MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > OT: Three Candidates for "My Personal ...

OT: Three Candidates for "My Personal Favorite Movie of 2019"

posted 5 years ago by ecarle (14979)
79 replies | jump to latest

Its my own little parlor game, but it has helped me get a sense of the movies I've loved over the decades of watching them.

What is my personal favorite movie of a year?

Rarely has my personal favorite of the year been the movie that wins Best Picture at the Oscars. The Godfather did. Terms of Endearment did. Silence of the Lambs did.

But more often than not, my favorite of the year was NOMINATED for Best Picture(Chinatown, Jaws...Pulp Fiction, Fargo, LA Confidential, Saving Private Ryan) ...but did not win(though often those movies won one of the Best Screenplay awards as if to say "so there.")

And sometimes, my favorite of the year was NOT even nominated for Best Picture: Strangers on a Train, Rear Window, NXNW, Psycho. Hmm...I see a pattern there (though honestly, move all those movies to two decades later and they'd ALL get nominated.)

A lot of my favorites of the year are so "personal to me" that Best Picture status never was in the cards anyway, but somehow I liked them the best anyway: Used Cars, Silverado, Ghostbusters, Ferris Bueller, The Untouchables, Die Hard(hmm....all 80's movies. That must mean SOMETHING.)

---

Anyway, comes now, the final year of the 2010's. (How interesting, from here on out in the 21st century, the decades are gonna sound like the 20th Century: the 20s, the 30s, the 40s, the 50's...)

My list to date:

2010: True Grit
2011: Moneyball
2012: Django Unchained
2013: The Wolf of Wall Street
2014: John Wick
2015: The Hateful Eight
2016: The Magnificent Seven
2017: Molly's Game
2018: The Ballad of Buster Scruggs
2019: ???

That count includes two QT films; two Coen Brothers films; two Aaron Sorkin-scripted(or co-scripted) films(and he directed Molly's Game), and one Scorsese film. "Usual suspects" for me.

I read this list out loud to a friend and he said, "they all make sense to me except The Magnificent Seven remake...really?"

Indeed, I think most critics gave The Magnificent Seven a "two star(**)" review, which means mediocre, and yeah, I get that.

But I recall being excited when the movie went into production, and I felt that it followed at least part of the old film's cachet: one established older star and one hot young star(Yul Brynner and Steve McQueen; Denzel Washington and Chriss Pratt.) The idea remained irresistible: One gunslinger recruits 6 more to go up against an army; not everyone survives, but the good guys win. Some lines from the 1960 original survived("If the Lord didn't want them sheared, he wouldn't have made them sheep") and they brought out the famous 1960 credit music at the very end while the new 7 took their bow.

Two star reviews, maybe...but two good stars were IN it(plus five other good actors, and a pretty good villain, and a pretty pretty woman.) It was my kind of mediocre.

The others on my list of 2010 favorites all have their bonafides. Scorsese, QT, The Coens, Sorkin. (Which leaves, other than The Mag 7, the great big sleeper comeback surprise that was the first John Wick, and I'll stand by that.)

So here I am at 2019. I've got one "place holder" in the slot for favorite of the year: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Yeah, QT rather gets it by default. But I'm on record as having some real problems with its lack of "true QT dialogue bite" and a certain listlessness in the second act(which is, conveniently enough, the second DAY of the three-day story.)

I like enough about the rest of OAITH(and EVERYTHING about Brad Pitt's scenes) that it can hold the slot for 2019 if it has to. This will make it roughly equivalent to my favorite of 2009...QT's Inglorious Basterds...which I found a mix of overlong, uninteresting scenes and very entertaining dialogue scenes(again, all the scenes with Brad Pitt...though some of Christoph Waltz's scenes, too.)

---

Two candidates lie ahead to possibly wrest the 2019 title from OAITH. This is based on my watching of the trailers, my reading of the storylines, and my history on movies:

ONE: The Irishman. Scorsese in gangster mode. He got my favorite movies of 1990(Goodfellas), 1995(Casino), 2006(The Departed) and 2013(The Wolf of Wall Street) in gangster mode(oh, nobody gets KILLED in Wolf of Wall Street, but they are crooks and the movie plays like a Scorsese gangster film.) So here comes one more. With some "landmarks": the first Scorsese film with Al Pacino. The return of DeNiro to a Scorsese movie. The return of Pesci to ANY movie. DeNiro and Pesci reunite(and Harvey Keitel, too?)






reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The "issues" with The Irishman are that these leads are pretty old men now(but aha, they will be MADE YOUNG via CGI in some scenes) and it looks like this will be a Netflix movie with little theatrical display. (Oh well, I gave The Ballad of Buster Scruggs my best last year.) Also this is "based on a true story" about a guy(DeNiro) who maybe shot Jimmy Hoffa(Pacino) -- and haven't we been down that futile road before? Somebody's already out there writing that the DeNiro character in real life lied about all his hit man exploits, so why make a movie about lies?

Oh, well. Print the legend. The Irishman is coming in November. A few art theaters. Netflix.

TWO: Joker. I can't say I was a big fan of Cesar Romero on the old Batman show in the mid-sixties. His painted face was interesting, but his manner was too coarse and obnoxious. I much preferred "cooler" villains like The Mad Hatter and The Penguin...though even the cackling Riddler(Frank Gorshin) had a certain Kirk Douglas-like power.

Anyway, somehow when Batman got his first big screen major motion picture incarnation in 1989(yes, there was a big screen version of the 60's Batman but...it doesn't count)...the announcement that Jack Nicholson would play the Joker drove a near-year of anticipation to see our Great Prestige Superstar don the greasepaint and play up the flamboyance. I thought Jack was great...a much better asset to Batman than Brando had been to Superman.


reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

A younger generation(perhaps) felt Jack was too middle-aged and rotund to play the Joker, so we waited almost 20 more years to get a younger, less superstarry Joker: Heath Ledger. But alas, Ledger came to The Dark Knight (as released) with his own tragic cachet: a superstar he wasn't, but -- dead, too young at 28 or so, he was. So we got his utterly surprising Joker(THAT'S Heath Ledger in there??); he got the Oscar and we get to spend years wondering what the Ledger career would have been had he lived. (Here's one guess: Johnny Depp's career after Pirates. HE got an Oscar nomination for playing that pirate...but then he ran it into the ground.)

Jack's Joker in 1989 made Batman my favorite movie of that year. Heaths Joker in 2008 made The Dark Knight my favorite movie of THAT year.

Will Joaquin Phoenix's Joker make Joker my favorite of 2019?

Well, one thing militates against it: Jared Leto's Joker in "Suicide Squad." (2016-- the year of "The Magnificent Seven.")

I recall thinking that, given the Nicholson and Ledger Jokers, the Joker was just this side of Doc Holliday as a "foolproof" movie character who would always be delightful to watch and hear. Jared Leto proved me wrong. His Joker was just plain creepy and off-putting. The tattoos didn't help, and he gave off a vibe of stupidity and uncontrollable psychosis. Unlike Jack and Heath, Jared was no fun, no fun at all.


reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Comes now Joaquin Phoenix to play the Joker. Its coming October 4(in the US), and I've already read one interview with Phoenix where he's philosophical: "I'm playing the Joker my way, I can't care about how the others played it." The film's director, Todd Phillips(The Hangover) is more pragmatic still: "Don't worry, if you don't like our Joker...you'll get another one in a few years."

The two trailers thus far have worked overtime to suggest the Ghost of Scorseses Past in the new Joker. Scorsese turned down the chance to produce, but assigned one of his assistants to the job. Robert DeNiro is in it, playing an arrogant talk show host and re-casting Joker as a remake of The King of Comedy with DeNiro in the Jerry Lewis role. And the whole thing has a gritty, grotty NYC-as-living-hell ambiance, with the Joker(aka Arthur Fleck) as a new Travis Bickle. (Which would link him to Norman Bates, who is linked to Travis Bickle and remember: Joaquin Phoenix accepted the role of Norman Bates in Van Sant's Psycho but had to drop out.)

With the ongoing demoralization of older film fans about "the Marvel/DC comic book hero movie cycles" of today, there can be no doubt that some comic book hero movies are more interesting than others. Iron Man(with RDJ, Jeff Bridges, and Gwyneth Paltrow) was interesting. The Nolan Batmans were interesting. The Sam Raimi Spider-Mans were interesting, particularly the one with Doc Ock. The period pieces Wonder Woman and Captain America were interesting. Gal Godot AS Wonder Woman is interesting(so sexy, so innocent, so kind.) And two out of three Jokers have been interesting (hell, three out of four: Romero has been rehabilitiated. Hell, four out of FIVE: Mark Hamill's vocal work in cartoons has been hailed.)

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

So here's hoping that "Joker" will have that Scorsese/Hitchcock adult scariness to it...and make for a memorable thriller. (My one beef so far: Phoenix's Joker looks pretty much like a traditional clown -- he hasn't been shown yet with the "Joker" face of the comic books and the earlier incarnations. I hope his face DOES play out that way.)

Some other 2019 movie may yet arrive and surprise me "outta nowhere with no advance notice" and become my favorite of the year(past examples include American Graffiti and LA Confidential.) But if not, I now have three candidates based on my favorites of previous years:

ONE: Once Upon A Time in Hollywood. (Because: QT.)

TWO: The Irishman (Because: Scorsese in his gangster mode.)

THREE: Joker(Because: Joker.)

It will be interesting to see. For me....

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 5 years ago

First reviews of Joker (2019) from its premiere in Venice are *very* strong, e.g.,
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/aug/31/joker-review-twisted-tour-de-force-joaquin-phoenix

The strange thing about The Irishman is that it's cost nearly $200 million to *make* (i.e., before marketing) - as much as Casino, Departed, Goodfellas combined after adjusting for inflat.. This means that The Irishman has to be as big a hit worldwide as the biggest hits of Scorsese's career, The Departed or Wolf of Wall St, just to break even. That's a 'no conceivable upside' bet that doesn't make sense for any normal studio (Scorsese needed to make it for $100 mill or less for them, i.e., what Departed and Wolf of Wall St cost).

Enter Netflix which doesn't have conventional box office & plays by God knows what rules. What a weird situation this is. Still, here's hoping Marty's got one more classic gangster tale in him, otherwise Joker could end up being this year's real Scorsese film with The Irishman cast as some sort of legendary 3.5 hour virtual bomb.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

First reviews of Joker (2019) from its premiere in Venice are *very* strong, e.g.,
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/aug/31/joker-review-twisted-tour-de-force-joaquin-phoenix

---

Well, there you go. The Taxi Driver and King of Comedy references again; Scorsese's participation. It would seem that Mr. Scorsese has TWO movies coming out in the fall.

The director of Joker seems out to eschew the Tim Burton version(gangster Jack Torrance falls into a vat of acid and comes out the Joker)...this is going to be the "realistic" making of a madman...but also of a criminal mastermind with henchmen...or followers(hello, Charles Manson.)

Robert DeNiro is starting to have to carry quite a load as our Reigning Prestige Character Superstar. Jack Nicholson is long retired(and looking enormously overweight in recent photos); Al Pacino shares the DeNiro cachet but doesn't seem to be making as many movies as DeNiro(his "OAITH" role is in certain ways great fun but of disappointing length.) But here's DeNiro EVERYWHERE, and bringing his fierce, seething qualities to the fore, certainly in The Irishman(from what I've seen in the trailer) and as a talk show host with a Don Rickles sensibility, here.

I wonder if the studios(and/or Netflix) are at all concerned about DeNiro's public pronouncements against Trump. Probably not, but DeNiro has kept up the insults even as folks like Pacino and Nichoslon have stayed out of it. Its the modern rule about Hollywood: moviemakers can afford to lose a million or so Trump supporters as long as 9 million or so other people show up. Its a very big country, America -- and its now fully an international marketplace for movies. That said, DeNiro was barely in the first trailer for "Joker" -- with the second trailer there seems to be a newfound confidence in advertising him(he's in it a lot) and he's the centerpiece of "The Irishman" trailer.


reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The strange thing about The Irishman is that it's cost nearly $200 million to *make* (i.e., before marketing) - as much as Casino, Departed, Goodfellas combined after adjusting for inflat

---

COMBINED. Wow. And all evidently in the service of "de-aging CGI" for the main actors that doesn't look that effective to me(they rather "glow").

Keep in mind that Scorsese made "Goodfellas" on the cheap after a difficult 80's(not many hits there for Marty.) Once "Goodfellas" hit big and the Spielberg-produced "Cape Fear" did very well, Scorsese was more bankable and could make "Casino" with a bigger budget than "Goodfellas"(its shows) and Scorese was well-launched for the next two decades(using a young fellah named DiCaprio as his new meal ticket as DeNiro aged.)

---

This means that The Irishman has to be as big a hit worldwide as the biggest hits of Scorsese's career, The Departed or Wolf of Wall St, just to break even.

---

And it seems more downbeat and dour than those films, and again -- it stars old guys. Leo was along for The Departed and WOWS; Matt Damon, Mark Wahlberg and Nicholson were there to give The Departed an all-star cast.

Somebody jokingly noted that "The Irishman" will probably feature "murder scenes scored to Rolling Stone songs" and we're reminded that as flashy as Scorsese's visuals are, his musical sensibilities tend to run to the Baby Boomer sixties. That will eventually get old.

I do very much love the narration that made "Casino" and "The Wolf of Wall Street" such a funny watch; I hope that's coming back in The Irishman. I am speaking here to the fact that when Scorsese is on a roll(flashy cinematics that nobody can beat; 60's soundtrack; hilarious deadpan narration)...he's at his best in the gangster genre.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Enter Netflix which doesn't have conventional box office & plays by God knows what rules. What a weird situation this is. Still, here's hoping Marty's got one more classic gangster tale in him,

--

I am so hoping ..but you have to wonder if QT's rule about aging directors will eventually reach Scorsese, too. The Irishman just doesn't look as FUN as Goodfellas, Casino, The Deparated, or WOWS.

That said, its the NEXT Scorsese movie shaping up that could be a great one. Based on a non-fiction best seller about a plot by a 1920's land baron(DeNiro in talks) to kill off all the Oklahoma Native Americans living on oil land; with Leo in talks as the young FBI guy who cracks the case. This story was part of the 1959 James Stewart movie "The FBI Story" but will have more punch in the 2020's. If Scorsese still has his mojo.
---

Back to Netflix: at Scorsese's request, Netflix negotiated with some movie chains to try to get a wide theatrical release for The Irishman before and during Netflix play. The theater chains balked, requiring a 90-day window between theatrical and Netflix. Netflix could only offer a 30 day window.

So Scorsese's $200 million movie(as bankrolled ONLY by Netflix) will have to be a giant TV movie. These are the times we live in . (The Irishman will play a few art houses, and I think I live where one of them will be -- will I drive to the theater? I dunno.)

As to exactly how Netflix earns back these gigantic investments? It must be some kind of mystery. I suppose worldwide subscribers outpace worldwide theater ticket buyers? But we never see the box office.

I will note again what I have realized: I have a rare year here at the movies: a QT movie(he makes them about every three to four years); a Scorsese gangster movie(not made too often) , and a Joker movie(they had been about 20 years apart before the floodgates opened.) Three possible winners for 2019, and I've already seen and liked(if not loved) one of them.

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 5 years ago

I now have three candidates based on my favorites of previous years:
ONE: Once Upon A Time in Hollywood. (Because: QT.)
TWO: The Irishman (Because: Scorsese in his gangster mode.)
THREE: Joker(Because: Joker.)

I guess I've started to get very hopeful about JoJo Rabbit (2019):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL4McUzXfFI
The degree of difficulty with this film seems off the charts: huge cast, period, whimsy, kids, humor, writer&director Waititi himself playing the Hitler-imaginary-friend of a young Nazi... Obviously owes a bit to Wes Anderson but Waititi is his own comic & visual stylist. The Jewish girl is played by young Kiwi phenom, Thomasin Mackenzie, who carried one of the best films last year (and my personal fave.), Deborah Granik's Leave No Trace. It looks like she's the dramatic heart of the film... more degree of difficulty but Mackenzie could be the film's ace. If this film clicks.... can it become a sizeable hit a la Royal Tenenbaum's, Grand Budapest Hotel, or do even better? Get some awards attention?

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I guess I've started to get very hopeful about JoJo Rabbit (2019):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL4McUzXfFI

---

I have to hand it to you, swanstep: you DO know the films out there that don't have the "high profile" YET...but likely will. (I think you saw La La Land coming way out there, for instance.)

I note that the film has ScarJo and Sam Rockwell in it for "names." Can't hurt.

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 5 years ago

A new contender has emerged at TorontoIFF: Rian Johnson's Knives Out, a star-studded Christie-style whodunnit that's wowed everyone. Here's the Ebert-site review (which is typical):
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/knives-out-2019

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

A new contender has emerged at TorontoIFF: Rian Johnson's Knives Out, a star-studded Christie-style whodunnit that's wowed everyone. Here's the Ebert-site review (which is typical):

---

I've seen the trailer for this twice, both times I saw the new QT.

I'm intrigued and amused.

I'll go.

Its clearly in the "whodunit" tradition, but out to bend the rules, I would suppose.

(Note in passing: anybody ever see the 1985 movie of Clue, with three different endings attached, three different killers revealed, depending on which theater you saw it at? Great cast, funny enough movie. And it rebutted Hitchcock's line about Psycho: "Please don't reveal the ending -- its the only one we have.")

Its got an "all star cast," without quite being all star. (Captain America sure looks weird out of costume.)

Indeed, we got Captain America AND James Bond in this, as Daniel Craig continues his largely fruitless quest to anchor movies alone like Sean Connery did, but instead ends up like Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton in theirs. Though Pierce Brosnan DID manage to get a separate career going.

Ah, but Craig did a hilarious Southern-fired short role in that uh, "Logan Lucky" movie.

And here's the Psycho connection for all those OT-phobes out there: Marion Crane's daughter is unafraid of age....

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 5 years ago

I guess I've started to get very hopeful about JoJo Rabbit (2019)
JoJo Rabbit debuted at TorontoIFF getting somewhat mixed reviews, but did in fact end up winning the coveted Audience Choice Award (which has picked Best Picture about 1/3 of the time since 1999, including last year with Green Book).
ScarJo had a very good festival since she's also in Marriage Story, a big Netflix release from Noah Baumbach, which got 2nd prize. 3rd prize went to Cannes-winner, Parasite from Bong Joon-Ho, which I've already seen. It's pretty great but really needs to be rewatched to get its measure I think. Some incredible set-pieces for sure - maybe a little like OUATIH - but whether it really adds up to much is harder to say. It didn't quite work as well for me as another recent S Korean film about inequality & class resentment, Burning.

Anyhow, smart money seems to be on JoJo, Marriage Story, Parasite all getting Best Picture noms along with OUATIH from earlier in the year.

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 5 years ago

In part as prep. for Jo Jo Rabbit I rewatched To Be or Not to Be (1942) all the way through for the first time since the '90s. I was newly struck by just how terrible Poland's fate was at the end of WW2. Lubitsch sees the Poles as some of the Nazis' first victims and accurately reports that lots of Poles escaped to the UK and that squadrons of Polish pilots flew important missions from the Battle of Britain onwards.

Lubitsch comfortingly asserts & shows that the Nazis *will* lose, that they are ultimately ludicrous, & that the madness and slavish followership that gave Fascism its initial shocking advantages *will* also quickly undermine it. So far so good. But Lubitsch also assumes that any *victory* by the Allies worthy of its name will have to liberate Warsaw & Poland. The Poles are deeply Allies and any 'victory' that leaves them in bondage is a sham. Infamously, of course, the Western Allies declined to fight for Poland at the end of WW2 leaving them instead to the tender mercies of the Soviet Union (who'd originally invaded and divided Poland *with* the Nazis back in 1939) for the next 40 years or so.

To Be or Not to Be (1942) in this way teaches some painful lessons. Yes the Nazis will lose. But the Allies won't win either, not the way they wanted to. Nonetheless the Allies will talk themselves up, minimize the Soviet contributions to WW2 both +ve and -ve, and largely lie to themselves about their betrayal of Poland to avoid having a bad conscience about all this.

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 5 years ago

To Be or Not to Be (1942) is a very good film. It's ingenious, *very* funny, packed with good performances and sharp observations, and, given what we know now, it illuminates some of the short-comings & delusions of the self-styled 'greatest generation'.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

To Be or Not to Be (1942) is a very good film. It's ingenious, *very* funny, packed with good performances and sharp observations, and, given what we know now, it illuminates some of the short-comings & delusions of the self-styled 'greatest generation'.

---

I grew up in a "Jack Benny" household. We watched Bob Hope, too -- but Benny was the family favorite for his deadpan, his gimmick(the cheapness) and for a great cast around him which reminds me today rather of "Seinfeld decades early."(Or perhaps Larry David is more Benny-ish.)

I found a funny '60's episode of the Benny program on tape in the 80s...Raymond Burr guested as Perry Mason, represented Jack(for killing his neighbor's rooster, it was a dream)...and Mason BUNGLED everything like an idiot...the cross examinations, the objections, etc. All while Jack looked aghast with his hand on his cheek, (trademark.)

On the TV show, Benny always made fun of his movie "The Horn Blows At Midnight," which I finally saw and found funny enough.

But aha, its "To Be or Not to Be" that finds Benny almost accidentally in a master's classic movie...

...and I've never seen it. Nor even the remake with Mel Brooks and Anne Bancroft(husband and wife) in the Benny/Lombard roles.

I'll retire any year now, and along with reading "the great books I've never read," I suppose I'd better start seeing the great movies I've never seen (I owe myself more of the 30's and 40's.)

"This is such a one."

---

Meanwhile, my world history is sketchier than yours, swanstep but the whole Allies/Axis friends/foes thing is rather fascinating.

I'm reminded of a scene near the end of Patton(1970) where, with WWII won, Scott's Patton says to somebody "I'm telling you, I don't trust the Russians...I think we're going to need to watch them." I saw that at a young age and thought, "Oh, so the US went from the Nazis to the Communists as enemies just like that, huh?"

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Earlier still, in the mid-sixties, I got my education about Communist takeovers from the various spy movies of the time: Torn Curtain, The Spy Who Came In from the Cold, Funeral in Berlin...even the spoofy Casino Royale of 1967.

I learned: Germany itself had been split into East(Commie) and West(uh...not Commie.) And the city of Berlin IN West Germany was itself split into sectors. Here I learned the phrase "Checkpoint Charlie." It was all rather fascinating.

Only a few years ago, that whole East/West split was brought nostalgically back with Spielberg's "Bridge of Spies." Honestly, it got me nostalgic for Torn Curtain.

Speaking of Torn Curtain, I think one thing Hitchcock got right with that movie was to simplify things for us Westerners: Newman(followed by Andrews against his wishes) goes "behind the Iron Curtain" and we are meant to find that place to be some sort of "hell" -- a scary place from which Newman and Andrews must escape, and the whole second half of the movie(after Newman gets the formula from the Professor) is dedicated TO that escape. Its a relief when Andrews and Newman are in "free Europe" at the end.

And yet, Hitchcock's simplicity seemed to get dissed by a critical community who weren't willing to see East Germany as that hellish. The movie itself posits the East German top political brass as "just more bureaucrats" but in a different place. They're polite to Newman, accommodating of his "defection"(but with the right amount of suspicion)....you have to ask : is it all THAT bad to live under Communist rule?

Well, yet another, decades-later movie called "The Lives of Others" suggested...yeah.

Of course now, we're all under surveillance from our phones and laptops...by our FELLOW NEIGHBORS that...the Big Brother concept is rather quaint.

But I digress.

PS. Torn Curtain has its detractors, but I like it. And I like the East German guy's line to Newman when he offers him a cigar: "Cuban. Your loss...our gain."

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 5 years ago

"Oh, so the US went from the Nazis to the Communists as enemies just like that, huh?"
The thing is that WW2 is the conflict that's closest to being a completely necessary, even just war. Yet even in that case the closer you look at it the murkier it gets. The most shocking public monument I've ever seen is The Katyn Massacre Memorial in New Jersey just across the river from Manhattan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katy%C5%84_Memorial_(Jersey_City)
You see this right when you come out of the subway station at Exchange Place. When I first saw this (back in 2000 IIRC), I was puzzled & even a little angered by it: I remember feeling that the Polish had unhelpfully brought their ethnic hatreds & grievances with them to the New World, and that, as it were, they really needed to 'take this up with the Russians', preferably back in Poland.

Having thought a little more about the matter, I guess I can now see that the 1940 Katyn massacre is a synecdoche of all later betrayals. The monsters who committed this epic massacre of Poles at the beginning of the war were allowed to swallow up Poland at the end of the war. So the statue's bayonet in the back is at least as much from 'us', the western Allies as it is from the Russians/Soviets. My current view then is that the Memorial's pretty great, and its location sneakily appropriate. It probably over time wakes up a handful of former commuters every day.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

swanstep, that is an interesting story...I like how officials are worried about "mothers explaining the gruesome monument to their children."

Hell, anymore I wonder how mothers can explain MANY things in our culture (the violence, the raw sexuality, the profanity, the obscenity) to their children.

Oh, well. Elsewhere on another thread I agree with telegonus as to the larger numbers of good people in the world. But there can be no doubt that population extermination and domination of entire countries is a part of history ...and current events.

Still...more good people....

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 5 years ago

Nor even the remake with Mel Brooks and Anne Bancroft(husband and wife) in the Benny/Lombard roles.
I just watched the Brooks remake of TBONTB for the first time. It's not really worth watching in my view. It does restage many of the key gags and lines of the original but it loses a hell of a lot too, e.g., in the original Benny's vainglorious Shakespearean *isn't* the Hitler-impersonator but Mel Brooks can't resist combining the two roles, doing neither of them justice (and really substituting one big slice of ham). The plot mechanics at the end of the film also don't work nearly as well having made this change (and one of the original's most brilliant LOL gags is completely sacrificed). E.g. 2 all the original's stuff about the Polish underground and the sense that beyond the farce is a *real* fight and real danger is dropped.

Maybe some of the shortfall is inevitable: part of TBONTB's charm like Casablanca's is that they're films made in the early stages of WW2 when the fate of the world was very much in the balance. Jokes about Nazis from then land in a way they never really can later. And beyond that Lubitsch caught lightning in a bottle with Benny & Lombard & all the rest of his cast - everyone's pretty much the best they'd ever be and there's simply *no way* to equal that, let alone with the mugging and self-awareness a Brooksian crew entails. (Charles Durning is particularly bad.)

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 5 years ago

And connecting back to Psycho finally... the 1990s remakes of drama classics and near-classics such as Les Diaboliques, Psycho, Dial M, can be seen as anticipated by sophisticated comedy remakes Heaven Can Wait (1978), TBONTB (1983) & Unfaithfully Yours (1984). TBONTB (1942) stands out as the revered (Imdb score = 8.3) ancestor in this case much as Psycho (1960) does (Imdb score = 8.5) in the 1990s case.

Interestingly, TBONTB (1942) isn't listed on IMDb's top 250 (its score would put it around #75) because it's still 1000 or so ratings short of the 25000 a film needs to get on the list. Exploring this further I was surprised to see the new Cannes-winning Bong Joon-Ho film, Parasite (2019) already has 30k+ ratings and is at #77 (Imdb score = 8.3). By way of comparison, Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood (2019) has 196k+ ratings and is just below the top 250 (Imdb score = 8.0).

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 5 years ago

Heh, more competition for Scorsese from his younger selves: some people are describing the surprise J-Lo hit, Hustlers, as 'Goodfellas with strippers', and Oscar noms are not out of the question. (Young directors often use Goodfellas as a near perfect pacing & editing template for telling a complex story entertainingly.)

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Heh, more competition from Scorsese from his younger selves: some people are describing the surprise J-Lo hit, Hustlers, as 'Goodfellas with strippers', and Oscar noms are not out of the question. (Young directors often use Goodfellas as a near perfect pacing & editing template for telling a complex story entertainingly.)

---

It occurs to me that with Hitchcock and his era fading rapidly into the far away past, perhaps the 70-something Scorsese has replaced Hitch as a "muse" for a younger generation.

"Joker" reviews keep telling us it is Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy mixed together. Could this be the director's version of DePalma's Dressed to Kill and/or Sisters and/or Obsession? Meanwhile, Hustlers joins the crowd.

I've noticed this about Scorsese: "hit songs" make up a lot of his soundtracks, but what was once pretty hip music(The Rolling Stones) is now pretty OLD music(The Rolling Stones.) Scorsese has rather aged himself with his musical choices. I think the newer generation "skews younger, music-wise."

Some stray on topic/off topic thoughts about Scorsese:

ONE: He made some movies before Taxi Driver, but Taxi Driver was "important" -- and it came out February of 1976, a coupla months before Hitchcock's final film, Family Plot. Bernard Herrmann turned down Family Plot(Hitch was trying to reconcile) to do..Taxi Driver. And put the three notes of madness from Psycho at the end. And died.

TWO: Way back when, QT was considered a Scorsese wannabee, too. Scorsese star Harvey Keitel took the lead and helped get the money for "Reservoir Dogs," and it was about some pretty psycho -- but funny -- criminals. It came out two years after Good Fellas. With flashbacks and hit radio tunes on the score.



reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

THREE: A LOT of seventies movie stars and directors disappeared in the 80's...and Scorsese was almost one of them. Raging Bull got great reviews, but wasn't much of a hit(how could it be?) That was in 1980. Ten full years later, to start a new decade (the 90's) in 1990, Scorsese used the same "actor-combo"(DeNiro and Pesci) in a MUCH more entertaining format(the gangster movie)....and got the hit AND the classic that Raging Bull could not be.

But in between? I seem to remember Scorsese struggling. Raging Bull wasn't a hit, The King of Comedy wasn't a hit(it was written, by the way, by former Newsweek critic Paul Zimmerman, who had called Frenzy "one of Hitchcock's very best" and The Last Picture Show "the greatest debut by a young director since Citizen Kane"(except it was Bogdanovich's SECOND film.) Make of this what you will.

After Hours was rather a cult film. Working for the "new Disney" with Paul Newman and Tom Cruise in a sequel(!!) to The Hustler, Scorsese delivered an Oscar to Newman(for the wrong movie) but not much of a classic(not compared to The Hustler?)

And then that Christ film.

What did I miss from Scorsese in the 80's? Anyway, Scorsese sort of hung on in the 80's, but blossomed in the 90's(GoodFellas, Cape Fear, The Age of Innocence, Casino), and has remained inviolate ever since.

And of course, for me, Scorsese has my favorite film of 2013, and maybe my favorite film of the 2010's, in The Wolf of Wall Street(in which he rather brilliantly used all his Old School GoodFellas/Casino tricks in the service of a decidedly New School sex comedy epic.)

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Anyhow, smart money seems to be on JoJo, Marriage Story, Parasite all getting Best Picture noms along with OUATIH from earlier in the year

---

Aha, swanstep! You emerge again as our guide to where the Oscars will go. I tell you: I'm recalibrating my liking of OUATIH all the time -- it seems that my friends and colleagues "out here" love the movie in a way that I didn't...but maybe...could? I'll find out when I buy the DVD...how quaint. Buying a DVD.

However: we need the information on all these OTHER, less hyped Oscar bait films. Thank you.

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 5 years ago

Scorsese is now 76 - the age at which Hitch had to settle for lower budgets etc. for Family Plot - & he's helming a $200 million, 3.5 hour movie. Wow. I agree that Scorsese's music choices date his films *a bit* but his basic taste is so good that a lot of his choices from The Stones to the Ronettes to Sinatra still sound great and have never really gone away.

I'm trying to think of films that have used post-2000 pop music powerfully. Pretty slim pickings I'm afraid. I suspect that the estates of The Stones, The Who, Led Zep, Queen, Boston, Tom Petty, Marvin Gaye, etc. are going to continue to rake in most of the soundtrack dollars:

Eminem's 'Lose Yourself' from 8 Mile (2002)
Linkin Park's 'What I've Done' from the end of Transformers (2007)
Paramore's 'Decode' from the end of Twilight (2008) (Song much better than movie!)
College's 'A Real Hero' from Drive (2011)
'Let It Go' from Frozen (2014)
Lady Antebellum's 'American Honey' from a big 'Tiny Dancer'-style sing-a-long scene in American Honey (2016) [Rihanna's 'We Found love' also used well]
Lady Gaga's 'Shallow' from A Star is Born (2018)
Billie Eilish's 'Bad Guy' used at the end of Brightburn (2019)

Vaguely relatedly, I see that Chris Nolan's next film Tenet (coming out summer 2020) is budgeted at $225 mill - lots of cool locations in Estonia just for a start apparently - & *won't* have Hans Zimmer doing its score. This last is a big change: Zimmer and Nolan have been fused since Batman Begins I believe, and with his scores used *so* thunderously and insistently throughout, Zimmer really has been one of the co-authors of these films a la Williams and Herrmann in their days.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Scorsese is now 76 - the age at which Hitch had to settle for lower budgets etc. for Family Plot - & he's helming a $200 million, 3.5 hour movie. Wow.


---

Yes. This is another reason that QT's theory about the "movies of old directors aren't good" doesn't hold water today. Hitchcock ran into two problems: his health(a matter of being born in 1899! And weight); and the movies making their radical change at the turn of the countercultural 60s. So MANY of Hitchcock's great peers (Ford, Capra, Wilder) couldn't get work and/or were literally fired off of projects, never to work again. Hitch had his star reputation and Wasserman to save him -- barely.

Anyway, today, health doesn't seem to be an issue for directors when Clint Eastwood is directing at 89(OK, he's an anomaly, but Scorsese and Spielberg are very fit 70-somethings), and the "countercultural shift" has been replaced by some real respect for Grand Old Directors.

On the other hand, Scorsese hasn't made a Marnie or a Topaz yet, either.

---

I agree that Scorsese's music choices date his films *a bit* but his basic taste is so good that a lot of his choices from The Stones to the Ronettes to Sinatra still sound great and have never really gone away.

--

Oh, I agree. I LOVE his soundtracks and GoodFellas and Casino were about men "from the fifties" in the 60's and 70s. Sinatra DID mix with the Stones back then, and jazz. Great music.

GoodFellas, Casino, and The Departed all have some Stones....I can't recall if Wolf of Wall Street does.




I

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

There is also the issue of narration in Scorsese films...he's a master at doing it RIGHT.

SPOILER..

I'll always love how Joe Pesci's narration in Casino is interrupted when he is -- a baseball bat to the head.
Its as if he as a NARRATOR didn't see his death coming...

QT himself does a little bit of overwrought narration right after the intermission in The Hateful Eight(he has to tell/show us the coffee being poisoned) and gives the narration over to Kurt Russell for Act Three(the final night) in OATIH. I like how the narration AS WRITTEN sounds the same in both movies...but the different voices make all the...difference.

Back to Scorsese narration: GoodFellas, at the end...Ray Liotta as a voiceover narrator suddenly starts talking directly to us as a character, from the courtroom where "it all ends." Dynamite. Scorsese.

But..don't a LOT of these Scorese wannabees use narration in THEIR films?

And finally(for now): The Sopranos sure did use a lot of Scorsese actors. Marty was rather tight-lipped about it. The Sopranos rather "stole his act," but turned it all into something all its own.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I'm trying to think of films that have used post-2000 pop music powerfully.

---

I wasn't sure, thought maybe you'd know.

---

Pretty slim pickings I'm afraid. I suspect that the estates of The Stones, The Who, Led Zep, Queen, Boston, Tom Petty, Marvin Gaye, etc. are going to continue to rake in most of the soundtrack dollars:

---

Well, they did a LOT of songs that got a LOT of radio play(I think radio play is the nostalgia key missing from today's music.)

---

Eminem's 'Lose Yourself' from 8 Mile (2002)
Linkin Park's 'What I've Done' from the end of Transformers (2007)
Maybe Paramore's 'Decode' from the end of Twilight (2008) (Song much better than movie!)
College's 'A Real Hero' from Drive (2011)
'Let It Go' from Frozen (2014)
Lady Antebellum's 'American Honey' from a big 'Tiny Dancer'-style sing-a-long scene in American Honey (2016) [Rihanna's 'We Found love' also used]
Lady Gaga's 'Shallow' from A Star is Born (2018)
Billie Eilish's 'Bad Guy' used at the end of Brightburn (2019)

---Hmm. OK, good reading!

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Vaguely relatedly, I see that Chris Nolan's next film Tenet (coming out summer 2020) is budgeted at $225 mill -

---

Why am I starting to think this is some kind of "new normal"? No wonder these movies have to earn BILLIONS.

Even the rather modest looking OATIH cost what, $90 million? Brad and Leo cost(even at reduced rates.)

Hey, I once read this quote from Brad Pitt about his baseball movie "Moneyball"(2011) about how the low-budget Oakland A's spent low dollars to buy good, not great, talent. And win.

Interviewer: Do you think the moneyball low cost formula would work in the movie business?
Pitt: Not when they hire me.

---

lots of cool locations in Estonia just for a start apparently - & *won't* have Hans Zimmer doing its score. This last is a big change: Zimmer and Nolan have been fused since Batman Begins I believe, and with his scores used *so* thunderously and insistently throughout, Zimmer really has been one of the co-authors of these films a la Williams and Herrmann in their days.

---

Er, Williams(for Spielberg) and Mancini(for Blake Edwards) but...not Herrmann for Hitchcock. Hitchcock was a real ingrate, you ask me. Got scared that Benny was too old fashioned. Fired him from Torn Curtain, made the final four films without him(though I read recently that Hitch DID ask Benny to do Family Plot -- too late. Scorsese booked him first. )

I wonder why no Zimmer and...any idea what the newNolan movie is about?

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Hitchcock was a real ingrate, you ask me. Got scared that Benny was too old fashioned.

--

I think I'll put this here:

In honor of the passing of Carol Lynley, one movie of hers that TCM showed last week was "Blue Denim," quite the controversial film for its year (1959.) Carol Lynley and Brandon de Wilde are teenage lovers...and the subject is abortion(though the word is never used.)

Some Hitchcock trivia: Brandon's dad is played by MacDonald Carey, the cop hero from Shadow of a Doubt. Carol's dad is played by Mr. Lowery himself, nervous Vaughn Taylor. When the two dads come together...its a very weird Hitchcock match-up.

Anyway, the musical score for this hard hitting film about the teenagers of today is by...Bernard Herrmann(?)

And it is interesting. The credit overture is very reminiscent of Marnie yet to come(melodramatic, lovely, then shrill). Much of the score of the film itself is "Vertigo" revisited(only a year later.) For again...tragic love(of sorts.) And during some ultra-dramatic moments, (the film is in b/w)...intimations of Psycho and Cape Fear appear.

But mainly the score is...Marnie. And you CAN detect the old-fashioned qualities that Hitchcock feared in Herrmann around the time OF Marnie. But still...he should have kept Benny to the end. Especially for Frenzy.


reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 5 years ago

any idea what the newNolan movie is about?
International espionage with Time Travel involved is rumored. Movie's lead is John David Washington, Denzel's son, who was so impressive & out-of-nowhere seemed like a natural star in BlackKklansman last year. What a career that guy's *already* having!

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Aha...sounds a bit like "Inception."

Denzel's one of my favorites(a hunky action age peer, hah -- role model?) Nice to see his son in line to carry on. Michael Douglas did...

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 5 years ago

My list to date:
2010: True Grit
2011: Moneyball
2012: Django Unchained
2013: The Wolf of Wall Street
2014: John Wick
2015: The Hateful Eight
2016: The Magnificent Seven
2017: Molly's Game
2018: The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

Not much overlap with my own list of yearly faves:
2010: True Grit
2011: A Separation
2012: Amour
2013: Under The Skin
2014: Grand Budapest Hotel
2015: Son of Saul
2016: The Lobster
2017 A Ghost Story
2018 Leave No Trace

I dare say that there's a certain samey-ness to my choices. Only Grand Budapest Hotel features a large ensemble or a relatively complex plot, everything else is really just 1, 2, or 3 characters wrestling with a single existential predicament of some sort [trying to survive off the grid (2018), trying to reconcile with being dead (2017), trying to survive within an insane social order of gender roles etc.(2016), trying to survive the holocaust (by helping load bodies into ovens) (2015), trying to survive as an Alien on earth when one understands literally nothing (2013), trying to reconcile oneself to death (2012), trying to survive a rigid social order in Iran (2011), trying to survive the elements & avenge one's Father's murder (2010)]. Only GBH & True Grit have any real action.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

2010: True Grit
2011: Moneyball
2012: Django Unchained
2013: The Wolf of Wall Street
2014: John Wick
2015: The Hateful Eight
2016: The Magnificent Seven
2017: Molly's Game
2018: The Ballad of Buster Scruggs

Not much overlap with my own list of yearly faves:
2010: True Grit
2011: A Separation
2012: Amour
2013: Under The Skin
2014: Grand Budapest Hotel
2015: Son of Saul
2016: The Lobster
2017 A Ghost Story
2018 Leave No Trace

---

And there you have it....a "split" of TYPE of movie love that demonstrates there is still more than enough diversity of films and film lovers out there circa 2019. It says something, swanstep, that we can communicate at all(and we CAN, and we have), given this split. To the "semi-good"(and as always in my "film life" of several decades) I have at least read about and recognized the titles of your list -- my film fandom has always had its own split -- I go to mainstream studio movies, I read about ALL movies.

Other than True Grit(our one overlap, hmm), I saw Grand Budapest Hotel, and I certainly liked it (it has a sequence lifted from Torn Curtain) but...that was my John Wick year.

I guess I would also note(for myself) that favorites True Grit, The Magnificent Seven, Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight are all Westerns, so that genre lives on in my entertainment estimation, even if we're talking remakes with Grit, Seven, and Hateful Eight(that Rebel episode.)

I believe I have many years of life ahead of me. I believe that some of them will be in retirement. I expect that that may be the time I can catch up on all the movies I've missed...and perhaps enter YOUR world of film, swanstep.

In the meantime...it is fun reading about it.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

PS. Speaking of Grand Budapest Hotel, of the Wes Anderson films, my favorite is The Royal Tennebaums of 2001. It has the last great Gene Hackman performance(he retired a few years later, with Welcome to Mooseport as his swan song; no, it should be this one.) It has great Alec Baldwin narration. It has folks like Gwyneth Paltrow, Ben Stiller, Luke and Owen Wilson, Anjelica Huston, and Danny Glover being as twee as they can be -- and yet it works. Bill Murray's in it too, quite subdued. I love it.

But 2001 was a hard year for me to pick just one. That happens some years with me. Instead of having one overriding favorite of the year with no real competition(Die Hard, LA Confidential), I have several shifting up and down the list. In 2001, those were:

The Royal Tennebaums
Ocean's Eleven(Clooney and Pitt doing Newman and Redford)
Memento (one of my few "art film" choices)
Moulin Rouge(a very special kind of musical, with Nicole Kidman as gorgeous as she's ever been.)

Over the years, I've narrowed it down to...ta da....Moulin Rouge(its just such a unique and ambitious film.)

But I own a nice special edition of Tennebaums.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Meanwhile,

Glenn Kenny on the Roger Ebert site calls "Joker"..."pernicious garbage." Or at least calls its attempt at social commentary such. The review also turns the "Taxi Driver"/"King of Comedy" comparisons heavily AGAINST the film. (Its not good enough to compare....)

But Kenny gives it two stars. Hey, that's "Magnificent Seven 2016" territory.

reply
formatting help
[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

why not post this on General Discussion?

reply
formatting help
[–] hurricane (1907) 5 years ago

^ Seconded.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

You mean with such topics as:

Opinions on Bebop & Rocksteady of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?

Why do girls say they want a nice guy?

Are smart girls hot?

reply
formatting help
[–] hurricane (1907) 5 years ago

There's a Beebop amd Rocksteady thread? Where?

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 5 years ago

First Reviews of The Irishman are very strong:
https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/the-irishman-first-reviews-a-mob-movie-masterpiece-and-one-of-scorseses-finest/
The bladder-bursting, 3.5 hr length seems like its only major sore-point. Bottom line: 'Best-since-Goodfellas-&-a-bit-like-Unforgiven' Headline = Best Picture/Best Acting etc. Fave. It'll take more than OUATIH/Brad Pitt to stop it.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

First Reviews of The Irishman are very strong:
https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/the-irishman-first-reviews-a-mob-movie-masterpiece-and-one-of-scorseses-finest/
The bladder-bursting, 3.5 hr length seems like its only major sore-point.

--

Ah, but as a Netflix home TV outing, 3.5 hours can be stopped at any time. (Which is actually kind of a bad thing.) As someone wrote, its like bingeing four episodes of a Netflix show.)

The Irishman, more than Roma last year, will create some conflict and buzz about this Netflix movie thing, I think. Recall that Spielberg is the greatest opponent of Netflix movies getting Oscar noms. I guess Spielberg lost; I think The Irishman will still have Oscar eligibility. And The Irishman, vs Roma, is not a "foreign film," and comes from an established mainstream Hollywood director(out of New York) with four major American stars in it (plus: Ray Romano , who hilariously bookends the trailer.)

---

Bottom line: 'Best-since-Goodfellas-&-a-bit-like-Unforgiven' Headline = Best Picture/Best Acting etc. Fave.

---

Best Scorsese gangster movie since Goodfellas is high praise. Casino and The Departed in between were my favorites of those years; this one sounds more "heavy"(with its old age angle) than those but...I'm excited. No doubt about it. 2019 is turning out to be a bit historic. I've got to do the mental work to recall if we had a Scorsese GANGSTER film in the same year as a QT before.

---

It'll take more than OUATIH/Brad Pitt to stop it.

---

Possibly. I'm on record with my disappointment with OUATIH in certain ways. But I loved it in certain OTHER ways. And its on its way to being the highest grossing QT movie ever, with a fair amount of good will(towards Pitt) that could help there. Still, not enough going on in the QT to counter the "epic sweep" of the Scorsese film.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I take it that the Unforgiven reference about The Irishman is to the "older man genre drama" that Unforgiven was. I've always likened Unforgiven for Eastwood to Frenzy for Hitchcock. Both men were in a career slump and considered "over" in some quarters. Both men came back with a big hit driven by a great script. And both men came back on THEIR TERMS: a certain wizened old mannish seriousness for Eastwood; a sexually brutal off-putting quality for Hitch.

The various "gimmicks" to the Irishman casting are worth repeating:

DeNiro reunites with Scorsese after many years(Leo had taken over.)
Pesci returns to the movies for the first time in over a decade...and more like two decades from STEADY work.
DeNiro, Pesci and Scorsese reunite.
Pacino in his first Scorsese movie.(Word is, he's quite good here, with a lot more to do than in the QT.)
Scorsese's first gangster movie since The Departed(or maybe, says I, The Wolf of Wall Street.)
Harvey Keitel returns to Scorsese since...when? (Taxi Driver? Alice? Mean Streets?)
DeNiro reunites with Keitel.

AND: Ray Romano looks to steal the movie (his last 30 seconds of the trailer are...pure Romano.)

AND: For the second time, Pacino plays a role played by Jack Nicholson. (Jimmy Hoffa.) The other role was: The Devil.

I'm jazzed.

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 5 years ago

QT and Scorsese talk over their films (a few weeks ago) etc.:
https://www.dga.org/Craft/DGAQ/All-Articles/1904-Fall-2019/Conversation-Scorsese-Tarantino.aspx

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

QT and Scorsese talk over their films (a few weeks ago) etc.:

---

Thank you!

It had to happen...didn't it. They are perhaps THE two popular auteurs of our time...Spielberg seems to have farmed himself out away from genre and towards "good old fashioned historical studio moviemaking." Its hard to get excited about him.

QT and Scorsese share violent action crime movies as a specialty(though Scorsese has branched out to costume dramas and religious pieces), but the interview shows they are also classic "cinema nerds." In the best meaning of the term.

I was thinking about this: while Scorsese was making his name with NYC gangsters in Goodfellas and Kansas City/Vegas gangsters in Casino and Boston gangsters in The Departed...QT carved out a nice little niche for a few years with...LOS ANGELES gangsters(?)...they're a more loose-knit group, but the gangs in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction...plus the "side crooks" in Jackie Brown, are perhaps distinctive by being so "West Coast."

Good interview...though I think Scorsese's maybe having to humor QT a bit in it..QT's not quite in Scorsese's league, movie history knowledge wise....

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Uh oh...Scorsese's went and gone and done did it.

In one of his interviews to promote The Irishman...he opines on the Marvel movies: "They're not really movies...despite the hard work the actors are putting into them..they are more like theme parks. They don't explore the reality of human relationships and interactions. They are not cinema."

Now, I just paraphrased that, I think he elaborated a bit more than the above, and I know I got the quote wrong as a matter of verbatim. But that was close enough, I think.

I think his statement "they are not cinema" is the big insult. But -- get off my lawn! -- the correct one.

Look, I've seen a LOT of the Marvel movies. As I think I've mentioned before, the biggest draw has usually been the actors: RDJ. Jeff Bridges. Robert Redford. Michael Douglas. Samuel L. Marisa Tomei. Michelle Pfeiffer. Even Gwyneth Paltrow.

But so OFTEN, they end the same way. Gigantic CGI effects sequences that try to top the last one and collapse in a heap.

And the last couple of years have been a big problem, as we are asked to mourn the "deaths" of characters who come back to life in the next movie. One can't commit emotionally to even these fictional deaths (as one COULD to the fictional death of Janet Leigh in Psycho, or of a key character in Terms of Endearment, to quote two famous examples.)

Anyway, the Marvel moviemakers came out strong to praise Scorsese as one of the greats -- but wrong about their movies. First reason: billion dollar grosses (but ah, recall Woody Allen saying that he would never want to make a hit as big as Jaws because he didn't want to work to the "lowest common denominator." Of course, that's snobbery but still...Marvel movies AUTOMATICALLY make a billion dollars because they play worldwide and people just go to them")


reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Second reason, say the Marvel moviemakers: the Marvel moviemakers "work hard to put real emotion into their scripts." Well, yes and no. Characters who die in one movie but anchor a sequel in the the next? That's not REAL emotion. (Put another way: its not "real fake movie emotion.")

Third reason, say the Marvel moviemakers: "Alfred Hitchcock never won the Best Director Oscar." Hey, wait a minute -- OK, I get it, Hitchcock perhaps was seen, at the time, as making "Marvel movies" himself. But...no.

Anyway...good for you, Marty Scorsese. You're a brave man.

I hope there aren't too many Marvel movie makers with Oscar Best Picture voting privileges...

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

It gets harder for me as I do not get time to go to theaters as much. Or I go and the movie isn't that great. It gets to be a blur. Mostly, I'm not a big CGI fan. I grew up on practical effects, animation, and live action, so CGI does not seem real to me. It does have live actors, but they are dealing with fantasy situations and without a good story and good CGI, it just does not seem realistic. I enjoyed the Marvel Comic Universe because their stories are better done than the DC Comic Universe. It seems good stories are harder to write and come up with since we get so many reboots of the same movie and story. Well done sci-fi CGI is good like Star Wars where we get immersed in the story and forget about the fantasy. I have not seen Black Panther which I heard was good. It is tough just to come up with five favorite movies for the 2010s.

Oh, I know what you are thinking animation isn't real and must think I am crazy, but we know animations are cartoons or even the Dreamworks Shrek or the Pixar Toy Story movies do not even try to look real even though there may be live actors in it. We know it is fantasy and yet the story makes it plausible.

Anyway, on to the list for 2010 favorite movies (in order from left to right):
2010: Inception, Toy Story 3, Shutter Island, Black Swan
2011: Drive, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Captain America: The First Avenger
2012: The Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers, Skyfall, Life of Pi
2013: Gravity, sorry couldn't get into The Wolf of Wall Street even though I saw it
2014: Interstellar, Guardians of the Galaxy, John Wick, Captain America: The Winter Soldier
2015: Mad Max: Fury Road
2016: Deadpool (only list because it is one of my most overrated and hated movies lol; he is my most hated clown character, but he won't die)
2017: Wonder Woman, Dunkirk
2018: A Quiet Place, Black Panther (only list because I still want to see)
2019: Us, Shazam (only two I've seen at theaters)

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

It gets harder for me as I do not get time to go to theaters as much. Or I go and the movie isn't that great. It gets to be a blur.

--

I'm not getting to theaters as much either..and I PREFER going to theaters. I find that I can't really concentrate watching a major film on the home TV screen.

But indeed, given the movies I go to these days(often picked by someone else), its hard for one to really register. Like you say...a blur. I've seen a lot of Melissa McCarthy movies. I think she's very talented, a naturally funny person. Her movies? I can't remember them. And no, I haven't seen her more serious films, yet. Just the formula stuff.

---

Mostly, I'm not a big CGI fan. I grew up on practical effects, animation, and live action, so CGI does not seem real to me. It does have live actors, but they are dealing with fantasy situations and without a good story and good CGI, it just does not seem realistic.

--

I sometimes chuckle when I think back to "the Hitchcock era" and all the "fake" shots in Vertigo(the bell tower doesn't exist!), NXNW(Vandamm's house from one angle), Marnie, Torn Curtain, etc. (The process/matte work in Psycho and The Birds is pretty darn great, and Mount Rushmore in NXNW is well nigh perfect, you ask me.) And I recall being "tickled" by the precision "matte shot above nighttime London" that starts the potato truck sequence in Frenzy. (Here was where I said to myself: "Hey, its 1972 and 1958 Hitchcock is BACK!")

I expect Hitchcock would have been using CGI ALL THE TIME today.

---

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I enjoyed the Marvel Comic Universe because their stories are better done than the DC Comic Universe.

---

It does seem that way, yes. I think the Marvel guys picked up fast on what Hitchcock knew: HUMOR is key to everything. Maybe they went too far with Deadpool, but RDJ's one-liners and Thor's ever-growing hip humor are...neat.

The DC universe gets a pass on its "good Batman movies" in general, and the Joker two times (so far; maybe three). But that's it. Dare I say that I'm not sure Superman will ever have the hipness to function well in movies(that outfit, maybe?)

---

It seems good stories are harder to write and come up with since we get so many reboots of the same movie and story. Well done sci-fi CGI is good like Star Wars where we get immersed in the story and forget about the fantasy.

--

Some movies are making more money than movies ever have before, but that's because of a rather "rigged" worldwide marketing system that rewards "the same old , same old". What's gone, IMHO, are a lot of new movies worth talking about. This year so far, only QT's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was original enough to even generate some chit-chat from critics. I know some more movies are on the way to talk about, and Joker is being talked about right now, but still..it ain't like it used to be.


reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Oh, I know what you are thinking animation isn't real and must think I am crazy, but we know animations are cartoons or even the Dreamworks Shrek or the Pixar Toy Story movies do not even try to look real even though there may be live actors in it. We know it is fantasy and yet the story makes it plausible.

---

Well, its an era in which Pixar animated films often get rave reviews as the best movies being made -- dramatically as well as technically -- today. And yet: something's missing. Human beings interacting in real situations with other human beings.

I'll throw this comparison in out of nowhere because it just came to me: The Bridge on the River Kwai. Yes, you could re-do the big train crash finale in CGI, but that movie benefits from the reality of the jungle locations, and the cruel complexity of the human story -- a British officer who builds , out of professional pride, a bridge that will harm "his side"; an American who escapes but is forced back to where he escaped from; all that suspense and tragedy at the end; REAL humans, sweating and half naked and compromised. Its a whole difference kind of film-making, from another era.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Anyway, on to the list for 2010 favorite movies (in order from left to right):
2010: Inception, Toy Story 3, Shutter Island, Black Swan
2011: Drive, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Captain America: The First Avenger
2012: The Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers, Skyfall, Life of Pi
2013: Gravity, sorry couldn't get into The Wolf of Wall Street even though I saw it
2014: Interstellar, Guardians of the Galaxy, John Wick, Captain America: The Winter Soldier
2015: Mad Max: Fury Road
2016: Deadpool (only list because it is one of my most overrated and hated movies lol; he is my most hated clown character, but he won't die)
2017: Wonder Woman, Dunkirk
2018: A Quiet Place, Black Panther (only list because I still want to see)
2019: Us, Shazam (only two I've seen at theaters)

--

I like your list, and it reminds me of movies I liked a lot in those years and it tells me -- maybe I "play favorites": Scorsese, QT, the Coens, Aaron Sorkin -- and should look more broadly at things.

I also like the fact that your list "goes beyond just one." Its funny, some years, I have trouble just finding ONE memorable movie(last year, 2018 was like that before I saw Buster Scruggs.)

But in other years, I indeed have a "list." Yet I don't make a list for every year, because frankly, I can't ever reach ten.

But here are some lists for individual years:

1959:

North by Northwest
Rio Bravo
Anatomy of a Murder
Some Like It hot

1960:

Psycho
The Apartment
The Magnificent Seven
Spartacus

1967:

Wait Until Dark
Hotel
Hombre
The Graduate
Bonnie and Clyde
In the Heat of the Night
El Dorado

1976:

The Shootist
Family Plot
Network
Marathon Man
Rocky

1997:

LA Confidential
Jackie Brown
Face/Off
Titanic
Gross Pointe Blank
As Good As It Gets

2001:

Moulin Rouge
Ocean's Eleven
Memento
The Royal Tennebaums

...Etc

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

And thus, I find these "intersects" with your list, jasonbourne, even if they aren't in the Number One slots:

2010: Inception, Toy Story 3, Shutter Island, Black Swan

--
Inception(where I found Tom Hardy to have more star power than Leo); Toy Story 3.

---

2011: Drive, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Captain America: The First Avenger

--

All three of them. Drive for Albert Brooks take on a psycho gangster who likes knives; Dragon Tattoo for the mystery of it and its setting; Cap America for its Raiders-like nostalgia, a touching performance by Stanley Tucci, a funny one by Tommy Lee Jones(he told the press "I'm doing that thing I usually do") and the beauty of Hayley Atwill.

---

2012: The Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers, Skyfall, Life of Pi

---

All four of them. I loved Bane's voice and Catwoman's sexy rebel style; I remember actually being excited to see all the Avengers in one movie(it passed)...Skyfall and Life of Pi were both highly competent "real movies."

---
2013: Gravity, sorry couldn't get into The Wolf of Wall Street even though I saw it

---

Gravity WAS great, Bullock was great and yet again I keep wondering: why didn't George Clooney stay a star? He sure was here, in a small part that HAD to have a charismatic male star.

Wolf of Wall Street -- well, I got my reasons, maybe when this decade is over I'll state them again. But this: I was enthralled by the movie in the first three minutes of it; I came out of the theater KNOWING it was my favorite of the year; and I've since shown it to many friends "in pieces" -- its a great episodic comedy(the Matt McConaghey episode; the FBI on the yacht episode; the dwarf discussion episode) with an edge. And sex. So many movies shy away from sex. Not this one.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

2014: Interstellar, Guardians of the Galaxy, John Wick, Captain America: The Winter Soldier

--

Well: John Wick, yes. And indeed GOTG was a "good Marvel movie" -- in its comedy, in its 70's soundtrack, in Chris Pratt as a newly made star, Bradley Cooper as hilarious voice talent, and Dave Bautista as the kind of Big Guy the movies always need. I'm on record as a Captain America fan, and this one has Bad Robert Redford -- a first.
Interstellar I can't much remember.

---

2015: Mad Max: Fury Road

---

Umm..it didn't work for me. Tom Hardy's ongoing unwillingness to show his face in several movies(The Dark Knight Rises included)...weird. There was an ongoing grimness even amidst all the action that I admire but do not enjoy.

---
2016: Deadpool (only list because it is one of my most overrated and hated movies lol; he is my most hated clown character, but he won't die)

Ha. I see your point.

---
2017: Wonder Woman, Dunkirk

---

In Wonder Woman we again agree on a commix movie. A Raiders-like sensibility(but WWI this time) and Gal Gadot has GOT it...beauty, yes, but an "inner spirit" and kindness that helps immeasurably. Dunkirk was great, if "focused on the minutae." One had to deal with the time tripping and...Tom Hardy hides his face again. What gives?

---
2018: A Quiet Place, Black Panther (only list because I still want to see)

---
I have not seen either of those movies. I think I should.

---
2019: Us, Shazam (only two I've seen at theaters)

---
So far, so good. I've seen neither, maybe I should.

In any event, we seem to be "on the same page" about a lot of movies this decade. That's a good thing, but of course, we are also very much entitled to our own favorites, too...

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>2018: A Quiet Place, Black Panther (only list because I still want to see)

---
I have not seen either of those movies. I think I should.

---
2019: Us, Shazam (only two I've seen at theaters)

---
So far, so good. I've seen neither, maybe I should.

In any event, we seem to be "on the same page" about a lot of movies this decade. That's a good thing, but of course, we are also very much entitled to our own favorites, too...<<

I've only saw them because my college kids picked them, and they were visiting on break, so I went. Shazam is a blur, so you probably can skip it lol. You might like A Quiet Place and Us as different horror stories. What the heck, it's Halloween month.

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 5 years ago

Well, its an era in which Pixar animated films often get rave reviews as the best movies being made -- dramatically as well as technically -- today. And yet: something's missing. Human beings interacting in real situations with other human beings.
The very best kids films - mostly CG-animated - are incredibly well-written, slaved over & filled with detail, super-rewatchable, etc.. It's true, however, that a kids eye view of the world is necessarily constructed from very simple materials, e.g., 'disappointment' is just one thing for a kid whereas adult life contains 50 different flavors of it, similarly 'history', and so on. There's only a problem with kids films or 'theme park' films if they crowd out every other sort of film. Now, if you're Scorsese, then you've had a bird's eye view since Jaws and Star Wars of how that crowding out has worked & snowballed to the point where major studio barely make movies for adults any more, and there's hardly a business model left for theatrical release of small-medium-sized adult-centric films.

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 5 years ago

Scorsese's 'get off my lawn' remark about Marvel is a miscue only because, of course, Scorsese has no problem with Ben-Hur or King Kong or Adventures of Robin Hood or Stagecoach or MAD MAD MAD Mad World or Butch Cassidy or Jaws or Terminator or whatever the theme park movies of the past were. If Marvel etc. had only the share of the movie market that those previous ultra-broad pop entertainments had, he'd have nothing to complain about. The near-collapse of the non-theme park end of theatrical exhibition is his only real beef.

Anyhow, sometimes Scorsese just makes mistakes! He really loves a hard-to-find Ginger Rogers semi-musical, Lady In The Dark (1944)..... well, I was finally able to track down a youtube-level copy to watch... and *what a dud*. Really terrible: almost every shot is horribly lit and framed, editing is really sloppy, performances are terrible (even Rogers), Gershwin music from the stage show is completely butchered, script's a mess (historically the producer and director Leisen and Rogers fought and it shows). It's sort of fascinating to watch a complete botch job leavened as it is with jaw-dropping dime-store psychoanalysis (makes Spellbound look like a masterpiece art-film!) and horrific misogyny & unconvincing gay code. But this film is *bad* & Scorsese is wrong about it.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Scorsese's 'get off my lawn' remark about Marvel ...

....has been joined by Francis Coppola basically saying "Get the f---k off my lawn!" He says Scorsese was too kind; the films are "despicable."

Well that really got 'em going.

To me the funniest thing is that these new auteurs fought back mainly with "but our films make a billion dollars."

But that's do to worldwide saturatation where practically EVERY blockbuster makes a billion. Piece of cake.

Folks lining up around the block for Psycho, The Godfather, The Exorcist, Jaws, Star Wars...that had a different meaning, I think. More "personal." And of course all of those films pretty much best the "best" comic book movie (which IS that? The Dark Knight? The Dark Knight Rises? Batman? Spider-Man 2 2004? Iron Man 1?)

Scorsese has more clout to argue because he stayed relevant and box office worthy for all these decades; Coppola pretty much peaked in the 70's and has been a hit or miss losing gambler ever since.

I think it is as pointless to diss Marvel movies as it is to diss Rap. This is NOW. America changed. The world changed.

But this: honestly, I don't think they'll have much of a greatest movies list at the end of the 21st century. 80 years to go!

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 4 years ago

But this: honestly, I don't think they'll have much of a greatest movies list at the end of the 21st century.

CNN has a genial but ultra-superficial 10-hour (including ads), Tom Hanks-produced series called 'The Movies' focussing strictly on US film. Its two eps on The '70s are up on youtube to give yourself a taste of what it has to offer.

Anyhow, of interest immediately here is the show's Titles sequence which races through a roughly chronological sequence of some of Hollywood's greatest hits, e.g., the cropduster flies past a running Cary Grant then directly over the Psycho house on which a screaming Janet Leigh is superimposed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_u0LEC_7jQ

The films chosen to represent the 21st century are:
Moulin Rouge, Training Day, The Dark Knight, Harry Potter, The Devil Wears Prada, Bridesmaids, There Will Be Blood, Gravity, and Black Panther.

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 4 years ago

Bump

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The very best kids films - mostly CG-animated - are incredibly well-written, slaved over & filled with detail, super-rewatchable, etc.. It's true, however, that a kids eye view of the world is necessarily constructed from very simple materials, e.g., 'disappointment' is just one thing for a kid whereas adult life contains 50 different flavors of it, similarly 'history', and so on.

--

Especially history. The history that makes you an adult. I've seen most of the Pixar films and I can attest to their quality in all regards but -- they are mainly made for kids and "kids at heart." The true title for these movies, I guess is "family films" in which it is hoped that mom and dad will feel ALMOST as good as their kids watching things. (And "UP" famously began with a heartbreaking look at how a coupled married, couldn't conceive, aged, and lost one partner to death. THAT was adult enough, I guess.)

--

There's only a problem with kids films or 'theme park' films if they crowd out every other sort of film. Now, if you're Scorsese, then you've had a bird's eye view since Jaws and Star Wars of how that crowding out has worked & snowballed to the point where major studio barely make movies for adults any more, and there's hardly a business model left for theatrical release of small-medium-sized adult-centric films.

---

Of interest to me: get on microfiche some time and look at the OTHER summer movies of 1975 OTHER than Jaws. Its pretty slim pickings. I recall Charles Bronson in a fun "B" called Breakout, and Michael Caine and Sidney Poitier in an apartheid adventure and...oh, I think The Pink Panther came back that summer with an exhausted looking Peter Sellers. But my point is: Jaws ran the table for big budget blockbusters(and it was a "practical effects" film -- in the very realistic 70's, it wasn't even afforded one matte painting or process shot.)

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

A funny thing about the commix movies of today: if you look, I don't think Marvel puts out more than two or three movies a year -- but they ten to dominate the year's box office.

In 2019, we've had:

Captain Marvel(a breakthrough female)
Avengers: Endgame(HUGE and...not really the end)
And a Spider-Man.

That's it, yes? But they took huge market share.

Not much else out there is noteable or earning..and what there is came out in the spring(I can't remember it) or is out right now in the fall(the J-Lo stripper movie, maybe?)

The Oscar stuff is coming(JoJo is getting its press) but the mainstream press seems to be pushing er "My Three"(OATIH, Joker, The Irishman) as actually competitive Oscar bait. Somehow I can't imagine any of the three pulling Best Picture...not even The Irishman with its Netflix wounds.

We'll see.

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 5 years ago

if you look, I don't think Marvel puts out more than two or three movies a year
The total worldwide box office in US dollars for 2018 was $11.85 Billion. The 3 Marvel movies that year made just over $4 Billion. Other superhero films (including a bunch of semi-marvels)made another $4.4 Billion. That's more than 2/3s of the pie. Big franchise sequels (Jurassic World, Mission Imp, Transformers) and childrens animations by my calculations actually cover *all* the rest. So the numbers online literally don't add up, but the basic point is clear - that all non-theme park movie-making is a rounding error on Hollywood's spreadsheets these days.

We don't have full numbers for 2019 but Marvel's 3 movie haul is over $5 Billion & Disney's other films (Lion King, Aladdin, Toy Story 4, Dumbo) made another $4 Billion....

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2019&p=.htm

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>Some movies are making more money than movies ever have before, but that's because of a rather "rigged" worldwide marketing system that rewards "the same old , same old". What's gone, IMHO, are a lot of new movies worth talking about. This year so far, only QT's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was original enough to even generate some chit-chat from critics. I know some more movies are on the way to talk about, and Joker is being talked about right now, but still..it ain't like it used to be.<<

I see. Well, if one is putting up big money into a movie, then I guess they're going to be conservative. I'll have to make it a point to see OUATIH. It's suppose to take place in 1969, which movies I am focusing on now. I like QT, but didn't watch him since Django Unchained.

The other thing that influenced my decisions on movies was being a movie poster collector. I got my collection evaluated and was told not buy movie posters anymore. I got some really valuable ones, but a lot of schlock, too, so that's probably why haha. He thinks my autographs could do well though.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I see. Well, if one is putting up big money into a movie, then I guess they're going to be conservative. I'll have to make it a point to see OUATIH. It's suppose to take place in 1969, which movies I am focusing on now. I like QT, but didn't watch him since Django Unchained.

---

Well, QT is an acquired taste. Weirdly for me, with about half of his movies, I only like PARTS of them. The "perfect ones" are the three up front(Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown) and -- oh contrarian me -- the last one, The Hateful Eight. All the rest have scenes I don't much like watching -- either overlong or too sick for my taste (The Hateful Eight has some sick scenes, but the acting, dialogue, cinematography and music is too good and overcomes them)

By the way, I'll give him a separate OT post, but in the last few days, we lost actor Robert Forster, whom QT resurrected so wonderfully in "Jackie Brown." I think I just might pick Mr. Forster as Max Cherry as my favorite QT character of all time(though Robert DeNiro's dense ex-con in that movie comes close.)

--

The other thing that influenced my decisions on movies was being a movie poster collector. I got my collection evaluated and was told not buy movie posters anymore. I got some really valuable ones, but a lot of schlock, too, so that's probably why haha. He thinks my autographs could do well though.

---

Movie posters can be great. I've always felt it was too bad that Hitchcock didn't operate in an era of great posters. Some of them look a little too "tacky and tabloid" for the great movies they advertise.
My life from practically 5 years old on was spent looking at movie posters in "ad form" on movie pages in the newspaper. That's where I got my "excitement" for movies -- the Disney movie ads, the horror movie ads, the sexy ladies in bikini ads...but also the beautifully painted ads like those for , say, The Dirty Dozen and The Professionals.

---

reply
formatting help
[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>I sometimes chuckle when I think back to "the Hitchcock era" and all the "fake" shots in Vertigo(the bell tower doesn't exist!), NXNW(Vandamm's house from one angle), Marnie, Torn Curtain, etc. (The process/matte work in Psycho and The Birds is pretty darn great, and Mount Rushmore in NXNW is well nigh perfect, you ask me.) And I recall being "tickled" by the precision "matte shot above nighttime London" that starts the potato truck sequence in Frenzy. (Here was where I said to myself: "Hey, its 1972 and 1958 Hitchcock is BACK!")

I expect Hitchcock would have been using CGI ALL THE TIME today.<<

I have to re-evaluate my bias against CGI because that is the norm today. Also, I'm just being lazy and not making it a point to go see today's movies. My best movie friend lives in another city, I'm divorced now, and am semi-retired. I rather just make the popcorn, using popcorn oil and the popper and sprinkling Flavacol, stay home with the dogs, and binge whatever movies from the past I am focusing on (60s movies now). And then discuss bit and pieces of it here. Last week, I skipped going to see Joker because it was too violent and would screw up Heath Ledger's iconic performance (but that was over ten years ago). Yet, I was surprised it was rated 9.4/10 here. We're coming to the close of the 2010s, so will have to get out a watch a few good ones. I just read Parasite is not one to miss.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Scorsese's 'get off my lawn' remark about Marvel is a miscue only because, of course, Scorsese has no problem with Ben-Hur or King Kong or Adventures of Robin Hood or Stagecoach or MAD MAD MAD Mad World or Butch Cassidy or Jaws or Terminator or whatever the theme park movies of the past were.

---

Ah, but most of those movies were "stand alones," and -- no, wait, they weren't. Kong, Butch, Jaws and Terminator were sequelled, Ben-Hur, Robin Hood, Stagecoach and Kong were remade.

Never mind.

No wait...the thing about most Marvel movies that they are "chapters" -- "to be continued" -- that have little resonance by themselves.

Oh, well, I keep going to them.

I akin Marvel movies, quite simply , the mindless cop action actioners i went to habituarlly in the 70's and 80's, from Clint to Chuck to Burt to Mel to Bruce to Arnold to Sly. Pay the bucks watch the shootouts, go home. Today Marvel movies play roughly the same entertainment role for me.

---

If Marvel etc. had only the share of the movie market that those previous ultra-broad pop entertainments had, he'd have nothing to complain about. The near-collapse of the non-theme park end of theatrical exhibition is his only real beef.

---

And the whole "massive international market" trend. In the papers(internet recently): how many movies are written to play safely in China.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I expect Hitchcock would have been using CGI ALL THE TIME today.<<

--

I have to re-evaluate my bias against CGI because that is the norm today. Also, I'm just being lazy and not making it a point to go see today's movies. My best movie friend lives in another city, I'm divorced now, and am semi-retired. I rather just make the popcorn, using popcorn oil and the popper and sprinkling Flavacol, stay home with the dogs, and binge whatever movies from the past I am focusing on (60s movies now). And then discuss bit and pieces of it here. Last week, I skipped going to see Joker because it was too violent and would screw up Heath Ledger's iconic performance (but that was over ten years ago). Yet, I was surprised it was rated 9.4/10 here. We're coming to the close of the 2010s, so will have to get out a watch a few good ones. I just read Parasite is not one to miss.

--

All of the above is most understandable. In certain ways some of us here are of an age where we are not particularly "welcome" at the multiplex -- the movies aren't being made to entice us there. I'm still die hard about going to see ones I really want to see on the big screen because --at home my attention just DRIFTS. Still, I've watched a lot of good movies on cable and DVD and...edging into it...streaming.

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 5 years ago

I just read Parasite is not one to miss.

I gave a quick, spoiler-free review of Parasite here:
https://moviechat.org/tt0054215/Psycho/5d4705e7131e8c0746f3a939/OT-The-Intruder-and-the-Sad-State-of-the-Thriller-2019-MINOR-SPOILERS?reply=5d622469a84849017e22bf25
I'm going to see it again this weekend... I haven't been able to stop thinking about it. Good film.

Director Bong and his cast are making real inroads with the Academy right now:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57kbSBLahU0
It's pretty clear that Parasite is going to get a wide range of behind-camera Noms. Can it make significant amounts of money in the US? Maybe get some acting nods too? Maybe get some wins?

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

It's pretty clear that Parasite is going to get a wide range of behind-camera Noms. Can it make significant amounts of money in the US? Maybe get some acting nods too? Maybe get some wins?

---

As in the past few years, it looks like a few "sleepers" are emerging for Oscar season to combat the "usual suspects." It was La La Land and Moonlight a coupla years ago.

But those two films were "American," yes? I suppose we are waiting to see the Academy "go foreign" again with Parasite. Is that "Jo Jo" film an American production? I know it has some American name stars in it.

Meanwhile, it does look like -- in accord with MY tastes -- Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Joker, and The Irishman are being bandied about as Oscar competitors. Except, Marty won't shut up about Marvel movies. Eh, there are probably a LOT of Oscar voters who don't like Marvel movies.

We will see...

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

A stray thought:

The other night on cable I came across a movie from 2016 called "Misconduct."

It played like what we used to call "a straight to video thriller." Not very expensive(but slick looking), not very original or powerful in plot. A courtroom drama mixed with murder, the usual.

The ostensible stars were Josh Duchamel(sp?) and Malin Akerman(sp?) too cuties with more TV exposure than movies.

But: also starring in the movie were...AL PACINO and ANTHONY HOPKINS.

It was odd to see Pacino and Hopkins in this decidedly minor "movie"(that really didn't FEEL like a movie.) Both are Best Actor Oscar winners. Pacino in particular has a National Treasure rep going back to the 70's. Poor Hopkins had to struggle to the 90's to hit the jackpot with Hannibal Lecter.

But anyway, here are the two men slaving away in "Misconduct." And they only have one scene together, and they barely speak to each other.

I found an internet review for this movie that noted "20 years ago, a movie starring Al Pacino and Anthony Hopkins would have been a major event...now they do THIS?"

Alas, its true. But hell, in the early seventies, "movie stars" like James Stewart, Henry Fonda, Shirley MacLaine and Anthony Quinn all accepted "free" TV series and...all bombed. Stars gotta eat.

For what it is worth, both Pacino and Hopkins benefit us with their history and their charisma in "Misconduct." (Great faces, greater VOICES.) The movie isn't worthy of them, but they take it seriously and have some fun. I hope they were paid REALLY well to be in this...not a "desperation" paycheck(like, alas, Tony Perkins took for a few of HIS final films.)

But this: a few years after "Misconduct" here is Al Pacino in one year "coming back" for QT and for Scorsese and suddenly "a meaningful prestige star" again.

Good for Pacino. I personally still TAKE him as a star.

Even in Misconduct.

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 4 years ago

I've now seen JoJo Rabbit... and I can report that it's pretty great. First time through I can't say it's a masterpiece but I'd say it's probably about as good as (and also deeply similar in various ways to) things like Death of Stalin, Grand Budapest Hotel, Django Unchained, Hot Fuzz, Royal Tenenbaums. How JJR will stack up to those sorts of films over time remains to be seen... and right now it *is* hard for me to be objective about this film. As a NZ-er you just feel so proud of Taika Waititi for attempting something so ambitious&complicated, thrilled for him, etc.. So I'll definitely need to see JJR a few more times to get *close* to an objective assessment. But I do feel confident that it's *one* of the films of the year. I definitely look forward to seeing it a few more times (there are way too many jokes to catch them all the first time, and there are lots of complex visuals and plot beats that require additional viewings to fully decode, e.g., JJR seemed to me to leave a few mysteries intentionally but I can't completely rule out that maybe I just missed the odd detail).

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 4 years ago

The first place I tried to see JJR on a Tuesday Night was sold out, but my Dad & I were able to quickly decamp to another cinema where we were part of selling *it* out half an hour later. JJR is making some good money in NZ!

In sum, great performances, very funny, lots of great visual touches, well-staged set-pieces, brilliant soundtrack, thought-provoking content. May get a Best Picture nom & a few other noms but is perhaps too hipster-y to actually win much (mostly the fate of the pictures I compared it to above after all). Recommended.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

I've now seen JoJo Rabbit... and I can report that it's pretty great.

---

Excellent. My "mainstream" focus is on the QT, the Scorsese, and the Joker(though THAT one didn't pan out); I wish I could be more adventurous. Still, I do try to see "the notable films" each year if I can, so I'll be looking for JoJo Rabbit.

---

First time through I can't say it's a masterpiece but I'd say it's probably about as good as (and also deeply similar in various ways to) things like Death of Stalin, Grand Budapest Hotel, Django Unchained, Hot Fuzz, Royal Tenenbaums.

---

That's a group of films I DO know. I saw them all in a theater and loved them all. Only Django made my favorite of the y year slot, though Tannenbaums kinda/sorta tied with Moulin Rouge. Death of Stalin is a "cautionary" tale about cult figure politics..

---

How JJR will stack up to those sorts of films over time remains to be seen... and right now it *is* hard for me to be objective about this film. As a NZ-er you just feel so proud of Taika Waititi for attempting something so ambitious&complicated, thrilled for him, etc..

---

Good! Some local pride. I do like how this board brings together a few different nations. Used to be, you had to have ham radio to do that!

---

So I'll definitely need to see JJR a few more times to get *close* to an objective assessment.

--

Oddly, this is what is happening to me with OATIH.

---

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

But I do feel confident that it's *one* of the films of the year. I definitely look forward to seeing it a few more times (there are way too many jokes to catch them all the first time, and there are lots of complex visuals and plot beats that require additional viewings to fully decode, e.g., JJR seemed to me to leave a few mysteries intentionally but I can't completely rule out that maybe I just missed the odd detail)

---

Watching a film is tough. The filmmaker had days to script those details, hours to film them...and then swoosh right by.

That's why watching films(GOOD films) more than once is pretty much a necessity.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

The first place I tried to see JJR on a Tuesday Night was sold out, but my Dad & I

---

I wish I still had MY dad to see movies with...sigh.

---

were able to quickly decamp to another cinema where we were part of selling *it* out half an hour later. JJR is making some good money in NZ!

---

Local pride I guess. Also a good movie. Has some Marvel actors in it? Did this director do a Marvel, or a Star Wars?

---



In sum, great performances, very funny, lots of great visual touches, well-staged set-pieces, brilliant soundtrack, thought-provoking content. May get a Best Picture nom & a few other noms but is perhaps too hipster-y to actually win much (mostly the fate of the pictures I compared it to above after all).

---

Yes. There's time left to figure out if The Irishman, Joker and the QT are ACTUAL Oscar frontrunners or if there is something else out there that's BP worthy. I can't say I saw Green Book coming last year.

The "politics" may be against it, but Eastwood has moved up his "Richard Jewell" film for December release. Worked for Million Dollar Baby. Hasn't worked since.

---

Recommended.

---

Seriously valued by me, that recommendation...

reply
formatting help
[–] swanstep (2615) 4 years ago

Did this director do a Marvel, or a Star Wars?
Waititi wrote and directed (and co-starred as Korg the rock-monster in) Thor:Ragnarok which made big bucks and really rejuvenated Thor's character. Waititi had the script for JJR back in 2013 but it took the Thor success for him to get the budget to make it.

In NZ, Waititi has made nothing but local hits & crowdpleasers - Eagle vs Shark, Boy, What We Do In The Shadows, Hunt for the Wilderpeople - & he's made a bunch of great TV comedy too. He also got an Oscar Nom back in 2004 for one of his first short films. Multi-talented, funny guy (the world never has enough of those). Marvel were so smart to hire him for Thor, and now the world's his oyster.

reply
formatting help
[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

Did this director do a Marvel, or a Star Wars?
Waititi wrote and directed (and co-starred as Korg the rock-monster in) Thor:Ragnarok which made big bucks and really rejuvenated Thor's character.

---

I hear/read where that Thor movie was quite funny. The trailer, even.

Of the Thor pictures, I only saw the second one, and found it very boring and rather incoherent(including whatever the Big Floating Mass was in THAT one; and there are a LOT of Big Floating Masses in the Marvel movies.)

I really should see the Thor movie that Waititi made -- he seems to have used Marvel to "break out" as a creative filmmaker, something that Joss guy and that Abrams guy seem unable to have done. (Oh, I know they are zillionaires, but I can't think of what their style is, etc.)

I had to laugh when that Joss guy and/or that Abrams guy gave Scorsese a bit of lip service for his reputation but bottom lined the greatness of their films with the simple fact; several of them have made a billion dollars. The end. But its EASY to make a billion dollars in today's worldwide markets. Its almost AUTOMATIC to make a billion dollars.

And so: Waititi "breaks out" from Marvel. Gone for him!

Waititi had the script for JJR back in 2013 but it took the Thor success for him to get the budget to make it.

In NZ, Waititi has made nothing but local hits & crowdpleasers - Eagle vs Shark, Boy, What We Do In The Shadows, Hunt for the Wilderpeople - & he's made a bunch of great TV comedy too. He also got an Oscar Nom back in 2004 for one of his first short films. Multi-talented, funny guy (the world never has enough of those). Marvel were so smart to hire him for Thor, and now the world's his oyster.

reply
formatting help
About | Contact | Privacy | Terms | Standards | Contribute
Top Movie Discussions
Civil War Discussion | Dune: Part Two Discussion | Monkey Man Discussion | Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire Discussion | The First Omen Discussion | Abigail Discussion | Poor Things Discussion | Kung Fu Panda 4 Discussion | Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire Discussion | The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare Discussion | Wicked Little Letters Discussion | Late Night with the Devil Discussion | Love Lies Bleeding Discussion | Immaculate Discussion | Maidaan Discussion
Copyright © 2017 - 2024 MovieChat LLC

MovieChat is not affiliated with IMDb, IMDb Message Boards, or Reddit