Author Topic: Respond to the last movie you watched (Jan 2011 - Nov 2013)  (Read 2532739 times)

oneaprilday

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 13746
  • "What we see and what we seem are but a dream."
    • A Journal of Film
Re: Write about the last movie you watched
« Reply #6670 on: August 17, 2011, 11:10:46 AM »
A Streetcar Named Desire (Elia Kazan, 1951)
Nice write-up.  In the film, Blanche is a bit too good, too easy to pity from the beginning, I think - and it's a shame.

Thanks! I really struggled to like Blanche for the first half of the film really. I actually oddly found myself rooting for the apparent magnetic love of Stanley and Stella.
That's great to hear that the film was doing those things for you - that means it was actually accomplishing the kind of complexity that I think the play is aiming for.  I suppose it was just difficult for me to see that since I was comparing it to the amped up version of it in the play.   And yeah, the love between Stanley and Stella is supposed to be magnetic, I think (and I agree it is - such great chemistry between those two actors), and that makes it confusing because Stanley is so clearly abusive, too.

Jared

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3492
Re: Write about the last movie you watched
« Reply #6671 on: August 17, 2011, 11:19:27 AM »
2 or 3 Things I Know About Her
Not really sure why this one couldnt hook me in. I typically love Godard and this being considered one of his best I was pretty excited to watch it. I dont want to say I was lost, as that can be a good thing with some Godard stuff, but I wasnt engaged at all. Maybe Ill revisit in the future...Ive had decent luck on rewatches with him.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Write about the last movie you watched
« Reply #6672 on: August 17, 2011, 12:44:36 PM »
Spartan (2004)

Awesome.

Definitely designed for maximum first-viewing impact. The viewer is continually strung along with barely any information about what's going on, and any time we start to get a handle on the situation, some new plan is hatched, with all the details off-camera. This will exasperate some viewers, especially those slower on the uptake, since any information we do get is doled out quickly and not repeated. In order to enjoy this film, you have to be continually assessing everything that you see and hear and drawing inferences. I loved it.

This movie is all forward momentum. Mamet doesn't spend time on fleshing out characters with back-stories. In the face of these typically Mametian obstacles, Val Kilmer delivers a very solid performance. The film was definitely produced on a budget. It shows from time to time, and the quality of the cinematography, editing, and some minor acting performances aren't up to par. But that's not what we're here for, and so all is forgiven.

Utimately, I don't think the film has anything profound to say directly. That's not Mamet's goal. He's written in the past about how human nature is hard-wired to hunt and chase, and that a good story in the theater or cinema evokes the thrill of the hunt. I think Spartan is pretty good evidence that Mamet's on to something.

Well said, michael! The pacing reminds me of an episode of 24. From start to finish you feel the clock running. Add in the no bullshit dialogue, a great atmosphere and the solid story... I really love it too.

If you can remember I'd be interested to hear which specific instances you're refering to when you say the cinematography and editing show their budget. Overall I loved the intimate camera work and crisp editing. It's simple but clean and effective. A no nonsense style for a no nonsense film.  8) But then, it's been a year or so since last I saw it so I may be forgetting something.

The film IS 7 years old, perhaps in that time the style which I thought was so unique at first has now become commonplace and associated with lesser TV dramas, thus giving the film a cheaper vibe. I personally feel it far exceeds the standard and look and feel and achieves something all its own. There's a couple camera moves in particular that even now stand out in my mind as being remarkably slick.

I find it hard to think of films in the genre that even compare with Spartan in terms of style, pacing and intellect. Bourne is good but good for other reasons and not very closely related when you consider the story. Other films with more similar plots like The Sentinel, In the Line of Fire, Murder at 1600, Boiling Point and The Interpreter are SOOO flat by comparison, so boring, so stock, so DUMB!

Go Spartan! A film you don't have to make apologies for. :)
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 12:47:06 PM by smirnoff »

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Write about the last movie you watched
« Reply #6673 on: August 17, 2011, 12:53:15 PM »

For the longest time I thought this was an Alfred Hitchcock film. I don't know, he's just made so many great films, and often times they starred Jimmy Stewart, and this was about a murder, so I guess I kinda just sorta figured, but obviously I was wrong. No, it was instead directed by Otto Preminger, of whom I had not heard. Upon examination of his credits I found very few movies I had heard of, and none that I had seen, though he was nominated for 3 Academy Awards, including for producing, not directing, this picture. I have always loved Jimmy Stewart and I was happy to learn the film also starred a young George C. Scott. Score!

Paul Biegler (Stewart) is an attorney who hasn't had much work in small town Michigan after retiring from the District Attorney position. But when he returns from one of his many fishing trips his good friend and colleague Parnell Emmett McCarthy (Arthur O'Connell), who has taken up the bottle, urges him to take the case of Lt. Frederick Manion (Ben Gazzara), who stands accused of murdering a local businessman. Biegler is contacted by Manion's wife, Laura (Lee Remick), who claims she was raped by the man her husband killed and upon telling him, Lt. Manion went and murdered him. The case is tried and Biegler tries to get Manion off on a temporary insanity charge against the strong armed lawyering of the assistant state attorney general, Claude Dancer (George C. Scott).

I was immediately taken with the film because of one thing: Duke Ellington. It was much to my surprise to find that Ellington was responsible for the film's score, which starts off, and ultimately ends, with a stellar theme music coupled with the images of Biegler returning home from his fishing trip. From this scene I was excited to experience the film to this unique treat of a music score, yet I was ultimately let down, and maybe I put too much credence in Ellington, but then again he is considered by some to be America's greatest composer. But for the rest of the film the score only served as a minor atmospheric tool. Not bad, not great, though it did help provided he backdrop for jazz piano being a hobby of Biegler, a nice touch to add personality to the character.

And the character is so well portrayed by Stewart, who is always great in my opinion. The film is actually quite long, though it never really feels it as the courtroom drama is engulfed in tension and suspense, which often recalled Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird. But this film is clearly much different than that one, apart from the courtroom. It is entirely a psychological battle. There is no disputing that Lt. Manion did the killing, so it then becomes an argument of whether he is responsible for it, and watching Stewart's Biegler manipulate the court in his favor is fantastic. Equally impressive is the strong arming nature of George C. Scott, who like Stewart is simply fantastic to watch.

The court is clearly dramatized, and I have never witnessed even a petty real life case, yet the film felt authentic thanks to some really nice small touches implemented by the script and director, allowing the judge some personality. The actor who plays the judge, I cannot recall his name, is deserving of his humanizing portrayal as well. He plays it like a real judge who has seen plenty of cases. It came complete with nice twists and plenty of tension within the courtroom, leaving me on the edge of my seat and forgetting about the extended run time. I just wanted to figure out all the pieces of the puzzle. I was also quite impressed with Lee Remick, impressed both by her performance and her astounding beauty.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

michael x

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1207
Re: Write about the last movie you watched
« Reply #6674 on: August 17, 2011, 01:28:51 PM »
Well said, michael! The pacing reminds me of an episode of 24. From start to finish you feel the clock running. Add in the no bullshit dialogue, a great atmosphere and the solid story... I really love it too.

If you can remember I'd be interested to hear which specific instances you're refering to when you say the cinematography and editing show their budget. Overall I loved the intimate camera work and crisp editing. It's simple but clean and effective. A no nonsense style for a no nonsense film.  8) But then, it's been a year or so since last I saw it so I may be forgetting something.

The film IS 7 years old, perhaps in that time the style which I thought was so unique at first has now become commonplace and associated with lesser TV dramas, thus giving the film a cheaper vibe. I personally feel it far exceeds the standard and look and feel and achieves something all its own. There's a couple camera moves in particular that even now stand out in my mind as being remarkably slick.

Re the visuals: it was more of a general feeling that they were on a budget and that limited the creative possibilities. I honestly don't mind it (I am often very attracted to a director's earlier, lower-budget work [Memento, Blood Simple come immediately to mind]), but it does change the feel of the film. It's not so much a flaw as it is that the movie is lacking a lot of crazy crane shots and whatnot. Thinking about it now, it may just be a manifestation of Mamet's theatrical tendencies.

Quote
I find it hard to think of films in the genre that even compare with Spartan in terms of style, pacing and intellect. Bourne is good but good for other reasons and not very closely related when you consider the story. Other films with more similar plots like The Sentinel, In the Line of Fire, Murder at 1600, Boiling Point and The Interpreter are SOOO flat by comparison, so boring, so stock, so DUMB!

Go Spartan! A film you don't have to make apologies for. :)

So well said!

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Write about the last movie you watched
« Reply #6675 on: August 17, 2011, 02:12:10 PM »
it may just be a manifestation of Mamet's theatrical tendencies

I like that. It feels right :)

I wonder, given your predilection for director's earlier, lower-budget work, if you've seen NARC? It's Joe Carnahan's breakout film and it's a real stunner. It has a similar feel in may ways to Spartan but with a "bad cop" plot. It's intimate, has a no-fluff pace and it's smartly written (particularly in showing us the mechanics of an investigation). Where it differs is in being a bit more character-centric. It's also considerably grittier feeling (mostly because of where it takes place). It's still bizarre to me seeing the guy who made this go on to make Smoking Aces and The A-Team. Anyways, the connection between the two films isn't major, it's just that what you said that brought it to mind. Maybe worth checking out if it sounds interesting. I always highly recommend it.

AAAutin

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4186
Re: Write about the last movie you watched
« Reply #6676 on: August 17, 2011, 02:32:40 PM »
I've always thought of NARC as a spiritual successor to RUSH (though I like RUSH more).

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Write about the last movie you watched
« Reply #6677 on: August 17, 2011, 02:38:55 PM »
I've always thought of NARC as a spiritual successor to RUSH (though I like RUSH more).

I don't remember the specifics, but the intensity of it left an impression for sure.

zarodinu

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4538
  • What we've got here is failure to communicate
Re: Write about the last movie you watched
« Reply #6678 on: August 17, 2011, 02:56:55 PM »
Tabloid



The very strange tale of an Idaho beauty queen and the mormon she loved (and possibly raped).  Errol Morris has two central interests in all his films.  The first, is the completely different way that each individual percieves the world we all share, the way we all form narratives in our lives that often bear little resemblace to objective truth (if you believe in such a thing).  The other subject Morris explores is the way that ordinary people confront lifes great mysteries like life, death, and love.  In many ways the bubbly Joyce McKinney is as perfect a subject for Morris as Timothy Treadwell was for Herzog.  She is sharp, articulate, idealistic, and full of home spun wisdom, but is also a liar and more than a little delusional. 

Joyce was a beauty queen who by all accounts could have had any man she wanted, but fell in love with a Mormon missionary.  When his church and mother did not approve of the relationship, the missionary suddenly vanished from her life.  Joyce, not ready to give up her man, tracked him down to England, where according to her she tried to deprogram him with several days of passionate lovemaking, and according to him, she kidnapped, tied him up, and raped him repeatedly.  The truth seems to be somewhere inbetween, or maybe to the side.  Either way the story became a British tabloid sensation, and made Joyce an overnight sensation, with competing narratives showing her as either a saintly virgin who sacrificed herself for the man she loved, or a manipulative seductress who forced an innocent Mormon boy into sin. 

Morris loves to coax the audience into reaching a certain opinion of a documentary subject only to suddenly confront the audience with new and contradictory evidence.  Here he does this several times, and by the end of the movie you still feel like you have not fully understood what kind of person Joyce is.  For a talking head documentary it is pretty darn entertaining with alot of dry British humor from the sleazy tabloid reporters Morris interviews.  There is also a cute epilogue about clonning that seems to come completely out of the blue, but fans of Morris's Gates of Heaven will understand why he could not leave it on the editing room floor.

8/10
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.

StudentOFilm

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3778
Re: Write about the last movie you watched
« Reply #6679 on: August 17, 2011, 04:14:16 PM »
Rushmore- A fun movie, but it at least required from me a sense of disbelief. Max and Herman are both a little ridiculous and at times even exaggerated. I guess the world quirky comes to mind. Once you realize that you are dealing with two very eccentric individuals, the film becomes enjoyable. Anderson uses his unique style and these characters to show his take humanity and emotions in a very interesting light. I was so happy to watch this again.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 04:17:01 PM by StudentOFilm »
"Be yourself, unless you suck."- Joss Whedon

My Switchboard