Author Topic: What's the Last Movie You Watched?  (Read 538945 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: What's the Last Movie You Watched?
« Reply #2775 on: October 08, 2018, 07:06:20 PM »

Offline greece666

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7367
  • Tommy Points: 1337
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
Father of a Soldier (USSR, 1964)

War drama about an elderly Georgian father who joins a military unit while searching for his son in WWII.  It was produced by the Georgian studio Kartuli Pilmi and is still considered a classic in Georgia. If you go to IMDb the reviews are hilarious: Georgians are like "a true masterpiece 10/10" whereas others enjoyed the movie less: "communist propaganda 1/10".

In the 1960s, Soviet films experimented with neo-realism ("The cranes are flying", "Walking the streets of Moscow) and Father of a Soldier is no exception: it focuses more on the individual and small details of life than on big battles. It also makes some passing remarks on Georgian culture (family values, good wine, brave men) but nothing that goes beyond what you'd find in a tourist guide.

As usual with Soviet films, cinematography is of high quality, and Sergo Zaqariadze  is convincing and moving in the role of the father. Beyond that, the movie is of interest mostly for historical reasons.



The Yellow Handkerchief (USA, 2008)

Drama about an ex-convinct who starts a journey to reach his ex wife. A promiscuous 15yo girl and a socially awkward 19yo boy join him, and become his travel companions. Remake of a Japanese classic from 1977.

The film has its heart set in the right place, and a good number of talented ppl contributed to it. The cinematographer is Chris Menges, an experienced British with a number of great works behind him ("The Killing Fields", "The Mission"). The cast is good, at least by the standards of independent films, and William Hurt tries his best to portray a tortured but wise man.

Despite the good intentions the film fails to move, and I often caught myself wondering "why am I watching this". I would blame that mostly on uninspiring direction, although to be fair, the idea of taking a Japanese script and transplanting into the American South might deserve part of the blame too. Firstly, the 15 yo girl openly flirts with the protagonist and exhibits signs of a burgeoning sexuality: this is hardly a taboo for Japanese films, but American sensitivities are different and the director (Udayan Prasad) never makes up his mind about how handle this. Secondly, Japanese films often thrive on a slow pace, paying attention to small details as well as pauses.Unfortunately, this slow pace is hard to handle in a contemporary American film where the audience has very different expectations. One ends up thinking that a proper remake would have required a more serious adaptation of the scenario.

This movie has a few good moments, but overall it's a flop.


Re: What's the Last Movie You Watched?
« Reply #2776 on: October 08, 2018, 07:11:31 PM »

Offline greece666

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7367
  • Tommy Points: 1337
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
Terms of Endearment (USA, 1983) [contains spoilers  :-X]

I really enjoyed this one, but I also have to sleep some time. More about it tomorrow.

Comedy/drama about the relation of a mother and her daughter over a period of thirty years. I won't get into details about the characters because it makes zero sense unless you've actually watched the movie. Suffice it to say, this movie is all about character development, which is superbly done thanks to a synergy of great acting, smart dialogues and a director (James L. Brooks) who knows exactly what he wants as final result.

What made me wonder is this: how come a movie that was a success back in 1983 is forgotten today. To be clear, this movie was not simply a success, it was arguably the best Hollywood movie of 1983: a commercial and critical success with lots of star power (Shirley MacLaine, Debra Winger, Jack Nicholson and Danny DeVito), it won five Oscars [Best Picture, Director, Writing (Brooks), Actress in a Drama (MacLaine) and Supporting Actor (Nicholson)], and received six more nominations.

Looking back at other movies that won Best Picture in the 80s, several are still celebrated today: Amadeus, Platoon, The Last Emperor, Rain Man. Instead "Terms of Endearment", if remembered at all, it's because of the love story subplot between MacLaine and Nicholson - mainly due to Nicholson fans uploading clips on YouTube. So, what is it that turned a success into a minor movie?

To my mind, the main reason is cinematography. This is what often separates  the wheat from the chaff in terms of cinema history. The Man with the Movie Camera has little emotion in it but lots of innovative cinematography and editing, and  is still highly regarded. Even those who dislike Sergei Eisenstein's communist politics watch his movies for his montage. Similar things can be said about the movies of Werner Herzog or Jean Luc Godard. Unlike them, Terms of Endearment has nothing innovative or artistic to show off in the cinematography department. Brooks  is a television man and uses the camera in ways that many of us identify with  television.

The same goes for the soundtrack, the aesthetics (the haircuts and clothes of the 80s are unmistakable)  as well for the way that the plot reaches its climax: turning within a few minutes from a light comedy into melodrama. Brooks uses tropes that come straight from 80s soap operas: a beautiful and wealthy but lonely woman, her conflicts with her daughter, the everyday difficulties of marriage and children. Personally, I would not blame him one bit for any of that - he wanted to go for a mother-daughter melodrama with a distinctly American flavour and he achieved his aim to perfection. He made an enjoyable movie with realistic characters, emotional significance, and some clear messages to take away - this is nothing to scoff at. But modern audiences might protest that if this were the kind of entertainment they wanted they might as well rewatch a season of Dallas.



I think the modern trend has been that a good movie is a "dark" "serious" "gritty" movie. Brooks made a handful of brilliant movies but they were not the kind of gritty movie that critics have fawned over in recent years. A movie like Terms of Endearment or Broadcast News are great in their subtleties and embracing of humanity.

I think there has to be room for that among the dark, downer dramas.

For some reason I onsly saw this comment now Big333223. Yes, I couldn't agree more, subtle and humane movies like the ones by Brooks would be very welcome on my part.

Re: What's the Last Movie You Watched?
« Reply #2777 on: October 09, 2018, 08:03:41 PM »

Offline greece666

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7367
  • Tommy Points: 1337
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
The Secret World of Arrietty (Japan, 2010)

Anime adventure about a family of tiny people who live secretly in the same house with "normal" human beings. Written and produced by Miyazaki but directed by Hiromasa Yonebayashi. It was the highest grossing film in Japan in 2010, got praised by film critics and won several awards.

The music and animation are top notch, but beyond that I found it disappointing. The story is simplistic: the young boy of the human family, who spends hours on bed bcs of his heart condition, develops a platonic love for the young daughter of the tiny people. A forbidden love theme goes on for the rest of the film (the tiny ppl are worried that if discovered they will be destroyed by the humans) which is combined with Miyazaki's usual ecological concerns: the tiny ppl are treated as a threatened species (maybe Miyazaki hoped that he would get more sympathy if he talked of tiny ppl than say the Dodo or Caretta Caretta). It all becomes very predictable and any take away messages are at best naive.

Not a bad film to watch with your little niece, but nothing original or thoughtful to be found here.



The Sting (USA, 1973)

Crime film about two fraudsters attempting to con a mob boss in the 1930s. Casting, plot and music are excellent. What I didn't find was a meaningful message. Not that it really matters, this is light entertainment at its best.



The Sheik (USA, 1921) [contains spoilers  :-X ]

An Arab sheik kidnaps a beautiful English woman and forces her to live with his tribe. It was based on a best selling novel with the same title, which has caused a sensation with its daring love scenes, which needless to say where removed from the movie.

This is the movie that propelled Rudolph/Rodolfo Valentino to stardom, and it is a must watch to understand his success with woman in the 1920s. Not a professional actor, Valentino relied on his stunning good looks to gain fame. This is not however to say that he lacked wit. Although he lacked the ability to use his body for emotional effect, he was a master when it came to using his face: he knew exactly what expression to take and when. His sly smile got him great success with women, it is nevertheless interesting that many American men despised him at the time (there are stories of men leaving the cinema in disgust). It appears that 1920s men found Valentino effeminate and were puzzled and annoyed by the charm he had over women. Men instead preferred the more boilsterous masculinity of Douglas Fairbanks, who although he lacked particularly refined facial characteristics was known for his physical skills, and excelled in roles like Zoro and Robin Hood.

Other than the debates over Valentino's sexual appeal, what interested me while watching the film was the way the Arabs were depicted. They were clearly seen as tribal, relying on collectivity and ignorant of individualism, as well as barbarous. This however does not mean they lack charm. What is more religion plays a small role in approaching Arab culture - "Allah" is mentioned a few times in the film, but overall, it is clear that Arabs are different bcs of their culture not bcs of their religion. Scholars might use plenty of fancy words (exoticizing, orientalism etc) to attack this depiction but personally I find it much preferrably to much of what  you see today. Unfortunately, it all goes to the dogs when it's revealed that the Sheik played by Valentino is not an Arab at all but a European adopted by the previous Sheik (a discovery that comes to the delight of the English woman as she can finally love him without betraying her civilization).

A dated movie to be sure, but still fun to watch.


Re: What's the Last Movie You Watched?
« Reply #2778 on: October 09, 2018, 09:18:35 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20941
  • Tommy Points: 9120
The Secret World of Arrietty (Japan, 2010)

Anime adventure about a family of tiny people who live secretly in the same house with "normal" human beings. Written and produced by Miyazaki but directed by Hiromasa Yonebayashi. It was the highest grossing film in Japan in 2010, got praised by film critics and won several awards.

The music and animation are top notch, but beyond that I found it disappointing. The story is simplistic: the young boy of the human family, who spends hours on bed bcs of his heart condition, develops a platonic love for the young daughter of the tiny people. A forbidden love theme goes on for the rest of the film (the tiny ppl are worried that if discovered they will be destroyed by the humans) which is combined with Miyazaki's usual ecological concerns: the tiny ppl are treated as a threatened species (maybe Miyazaki hoped that he would get more sympathy if he talked of tiny ppl than say the Dodo or Caretta Caretta). It all becomes very predictable and any take away messages are at best naive.

Not a bad film to watch with your little niece, but nothing original or thoughtful to be found here.



The Sting (USA, 1973)

Crime film about two fraudsters attempting to con a mob boss in the 1930s. Casting, plot and music are excellent. What I didn't find was a meaningful message. Not that it really matters, this is light entertainment at its best.



The Sheik (USA, 1921) [contains spoilers  :-X ]

An Arab sheik kidnaps a beautiful English woman and forces her to live with his tribe. It was based on a best selling novel with the same title, which has caused a sensation with its daring love scenes, which needless to say where removed from the movie.

This is the movie that propelled Rudolph/Rodolfo Valentino to stardom, and it is a must watch to understand his success with woman in the 1920s. Not a professional actor, Valentino relied on his stunning good looks to gain fame. This is not however to say that he lacked wit. Although he lacked the ability to use his body for emotional effect, he was a master when it came to using his face: he knew exactly what expression to take and when. His sly smile got him great success with women, it is nevertheless interesting that many American men despised him at the time (there are stories of men leaving the cinema in disgust). It appears that 1920s men found Valentino effeminate and were puzzled and annoyed by the charm he had over women. Men instead preferred the more boilsterous masculinity of Douglas Fairbanks, who although he lacked particularly refined facial characteristics was known for his physical skills, and excelled in roles like Zoro and Robin Hood.

Other than the debates over Valentino's sexual appeal, what interested me while watching the film was the way the Arabs were depicted. They were clearly seen as tribal, relying on collectivity and ignorant of individualism, as well as barbarous. This however does not mean they lack charm. What is more religion plays a small role in approaching Arab culture - "Allah" is mentioned a few times in the film, but overall, it is clear that Arabs are different bcs of their culture not bcs of their religion. Scholars might use plenty of fancy words (exoticizing, orientalism etc) to attack this depiction but personally I find it much preferrably to much of what  you see today. Unfortunately, it all goes to the dogs when it's revealed that the Sheik played by Valentino is not an Arab at all but a European adopted by the previous Sheik (a discovery that comes to the delight of the English woman as she can finally love him without betraying her civilization).

A dated movie to be sure, but still fun to watch.


The Sting is an all-time classic - as is the soundtrack

Re: What's the Last Movie You Watched?
« Reply #2779 on: October 11, 2018, 01:36:59 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5899
  • Tommy Points: 637
Venom

So bad. There are stretches where the script sounds like it was written by a 12 year old. Such a waste of Tom Hardy and a, potentially, very interesting character.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: What's the Last Movie You Watched?
« Reply #2780 on: October 13, 2018, 04:09:30 AM »

Offline greece666

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7367
  • Tommy Points: 1337
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
Venom

So bad. There are stretches where the script sounds like it was written by a 12 year old. Such a waste of Tom Hardy and a, potentially, very interesting character.

Ye, I was an avid Spiderman reader from 7 to 14 yo, and Venom was easily not just the best villain in Spiderman but one of the most interesting ones in superhero comics in general.

Tbh, most superhero movies have let me down- with some notable exception ofc (the 1978 Superman and the Batman series are the ones that come immediately to mind).

Re: What's the Last Movie You Watched?
« Reply #2781 on: October 13, 2018, 05:31:20 AM »

Offline greece666

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7367
  • Tommy Points: 1337
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom (Italy/France, 1971)

Sade's book situated in the German puppet state, the Republic of Salo. I rewatched this one recently and found it to be a great movie about power relations and evil. Since, however, most online reviews (whether favourable or condemning) understand it as a movie about sexual fantasies, I will spend some time explaining why I disagree before becoming more specific about Salo's messages.

So why is this not a movie about sex? An argument can at least be made that this was Pasolini's intention. Pasolini was gay and his early career was marked by a political scandal. This is one of the very few movies where he touches on homosexuality (although it is worth mentioning he was a vocal gay activist in his texts) and it is certainly the only one where he does it at such length. Moreover, the movie has several scenes with a strong element of shock value, which some would argue border on ****ography. This led to bans in a great number of countries, but also caused an uproar among critics. The most famous example here might be Roger Ebert, who despite owning a video copy of the movie since its release never "found the courage" to actually watch it.

To my mind, both arguments can be easily dismissed. Regarding the first one, Salo is not about gayness (and is most certainly not a hidden way for Pasolini to express his secret desires - unlikely as it sounds some reviewers did go this far). The sexuality depicted here is perverse and one would think Pasolini would know better than advocating gay rights by showing old men defecating on young women. Besides, the only movie where he openly advocates the gay cause (Love Meetings, 1965) is a documentary: one suspects that Pasolini did not think art films are a proper medium for this cause or at least for it to be made directly.

The second claim can be dismissed with similar ease. Pasolini simply did not believe that a realistic depiction of sex has to be ****ographic. Among the great directors he is the one with the most realistic sex scenes (there is erect penises galore both in Salo and in Arabian Nights). If the shock value is present in his films it is to serve a larger message: in the case of Arabian Nights, for instance, to hint that the premodern world has a magic element which might have been lost for good in our era. What about the violence then? Didn't Pasolini know his movie will cause an uproar and if so what did he do it? Couldn't he make a movie with a similar but toned down content? People who think this way misunderstand what role the visual extremism is playing in Salo: it is not there to raise the adrenaline of the viewer (like say in gore films) or to serve as a sexual stimulus but to reveal what Pasolini considered to be some deep realities about power and its corrosive effects on humans. A less "shocking" movie would be a disservice to his message - it would make power look less hideous, it would have humanized something that Pasolini wanted to depict as inherently demonic. That Pasolini was not interested in shock per se is also demonstrated by how he dealt with the age of victims: in Sade's book they are in their early teens (12-4 yo), Pasolini instead depicted the victims as being in their early youth. This is not something you change if your main goal is to shock.

I now pass to what I think the movie is really about that is a critic of politics through a moral and psychological lense. As a sidenote, Pasolini was among those who combined Marx with Freud - in case you want a better look at how he understood the relation between these two thinkers, it might be worthwhile to watch Pigsty, which deals precisely with the psychological aspects of power.

Back to the point: what is Salo about? Pasolini himself was aware of the misunderstandings to which his movie could be submitted (esp. in countries like the US which had not experienced a German occupation in WWII) and for this he offered a short bibliography at the very start of the movie. Among them, Roland Barthes Sade, Fourier, Loyola. I quote from there:

Quote
Sadian adventures are not fabulous: they take place in a real world contemporary with the time of Sade's youth, i.e., the society of Louis XV. Sade strongly emphasizes the social armature of that world; the libertines belong to the aristocracy, or more exactly ( and more frequently) to the class of financiers, professionals, and prevaricators, in short : exploiters, the majority made wealthy in Louis XV's wars and by the corrupt practices of despotism; unless their noble origin is a voluptuary factor ( the rape of fashionable young
ladies ), the subjects belong to the industrial and urban subproletariat ( the urchins of Marseilles, for example, children "who work in factories and provide the aged roues of that
city with the prettiest objects one could hope to find") or serfs on feudal lands, where they subsist (in Sicily, for example, where Jerome, the future monk in Justine, goes to live, according
to an arcadian plan which will, he says, enable him to have dominion over both his lands and his vassals).

Sade uses them differently, not as an image to be portrayed, but as a model to be reproduced. Where? In the libertine's small society; this society is constructed like a model, a miniature; Sade transports class division into it; on one side, the exploiters, the possessors, governors, tyrants; on the other, the ordinary people. The stimulus for the division ( as in the
larger society) is (sadistic) profitability: "One established . . . over the ordinary people every vexation, every injustice imaginable, certain that the greater the tyranny one exercised,
the greater the sum of pleasures to be withdrawn." Between the social novel (Balzac read by Marx ) and the Sadian novel, a kind of general to and fro maneuver then occurs: the
social novel maintains social relationships in their original place (society as a whole ) but anecdotizes them for the sake of individual biographies (Cesar Birotteau, tradesman; Coupeau,
zinc worker) ; the Sadian novel takes the formula of these relationships, but transports them elsewhere,  into an artificial society (as did Brecht in The Threepenny Opera).

However, there is a paradox: class relationships in Sade are both brutal and indirect; uttered in line with the radical contrast between exploiters and exploited, these relationships
do not come into the novel as though for referential description (as is the case with a great "social" novelist like Balzac ); Sade uses them differently, not as an image to be portrayed,
but as a model to be reproduced. Where? In the libertine's small society; this society is constructed like a model, a miniature Sade transports class division into it; on one side, the exploiters, the possessors, governors, tyrants; on the other, the ordinary people. The stimulus for the division ( as in the larger society) is (sadistic) profitability: "One established . . over the ordinary people every vexation, every injustice imaginable, certain that the greater the tyranny one exercised, the greater the sum of pleasures to be withdrawn." Between the social novel (Balzac read by Marx ) and the Sadian novel, a kind of general to and fro maneuver then occurs: the social novel maintains social relationships in their original place (society as a whole ) but anecdotizes them for the sake of individual biographies (Cesar Birotteau, tradesman; Coupeau, zinc worker) ; the Sadian novel takes the formula of these relationships, but transports them elsewhere, into an artificial society (as did Brecht in The Threepenny Opera).

In the first instance, we have reproduction, in the meaning that word has in painting, in photography; in the second instance, there is, one might say, re-production, repeated production of a practice ( and not of an historical "picture" ). The consequence is that the Sadian novel is more "real" than the social novel (which is realistic ); the Sadian practices appear
to us today to be totally improbable; however, we need only travel in any underdeveloped country ( analogous, all in all, to eighteenth-century France) to understand that they are still
operable there : the same social division, the same opportunities for recruitment, the same availability of subjects, the  same conditions for seclusion, and the same impunity, so to
speak.

(Barthes, pp. 130-1)

Pasolini had chosen in Barthes an unmistakably political reading of Sade.

Understanding the movie as a political one is also favoured by the following: setting the movie in the "Nazi-Fascist" Republic of Salo had obvious political connotations for Italians in the 70s - many ppl who had experienced the occupation of Italy by Germany after the Italian surrender in Sept. 1943 were still alive when the film was made. Pasolini carefully reconstructed late Fascist Italy both its in bourgeois tastes (see for instance the careful choice of paintings decorating the walls of the castle) and in its outward manifestations: see the uniforms of the German soldiers as well as the titles the four figures of power use to address each other. The conversations among these four ressemble the gatherings of high society in their careful rituals - I particularly liked the character who chose to be "the entertainer" by telling banal jokes - a type you typically meet in upper class dinners. Finally, in an environment where everyone seems inescepably doomed there is only one character who manages to elevate himself above the despair- the fascist (who as is later revealed is a communist) who has a sexual relation with the black servant and willingly accepts death when he gets caught.

(for a review that moves in the right direction, at least the only one I found online, see this one from El Pais [in Spanish]

tl;dr: it is completely beyond how anyone could deny the political character of this movie.


Re: What's the Last Movie You Watched?
« Reply #2782 on: October 13, 2018, 04:05:47 PM »

Offline greece666

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7367
  • Tommy Points: 1337
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
Seven (1995, USA)

Crime movie about two detectives tracking down a serial killer.

I suppose most ppl here have watched it, perhaps even multiple times. For whatever reason, I postponed watching it until last week. I liked the casting, esp. Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey. IMO Brad Pitt and Gwyneth Paltrow, although overshadowed by Freeman's great performance, are solid in their roles, esp. the former as an inexperienced and obstinate young detective.

The film is very good at creating a steampunk/dystopic atmosphere which combines well with its focus on the seven deadly sins (a topic the script writer, Andrew Kevin Walker, researched meticulously).  My one complaint is that Walker got carried away by his feelings of alienation while living in NY "I didn't like my time in New York, but it's true that if I hadn't lived there I probably wouldn't have written Seven." As a result, the film suggests that life in modern metropolies by itself creates moral decay and perversity: the serial killer is a genius in a world of mediocrities and his crimes are only possible because of his victims vices. This is a banal point, already made ad nauseam in other films. Even so, this is a classic crime movie.



It's a Wonderful Life (USA, 1946)

Christmas fantasy about a man who gives up his dreams to help others. A fine example of an otherwise great movie that went to the dogs because of a silly plot idea. This should have been a story about a man who consistently made the right decisions in his life, only to be led to a deadend of despair. What you get instead is a cheesy feel good movie with guardian angels and divine interventions.

Bosley Crowther summed it up  in his 1947 review:

Quote
the weakness of this picture is the sentimentality of it—its illusory concept of life. Mr. Capra's nice people are charming, his small town is a quite beguiling place and his pattern for solving problems is most optimistic and facile. But somehow they all resemble theatrical attitudes rather than average realities.

Even so, you have Capra and James Stewart at the peak of their creative abilities and this is enough to make the movie worthwhile despite the glaring plot weakness.



Duck Soup (USA, 1933)

Comedy about two imaginary European countries going to war. This movie is a rare bird: it is a Marx Brother film but has no love story sub-plot or for that matter anything that would make it more palatable/popular to the contemporary audience. It's made in 1933 and contains a parody of Mussolini, but it has very little to say about the pre-war period. It's really about the Great War of 1914-8 and the jokes aim at Europe's inept diplomats, their outdated self-importance but mostly their inability to stop a massive slaughter over nothing in 1914.

Two scenes stand out: a great rendition of the mirror scene and a surreal end which was praised by none less than than Harold Bloom. Against popular belief, the mirror scene was not a Marx Brother invention - it was a routine that the silent cinema adopted from theater. For some great mirror scene examples (going back to the 1910s), take a look here

A good NYT review is here

This is a movie that reached greatness by accident rather than design, which makes it all the more interesting to watch and study.



Re: What's the Last Movie You Watched?
« Reply #2783 on: October 14, 2018, 05:49:19 AM »

Offline greece666

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7367
  • Tommy Points: 1337
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
Satyricon (Italy, 1969)

Fellini's rendering of Petronius' Satyricon liber: written during Nero's reign, it is a collection of stories that were meant to amuse the contemporary reader. Petronius traced the adventures of two young students emphasizing sexual, decadent and comic themes in his narrative.

That's a weird text to use as a script for a film, and it becomes even weirder if you consider that Fellini followed the text faithfully. Petronius's text has gaps (some passages are lost) and Fellini didn't bother to bridge them: when the text is missing Fellini just shrugs his shoulders and moves on. The most famous illustration of this is the end of the movie, as it ends with an unfinished phrase.

This is an uneven movie for two reasons. First, Fellini is a master of the visual but he is not as good in building narratives (Amarcord is the rare exception in this respect). What you get here is beautiful reconstructions of the Roman era with excellent costumes and make-up. Having said this, don't mistake Satyricon for an academic attempt to recreate the Roman. Fellini's Romans are recognizable characters that could exist in any modern society. His heroes have passions, doubts, make mistakes, they are fully fleshed human beings not museum exhibits.

In Giovanni Grazzini's words:

Quote
Fellini's Rome bears absolutely no relationship to the Rome we learned about in school books. It is a place outside historical time, an area of the unconscious in which the episodes related by Petronius are relived among the ghosts of Fellini. It is evident that Fellini, finding in these ancient personages the projection of his own human and artistic doubts, is led to wonder if the universal and eternal condition of man is actually summed up in the frenzied realization of the transience of life which passes like a shadow.

But -and here is my disagreement- this narrative, beautiful as it is, is fragmented. Not only for the obvious reason mentioned above (the fragmented nature of Petronius' text) but also because Fellini fails (or rather: doesn't care) to search for an overarching theme that would unify his narrative.

Second, while the movie starts in Rome with a careful reconstruction of the historical era, in the second half it follows the protagonists trips around the world. Here Fellini adopts a steampunk, Mad Max like aesthetic which moves the film in a completely different direction. Rome is gone and Africa and the Orient take its place. This sudden change of scenery didn't work for me. The images are still beautiful but it was like watching a new film.

Despite weaknesses in the narrative, this is a beautiful if disturbing film that will make you re-evaluate the relevance of the classics in the modern world.






Re: What's the Last Movie You Watched?
« Reply #2784 on: December 06, 2018, 12:59:25 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19685
  • Tommy Points: 2190
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Just popping in to give Mandy my HIGHEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION.  Ideally you should go into it blind but just know it stars Nicolas Cage, that he does not hold back on the Cage-iness, and it is quite a ride.

Re: What's the Last Movie You Watched?
« Reply #2785 on: December 08, 2018, 05:43:50 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5899
  • Tommy Points: 637
Green Book

Not bad. Mahershala Ali is great. Viggo Mortensen is a little too broad for me.

The movie feels 20 years old. It's not bad but its formulaic. No real surprises. It has nothing to say that is going to take anyone by surprise. I couldn't help but think about how much better Blindspotting was at tackles some of these same themes while also being a much more interesting movie.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: What's the Last Movie You Watched?
« Reply #2786 on: December 15, 2018, 07:06:29 AM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21236
  • Tommy Points: 2016
My wife and I go to the movies at least once a week.  Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is legit my favorite movie of 2018.



Extremely entertaining.  So much fun.  Visually stunning.  I've never seen animation like that.  Kind of groundbreaking.  I think you can seriously hold it up as one of the best animated films ever made and one of the best superhero films ever made.

I read this from a critic and I basically agree:

Quote
This movie is what would happen if you took all the action and complex plots from the live-action Marvel movies, added the heart, humor and relatability of a Pixar film, with all of the dialogue by the staff writers of Atlanta.

Loved it.  I was trying to think if there was a movie this year I enjoyed more... I really can't think of one.  "Black Panther" was fun, but I liked this more.  I really loved "Eighth Grade" and probably had it as my favorite of the year, but I have this above it.  I thought "Sorry to Bother You" was interesting, but flawed.  "Incredibles 2" was aiight, but kind of forgettable.  "Searching" was memorable.  "Mandy" was an overrated B-Film.  "A Star is Born" had an entertaining first half, but the second half lost me.  "BlacKkKlansman" was fine, but kind of a mess.   "First Man" was pretty dull.  Off the top of my head, those are the "top movies" of 2018 I can think of right now... I have a couple more on my list I need to see from this year, but as of now I can say I enjoyed "Into the Spider-Verse" the most of the 2018 films.

Re: What's the Last Movie You Watched?
« Reply #2787 on: December 15, 2018, 07:10:04 AM »

Offline LarBrd33

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21236
  • Tommy Points: 2016
Just popping in to give Mandy my HIGHEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION.  Ideally you should go into it blind but just know it stars Nicolas Cage, that he does not hold back on the Cage-iness, and it is quite a ride.
Second best Nick Cage movie of the year behind "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse".  lol

Re: What's the Last Movie You Watched?
« Reply #2788 on: December 28, 2018, 03:40:01 AM »

Offline Kiorrik

  • Global Moderator
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8050
  • Tommy Points: 1121
  • pɹɐnƃ ʇuıod




Holy mother of sons. That was insane. Went there last night. Definitely want to see it again. Good one to watch in 3D too.

What an amazing everything.

From the art to the dialogue to the sound-track. Absolutely stunning.

Agree; best movie of 2018.

Re: What's the Last Movie You Watched?
« Reply #2789 on: December 28, 2018, 04:54:33 AM »

Offline LatterDayCelticsfan

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2036
  • Tommy Points: 162
  • Time for Danny to use his Infinity trade Gauntlet
Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle. Cute story, competent acting, acceptable CGI. An 'alright' movie on the whole except it lives in the shadow of the original Jumanji...
« Last Edit: December 28, 2018, 05:15:36 AM by LatterDayCelticsfan »
If you haven't heard Salsa Celtica you haven't heard Salsa

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required