Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 22, 2017, 05:01:02 PM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Other/Miscellaneous
| |-+  Off-Topic Discussion (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  Rate The Last Movie You Saw
0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 1144 1145 [1146] 1147 1148 ... 1162 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Rate The Last Movie You Saw  (Read 1768406 times)
Jessica Rabbit
Gunslinger
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #17175 on: June 16, 2017, 10:26:34 AM »

The Ipcress File (1965) and Funeral in Berlin (1966). Michael Caine as Harry Palmer, a spy with a dry sarcastic sense of humor. Love it. The second one is actually better than the first.

Logged

Jessica Rabbit
"I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."
XhcnoirX
Gunslinger
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17176 on: June 17, 2017, 03:35:50 AM »

Le Moine aka The Monk (2011): Vincent Cassel is a monk admired for his stern but passionate sermons. When a new novice is accepted into his monastery, Cassel's unwavering faith is put to the test. Boring and pretentious. 5/10

Logged

'I feel all dead inside. I'm backed up in a dark corner and I don't know who's hitting me.' - The Dark Corner (1946)
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13635

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #17177 on: June 17, 2017, 05:05:05 PM »

The Ipcress File (1965) and Funeral in Berlin (1966). Michael Caine as Harry Palmer, a spy with a dry sarcastic sense of humor. Love it. The second one is actually better than the first.
Tru dat. But don't try the third one.

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for getting out of bed this morning.
titoli
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8010



View Profile
« Reply #17178 on: June 17, 2017, 05:27:01 PM »

Tru dat. But don't try the third one.
Let alone the fourth and the fifth.

Logged

drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8314

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #17179 on: June 18, 2017, 03:42:44 AM »

Blackwell's Island (1939) 7.5/10

I do not like John Garfield very much.

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8314

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #17180 on: June 18, 2017, 03:47:31 AM »

I just watched The Misfits (1961). TCM recently showed a few Clark Gable movies; I dvr'd some and am working my way through them  Smiley

For me, this movie very hot and cold.

The beginning, through the scene where Clift does the rodeo, is very good. (A bit of a screwup with the scene in the bar when Monroe is hitting the paddle-ball: She's gone through at least 60 or 70 hits, and the people counting keep counting at like 20 or 30  Grin ) Then, there are some nighttime scenes that are pretty bad: They go to the bar that night after Clift does the rodeo, then they go back to Wallach's house, then camp out in the mountains the night before the mustang hunt. Those scenes are crappy. Then, the mustang hunt: thrilling to watch, but it turns into a debate over animal rights, which is not interesting subject matter for a movie.

(For the record, my opinion of the matter is that God made animals to benefit humans; animals can be killed for meat, leather, etc., but they have to be killed in the most painless way possible. Leaving horses tied up by the legs overnight in the desert until the dealer truck comes the next dayis just wrong. There has to be a more humane way; maybe they should just shoot the horses dead immediately and let the dealers pick up the carcasses in the morning.) But bottom line is that I don't find animal-rights debates interesting as the subject matter of a movie.

BTW, when Gable tells Monroe about the horsemeat in the cans of dog food, it made me laugh. I have two friends, twin sisters, who claim to be an animal-lover, doesn't eat meat or wear leather, etc., and she has lots of pet dogs and cats. Lots of them. And when I harass her about the contents of those cans of dog and cat food, she gets really upset  Grin  Funny thing is, I never even knew there is horsemeat in the dog food; I always assumed it was beef. These girls are big, big, big horse lovers; they own and ride horses. Just wait till I tell them that there are dead HORSES in those cans of food they feeds their beloved dogs and cats every day Wink

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8314

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #17181 on: June 18, 2017, 04:06:42 AM »

I just saw Fury (1936) for the second time. On TCM.

The first time I saw it I really did not like it; we had a discussion here http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=7645.msg160012#msg160012

 I liked it more this time around. I'll give it a 7/10.

I really do not like Sylvia Sidney much. (The first time I saw Dead End (1937), I absolutely loved her performance; I said it was one of the greatest performances by an actress I'd ever seen. I saw the movie again not long ago and thought she was good in it, but certainly wasn't as enthusiastic as the first time around. But other than in that movie, I generally do not like watching Sidney.)

---

But anyway, watching this movie reminded me of how IMO ridiculous is the near-constant discussion of how to define a "film noir." This movie certainly fits the characteristics of noir. But since some people decided that noir has to be a specific time period (roughly 40's and 50's), they won't consider it a "noir." They'll call it a "pre-noir" or whatever. Same with the French Poetic Realism films, which have every characteristic of noir except that they were made in the 30's rather than 40's

To me, this who categorization is silly, deciding that "noir" has to be a specific period, that after that period it has to be "neo-noir" whatever. Which other genre, or style – whichever you prefer – is dependent on a time period? Is a Western or a musical made in 2017 – when few Westerns or musicals are being made anymore – any less Western or musical than one from the 40's? No. And it should be the same with noirs. Perhaps more movies were made with noir characteristics in the 40's than in the 60's, but that shouldn't matter when categorizing a film.

And also saying that a movie that has X number of Y elements is "noir," but a movie that only has 1/2 of X number of Y elements is "near-noir," whatever. IMO that's stupid.

To debate over whether a movie has enough noir style elements to make it a noir, vs. merely a "near-noir," and to call a movie made in 1941 a noir whereas the same movie made in 1939 would not be (ditto for, e.g., 1959 vs. 1961), is pretty dumb (And yes, as we have to always remind ourselves, this term "noir" wasn't even known in America until well after the end of the so-called noir period.

Fury is as noir as any other movie. Ditto with Port of Shadows. It's ludicrous to refer to The Long Night as noir because it was made in 1947, but not to refer to Le Jour Se Leve – the French film that it is remade from – as  noir just because that movie was made in 1939.


I think the best way to categorize noir would be simply: There are a certain stylistic elements that we call noir. (The lighting, the shadows, the character types, story types, etc. We know what elements we are referring to.) Some movies have lots of these elements, some movies have just a few of these elements. And while it happens to be that there was a heavy concentration of movies that used lots of these characteristics in the U.S. in the 40's and 50's, that doesn't matter: If we'd call a movie made in the 40's a 50's a noir, we should use the same term if it the same movie was made in the 30's or 60's.


« Last Edit: June 18, 2017, 04:14:17 AM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
Jessica Rabbit
Gunslinger
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #17182 on: June 18, 2017, 07:54:54 AM »

Tru dat. But don't try the third one.

I looked it up and it got mostly mediocre reviews. Unfortunate. I didn't even know there is a No. 4 and 5.

Logged

Jessica Rabbit
"I'm not bad. I'm just drawn that way."
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13635

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #17183 on: June 18, 2017, 08:00:33 AM »

I looked it up and it got mostly mediocre reviews. Unfortunate. I didn't even know there is a No. 4 and 5.
TV movies, I believe.

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for getting out of bed this morning.
cigar joe
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12611


easy come easy go


View Profile
« Reply #17184 on: June 18, 2017, 11:48:28 AM »

Quote
But anyway, watching this movie reminded me of how IMO ridiculous is the near-constant discussion of how to define a "film noir." This movie certainly fits the characteristics of noir. But since some people decided that noir has to be a specific time period (roughly 40's and 50's), they won't consider it a "noir." They'll call it a "pre-noir" or whatever. Same with the French Poetic Realism films, which have every characteristic of noir except that they were made in the 30's rather than 40's

To me, this who categorization is silly, deciding that "noir" has to be a specific period, that after that period it has to be "neo-noir" whatever. Which other genre, or style – whichever you prefer – is dependent on a time period? Is a Western or a musical made in 2017 – when few Westerns or musicals are being made anymore – any less Western or musical than one from the 40's? No. And it should be the same with noirs. Perhaps more movies were made with noir characteristics in the 40's than in the 60's, but that shouldn't matter when categorizing a film.

And also saying that a movie that has X number of Y elements is "noir," but a movie that only has 1/2 of X number of Y elements is "near-noir," whatever. IMO that's stupid.

To debate over whether a movie has enough noir style elements to make it a noir, vs. merely a "near-noir," and to call a movie made in 1941 a noir whereas the same movie made in 1939 would not be (ditto for, e.g., 1959 vs. 1961), is pretty dumb (And yes, as we have to always remind ourselves, this term "noir" wasn't even known in America until well after the end of the so-called noir period.

Fury is as noir as any other movie. Ditto with Port of Shadows. It's ludicrous to refer to The Long Night as noir because it was made in 1947, but not to refer to Le Jour Se Leve – the French film that it is remade from – as  noir just because that movie was made in 1939.


I think the best way to categorize noir would be simply: There are a certain stylistic elements that we call noir. (The lighting, the shadows, the character types, story types, etc. We know what elements we are referring to.) Some movies have lots of these elements, some movies have just a few of these elements. And while it happens to be that there was a heavy concentration of movies that used lots of these characteristics in the U.S. in the 40's and 50's, that doesn't matter: If we'd call a movie made in the 40's a 50's a noir, we should use the same term if it the same movie was made in the 30's or 60's.

As far as Noirs, I agree mostly, the term Film Noir was used in the French newspapers and magazines of Paris as far back as the 1930s. It was used as both a right wing political dig at the poetic realist movement that they felt was associated with the leftist Popular Front and a condemnation of the negative trend in films that were considered immoral and demoralizing during the pre-war years. Technically then snuff films and pornography would be the ultimate downer noirs as far as general story/subject, no?  

The big debate on the modern usage 1940's on, is over the two 1946 pieces that are always cited in the canon on post WWII Film Noir which are Nino Frank's "A New Kind of Police Drama: the Criminal Adventure" for  L'Écran français, and Jean-Pierre Chartier's "Americans Also Make Noir Films" for La Révue du Cinéma. The four films invariably always mentioned when referring to these two critics are Double Indemnity, Laura, The Maltese Falcon, and Murder My Sweet. The film almost always left out in these texts is the third film that Chartier mentions the one that deals with addiction and human frailties The Lost Weekend.

I'm finding a lot of interesting films in the 1960-68 range with some new talented, innovative directors and actors that emerged after the demise of the Motion Picture Production Code, the rise of TV, and the end of "B" unit studio production.  The 1958/59 years usually given for Film Noir style cut off was just arbitrary. There are still a few B&W Film Noir up to 1968.

I think, what was going on is, as the Motion Picture Production Code weakened and independent poverty row and low budget film creators were allowed more artistic freedom. So those Film Noir that went too far over the line depicting violence started getting classified as Horror, Thriller (even though they were just say, showing the effects of a gunshot wound, or dealing with weird serial killers, maniacs, and psychotics, etc.). Those that went too far depicting sexual, drug, torture, etc., situations were being lumped into or classed as various Exploitation flicks, (even though they are relatively tame comparably to today's films). The the noir-ish films that dealt with everything else, except Crime, concerning the human condition were labeled Dramas and Suspense. Those that tried new techniques, lenses, etc., were labeled Experimental. Some films are so so bad in all aspects that they acquire the "so bad it's good" Cult status.

With nothing really giving some of some of these directors & producers some parameters, or putting the brakes on, there was no speed limit they just shot past the limits of contemporary common sense, cultural acceptability and good taste. Good taste can block out entire subjects deemed dangerous or unworthy. What makes these low budget films worthwhile, to quote V. Vale & Andrea Juno in Incredibly Strange Films, is the "unfettered creativity. Often the films are eccentric-even extreme-presentations by individuals freely expressing their imaginations..." To quote Picasso "Ah, good taste! What a dreadful thing! Taste is the enemy of creativeness."

With nowhere else to get distribution these low budget mavericks eventually just dispensed with almost all plot at all and just followed the easy money into hardcore. Shame cause you can clearly see artistic talent in these early proto "Grindhouse" features.

Basically Noir is Noir it was just evolving from Noir under the code to Noir anything goes. It's just convenient to to differentiate between Noir and Neo Noir. The first Neos could be the color Noirs during the classic time period 40s-50s directors and production companies that chose color as an artistic decision when B&W was the norm.



« Last Edit: June 18, 2017, 01:35:20 PM by cigar joe » Logged

"When you feel that rope tighten on your neck you can feel the devil bite your ass"!
noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5056


Lonesome Billy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17185 on: June 20, 2017, 11:39:14 AM »

Fargo S3 E1-9 - 9/10
This show is so fucking good. Just one episode left. If season 2 was the page turner that's Breaking Bad then S3 is the depthful drama that's Better Call Saul. I'm not sure which season I like more

Better Call Saul S3 E1-9 - 8.5/10
Overall exccellent and one ballsy slow-burn of a show. The latest episode was so difficult to watch in a great way. One left.

 Kiss

In the plane:

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - 4/10
John Wick 2 - 3/10
Gold - 7/10
The Lego Batman Movie - 6/10




Logged


New music video: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE https://youtu.be/p968oyMo5B0
www.ThibautOskian.com
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13635

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #17186 on: June 20, 2017, 01:07:45 PM »

Kiss

In the plane:

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice - 4/10
John Wick 2 - 3/10
Gold - 7/10
The Lego Batman Movie - 6/10
These were almost the same titles offered on my plane.

I skipped those and watched instead The Transporter Refueled and Red 2. TTR was great because I could follow it easily with the sound turned off. Red 2 I'd seen before so again I didn't need the sound (I hate using airplane headphones). This was on JAL. Hey, why don't the ever show any Ozu films?

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for getting out of bed this morning.
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2935



View Profile
« Reply #17187 on: June 20, 2017, 01:11:04 PM »

Hey, why don't the ever show any Ozu films?

One of those eternal questions for which religion hasn't any answer ...

Logged

Jill
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 987

This time I did


View Profile
« Reply #17188 on: June 21, 2017, 02:00:17 PM »

Do we have a topic for rating tv shows? Or can they just put in here?

Logged

"Does this unit have a soul?"
cigar joe
Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12611


easy come easy go


View Profile
« Reply #17189 on: June 21, 2017, 02:28:30 PM »

Do we have a topic for rating tv shows? Or can they just put in here?

here

Logged

"When you feel that rope tighten on your neck you can feel the devil bite your ass"!
Pages: 1 ... 1144 1145 [1146] 1147 1148 ... 1162 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.099 seconds with 20 queries.