I want to give an unusual shout out to the current or upcoming crop of mainstream theatrical cinema, primarily Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning, Oppenheimer and Barbie.
First off, I saw MI last night and it was very solid for what it is, entertaining all the way through, relentlessly energetic (plus director McQuarrie exudes an undeniable confidence and decisiveness throughout), and one can't help but be impressed by it technically. I'm not claiming (at all) that it was some profound, moving experience that I will be thinking about for the next two weeks. It's not. And I rated it a 6, so it's not getting anywhere near my "greatest" lists. But I do want to give it props for its use of practical effects (instead of virtually all CGI and artificial effects/stunts, like pretty much any other modern action or superhero film). And this alone deserves credit and will hopefully inspire more cinema to do the same. The physicality and tactility and much more imminent (and partially "real") danger of its action scenes is refreshing. An extensive use of CGI and artificial action has been ruining non-independent cinema for a while now (almost eliminating a real sense of tension, danger, palpable tactility, physicality, or just more artistic visual creativity). I saw the MI movie with a friend who badly wanted to check it out and they loved it, and they're much more of an "average moviegoer" than I am (in other words, they don't seek out its most artistic experiences, are pretty much only familiar with whatever shows up and is most talked about in the mainstream). By saying that I am alluding to the probability that if you are looking for an entertaining, action-packed, thrill ride, and not just aching to watch, um, Satantango or something, than it will probably work just fine for you.
In about a week comes Nolan's Oppenheimer and, uhhh, Gerwig's Barbie.
I mention Barbie because it is (unusually) by a very reliable (and more personal) director in Gerwig, and could end up being ironically great (or "so bad it's good"). But even if it doesn't really deliver, I welcome the fact that more diverse cinema that appears to have something approaching its own cinematic voice from a pretty judicious director in Gerwig (even if the brand of Barbie is obviously very mainstream at heart), is getting very wide release in the big theaters (as opposed to mostly just super hero films getting such treatment for the last several years).
Oppenheimer. This appears to have the best chance to be the best film of this bunch (and perhaps of the year), especially if the early reports are true that it may be Nolan's crowning achievement. And God I hope these gushing early comments about it aren't fool's gold:
My overall point in highlighting these (very different films) is that collectively they may go a ways towards pushing the big movie theaters and producers towards getting back to producing and releasing widely, more and more films that are from a diversity of genres and aren't (yet another) boring, dumb super hero movie that have ruled the box office (almost exclusively being given the most attention and most astronomical budgets) for too long now (and have kicked out opportunities for lower budget wide release movies). In the 90s there were films like Forrest Gump, Schindler's List, Pulp Fiction, Being John Malkovich, Magnolia, Goodfellas, Fargo, Life is Beautiful, The Truman Show, 12 Monkeys, Trainspotting, Fight Club, Seven, LA Confidential, Strange Days, and action films like Terminator 2, True Lies, Leon: The Professional, The Fifth Element, Natural Born Killers, Face/Off, The Game, Heat, and so on... ALL OF THEM widely released in the big theaters (and almost all of them I saw that way for the first time). This market has been virtually ruined by the near-monopoly of super hero movies or alike-minded franchises like what Star Wars has quickly become (and dare I say it, the propensity for modern audiences to gobble these up with little scrutiny of quality before they do the same for the very next one?). And the above three films, while perhaps only Oppenheimer has a shot at joining that roster of 90s films in terms of artistic merit or quality, may all go some ways in further solidifying a turning point back towards this sort of cinema getting the green light again. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
Pretty floored and in awe after revisiting Tarr's astonishing Werckmeister Harmonies last night (ranked #8 on my list of Greatest Films of All Time; similarly for Scaruffi)...
Maybe I'll cough up some points to think about and take into consideration soon, but for now here is an HQ trailer/teaser for those who haven't seen it yet or even for those who want to revisit and just need that little nudge to remind them:
(Re: 4K ... starts in reasonably satisfactory 1080p but to improve to 4K, just adjust the settings up to 2160p)
This is an awesome find because there have been some pretty shitty copies (Facets! Ugh) available in the US for years and one would have to rent or order it through other sources. Ditto for those that have been available on YouTube, almost always in inadequate quality (like 480 or 720p, or worse) except a few brief ones that were excellent but gone almost as soon as they were available.
So, rejoice and take advantage, my art loving friends.
The only thing is, if you need English subtitles like I do, you will just have to go to adjust the settings to add them "auto translated". The results aren't 100% perfect, but they're mostly quite fine. The main thing being that it sometimes confuses things a little (generally very minor) such as confusing "I" and "he or she" in conversations at times, but if one is paying attention it is easy to catch this sort of little mistake and to correct it "mentally" while watching. Especially because the dialogue is relatively infrequent and not so fast that it is hard to follow. A small price to pay for a 4K Werckmeister Harmonies on YouTube!
Now, with me all together: give the collective middle finger to Facets (they are the worst, not just for Werckmeister Harmonies...). _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
Some things to consider with Tarr's Werckmeister Harmonies...
Satantango was a monolith, a film where Tarr unflinchingly drove the viewer, over the excruciating course of 7 hours, into a satirical (nearly a black comedy) but also overwhelming devastation of the ultimate nihilism of it all (wiping out all hope; profound, overwhelming devastation and meaninglessness of that hope and these lives; every flicker is completely ignored, unanswered, toyed with or destroyed).
Werckmeister Harmonies finds a more majestic and beautiful poetry, or even a distraught conversation, inward-looking thought process, between hope and such a nihilistic and devastated reality. It is a film of spiritual thirst or yearning in the face of devastation and nihilism.
(Probably) every sequence bears this out, in all its double or multiple meanings, in its pondering and existential quandary, in its never resolved lugubrious ambiguity.
Firstly, the film's technique and visual style is in constant, profound consideration of such things, each element of which plays off the other: it is shot in a very hyper-realistic style, furthermore with extremely long, slow takes so said realism is soaked in as much as possible and so one is very aware that there are no cinematic tricks employed to interrupt its realism. This unflinching realism, at empty streets and dilapidated houses, devastating environments and lonely, bankrupt people (spiritually, monetarily impoverished), is an unflinching portrait of an empty humanity, a devastated community where almost all hope is lost and where their actions and lives are or feel meaningless. Contradicting this, Tarr, his cinematographer and team yet manage to imbue the images with expressionism that is yet taken from nature (natural lighting, real locations, natural environments, despite endless takes where no special effects are being employed...). The inescapable black, stark "noir" of much of the film alludes to not just Tarr's own oeuvre (and its inescapable nihilism), but the sort of lighting as found in peak noirs such as The Third Man's Vienna, or Lang's M, a similar sort of post-war bleakness and darkness that had overwhelmed cinema at that time, just as Tarr is doing with Hungarian cinema in the face of Communism. But there is profound artistry at work in how meticulously the shots and lighting have been chosen or worked out, that speaks to something spiritual and something meaningful beyond the devastation on display (in how it is being lit and shot and how meticulously it is being dealt with and cared for in its photography and the extraordinary patience and nuanced movement of the camera).
The film opens with such spiritual thirst, yearning, the yearning for one-self and one's life and for a community to feel and think that they are something more, and that there is more out there, a greater plan, God watching, the meaning of existence, the recognition of the cosmos, the feeling of being a part of this grand design. This occurs for Janos and his drunken community at the bar, as he explains and employs them into a "dance" that illustrates the cosmic order of things, wherein he also explains to them the vast emptiness of space, wherein he also explains that every so often these celestial bodies, in their dance, bring about an eclipse and darkness for Earth.
Might much of the physical reality of the film, the movement through it, its lighting (or lack thereof), the visual metaphors (the whale above all), the timing of things and situations and outcomes, be a visual metaphor for all this?
And then there's Uncle Gyuri, who despite being (or supposed to being) a leader of the community with a voice of reason, spends his time in his room and inert, pointlessly analyzing and recording the "artificial" changes made to the harmonic order of Western music that he wants to return to its altered roots.
Might much of the film be a visual, cinematic metaphor for this as well?
As Janos is leading the group of drunkards through his cosmic illustration, slowly the shy, arpeggios of the soundtrack back the spiritual yearning and epiphany that is taking place. In all cases for the rest of the film, this (harmonious) soundtrack will only back the moments and scenes where a "harmonious" alignment is mentally forming and occurring in the mind of the main character or characters of a scene, in the face of the calamity or confusion, disorder, or "cacophony" or "dissonance" just prior.
As Janos makes his way out of the bar, the music keeps building, seguing into his walk along the deserted, devastated, winter cold, and nearly pitch black streets. As the blackness proceeds further in the vastness of space, into our foreground (the plane of the screen, extending the space between us and Janos), with just a single light source cutting into it, a metaphorical eclipse and of the vast emptiness of space is being formed. As this continues over the course of a couple minutes, Janos is pushed further and further into the background of the unbroken shot, into the far reaches of space, as he is made to feel this vast emptiness and becomes swallowed by the pitch black darkness.
Are you planning to go through Laszlo Krasznahorkai's original novels that were turned into his screenplays for Tarr? Would be interesting to compare your thoughts on both the novels and the films.
Are you planning to go through Laszlo Krasznahorkai's original novels that were turned into his screenplays for Tarr? Would be interesting to compare your thoughts on both the novels and the films.
No plans, but who knows, maybe at some point. I've heard they're a lot more "wordy/descriptive" than Tarr's cinema, so I would guess that Tarr's cinema is probably a bit more ambiguous, open to interpretation or more expressive of multiple levels of interpretation. _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
Nope, didn't have that much time (Oppenheimer alone is 3 hours) and also didn't want to spend over $30 movie tickets for the day. I can wait on Barbie. I do kind of want to see it but it's not like I just can't wait or something.
Oppenheimer was pretty good, occasionally awesome, but somewhat of a let down (at least compared to the hype; only mildly compared to my expectation that it might be 7.0+). It's not as "mind blowing" as others described, even though I know exactly what parts they're referring to now that I've seen it. It has a bit of Citizen Kane, especially structurally, jumping around to different times as an interrogation, examination and explanation into his life and what drove him (though way less profound, way less meticulous in terms of its visual plan or cinematography, and the meaning being conveyed, and the positioning and use of the characters, than in Kane). It has a bit of Malick in some of its visuals, with its more surreal or imagined moments, and in its sometimes dreamlike tone and editing from scene to scene. And is shot in a very high class manner like something close to a Spielberg film. But even though it strove for a lot of pathos, it didn't really achieve it except in some of its best moments but this was quite fleeting. I think Nolan may have had just too much material and the vast majority of the film plays pretty fast as he is cutting from scene to scene and time to time, and it may have worked better if he let a lot more scenes dwell and sit a bit more and extended some of their drama and, especially, extended or honed in on some of the more psychologically afflicted moments (instead of usually only touching upon it and in such a hurry to get to the next scene). It's like he had a 5 hour movie that he had to show in 3 hours. It's still good and worth checking out, and some of it is even bordering on extraordinary, but there is a lot of scenes in between those that are hard to imagine much of a reason to return to, by which I mean, a lot of them are just actors acting (very well) and talking intensely to each other, building the suspense of Oppenheimer's story/predicament as they are building the bomb and the aftermath. And for many of them, I'm just not sure if there's a lot of reason to revisit them, what else the movie has to say (once you've seen them, once that suspense has been experienced). It is plausible (as is common with Nolan) that there may be more nuance and inner meaning to the structure of the film (beyond time jumping between a few different periods), that could make the film more interesting and could still increase the rating some. But mainly the film is about Oppenheimer, what drove him, the many ambiguities or complexities to his personality, the moral quandary or struggle with what his work ended up meaning and the journey towards building the first atom bomb, as well as the characters adjacent to Oppenheimer and the questionable choices and morals surrounding their moves and the use of the bomb, and this is conflated some to the motivation and morality of war-time America as well (having dropped the only atom bomb, on Japan). Nolan does a solid job of making that interesting and dramatic, interspersed with some interesting Malick-esque visuals and even some stunning moments, but for me, it didn't have nearly the pathos or stunning, devastating impact that early reviews mentioned (or maybe more specifically, that pathos or impact was much more fleeting than I expected), even if (again) I do know what they're referring to (and I agree that the parts they're referring to -- I'm not going to say what they were -- were typically the best and most dramatic parts in the film). _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
8.0/10: Memento (2000)
7.2/10: The Prestige (2006) (sometimes 7.3/10)
7.2/10: Inception (2010)
7.1/10: Following (1998) (sometimes 7.3+)
6.9/10: Interstellar (2014)
6.7/10: The Dark Knight (2008)
6.4/10: Oppenheimer (2023)
6.4/10: The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
6.0/10: Insomnia (2002) (estimate, I haven't seen this one since its theatrical release)
5.5/10: Batman Begins (2005)
Tenet (Not rated yet ... but, in practice the somewhat boring viewing experience, coupled with some intriguing ideas, technical flourishes and potentially interesting plot elements, seemed like a 5-ish ... however I am undecided on its rating and it could garner a higher one if revisits, more familiarity, amounts to a more interesting, impactful film)
Haven't seen Dunkirk yet (Scaruffi: 6.4/10).
Also re: Oppenheimer, fwiw ... Another film that it probably draws from is Stone's JFK, and that might even be the closest overall comparison. JFK -- at least by memory over 25 years ago -- seemed like a much better film than Scaruffi's 5/10 (though as he gives no review, this is most likely unofficial and just an estimate not yet his own rating). So I don't mean that reference as a knock on Oppenheimer. I do need to revisit JFK and may do so soon. It actually used to be among my favorite films as a teenager, but it's hard to say what I would think of it today because my experience of cinema is way more comprehensive than it was back then and my standards, "for better or worse" as the saying goes, are much higher for the better ratings/rankings. Case in point, my top 3 (all time) around the time that I saw JFK (1993 I think?) would've probably been: Jurassic Park, Robocop, and (a couple years later) even Crimson Tide, which would now be 6.2/10, 7.0/10 and 5.7/10. I didn't start getting into the true greats of cinema until about 1996, and saw Citizen Kane, 2001: A Space Odyssey and more consciously began seeking out several other all time greats that I learned about from discovering Sight and Sound's 1992 list while I was becoming more interested in film as an art, and was reading about it as such (and the Sight and Sound lists were being featured in one of those books). I recall seeing Tarkovsky's Stalker for the first time later that year and being pretty f-ing baffled and largely bored and thinking "wtf?". I was watching it in (at best) partial-confusion with vague but embattled interest in my parents living room and at a couple points they came in and were like "what in the hell are you even watching??" Funny how experiences with art like that, perceptions or judgements of a work, can change so so much... 🤣 _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
8/10
<<<7.8>>>
The Godfather, Part 2 - Francis Ford Coppola (1974)
Reservoir Dogs - Quentin Tarantino (1992)
La Haine - Mathieu Kassovitz (1996)
7.5/10
<<<7.7>>>
The Godfather - Francis Ford Coppola (1972)
<<<7.6>>>
Goodfellas - Martin Scorsese (1990)
Mean Streets - Martin Scorsese (1973)
Bonnie & Clyde - Arthur Penn (1967)
<<<7.5>>>
King of New York - Abel Ferrara (1990)
The Killer - John Woo (1989)
<<<7.4>>>
City of God - Fernando Meirelles (2002)
Casino - Martin Scorsese (1995)
Once Were Warriors - Lee Tamahori (1994)
Scarface - Howard Hawks (1932)
<<<7.3>>>
Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels - Guy Ritchie (1998)
Pepe le Moko - Julien Duvivier (1937)
Rififi - Jules Dassin (1954)
Sonatine - Tikashi Kitano (1993)
7/10
<<<7.2>>>
Scarface - Brian De Palma (1983)
Exiled - Johnnie Too (2006)
<<<7.1>>>
A Better Tomorrow - John Woo (1986)
Miller's Crossing - Joel and Ethan Coen (1990)
Do the Right Thing - Spike Lee (1989)
White Heat - Raoul Walsh (1949)
<<<7.0>>>
Training Day - Antoine Fuqua (2001)
Boyz n the Hood - John Singleton (1991)
Little Caesar - Mervyn LeRoy (1931) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
The Public Enemy - William Wellman (1931) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
<<<6.9>>>
Road to Perdition - Sam Mendes (2002)
Get Carter - Mike Hodges (1971)
Prizzi's Honor - John Huston (1985) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
<<<6.8>>>
Once Upon a Time in America - Sergio Leone (1984)
White Men Can't Jump - Ron Shelton (1992)
Crooklyn - Spike Lee (1994)
Clockers - Spike Lee (1995) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
The Departed - Martin Scorsese (2002) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
6.5/10
<<<6.7>>>
Dead Presidents - Allen and Albert Hughes (1995) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
Donnie Brasco - Mike Newell (1997) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
<<<6.6>>>
8 Mile - Curtis Hanson (2002) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
Menace to Society - Allen and Albert Hughes (1993) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
<<<6.5>>>
The Untouchables - Brian De Palma (1987)
<<<6.4>>>
Gangs of New York - Martin Scorsese (2002) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
<<<6.3>>>
New Jack City - Mario Van Peebles (1991)
6/10
<<<6.2>>>
House Party - Reginald Hudlin (1990) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
CB4 - Tamra Davis (1994) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
Get Shorty - Barry Sonnenfeld (1995) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
<<<6.1>>>
Dick Tracy - Warren Beatty (1990)
Fresh - Boaz Yakin (1994)
<<<6.0>>>
The Cotton Club - Francis Ford Coppola (1984) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
He Got Game - Spike Lee (1998)
<<<5.9>>>
<<<5.8>>>
Friday - F. Gary Gray (1995) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood - Paris Barclay (1991) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
5.5/10
<<<5.7>>>
<<<5.6>>>
<<<5.5>>>
<<<5.4>>>
Gran Torino - Clint Eastwood (2008)
<<<5.3>>>
Dangerous Minds - John N. Smith (1995)
5/10
<<<5.2>>>
<<<5.1>>>
<<<5.0>>>
Above the Rim - Jeff Pollack (1994) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
<<<4.9>>>
<<<4.8>>>
Need to See...
Mafioso - Alberto Lattuada (1962)
The Friends Of Eddie Coyle - Peter Yates (1973)
The Killing of a Chinese Bookie - John Cassavetes (1976)
Mikey and Nicky - Elaine May (1976)
Pixote, the Law of the Weakest - Hector Babenco (1980)
Year of the Dragon - Michael Cimino (1985)
Carlito's Way - Brian De Palma (1993)
The General - John Boorman (1998)
Dead or Alive - Takisha Miike (1999)
American Gangster - Ridley Scott (2007)
Four Brothers - John Singleton (2009)
Public Enemies - Michael Mann (2009)
Straight Outta Compton - F. Gary Gray (2015)
The Irishman - Martin Scorsese (2019)
Should these qualify???
The Asphalt Jungle - John Huston (1950) (7.1)
The Big Heat - Fritz Lang (1953) (7.6)
On the Waterfront - Elia Kazan (1954) (7.7)
The Killing - Stanley Kubrick (1956) (6.6)
Some Like it Hot - Billy Wilder (1959) (7.3)
Point Blank - John Boorman (1967) (7.9)
Shaft - Gordan Parks (1971) (7.0?) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
The Harder They Come - Perney Henzell (1972) (need to see...)
Death Wish 3 - Michael Winner (1985) (7.5)
Stand and Deliver - Ramon Menendez (1988) (6.0) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover - Peter Greenaway (1989) (7.8/10)
Candyman - Bernard Rose (1992) (7.2) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
Leon: The Professional - Luc Besson (1994) (7.8/10)
Heat - Michael Mann (1995) (7.3)
Fireworks - Takeshi Kitano (1997) (need to see...)
American History X - Tony Kaye (1998) (6.7-6.9, maybe 7.0) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
Snatch - Guy Ritchie (2000) (7.0) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
Amores Perros - Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu (2000) (7.4)
Crash - Paul Haggis (2004) (5.5) ***tentative rating/may need revisit***
Spring Breakers - Harmony Korine (2012) (7.0)
Moonlight - Barry Jenkins (2016) (need to see...)
Uncut Gems - Josh and Benny Safdie (2019) (7.3)[/i][/b] _________________ Best Classical Best Films Best Paintings
Last edited by AfterHours on 08/05/2023 17:33; edited 17 times in total
-The Friends Of Eddie Coyle (1973): "Mitchum has perhaps never been better. He has always been one of our best screen actors: sardonic, masculine, quick-witted, but slow to reveal himself...Eddie Coyle is made for him" -Roger Ebert
-Year Of The Dragon (1985): "Michael Cimino’s ‘Year of the Dragon’ is one of the most significant action movies of the period"
-Fireworks (1997): "Not a frame, not a word, is excess."
-Dead or Alive (1999): "opens with one of the most breathtaking scenes in the history of cinema, like Pulp Fiction (1994) on speed, boasts one of the most gruesome murders ever, and ends with one of the most incredible duels ever." -Scaruffi
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
