Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched (Jan 2011 - Nov 2013)  (Read 2532340 times)

Lobby

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2762
    • The Velvet Café
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #18560 on: May 15, 2013, 04:42:25 PM »
How I feared and fought the Turin horse and finally gave him a hug


I approached The Turin Horse with an equal amount of dread and determination.
I was prepared for a long and hard fight after all I’d heard about it. Apparently it was a movie that would put even professional film critics into deep sleep, and they if any should know the tricks to avoid being knocked out.
 
I had taken all measures against sleeping accidents that I could think of, balancing the amount of coffee I’d drunk with the size against the size of my bladder. You want to end up in the perfect spot between sleep and bio breaks during the screening. I had also chosen an afternoon screening, as far away from ordinary bedtime as possible.

The more I heard of the horse, the scarier it seemed to me. At the point it was time to see it, I was convinced it wold kick my ass, despite my efforts.

My fears
So what did I fear? Well it wasn’t the black and white format. I don’t find that off-putting at all; on the contrary I think t sometimes looks a lot better than colour. I wasn’t bothered about it being Hungarian either. As a Swede you’re used to watch most movies with subtitles to the degree that it has become a second nature. You don’t think about it.

What worried me most was the plot. Or should I rather say: lack of plot?

Two persons sitting in a small house in a godforsaken place, slowly eating potatoes, barely speaking a word with each other, barely moving at all, and the only thing that happens in the movie is that a horse refuses to walk. What I understood this non-walking was vaguely related to an incident in the life of Nietzsche, but that didn’t make it sound more thrilling. It seemed to me like a parody of an incomprehensible art house movie, unbearably obsessed with its own importance. The kind of movie that travels around the world between festival screenings, gets a ton of critical appraisal and awards, but a very little audience. I imagined that in best case, I would laugh at it for its ridiculousness, in worst case I would have enough after five minutes.

So why did I want to see it at all? Partly I think it was peer pressure. Or to put it nicer: openness towards suggestions. I had picked up from other bloggers that Tarr was an interesting filmmaker. Several loved him, others hated him, which raised my curiosity. I wanted to check out one of his movies and make up my own opinion. There was also something about the still images that attracted me. They were realistic, but with a flavour of added magic, reminding me of Bergman or Tarkovskij.

And then there was also the challenge. The more I heard about how hard it was to get through, the more did I want to. A little bit of vanity or competiveness if you want to put it that way. I saw it as a way to challenge myself. When I left the ticket to the usher, I felt as if I was entering the start position, making myself ready to run a marathon. I would show them! I wasn’t a hopeless movie snoozer! I, the perpetual film snoozer, would make myself through this movie, if it so would mean that my body would be bruised from top to toe by all my pinching of myself!

Expectations
You all know how it is with expectations. They’re deceptive and often in a bad way. The higher the hopes are the harder will we fall when we get something different.

But sometimes it goes the other way round We enter a theatre expecting to be served something that tastes as unmarked leftovers you found in the bottom of your freezer and ten warmed up too quickly: watery, old and bland. And then it turns out to be the opposite: a tasty and beautifully crafted meal that doesn’t resemble to anything you’ve had before. It will stay with you.

This was what happened to me at The Turin Horse. To my own astonishment I went with it. I even liked it, maybe loved it, as crazy as it may sound. A part of me says: “People slowly eating potatoes and walking around in a sand storm with a stubborn horse? Give me a break!”
But somehow I got into it. It reminded me of meditation or yoga. At first your overheated brain, accustomed to an urban lifestyle, gets a shock and tries to get you out of there with all sorts of distractions. “This is SO slow. Why am I doing this? My feet are itching. Doesn’t it smell funny? How long are we going to sit here?” But then you change. Your breathing changes, you feel lightness in your mind and body and you lose interest to follow the countdown until it will be over. I watched them pealing their potatoes, talk to the neighbour, get water from the well and feed the horse. And in that moment, I didn’t want to be anywhere else.

What is the movie about? Is it an apocalypse, a movie about the end of the world, something taking place a few years before The Road? Or was it just a year with a bit of bad weather? And what does it all mean? Is there a hidden message in it for Nietzsche fans to be decoded?
I don’t know. But I do know that I for some inexplicable reason loved The Turin Horse.

This is about as far as you can come from Star Trek Into Darkness, which I also watched recently, and yet I give them the same rating, but for completely different reasons. What can I say? I love movies. All sorts of movies. Even those with horses that refuse to walk. I just gave him a hug.

The Turin Horse (A torinói ló, Béla Tarr & Ágnes Hranitzky, HU 2011) My rating: 4,5/5
http://thevelvetcafe.wordpress.com/  - where I think aloud about movies

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17864
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #18561 on: May 15, 2013, 05:16:51 PM »
Yay!  So glad you took the plunge, and ended up appreciating the film!

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #18562 on: May 15, 2013, 05:30:27 PM »
Lethal Weapon

You may think there's an indecent amount of bubbles in this scene (considering that's his daughter)
But just remember who you're dealing with here. This is Roger Murtaugh. "Thin" is his middle name.


And then there's beach bum Martin Riggs. Very much the opposite of Roger Murtaugh... even his initials.



Shane Black made an interesting choice here not to give us a scene where Rigg's wife dies in a car accident. Instead the sympathy for the character is to come from a scene where Martin Riggs breaks down emotionally while looking at wedding photos (16 minutes into the film), and we can assume by his reaction that she's dead. This is confirmed in the following scene by a police psycologist (whose sole purpose in the movie is to make this point clear for the audience, if it wasn't already). A good example of show don't tell... but then tell.

A tragic car crash would be a natural first scene for a film of this sort, to establish a tone and character motivation. But the way this film actually starts is equally natural... we witness a seemingly isolated incident that eventually brings our two characters together, and rolls them into a much bigger plot. Fine.

BUT... By going the route they went I believe they commit the movie to being plot first and characters second. And from where I was sitting the plot was the least interesting thing in this film. So in my opinion the choice was a mistake. One that weighs on the film in direct and indirect ways for the duration.

Now go back to that scene with a crying Mel Gibson, which as a consequence carries the entire burden of stimulating sympathy for Riggs. Does it succeed or doesn't it? It's a tall order and Mel Gibson has chops, but for me it was only mildly effective.

I could go on about how when Riggs unloads his Baretta at a fleeing helicopter he only gets off 13 rounds before we hear *click*, indicating an empty clip. And that this directly contradicts what Murtaugh establishes earlier in the film when he says it "takes fifteen in the mag, one up the pipe", and us seeing Riggs insert a fresh clip into the gun before he starts shooting...
But that sort of technical error is not really what hurts a movie like this. It's just a stupid thing that a lot of movies do, good and bad both. In Open Range I swear Kevin Costner gets about 13 or 14 rounds out of a single six-shooter... but it's like "who cares?", it's a good sequence anyways. Just don't do it too much. And Lethal Weapon doesn't.

In fact just when you think the film isn't paying attention to details it surprises you with something like this.

A pair of clocks on Murtaugh's desk in the shape of ships' steering wheels.
Random? Not at all, as we learn later Murtaugh owns a boat himself.

That character detail is responsible for one of my favourite lines of the film. When Riggs asks "You know anything about boats?" and Murtaugh responds "I know how much they cost." :)) Only a guy who has owned a boat could say that with such pain in his voice. In general though I don't feel the back and forth banter is up to Mr. Black's usual standards. Or, possibly, Glover and Gibson are not as successful at delivering it as other have been. OR, it just didn't hit my particular sweet spot. Kind of a whatever point, but I would've liked more laughs.

At the end of the day I've got a fair amount of warming up to do with Riggs and Murtaugh. Maybe that will happen with the sequels, or subsequent viewings of the original. I'm open to the possibility.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2013, 05:32:41 PM by smirnoff »

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #18563 on: May 15, 2013, 05:50:44 PM »
Lobby, love that review. I find that expectations often play a big part in someone's reaction to a film. You went in wide open in what I hear is Tarr's most difficult film. When do you see yourself watching another of his films? And any idea which one?


smirnoff, I'm working right now but will definitely be responding to this. Expect it to post around Midnight EST.

philip918

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4580
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #18564 on: May 15, 2013, 06:18:47 PM »
Upstream Color

Speaking of show don't tell, this movie doesn't have one line of exposition, not even a syllable. Love it.

The first act drugging and kidnapping sequence is phenomenal - frightening, weird, and intense. The worms the kidnapper uses seem to be based on an actual drug - scopalmina - used in Colombia to accomplish similar crimes (Vice has a great short doc about it), which makes it all the scarier.

The aftermath is just as compelling. Seimetz is fantastic. Carruth isn't half bad either. Loved the visuals and sound. The very end was just a tad hokey for me, but no deal breaker. One of my favorites of the year so far.

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17864
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #18565 on: May 15, 2013, 08:30:41 PM »

Under the Skin of the City - Tuba (Golab Adineh) has a lot on her plate.  Her husband Mahmoud (Mohsen Ghazi Moradi) is crippled, so she brings home the bacon working in a textile factory.  Her daughter Mahboubeh (Baran Kosari) and son Ali (Ebrahin Sheibani) live at home.  Ali has been skipping school to participate in leftist demonstrations.  Her oldest daughter Hamideh (Homeira Riazi) is pregnant with her second child, and frequently returns home when she's been beaten by her husband.  And oldest son Abbas (Mohammad Reza Forutan) works as an errand boy for a clothing shop, but has dreams of going to Japan to further his career.  But the visa costs money and what Abbas wants to do is sell the family home, promising that the money he'll earn overseas would buy four new houses.  Tuba is getting old and dealing with asthma, the last thing she wants to do is move.  And to make matters worse, the girl next door (Mehraveh Sharifinia) is regularly beaten by her brother and when she runs away, Mahboubeh tries to help her... with disastrous results.

This is my first experience with director Rakhshan Bani-Etemad.  Her work -- at least in this case -- is not as conceptual or original as many of her Iranian contemporaries, but she has a flair for family drama.  There are numerous plot threads and characters to keep track of, but one rarely feels lost.  And the opening and closing scenes, involving a documentary crew, does have some of that meta-ness that makes so much Iranian cinema intriguing.

Overt political commentary is kept to a minimum, but there is certainly a strong feminist viewpoint at play here.  Tuba keeps the family in line, and it's mainly when people take action behind her back that things start to fall apart.  Despite the fact that she's bothered by her persistent cough, she works like hell to keep everything together.  The point is made that Iranian women are expected to maintain the household, regardless of whether or not they have a job, and that violence from husbands and relatives just comes with the territory.  When she tries to make an important business transaction, the man tells her he won't deal with women and she should come back with her husband.

The cinematography is primarily functional, focused mainly on telling the story rather than going for expressive shots (Bani-Etemad did have to fight for one shot, though... of Adineh washing her hair).  It seemed a little on the dark side but that may have been just a subpar transfer.  Adineh is very strong in the central role, showing concern and impatience and love with her children.  She is the type of hard-working, long-suffering mother you can imagine in a family from any culture.  The other actors all manage well enough, although there are moments when Forutan seems to be overdoing it a bit.

Very watchable drama with some incisive social observations.  Rating: Very Good (81)

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #18566 on: May 15, 2013, 08:41:07 PM »
smirnoff, I'm working right now but will definitely be responding to this. Expect it to post around Midnight EST.

I'll hold.

Lobby

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2762
    • The Velvet Café
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #18567 on: May 16, 2013, 12:15:18 AM »
@Martin: I'm a little surprised myself that I did!

Lobby, love that review. I find that expectations often play a big part in someone's reaction to a film. You went in wide open in what I hear is Tarr's most difficult film. When do you see yourself watching another of his films? And any idea which one?


@1SO: Great! Eat the ugliest frog first or what they say? From now on it's all downhills. :)
I don't know what will be next tbh. I depends on what I lay my eyes on. Perhaps they have something at my library. I was lucky to see The Turin Horse in a theatre, which definitely added to the experience. As far as I understand it, it's the first time a Tarr movie gets theatrical distribution in Sweden.
http://thevelvetcafe.wordpress.com/  - where I think aloud about movies

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #18568 on: May 16, 2013, 12:38:07 AM »
Quote
By going the route they went I believe they commit the movie to being plot first and characters second.

I never saw it like this. Lethal Weapon is one of the few action films that is strong in both character and plot. (Die Hard and the first two Terminator films being other stellar examples.) After the "seemingly isolated incident" it takes a while before things come back around.
In the meantime we get scenes like the jumper and that brilliant bit afterwards where Murtaugh taunts Riggs and realizes that he's not faking. Except for a couple of scenes with Michael Hunsaker the bulk of the first 45 minutes is all about Murtaugh and Riggs and their strange working relationship.
Murtaugh's breakdown after he gets off the phone is very clear dishing out character to the audience, but Danny Glover's mumble delivery is hilarious.
The tip on Amanda's meal ticket is a dead end plot wise, but again it puts the characters into a situation and watches how the characters get out of it. ("See how easy that was. Boom, still alive.")
The entire dinner with Riggs at Murtaugh's house is all character and no plot, so again your comment seems strange to me. The movie doesn't "commit" and the plot doesn't kick back in until the target practice scene. (Which BTW may be the single greatest Target Range scene in cinema history. I also think the banter there is some of Shane Black's best.

As for the plot being uninteresting, well I could agree with you. These things always end with large amounts of drugs or money or guns. (And I think I just covered the first 3 LW movies.) However, it's an unfolding investigation. Things start small, then go bigger at Dixie's house, then circle back around. "I'm just getting started." This is where the action starts to crescendo. We got a small taste of something bigger - please tell me you enjoyed the bullet hole in the egg nog - that will climax in mayhem in the bars and streets of Los Angeles.

Lethal Weapon 2 is essential. (Besides, I notice in these big action spectacles you tend to favor the 2nd one. ;) ) It continues to develop Murtaugh and Riggs in a very interesting way. After that they just get TV sitcom silly and it becomes the Mel and Danny show.

Here's my Review for my Top 100 Marathon if you didn't want to hunt it down.

I keep coming back to your quote, because I understand where you're coming from about 98% of the time. Not here. In the action genre, I can't think of a script with stronger character development than Lethal Weapon. More than other Shane Black scripts, More than The Terminator films or The Matrix. Even more than Die Hard. The time spent entertainingly building up Riggs and Murtaugh is what puts this over the top for me.


MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17864
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Respond to the last movie you watched
« Reply #18569 on: May 16, 2013, 02:10:54 PM »

Bakomfilm smultronstället (The Shooting of Wild Strawberries) - Not much to say about this.  It's about 18 minutes of Bergman's own behind-the-scenes footage during the filming of Wild Strawberries.  I believe much of it appears in Stig Björkman's compilation of Bergman footage called Images from the Playground.  Narration was added by Jon Wengström of the Swedish Film Institute, providing some background information.  I don't think any of it is new to anyone familiar with the film's production, but he does identify some unfamiliar figures like the script girl, if you want to know that.  The most interesting thing is when it suddenly shifts to color.  Wild Strawberries wouldn't be the same without Gunnar Fischer's lovely black and white photography, but it is something of a revelation to see these gorgeous locations in color. 

This is one for Bergmanphile completists only, but I always get a bit of a kick out of seeing this kind of stuff.  Rating: Good (71)