love

Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched (2013-2016)  (Read 973662 times)

pixote

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 34237
  • Up with generosity!
    • yet more inanities!
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #6040 on: August 07, 2015, 05:18:45 PM »
Thoughts on some of the other films contained in the Flicker Alley Blu-Ray release of Nanook of the North (which I reviewed here).



The Wedding of Palo  (Friedrich Dalsheim & Knud Rasmussen, 1934)
This will almost surely be the unexpected discovery of the year for me. The film is very, very similar to Nanook, in terms of its production, except it successfully inverts that earlier film's balance between documentary and fiction. The Wedding of Palo is explicitly a fiction film that uses non-actors in their native locations to bring to life a folk tale specific to that culture. But the means of production retains non-fictional value, wonderfully capturing the real, present-day backdrop of the fictional story. The use of post-dubbed sound is rather crude and occasionally alienating, but the film succeeds in spite of this limitation. The story's bursts of human violence are quite shocking, especially in contrast to tendency towards romanticization in Nanook. The casting is rather perfect, and the cinematography is lovely.
Grade: B+




Saumialuk (Nanook Revisited)  (Claude Massot, 1988)
This documentary, made for French television, visits the location where Nanook of the North was filmed six decades earlier. The first half of Massot's film spends time dissecting elements of Flaherty's film, pointing out its various artifices and ways in which Flaherty catered to the expectations of a white audience. In one of the more interesting examples, an interview subject laughs at the polar bear pants Nanook is seen wearing because, according to him, Nanook would never have worn such a thing at that time, but Flaherty must have insisted on it because it fit the white audience's imagined view of the eskimo. It's an interesting perspective, but Massot doesn't provide enough context to elevate such a claim above the level of gossip. And when these issues are contrasted with the joy in the audience's face at a public screening of Nanook — the privilege of seeing moving images of ancestors, etc. — it all feels a bit moot, in a way which the film doesn't fully acknowledge.

The second half of Saumialuk examines the present-day culture of this same area (with Nanook relegated to more of a side conversation), and this half is much more successful. The screenshot above comes from a scene in which school kids, as part of a focus on their cultural heritage, observe the butchering of a seal, get their hands in the blood, blow air back into the lungs, and taste the flesh. It's wonderfully natural and even playful. The are other nice touches, too, like the way "the South" seems to refer to the whole rest of the world — anything beyond the border of this community; and how the distinction between "raw meat" and "meat" is an invention of the South, something not part of this Inuit culture.
Grade: B-


Captain Kleinschmidt's Arctic Hunt  (Frank E. Kleinschmidt, 1914)
This short film, from eight years before the release of Nanook of the North, is mainly valuable as a reference point to that later film, showing the importance of the narrative form and characterization that Flaherty brought to the same sort of material. The Flicker Alley set includes a few more films of this nature, but after The Wedding of Palo and Arctic Hunt, I couldn't risk seeing any more polar bears being hunted. (Apparently, Flaherty wanted to include a bear hunt in Nanook but never got the footage he needed. I'm grateful for that.)
Grade: C+

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

pixote

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 34237
  • Up with generosity!
    • yet more inanities!
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #6041 on: August 07, 2015, 06:16:19 PM »


Duck Season  (Fernando Eimbcke, 2004)
A full minute of this ninety-minute, black-and-white film is dedicated to a close-up of two large glasses being filled with soda by a pair of teenage friends, hanging out by themselves. And it's one of the more delightful moments in the film. If you get to that early point and aren't smiling just a little, you can probably give up on the film right there. But, if you're like me, and very in tune with Eimbcke's rhythm and warm, comic tone, then keep watching, because the film gets better from that point.

I rated Duck Season a masterpiece eight years ago, but this second viewing brought to light some clear flaws. The first act is definitely the film's weakest, beginning with the series of urban still lifes which opens the film. The photography in this sequence isn't as impressive as it should be. In fact, the generic nature of the subjects makes it feel very much like an exhibit in a high school art show. That's just a minor point, though. The bigger problem with the first act is that, before the full ensemble of four principal characters is gathered in the apartment, the two youngest actors must carry the film — and one of them (Daniel Miranda, who plays the kid dealing with his parents' impending divorce) just isn't up to the task. The other kid (Diego Cataño) is a much more natural screen presence and has no trouble holding attention within a still frame. His scenes in the kitchen (opposite Danny Perea) are what begin to elevate the film from okay to very good.
Grade: B+




The Lone Chipmunks  (Jack Kinney, 1954)
An enjoyable Chip 'n' Dale short, highlighted by the voice work behind those two characters, Dale's reaction to seeing Chip on the wanted poster, and Dale's pretending to be a gun in the bandit Pete's hand. Nice to see the chipmunks pestering a bad man, and not my buddy Donald.
Grade: B-




The Good, the Bad and the Ugly  (Sergio Leone, 1966)
Clint Eastwood gets top billing, but this is really Eli Wallach's film. In fact, Clint often feels out of place in his scenes, with his 'cool' vibe not quite meshing with the atmosphere around him. Wallach is great, though, and Leone and Morricone do their usual good work. It's the screenplay that's a bit of a let-down, borrowing too much of its structure from the old Hollywood serials. Too many last minute escapes and sudden detours. The epic backdrop occasionally dwarfs the central characters, making them feel insignificant. I missed the more cohesive scope of Once Upon a Time in the West. No question in my mind which of the two is the better film.
Grade: B




The Sword of Doom  (Kihachi Okamoto, 1966)
Mifune's sword fight in the snow and Nakadai's unending assault in the brothel are more than enough to recommend this film on their own; and the splendid cinematography just adds to that argument. But, damn, Nakadai's character is as impenetrable as he is unlikeable, sometimes making it really hard to get a narrative foothold in this world. I think I sort of understand what the film is going for, but I still never fully connected with it. At times I felt like I was watching a superhero movie from the villain's perspective, and it kept me going that the villain would eventually get his comeuppance from the hero (presumably, Mifune), and my alignment with the villain would make me feel conflicted about the hero's triumph. Okamoto's film teases that kind of story but continually resists it. In the end, it's a little like Lex Luthor gets drunk and drives off a cliff on his way to a showdown with Superman.
Grade: B




Southbound Duckling  (Joseph Barbera & William Hanna, 1955)
Apparently Quacker has a reputation as an annoying character, but his naive certitude is pretty fun here. I like Jerry's rapport with him, and it's enjoyably shocking when Tom comes out on top.
Grade: B-




The Last Unicorn  (Jules Bass & Arthur Rankin Jr., 1982)
I read Peter S. Beagle's source novel a year ago, and it wasn't bad, but it didn't strike me as the best fodder for an animated children's movie. It's a weird story, with a self-reflexive tone that's really aimed more at adults nostalgic for childhood than at children themselves. Beagle also wrote the screenplay for this adaptation, and the result doesn't really address my concerns. In movie form, this is still a weird story — almost an anti-story. The offbeat tone of Rankin/Bass is a pretty good match for the material, and most of the voice acting is solid (Jeff Bridges' voice took me out of things), but the whole production just never quite works. Throw in some songs by America, and it's all just a near-miss jumble of wtf.
Grade: C+




The Lineup  (Don Siegel, 1958)
More Eli Wallach! More nice location shooting! I wish I'd known beforehand that The Lineup was first a television series (for real, this time); that way I wouldn't have spent the bulk of the film trying to figure out the significance of the title. This film does indeed contain a police lineup, but it's an incidental moment. I had been expecting more of a Usual Suspects type link. The television roots of this film also help explain the questionable split of time between the detectives and the criminals. Wallach is such a strong presence that his absence is definitely felt in the scenes that don't feature his crazed criminal. The character psychology here is fascinating, though it gives the film a pulp vibe which is at odds with the police procedural realism. My biggest disappointment is with the story. I rented this specifically because I wanted a tight noir narrative, with very precise storytelling. The Lineup doesn't quite deliver on that front, but it's still a decent bit of late 50s noir.
Grade: B-

pixote
« Last Edit: August 07, 2015, 06:45:56 PM by pixote »
Great  |  Near Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Fair  |  Mixed  |  Middling  |  Bad

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #6042 on: August 07, 2015, 08:11:38 PM »
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly  (Sergio Leone, 1966)
Clint Eastwood gets top billing, but this is really Eli Wallach's film. In fact, Clint often feels out of place in his scenes, with his 'cool' vibe not quite meshing with the atmosphere around him. Wallach is great, though, and Leone and Morricone do their usual good work. It's the screenplay that's a bit of a let-down, borrowing too much of its structure from the old Hollywood serials. Too many last minute escapes and sudden detours. The epic backdrop occasionally dwarfs the central characters, making them feel insignificant. I missed the more cohesive scope of Once Upon a Time in the West. No question in my mind which of the two is the better film.
Grade: B

The atmosphere is set by all 3 of them. Each character has their own vibe, but they are three different types of cool like 3 circles that all share a small amount of space, which the film finally gets to in this most epic of epic showdown finales. I will agree to your point about the escapes and detours - how did Blondie plan to make it out of that hotel on his own? - but the central characters are mythic enough to stay in front of the epic backdrop.

Perhaps we lose them a little in the Civil War battle, but that's right before they pull themselves from the rubble and the film becomes strictly about them. Their quest rises from the battle to become the most important meeting of people on earth at the time.

OUATITW has the Jason Robards character, who single-handedly makes the scope uncohesive whenever he's involved in the plot.


Both films are masterpieces, as if For a Few Dollars More.

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #6043 on: August 07, 2015, 11:52:29 PM »
The Woman In Gold (2015)

I don't want to lessen the importance of owning up to past errors as a people, even if the generation responsible has gone, but in the annals of films about the Holocaust, centering a film on litigation regarding ownership of a few paintings, no matter how valuable or sentimental, seems slight. This doesn't mean it isn't a deserving story, just that it probably needs a more special effort to bring the story across. I don't think the script really makes the natural dramatic points (court cases mostly) sharp enough, and Ryan Reynolds doesn't really sell his part in it, especially a moment where he is really won over by the cause of it all. But I'm pretty sure my parents liked it.

C-

don s.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2025
  • You had me at "Hello, here's $50."
    • my movie collection
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #6044 on: August 08, 2015, 03:02:31 PM »
Random cinema wrap-up

Irrational Man (Woody Allen; 2015)
More of Woody’s straw men behaving in thoroughly unbelievable ways and doing preposterous things. It’s tough being a Woody Allen completist. Thumbs down.

Mr. Holmes (Bill Condon; 2015)
Overly long and sluggish — maybe we were supposed to feel like the aging lead character? Lots of lame "ahh cute" character humor of the type that gives a me a headache. Also, an infamous WWII landmark was used to make a dramatic point that I felt was entirely gratuitous. Thumbs down.

Dope (Rick Famuyiwa; 2015)
A great ride that really kept me guessing and thoroughly entertained — at least until the didactic ending where I thought the director was talking past his audience to the folks who probably wouldn’t see this movie in million years. Thumbs up.

Phoenix (Christian Petzold; 2014)
I found this thoroughly affecting despite a plot worthy of a daytime soap (with, yes, a little Vertigo thrown in). And boy did he stick that landing. Thumbs way up.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2015, 04:51:34 PM by don s. »
My TV ain't HD / that's too real

Teal | Green | Lime Green | Orange | Red

Paul Phoenix

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1664
  • The 'Kid-Gloves' are off
    • Letterboxd Profile
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #6045 on: August 08, 2015, 06:30:08 PM »

(1982)

I was spoiled about Sophie's choice before I watched this movie. Going in, I'd expected a very predictable ending when Sophie makes her 'choice' and I'd not feel anything. But man, the way that scene was filmed, that was quite a horrifying revelation, even with my prior knowledge. It was made even more horrifying learning that Sophie would later on choose death instead of life, seemingly as some form of judgement upon herself.

But I realized that it was no judgement — only morning: excellent and fair. It seems to me now that the natural path for these two people to take was dying in their lover's arms. It's cynical, but fair. Rather than living in guilt and misery with Stinko in some rundown farm for the rest of her life, and rather than suffering with the schizophrenia hurting everyone around his life, both of them chose love.

That's not judgmental. That's beautiful melancholy, like the sunrise, right?

8/10
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to end up all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is ending up with people who make you feel all alone." - Lance Clayton (played by Robin Williams), World's Greatest Dad

Eternally seeking variety. 'Tis the spice of life for me.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #6046 on: August 09, 2015, 12:24:25 AM »


Dementia (1955)

A surreal horror film with high-contrast lighting similar to film noir and a unceasing proto-industrial score instead of dialogue. (There's another version of this called Daughter of Horror with a more typical score and lots of narration. I watched some of it and the unnerving effect is totally lost.) I've never seen anything like it, and I've seen a lot of movies.

The style reminded me at times of Eraserhead, A Page of Madness, the avant-garde short Meshes of the Afternoon, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and the films of Ed Wood. There's a lot of visual and aural creativity in the storytelling, but a fair amount of it could also be taken as silly and it sometimes plays like a film student's graduate project. Clocking in under an hour, it certainly wasn't difficult to watch and it's such an original lost gem I could easily see myself watching it again.
RATING: * * * - Good

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17864
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #6047 on: August 09, 2015, 01:23:43 AM »
added to watchlist

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #6048 on: August 09, 2015, 02:53:23 PM »
added to watchlist

With everyone involved in their own viewing projects, that phrase has become such a win to read. I was disappointed to find no other reviews for Dementia on the Boards because it's not a slam dunk experience like Eraserhead. It walks the line between resourceful/brilliant and cheap/silly. I heard about it from They Shoot Zombies Don't they and it currently is rated 6.9 on IMDB.

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17864
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #6049 on: August 09, 2015, 05:58:39 PM »

A Pigeon Sat on a Branch Reflecting on Existence - I would say this is the weakest of Roy Andersson's modern (i.e., from 1987 until today) film.  But that isn't saying much, because that has been a formidable body of work, even though it includes only two shorts and two other features.  The two features -- Songs from the Second Floor (2000) and You, the Living (2007) -- precede this one as the beginning and middle of a trilogy about "being a human being".  Here he finally completes his magnum opus.

Those familiar with the previous entries will know what to expect.  Completely static shots of dreary figures in bland settings (beige and gray dominate the color scheme), vignettes that stretch the boundaries of "deadpan" to comment wryly on the human condition.  The comedy is black.  Very black indeed at times, as this film features the most disturbing scene of Andersson's career, followed immediately by one that is his darkest since 1991's short World of Glory.

It's the overwhelming misery of this movie that makes me rank it below the others.  The comedy is more sparse, and one sequence (involving Charles XII showing up at a diner while his troops march past the window) is frustratingly tedious in a way that Andersson never was before, even in his slowest-paced scenes.  Don't get me wrong, there is undoubtedly humor to be found, but to me it seems that the director's pessimism is growing.

And yet, his compassion for humanity still shines through the cynicism.  If he sees humans as often indifferent to (or exploitative of) the suffering of others, he sees also their fragility and their foibles.  A recurring line is "I'm happy to hear that you're doing fine", always spoken to an unseen, unheard listener on the other end of a telephone call (and always repeated, as if the other person didn't hear it the first time).  No one ever actually looks that happy when they're saying it, and one suspects that further investigation would show that the other party isn't doing all that fine -- but one senses a deep compassion and empathy for all involved.  As we endure unrequited love, or impending financial ruin, or bureaucratic frustration, or insensitive greed, or outright cruelty... as we endure, Andersson wants to try to make us happy, like the two novelty item salesmen who are the film's most prominent recurring characters (is it me, or does their "Uncle One-Tooth" mask look like Ingmar Bergman?).  We can laugh at the absurdities of life, and the awful tendencies we have as human beings, even while we suffer for them.  But in this final act of the trilogy, there is perhaps more anger ("No one ever asked for forgiveness") than amusement.

There are several fantastic moments, whether because of their humor or observations or touching sympathy.  In the film's most transcendent scene, a 1942 barmaid erupts into song.  The scene abruptly returns to the present day and the joy of the music is instantly undercut by melancholy,  Andersson's sympathy for humanity has always been evident... rarely is it so moving.  I wish the film had more of such a beautiful balance of hope and misery, instead of leaning so much towards the depressing.  But it has enough greatness to warrant a second look.  Rating: Very Good (88)

 

love