R.I.P William Friedkin

[dave jenkins]

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.

You are in luck because that film got one of the best transfers to Blu-ray ever. I'm not hot on the film, but I don't mind watching it when it looks so good.

[noodles_leone]

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.

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.

[T.H.]

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.

[noodles_leone]

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.

We can at least fully agree on that part.

[dave jenkins]

I really, really like To Live And Die in LA, although it took me almost 35 years to realize it.

New disc: https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/threads/a-few-words-about-tm-to-live-and-die-in-l-a-in-4k-uhd-blu-ray.379965/

[Dust Devil]

R.I.P.

[Novecento]

Sorcerer is so underrated.

I just bought the new Kino Lorber BD of To Live and Die in LA. It?s one of his films that I?ve never managed to see, so I?m looking forward to watching.

He has a nice autobiography: The Friedkin Connection.

Wow. And there I was thinking Sorcerer + Tangerine Dream, and was missing out on To Live and Die in LA + Wang Chung. Plus, Robbie Muller sure did have a fantastic eye.

[Novecento]

I just watched Friedkin?s version of ?12 angry men?. Boy, was it good. I?ve seen the original, but I?d have to watch it again to do a fair comparison. Somehow this one feels almost better. The camera use in that one room is great.

What with Sorcerer (vs wages of fear), it seems like Friedkin had a rare talent to do a remake at least on par (if not even better) than the original.