingly express the bluntness of their blocking.

Right now I"m going to say ehh... C-

[Raiders]

Dreamscape is a remarkably silly, silly film and very 80s in its look and execution. This is both a fault and a compliment as much of it is never less than moderately entertaining. Stepfather director Joseph Ruben creates nicely expressive images for the dreams and it is overall a more effective and efficient film at creating filmic dreams than some other film(s) I could think of. It lacks any real human drama or compassion though, and rather uncomfortably in one sequence seems to equate what amounts to molestation to romance.

[Sven]

The snake people in Dreamscape haunted me for years after I saw that film as a small child.

[DavidSeven]

Network (Lumet). Meh. Didn't do it for me, though I can see why people might like it. The contract negotiation among the terrorist group was the best moment for me. Howard Beale's collective rants might be the worst.

Zombieland (Fleischer). Pretty fun, but fairly disposable. Mostly works because the casting is right.

[dreamdead]

Miller's The Spirit is like watching a Korean film on acid, where tonal shifts just break up all momentum rather than energizing the content and structural flow. Badly written, badly cast (Mendes being especially awful), and misogynistic throughout (seriously, get some and stop lusting after anything in a skirt, man). Beyond mediocre--this is now the worst film I've viewed this year.