Recently Seen

Discuss anything you want.
Post Reply
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 1626
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:15 am

Thanks for providing such a variety of suggestions! Looks like I'll have a lot to get to.
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 1626
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Tue Aug 13, 2019 4:16 am

On a side note, did you get to Sansho the Bailiff yet? If so, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it.
User avatar
Macrology
Posts: 4233
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:54 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Macrology » Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:52 am

Some of those might be hard to track down, but others are pretty readily available. If you need help finding any, I'm happy to share or at least point you in the right direction.

I haven't watch Sansho yet, and I'm taking a month off in a week to travel Eastern Europe, so it'll be a while before I get around to it. But once I do, I'll be sure to share my thoughts.
Ma`crol´o`gy
n. 1. Long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words.
User avatar
Popcorn Reviews
Posts: 1626
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:22 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Popcorn Reviews » Tue Aug 13, 2019 6:07 am

Okay, will do. Thanks. Also, enjoy your Europe trip!
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 1844
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Thief » Tue Aug 13, 2019 12:54 pm

Popcorn Reviews wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 10:41 pm
In other news, I saw The Bridge on the River Kwai recently and it's currently the best film I've seen this year for the first time. It's now in my top 15 favorite films of all time. It further cements 1957 as my favorite year for movies of the 50's. It has a phenomenal line-up of films such as 12 Angry Men, Wild Strawberries, Throne of Blood, and Paths of Glory (another one of my all-time favorites).
This is such a great film; a wonderful examination of life and purpose.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Shieldmaiden
Posts: 7560
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Shieldmaiden » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:14 pm

Macrology wrote: H is for House (Greenaway)
Cat Soup
How could I have forgotten Cat Soup?! And Peter Greenaway! A Walk through H is one of my favorites.
User avatar
Macrology
Posts: 4233
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:54 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Macrology » Tue Aug 13, 2019 5:45 pm

Shieldmaiden wrote:
Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:14 pm
How could I have forgotten Cat Soup?! And Peter Greenaway! A Walk through H is one of my favorites.
Actually, I meant A Walk Through H, although H is for House isn't bad. Vertical Features Remake is also pretty fun in its very particular way.
Ma`crol´o`gy
n. 1. Long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words.
User avatar
Shieldmaiden
Posts: 7560
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Shieldmaiden » Tue Aug 13, 2019 7:07 pm

Macrology wrote: Actually, I meant A Walk Through H, although H is for House isn't bad.
Ha! :)
Vertical Features Remake is also pretty fun in its very particular way.
Yeah, but it feels longer than its 45 minutes. And I like it!
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2219
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:15 pm

A Canterbury Tale

This was one of those films that, because of some of the "of its time" elements, just really frustrated me. It's a shame, because the film had a lot of great things going for it.

Three people arrive in a small village: a US soldier, a British soldier, and a young woman. The soldiers are instructed to make their way to the town hall and to escort the woman, Allison, there because it is after dark. As they are walking through town, a man rushes past them and douses Allison's head in glue. Upset by the incident, and learning that many other women have been attacked by the mysterious "glue man", Allison decides to investigate with the help of the two soldiers.

The film is split, in my mind, into two parts. There's the procedural element to it as the three gather clues and narrow down the identity of the attacker--but that's not really the heart of the movie (especially as it's never much of a secret who is behind the attacks). The real heart of the film is in how the three people find themselves reflecting on their lives, on their pasts, and on their uncertain futures, all while taking in the incredibly rural and rustic setting of the small village.

On this score, I quite liked what the movie did. There was a tranquility and a sense of space to the way that it let the characters mull over their situations and bond with each other. There's always a bittersweet edge as they discuss the past and what they've lost, and that is matched with the uncertainty of the future as the World War rages on with no definite end in sight.

The "glue man" plot, though, and specifically its resolution really rubbed me the wrong way. The group discovers that (moderate spoiler)
a local leader is the one who has been attacking girls. And he's been doing it because they were going out with soldiers and thus keeping the soldiers from attending his lectures on local history and nature. Oh, and also because they have boyfriends who are away at war, and so he's punishing them for being slutty.

Barf.

But the worst part is listening to the group be like "Well, his heart was in the right place", all on the road to just deciding to forget about it and not report him to the police.

This man has been terrorizing women--never the men they were out with--and it's okay because, you know, he meant well. When he apologizes for attacking Allison, it's pretty explicit that he's only sorry because he mistook what she was doing in the company of the soldiers. He has no remorse for any fear/humiliation/inconvenience/pain that he caused the victims of his attacks.

Presenting the perpetrator of gender-based, sex-shaming violence as just a good guy was so tremendously off-putting to me.And there's absolutely zero indication that he intends to stop his attacks as the group of three just totally lets him off the hook.
There's a lot of good stuff here, but that one glaringly bad element took it down a huge notch for me.
User avatar
Macrology
Posts: 4233
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:54 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Macrology » Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:23 am

A Canterbury Tale is a film that's very dear to me, so I'm sorry to hear that. I can't really comment on the glue man plot with any real clarity, because it's been over two years since I've seen the film, but one thing to keep in mind is not only the sexual politics of the time, but the sexual politics of wartime. Consider, for instance, what happened to French women who dallied with German soldiers during WWII. They didn't publicly humiliate them for their sexual habits; they humiliated them for being traitors. Obviously this film doesn't go as far as that, and it isn't suggesting that the girls are traitors -- only that they're undermining the war effort in some small way. I'd also say he comes out looking very much like a fool when they discover he did it, and it seems to me that the film (which, you have to understand, is partly a wartime propaganda film, in its own bizarre way) is gently chiding both the people who would behave frivolously during wartime and those who would punish those people too harshly. After all, several characters spend a good deal of the film getting to the bottom of the matter, and I don't think there's anything that suggests he's going to go on doing it now that he's been exposed.

That's not to defend the film's conclusions, just trying to elaborate on some contextual considerations. I posted my own thoughts about the film in this post after I first watched it. My own thoughts are pretty brief, but I highly recommend checking out the appreciations by various critics that I linked in the post. They really elevated my love for the film.
Ma`crol´o`gy
n. 1. Long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25251
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Stu » Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:28 am

Late response here, but regarding the earlier points made in here made about Once Upon A Time In Hollywood and the sub-plot about whether or not
Cliff killed his wife,
I'm currently engaged in a debate over at Match Cut on this point, so I figured I'd repost my half of the discussion here so as to not deprive my favorite forum of some meaty film talk:
But the notion that that aspect of the film was intended to be taken as ambiguous on the whole is itself a projection based off of what is, at best, a 10% ambiguity (and even going that high is being generous), which is far, far outweighed by all of the indicators I listed both inside and outside of that scene that show QT indicating otherwise, a couple of which I didn't even have the space to list earlier, such as Cliff mentioning that he already did time on a chain gang for an earlier offense, or the fact that he didn't even bother to verbally defend himself at all when he was being called a "wife-killer" (in fact, he just looked away in exasperation, which is much more the reaction of a guilty man being publically embarassed with the truth, rather than that of an innocent man's outrage at an outrageous false accusation).

I'm not expecting the film to go into an O.J.: Made in America-length tangent about the facts of that "case", but the beliefs of the three outside parties that Cliff murdered her, based off of whatever facts they're personally aware of in the film's universe, serve as a cinematic shorthand for what QT's intentions with that sub-plot were, and the primary reason he cut away from showing what happened wasn't to be ambiguous, it was because he was more than clear enough about what probably happened on that boat, and he trusts our intelligence enough that he knows he doesn't actually have to show what happened. The choice not to do so does indeed suggest something deeper, but it's because unnecessarily including a violent moment that early in the film would clash with the relatively restrained content he was going for (as he was smartly saving most of the bloodshed up for the climax), and not because he was trying to build up some sort of mystery there.

At the end of the day, there's barely any more evidence for that reading of that element of Hollywood then there is for the Bruce Lee fight just being a fantasy, and saying it's ambiguous is like saying it was ambiguous in Death Proof whether or not Lee was about to be sexually assaulted by the mechanic after her friends abandoned her (after lying to him that she was a porn star); he didn't show the result of that scene to be ambiguous, he did it because he already made it clear what the end result of that scenario was going to end up being, just like he made it pretty damn clear what likely happened between Cliff & his wife.
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25251
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Stu » Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:58 am

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:33 pm
also Schindler's List is fine (assuming you get down with the Spielberg brand (and if I'm gonna watch one of his movies then I gotta be ready to get on that level)) but I have the unfortunate memory of watching it in a grade-wide assembly in 9th grade and everybody laughed so loud and got so rambunctious at the nude parade scene that they had to shut it off (plus some wolf-whistling when they showed Ralph Fiennes's lady friend's boobs beforehand).

kids in large groups are assholes, don't let anyone convince you otherwise. (me? I preferred to be an asshole on my own so at least all the attention was on me, nyah
That sounds absolutely awful; me, I was fortunate enough to have already seen it before I had to watch it again for my Holocaust Studies class in college, although fortunately, everyone in the room was perfectly respectable the entire time, but of course, it still just wasn't as intimate an experience as it should've been, so I have to imagine a 2nd watch on your own would make it go much better for you (I still need to watch Amadeus again, seeing as how the only time I did so was back in music class in 2006). As for the Spielberg brand comment, List does predictably have a certain amount of the sentimentality that he's gotten criticism for over his career, but I think it actually works really well in List, because, like Captain Miller said to Private Ryan, both of those films "earn" their occasionally heavy sentiment by otherwise running us through such a raw, visceral wringer of experiences that, when they engage in the sort of overt emotionality that would feel syrupy and manipulative otherwise, it instead serves as the sort of extreme emotional catharsis that we need to make those works feel balanced and ultimately complete, and I can't imagine them working better any other way.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1562
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:00 am

oh yeah, it's definitely a "watch alone" kind of movie anyway. though I guess overall my feeling was "that was a well-made movie" and not any feeling of being put through the emotional wringer. I've just seen so many WWII movies. so maybe I'll watch it again, who knows.

I'll bet this wouldn't have happened if we watched Shoah
User avatar
Stu
Posts: 25251
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:49 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Stu » Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:17 am

Oxnard Montalvo wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:00 am
oh yeah, it's definitely a "watch alone" kind of movie anyway. though I guess overall my feeling was "that was a well-made movie" and not any feeling of being put through the emotional wringer. I've just seen so many WWII movies. so maybe I'll watch it again, who knows.
I respect that, but again, I can't imagine how much worse it would've played out seeing it for the first time with such a disrespectful audience (and how much better it would've been on your own), just like I can't imagine myself not having an incredibly visceral, emotional reaction to the climax of the film, or to scenes like this:
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2219
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:09 pm

Macrology wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 4:23 am
A Canterbury Tale is a film that's very dear to me, so I'm sorry to hear that. I can't really comment on the glue man plot with any real clarity, because it's been over two years since I've seen the film, but one thing to keep in mind is not only the sexual politics of the time, but the sexual politics of wartime. Consider, for instance, what happened to French women who dallied with German soldiers during WWII. They didn't publicly humiliate them for their sexual habits; they humiliated them for being traitors. Obviously this film doesn't go as far as that, and it isn't suggesting that the girls are traitors -- only that they're undermining the war effort in some small way. I'd also say he comes out looking very much like a fool when they discover he did it, and it seems to me that the film (which, you have to understand, is partly a wartime propaganda film, in its own bizarre way) is gently chiding both the people who would behave frivolously during wartime and those who would punish those people too harshly. After all, several characters spend a good deal of the film getting to the bottom of the matter, and I don't think there's anything that suggests he's going to go on doing it now that he's been exposed.
I felt (and still strongly feel after having read more about the film), that the whole character of the "Glue Man" and the way he is regarded by the three protagonists in the end really sour the film for me.

When we first meet the character, he refers to a ducking stool as something "very sensibly used for silencing talkative women". He keeps it displayed in his office. A torture device used to shame (and--oops!--sometimes drown) women.

I think that the root of my problem connect to this quote: It was Emeric Pressburger who came up with the idea of the pouring of glue into girls’ hair, and it is a magnificent and mysterious conceit, both harmless (the glue comes out) and profoundly invasive, humorous in its oddity and very ambiguous. There is perverse sexuality in the act, as though the glue man were all but ejaculating into the girls’ hair, an act full of both misogyny and desire..

First, I slightly disagree with the use of the words "harmless" and "humorous". Maybe it's just because I've read a few too many stories about acid attacks. But the idea of someone pouring a substance on you at night for no reason makes me feel kind of sick. I struggle to imagine myself or any woman I know finding anything even remotely funny about it.

But I even take offense at the idea that the women are "undermining the war effort". The character himself states that the reason he attacks the women is that they were "distracting" the soldiers. Not from their wartime duties, but from going to his lectures. I have zero, ZERO empathy for a middle aged white man who is angry that young men didn't want to come listen to his history lectures, and thus punishes not the men themselves (he openly admits that women were not invited to the lectures) but the women they are hanging out with. It's like if a friend of yours got a new girlfriend and hung out with you less and so you went and slashed HER tires.

It's so, so petty and so, so gross.

And typing this out has made me realize what my real problem is: just the film's (and the characters') ability to forget about the dozen women he victimized.

An acquaintance of mine told a story a while back: she was at a party and there was a man who had been trying to flirt with her. She had politely disengaged and moved away from him several times. Finally, he came up to her and forcefully put his hand on her shoulder. The bonus? He'd been eating chicken wings, and so he left a large handprint of grease on her shirt. So she had to go through the rest of the party with his handprint on her, hoping that when she got home she'd be able to scrub the stain out. And the worst part, she said, was knowing that while she'd felt angry and violated, he probably wouldn't even remember that it had happened.

I don't mind the notion that this character is so taken and so fanatical about the pastoral life and the deep, rich history of a place that he would go to extremes to make others aware and protect it. I think that there's a nice echo of that when Allison gets to Canterbury and has to admit that things have changed and she's lost her bearings.

What bothers me is the idea that forgiveness for his crimes was something that people other than the victims had the right to give. That ultimately it's a male soldier deciding whether or not this man should be held accountable for what he did to a dozen women. The film seems to suggest that he was wrong for ignoring the women of the village, and yet the film itself does the same thing in the last act.

It's frustrating because aside from that element, this is an A+ film. It does so many different things with its characters and its setting. It manages to feel like it's telling both a specific story and a "legend" related to the Pilgrim road. It defies conventional narrative expectations of friendship, romance, and "being a man". But that scene on the train where they're deciding, hey, he meant well? That still makes me want to punch a wall.
User avatar
Patrick McGroin
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:01 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Patrick McGroin » Thu Aug 15, 2019 2:21 pm

Black 47 - 7.5/10 - One of those movies that end up drawing you in even though you don't know the first thing about the historical events surrounding it. The landscape and the cinematography were enough to catch my eye and the setting (Ireland during the Great Famine) and recognizable cast (Hugo Weaving, James Frechette) kept me watching. An Irish Ranger abandons his post abroad and ventures home only to find tragedy and widespread suffering as the result of famine. It quickly turns into a biblical level tale of revenge with Weaving being coerced into hunting his former subordinate down. Frechette does a very good job as the Ranger Feeney and I scarcely recognized him from Animal Kingdom and The Drop. Barry Keoghan, Stephen Rea and Jim Broadbent round out the solid cast.
My heart is still and awaits its hour.
User avatar
Macrology
Posts: 4233
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:54 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Macrology » Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:41 pm

Those are all totally valid criticisms (although I'd say putting glue in someone's hair is a far, far cry from an acid attack). My war effort point may not hold true - as I said, my recollection of some aspects are spotty, and reading about it again, it seems the glue man's motivations fall pretty far from that.

But for all that, those scenes just didn't leave that kind of impression on me; his behavior struck me as being more petty and self-serving than grotesque or sexually motivated. The fact that he's targeting the women (rather than soldiers, who would certainly retaliate) only heightens that sense of pettiness. I'll definitely keep this in mind upon a rewatch, but based on my recollection, the film roundly condemns the behavior even if the characters themselves choose not to report the man to officials. For better or worse, there's a gentleness that pervades the film that extends even to him, and my thoughts on the matter run roughly parallel to von Bagh's in his Criterion essay.
Ma`crol´o`gy
n. 1. Long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2219
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Thu Aug 15, 2019 6:18 pm

Macrology wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:41 pm
Those are all totally valid criticisms (although I'd say putting glue in someone's hair is a far, far cry from an acid attack).
I'm not trying to equate them, but just to point out that if you had an unknown substance poured or thrown at you by a stranger, thinking about the moment of panic and uncertainty before realizing it was "just" glue. It's a physical assault and I don't like a tone (from the film or from people writing about it) that likens it more to a prank.
But for all that, those scenes just didn't leave that kind of impression on me; his behavior struck me as being more petty and self-serving than grotesque or sexually motivated. The fact that he's targeting the women (rather than soldiers, who would certainly retaliate) only heightens that sense of pettiness. I'll definitely keep this in mind upon a rewatch, but based on my recollection, the film roundly condemns the behavior even if the characters themselves choose not to report the man to officials. For better or worse, there's a gentleness that pervades the film that extends even to him, and my thoughts on the matter run roughly parallel to von Bagh's in his Criterion essay.
It is petty, and the film knows it's petty. But that doesn't stop the film from extending a sympathy to him that I just didn't feel was warranted, especially since he gets ample screen time to talk about his grievances and justify them, while the victims of his attacks are given basically zero.

I think that extending "gentleness" to him is kind of creepy. This is a man who is using physical attacks to control the behavior of the women of the village---to make them too scared to go out at night, even in the company of others. He makes a moral judgement about how people should be living and then uses fear and physical abuse to force them into compliance.

And the lack of attacking the soldiers makes no sense to me. He attacks Allison while she is in the company of two men. Are we to assume that a man who is attacked will pursue justice, but if a man stands there and watches a woman be attacked he will do nothing? That speaks incredibly poorly of the soldiers, doesn't it?

Finally, the idea that if men can't go out with women they will happily file into history lectures is so dumb. As if they wouldn't go find a pub, or play cards, or . . . do anything but go to a history lecture.

Frankly, a lot of the elements of this story are swirling around in my head with contemporary gender-based garbage. This man is a judge! He's happily victimizing women and then going to sit on the bench and pass down decisions.

I understand the essay's argument that here is a sad man trying to stop the flow of time, trying to preserve a lifestyle that cannot resist the pull of change and modernization. Yes, the film sees that he is sad and petty and going about things in the totally wrong way.

But never once are we privy to the thoughts of a village woman whose boyfriend is away at war. Never does the film take the time to really tell us the "whole story" of the dynamics in this place. Why include his remarks on "silencing women" if we aren't to understand a strong gender-bent to his actions? Part of his nostalgia, let's not forget, is for a time when women would be chained to a chair, paraded around town, and tortured (sometimes fatally) by water immersion for acting "improperly". There's something really perverse about that dynamic being part of what he longs for from the past, and the film never addresses it. All of his regret about his actions is that they didn't work--not for the fear or humiliation he caused his victims. He stayed self-centered until the very end, and, frustratingly, he is totally enabled in this world view by the three main characters.

I just think that the subplot's resolution is mishandled. As he learns about Allison's affection for the land, there's the stirring of an idea that women could be allies in this fight to preserve and appreciate the land, but that gets totally dropped the minute they get on that train. I'm fine with the overall themes, and I love the story of the three protagonists. But whoever decided that a woman who had been attacked would be totally cool with hanging out in an isolated field with her attacker can take several seats.
User avatar
Charles
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:54 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Charles » Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:16 pm

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (C)

I guess they're notable in the domain of kids stories, but this is just about the stock-est excuse to string along a series of unrelated, largely unmemorable horror stories you can find.
User avatar
Macrology
Posts: 4233
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:54 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Macrology » Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:38 pm

I think most of your objections are warranted, although it feels like you're overstating the silence of the victims (since Alison is one of his victims and she gets a pretty significant say in the matter) and I wouldn't put quite so much stress on the severity of his actions (I draw a sharp, hard line between that which is momentarily upsetting and that which is physically and maybe permanently harmful).

Unfortunately I don't feel like I can really discuss this in greater depth without rewatching the film first. (And I won't have the chance to do that anytime soon, since I'm leaving for Europe in less than a week.)
Ma`crol´o`gy
n. 1. Long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 1876
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:47 pm

Charles wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:16 pm
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (C)

I guess they're notable in the domain of kids stories, but this is just about the stock-est excuse to string along a series of unrelated, largely unmemorable horror stories you can find.
I enjoyed it despite recognizing that it was slight. It was essentially a reworking of Paranorman for live action with creatures from the books. It works most of the time though it certainly has clunk and doesn't escape being derivative.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2219
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:49 pm

Macrology wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:38 pm
I think most of your objections are warranted, although it feels like you're overstating the silence of the victims (since Alison is one of his victims and she gets a pretty significant say in the matter) and I wouldn't put quite so much stress on the severity of his actions (I draw a sharp, hard line between that which is momentarily upsetting and that which is physically and maybe permanently harmful).

Unfortunately I don't feel like I can really discuss this in greater depth without rewatching the film first. (And I won't have the chance to do that anytime soon, since I'm leaving for Europe in less than a week.)
That's fine.

I know that Allison is a victim, but she's not a resident of the village the way that the other victims are. She's not as beholden to the power structure of the village (of which her attacker is a prominent member).

And I'll just push back a little on the idea that what he did to those women was only "momentarily upsetting". The many (many) friends I know who have been touched or groped by men in public were not physically harmed. But the effects of such an act linger and become a part of how you see the world, your own safety, and the value that other people put on you (based on how they react to you being attacked).

Imagine having someone pour glue or dye on your head. Like, really imagine it. Then imagine that you live in the same small town as this person and he has not been caught. I think that the effects of your attack would be more than momentary in their duration. In fact, the whole point of the attacks was meant to be more than momentary--they were meant to effect long-lasting change on the attacked women and to intimidate other women into similar compliance.
User avatar
Macrology
Posts: 4233
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:54 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Macrology » Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:49 pm

My "momentarily upsetting" point was primarily in response to your comment about the "moment of panic and uncertainty before realizing" what the substance was. Certainly the effects are more insidious, since the girls consequently avoid leaving the house at night.

I would not, however, compare the repercussions to sexual assault; his actions are not sexual or even sexually motivated. True, as indicated in the article you quoted earlier, there is a suggestiveness to the glue that lends the act an uncanny quality, and I think it's meant to draw attention to the misogyny behind it. But that is still quite distinct from actual sexually invasive behavior.

His behavior is indisputably shameful, and your desire to see him suffer some comeuppance is absolutely justified. But what can I say? I'm far more intrigued by the ambivalent and almost paradoxical perspective that Tracz espouses in her Senses of Cinema article.
Ma`crol´o`gy
n. 1. Long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words.
User avatar
Wooley
Posts: 2514
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Wooley » Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:54 pm

Charles wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 7:16 pm
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (C)

I guess they're notable in the domain of kids stories, but this is just about the stock-est excuse to string along a series of unrelated, largely unmemorable horror stories you can find.
Oh, I thought Del Toro was actually DIRECTING or even WRITING/DIRECTING this. Fooled me.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 1876
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Thu Aug 15, 2019 10:07 pm

Wooley wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:54 pm
Oh, I thought Del Toro was actually DIRECTING or even WRITING/DIRECTING this. Fooled me.
He did the story and produced. It is, however, directed by Ovredal, who did Trollhunter and The Autopsy of Jane Doe. It falls below the former and above the latter in my book.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2219
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Thu Aug 15, 2019 11:06 pm

Macrology wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 8:49 pm
I would not, however, compare the repercussions to sexual assault; his actions are not sexual or even sexually motivated. True, as indicated in the article you quoted earlier, there is a suggestiveness to the glue that lends the act an uncanny quality, and I think it's meant to draw attention to the misogyny behind it. But that is still quite distinct from actual sexually invasive behavior.
The assault doesn't have to be sexual or sexually motivated (and, for the record, I think he's a sexist creep and that his violence is gender based but is not necessarily sexually motivated) for it to have similar repercussions. I compare it to groping/touching because those are the most common assaults perpetrated against the women I know, but it's still a violation of physical space. Sexual or sexually-based assaults are upsetting because of both the physical act of it and the motivation behind it. In the case of the glue man, from the point of view of the victims the motive is unknown, and it is a violating act. Look, on the milder end of things I have encountered, a man at a club once swiftly approached me, saying I had "something on my shirt" and reaching for my chest with two hands. I physically threw a male friend between us and the guy backed off (friend later confirmed that, no, there was nothing on my shirt). I'm more upset at the idea of someone pouring glue on my hair than the actual groping attempt I narrowly avoided. Having glue poured on you is physically invasive, it is violating, and unlike an unwanted touch, it leaves behind a physical contamination that must be washed away over and over with hot water.
His behavior is indisputably shameful, and your desire to see him suffer some comeuppance is absolutely justified. But what can I say? I'm far more intrigued by the ambivalent and almost paradoxical perspective that Tracz espouses in her Senses of Cinema article.
I don't need him to be punished, per se. I'm even fine with the film having some sympathy for his motivations (if not for his cruel way of trying to achieve them). But he never apologizes, or even seems to feel bad for what he's done to all those women. He sort of apologizes to Allison, but that apology is more like "Sorry I mistook you for a slutty whore," not "Sorry for the creepy thing I did."

Is punishing women for misbehavior by humiliating them and making them fearful part of the "old ways"? Can the old way of life endure without the need for fear and oppression?

The film has both a micro (the lives of the three protagonists) and macro (the changing state of the country and way of life) interest. Culpepper is at the heart of the latter, and I just don't buy his arc in the final act. Tracz claims "His penance has been done," and I simply disagree. In what way? By facilitating the "miracles" for the other characters? Again, this to me comes back to the idea that those he harmed, the dozen or so women over whom he still has power, have not been apologized to or "made whole" in any way. And I also disagree with the assertion that "there is no romance in this film." That makes me think, did we watch the same movie?! I thought that the film was deeply romantic, exploring the connections between people, time, and place. What are those final miracles if not romantic?
Her fiance is alive! His girlfriend still loves him! His hands make music that fill a cathedral!
Frankly, the attacks are too visceral for me to be okay with them being gently washed over by the mystery and other-worldliness of the rest of the film. The more I think back on the film (and the more I read about it), the more I love the non-glue parts and the more I hate that specific part of the conclusion--to the point where those elements of the film are separating in my head like oil and water.
User avatar
Charles
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:54 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Charles » Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:33 pm

The Autopsy of Jane Dow, 2016 (D)

It starts as a perfectly original, competently made, slow burn horror movie where all the horror is suggested, but then it went there. It went where every other horror movie went and it stayed there and never came back.
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2219
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:42 pm

Charles wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:33 pm
The Autopsy of Jane Dow, 2016 (D)

It starts as a perfectly original, competently made, slow burn horror movie where all the horror is suggested, but then it went there. It went where every other horror movie went and it stayed there and never came back.
Really? I would strongly, strongly disagree.

While I was not a huge fan of the direction things went in the final act, I thought that it was anchored by strong performances from the two leads, that the central premise was horrifying, and that the "evolution" of the understanding of what had happened was pretty great. And I thought that the portrayal of the autopsy itself walked a fine line between delicacy and gruesome nastiness--the contradiction of how you can respectfully do something that is inherently incredibly intrusive.

I'd probably give it a B, while wishing that it had gone a different direction in the final act.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1562
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:28 pm

on Tarantino and Bruce Lee: I wouldn’t be surprised if the portrayal of Bruce had less to do with any deep-ingrained white superiority on Tarantino’s part and more his own belief that all the Bruce Lee/kung-fu homages in his other stuff meant he had enough clout to make a joke of Bruce’s legacy. like a “I wrote this great part for Sam Jackson in Pulp Fiction so it’s probably ok if I say the gamer word to his face” sort of thing.

I know a more mature filmmaker would have been more sensitive to the optics of something like that, I also have never expected Tarantino to be that sort of mature filmmaker either.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2748
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:44 pm

I've never seen any indication that the real Bruce Lee would ever strut around bragging about all of the ass he could kick. I'm sure that this is Tarantino's juvenile fantasy of badass Bruce Lee, but I understand why Lee's fans and family are upset by this. It has nothing to do with "who would win", but the question with whether Lee was the kind of asshole to go around picking random fights in the first place. There's no anecdotal evidence for it.

Tarantino is not making himself look any more mature by fabricating anecdotal evidence by misquoting Lee's widow book. Or worse, "I heard him say things like that, to that effect." Oh, really? He told you that himself, huh Q?

I agree with with Lee's daughter that Tarantino just needs to shut the fuck up about it and write it off as his own childish invention.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 1876
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Sat Aug 17, 2019 4:53 pm

There is ancedotal evidence that young Bruce was a hot head, Lee's widow's book used the quote in the context for providing evidence for how clearly great Bruce was and followed with the braggadocios video where he talks about how he'll have to slow down for the cameras, and he had a strained relationship with American stuntmen because of his superior fighting skills.

The only reason anyone has a problem is that Tarantino didn't uphold the mythology of Bruce Lee and have him cream Cliff. If the fight had ended with that first kick, no one would say shit but he took a shot at humbling a legend and of course his family, including the daughter that was 4 when he died but is currently making a show that banks on that legend, are going to be sensitive about it.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2748
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:01 pm

To repeat: this is not about "who would win".

Bruce Lee did not go around bragging about being able to kick everyone's ass. He never claimed to be able to defeat Ali (quite the opposite), and Tarantino got caught with poor reading comprehension trying to defend it because the real Bruce Lee doesn't live up to his fantasy of how a badass asskicker should act.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 1876
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:08 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:01 pm
To repeat: this is not about "who would win".

Bruce Lee did not go around bragging about being able to kick everyone's ass. He never claimed to be able to defeat Ali (quite the opposite), and Tarantino got caught with poor reading comprehension trying to defend it because the real Bruce Lee doesn't live up to his fantasy of how a badass asskicker should act.
And I'm betting that if Bruce Lee creamed him, they would have forgiven every single other possible criticism.

Walter Chaw wrote a great piece that expresses virtually everything I could about it:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vultur ... ywood.html
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2748
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:00 pm

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:08 pm
And I'm betting that if Bruce Lee creamed him, they would have forgiven every single other possible criticism.
I find this an odd wager, since the fight ended in stalemate. But all I can do is assure you that my concern, which apparently echoes that of his daughter, is to how the character of Bruce Lee is misrepresented, which stands regardless of the fight's outcome.


ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:08 pm
Walter Chaw wrote a great piece that expresses virtually everything I could about it:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vultur ... ywood.html
Well, at least Chow acknowledges the "inaccuracy" of Lee's claim about Ali, which is kinda the point. I wonder how difficult it would have been to look that tidbit up between script drafts. Would it have been harder than misremembering his widow's biography? Basically, is there an excuse for this laziness?

Tarantino has seemed especially entitled in his career to excuse himself from these kinds of details. Like his flubbing the tradition of the North Star in Django, oblivious to historical facts in service of a throwaway punchline, I suspect that he can't be bothered to do the shallowest of research on his films. I'm sure his intended revisions give him some license here, but even Basterds had a couple of strange minor inaccuracies which seemed less intended than ignorant.

I'm familiar enough with Tarantino to know what his dissembling looks like.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 1876
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:19 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:00 pm
I find this an odd wager, since the fight ended in stalemate. But all I can do is assure you that my concern, which apparently echoes that of his daughter, is to how the character of Bruce Lee is misrepresented, which stands regardless of the fight's outcome.





Well, at least Chow acknowledges the "inaccuracy" of Lee's claim about Ali, which is kinda the point. I wonder how difficult it would have been to look that tidbit up between script drafts. Would it have been harder than misremembering his widow's biography? Basically, is there an excuse for this laziness?

Tarantino has seemed especially entitled in his career to excuse himself from these kinds of details. Like his flubbing the tradition of the North Star in Django, oblivious to historical facts in service of a throwaway punchline, I suspect that he can't be bothered to do the shallowest of research on his films. I'm sure his intended revisions give him some license here, but even Basterds had a couple of strange minor inaccuracies which seemed less intended than ignorant.

I'm familiar enough with Tarantino to know what his dissembling looks like.
The accusations of Lee being a "blowhard" and "arrogant" are predicated by that he didn't back up his claims. Had he creamed Cliff, people would not have said a damn thing.

I've been reading this argument online since it's come out and it's usually coming from a few, heterogeneous yet overlapping places:

1) Lee seems like a racist caricature with his vernacular and exaggerated yahs. This is codified by him not being able to trounce a white man.

2) He got "yeeted" (for some reason this has been the common word across Reddit and twitter) into a car and thus outsmarted.

3) He was a braggart. The specifics of this bragging come into play but are not nearly universal in application.

Most of the time, I see it phrased as "Lee got his ass kicked by a white guy showing that he was a blowhard. What an insult to his legacy!

The problem is that 1) That was Lee's vernacular and every fight he ever filmed displays the yahs. 2) It IS a stalemate and it's his white observers that minimize Lee's ability in the fight and frame it as Lee getting beaten up (showing the inequality that he faced) and 3) He was a braggart and a hot head. Those specific words may not have come out of his mouth but the point remains and it's something often neglected by fans and accolytes.

At the end of the day, we're talking about a martial artiat that never competed and touted himself as the front most authority and ambassador on martial arts. When he wrote and directed himself in Way of the Dragon, he cast himself as a man beautiful Italian women would drop their clothes in front of and was capable of beating the shit and killing the 6 time world Karate Champion and if you didn't know Norris held those ranks, he included those ranks in the credits so you'd know whose ass he was kicking!

Do I think the "real" Lee necessarily believed he was the greatest fighter on the planet? No. May he have talked about not being able to beat Ali in private conversations? Sure. Did he make damn sure to put forth the image that he was the best of the best and consistently talked about how amazing he was at martial arts despite not demonstrating that against trained martial artists in competition? Absolutely.
User avatar
Oxnard Montalvo
Posts: 1562
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:27 am
Location: parents' basement

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Oxnard Montalvo » Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:58 pm

I know that regardless it can all be hand-waved away with "it's just historical fantasy" (same with any inaccuracies in Django and Basterds) so I wouldn't use the character in OUaTiH to texture any feelings I have on the real Bruce Lee. I just don't know if this is a matter of whether Tarantino is "allowed to" mess around with the legacy of someone who made efforts to dismantle Asian stereotypes. and at the risk of grinding some SJW axe, yeah I can see how that would rub others harder than it did me. I get why it's way different than if he portrayed Burt Reynolds as some cocky asshole.

might be a discussion whether Tarantino has an obligation to how this stuff is received by a wider audience (what some would call "political correctness") or to his own artistic impulses. not just the Bruce thing put tons of other Tarantino stuff.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2748
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:11 pm

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:19 pm
The accusations of Lee being a "blowhard" and "arrogant" are predicated by that he didn't back up his claims. Had he creamed Cliff, people would not have said a damn thing.
Speaking for myself, had Lee "creamed" Cliff, then I would still have the impression that Tarantino was using him as an action figure fantasy of what he presumes a badass to be, and would have recognized that this is not who Bruce Lee was.


ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:19 pm
3) He was a braggart. The specifics of this bragging come into play but are not nearly universal in application.
The specifics matter when they are easily confirmed. Tarantino wanted Lee to specifically claim to "cripple" Ali when Lee specifically did not. It's a perversion of his character, not a film character, but as a person.


ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:19 pm
May he have talked about not being able to beat Ali in private conversations? Sure.
But beyond that, Lee considered Ali "the greatest fighter of them all". That's not idle whispering. I find the insights of Dan Inosanto an interesting counterpoint to Tarantino's portrayal: "he never saw the San Francisco-born, Hong Kong-raised actor being braggadocious or engaging in scraps for the sake of showing off"; "was never, in my opinion, cocky".

Tarantino, however, is clucking.
User avatar
Charles
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 2:54 am

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Charles » Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:37 pm

Takoma1 wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:42 pm
Really? I would strongly, strongly disagree.

While I was not a huge fan of the direction things went in the final act, I thought that it was anchored by strong performances from the two leads, that the central premise was horrifying, and that the "evolution" of the understanding of what had happened was pretty great. And I thought that the portrayal of the autopsy itself walked a fine line between delicacy and gruesome nastiness--the contradiction of how you can respectfully do something that is inherently incredibly intrusive.

I'd probably give it a B, while wishing that it had gone a different direction in the final act.
I'm harsher with it because it wasted a lot of potential. I think a more Occulus vibe where nothing is made clear or final, to go with the theme of the young guy asking for explanations beyond the cause of death, would have made a much stronger movie. Cause no explanation always beats a bad one to me.


The Shining, 1980, 3rd or 4th watch (B)

So this is a pretty hypnotizing movie. I usually hesitate these days to watch anything beyond 90 minutes, and I didn't even watch the time during this one. It flows effortlessly from one scene to the other and everything is so well crafted and full of intent. Nothing is out of place.

The reason I'm giving it a B is that I didn't think it really worked as a horror movie. I think there's something missing in the family dynamic to really make the characters memorable. Jack never feels like a part of the family and is never seen as sympathetic. I usually am not bothered by characters and character dynamics, but here there's always something off. There's no inherent tension in the way he interacts with the family, because the madness correlates perfectly with the run time. It just escalates with no downtime, so there's never a question of will he be nice or not, because he definitely doesn't seem like he should be a part of the family. From the first interaction in the car, it already feels like a 2v1.

I think Burnt Offerings, and in parts the miniseries work better. I'll have to finish the audio book sometime to compare.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 1876
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:38 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:11 pm
Speaking for myself, had Lee "creamed" Cliff, then I would still have the impression that Tarantino was using him as an action figure fantasy of what he presumes a badass to be, and would have recognized that this is not who Bruce Lee was.




The specifics matter when they are easily confirmed. Tarantino wanted Lee to specifically claim to "cripple" Ali when Lee specifically did not. It's a perversion of his character, not a film character, but as a person.





But beyond that, Lee considered Ali "the greatest fighter of them all". That's not idle whispering. I find the insights of Dan Inosanto an interesting counterpoint to Tarantino's portrayal: "he never saw the San Francisco-born, Hong Kong-raised actor being braggadocious or engaging in scraps for the sake of showing off"; "was never, in my opinion, cocky".

Tarantino, however, is clucking.
And I’m speaking for the 100s of times I’ve already engaged in this conversation and seen how precious people got because the fight didn’t end with that flying kick.

It’s one specific line that is only contradicted in private accounts while Lee publicly tried to figure out how to have a fight.

Lee isn’t humble. Watch the interviews where he describes his skill. Read the excerpt from his wife’s biography where she follows the Clay quote with quotes from Bruce Lee about his skill. Apply some inference skills.

Justify the way Lee chose to represent himself cinematically as not being in keeping with the persona Tarantino’s Lee puts forth. He uses fiction to get to the truth of a situation, which is why it need not be accurate or real to be “true,” much like how the Mandingo fights didn’t occur but reveal the barbarism of the slavers mindset.

The film subverts the legend of Bruce Lee as the greatest fighter ever in order to shift the focus to his real legacy, the spreading of martial arts to the world which began with his training of stars, such as Sharon Tate and Steve McQueen, who was his pallbearer.

That neither you nor any critics seem to bring up that element betrays how attentive you are to the man and his legacy, favoring the perpetuation of the myth.

Would you be so touchy if the next Tarantino joint featured Chuck Norris getting his ass handed to him after a vitriolic, homophonic rant?
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 1876
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:47 pm

Charles wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 1:33 pm
The Autopsy of Jane Dow, 2016 (D)

It starts as a perfectly original, competently made, slow burn horror movie where all the horror is suggested, but then it went there. It went where every other horror movie went and it stayed there and never came back.
Agreed. It became such a trite, cliched and ineffectual slog by the end. When it was an actual autopsy though, it really had me.
User avatar
Jinnistan
Posts: 2748
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Jinnistan » Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:55 pm

ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:38 pm
That neither you nor any critics seem to bring up that element betrays how attentive you are to the man and his legacy, favoring the perpetuation of the myth.
I don't know which element you're referring to. McQueen as pallbearer? OK. I mean, Lee's connection (being a trainer and friend to Tate and Polanski) is only glancingly used (I think a quick shot of Lee practicing at the Cielo house), but none of this is necessary to what Tarantino used Lee for.


ThatDarnMKS wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:38 pm
Would you be so touchy if the next Tarantino joint featured Chuck Norris getting his ass handed to him after a vitriolic, homophonic rant?
I'd be alright with that, I guess.
ThatDarnMKS
Posts: 1876
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2017 10:39 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by ThatDarnMKS » Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:59 pm

Jinnistan wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:55 pm
I don't know which element you're referring to. McQueen as pallbearer? OK. I mean, Lee's connection (being a trainer and friend to Tate and Polanski) is only glancingly used (I think a quick shot of Lee practicing at the Cielo house), but none of this is necessary to what Tarantino used Lee for.





I'd be alright with that, I guess.
Don’t be dense. I’m referring to it showing Lee tenderly training Tate and the impact that had on her and ultimately cinema in general. That scene is what gives purpose to almost everything in the film.

You mean you wouldn’t get up in arms about a guy that has proven himself to be the greatest karate fighter in the world getting bested and that he wasn’t known for using that specific level of hate speech because his usual tone of homophobia is dispassionate and implicit? But it’s not accurate, real and is easily disproven?
User avatar
Takoma1
Posts: 2219
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:51 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Takoma1 » Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:16 pm

Charles wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:37 pm
I'm harsher with it because it wasted a lot of potential. I think a more Occulus vibe where nothing is made clear or final, to go with the theme of the young guy asking for explanations beyond the cause of death, would have made a much stronger movie. Cause no explanation always beats a bad one to me.
I agree that it makes the mistake of over-explaining and dives into tacky genre convention.

But I think that the first half is a really strong and effective horror film. Despite it's serious missteps in the last act, I think that it's a movie worth seeing.
User avatar
Patrick McGroin
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:01 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Patrick McGroin » Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:06 pm

Blaze - 8/10 - In keeping with it's subject matter this is a unique musical biopic. It's based on the life (and death) of Michael David Fuller AKA Blaze Foley. I had never heard of the guy until I watched Mike Judge's Tales From the Tour Bus. But since this was directed by Ethan Hawke and co-starred my ongoing celebrity crush, Alia Shawkat, I had to give it a try. I wasn't disappointed and actually glad that I checked it out. Hawke jumps backwards and forwards through the years to highlight Foley's relatively short career as well as his courtship and marriage to Sybil Rosen. There are enough little flourishes to make an impression and to keep you from forgetting that you're watching an uncommon talent and singular artist. If you're a fan of the outlaw country genre or in particular the Texas/Austin music scene circa 70's and 80's this is probably the movie for you. It's also as much a film about cult folk artist Townes Van Zandt as it is about Foley. Fans will appreciate that he's played by Austin mainstay Charlie Sexton. And first time actor, musician Benjamin Dickey, does an oustanding job as Foley.
My heart is still and awaits its hour.
User avatar
Thief
Posts: 1844
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:20 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Thief » Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:11 am

Patrick McGroin wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:06 pm
Blaze - 8/10 - In keeping with it's subject matter this is a unique musical biopic. It's based on the life (and death) of Michael David Fuller AKA Blaze Foley. I had never heard of the guy until I watched Mike Judge's Tales From the Tour Bus. But since this was directed by Ethan Hawke and co-starred my ongoing celebrity crush, Alia Shawkat, I had to give it a try. I wasn't disappointed and actually glad that I checked it out. Hawke jumps backwards and forwards through the years to highlight Foley's relatively short career as well as his courtship and marriage to Sybil Rosen. There are enough little flourishes to make an impression and to keep you from forgetting that you're watching an uncommon talent and singular artist. If you're a fan of the outlaw country genre or in particular the Texas/Austin music scene circa 70's and 80's this is probably the movie for you. It's also as much a film about cult folk artist Townes Van Zandt as it is about Foley. Fans will appreciate that he's played by Austin mainstay Charlie Sexton. And first time actor, musician Benjamin Dickey, does an oustanding job as Foley.
The guys at Filmspotting brought up this film during a Top 5 of Ethan Hawke moments, and it made me curious about it.
--- UNDER CONSTRUCTION ---
User avatar
Patrick McGroin
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:01 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Patrick McGroin » Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:25 am

Thief wrote:
Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:11 am
The guys at Filmspotting brought up this film during a Top 5 of Ethan Hawke moments, and it made me curious about it.
You should check it out if you have the opportunity. Hawke is sort of remaking a name for himself with some really great roles of late and I think this just adds to his current cachet.
My heart is still and awaits its hour.
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:19 am

Thunder Road - B+

Effective comic melodrama; lead performance by Jim Cummings rocks; intriguing depiction of repression / lashing out that sometimes goes for the dark joke but sometimes shows exactly where low emotional intelligence can lead, esp. when you're a white male cop with a gun.

My favorite detail is how mechanistic his apologies are, and how he delivers them in such a way that you recognize their rehearsed nature while still seeing the sincerity behind the recital. He genuinely wants to be kind and make people happy.
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.
User avatar
DaMU
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by DaMU » Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:28 pm

Howard the Duck - D-

Been exchanging DVDs with a co-worker for the past year or two. On the one hand, this has resulted in me watching Das Boot, Do the Right Thing, and Happiness for the first time, and thought they were all great. On the other hand, uh, now this.

The go-motion Dark Overlord at the end is some of the smoothest go-motion I've ever seen, and the creature design looks great-- appropriately expressive and exaggerated.

And that is it. Everything else is profoundly bad. An insufferably loud score that bizarrely quotes "Simple Gifts" (the Shaker song) and jams hard into "goofball" scoring whenever something high-energy happens on-screen, which muddies up the audio into total cacophony (quackophony?). Howard is unfunny, reactive, has no meaningful perspective on anything. The introduction of the Dark Overlord tries to inject energy into the uninspired fish out of water (duck out of water?) hijinx after about 40 minutes of dead weight "comedy" but only results in cliche developments like a third act neutron gun and countdown timer that insists we all be very concerned about the risk of a flashing 0:00. The sex jokes don't land. The jokes don't land. This flick is colossally miscalculated but not in a way that leads to interesting choices; instead it offers up puerile '80s tropes, puns, fashions, and an animatronic hero who reacts to scenes with glassy-eyed inexpression and a whole lot of huffing, scoffing, and sighing contempt. I know, Howard. I didn't wanna be here either.
NOTE:
The above-written is wholly and solely the perspective of DaMU and should not be taken as an effort to rile, malign, or diminish you, dummo.
User avatar
Patrick McGroin
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:01 pm

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Patrick McGroin » Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:52 pm

Avengers: Endgame - 9/10 - Finally watched this. On my laptop. Over two days. Not the most ideal of situations I'll grant you but in point of fact it actually helped to underscore just how much of a final inning, game winning grand slam it was. After 11 years and 21 (22?) movies there were so many ways for it to go wrong or come up short but you have to hand it to the folks at Marvel Studios. They not only didn't disappoint but made sure it wrapped up so that even casual fans like myself were left satisfied. It never felt overly long or confusing. This whole decade + long venture is like a primer that other studios should study and emulate in the future. I ended up watching it the way I did on a whim when I stumbled across a website with almost pristine copies of a lot of movies I never got around to seeing at a theater. But I still plan on revisiting A:E on a big screen in the next few days. Still gotta catch Captain Marvel and maybe re-watch Dr. Strange and Black Panther as well.
My heart is still and awaits its hour.
User avatar
Death Proof
Posts: 1669
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:14 pm
Location: South Jersey

Re: Recently Seen

Post by Death Proof » Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:29 pm

The 36th Chamber of Shaolin - 8/10

Spectre - 7/10

Shepherds we shall be, for thee, my Lord, for thee.
Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, our feet may swiftly carry out Thy commands.
So we shall flow a river forth to Thee and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
In Nomeni Patri Et Fili Spiritus Sancti.
Post Reply