WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Chit-chat, current events
User avatar
moira finnie
Administrator
Posts: 8024
Joined: April 9th, 2007, 6:34 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by moira finnie »

RedRiver wrote:This promising espionage drama fails to excite me too. Certainly not a bad film. It's just a little too meticulous. It does have its moments. This is the one with the dancing whiskey bottle, isn't it? Fantastic scene!
This scene, perhaps? A few moments of audacious filmmmaking and expressionism in an otherwise realistic movie--unforgettable, even if it didn't completely fit the rest of the movie.
[youtube][/youtube]
Avatar: Frank McHugh (1898-1981)

The Skeins
TCM Movie Morlocks
RedRiver
Posts: 4200
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by RedRiver »

You're right, Moira. It kind comes out of nowhere. I thought, Where's Ray Milland?
RedRiver
Posts: 4200
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by RedRiver »

THE ROBE is a fine film, and a spiritual experience. Both the leads are at their best. You're right, Feaito. Ms. Simmons was never more radiant nor more brilliant. She was a tremendous actress who sometimes seems overshadowed by more famous and energetic performers. As I've said about BEN-HUR, another biblical epic I admire, you don't have to subscribe to a particular religion to respect the beliefs, and especially the storytelling, that make up a work of drama.

I must qualify my feelings on THE ROBE, and confess I haven't seen it since I was a teen. I'm unable to offer a more mature and recent response. But my impressions have stuck with me all these years. For a time, this was one of my favorite movies.
feaito

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by feaito »

I agree with your assessments Re. Jean Simmons RedRiver. Who if not a tremendous actress could play credibly such different characters as the Indian native of "Black Narcissus" (1946) and Shakespeare's Ophelia in Olivier's "Hamlet" (1948)? My favorite Biblical and/or Ancient Roman films are: 1. Spartacus; 2. Ben-Hur (1959); 3. The Robe; 4. Quo Vadis?. One's favoritism has to do with our experiences as kids and those reminiscences...
User avatar
MichiganJ
Posts: 1405
Joined: May 20th, 2008, 4:37 pm
Contact:

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by MichiganJ »

MikeBSG wrote:I just watched "Moneyball" (2011). While it had some good scenes, I was ultimately disappointed in the movie. I know it is mandatory in some circles to mock "The Natural," with its focus on "the big game," but "Moneyball" looks at the whole of a baseball season, and there is no real drama there. (Indeed, "Moneyball" has its own 'big game' with a last minute homer to save the day.)

But I guess what really bugged me about "Moneyball" is that it is a management movie. It basically celebrates a guy who realizes he can wipe out one class of worker (the scouts) with a computer software program. The most important skill he has is to be able to say to people "Pack your bags, you've been traded/sent down." And this is the hero of the movie. Not only that, but the movie takes the view that anyone who sees baseball as being more than statistics is a dinosaur.

There are some entertaining scenes here, but the ultimate implications of "Moneyball" leave me cold.
RedRiver wrote:The concept of MONEYBALL leaves me cold too. I haven't seen it. But I don't want to. Certainly, I've heard it's very good. I could be more open minded. But a movie about accounting? Why not one about...baseball?
moirafinnie wrote: You really make me glad I overlooked Moneyball the other day at the library. I thought that the press made it sound like a pretty good underdog movie, but now I don't know if it is worth the time.
I think Moneyball is one of the best sports movies I've seen. Considering that the film is "based on a true story" about a single Oakland A's season, and the outcome of that season is well known (or easy to look up), it's amazing how much drama and suspense the film actually offers. While an integral part of the film's story (but really only part of the actual events) I think the filmmakers came up with extraordinary ways to make potentially non visual components compelling and dramatic.

Since the story does follow actual events, it doesn't succumb to the Hollywood formula where the hero/team has overcome their misfortunes and struggles and finally and miraculously gets to compete in the big game, where, win or lose, they win. There is plenty of baseball in Moneyball, but even non-fans may know that the A's didn't make it to the World Series (eliminated in round one), and, despite possibly knowing the outcome of their winning streak, particularly the infamous/famous game 20 (which is still edge of your seat riveting, even knowing the outcome), Moneyball's arc isn't dependent on any one big game, but rather the success or failure of General Manager Billy Beane. If a formula applies at all, I suppose Moneyball is more the underdog beating an unfair system.

But really, Moneyball is about baseball. Behind the scenes, on the field, in the locker room, Moneyball is about the love of the game. The personal love of the game. (While not necessarily a spoiler, the next bit describes one of the most powerful and quiet sequences in the film and is the one that more-or-less defined Moneyball for me). The seminal moment in the film is after a climactic meeting, where Beane has a difficult choice to make (again, for many, the outcome is already known, but it doesn't matter). Beane simply goes out and lays down in the ball field. But crucially, we see him, not in a glorious Brad Pitt closeup, but rather through a security cam monitor, which is from Jonah Hill's character's perspective. Amazingly intimate, and while it may not exactly draw a tear, it's pretty darn moving.

Except that they both center around baseball, I personally don't see how to compare Moneyball and The Natural. One is based on true events and the other is fantasy. Both are fine movies, but are telling vastly different stories. Yes the arc in The Natural is more traditional storytelling, and the film is very emotional (with a big assist from Randy Newman's score, which for me, is overpowering), but Moneyball has it's own arc and is equally powerful. And if you want tears, Jeremy Brown's "unknown" home run at least comes close to Roy Hobbs' night-lights shattering homer.

Far from being a movie about accounting or the dismissing of scouts (one "villain" is fired in the film and Beane himself was once a scout), Moneyball shows how embracing some new ways of doing things can actually work. (So well, in fact, that the Red Sox, who embraced the system, finally won a World Series--as horribly as that is. Let's forget the Sox and use the Marlins instead.) Aaron Sorkin's dialogue sizzles, as usual, and all of the performances are terrific, particularly Brad Pitt, who shows a confidence and vulnerability at the same time. In a year that turned out to have a number of really good movies, Moneyball is certainly up there among them.

It also should be noted that Moneyball is a film for everybody, not just fans of baseball. My wife, who tolerates me having a game on while I'm cooking, found the film to be so interesting and involving that she is now reading the book.
"Let's be independent together." Dr. Hermey DDS
RedRiver
Posts: 4200
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by RedRiver »

Very good argument. As I say, I've heard good things about the movie and the book. By the way, what season was this? I don't even know that!
User avatar
MichiganJ
Posts: 1405
Joined: May 20th, 2008, 4:37 pm
Contact:

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by MichiganJ »

RedRiver wrote:Very good argument. As I say, I've heard good things about the movie and the book. By the way, what season was this? I don't even know that!
It was the 2002 season. The year that Miguel Tejada, the A's shortstop, won MVP and A's pitcher Barry Zito won the Cy Young award, which means, while the film implies otherwise, it wasn't only the moneyball principals used to make up the team.
"Let's be independent together." Dr. Hermey DDS
MikeBSG
Posts: 1777
Joined: April 25th, 2007, 5:43 pm

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by MikeBSG »

Yesterday I watched "Each Dawn I Die," (1939) dir. William Keighley.

It has a good, noirish start. To my surprise, I found that I really liked George Raft, and I thought the film suffered when it moved away from him for long stretches. Cagney was okay, but I think the movie missed a bet by having him be a good guy unjustly imprisoned rather than just a guy trying to break out. (In fact, I was a bit surprised to see such an "anti-establishment" film being made so close to WWII.) The supporting cast was wonderful and almost made up for all the contortions in the plot that were necessary to have both Cagney and Raft be "good guys."

I watched the movie with my 16 year old son, and, as this was his first real exposure to a Warners gangster film, he liked the movie more than I did.
feaito

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by feaito »

Yesterday I watched a film that I had been long anticipated: "Midnight in Paris" (2011) a postcard of love and an ode to Paris. It's one of the best Allen films I've seen in decades, because the immense love that the director feels for the subject of the movie is completely apparent; its warmth and care is all over. I was completely won by it. It's a movie that I will revisit many times. I have to add that the plot took me completely by surprise; we need magic in our lives :D
RedRiver
Posts: 4200
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by RedRiver »

I'm a big fan of Woody. I like this movie. But I'm a little surprised this is the one getting the attention. Sweet and gentle though it is, he's done better work in recent years. The angst-ridden murder dramas, MATCH POINT and CASSANDRA'S DREAM are dark and disturbing. The quietly neurotic ANYTHING ELSE his most clever comedy since the 1990's.

The new film is a good one. It's literate and imaginative. But it tries awfully hard to achieve something higher. I'm not sure it succeeds.
MikeBSG
Posts: 1777
Joined: April 25th, 2007, 5:43 pm

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by MikeBSG »

Count me as another person who likes "Midnight in Paris" but is a little baffled as to its success. "Anything Else" is tremendously funny, but I really liked "Vicky Christina Barcelona" which was both funny and thought provoking.

But then "Midnight in Paris" introduced my daughter to Woody Allen movies, so maybe there is a generational shift going on. After X years in the wilderness, a new generation of moviegoers (and possibly critics) are finding him.

It reminds me of the book about Alfred Hitchcock by Robert Kapsis, which argued that film critics didn't change their minds about Hitchcock. They died out, and a new generation of film critics proclaimed him a genius. Allen has been working so long that I think much the same thing will/is happening to him.
User avatar
ChiO
Posts: 3899
Joined: January 2nd, 2008, 1:26 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by ChiO »

I enjoyed MIDNIGHT IN PARIS a great deal, but almost felt guilty doing so. It feared that it was nostalgia speaking to me -- that it in many ways was a return to his films of the '70s and '80s -- rather than an advance.

But hearing Adrian Brody pronounce himself to be "Dah-LEE" and listening to Owen Wilson explain THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL to Bunuel made it all worthwhile.
Everyday people...that's what's wrong with the world. -- Morgan Morgan
I love movies. But don't get me wrong. I hate Hollywood. -- Orson Welles
Movies can only go forward in spite of the motion picture industry. -- Orson Welles
feaito

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by feaito »

The only thing I can say is that, as corny as it may sound, "Midnight in Paris" (2011) spoke to my heart and not to my mind, like other films of Allen, have. BTW, "The Purple Rose of Cairo" (1985) also spoke to my heart :wink:
RedRiver
Posts: 4200
Joined: July 28th, 2011, 9:42 am

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by RedRiver »

it was nostalgia speaking to me

Woody would probably be happy about that. It goes right along with the theme of the movie!
User avatar
JackFavell
Posts: 11926
Joined: April 20th, 2009, 9:56 am

Re: WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?

Post by JackFavell »

Purple Rose of Cairo is a wonderful film. I was having my appendix out when Midnight in Paris came out. Thanks for bringing it up so I can remember to rent it. I liked Scoop too, though it hasn't the resonance of Match Point or some of the other later Woody movies mentioned here.

I saw a wonderful independent film yesterday, called Joe Gould's Secret (2000), directed by actor Stanley Tucci with delicacy and restraint. The film is a beautiful evocation of 1940's and 1950's New York, and the artistic milieu there at that time. The locations themselves are worth watching the movie for. There are cameo appearances by Susan Sarandon, Steve Martin, Patricia Clarkson, and Nell Campbell.

This is a film about the fine line between art and insanity, about friendship, charity, self preservation, poverty, and lying to oneself. In other words, it's a movie about the things we look away from. I found it tremendously moving, but hard to describe. It has left me thinking about it over and over again. It's not an easy watch, but very worthwhile. Tucci gives Ian Holm a huge, Byronic, crazy, moving role to play here, and Holm is more than brilliant - I honestly don't know why he didn't receive an Academy award for it.

Holm plays Joe Gould, writer of THE ORAL HISTORY, a book that Gould describes as the transcription of thousands of conversations he had with people of all classes, which Gould claims is more accurate than any written history, or textbook study of humanity, due to its inclusion of the formerly voiceless masses. Gould is an eccentric who wanders in and out of the artist's salons and bars of New York City. He has notebooks filled with his writings all over town, and has achieved a form of notoriety with other artists who contribute money to the author in order to help him with his work. He is observed by Joe Mitchell (Stanley Tucci), a writer for the New Yorker, who becomes fascinated with Gould's outsized personality, and his high minded artistic views, in contrast to his debased state of living. Gould cadges handouts, calling them contributions to the "Joe Gould Fund", lives in a dump or on the street, gets drunk, often falls down, and creates scenes when he encounters what he deems to be poseurs in the art world. And yet, he can be completely enthralling, a storyteller, and obviously a man of letters. He brings a conspicuous truth to the art world he skirts along the edges of, with genuine flashes of acuity and magnificence. He is befriended by the artistic community, even as he is highly critical of it.

Mitchell and Gould strike up a friendship of sorts, with Mitchell initially liking the old man, who is highly entertaining, and instinctively seeing something deeper in Joe Gould's rantings. He interviews Gould, and writes up a piece for the New Yorker, which leads to Gould's being taken up by society and artistic types who latch onto the man as the next big thing. Gould is briefly and happily in the limelight, but soon becomes a nuisance to everyone, including Joe Mitchell, who finds that Gould's increasingly manic behavior is driving him crazy. When Gould starts showing up at Mitchell's workplace every day, Mitchell starts hiding from Gould. Gould intuitively understands that Mitchell is giving him the brush off, and is hurt and saddened, but can't stop himself. A showdown occurs, and the two men avoid one another, as Gould slides further into obscurity than he was before the article. Mitchell starts to realize that the things he hated about Gould are within himself, but it is too late to make amends for the damage he caused. The final shot of the film is an obscured view of the city, a brick wall staring us in the face.

The movie is so thought provoking that I can't get it out of my mind. Even more fascinating, this is based on a true story, with some mind blowing revelations about the two main characters. It's filmed lovingly and understatedly by Tucci. I would love to see him behind the camera again. I can't recommend it highly enough. It's brilliant.
Post Reply