I Just Watched...

[Lorna]

I really need to see EMPIRE OF THE SUN one of these days.

[kingrat]

I really need to see EMPIRE OF THE SUN one of these days.

Me too, Lorna. I've never seen Schindler's List, either.

Spielberg films always have an admirable level of craft, whether they are favorites of mine or not. He also understands the mass audience, what it wants, what it will tolerate. In that respect he is much closer to Hitchcock than directors like Truffaut who claim to be influenced by him. Spielberg has maintained a directing career over decades, like the old school Hollywood directors. Very promising directors in the 60s, 70s, and 80s could not.

[Lorna]

I really need to see EMPIRE OF THE SUN one of these days.

Me too, Lorna. I've never seen Schindler's List, either.

Spielberg films always have an admirable level of craft, whether they are favorites of mine or not. He also understands the mass audience, what it wants, what it will tolerate.

I tried to read the source novel (for EMPIRE OF THE SUN, by JG BALLARD, I think?) and couldn't make it too far in- it's entirely possible this was my fault, but I recall finding the first 10-20 pages REALLY cold and aloof and a challenge.

(sigh) SCHINDLER'S LIST...I kinda sorta furrow my brow and cross my arms at this one, because it's not a bad movie, but there was something about it coming at THAT MOMENT IN FILM (1993) and THAT MOMENT IN SPIELBERG'S CAREER (he had never won BEST DIRECTOR and been snubbed in various ways, even being nominated when his films weren't) and then- of course- the HISTORY OF IT tied-up with the fact that it was a film about THE JEWISH WWII experience from a JEWISH DIRECTOR OF SUCH REPUTE that made it kinda DARE YOU CRITICIZE IT.

(Or make out in the back row.)

BUT here's the thing, it's less a film about THE JEWISH EXPERIENCE in WWII than it is about A WHITE KNIGHT SAVIOR and how HE VIEWS and how HE IS AFFECTED by THE JEWISH EXPERIENCE IN WWII** and for me, that is a classic HOLLYWOOD COP-OUT of a GENTLEMEN'S AGREEMENT/TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD variety

**And when I say "THE JEWISH EXPERIENCE IN WWII" yes, i do mean THE HOLOCAUST, which is some heavy **** I know.

Me personally, I would;ve HONEST TO GOD BEEN FINE if SPIELBERG had been nominated for and even won BEST DIRECTOR for JURASSIC PARK.

[CinemaInternational]

With only a couple days to the Oscars, one of the Best Picture nominees for this year has just turned up on MGM+ (and maybe Amazon Prime too), so I hastened to take a look at it.

The film is American Fiction (2023, from the recently reestablished Orion Pictures), and while the film isn't really cohesive ( one part is straightforward drama, and the other half is biting satire) and has some trouble navigating its constant switches between the two storylines and moods, what is good here isn't just good; it's terrific, alive in the way that so few films actually are anymore: daring, mature, honest, and brave.

The story tells the tale of a writer (Jeffrey Wright), recently dismissed from a job as a college professor (for ticking off students by dealing head-on with controversial slurs of the past), who ends up having to pick up the pieces and look out for the care for his Alzheimer's affected mother (Leslie Uggums) after the unexpected death of his sister (Tracee Ellis Ross, daughter of Diana). He also finds a new romance, and has to deal with other assorted faces from his past, such as his gay brother (Sterling K. Brown). This is the straight drama side, and its decent enough.

But the satire side is exceptional. This writer has written several books that were eloquently written with nuanced characters that still failed to sell many copies, and he is intensely dismayed at how most of the depictions of African -Americans in popular culture (both in books and the visual arts) are trading on the negative tropes of the ghetto. Particularly peeved after his latest book was rejected for publication and desperate to get money to help pay for a nursing home for his mother, he sits down and, under a pseudonym, writes a story that contains all the elements of the stories he dislikes (poor diction, excessive swearing, drugs, absent fathers, inner-city violence), just simply to make a point. It gets out of control when the publisher loves the lesser book, it becomes a big hit, and soon he is caught up in a literary and cinematic world of big money and excessive patronizing pandering. The film is absolutely merciless in its demolition of the world of literary awards and praised films, pointing out that the ones in charge of such things, and society in general, would rather fulfill race quotas and gush over something depicting bad behavior by or doled out to African-Americans then to actually hire African-Americans on actual work merit or go for something more nuanced and intelligent that would truly represent their heritage. This dialogue is so remarkably pointed, so funny, so true-to-life that it's a marvel that the film ever got made in this day and age. Its also pretty ironic that it finds itself up for Best Picture in the first year that they put in quota requirements for a film to be eligible for the Oscars top prize, kind of illustrating and highlighting its main point.

So, the film is a bit mixed, but when part of a film sets off as many sparks as this one does, one can't quibble. Talent is clearly there, on both sides of the camera. Such boldness should be celebrated and it is so great to see a modern film that isn't stuck on autopilot.

[skimpole]

I rewatched Calvacade this week, and was struck again about how bland and uninteresting it was. Coward is an acquired taste, but this is well below In Which we Serve or Brief Encounter

[Bronxgirl48]

Ronald Colman is terrific in A DOUBLE LIFE but I always find "theatre-noir" kind of arch and just, well. unappealing for some reason. (like THE VELVET TOUCH and parts of THE UNSUSPECTED) I was wondering if our host was going to mention the anecdote of how Colman comforted a very nervous Shelley Winters in her first screen appearance (she's great! So in the moment, "fresh" -- in more ways than one,lol, and modern) as a tawdry waitress taking his restaurant order at the Italian restaurant. But he didn't. Instead, "egregious racism and blackface" was mentioned "even in the 1965 Olivier OTHELLO" Oy! But, okay.....I am calm, I am relaxed, lol....

[Lorna]

With only a couple days to the Oscars, one of the Best Picture nominees for this year has just turned up on MGM+ (and maybe Amazon Prime too), so I hastened to take a look at it.

POOR THINGS was on HULU and I made it almost all the way through and didn't hate it- it was actually a pretty clever story (kinda of a JEANETTE WINTERSON novel told by JAMES WHALE as an EROTIC TABLEAU film of the 1970s with a lot of DAVID LYNCH thrown in) and had some very funny things to say about HOW THE WORLD TREATS WOMEN- unfortunately it was drowned in a bunch of HIGHLY DISTRACTING candy colored CGI which inexplicably set the movie- which would have made perfect sense in the 19th century- in some sort of weirdassed MIYAZAKI-eesque STEAMPUNK alternaverse and that (and the persistent commercials) WRECKED IT FOR ME- along with an unecessary scene where the heroine (who was played very very very well by EMMA STONE- she gives up THE BUSH and EVERYTHING!) has sex in front of two young boys...made RAMBLING ROSE look tame.

MARK RUFFALO who has been nominated for BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR gives one of THE WORST PERFORMANCES I HAVE EVER SEEN IN ALL MY LIFE ON STAGE, TV, OR SCREEN, and there is another pretty important character who was played by someone who was also really, really, really bad.

WILLEM DEFOE was really good though, WHY HE DIDN'T GET NOMINATED IS BEYOND ME.

THE GREEN SCREEN "REAR PROJECTION" WORK IS LITERALLY THIS BAD THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE ****ING THING:



SIGH.

Modern cinema, it is what it is. (a variation on RUSSIAN ROULETTE)

[Darla]

Just watched Another Dawn yesterday for the first time, with Errol Flynn & Kay Francis & Ian Hunter. I liked it!

[CinemaInternational]

With only a couple days to the Oscars, one of the Best Picture nominees for this year has just turned up on MGM+ (and maybe Amazon Prime too), so I hastened to take a look at it.

POOR THINGS was on HULU and I made it almost all the way through and didn't hate it- it was actually a pretty clever story (kinda of a JEANETTE WINTERSON novel told by JAMES WHALE as an EROTIC TABLEAU film of the 1970s with a lot of DAVID LYNCH thrown in) and had some very funny things to say about HOW THE WORLD TREATS WOMEN- unfortunately it was drowned in a bunch of HIGHLY DISTRACTING candy colored CGI which decided to set the movie- which would have made perfect sense in the 19th century- in some sort of weirdassed MIYAZAKI-eesque STEAMPUNK alternaverse and that (and the persistent commercials) WRECKED IT FOR ME- along with an unecessary scene where the heroine (who was played very very very well by EMMA STONE- she gives up THE BUSH and EVERYTHING!) has sex in front of two young boys...made RAMBLING ROSE look tame.

MARK RUFFALO who has been nominated for BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR gives one of THE WORST PERFORMANCES I HAVE EVER SEEN IN ALL MY LIFE ON STAGE, TV, OR SCREEN, and there is another pretty important character who was played by someone who was also really, really, really bad.

WILLEM DEFOE was really good though.

THE GREEN SCREEN "REAR PROJECTION" WORK IS LITERALLY THIS BAD THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE ****ING THING:



SIGH.

Modern cinema, it is what it is. (a variation on RUSSIAN ROULETTE)

Yeah.... I'm not exactly sure I could quite handle this film's boldness...and I know that seems odd coming from someone who sat through Showgirls, The Postman Always Rings Twice (1981), and 9½ Weeks, but there it is....

Rambling Rose looks tame in comparison? Oh, dear. I was quite offended by that film's scene involving Laura Dern and Lukas Haas in bed, so that just adds more ammunition to my idea of skipping it.....

I was quite surprised on nomination morning that Dafoe wasn't nominated, given the bear hug the Academy gave to the film, and given that Dafoe is a previous four-time nominee.

So, was Ruffalo's performance quite at the low tide level of Billy Zane in Titanic/Wings Hauser on Murder She Wrote, or was he even lower? I know that at one time, he was talented, but he keeps getting twitchier and hammier the more years go on..... The other one you thought was bad was likely Jarrod Carmichael; I have heard that his performance was quite bad.

[Lorna]

With only a couple days to the Oscars, one of the Best Picture nominees for this year has just turned up on MGM+ (and maybe Amazon Prime too), so I hastened to take a look at it.

POOR THINGS

Yeah.... I'm not exactly sure I could quite handle this film's boldness...and I know that seems odd coming from someone who sat through Showgirls, The Postman Always Rings Twice (1981), and 9½ Weeks, but there it is....

OH HONEY,

I was getting ready to send you a PM to explicitly tell you: NO, YOU COULD NOT HANDLE THIS MOVIE.
it would break you.
HONESTLY.

(you and I have a lot in common, but I DEFINITELY have more tolerance of DEPRAVITY. ALSO, THIS MOVIE LEGIT MAKES "SHOWGIRLS" LOOK LIKE "LITTLE WOMEN"- THE JUNE ALLYSON VERSION!!!!)

[Lorna]

CINEMA INTERNATIONAL WROTE: So, was Ruffalo's performance quite at the low tide level of Billy Zane in Titanic

I do not say this lightly, but YES.

in fact, the roles are REALLY SIMILAR, as are the "acting"styles of ZANE and RUFFALO.

Also, imagine if BILLY ZANE had a montage of extremely explicit sex acts in TITANIC wherein we actually witnessed him perform real life oral sex on someone.

Sorry, are you ALL throwing up now?

[CinemaInternational]

POOR THINGS

Yeah.... I'm not exactly sure I could quite handle this film's boldness...and I know that seems odd coming from someone who sat through Showgirls, The Postman Always Rings Twice (1981), and 9½ Weeks, but there it is....

OH HONEY,

I was getting ready to send you a PM to explicitly tell you: NO, YOU COULD NOT HANDLE THIS MOVIE.
it would break you.
HONESTLY.

(you and I have a lot in common, but I DEFINITELY have more tolerance of DEPRAVITY. ALSO, THIS MOVIE LEGIT MAKES "SHOWGIRLS" LOOK LIKE "LITTLE WOMEN"- THE JUNE ALLYSON VERSION!!!!)

Oh, wow, that strong. Goodness. How does it stack up against say Ken Russell's The Devils in shocking the audience? I ask because I was talking to someone the other day, saying that I didn't know if I could see Poor Things because it sounded shocking, and she replied that she actually saw it, was shocked by it, and said that the audience of mostly senior moviegoers looked stunned (or shell-shocked) afterwards.

[Lorna]

THE THING IS THOUGH,

I have respect for GOOD ACTING- even in material I find objectionable- and both EMMA STONE and WILLAM DEFOE were FANTASTIC in the film- STONE was especially good and genuinely funny, even eliciting laughs during really wild or unsettling scenes. she could very well win tonight, but if she does, there might be some blowback if a wider audience decides to check POOR THINGS out.

[Lorna]

POOR THINGS and THE DEVILS are neck-and-neck in terms of shockingness.

[Lorna]

EMMA STONE'S level of commitment to the part reminded me very very much of KATHLEEN TURNER in CRIMES OF PASSION.