28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Irish]

Meanwhile, I fully intend to carefully hate-watch Burns' show and nitpick the hell out of it in my head for at least an hour.

Watching now and pausing every 2 minutes to scream into a pillow.

Without Googling, I'm gonna guess...Berardinelli?

Very good guess, but nope!

[baby doll]

The only Ken Burns film I've seen is The Central Park Five. It was okay.

[DFA1979]

I've seen some of the national parks one. That's it.

[Philip J. Fry]

Gimme five of them.

[transmogrifier]

Gimme five of them.

That's not the action I think about when I think about that movie.

[Philip J. Fry]

That's not the action I think about when I think about that movie.

Those clothes look removable *wink* *wink*

[Irish]

Claire's Knee (Rohmer, 1970)

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know why Éric Rohmer wrote screenplays and not stage plays.

This was very good, but I don't know how to rank it or where to list it. I think it's more stiff and artificial than the other two Rohmers I've seen, "Love in the Afternoon" and "Pauline at the Beach," and while the key scene in question (about the knee!) is perfect, and says something true about men and desire, everything around it feels a little forced. All those conversations between two friends about the nature of love kept me at a distance, and I never quite believed the lead actor when he spoke of his unending lust for this young woman (or really: girl, ew). The plotline seemed too much an intellectual game for them, too removed from anything sweaty or bloody or real. (In an odd way, these exchanges reminded me certain conversations in "Dangerous Liasions," where two people bloodlessly talk about seducing a third, but at least there the distance is the point.)

But still Rohmer is Rohmer so ... 4/5?

[Peng]

Daylight (1996) - On one hand, even with the disaster genre going steady, they don't make them like this anymore, where even the built-in hokiness feels sturdy throughout rather than graceless or sloppy. On the other hand, I doubt some of these performances would pass the muster to the screens these days, where their bigness seem to compete with explosions to be seen from outer space (the father especially puts me on the side of the disaster). Stallone gives good movie star performance though, and the special effects are consistently outstanding, especially the jaw-dropping opening explosion. 6/10



The Ballad of Narayama (1958) - With the caveat that I haven't seen the remake, I find the divisive incorporating of Kabuki theater really effective, both for its stunning, mythical visual and for just the right amount of alienation effect, which I feel helps keep the story from sliding straight into potential miserablism. Even with that distance, the finale still devastates me completely, thanks in no small part to the two leads' performances. 8/10

[Dukefrukem]

Daylight (1996) - On one hand, even with the disaster genre going steady, they don't make them like this anymore, where even the built-in hokiness feels sturdy throughout rather than graceless or sloppy. On the other hand, I doubt some of these performances would pass the muster to the screens these days, where their bigness seem to compete with explosions to be seen from outer space (the father especially puts me on the side of the disaster). Stallone gives good movie star performance though, and the special effects are consistently outstanding, especially the jaw-dropping opening explosion. 6/10



The Ballad of Narayama (1958) - With the caveat that I haven't seen the remake, I find the divisive incorporating of Kabuki theater really effective, both for its stunning, mythical visual and for just the right amount of alienation effect, which I feel helps keep the story from sliding straight into potential miserablism. Even with that distance, the finale still devastates me completely, thanks in no small part to the two leads' performances. 8/10

Classic 90s sillyness with daylight. I especially love the method in which Stallone enters the tunnel. Because they can't shutdown the power for a whole team to enter. And there's little red clocks in between each fan level.

[megladon8]

So before asking this question I'll just state that I have never seen Highlander.

But...

Is there a legitimate in-film reason why Sean Connery, who is arguably the most famous Scottish actor of all time, was cast as the Spanish guy?

Or was it some 80s pre-internet trolling?

[Skitch]

I have no answer for that.

But Highlander is top 100.

[Spun Lepton]

We Don't Deserve Dogs (2020) -- This title is very misleading. You think you're going into a movie about the simple and profound ways that dogs affect our lives, and you get a relatively unfocused mash-up of relevant and irrelevant stories. One story about a Vietnamese dog butcher is like, honestly, what the hell was the goal here? What are the filmmakers thinking when they include this story? Do they think the audience for a movie called "We Don't Deserve Dogs," want to see this? Then it goes to a segment about a holiday in Nepal where they celebrate dogs and it gets less attention than the fucking dog butcher. One atory about a sheep herder and his wife is really just her complaining about her life, and him just talking about how much he loves herding sheep. The dogs are barely an afterthought in their story. Just a mess of a movie. 4/10

[Irish]

Love in the Afternoon (Rohmer, 1972) - Saw this once decades ago, remembered my enjoyment, but none of the details (funny how that works). I liked this a little bit less than other recent RohmerVisions (particularly "Pauline at the Beach," and in some ways "Claire's Knee"). One thing I enjoy about these movies: The male hero is invariably a self-involved dumb-ass. I find this highly relatable as I, too, am a self-involved dumbass. That he never receives a comeuppance and remains blissfully pleased with himself makes the film's effect funnier, although from personal experience, slightly less life-like. Molly Haskell said (per Wikipedia) this final Moral Tale betrayed Rohmer's series because, unlike the others, it makes a judgement on the hero. I'm pretty sure I know what she meant, but I'd still like to read her review to confirm.

Django (Corbucci, 1966) - It's heresy to say this online, but I think Corbucci outdid Leone and making a Leone movie. A couple of days later and I'm still thinking about this --- but only about its images. The story is cartoonish, lazy, and obnoxiously violent. It's puerile trash, mostly. I don't know how I can think that and then gush about movies like "Texas Chain Saw Massacre" and "The Hills Have Eyes," or other films with similar 1970s, DIY, punk aesthetics that I admire. Maybe it's because I care about American westerns in a way that I've never cared about horror. Spaghetti westerns are interesting primarily because they're free of schoolyard history and 50 years of precedent, and this is exactly why I find myself loving and hating them in equal measure.

Between these 2 movies (and a few other recents), I've given up ranking old movies. It seems silly to assign a grade to such material, especially as I'm not a professional critic, and these dudes are operating at such a high level.

[DFA1979]

So before asking this question I'll just state that I have never seen Highlander.

But...

Is there a legitimate in-film reason why Sean Connery, who is arguably the most famous Scottish actor of all time, was cast as the Spanish guy?

Or was it some 80s pre-internet trolling?

They just didn't care in the 1980s. It was a different time heh. Also Highlander rocks.

[DFA1979]

Django is a badass western. I saw it thanks to Netflix in November 2015. I'm currently going through a best westerns list I found on another movie forum since I feel I still have much to watch from the genre. Also hey I also noticed I wrote a pretty decent review of Django Unchained back when it came out.

[Skitch]

Django is awesome.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Just finished A Moment of Innocence. Reminiscent of Close-Up. The ending makes me want to watch the whole thing over again, and I think I will (78-minute runtime helps).

[Idioteque Stalker]

Movie Intro Medley (Acapella):

[

Show Spoiler

]

The Netflix one is unreal. They nailed it. Disney has the best intro music, so of course it's the most beautiful. And the Universal one is just hilarious.

[StuSmallz]

Movie Intro Medley (Acapella):

[

Show Spoiler

]

The Netflix one is unreal. They nailed it. Disney has the best intro music, so of course it's the most beautiful. And the Universal one is just hilarious.

Damn, those guys are good.

[Dukefrukem]

I always thought 20th Century Fox was the most epic.

[Irish]

Pulp Fiction (Tarantino, 1994) - First rewatch in many years a few new thoughts. (1) It was more interesting to me this time how the film doubles back on itself twice, which means we hear Jules' tiresome biblical quotation 3 times*. (2) I thought once this was one of Tarantino's best structured films, but now I'm not sure. Besides the double back, each story follows a similar template: Two characters exchange zippy observations (or "meaningless chit-chat" as Mia terms it), which is always followed by unexpected spectacle. A dance sequence in one story, but usually it's a fucked up level of violence. ("The Bonnie Situation," the most lackluster entry, reverses this and starts with violence, and follows it with inane conversation.) (3) The final story with Honey Bunny and Pumpkin in the diner is really meaningless, because Jules is a thin character and his spiritual transformation is entirely contained in the film's ending. Because of the structure, it feels like he has an arc but he actually doesn't. (4) Every actress with a speaking part appears barefoot. (5) Why is this movie 2 and a half hours long? (6) Several actors stutter over their lines and it sounds like a mistake, like somebody printed the wrong take. (7) The film pops with color and setting but the overall look is very much early 90s indie. (8) The dialogue still sings in places but in others ... yeesh. Corny, dated slang and casual use of racial slurs makes certain characters sound more improbable than they should. (9) The pop culture references are stilted and awkward and Tarantino uses them as a crutch. He has people talking about shit that was already 30 years old when this film was made. "Green Acres"? "Amos and Andy"? What kid today would pick up on that? (10) I've probably seen this movie a dozen times and I don't think I could tell anyone what it's about.

* PS: Quentin, ffs, "furious anger" is redundant.

ETA: (11) Vincent seems closely modeled on Mr Pink from "Reservoir Dogs," at least conceptually. Both are argumentative to the point of being obnoxious (ahem), with other characters rolling their eyes and generally ignoring them. But I get the sense that Tarantino is on their side, and believes the arguments they express to be right.

(12) The female characters are largely inconsequential, but I thought it was interesting each of them peddles a pet theory (comfortable silences, pot bellies, etc) and when they do it, they sound like mouthpieces for the director.

[Skitch]

Good film. My least favorite of QT.

[Irish]

Kill Bill, Volume 1 (Tarantino, 2003)

Colorful and kinetic but not nearly as interesting, fun, or well crafted as the movies that inspired it. The dialogue is perfunctory and often ridiculous. The fight scenes are choppy and full of close-ups and quick cuts. Four films in and Quentin still has no idea how to write transitions, so the story is non-linear and the film is littered with awkward title cards. The best thing I can say about Thurman is that she has a great deal of natural athleticism. Tarantino has huge balls slapping the Shaw Brothers logo in front of this, because it's nowhere near their level. Hell, it isn't near the level of the Korean and Hong Kong films from the same era ("Time and Tide"? "Ip Man"? "The Man From Nowhere"?).

ETA two more: (1) The film ends on a daytime soap opera level cliffhanger, which isn't necessarily out of place given the level of writing, but I still think it's dumb. (2) there's a weird form of orientalism throughout, where Tarantino applies American media aesthetics to a fantastical Japanese culture. Gordon Liu in a Kato mask is some serious cringe.

This was my first rewatch since the movie's opening weekend back in 2003. I liked it then, but like other recent rewatches I remembered little to nothing about it.

[megladon8]

Can't lie, I kinda hate the Kill Bill movies.

I have yet to see Hateful Eight or Once Upon a Time..., but in my books Tarantino has only made 3 good movies.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Hateful Eight is worth watching for the fun first half, but it's easily my least favorite Tarantino and the only one where the violence actually crosses my personal line rather than toeing it.