Author Topic: March MDC write-ups  (Read 29708 times)

skjerva

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9448
  • I'm your audience.
March MDC write-ups
« on: March 05, 2009, 12:21:20 PM »
who will be first seventh last?  nine six left, me included  ::)

---

March
February
January
December
November
October
September
(July/)August
« Last Edit: April 06, 2009, 01:58:32 AM by skjerva »
But I wish the public could, in the midst of its pleasures, see how blatantly it is being spoon-fed, and ask for slightly better dreams. 
                        - Iris Barry from "The Public's Pleasure" (1926)

THATguy

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Contrarian At Large.
Re: March MDC write-ups
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2009, 01:16:32 AM »
Wow, really?  No one else yet?


Marty (Delbert Mann, 1955)

Ernest Borgnine's Marty, besides being an absolutely brilliant, deep performance, character wise might be one of the most likable guys in film history.  He's polite, a hard worker, and follows his moral conscious.  In a role, that in lesser hands, could wallow in it's own depreciation, Borgnine manages to make Marty a living, breathing character that you could see at your local butcher shop.

The subtlety of the film, in many aspects, where it might be easier to go melodramatic, is a big plus.  A major example is the scene where Marty's mother encourages him to go out for the evening.  It was basically an invitation to overact, but instead, it was played perfectly.

The supporting performances worked, and were even lauded, but this was easily Borgnine's film.

My only real issue with the film was I'd loved to have seen another 15-20 minutes.  I felt like there was a little more that could've been incorporated.  I had an excellent time for this film and thank Bill for dictating it to me.  **** 1/2

Konnel

  • Guest
Re: March MDC write-ups
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2009, 01:20:19 AM »


****
or
9 (film's technical points) - 7 (how much i enjoyed the film)

I screened Secret Honor twice today, straight run one and once with Altman's commentary running. Tomorrow I'll try to squeeze in Freed's but I feel comfortable making my review now. Unfortunately, I don't have a lot to say.

Let me first say that I really enjoyed this film. I am, I believe, genetically predisposed to liking it - it's Altman and it's essentially a different way of looking at political intrigue and conspiracy theory (which I am a huge sucker for). The problem is it's done so well there's not a lot left to talk about. With the exception of the closing (which I'll get to below) the camera and technical aspects are flawless, the writing is as good as any drama in the English language, and the acting is just beyond superb. The problem lies in the fact that, well I remember the fallout of those events (even if I was too young during Watergate) and Philip Baker Hall's portrayal, while spectacular, doesn't really tell me anything I didn't already know or suspect. I'm reminded of a line from the West Wing  delivered by Laura Dern's character - she says something to the effect that, as entertainers, the best that can be hoped for is that you capture the audience; if there is any truth found then you got lucky. Truth also includes relevance and I think there is both in Secret Honor.

I can't really say the film brings any other to mind. I mean, about half way through I went lol thinking of making Manchurian Candidate a third time and casting Nixon. The style didn't even have me thinking of other Altman films except in the camera's energy and a laissez-faire attitude toward narrative.  I found I liked this as it made it seem even more like finding a secret gem. In terms of achievements I'd put it right around Short Cuts.

The only judgment I question was to repeat the final "F* 'em" in sequence over the monitors. I found it annoying in the same way I find Kubrick's old trailers which used quick cuts to complete a sentence (Lolita and Strangelove trailers used the technique). I would lke to have just had the camera pan to the monitor for that as a period. Other than that, flawless movie. Was a great choice THATguy,

K
« Last Edit: March 13, 2009, 01:29:23 AM by Konnel »

Bill Thompson

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17561
  • DOOM!!!!
    • Bill's Movie Emporium
Re: March MDC write-ups
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2009, 06:44:59 AM »

It's time once again for the Movie Dictator Club, and this month I was assigned Punch-Drunk Love by Junior. Good luck for me as I have really grown to love the works of Paul Thomas Anderson the past couple of months and Punch-Drunk Love was the only film outside of his debut, Sydney, that I had yet to see. Well, that has been rectified and as usual there was plenty of love about this Anderson work. What immediately struck me after finishing Punch-Drunk Love was how different it is in scope from every other Anderson film. His other works have been large in expanse, long in run time and tackling a much broader cast of characters. Punch-Drunk Love is a small picture, a more personal one from Anderson while still retaining his distinctive visual and narrative style.

Every review I have ever read about Punch-Drunk Love has gone into great detail about how amazing a turn this was for Adam Sandler, but I don't quite agree with that take. His performance was great and it had to carry the film, but in all reality it shouldn't come as any surprise that Sandler was able to provide such depth because comedic actors are generally the most competent actors around. Even in Sandler's worst fare there was always an edge to his performance, sometimes he makes you laugh, sometimes he doesn't, but there was always something extra under the surface. In Punch-Drunk Love he brings that little bit extra above ground and what we get is a subdued performance from him. Instead of the laughs coming from Sandler's loud moments as is usual with his films, in Punch-Drunk Love he is funny when quietly observing while a little bit scary when engaged in loud activity. So yes, it was a great performance from Sandler, but I believe he is capable of plenty of performances just like Barry Egan, if only he would go there more often.

The one area where I felt Punch-Drunk Love was lacking was in its use of the supporting cast. Emily Watson, Luis Guzman and Philip Seymour Hoffman do feel woefully underdeveloped, although Guzman has the least to cry about, and it would have been nice for their characters to be fleshed out just a bit more. My only other criticism isn't a valid one so I can't hold it against the film, but I really do wish there would have been more. It is a films job to leave me wanting more, so I can't hold that against Punch-Drunk Love, but when it finished I really wanted the story to keep going.

For Punch-Drunk Love Anderson has ditched some of his more flamboyant tendencies with the camera, instead it plays as a much more naturalistic piece. Long tracking shots, long scenes without any cuts or edits and while there is plenty going on in the background it's much more subdued than is typical of Anderson. I liked this change of approach, the realness of Punch-Drunk Love's characters and themes was enhanced by the more inborn cinematography and camera work. That isn't to say that every once in a while Anderson didn't need to have a rainbow flourish, because he most certainly did.

It's customary in any Anderson film to talk about the themes he handles and how he expresses them. In Punch-Drunk Love I felt the themes were obvious enough and handled so perfectly that I don't need to go into them here. I did enjoy Anderson's take on classic romantic comedy moments, especially Barry & Lena's version of dirty talk, or Barry's obsession with the pudding and crazy ideas. It's also quite usual to talk about music in an Anderson film and I was surprised to learn that of all his movies Punch-Drunk Love's soundtrack and score is the most criticized. I loved the music, particularly the rendition of He Needs Me, employed by composer Jon Brion. It was quite natural and quirky at the same time, very much what I think of when I think of an Anderson film.

I'd like to thank Junior for assigning me Punch-Drunk Love as I now have yet another Paul Thomas Anderson film to love. I don't think it knocks Boogie Nights from the top of Anderson's filmography, but it sure does come close. It's funny, heartfelt, touching, a little scary and full of the quirky sincerity and randomness that Anderson excels at. It's a must for any Anderson fan, and for someone looking for a different take on the romantic comedy, although even that is a misnomer as I found this be much more of a drama/black comedy than a rom com. Either way, a terrific film, one I was glad to be assigned.

Cheers,
Bill

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: March MDC write-ups
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2009, 09:42:47 AM »
I'm glad I could give you the kick in the pants you needed to watch this one quickly and I'm even more glad that you enjoyed it!
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

'Noke

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11799
Re: March MDC write-ups
« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2009, 12:40:53 PM »
You and I have completely different feelings about Punch Drunk Love, bill, but I love it as well. I'm still wondering how PT Anderson is going to be able to top his other films with Boogie Nights.
I actually consider a lot of movies to be life-changing! I take them to my heart and they melt into my personality.

zarodinu

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4538
  • What we've got here is failure to communicate
Re: March MDC write-ups
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2009, 09:33:33 PM »
Ace in the Hole



A man is trapped in a cave.  A washed up newspaper reporter is first on the scene, and delays the rescue in order milk the story for all its worth.  A media circus forms, and everyone involved is profiting from the tragedy.

The best thing about this movie is Kirk Douglas who is great as an unprincipled reporter willing to go to any lengths to get the story.  He chews the scenery, and is believably scheming and ruthless.  But despite his Machiavellian approach to the situation, he is not entirely villainous.  Douglas portrays him with a certain degree of self awareness, he knows that what he is doing is wrong, he just can't help himself, and his ambition overcomes him.  This humorous, self conscious, portrayal of a pretty despicable character reminded me of Orson Welles from The Third Man, or the Monk from Princess Mononoke.  I really enjoyed the performance.

The supporting cast is pretty good also, especially the trapped man's vain and unloving wife.  The dialogue is great with some really witty and funny lines.  Pacing is perfect, and I was having fun throughout. 

The movie does have one serious flaw though.  Without spoiling anything, the ending has a lead character undergo a complete transformation, and do something that is utterly contrary to the way he behaved throughout the movie.  For that reason I did not buy the last ten minutes of the film.  I can't help but think that the change of heart was because of the Hayes censorship code that demanded a villainous character be punished by the end of the movie. 

Still a great movie though, thanks for recommending it Ses.

9/10 

 
« Last Edit: March 14, 2009, 09:37:26 PM by zarodinu »
I’ve lied to men who wear belts. I’ve lied to men who wear suspenders. But I’d never be so stupid as to lie to a man who wears both a belt and suspenders.

ses

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 14979
    • Sarah's Kitchen Adventures
Re: March MDC write-ups
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2009, 09:35:28 PM »
I am glad you liked it zarodinu!!  :)
"It's a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart"

http://sarahskitchenadventures.blogspot.com/

'Noke

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11799
Re: March MDC write-ups
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2009, 05:44:21 AM »
Ace in the Hole
9/10 

On my rader.
I actually consider a lot of movies to be life-changing! I take them to my heart and they melt into my personality.

Bill Thompson

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17561
  • DOOM!!!!
    • Bill's Movie Emporium
Re: March MDC write-ups
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2009, 08:55:12 AM »
Ernest Borgnine's Marty,  I had an excellent time for this film and thank Bill for dictating it to me.  **** 1/2

Glad you liked it, when I first saw the film it was a blind DVR choice and it really snuck up on me, it's become one of my all time favorites.

Ace in the Hole
9/10 

On my rader.

The hour I saw before my DVR crapped out on me was great, I hope to finish my newly DVRd version someday soon. Either way, great write-up Z, and I'm sure you'll like it G.

 

love