I Just Watched...

[Detective Jim McLeod]

The Lovely Bones (2009) -- I recall that this was a fiasco in 2009. It pretty much obliterated all the goodwill that director Peter Jackson had following the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It lost a lot of money. And yet, Stanley Tucci was up for supporting actor for playing a serial killer (even if his part gives him little to do outside of looking and acting creepy. His nomination should have been for Julie and Julia that year.) In actuality, the actors cannot be faulted for what went down: Saoirse Ronan is touching as a murder victim looking on from Purgatory on those she left behind, Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz are moving as her grieving parents, Susan Sarandon is her usual professional self. But this story is HORRIBLY structured, with the final 20 minutes so inanely put together, its a wonder who exactly thought that it would work. And then there is also the element of the film's depiction of Purgatory; nobody knows what the afterlife looks like, but surely it doesn't look like the arch, irritating, Microsoft-screensaver-like CGI-green-screen- fest shown in the film In fact, the CGI goes a long way to kill the film's chances. The movies lost a lot when they started relying on computer effects....

I agree this film was hit and miss, but I really liked Saoirse Ronan's performance. I was bit surprised at Stanley Tucci's nomination, I don't think he thought much of it either, I recall at the Oscar ceremony, after his clip was played, you could see him saying "Horrible!"

[CinemaInternational]

The Lovely Bones (2009) -- I recall that this was a fiasco in 2009. It pretty much obliterated all the goodwill that director Peter Jackson had following the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It lost a lot of money. And yet, Stanley Tucci was up for supporting actor for playing a serial killer (even if his part gives him little to do outside of looking and acting creepy. His nomination should have been for Julie and Julia that year.) In actuality, the actors cannot be faulted for what went down: Saoirse Ronan is touching as a murder victim looking on from Purgatory on those she left behind, Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz are moving as her grieving parents, Susan Sarandon is her usual professional self. But this story is HORRIBLY structured, with the final 20 minutes so inanely put together, its a wonder who exactly thought that it would work. And then there is also the element of the film's depiction of Purgatory; nobody knows what the afterlife looks like, but surely it doesn't look like the arch, irritating, Microsoft-screensaver-like CGI-green-screen- fest shown in the film In fact, the CGI goes a long way to kill the film's chances. The movies lost a lot when they started relying on computer effects....

I agree this film was hit and miss, but I really liked Saoirse Ronan's performance. I was bit surprised at Stanley Tucci's nomination, I don't think he thought much of it either, I recall at the Oscar ceremony, after his clip was played, you could see him saying "Horrible!"

Yes, Ronan was terrific, as usual. She was up for a British Film Award for this performance, and I can't disagree with that. Anyone who does such a good job amid so much CGI deserves a nod. I recall Tucci's reaction to his clip, it was very telling. The role he has here is so one-note; I realize he was on a roll at this time, but surely they could have given a nod instead to his more nuanced role that yrar?

[Lorna]

More dispatches from the Oscar battle lines of the *groan* 2000s.


Brokeback Mountain (2005) -- Well, I waited until the hype cloud was over, at least to some degree. Everyone basically knows the basic gist of the film, so talked about at the time it was, so suffice to say that the film is distinctly understated, with good acting, strong photography, and generally intelligent handling. It's no real surprise upon seeing this why TCM aired it in the last year or two, because this hearkens back to an earlier, deeper, more classical storytelling style than most of the other films of the gimmicky 2000s.


The Lovely Bones (2009) -- I recall that this was a fiasco in 2009. It pretty much obliterated all the goodwill that director Peter Jackson had following the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It lost a lot of money.

District 9 (2009) --- 2009 was a famously limp year for films, done in by the lingering effects of the 2007-2008 writer's strike. It was also the year that the Oscars expanded their Best Picture lineup for the first time since 1943. (I'm not exactly sure it has worked out, given that every year since then, there has been at least one mediocre to dreadful film up for the prize every year.)

1. SPOILER IN RE: BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. I gave up on modern films around 2007, but I like this movie- although a somewhat similar British film GOD'S OWN COUNTRY from a few years ago is, I think- better. The acting in this movie is all-around terrific, even from ANNE HATHAWAY who seems (in a rare instance) to be coming from a genuine place (chances are, she maybe was, I can totally see her dating a lot of gay guys in High School) ANWAYS, I only have TWO PROBLEMS with BROKEBACK and one is the scene where THEY DON'T USE LUBE!!!!!! (Oh, I would have loved to have seen the audience reaction when they screened this in WEST HOLLYWOOD) also, I wish HOLLYWOOD had learned before this movie was made that you can end a story about two gay men or two gay women WITHOUT a tragic death from either a hate crime or AIDS. if BROKEBACK had just had a riveting REMAINS OF THE DAY style ending where they just realize it's not gonna happen in this lifetime and accept it, I would have LOOOOOVED IT. but no, of course, someone just HAD to get HATE CRIMED in the story.

2. The book THE LOVELY BONES was not goot at all, at least I thought so. I dunno if this had anything to do with the film flopping or not. nowadays, it would be a 6 episode series on PRIME.

3. ON THAT LAST REMARK, C'mon, think about it- the exact same statement is true for ALL the years when there were only FIVE NOMINEES (1944-2008). I DARE you to change my mind.

[Lorna]

MY RESPONSES IN RED- LHF

Give 'Em Hell, Harry (1975) --- this is a photographed version of James Whitmore's one man show playing harry Truman.

I do like JAMES WHITMORE a lot- he is especially good in the movie THEM! (1954)- and I seriously mean that. he absolutely grounds the movie about giant killer ants with a real humanity.

Reuben Reuben (1983) -- crisp comedy-drama stars Tom Conti as a boozy, womanizing poet who lurches from one event to another and ultimately falls for Kelly McGillis.

HAH! I've never seen this, but wow, this guy sure can pick 'em huh? Were his previous girlfriends JODIE FOSTER, MARTINA NAVRATALOVA and GERTRUDE STEIN?


Boys Don't Cry (1999) -- grim offering of the events leading up to the murder of a transgender individual (Hillary Swank) in 1993. The film is stricken, glum all the way through, even before the gory conclusion with dank photography, mumbled dialogue, and characters which are always held at a distance. It's hard to get involved in this.

IT's been two decades, but I went into this movie expecting to REALLY NOT LIKE IT, but I ended up liking it. It's not a film i really want to see again...And I think THE DIRECTOR has since gone on to not only some bad movies, but developed a bad personal reputation as well.


Traffic (2000) --I was happy to see Amy Irving again.

"Yes, I'll take STATEMENTS NEVER ONCE UTTERED BY STEVEN SPIELBERG IN HIS ENTIRE LIFE for $700, Alex..."

Shadow of the Vampire (2000) -- Lengthy opening and closing credits want to help to disguise the fact that the film proper only runs 85 minutes. The setup i intriguing: what if the star of the shocking 1922 horror film Nosferatu was an actual vampire, who between takes kept munching away on unfortunates around the film's set. As it stands, the film is a bit slow, but the visual design is impressive, Willem Dafoe is chilling as the villain, and John Malkovich gives a committed performance as the obsessed director FW Murnau.

OH GOD THIS ****ING MOVIE, we used to have a poster on YE OLDE BOARDS who I liked and who was a great writer and VERY KNOWLEDGABLE and we had similar tastes, but he would periodically SNAP if you disagreed on a movie and this was one instance where I piqued him but honestly, I'M NOT SORRY. THIS MOVIE ****ING SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKS AND I WILL PLANT MY FLAG AND DIE ON THIS HILL IF I MUST!!!!!

Quills (2000) -- I have come to believe that between this and Marat/Sade, that any film with the Marquis De Sade in a big part is an automatic no from me.

Here he is folks, the leader of the plaque!
Watch him suck up that gas, oh my god!
He is a dentist and he'll never ever be any good
Who wants their teeth done by the Marquis de Sade?

.
Sexy Beast (2000/2001) -- grimy crime saga is short (88 minutes), but impenetrable. Good cast does what they can with slithery circumstances.....

i TRIED TO WATCH THIS, but it was clear that THE DIRECTOR fancied himself a REAL AUTEUR and kept trying to show off visual tricks and it eclipsed the story.

A Single Man (2009)(It's as though the character of Betsy Faye Sharon from Soapdish was the casting director)

[Lorna]

**to be fair, WILLEM DAFOE is SUPERB in SHADOW OF THE VAMPIRE, but it only makes me ALL THE MORE MAD that he is SO GOOD and just about EVERYTHING ELSE is soooooooooooooooooooo baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadddddd!!!!!!!!

***i genuinely think they were slipping downers to the cast or forcing them to drink an entire bottle of cough syrup before every take.

[kingrat]

Lorna, I am still laughing about the Kelly McGillis comment!

I've always liked Anne Hathaway's performance in Brokeback Mountain. Here's this spunky gal so full of life when we first see her, and then we see her drained of life because of what her marriage has been. I don't like the scene where the guys meet and Jake Gyllenhaal poses gay-bar style against his car in a seductive pose. Gene Shalit got roasted for calling this a seduction scene, but that is what we see on screen. An awkward sense of attraction seems to me what the story calls for. If Gyllenhaal has the experience to pose this way, what is he doing in rural Wyoming? It's out of character.

I also agree about the lube. If a film doesn't want to get into the mechanics of who does what to whom, fine, but if it does, then a little more realism is called for.

[Lorna]

I also agree about the lube. If a film doesn't want to get into the mechanics of who does what to whom, fine, but if it does, then a little more realism is called for.

If they'd used lube, it would've won BEST PICTURE.

(Those of you still mad about CRASH all these years later- think about it.)

[Lorna]

if a film is set anytime in ENGLAND ca. 1800-1940 and features A DRAWING ROOM, then I'm in- (bonus points for A CONSERVATORY)

On that note, I checked out AN INSPECTOR CALLS (1954) a deeply, deeply BRITISH FILM in all things but ideals. Based on a play by JB PRIESTLY who was a curious writer (he wrote BENIGHTED on which THE OLD DARK HOUSE is based)- it is ostensibly a MYSTERY early on, then that goes out the window and honestly, it gets INSUFFERABLY "BOLSHY" to a downright HAMFISTED level (I am QUITE left of center and it was just too DIDACTICALLY MARXIST for me). according to wikipedia, this thing DEBUTED IN SOVIET RUSSIA IN 1945 (????!!!!!)

there is a touch of CLIFFORD ODETS here, and I don't mean that as a compliment.

the performances, while fine, are SO ARCH as to honestly lend the whole thing to parody.

THIS FILM has the rare distinction of being simultaneously stage-bound and disarmingly abrupt in its change of setting- it's hard to explain why, you just have to see it.

there is a wild twist that threatens to make the film interesting near the end, but eh.

spoilerish:

THE ENDING, while it helps to explain just why ALISTAIR SIM gives such a CURIOUS performance as the titular inspector, makes the whole thing feel like it could and should have just been a 20 minute segment in DEAD OF NIGHT or some other PORTMANTEAU HORROR FILM OF THE TIME.

[CinemaInternational]

Another bleak round of dealing with the Oscars, and with the glum 2000s, and with uncomfortable issues such as Nazis, concentration camps, cloning, serial killers, warfare, govermental corruption, and sundry other issues.

Seven Beauties (1975) -- This was brutal. It is the saga of a man of dubious morals who will do anything it takes to survive WWII and the concentration camps. This was so unflinching that it reminded me a lot of the later Midnight Express. This is a well made film, but like Boys Don't Cry the other day, it is a hard film to view.

The Boys from Brazil (1978) -- Ick. Pulpy story imagines that the infamous Dr. Mengele (Gregory Peck, uncomfortably cast) was making dozens of exact genetic clones of Hitler, as Nazi hunter Lawrence Olivier tries to track him down and untangle all the disturbing secrets. The film is a tawdry mess, in extremely bad taste, and the film is artless in its staging.

Sling Blade (1996) -- Character study of a mentally slow man (Billy Bob Thornton), once guilty of a double murder, being let out of an institution , and it shows him reentering society, and how this ultimately affects others in a small southern town. The performances are rich, the script is good here, but at close to two and a half hours, this is a bit too long for its own good.

American History X (1998) -- Just what the world didn't need: a film about Neo-Nazis. Edward Norton plays a former skinhead who gets out of prison to find that his brother is drifting into the same poisonous beliefs. He then tries to save his brother, to no affect, as the film doubles back for black-and-white flashbacks of Norton's own days of hate. Performances are fine, but the film is loathsome and a waste of time.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) -- This was wildly hyped on its first release (not least for the then-novelty value of seeing the Disney logo on a PG-13 film), but this is a pretty sodden affair, lacking the gleeful snap of the Erroll Flynn pirate films or of Burt Lancaster's The Crimson Pirate. Instead, aside from Johnny Depp's scenery chewing, it is a fairly mordant and self-serious swashbucker, and the film cracks under the heavy touch.

Monster (2003) --- Charlize Theron won an Oscar for her performance as a female serial killer in this film, and the film perhaps surprises by trying to show all that lead up to this lamentable fate, starting with her disasterous involvement with a companion (Christina Ricci), who was not worth the emotional involvement. Theron is barely recognizable here, playing a weather-beaten woman who snapped after a life of indignities. She gives a marvelous performance which helps to elevate the whole proceedings and makes this into a good, sobering character study.

Kinsey (2004) -- Definitely a film that is very frank sexually, this deals with the sex researcher (played by Liam Neeson) who shocked the nation in the 50s, his wife (Laura Linney), and his assistant/lover (Peter Saarsgaard). As it stands, the film is provocative, but pedestrian, and very one-note in execution. It's just dull, more like a big screen version of an undistinguished HBO film.

Syriana (2005) -- pointed critique of the state of affairs in the Middle East and with the government at the time of its release, this particular film has seemingly all but been forgotten, even with an acting win for George Clooney. The film is extremely well cast, it is intelligently made, but the complex story remains hard to completely decipher.

I'm Not There (2007) -- arty and pretentious, this was an attempt to make an unconventional biopic of Bob Dylan, switching between black and white and color and with six different people playing Bob. It looks fine, but the treatment is surface level, leading the film to resemble a glossy poster rather than an actual probing study.

The Messenger (2009) -- Begins rather strong as a look at two men who have the task of having to inform others that their loved ones have died in battle, but as the film goes on, it kind of drifts away. Still, the acting is strong, especially from Woody Harrellson and Samantha Morton.

[CinemaInternational]

Lorna, few notes.

1. Your comments on Amy Irving and Kelly McGillis made me laugh a lot (in fact I am laughing as I write this sentence). The film with Conti and McGillis is on YouTube if you want to take a look (and I think you would agree with me about the ending, and by gallows humor, I literally mean it. Sorry for the spoiler, but that's the way it is). The video is age-restricted though, so you'll have to have an account to log in to see it.

2. I guess you are right about the 5-nominee years, with 1979 (Kramer Vs. Kramer, All That Jazz, Norma Rae, Breaking Away, Apocalypse Now) being the exception to the rulr. But it just seems that since 2009, they have served up some truly ghastly nominations that make the faltering nominees of years past look good by comparison.

3. Crash is a dreadful film, but I'm not entirely sure that it lost BP on result of the lack of lubricant. Some voters at the time refused to watch it, and well, Focus Features, the production company, has shown themselves time and again to be maladroit in winning Best Picture (the company has been around since 2002, they have had at least one pony in the picture competition in 14 different races, and they haven't won once.)

4. Shadow of the Vampire, fair enough. No film is for everyone and I'm sorry for bringing back bad memories by mentioning it. Be assured though that the man who directed it has only made one film since, and it was slated.

5. The woman who directed Boys Don't Cry has only made two films since: the Iraq War film Stop-Loss and a panned remake of Steven King's Carrie. I recall that the former played TCM a year or two ago, and there she was dropping f-words in a TCM intro in discussion with Alicia Malone (I think). It made a statement.

6. Yeah, Sexy Beast was too much style, but then again, that seems to be the director's mainstay. He certainly carved out a niche in provocative cinema though for being only one of four filmmakers who got a subliminally fast shot of a full-on erection into a film that wasn't rated X/NC-17. He also was just Oscar nominated for directing the alarming sounding The Zone of Interes (a film concerning the banality of evil, focusing on the callous family of a Nazi commandant in charge of executions at Auschwitz.)

7. Yes, James Whitmore is always a good actor. I wish he had appeared in more. He certainly outshone his material as Harry Truman.

8. I never read the book of Lovely Bones but it's not surprising if the book was lacking then the movie would be too. The acting was really much better than the rest deserved. I don't know what was worse: the CGI next life or the sloppy final sequences which careened in 7 different mood swings in 15 to 20 minutes. But yes, it lost a lot of money and received more than its share of brickbats from movie critics, where its critical score of 31% is one of the lowest of all time for a film up for a major Oscar.

8. As for A Single Man, I normally would not have said anything about the casting director, but the whole film, for not having a single sexual encounter onscreen, the film is extremely horny. I mean, what other reason is there then in a story of suicidal depression for Nicolas Hoult to show off his nude rear in two different scenes or for a side photograph of Matthew Goode that shows off his pubic hair, or the six closely bunched close-ups of a sweaty male tennis players abdomen and nipples, or the salivating quality of the close-up of the male gigolo's pouting lips as cigarette smoke suggestively billows out. I mean if I didn't know better, this whole film could have been directed by Betsy Faye as it's basically this song of desire for the male physique.

[HoldenIsHere]

I've always liked Anne Hathaway's performance in Brokeback Mountain. Here's this spunky gal so full of life when we first see her, and then we see her drained of life because of what her marriage has been. I don't like the scene where the guys meet and Jake Gyllenhaal poses gay-bar style against his car in a seductive pose. Gene Shalit got roasted for calling this a seduction scene, but that is what we see on screen. An awkward sense of attraction seems to me what the story calls for. If Gyllenhaal has the experience to pose this way, what is he doing in rural Wyoming? It's out of character.

I also agree about the lube. If a film doesn't want to get into the mechanics of who does what to whom, fine, but if it does, then a little more realism is called for.

Here's how the character played by Jake Gyllenhaal in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN is described in the short story by Annie Proulx from which Ang Lee's movie was adapted:

At first glance Jack seemed fair enough, with his curly hair and quick laugh, but for a small man he carried some weight in the haunch and his smile disclosed buckteeth, not pronounced enough to let him eat popcorn out of the neck of a jug, but noticeable.

For a mainstream movie (or maybe even for a non-mainstream gay romantic movie), I guess someone who looked like Jake Gyllenhaal was deemed to be necessary.

[Masha]

if a film is set anytime in ENGLAND ca. 1800-1940 and features A DRAWING ROOM, then I'm in- (bonus points for A CONSERVATORY)

Might I suggest:
The Last of Mrs. Cheyney (1929)
The Last of Mrs. Cheyney (1937)
Murder by Rope (1936)
The Phantom of Crestwood (1932)
It is also that most: Philo Vance and: Bulldog Drummond movies are basically drawing room comedies with frills added.

[...]
according to wikipedia, this thing DEBUTED IN SOVIET RUSSIA IN 1945 (????!!!!!)

The play was anti-capitalist and anti-class. It was important at this time for: A. Tairov to stage productions which adhered to soviet beliefs as he and his theatre had been labeled bourgeois. This significantly hurt his professional and financial positions and it limited severely his access to materials and personnel necessary to stage plays. I believe that the play did not aid his standing greatly because I believe that the theatre presented its last major offering the following year.

It has been many years since I have watched any of the movie versions of the play and I doubt that I have watched the play herself since the 1960s. It is due to this that I can offer no insights into which of the movie versions followed the play closely. It would not have been a great leap to add a bit of Marxist ideology as the basic play portrays bourgeois capitalists as leeches and predators.

[Lorna]

Lorna, few notes.

ME IN RED (and GIFS)- LHF

1. Your comments on... Kelly McGillis made me laugh a lot (in fact I am laughing as I write this sentence).

and yet, no other actress has managed to have more chemistry working opposite TOM CRUISE (or any chemistry at all, for that matter) make of that what you will...



4. Shadow of the Vampire, fair enough. No film is for everyone and I'm sorry for bringing back bad memories by mentioning it. Be assured though that the man who directed it has only made one film since, and it was slated.

eh, no problems. when i lived in LA, I mentioned how much I disliked this movie to someone in the industry and they mentioned that they knew the writer and he DESPISED the director. I am thrilled to hear he has not worked mostly again thank God there is some justice in this world. the film really does have SUCH POTENTIAL though- even if they had gone into MEL BROOKS TERRITORY, but it refuses to mine for COMEDY (EVEN BLACK COMEDY) when there is GOLD ALL AROUND. Still, I do love the scene where WILLEM DEFOE takes pity on COUNT DRACULA and imagines how humiliating it must have been for him to have to entertain a human in his castle- it's deep and it gets into something that lies beneath the STOKER NOVEL. And then, as I recall it, he bites the head off a bat.

5. The woman who directed Boys Don't Cry has only made two films since: the Iraq War film Stop-Loss and a panned remake of Steven King's Carrie. I recall that the former played TCM a year or two ago, and there she was dropping f-words in a TCM intro in discussion with Alicia Malone (I think). It made a statement.

Oh my Lord, and that statement was "I WAS RAISED IN A CAGE." That CARRIE remake was AAAAAWFUL BTW.

6. Yeah, Sexy Beast was too much style, but then again, that seems to be the director's mainstay. He certainly carved out a niche in provocative cinema though for being only one of four filmmakers who got a subliminally fast shot of a full-on erection into a film that wasn't rated X/NC-17. He also was just Oscar nominated for directing the alarming sounding The Zone of Interest (a film concerning the banality of evil, focusing on the callous family of a Nazi commandant in charge of executions at Auschwitz.)

INTERESTING! I actually watched the trailer for ZONE OF INTEREST and it looked REALLY INTERESTING- it hit a lot of notes with me. I looked into watching it, but it was only available to buy for $20

8. I never read the book of Lovely Bones but it's not surprising if the book was lacking then the movie would be too.

my main issue with book, and i remember this very clearly even though I read it over a decade ago, is that the family is hyper-idealized, they seem almost like some kind of NPR LISTENER'S FEVER DREAM of the perfect family and it's a little too much.

8. As for A Single Man.... the six closely bunched close-ups of a sweaty male tennis players abdomen and nipples, or the salivating quality of the close-up of the male gigolo's pouting lips as cigarette smoke suggestively billows out. I mean if I didn't know better, this whole film could have been directed by Betsy Faye as it's basically this song of desire for the male physique.

[TikiSoo]

Another bleak round of dealing with the Oscars, and with the glum 2000s, and with uncomfortable issues such as Nazis, concentration camps, cloning, serial killers, warfare, govermental corruption, and sundry other issues.

I wish I could give this post 2 thumbs up.

Your writing is succinct with thoughtful observations that tell me EXACTLY what I need to know before choosing whether to see it since
I agree 100% with what you've written of movies I have seen.

[Detective Jim McLeod]

The Boys from Brazil (1978) -- Ick. Pulpy story imagines that the infamous Dr. Mengele (Gregory Peck, uncomfortably cast) was making dozens of exact genetic clones of Hitler, as Nazi hunter Lawrence Olivier tries to track him down and untangle all the disturbing secrets. The film is a tawdry mess, in extremely bad taste, and the film is artless in its staging.



American History X (1998) -- Just what the world didn't need: a film about Neo-Nazis. Edward Norton plays a former skinhead who gets out of prison to find that his brother is drifting into the same poisonous beliefs. He then tries to save his brother, to no affect, as the film doubles back for black-and-white flashbacks of Norton's own days of hate. Performances are fine, but the film is loathsome and a waste of time.

The Boys from Brazil has quite a bit of problems. Gregory Peck is badly miscast and Laurence Olivier struggles with his accent. There are some unintentional laughs mostly from the John Dehner character who has some hilariously bad dialogue like "I guess you want to know why I didn't wet my pants when you called" One of the teenage Hitler clones tells Peck "Man, you're weirrrrd"

American History X is brutal and powerful with excellent performances, though I don't think I would ever watch it again.