 Messages |
Topics |
Attachments
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - T.H.
1
« on: September 14, 2023, 10:42:13 AM »
It's funny, I've never liked Heat, but after watching Thief again yesterday I had to put Heat on once more. If anything, my dislike of the film is greater than ever. You may be right that it looks good, but in all other respects I think it stinks: the writing, the casting, the acting, the soundtrack choices. Pacino is a walking cartoon. The dialog in all the "relationship" scenes is risible. At one time the shoot-out would have impressed me, but after Edgar Wright showed us how it should be done, even that has lost its charm. I don't think I'll be watching this again.
Thief, OTOH, as you say, just gets better with every new re-watch.
Hey, is Blackhat any good? There's a new edition form Arrow coming (it's been delayed a couple times) and I'm wondering if I should pick it up. I'm a huge Tang Wei fan. You'll either give Blackhat a 1 or a 9, I'm not sure which. To me it's a tremendous mood piece thriller. The plot can feel a bit rushed at times, and the character development is mostly brushed to the side, but it's one of the rare modern movies that I really enjoy. Edgar Wright's movies are way too silly, cutesy and quirky for any action scene, or scene for that matter, to have any weight or importance imo. I find him to be a slave to his style, much like Wes Anderson; and like Anderson, his movies straight up annoy me outside of the early comedies. If Wright doesn't take his movies remotely seriously, I won't either. I think Heat is one of the greatest movies ever made, and I love the casting, the music (the New Dawn Fades cover really works), acting, family side plot, etc. I think Pacino gets unfairly knocked for his performance in Heat due to everything that followed -- it's Pacino's Metallica's Black album. It was pretty damn good but gets maligned because it was a turning point. There just aren't hardly any crime movies made with the care and style of Heat, or genre movies in general. What's comparable, The Wild Bunch, The Red Circle...
2
« on: September 12, 2023, 02:35:05 PM »
Thief (1981) - 10/10. I can't get over how good this film is, or how good the Criterion blu looks. Extended disccussion here: http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=11872.0 While I prefer the epic scale of Heat, Thief is a straight up masterpiece that somehow improves on every viewing, just like Heat. For me, anyways. It's been way too long since I've last seen The Insider. I've had the bluray for years and never watched my copy of it. While I understand a director's desire to embrace new technology, Michael Mann should have never stopped shooting on film. As far as movies since 1980 go, Mann's movies looked the best, with maybe Robbie Muller's best work as the only stuff that could compare to Thief, Manhunter and Heat. Christopher Doyle deserves a mention as well. Noodles, I'd give Something Wild another shot at a later time. I think you may like the movie more, and you may find the tonal shift to feel more natural and/or gradual on an additional view. As for Buffalo '66, I really like the look of the movie. I'd love to read or watch something about how it was shot.
3
« on: September 12, 2023, 12:29:10 PM »
White Sands (1992) - Another 90's desert neo-noir that is more entertaining than it has any right to be. It was shot in scope with a great use of low angle shots, but the plot really sputters out in act III -- though the pacing doesn't suffer once things start to get a little silly. I really like Willem Dafoe, but he was miscast as a rural copper, though his performance is good -- he just looks too easily swayed by evil/has the face of a villain. This also might be the last solid movie with Mickey Rourke before boxing and plastic surgery destroyed his face. Sam Jackson, Emmet Walsh and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio round out the great cast. If Red Rock West looked like this movie, it would be a masterpiece. This has the look, but not quite the substance of a classic. A generous B-.
4
« on: August 19, 2023, 12:54:33 PM »
Colossus of Rhodes would be so much more enjoyable if its runtime was under 90 minutes. There's definitely some good stuff there, but it's way too long.
I don't know if I'd rank DYS over the first two Dollars movies, which are iconic. AFOD changed movies in many ways, and who knows what becomes of the Spaghetti subgenre if it wasn't such a hit -- and it's a great exploitation/lower budget genre movie. FAFDM can be seen as the first buddy action movie.
5
« on: August 19, 2023, 12:44:02 PM »
I need to see this, I have the double feature bluray of this movie and The Ride Back (1957) -- which is worth a view for those who haven't seen it.
6
« on: August 15, 2023, 08:51:23 AM »
The Long Kiss Goodnight (1996) - A mixed bag, and overcooked, albeit fun. I'd love to see the original script that Shane Black wrote, because I'm assuming the final product deviated from the original screenplay. Geena Davis and Sam Jackson have great chemistry, and their charisma carries this movie, but it's a shame that this leaned so much into generic blockbuster action when this could have been an incredibly fun P.I. movie mixed with some espionage. While this ultimately misses the mark, the first hour is a lot of fun, and it's charming in spite of its flaws. It also doesn't help that the score was bland and lifeless, and the villain looks like someone that belongs on a 90's sitcom about 20 somethings, though he was good in The Thirteenth Floor (1999). A generous B-
7
« on: August 14, 2023, 07:38:51 AM »
Trespass (1992) - Boetticher in the hood, and prime Walter Hill's last stand. It's a flawed classic with some logic issues, and a camcorder motif that is illogical and looks stupid, but this was written by the Bob's (Zemeckis & Gale), scored by Ry Cooder and was directed by the aforementioned Walter Hill with a good cast. While it may only live up to 80% of that promise and the climax is disappointing, everything leading up to the climax is a really fun ride. B
8
« on: August 13, 2023, 10:17:45 AM »
One of those movies that have such a strong concept that everybody involved in it relies too much on the concept. Another explaination is that they were afraid of spoiling the universality of that story by adding actual characters or a something like a real world. Even the critics were way too interested in the concept at the time and spent countless lines of text in awe of the pilopophy behind it, of the resonnance with our society, and forgot to discuss (or even actually watch) the movie itself. I like Ed Harris more than the next person, but it was such a mistake for the movie to shift so much focus to his character. It's almost impressive how the movie doesn't take any chances in Act III. Nothing really happens. Also, the choice of constantly cutting to random TV viewers watching the show made the movie feel really cheap. A few years before, Tommy Boy hilariously pokes fun at this trope by having minor characters they interacted with earlier in the movie change the channel instead of watching Farley's character confront Aykroyd's on live TV.
9
« on: August 13, 2023, 09:45:02 AM »
The Truman Show (1998) - This one takes a nosedive around an hour in. The first hour is rather well done, and the silent film influence is very strong with all the use of irus shots. However, the movie takes the least interesting route after the hour mark and doesn't spend enough time with the Truman character, who seems a little too okay with all of the betrayal. His wife just leaves or quits the show, and there's no payoff with his mother or best friend. It was also a mistake for the character to just leave the Truman Show world at the end and not enter the real world, if even for 10-15 minutes. This is one of those movies you want to get better after not having seen it in a long time, but it's a flawed almost classic, or should have been classic. C+
A League of Their Own (1992) - In spite of this being a little too schmaltzy for my taste at times, this has held up rather well. It's shot in scope, and while not brilliantly shot, the period piece elements are believable enough and this contains the rare Hans Zimmer score that I rather like -- though I could have done without "Now & Forever" and the Madonna song at the end added to the movie's soundtrack.
But the lead has been buried here, this is the Geena Davis and Tom Hanks show, and probably their best career performances. Davis has the screen presence of a Gary Cooper or a John Wayne when shot by John Ford in this movie. She's absolutely electric, and it's crazy how her career never panned out the way it should have. As for Hanks, this is probably the best use of his comedic sensibilities and his everyman likability in dramas that made him an A+ lister in the coming years.
As for the baseball scenes, they also hold up better than you'd think for a bunch of actresses 30 years ago -- sans Madonna While I do think that the movie could have played it a little less Hollywood at times, and ditched scenes like an impromptu professional dance off in a sailor bar, this is a classic in many ways, and belongs in the sports movie HOF. B+
10
« on: August 11, 2023, 11:10:24 AM »
DJ, I think I'm going to pick up Night Moves at some point. You sold me. Of course it's different, but i still think he was going for the same thing. The biggest difference beeing he probably shoots with like 5 cameras instead of 1. Which, you could argue, works, theoretically at least, with the Bourne universe (everybody being watched from everywhere so all those intercut long focal shots have a meaning here). I never disliked the shaky cam as much as many here, but I'm also never gonna put any of those shakycam filmmakers from the 2000's among the great ones. So I'm very soflty pushing back here.
@Stanton: the first rule of NWR is never trust a word this guy is uttering. He is always playing a role. We can only discuss his movies (and tv shows), not the guy or whatever he says, wherever it is.
Maybe in the broadest of sense they were both going for the same thing, I guess. But that would be like saying T2 and insert shitty new age blockbuster were both trying to be grand spectacles of the summer blockbuster. Friedkin also had a very classic sense, and he may have combined the best of 70's new age docudrama filmmaking (for a lack of phrasing) with the humble, nuanced (invisible) classic Hollywood style. The way he used handheld was never showy in the way of a Ritchie, and especially a Greengrass, who took it to such a level that his movies lack any and all composition or planning. My take at least.
11
« on: August 10, 2023, 06:11:21 PM »
I need to give Night Moves another viewing. I feel like if there's a Penn movie that I would really like, it would have to be that one. I also owe Bonnie & Clyde another watch.
12
« on: August 10, 2023, 08:25:44 AM »
I feel like Greengrass is the true heir here. Of course his handeld work is overdone and feels more artificial but he's trying to work in the same direction as Friedkin with it: make you feel the action, visceraly. The camera is just trying to capture what is going on, and it turns out what is going on is hectic so the cameraman seems to have no choice (of course it isn't the reality but this is what the camerawork makes you feel). Whereas Ritchie uses the camera as another character; the action may or may not be hectic but the camerawork is and is also the true center of the attention. So similar technic, very different philosophies... both of which can lead to terrible or great results. I really dislike Greengrass' style and overall filmmaking philosophy so I have to push back on that. He seems like he has zero plan on how to shoot a scene, so he just shakes the camera and edits way too much. I definitely respect Michael Ritchie, but I'm not one of those Ritchie truthers. His style has aged great in some ways and badly in others. Neither can compare to Friedkin, especially Greengrass. I do agree with your take on Sorcerer. I like it a good deal, but I don't think it's a masterpiece, and you do have to wonder if it really needed to exist when the original is such a classic. I do think highly of it though. I'll never understand all the love for Arthur Penn. I think my favorite thing he did was get fired from The Train. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jPWGEoyJHYThis is hysterical. I would have loved to have a few with Friedkin. He was hilarious.
13
« on: August 08, 2023, 03:20:56 PM »
When I think of Friedkin I think of particular scenes rather than films: the car dismantling scene in French Connection, say, or the truck preparation scene in Sorcerer. His attention to detail with regard to way things actually work in the real world always impressed me. Fukasaku never had that (well, he never had the budgets for it).
R.I.P. I was speaking, or writing, in terms of the frenetic energy in the way their movies were shot -- especially scenes with characters on the street or in seedy establishments. There's this handheld documentary style that feels completely improvised but also very controlled in a cinematic sense. I feel like Michael Ritchie could venture too far in that direction, where it sometimes draws attention to itself or doesn't really work. Paul Greengrass would be the extreme case where handheld camera work can be beyond awful. I definitely see some Friedkin in Michael Mann, and I don't know if we get the safe cracking scene in Thief without Friedkin.
14
« on: August 08, 2023, 01:22:09 PM »
Friedkin was maybe the best ever in terms of combining a docudrama style with classic cinematic technique, or something like that. Only Fukasaku comes to mind as someone that could rival Friedkin in that regard. When Friedkin was on, my goodness was he ON. RIP to one of the greats.
|
Show Posts