Third Eye Film Society Forum Index
Author Message

<  Third Eye Film Forums  ~  Couch With A View

billyweeds
Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:58 am Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 20618 Location: New York City
Point Blank, which I haven't seen in almost 40 years, is still a good action film, but strangely enough (in view of its then-infamous reputation for over-the-top violence) doesn't seem violent enough. It's also too invested in keeping its revenge-happy anti-hero (Lee Marvin) innocent of killing anyone. The only person he intentionally offs is a relatively blameless office functionary in the villain's employ. Otherwise all deaths related to his vendetta are either accidental or performed by others. In the remake titled Payback and starring Mel Gibson, reviled in 1999 but IMO superior to PB, Gibson's character is utterly ruthless and implacable, a true killing machine--and as a result much more likable.

That said, Point Blank is a marvel of style. Director John Boorman tells the story intriguingly, in excellent sound editing, jump cuts, a lot of silence, minimal dialogue. The supporting cast features a strange mix of famous faces (Angie Dickinson, Keenan Wynn) and less-familiar ones (Michael Strong, Lloyd Bochner, John Vernon), and they all work fine.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
whiskeypriest
Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 9:54 am Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 6916 Location: "It's a Dry Heat."
Running through a few movies...

Hachi: A Dog's Tale. A semi-true movie that teaches us the important life lesson that, when someone you love dies, you should spend the rest of your life pointlessly mourning them and pining after them and ignoring the fact of their death, to the extent of ignoring the other people in your life who care about or even love you, ignoring also even your own comfort. I am not sure that this is the point the movie intended to make, mind you. It is certainly not the point my wife got. She went through about 15 tissues watching it. But then, she needs three tissues to get through the Stations of the Cross, so....

One Day. Which follows the developing relationship of two young people - Jim Sturgis, Anne Hathaway - by visiting them each year the same date, the anniversary of their graduation from university, on the night of which they did not sleep together. A premise which works precisely as well as you would think. Anyway, the guy is an insufferable asshole, the girl waits for him to become worthy of the torch she is carrying for him, and then the guy, 18 years on, comes to the sudden realization that he could have spent the last 18 years fucking Anne Hathaway and so does. At which point she gets hit by a truck. Now, normally, I would consider that a spoiler, but look. The movie starts in 2006, with Anne Hathaway happily riding her bicycle through London. The movie than shifts back some 20 years. At which point you know two things: First, Anne Hathaway is not going to die in the intervening years, and second, when we get back to the day the movie starts, she is going to get hit by a fucking truck. It is that kind of movie.

Gravity. Which was very well made, but not all that great of a story. Never really invested in the Bullock character. Found Clooney's breezy stoicism a little bit unbelievable and off putting. Enjoyed it, beautifully done, but not anything I was blown away by.

Burn After Reading. I now have only Inside Llewyn Davis left in the Coen catalog. Pretty good; like a cross between Barton Fink and Blood Simple, in a way: about people who have their headds buried so firmly in their own selves that they are oblivious to everything and everyone else around them, even as we watching can see the absolute stupidity of everything they are doing that they think is logical. One main treat: adding another character to my pantheon of great Coen Bros side characters, and this one played by the inimitable J. K. Simmons:

Quote:
CIA Superior: What did we learn, Palmer?
CIA Officer: I don't know, sir.
CIA Superior: I don't fuckin' know either. I guess we learned not to do it again.
CIA Officer: Yes, sir.
CIA Superior: I'm fucked if I know what we did.
CIA Officer: Yes, sir, it's, uh, hard to say.
CIA Superior: Jesus Fucking Christ.


Anyway, people who think you need to have a likeable character to ground you in the movie should avoid. Other than Simmons, the only likeable character, Richard Jenkins's lovelorn, hang dog gym manager, gets the fate you really ought to expect the Coens to give him. Frances McDormand's highly solipsistic gym worker plays like Marge Gunderson's oblivious half twin, George Clooney's cheating husband struck roughly the same notes as he struck in O Brother, Tilda Swinton was criminally underused, and John Malkovich says "What the FUCK?" a lot. Not top tier Coens, but fun. Bear in mind I have a lower opinion of their full fledged comedies than most do.

A Separation. Rewatched with my wife who had never seen it. Why can't all movies be this great? But then, if they all were that great, we would lose our capacity to wonder at their greatness, I suppose. Did I mention this remains the best movie of the century to date? Because it is. That is a proven, scientific fact.

Ted. May have mentioned this earlier, can't recall. Anyway, replace the teddy bear with, oh, Owen Wilson and the movie would be an unfunny piece of crap. With the teddy bear? We had a thunderstorm a few days ago. Wife and I sang the Thunder Song to each other. Ah well.

_________________
I ask you, Velvel, as a rational man, which of us is possessed?
View user's profile Send private message
bartist
Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:43 am Reply with quote
Joined: 27 Apr 2010 Posts: 6961 Location: Black Hills
Spot on, re BaR, not top tier but fun. Very amusing review of One Day - who says a bad movie can't entertain.

I liked the Greek chorus device in BaR.

_________________
He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days.
View user's profile Send private message
gromit
Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 12:05 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 9016 Location: Shanghai
Burn After Reading is basically minor Coens, but quite enjoyable. I liked Brad Pitt's dimwitted character. I watched it 2x and enjoyed it more the second time. The first time Frances McDormand's rather broad take slightly irked me. But worked better the next go round. A good film.

I'd like to revisit Inside LD sometime, because it seemed fine but also like minor Coens. I thought the music was very well done, but I felt somewhat outside of the story. Might improve on second viewing.


Last edited by gromit on Mon Nov 03, 2014 12:45 am; edited 1 time in total

_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
billyweeds
Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 3:38 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 20618 Location: New York City
whiskeypriest wrote:

A Separation. Rewatched with my wife who had never seen it. Why can't all movies be this great? But then, if they all were that great, we would lose our capacity to wonder at their greatness, I suppose. Did I mention this remains the best movie of the century to date? Because it is. That is a proven, scientific fact.


Got to see it again and side by side with Boyhood. There's a photo-finish in there somewhere but I swear I don't know which one wins. Two of the greatest movies of all time--and certainly the two best movies since 2000.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
whiskeypriest
Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:43 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 6916 Location: "It's a Dry Heat."
billyweeds wrote:
whiskeypriest wrote:

A Separation. Rewatched with my wife who had never seen it. Why can't all movies be this great? But then, if they all were that great, we would lose our capacity to wonder at their greatness, I suppose. Did I mention this remains the best movie of the century to date? Because it is. That is a proven, scientific fact.


Got to see it again and side by side with Boyhood. There's a photo-finish in there somewhere but I swear I don't know which one wins. Two of the greatest movies of all time--and certainly the two best movies since 2000.
A Separation is better than Boyhood. this is a scientifically determinable fact that I could not be more sure of if I had actually seen Boyhood.

_________________
I ask you, Velvel, as a rational man, which of us is possessed?
View user's profile Send private message
gromit
Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:58 am Reply with quote
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 9016 Location: Shanghai
I saw Point Blank for the first time a few years back and thought it was sort of bland and forgettable.

_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
gromit
Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:52 am Reply with quote
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 9016 Location: Shanghai
Finally watched Part One of Eisenstein's Ivan The Terrible.
I've had it sitting here forever, and even in my to-watch pile for the past two years or so.

Terrific film.
Epic and Shakespearean. Rather theatrical and a definite feeling of silent films, iwht its huge closeups, eye-heavy acting, and very theatrical manner. But the most notable aspect is the set design with giant frescoes and murals everywhere in the palace, so there are always faces and heads and at one point just a man-sied eye looking over the proceedings. Reminded me of Esienstein's father's buildings in Riga where the facades are covered with heads and faces. Which is fairly appropriate/interesting for a film about a tyrannical father (of the nation).

It's fascinating that Stalin wnated to rehabilitate Ivan the Terrible and this gave Eisenstein a chance to depict a tyrant and murderer in a Soviet-approved film. Part I received all sorts of commie-pries, while Part II was censored and Part III never allowed to get off the ground. And Eisenstein died shortly thereafter.

Very inventive film. Looking forward to Part II.

_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
billyweeds
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:26 am Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 20618 Location: New York City
I'm not a fan of Westerns or John Wayne or Shirley Temple, and I'm not completely sold on Henry Fonda or the films of John Ford, so it was with a certain show-me attitude that I began watching Fort Apache (1948), one of Ford's best-regarded Westerns. Surprise! I pretty much loved this movie.

First surprise was the way a rather "miscast" Fonda made the role of the martinet who has been appointed chief of the titular fort in the days following the Civil War very much his own. Fonda takes a character who in the hands of many another actor would have been a caricature (even if well played) and layers him to the point where the almost unremittingly unlikable man becomes understandable and identifiable if never sympathetic. In its own way, Fonda's achievement here is the equal of his career peak in The Grapes of Wrath (also, not coincidentally, directed by Ford).

Second surprise is how Wayne, top-billed and more associated with Ford than Fonda is, seemed willing to take third or fourth position in the character lineup and played his role believably, floating by on charisma more than acting chops but letting said charisma run the show and make it work.

Third surprise was how Ford was able to juggle comedy (Victor McLaglen in particular is charmingly hilarious), drama, action, and romance and make them flow seamlessly one from the other.

Not as surprising were Shirley Temple and John Agar (off-screen marrieds), who were stereotypical as the young lovers (her character name, Philadelphia Thursday, was the most memorable thing about her performance), but they were cute as all get-out.

This movie is no Stagecoach in the Ford-Wayne pantheon, but (blasphemy!) I liked it ever so much more than The Searchers, venerated though that later opus may be.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
whiskeypriest
Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2014 11:39 am Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 6916 Location: "It's a Dry Heat."
billyweeds wrote:
I'm not a fan of Westerns or John Wayne or Shirley Temple, and I'm not completely sold on Henry Fonda or the films of John Ford, so it was with a certain show-me attitude that I began watching Fort Apache (1948), one of Ford's best-regarded Westerns. Surprise! I pretty much loved this movie.

First surprise was the way a rather "miscast" Fonda made the role of the martinet who has been appointed chief of the titular fort in the days following the Civil War very much his own. Fonda takes a character who in the hands of many another actor would have been a caricature (even if well played) and layers him to the point where the almost unremittingly unlikable man becomes understandable and identifiable if never sympathetic. In its own way, Fonda's achievement here is the equal of his career peak in The Grapes of Wrath (also, not coincidentally, directed by Ford).

Second surprise is how Wayne, top-billed and more associated with Ford than Fonda is, seemed willing to take third or fourth position in the character lineup and played his role believably, floating by on charisma more than acting chops but letting said charisma run the show and make it work.

Third surprise was how Ford was able to juggle comedy (Victor McLaglen in particular is charmingly hilarious), drama, action, and romance and make them flow seamlessly one from the other.

Not as surprising were Shirley Temple and John Agar (off-screen marrieds), who were stereotypical as the young lovers (her character name, Philadelphia Thursday, was the most memorable thing about her performance), but they were cute as all get-out.
She was born in Connecticut. Named after her mother, also not born in Philadelphia....

Quote:
This movie is no Stagecoach in the Ford-Wayne pantheon, but (blasphemy!) I liked it ever so much more than The Searchers, venerated though that later opus may be.
It's a great film, one of Ford's three or four best.

I will forgive the grievous error you enter into in your final sentence. Though Fort Apache does have much better comic elements, and lacks the crappy acting that mars some of the minor (and comic) characters of The Searchers.

_________________
I ask you, Velvel, as a rational man, which of us is possessed?
View user's profile Send private message
carrobin
Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2014 3:03 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 21 May 2004 Posts: 7795 Location: NYC
I can't believe I'd never seen "The Great Ziegfeld" before. It was on at 6 a.m. today and I happened to wake up about then, and checked TCM. I didn't go back to sleep. Of course I knew William Powell was the star, but I didn't know Myrna Loy was Billie Burke (just at the end). It had performances by Fanny Brice and Ray Bolger, and there was a brief scene with Will Rogers as well. (According to the IMDb, Judy Garland and Eddie Cantor were originally supposed to be in it too, but studio switches knocked them off the cast list.) And it's a terrific movie. It must have knocked out audiences back in the day.
View user's profile Send private message
billyweeds
Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2014 4:24 pm Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 20618 Location: New York City
carrobin wrote:
I can't believe I'd never seen "The Great Ziegfeld" before. It was on at 6 a.m. today and I happened to wake up about then, and checked TCM. I didn't go back to sleep. Of course I knew William Powell was the star, but I didn't know Myrna Loy was Billie Burke (just at the end). It had performances by Fanny Brice and Ray Bolger, and there was a brief scene with Will Rogers as well. (According to the IMDb, Judy Garland and Eddie Cantor were originally supposed to be in it too, but studio switches knocked them off the cast list.) And it's a terrific movie. It must have knocked out audiences back in the day.


Are you aware that Luise Rainer (as Anna Held) won the Best Actress (!) Oscar for what was essentially a supporting role with one standout scene (on the telephone)? She won won a second Oscar the folowing year for The Good Earth and thereupon virtually disappeared from cinematic view forever.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
gromit
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2014 3:04 am Reply with quote
Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 9016 Location: Shanghai
Are you aware that Luise Rainer is still alive?
Coming up on 105 ...

And she made 5 more films after her B2B Oscar wins.
and then a 6th a few years later to finish off her contract.

_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
billyweeds
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2014 10:00 am Reply with quote
Joined: 20 May 2004 Posts: 20618 Location: New York City
gromit wrote:
Are you aware that Luise Rainer is still alive?
Coming up on 105 ...

And she made 5 more films after her B2B Oscar wins.
and then a 6th a few years later to finish off her contract.


Yes to all of the above. Unfortunately, none of her other films were any good. She won the two Oscars pretty much as a result of a huge publicity push by MGM to make her the next Garbo. Well, at least she won two Oscars while neither Garbo, nor Hitchcock, nor Keaton (Buster), nor Chaplin ever won any.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bartist
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2014 10:03 am Reply with quote
Joined: 27 Apr 2010 Posts: 6961 Location: Black Hills
Fellini offered her a role in LDV, but she wanted to write her own lines and he wouldn't go for that. Lovely fascinating woman.

_________________
He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days.
View user's profile Send private message

Display posts from previous:  

All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 2271 of 2427
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 2270, 2271, 2272 ... 2425, 2426, 2427  Next
Post new topic

Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum