Film Socialisme Jean-Luc Godard ?/10
I’m going to have to wait till I do a little reading and see it a second time.
where can one see this? I seem to have no access to the new Godard ):
I don’t know about where you live, but the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston is playing it today and tomorrow.
so it is still in theaters, okay, usually I am not this lost about a film’s release but it seems like the film came out a long time ago.
This is a good film to bring up in the debate about whether context should be taken into account judging a film. Based strictly on the film, out of context, the production value is laughably poor. Knowing however that the film was made by a South Koren director abducted and forced to make the film by Kim Jong Ill, it’s impossible not to see it differently. Kim wanted the film to be a metaphor for capitalism, but I have inklings that Shin secretly made it about Kim Jong Ill’s rise to power. But, I may be imagining that just based on my intuition that it’s what any artist forced to make a propaganda film by a dictator would do.
The link, by the way, is missing the second to last segment!!
Ali : Fear Eats The Soul by Rainer Werner Fassbinder – 10/10.Masterpiece.
i wake up screaming (1941) d. h. bruce humberstone 5/10
i’m not a fan of victor mature and betty grable is really pretty bad in this but something kept me watching the film. it was probably laird cregar. the director can’t seem to decide between creepy thriller and light hearted romance so it feels kind of unbalanced. some nice noir photography tho. 3 stars for cregar
It’s true, Laird is worth at least three stars simply for showing up on screen, get him to menace someone or be sauve or, even better, both, and we’re talking at least six stars as an opening bid.
I have to admit a peculiar fondness for Victor Mature as well, he has a sort of overripe quality to him that I almost always find interesting, even if not always appropriate. Betty Grable? She barely ever registers for me, there is something of an air of an understudy performing in place of the star about her. She’s not especially bad generally, but not especially good either as long as she isn’t called on to go beyond certain bounds anyway. Pairing her with Carole Landis does neither of them any favors either.
Terri (Director: Azazel Jacobs)
Azazel Jacobs is the son of legendary director Ken Jacobs and Terri is his most conventional and comercially viable movie thus far. That being said, it’s ok at best. I’ve seen much worse but it’s no masterpiece either.
The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (Director: David Slade)
it was on tv so I gave it a shot. It can’t be too bad, right? Wrong! Godawful.
@greg x: i know what you’re saying about mature; he has a unique look that would be great for noir…if he wasn’t so often over the top. those eyebrows are like a character unto themselves. and betty is just a lightweight. i can see why she didn’t do more drama. landis seemed talented and certainly beautiful; it’s the first time i’ve seen her in a substantial part. she’s the one that killed herself over rex harrison if i recall?
I have a higher opinion of the film than Japeman because I like what it says about the kind of ‘help’ social misfits get from well intended authority figures. I don’t think the Heather plotline came off well.
A Heart in winter1992
Un cœur en hiver
DIR Claude Sautet
PROD Philippe Carcassonne, Jean-Louis Livi
SCR Claude Sautet, Jacques Fieschi
DP Yves Angelo
CAST Daniel Auteuil, Emmanuelle Béart, André Dussollier, Élisabeth Bourgine, Brigitte Catillon, Myriam Boyer, Jean-Claude Bouillaud
ED Jacqueline Thiédot
Yes, Landis killed herself and her affair with Harrison may have been a factor in that. Landis seemed to have what they hoped Grable would have when it came to dramas so putting Grable in a film with Landis did more to show Grable’s shortcomings than help her. Grable was fine, if not particularly memorable in lighter films and musicals, but even there she mostly managed to not harm the production rather than actively improve it by asserting some sort of extra personality on the films. I don’t want to sound too mean about her since she wasn’t bad or offputting, she did what was expected and was fine for that, she just wasn’t that memorable when compared to some of the other stars of the time. Mature seemed to be more interesting later in his career when he was more often cast in roles suggesting someone on the decline rather than beefcake or a love interest. In addition to his eye brows he had that strange mouth that was almost girlish and such a big body that his head seemed slightly the wrong size for it. There was something of an aura of decadence about him with all of that, and his best roles made use of that. I particularly found him effective when he would play someone fairly educated or intelligent as it worked against his physical type in some ways to further give the feeling of his character being run down or tired of a life that his body suggested but his way of speaking worked against. He was something like an equivalent of some of the female stars, or their characters, of the time who wanted to be taken seriously for what they thought but who’s bodies kept getting in the way. An unusual trait in a male lead and Mature seemed hip to it.
The Sea Hawk 1940
Errol Flynn is playing Francis Drake in a swashbuckling epic set during the Spanish Armada as WW2 propaganda in 1940. I give it five stars for the set pieces, swordfights and Korngold score.
ELVIS: Not as good as i remembered, and certainly not the defintiive Elvis movie. it’s not necessarily Carpenter’s or Russell’s fault though; after all, they try their best, and Russell is convincing in the role, especially as the film progresses, but it glosses over too much of his life for the sake of ‘respect’, which is understandable, considering the film was made only a year or two after the king’s death. However, in doing so, they create an uneven portait of Elvis, where crucial aspects of his life are omitted, such as the ambiguous, often negative, motives of Colonel Parker and the Memphis Mafia, and the subsequent affect their influence exerted on both his professional and personal life.
Elvis is a classic example of a man that was brought down to a large extent by his trusting nature, leading to questionable choices in management and general personnel, which often gave him the impression that the world was conspiring against him. Carpenter and Russell express this feeling of ‘victimisation’ and being misunderstood well, but without any obvious or even potential targets, Elvis just comes off like an ego maniac that doesn’t know how good he has it, or as a man plagued with extreme self doubt, depending on the scene. While these observations are probably not too far from the truth to be uncomfortable, they fail to tell the whole story. Moreover, his ‘triumphant’ return in Vegas eventually became a source of embarassment, and the man was practically a joke in his final, tragic years. Again, out of respect they would left this aspect of his career out, and truth be told, much of the real ‘truth’ about Elvis came out years later anyway, but it’s entirely too whitewashed for my liking. Elvis, along with Marilyn Monroe, is the ultimate figure to make a statement about the dangers of mega celebrity, and the maniacal, parasitic culture that creates and sustains it.
OVerall, the film is well made and acted, and Carpenter manages to recreate the classic era of rock and roll with more than a hint of nostalgia without falling into trite sentimentality, but for Elvis fans, it definitely falls short of greatness. 7/10. maybe 6.5.
^^There are moments in the film where there is a disconnect between Elvis the celebrity, and Elvis the ‘man’, so there is some level of recognition about the problem of celebrity, but more often than not it occurs during Elvis’s ‘off season’, where he isn’t performing as often and is feeling ‘unloved’ as a result. The film takes these moments as they are, without ever offering an ‘outside’ perspective for which to question, judge or contextualise the information we are given. in this sense, ti’s a very flat, and two dimensional film.
i’ve said enough
Tokyo Story 10/10
Topsy-Turvy (1999, Mike Leigh): I think I’ve reached the point in my Mike Liegh fandom where I’ll fall for most things that he makes: a two and a half hour film focusing on Gilbert and Sullivan shouldn’t leave me really rather delighted!… All the characters feel so fleshed out even if they’re only in the film for a couple minutes, the look at the creative process is rather wonderful, many of the performances are terrific and most impressively of all I found the film to be by quite some distance one of Leigh’s funniest. 8.5/10
Tekkonkinkreet (2006, Michael Arias): The animation is wonderful. The story not so much: White’s character and the chase scenes stand out, but the villains aren’t very interesting (though I liked how the film humanised a couple of the minor ones), as much as I appreciate the oddly existential elements I’m not entirely convinced by them and I’m not quite sure what all these sometimes quite disparate scenes are meant to add up to. And the more abstract stuff at the end, which I’d normally love, I found unsatisfying here. 7/10
McCabe & Mrs. Miller (1971, Robert Atlman): On a visual aesthetic level it is extraordinary, there’s a muddy realism to the look and yet the film is still stunningly beautiful. I’ve gotta say though that the combination of Leonard Cohen’s music and Warren Beatty’s bumbling performance had a slightly soporific effect on me. And whilst the film has a rich rueful quality to it, the whole cold fatalism thing stopped me from really connecting with it emotionally. So I liked it a lot, but unlike a lot of people wasn’t exactly blown away. 8/10
Killer’s Kiss (1955, Stanley Kubrick): There are some cool shots, and the climax is kind of thrilling. Other than that though, it feels a bit empty (there really isn’t a lot to it) and amateur. The plot, dialogue and narration are all weak. It’s almost like Kubrick is just using this as an opportunity to experiment around and get more used to the medium of film rather than actually trying to make a great film. 5/10
Oliver Twist (1948, David Lean): I haven’t read the book, but the film to me felt kind of rushed trying to fit everything in: I’d quite happily have them slice out some of the plot for the sake of putting in more character moments. It’s still good, in particular it looks great and it portrays its world and characters fairly vividly and for the most part the plot is engaging. I guess I just find this sort of filmmaking kind of uninspiring is all… 7/10
Nuts in May (1976, Mike Leigh): I kind of doubt that any film so perfectly conveys my experiences with the English countryside and people therein. Also the bit where the central couple sing their song to Ray is ridiculous and brilliant (it’s a very irritating moment but all the more hilarious because of it as you can immediately understand Ray’s feelings over the situation). That Mike Leigh can make the central couple so funny to watch and yet also so believable and realistic is a true credit to his skills as a filmmaker. 9/10
The Kiss of Death (1977, Mike Leigh): I’m not sure whether this film is painfully honest or cloyingly artificial. Anyway, I found it interesting and enjoyable enough if also admittedly a tad slight. 6.5/10
The Accused (Jonathan Kaplan) – 5/10
Restrepo (Tim Hetherington and Sebastian Junger) – 5/10
The Trouble With Harry (Alfred Hitchcock) – 6/10
The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (Luis Bunuel) – 8/10
Ricky (Francois Ozon) – 7/10
Vampire’s Kiss (Robert Bierman) – 4/10
The Horseman (Steven Kastrissios) – 2/10
The Verdict (Sydney Lumet) – 9/10
The Stranger (Orson Welles) – 8/10
Let Me In (Matt Reeves) – 6/10
Magnolia (Paul Thomas Anderson) – 11/10
The Thing (John Carpenter) – 9/10
Food Inc. (Robert Kenner) – 9/10
HE WHO GETS SLAPPED (Seastrom) — 10/10
In a gorgeous 35mm print at the Castro Theatre for the San Francisco Silent Film Festival, with live accompaniment by the great Matti Bye Ensemble. A treat — vastly entertaining and deeply moving.
Lon Chaney RULES.
I find that the Castro venue is great even when the films are not, would kill to see a Lon Chaney there
It was a religious experience — overwhelming.
I saw a Marilyn Monroe festival there (including the Misfits and How to Marry a Millionaire) also Logan’s Picnic, best theater experience I have had in years.
I watched about an hour of Julian Schnabel’s controversial, criticially panned “Miral”. The person I was watching it with said it reminded her of Claire Denis’ “White Material” a little bit though we both agreed Denis’ film was much, much better. Like I said, I only watched about an hour of Schnabel’s film so I won’t rate it unless I get back to it (doubtful) but it was pretty dreadful.
Why are most films about the middle east (see also: Persepolis) so much more like lectures than actual films?
Gonna watch Limitless tonight, still gotta watch Hobo with a Shotgun.
I should have chosen Small Town Murder Songs but chose Miral because Schnabel is a bigger name as a director.
Cleaners (Director: Douglas Reese)
low-key in a way that’s reminiscent of early Richard Linklater or David Gordon Green and featuring a sexy, self-assured performance from Danelle Kjellman. Sure, you can argue there’s not much to this film but it isn’t trying to say too much, it’s a slice-of-life similar to David Gordon Green’s “George Washington” and it’s pretty steller, with a shocking plot twist towards the end that seems not to phase the film’s protagonist couple in the least. Good job, Mr. Reese!
DIR Andrea Štaka
SCR Andrea Štaka, Barbara Albert, Marie Kreutzer
CAST Mirjana Karanović, Marija Škaričić, Ljubica Jovic, Andrea Zogg, Pablo Aguilar, David Imhoof
Nice debut film – Štaka is a director to watch.