Post by london777 on Mar 24, 2017 23:46:54 GMT
I am not claiming these are all poor films. ("6" in my rating system means a good movie which I am pleased to have in my collection. "5" means it is worth watching at least once). Just that I rate them somewhat, or a lot, lower than most of you guys.
In many cases there are clues as to why I was unimpressed.
I am wondering if any of you feel the same way about any of the following movies:
Stalag 17 1953 Billy Wilder 3.0
Wilder made many very good pictures, including two which rank among the best ever made in any country or decade. I expected more. Holden did not look remotely like a POW. He looked like a Hollywood Golden Boy. I found the supposed comic relief to be embarrassing schmaltz and the portrayal of both Sgt Schultz and the Russian prisoners made me squirm.
Touch of Evil 1958 Orson Welles 6.0
The best parts are wonderful, but it has too many defects to rank among the greatest. Principally the hopeless miscasting of Charlton Heston. And why cover his face with shoe polish? Had Welles never seen a white Mexican? In most Latino countries in the 50s the top jobs were held by blancos. The gang kidnap scenes were a failed attempt to make the film appear "with it" and appeal to that new box-office and social construct, the "teenager". And the scene where Vargas wades through the water to listen to the conversation above is ludicrous. The film only makes sense if we accept that Quinlan had once been a great, or at least effective, detective. A little more evidence of that would have justified the loyalty shown to him by Sgt Menzies and Tana.
The Conformist 1970 Bernardo Bertolucci 6.0
All beautifully made and acted but I found the motivations of the various principals incomprehensible.
The Ruling Class 1972 Peter Medak 3.5
Two problems here. The film was satirizing something that did not exist, at least in the 20th century, a outdated caricature of England, not the (equally imperfect) reality. For a more acute but equally absurdist satire, see O Lucky Man (1973) by Lindsay Anderson.
The other problem is Peter Toole. I cannot abide "luvvies" in movies:
"Luvvie" is a slang word for actor originating in British theatre, from the tendency of stage actors to call each other "love" and "darling" (apparently because when you're going from job to job it's easier than remembering people's names). The people it refers to tend to be posh and classically trained, and it connotes a certain amount of pomposity, effusiveness, sensitivity, and/or sentimentality. (from TV Tropes).
The Conversation 1974 Francis Ford Coppola 3.0
Typical failed American attempt to emulate European "existentialist" cinema. Stick to what you do best, guys: guns and cannoli. Because it is about audio surveillance, it features a soundtrack that enhances every random noise which we normally filter out in our daily lives to remain sane. I see why the director did that, but I have a phobia about diegetic sound in normal movies. This was like Chinese water torture for me. And the plot is crap. The guy is supposed to be reclusive and paranoid, then gives a hostile business rival, a disloyal employee, and a whore the free run of his workshop with his ultra secret equipment and tapes of his current sensitive project. Plus the murder plot makes no sense.
Love Among the Ruins 1975 George Cukor 2.0
Prince Charles caused a diplomatic stir a few years back when he called the Chinese leadership "appalling old waxworks", but it fits the actors in this bore perfectly. Luvvies again.
1900 (1976) Bernardo Bertolucci 6.0
The central character (De Niro) is supposed to be apathetic and inactive. That is a hard trick to pull off yet keep the film compelling and the miscast De Niro fails. Ada (Dominique Sanda) is irritating beyond measure. Sutherland as the awkward clownish sociopath turned fascist sadist retraces his arc from the previous year's The Day of the Locust. It just takes him a whole lot longer to get there. Some wonderful scenes, but should have been edited down to two hours.
The Stunt Man 1980 Richard Rush 4.5
Peter Toole. Luvvie!
Thief 1981 Michael Mann 4.0
Routine heist film padded out with lots of inaction to make it look profound. Who cares about the inner angst of professional crooks? They are cockroaches.
Cutter's Way 1981 Ivan Passer 3.0
Ditto with the addition of some surreal scenes. Plus drunks are boring. But I may give this one another chance.
Identification of a Woman 1982 Michelangelo Antonioni 3.0
Did not understand the point of this at all. I loved his earlier films.
Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead 1990 Tom Stoppard 3.0
Two of my favorite screen actors (Roth and Oldman) playing at being luvvies. In reality, Shakespearean actors were not luvvies or even "artists", they were artisans plying a trade rated one step above prostitution and housebreaking. That is one of the running jokes in Shakespeare in Love (1998). It portrays the Elizabethan actors as if they were modern careerists.
La Belle Noiseuse 1991 Jacques Rivette 5.0
Beautifully shot and acted. Was that the only point after four hours? Art for art's sake?
Magnolia 1992 Paul Thomas Anderson 5.0
It's OK but too sentimental in parts.
Open Your Eyes 1997 Alejandro Amenábar 6.0
Wonderful until the reveal: a sci-fi explanation. I don't care for sci-fi much, and I resent it being foisted on me as a genre switch to get the writers out of a hole.
The Prestige 2006 Christopher Nolan 4.0
Exactly the same comment as previous movie. Plus I am sick of Michael Caine playing the same role in every movie for the last 20 years. He died well in Last Orders (2001). Couldn't he take a hint? (Career-wise, not personally)
Fight Club 1999 David Fincher 5.0
Seems popular with testosterone-filled young men. Same comment as previous two. I was just about hanging on in there watching a psychological drama when it relapsed into sci-fi at the end. Or did it? Don't ask me!
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind 2004 Michel Gondry 5.0
Same story. Psychological drama with absurd sci-fi premise. I also find it hard to look at Jim Carrey's rubbery face in anything. He was OK in The Truman Show because he was supposed to be artificial. Never liked him in anything else except The Majestic (2001). That was sentimental too, but not his fault.
Happiness 1998 Todd Solondz 4.5
Took a shower afterwards.
The Fall 2006 Tarsem 5.0
Sentimental and too long. My 7-year-old liked it up to falling asleep.
Taste of Cherry 2007 Abbas Kiarostami 5.5
Very disappointed after rave reviews. Hated the ending.
Let The Right One In 2008 Tomas Alfredson 5.0
OK. A little thin in material. I do not like vampires.
Incendies 2010 Denis Villeneuve 5.0
Great until the titillating and unnecessary ending. Villeneuve is like Spielberg, massively talented but has one eye on the box office. Spielberg adds a topping of schmaltz. In Villeneuve's case, sadism and perversion.
Prisoners 2013 Denis Villeneuve 5.0
See above.
Django Unchained 2012 Quentin Tarantino 5.5
I find it hard to enjoy a jolly romp about slavery, though Tarantino nearly pulls it off. I think the problem is that Foxx is too serious in the role. Someone a bit more swashbuckling to camp it up, like Samuel L Jackson did, and it might be more of an acceptable escapist fairy-tale.
Mr. Turner 2014 Mike Leigh 6.0
Well-made and acted, but an opportunity lost. I learned nothing about Turner's career. And the soundtrack on my DVD is horribly fuzzy in parts so I missed some of the dialog although Turner and his cronies had the same accent as I do (Estuary English). Not sure if I just have a dud DVD.
Birdman 2014 Alejandro G. Iñárritu 4.0
Luvvies again. Very recent movie so I will let it mull for a year or two and give it another try.
In many cases there are clues as to why I was unimpressed.
I am wondering if any of you feel the same way about any of the following movies:
Stalag 17 1953 Billy Wilder 3.0
Wilder made many very good pictures, including two which rank among the best ever made in any country or decade. I expected more. Holden did not look remotely like a POW. He looked like a Hollywood Golden Boy. I found the supposed comic relief to be embarrassing schmaltz and the portrayal of both Sgt Schultz and the Russian prisoners made me squirm.
Touch of Evil 1958 Orson Welles 6.0
The best parts are wonderful, but it has too many defects to rank among the greatest. Principally the hopeless miscasting of Charlton Heston. And why cover his face with shoe polish? Had Welles never seen a white Mexican? In most Latino countries in the 50s the top jobs were held by blancos. The gang kidnap scenes were a failed attempt to make the film appear "with it" and appeal to that new box-office and social construct, the "teenager". And the scene where Vargas wades through the water to listen to the conversation above is ludicrous. The film only makes sense if we accept that Quinlan had once been a great, or at least effective, detective. A little more evidence of that would have justified the loyalty shown to him by Sgt Menzies and Tana.
The Conformist 1970 Bernardo Bertolucci 6.0
All beautifully made and acted but I found the motivations of the various principals incomprehensible.
The Ruling Class 1972 Peter Medak 3.5
Two problems here. The film was satirizing something that did not exist, at least in the 20th century, a outdated caricature of England, not the (equally imperfect) reality. For a more acute but equally absurdist satire, see O Lucky Man (1973) by Lindsay Anderson.
The other problem is Peter Toole. I cannot abide "luvvies" in movies:
"Luvvie" is a slang word for actor originating in British theatre, from the tendency of stage actors to call each other "love" and "darling" (apparently because when you're going from job to job it's easier than remembering people's names). The people it refers to tend to be posh and classically trained, and it connotes a certain amount of pomposity, effusiveness, sensitivity, and/or sentimentality. (from TV Tropes).
The Conversation 1974 Francis Ford Coppola 3.0
Typical failed American attempt to emulate European "existentialist" cinema. Stick to what you do best, guys: guns and cannoli. Because it is about audio surveillance, it features a soundtrack that enhances every random noise which we normally filter out in our daily lives to remain sane. I see why the director did that, but I have a phobia about diegetic sound in normal movies. This was like Chinese water torture for me. And the plot is crap. The guy is supposed to be reclusive and paranoid, then gives a hostile business rival, a disloyal employee, and a whore the free run of his workshop with his ultra secret equipment and tapes of his current sensitive project. Plus the murder plot makes no sense.
Love Among the Ruins 1975 George Cukor 2.0
Prince Charles caused a diplomatic stir a few years back when he called the Chinese leadership "appalling old waxworks", but it fits the actors in this bore perfectly. Luvvies again.
1900 (1976) Bernardo Bertolucci 6.0
The central character (De Niro) is supposed to be apathetic and inactive. That is a hard trick to pull off yet keep the film compelling and the miscast De Niro fails. Ada (Dominique Sanda) is irritating beyond measure. Sutherland as the awkward clownish sociopath turned fascist sadist retraces his arc from the previous year's The Day of the Locust. It just takes him a whole lot longer to get there. Some wonderful scenes, but should have been edited down to two hours.
The Stunt Man 1980 Richard Rush 4.5
Peter Toole. Luvvie!
Thief 1981 Michael Mann 4.0
Routine heist film padded out with lots of inaction to make it look profound. Who cares about the inner angst of professional crooks? They are cockroaches.
Cutter's Way 1981 Ivan Passer 3.0
Ditto with the addition of some surreal scenes. Plus drunks are boring. But I may give this one another chance.
Identification of a Woman 1982 Michelangelo Antonioni 3.0
Did not understand the point of this at all. I loved his earlier films.
Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead 1990 Tom Stoppard 3.0
Two of my favorite screen actors (Roth and Oldman) playing at being luvvies. In reality, Shakespearean actors were not luvvies or even "artists", they were artisans plying a trade rated one step above prostitution and housebreaking. That is one of the running jokes in Shakespeare in Love (1998). It portrays the Elizabethan actors as if they were modern careerists.
La Belle Noiseuse 1991 Jacques Rivette 5.0
Beautifully shot and acted. Was that the only point after four hours? Art for art's sake?
Magnolia 1992 Paul Thomas Anderson 5.0
It's OK but too sentimental in parts.
Open Your Eyes 1997 Alejandro Amenábar 6.0
Wonderful until the reveal: a sci-fi explanation. I don't care for sci-fi much, and I resent it being foisted on me as a genre switch to get the writers out of a hole.
The Prestige 2006 Christopher Nolan 4.0
Exactly the same comment as previous movie. Plus I am sick of Michael Caine playing the same role in every movie for the last 20 years. He died well in Last Orders (2001). Couldn't he take a hint? (Career-wise, not personally)
Fight Club 1999 David Fincher 5.0
Seems popular with testosterone-filled young men. Same comment as previous two. I was just about hanging on in there watching a psychological drama when it relapsed into sci-fi at the end. Or did it? Don't ask me!
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind 2004 Michel Gondry 5.0
Same story. Psychological drama with absurd sci-fi premise. I also find it hard to look at Jim Carrey's rubbery face in anything. He was OK in The Truman Show because he was supposed to be artificial. Never liked him in anything else except The Majestic (2001). That was sentimental too, but not his fault.
Happiness 1998 Todd Solondz 4.5
Took a shower afterwards.
The Fall 2006 Tarsem 5.0
Sentimental and too long. My 7-year-old liked it up to falling asleep.
Taste of Cherry 2007 Abbas Kiarostami 5.5
Very disappointed after rave reviews. Hated the ending.
Let The Right One In 2008 Tomas Alfredson 5.0
OK. A little thin in material. I do not like vampires.
Incendies 2010 Denis Villeneuve 5.0
Great until the titillating and unnecessary ending. Villeneuve is like Spielberg, massively talented but has one eye on the box office. Spielberg adds a topping of schmaltz. In Villeneuve's case, sadism and perversion.
Prisoners 2013 Denis Villeneuve 5.0
See above.
Django Unchained 2012 Quentin Tarantino 5.5
I find it hard to enjoy a jolly romp about slavery, though Tarantino nearly pulls it off. I think the problem is that Foxx is too serious in the role. Someone a bit more swashbuckling to camp it up, like Samuel L Jackson did, and it might be more of an acceptable escapist fairy-tale.
Mr. Turner 2014 Mike Leigh 6.0
Well-made and acted, but an opportunity lost. I learned nothing about Turner's career. And the soundtrack on my DVD is horribly fuzzy in parts so I missed some of the dialog although Turner and his cronies had the same accent as I do (Estuary English). Not sure if I just have a dud DVD.
Birdman 2014 Alejandro G. Iñárritu 4.0
Luvvies again. Very recent movie so I will let it mull for a year or two and give it another try.