Author Topic: Roger Ebert's Great Movies  (Read 6442 times)

PeacefulAnarchy

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2132
    • Criticker reviews
Re: Roger Ebert's Great Movies
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2013, 10:21:45 AM »
In one detestable case the jerky kid is growing into a vile human being.
Which one?

John. Not knowing his future, being asked this question makes me think he grows up to be the nicest of the lot.
No, my question was just curiosity because there were a couple of others who I thought were kind of jerky but turned out ok and someone who seemed ok but turned out kind of jerky. John established himself as the villain and keeps to that role quite well, though being an actual human being who grows he's more complex than your typical movie villain.

Antares

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 5013
Re: Roger Ebert's Great Movies
« Reply #11 on: April 18, 2013, 07:05:12 PM »
John established himself as the villain and keeps to that role quite well, though being an actual human being who grows he's more complex than your typical movie villain.

I'm watching this series now, I'm in the middle of 21 Up and he kind of reminds me of this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSqkdcT25ss
Masterpiece (100-91) | Classic (90-80) | Entertaining (79-69) | Mediocre (68-58) | Cinemuck (57-21) | Crap (20-0)

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Roger Ebert's Great Movies
« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2013, 11:29:32 PM »


Departures
"Dying doesn't mean the end. You go through it and onto the next thing. It's a gate."

Quote from: Roger Ebert
I showed Yojiro Takita's film at Ebertfest 2010, and it had as great an impact as any film in the festival's history. At the end the audience rose as one person. Many standing ovations are perfunctory. This one was long, loud and passionate. That alone doesn't have anything to do with making a film great, and 2011 may seem too soon to include a 2009 film in this collection of Great Movies. I'm including it because having seen in three times I am convinced that "Departures" will hold its power and appeal.

The Japanese cinema reserves a special place for death. In films like Kurosawa's "Ikiru," Ozu's "Tokyo Story," Itami's "Ososhiki" ("The Funeral") and Kore Eda's "Maborosi" and "After Life," it is handled in terms of ongoing life. There is mourning, but not hopeless grief. The mourning is channeled into ritual which provides comfort. There is no great focus on an afterlife. Attention centers on the survivors and on the meaning of the life that has just ended. Watching "Departures" again most recently, I was reminded of these words spoken in Errol Morris's "Gates of Heaven:" Life is for the living and not for the dead so much.

Starting with Pan's Labyrinth, Roger Ebert started to include more recent films in his Great Movie collection. I can't help but wonder how much this spoke to his own thoughts about mortality at the time. It's a film that relaxes you, opens your mind and invites this sort of contemplation. Like Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring, the movie is serene but never dull. The story is simple, but packed in with some great life lessons.

It's opens with a moment of humor. Something kind of broad, like you might find in a British character comedy like Death at a Funeral or The Full Monty. The film isn't like that, but also isn't afraid to let you laugh at death every once in a while. IMDB listed this under "Music" and while it does feature a cello (and a lovely score by Joe Hisaishi) I would say that music is just a character note. Much more prominent was the consumption of food. Funerals are a time for family gatherings and for comfort and food is a major part of that. Plus there's a constant parallel of needing to prep a body soon after death and how the freshest food is also served soon after death.
RATING: * * *

Melvil

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9977
  • Eek
Re: Roger Ebert's Great Movies
« Reply #13 on: May 06, 2013, 11:35:51 PM »
I was lucky enough to see that at the Ebertfest screening, and it was definitely a great experience. I do remember it being as humorous as it was emotional, and that kind of bittersweetness is one of my favorite combinations. I should definitely revisit it to see how it holds up (and Joe Hisaishi you say? Didn't realize!).

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Roger Ebert's Great Movies
« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2013, 08:53:45 AM »
What I remembered most was everyone's shock that Waltz With Bashir not winning that year. I'd personally lean toward The Class but Departures would probably be second (Waltz, incidentally, is my least favorite of the five nominees). One of the ones where watching it, the anger over a perceived Oscar mistake completely dissipates.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Roger Ebert's Great Movies
« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2013, 10:11:54 AM »
I remember it winning over something more expected (like No Man's Land beating Amelie), but I didn't want to look it up since Departures has shaken that off to get a lot of respect over the years.

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26795
Re: Roger Ebert's Great Movies
« Reply #16 on: May 07, 2013, 10:46:57 AM »
I really like Departures. I watched it without realizing it won an Oscar that year. It's sweet and sad in all the right places.

Still need to see The Class.  :-[

pixote

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 34237
  • Up with generosity!
    • yet more inanities!
Re: Roger Ebert's Great Movies
« Reply #17 on: May 07, 2013, 11:29:08 AM »
21 Up is where the series really begins. Seven Up is a mediocre attempt at class study and Seven Plus Seven is a transitional piece away from the agenda of the original film and into something more natural. With 21 Up, the series realizes its potential as a life mosaic of dreams and realities and bliss and regret and the irreversibility of time and aging and the inevitability of death.

Or something.

pixote
Great  |  Near Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Fair  |  Mixed  |  Middling  |  Bad

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Roger Ebert's Great Movies
« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2013, 12:55:37 PM »
21 Up is waiting for me as the obvious next film. I'll probably watch it after Tender Mercies (which fits the monthly Music theme), unless I get the courage to conquer Shoah.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Roger Ebert's Great Movies
« Reply #19 on: May 30, 2013, 11:03:52 AM »


Victim
"Well it used to be witches. At least they don't burn you."

Quote from: Roger Ebert
To be gay was a crime in the United States and the U.K., and the movie used the devices of film noir and thriller to make its argument, labeling laws against homosexuality "the blackmailer's charter." Indeed, 90 percent of all British blackmail cases had homosexuals as victims.

The defense of homosexuality was not a popular topic at the box office when the film was made, and director Basil Dearden tried to broaden the film's appeal by making it into a thriller and a police procedural. There is no sex on (or anywhere near) the screen, and while the hero is homosexual by nature, there is doubt that he has ever experienced gay sex. The plot hinges on anonymous blackmailers who collect regular payments from wealthy and famous gays, and on the decision of a prominent barrister to stand up to them.

The movie proceeds on two levels, as a crime thriller and as a character study, and it's this dual nature that makes it an entertainment at the same time it works as a message picture. There's a good deal of indirection in the clever script, which conceals motives, misdirects our suspicions, misleads our expectations, and finds truth and dignity in the scenes between Farr and his wife.

I'd never heard of Victim until I decided to take on this Marathon. As far as I can tell, the only one here who's seen it is MartinTeller. (Always ahead of the curve.) I worried this would be a dated social drama, an Afterschool Special of a movie about the persecution of homosexuals so long ago. Thankfully, the film is much more, and much better handled than I would have guessed.

Taking a few tricks from Film Noir, the film has grit and bite and an underlying tension. A lot of the uneasy feelings between homosexuals, people with open minds and those who look at gays as deviants and abominations are brought to life in the blunt, hard-edged dialogue. It gives the film a present-day relevance, and an emotional underpinning many Noirs lack.

The weakest section of the film are those scenes between Farr and his wife. The acting is exemplary, but here there's a bit of sap and didacticism to it. They never manage to exist as characters beyond the unique circumstance of their relationship. It's my one reservation in this otherwise daring film. (I read some reviews about the film being dated and suppressive of it's handling with the subject matter. First of all, welcome to the upper class of England. Secondly, if this same script were made today, I think it and the cast would still be seen as bold and brave.)
RATING: * * *
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 07:58:18 PM by 1SO »

 

love