|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Apr 1, 2017 20:33:40 GMT
To Catch a Thief. Perhaps I am trying too hard to like it. I usually prefer style and wit over thrills, I like the actors, the setting, the story but somehow for me it's just, as they say, "meh". But this really belongs in the "esteemed movies I don't get" thread, eh ? (Bad Bat) As I'm wont to say, Bat, sometimes a film just doesn't float our individual boat no matter how much it seems to offer, and there's neither any explaining it nor anything to be done about it, any more than there can be about some people hating lobster and loving Brussels sprouts and lima beans (me). |
|
|
|
Post by Salzmank on Apr 3, 2017 22:35:15 GMT
joekiddlouischama Interesting collection. Care to elaborate on how they improved for you ( mentioning cinematic achievement seem to be a hint)? Most of them (other than Kane) don't seem to be in the "I'm older and wiser now" category. Having seen the trailer for The Lone Ranger I have given it a pass. I started to watch The Wild Wild West and abandoned it rather quickly, tried again and still a "nope". The Will Smith thing, you mean? I remember when it came out in the summer of 1999, but it has never interested in me. Since TBS is airing the film a week from now, though, I may give it a chance. If you possess a historical interest in Westerns, The Lone Ranger might interest you. The film features homages to several Westerns from the past, and its fatalistic theme about the tragic saga of Native Americans is quite stirring and poignant. Of course, this theme is nothing new— Little Big Man, The Outlaw Josey Wales, and others have covered it long before—but it receives a refreshing rendition in The Lone Ranger, and the film's ability to blend it with the movie's droll, pyrotechnical high jinx proves surprisingly effective. At the same time, that blend is not quite seamless, and I found it too chaotic after a first viewing. But I found the mix much easier to digest upon a second screening, and I ultimately viewed The Lone Ranger four times in the theater. All of your comments here were great, Joe. I greatly appreciated reading them. There's no need to respond to all of them--your points are first-class and need no elaboration--but I'd like to make one point and then back you up on another. First, as for The Wild Wild West remake, I of course advise you to see it yourself and make up your own mind, but I find it a plodding, plotless mess of a movie (which is too bad, as the TV series is great fun). The only enjoyable aspects of it, in my opinion, were the proto-steampunk technology and Kenneth Branagh's scenery-chewing, wildly over-the-top performance as Dr. Loveless. (But, then, I like Branagh's performance in just about anything.) The picture positively reeked of a studio trying and failing to make a quick buck by cashing in on a nostalgic franchise. Second, as for The Lone Ranger, I believed the reviews (more fool I!) and didn't see The Lone Ranger in theaters, but I did see it afterwards, and it's quite good. Not excellent, I think, but for a big-budget, popcorn movie Western made in the year 2013--really good. And the climax, drawing on sources as disparate as Buster Keaton and the Marx Brothers, was a thing of wonder. Probably too long, as is Verbinski's wont, but I really enjoyed every moment of it. |
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 3, 2017 22:49:55 GMT
Doghouse6 Re: Groundhog Day comment . Yes, sadly, original concepts and original anything seems to be out of style. On FG I saw a sad thread about Disney planning to film 19 of the classic animated films as live action. Have they lost their copies of Anderson, Grimm, Hugo and other classics to "adapt" and mutilate ? To Catch a Thief. Perhaps I am trying too hard to like it. I usually prefer style and wit over thrills, I like the actors, the setting, the story but somehow for me it's just, as they say, "meh". But this really belongs in the "esteemed movies I don't get" thread, eh ? (Bad Bat) I have always loved To Catch a Thief, which I have seen four or five times now (twice in the theater since the start of 2013). Obviously, the film is not one of Hitchcock's weightier works, but it is visually sumptuous and a wonderful exercise in style and timing, replete with star performances at their most assured and delicious dialogue with perhaps some of the best double entendres ever written. I consider the film "great." If one wants to look for a more surprising element, consider how Hitchcock eschews his self-articulated maxim of "surprise versus suspense." The topic would make for an intriguing discussion: why does Hitchcock go against his grain in this film, and how effective does his choice happen to be? |
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 3, 2017 23:10:28 GMT
All of your comments here were great, Joe. I greatly appreciated reading them. There's no need to respond to all of them--your points are first-class and need no elaboration--but I'd like to make one point and then back you up on another. First, as for The Wild Wild West remake, I of course advise you to see it yourself and make up your own mind, but I find it a plodding, plotless mess of a movie (which is too bad, as the TV series is great fun). The only enjoyable aspects of it, in my opinion, were the proto-steampunk technology and Kenneth Branagh's scenery-chewing, wildly over-the-top performance as Dr. Loveless. (But, then, I like Branagh's performance in just about anything.) The picture wreaked of a studio trying and failing to make a quick buck by cashing in on a nostalgic franchise. Second, as for The Lone Ranger, I believed the reviews (more fool I!) and didn't see The Lone Ranger in theaters, but I did see it afterwards, and it's quite good. Not excellent, I don't think, but for a big-budget, popcorn movie Western made in the year 2013--really first-rate. And the climax, drawing on sources as disparate as Buster Keaton and the Marx Brothers, was a thing of wonder. Probably too long, as is Verbinski's wont, but I really enjoyed every moment of it. Thanks for the assessment of The Wild Wild West, and I doubt that I will disagree if I actually take a look at it. And I am glad that you also enjoyed and appreciated The Lone Ranger. As you indicated, the film's blend is not perfect, but it manages to tap into some rich cinematic veins and offer more sophistication, depth, and vitality than one would have expected from a summer studio blockbuster. |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Apr 4, 2017 14:38:15 GMT
To Catch a Thief. Perhaps I am trying too hard to like it. I usually prefer style and wit over thrills, I like the actors, the setting, the story but somehow for me it's just, as they say, "meh". But this really belongs in the "esteemed movies I don't get" thread, eh ? (Bad Bat) If one wants to look for a more surprising element, consider how Hitchcock eschews his self-articulated maxim of "surprise versus suspense." The topic would make for an intriguing discussion: why does Hitchcock go against his grain in this film, and how effective does his choice happen to be? Your observation's indeed intriguing. For the purposes of such a discussion, would you mind specifying the way(s) in which he goes against his grain? I have a supposition or two, but don't wish to initiate anything that might be based on an errant one, so I thought it best to first ask. |
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Apr 4, 2017 17:04:45 GMT
Earlier in this thread I mentioned Neil Jordan's The End of the Affair. I've just put up a review and thumbnails: The End of the Affair (1999) |
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Apr 5, 2017 17:20:40 GMT
Not sure if this counts, because there was never a first time until last night, but since it was released in 1987 my friends had been inciting me to watch Withnail & I, saying it was ideal for me. I never actually watched the whole thing but I have seen bits several times and read reviews and never fancied it. Finally, after reading an interesting (if somewhat muddled) review in the online New Statesman, I bought it and watched it last night. I nearly wet myself laughing. Beautifully made and acted, though Americans may need captions. I missed some of the dialog myself because of the drunken slurring and public school* slang. I think I resisted it for three decades because I sensed it would be too near the mark. I can relate to much of that squalor and desperation. (I am still living in squalor and desperation but at least it is warmer than Penrith here in the Caribbean). That review: www.newstatesman.com/culture/film/2017/03/withnail-and-i-30-years-its-perfect-film-brexit-britain*For non-Brits: so-called "Public Schools" in England are just the opposite. They are elite schools for the rich and the upper classes, which have traditionally provided most of the nation's leaders. |
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Apr 5, 2017 17:37:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Apr 5, 2017 17:40:22 GMT
Earlier in this thread I mentioned Neil Jordan's The End of the Affair. I've just put up a review and thumbnails: The End of the Affair (1999)Great review, wmcclain. I like this film very much although, as a committed atheist with a particular contempt for Roman Catholicism, I may have a different slant on it. But I could believe in all the characters' motivations. I normally have an aversion to Julianne Moore. I do not know why. She is an excellent actress who normally chooses her roles carefully, a humane and intelligent person off-screen, and earns bonus points as a Yank for being a passionate Anglophile, so it is churlish of me. But she is one actress I would not want to meet in a dark alley. She is the last actress I would choose to portray gullible superstition, but that did not bother me at all here. I found the "resurrection" scene extremely moving. I found Jordan's remark about Dmitryk's earlier version (1955) disingenuous. I cannot believe a film buff like Jordan would have been unaware of its existence. It is quite good, although the 1999 version is better. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2017 21:17:27 GMT
If I really dislike or even hate a film I don't give it a second chance.
There are some films that I didn't understand on the first watch and had to re-watch to understand and finally appreciate them.
The Godfather
The Godfather Part II
The Big Lebowski
Pulp Fiction
Reservoir Dogs
Once Upon a Time in America
e.g.
These films are now on my Top 25 list.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Apr 5, 2017 22:25:30 GMT
london777 "... though Americans will need captions." Surprising though it may seem, some of us 'muricans do actually speak and understand English as spoken by the English. "will". Not "may". "will". 
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Apr 5, 2017 22:33:08 GMT
@volver
"There are some films that I didn't understand on the first watch and had to re-watch to understand and finally appreciate them."
The Godfather
The Godfather Part II
The Big Lebowski
Pulp Fiction
Reservoir Dogs
Once Upon a Time in America
"These films are now on my Top 25 list. "
I can fully understand why some of these films would need another look. I tried twice with Lebowski and still don't get it.
I will never try PF, Once or RD as from the talk and reviews, I know I would hate them.
The Godfathers I didn't hate but probably won't watch again.
Most films that I really really really dislike, I dismiss.
There have been a few that I have heard so many good things about that they got rewatched just in case the mood had been wrong the first time out.
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Apr 5, 2017 22:38:23 GMT
Apr 5, 2017 18:25:30 GMT -4 Bat Outtaheck said:
Surprising though it may seem, some of us 'muricans do actually speak and understand England as spoken by the English.
Point taken. I stand corrected and will amend my OP to "may need". But there are special difficulties with this film. Of the two main characters one is permanently drunk and the other is only drunk half the time. Then add the Rasta lingo of one minor character, the extremely artificial and precious enunciation of the third lead, the far North accents of the locals, the influence of banned substances, diegetic sounds of motorway driving, pub chatter and the moorland weather, and it ain't a walk in the park for any of us. And the excellence of this film is in the dialog.
I have acquired a load of praised American films lately, some of which I have given up on because I could not understand what the hell they were saying, and I just wanted to give fair warning to my American brothers.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Apr 5, 2017 22:46:27 GMT
london777"it ain't a walk in the park for you foreigners." It sounds like EVERYONE could benefit from subtitles, not just the "foreigners" watching it. " I could not understand what the hell they were saying". Turning the sound up sometimes helps but if they are more recent films, it seems to be the recording method and the fact that mumbling actors are back in style, not so much the accents.
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Apr 5, 2017 22:57:29 GMT
... mumbling actors are back in style ... You got that right. Most British actors have been theatrically trained. This has its downsides but at least we can usually make out the dialog. My hearing is not 100% and my system is cheap rubbish. I watch my movies late at night after my family have gone to bed and I try to keep the volume down lest the neighbors retaliate with a barrage of salsa and merengue. But that is no excuse for highly paid actors inability to enunciate simple phrases. |
|
|
|
Post by taranofprydain on Apr 6, 2017 22:04:32 GMT
Four from after the Classic Era: The Black Cauldron, Victor/Victoria, The Accidental Tourist and Good Will Hunting From the classic era, most films, I just love right from the start.  |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Apr 6, 2017 22:33:32 GMT
taranofprydainInteresting that you did not take right away to Black Cauldron seeing your name and avatar. There was an old Dick Cavett show on the other day (or maybe it was Johnny Carson  ) anyway... guest was Voice Actor / celebrity imitator John Byner. I never knew he was the voice of Gurgi! He spoke much of the interview in Gurgi-speak. It was very VERY funny. I had a friend who keep using this quotation: "Oh, poor miserable Gurgi deserves fierce smackings and whackings on his poor, tender head. Always left with no munchings and crunchings." He used it so much that HE deserved some smackings and whackings.
|
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 7, 2017 4:07:12 GMT
If one wants to look for a more surprising element, consider how Hitchcock eschews his self-articulated maxim of "surprise versus suspense." The topic would make for an intriguing discussion: why does Hitchcock go against his grain in this film, and how effective does his choice happen to be? Your observation's indeed intriguing. For the purposes of such a discussion, would you mind specifying the way(s) in which he goes against his grain? I have a supposition or two, but don't wish to initiate anything that might be based on an errant one, so I thought it best to first ask. In To Catch a Thief, rather than disclosing the actual identity of the burglar (the "thief" of the title) earlier in the narrative and thus building suspense as to when and how that specific person will be unmasked, Hitchcock saves the revelation until virtually the very end—the climactic point. The ultimate disclosure is something of a "surprise," as opposed to the "suspense" that Hitchcock usually fostered by revealing such matters much earlier. (For instance, in his next and last movie with Cary Grant, North by Northwest, Hitchcock reveals the actual identity of "George Kaplan" very early in the film.) Instead of the audience anticipating what the other characters will make of the thief's identity, viewers learn about the matter at the same time as all of the characters, with virtually nothing in the way of hints or foreshadowing along the way. Doubtlessly, Hitchcock made this decision in To Catch a Thief because he did not conceive of the film as a dark suspense piece. Instead, in his public comments, he basically dismissed the movie as an entertainment vehicle with no intellectual interest whatsoever. And perhaps the lack of "suspense" renders the film questionable among some viewers as well. But Hitchcock's decision makes sense: while To Catch a Thief is ostensibly a thriller, thrills—at least as conventionally defined—are never the point. The point is the stars and their personal chemistry or coy sexual chemistry, the sun-splashed French Riviera locations, and the utter command of style both within and outside of the diegesis (basically a cinematic term for narrative, for those unfamiliar with the label). So Hitchcock's decision surely makes sense, yet it is still surprising given his avowed preference for "suspense" over "surprise." By the way, there is another, less significant, instance in the film where the director opts for "surprise" over "suspense"—at the costume ball. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffersoncody on Apr 7, 2017 5:07:45 GMT
All of your comments here were great, Joe. I greatly appreciated reading them. There's no need to respond to all of them--your points are first-class and need no elaboration--but I'd like to make one point and then back you up on another. First, as for The Wild Wild West remake, I of course advise you to see it yourself and make up your own mind, but I find it a plodding, plotless mess of a movie (which is too bad, as the TV series is great fun). The only enjoyable aspects of it, in my opinion, were the proto-steampunk technology and Kenneth Branagh's scenery-chewing, wildly over-the-top performance as Dr. Loveless. (But, then, I like Branagh's performance in just about anything.) The picture wreaked of a studio trying and failing to make a quick buck by cashing in on a nostalgic franchise. Second, as for The Lone Ranger, I believed the reviews (more fool I!) and didn't see The Lone Ranger in theaters, but I did see it afterwards, and it's quite good. Not excellent, I don't think, but for a big-budget, popcorn movie Western made in the year 2013--really first-rate. And the climax, drawing on sources as disparate as Buster Keaton and the Marx Brothers, was a thing of wonder. Probably too long, as is Verbinski's wont, but I really enjoyed every moment of it. Thanks for the assessment of The Wild Wild West, and I doubt that I will disagree if I actually take a look at it. And I am glad that you also enjoyed and appreciated The Lone Ranger. As you indicated, the film's blend is not perfect, but it manages to tap into some rich cinematic veins and offer more sophistication, depth, and vitality than one would have expected from a summer studio blockbuster. While no masterpiece, THE LONE RANGER was certainly fun - and the Monument valley scenes were quite breathtaking. THE WILD, WILD WEST, however, is is incredibly awful and not worth watching. A truly terrible film. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2017 8:35:19 GMT
Citizen Kane
|
|
) anyway... guest was Voice Actor / celebrity imitator John Byner. I never knew he was the voice of Gurgi! He spoke much of the interview in Gurgi-speak. It was very VERY funny.