Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 18, 2022, 02:43:59 AM

Show Posts

* 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 - moorman

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)
« on: October 11, 2021, 05:10:24 PM »
Directors Joel Coen & Ethan Coen (uncredited), written by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen. Starring  Billy Bob Thornton, Frances McDormand James Gandolfini, Tony Shaloub, Katherine Borowitz, Jon Polito, Scarlett Johansson, and Michael Badalucco.

A tongue-in-cheek low key Neo Noir shot in Black and White that nicely captures some of the spirit of the classic noir period.  However during the Classic Noir period the Noir styled cinematography seamlessly blended into the background but here in this film it feels a bit too obvious in calling attention to itself in spots. Its pallet is overall shades of gray and where it does dip into the high contrast noir, it shows. Its almost as if the directors consciously remembered they were making a noir and insert darker shots here and there. Its a minor quibble.

Most of the film is this (Thornton & Polito)

and this in pallet (Thornton & McDormond)

occasionally going stylistically darker like the two shots below

Classic composition

obvious composition

Scarlet Johannson

Storyline from IMDb:
1949, Santa Rosa, California. A laconic, chain-smoking barber with fallen arches tells a story of a man trying to escape a humdrum life. It's a tale of suspected adultery, blackmail, foul play, death, Sacramento city slickers, racial slurs, invented war heroics, shaved legs, a gamine piano player, aliens, and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Ed Crane cuts hair in his in-law's shop; his wife drinks and may be having an affair with her boss, Big Dave, who has $10,000 to invest in a second department store. Ed gets wind of a chance to make money in dry cleaning. Blackmail and investment are his opportunity to be more than a man no one notices. Settle in the chair and listen.

Originally titled at one time "The Barber" then jokingly "Pansies Don't Float" the film replicates early 1950's suburbia in a bleak noir tale with twists and turns feeling very much like a studio back lot film.  Its a lot of fun an doesn't shy away from fedoras or cigarette smoking.

I'll repeat a post from IMDb about the cigarette smoking culture.

hobartz (Sun Jan 29 2012 04:53:04)   
Ignore this User | Report Abuse   
Ah, the social psychology of smoking. Fascinating subject.
In the 1940's the vast majority of adult Americans smoked. My mother was in her teens and twenties during that decade and was a stubborn exception. She was something of a curiosity and was constantly asked why she didn't smoke. She gave all the (now familiar) reasons that to her seemed obvious: health, expense, smell, fire hazard, etc.. A typical response from other women was, "but what do you do with your hands?" The typical response from men was something along the lines of "what a tedious killjoy you are".
Smoking was seen as healthful, an affirmation of maturity, and above all "stylish", the '40's notion of anything today termed "cool". Many social expressions were involved in the intricacies of the physical act of smoking. A whole culture of expression existed around the acts of retrieving a cigarette, preparing it for lighting, lighting it, inhaling the first puff, exhaling the smoke, holding the cigarette, tapping ash, repeated puffs, and finally stubbing, crushing, dropping, stamping out the butt. By the 1940's cigarette smoking was not only a personal act but also a social and cultural act.
Cigarettes of the 1940's were nearly all unfiltered so the smoker "dry-lipped" the end of the cigarette while smoking it. Slightly exaggerating the dry lipping made the person look tough, sort of like Humphrey Bogart's contentious and slightly contemptuous demeanor. Often a flake of tobacco would stick to the lip that would have to be plucked off and flicked away. This, too, was considered stylish among males, but not so much among females.
Along these lines, one of the reasons for developing filtered cigarettes was so that women could purse out their lips instead of tucking them in as the cigarette was held between the lips. Women preferred to look pouty with full lips rather than thin-lipped tough. Another reason women adopted filtered cigarettes was due to their "sensitive throats". With smoking, women's voices became gravelly and deepened from soprano to alto, from alto to tenor and even to baritone. So partly for these reasons filtered cigarettes were considered effeminate until the 1950's issue of the first US Surgeon General's report about the ill-effects of tobacco smoking. Only then did tobacco companies begin generalized marketing of filters as a health feature of their products.
It's not hard to imagine a time in the future when social anthropologists will be explaining in historical documentaries the phenomenon of smoking during the 20th century. Won't it be a hoot when people turn to one another after seeing such a documentary and say, "wow... I wonder how crazy a society has to be to have something as weird as THAT get so fully implanted in it!?" Based simply on the fact that the thread op posted the question about so much smoking, I'd say that day may be closer than we think. And that's a good thing.

If fits in nicely with the domestic melodrama variant noirs 8/10

This is a FANTASTIC noir.  The plot, acting, cinematography, direction and musical scoring are fantastic.  8 out of 10.

Other Films / Re: Seven Men from Now aka 7 Men from Now (1956)
« on: August 01, 2021, 07:35:38 PM »
The plot in this wasn't appealing to me. The standouts are the location filming, musical scoring, and the acting of Scott and Marvin. 6.5 out of 10.

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: No Sudden Move (2021)
« on: July 03, 2021, 07:08:45 AM »
Thanks. Sounds kinda complicated, so it's probably not going to happen, but I appreciate the info.

Found a trailer:

Also there's a 20-minute EPK done with Zoom interviews, but it contains spoilers:

Thanks for the links.  Its not really complicated.  You can even bypass the Hulu portion and just sign up for HBO Max.  They have a ad supported tier and a ad free tier at a higher cost.  I don't like purchasing services, so I constantly look for free trails.  I'm gonna check out the zoom link you posted.  I wasn't aware of this film.  It popped up in a google feed I have on my phone.  I checked out some reviews and saw it was very promising.

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: No Sudden Move (2021)
« on: July 03, 2021, 06:37:00 AM »
Looks good. I don't have HBOMAX, though, so I guess I won't be seeing it for a while.

I play with the free trials.  I was able to see it for $5.99 through a Hulu trail.   You sign up for Hulu and add the 7 day free trail for HBO Max.  You can cancel before the 7 days are up.  Its a very good way of testing HBO Max.   

IF you go do it:

1. Sign up on your computer at the link above. Make sure the HBO Max offer is included.  The fee should be $5.99 total.
2. download the Hulu app on the service you intend to view it. ( roku, fire stick, etc.)
3. sign into the Hulu app to make sure its working using the login credentials you used to sign up.
4. go to HBO MAX at this link.   click sign in. Then click sign in with a provider.  Click on Hulu.  Enter the Hulu login credentials you used with Hulu.
5.  download the HBO MAX app on  service you want to view it. (roku, firestick, etc.)  you should be automatically logged into the app.  If not, login with your Hulu credentials.
6.  The film is located under " recent additions" or just search for it by title.

Off-Topic Discussion / No Sudden Move (2021)
« on: July 03, 2021, 04:53:24 AM »
No Sudden Move (2021)

This is a modern Film Noir gem.  The director,  Steven Soderbergh,  put together with his writer Ed Solomon, what I consider is gonna become a modern day Noir Classic.   The film features every classic noir element.   Based in 1950's Detroit, you have the cars, gangsters, a MacGuffin, SUPERB layered plot, female fatale,  on location filming, I mean everything. This is NOT a Neo Noir. The FANTASTIC casting includes Don Cheadle and Benicio Del Toro as the two main protaganists, but thats just for starters.  The cinematography,  sets,  and musical scoring are very well done also. Going back to the plot. Its so layered that the film becomes VERY rewatchable. You will NOT get everything on first viewing. I resigned myself a quarter of the way in to just sit back and enjoy the film on the surface. Lastly, the film is loosely based on real events. One of the fallouts of the recent movie industry has become a good thing. Films that normally go straight to theatre, are now becoming available through streaming services. This has resulted in films like this one that can get past you if you are not paying attention. Its a must watch for Film Noir fans.  9 out of 10.

Other Films / Re: A Pistol for Ringo
« on: June 09, 2021, 06:50:52 PM »
Not good. The tone was very bad. There were countless implausible scenarios. The plot was a blatant  redo of Fist Full of Dollars ,  and Ringo's character was way over the top unbelievable.  I'm not going to bother with  Return of Ringo.  3 out of 10.

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Clash by Night (1952)
« on: June 07, 2021, 10:33:26 AM »
I saw this on Criterion.  It was better than expected.  The plot is a well worn plot, but the casting and nuance in the plot gave it some intrigue.  As far as whether this is a Film Noir or not, its really subjective.  Genres can blend.  I consider a lot of the American Classic Gangster Films as being both Film Noir and Gangster.  A lot of Classic American Films that are not clearly Film Noir, have Film Noir elements.   The word "noir" means "black", so FILM BLACK? Does it REALLY mean ANY film with a dark element from a particular time period with common elements?   

Clash by Night, 6 out of 10.

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: They Won't Believe Me (1947)
« on: May 11, 2021, 01:32:58 PM »
Yes, I can see Milland doing it, but he would have brought something different to the role. Anyway, Young was very good casting.

I think it's funny that some commentators pipe up about Young being cast against type, as if it were some kind of new approach. In fact, Young was used that way several times, perhaps earliest in Hitchcock's Secret Agent (1936). Of course, he was the loyal Nazi in The Mortal Storm (1940). Also check him out in The Second Woman (1950).

I'm gonna check into those recommendations.

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: They Won't Believe Me (1947)
« on: May 08, 2021, 06:46:31 PM »
Its on TCM tonight at 8:00 PM uncut BTW

I caught this after seeing your post. This was very well done. Robert Young was fantastic but I can see Ray Milland in that role. My only gripe is the ending being yet again, controlled by the censors.  7.5 out of 10.

Other Films / Re: La resa dei conti aka The Big Gundown (1966)
« on: May 01, 2021, 09:16:28 PM »
I have the 4 disc Grindhouse set. I've  had it for a couple of years now and haven't opened it up yet.  The version I originally saw was on YouTube or somewhere and it wasn't a good print. Criterion is currently playing it and I got my first glimpse of how good this film really looks. I'm  gonna crack open my set now because of Criterion. 

Other Films / Re: The Tin Star (1957)
« on: February 21, 2021, 12:41:13 PM »
Man, this was good. Very good.  I didn't expect much and was pleasantly surprised.  I agree with most of the comments though about Perkins character.  He was over the top gullible.  Fonda was very good in this.  I liked Kip's character as well.  It was nice to see Van Cleef in this also.  Sure, the film was predictable in a lot of ways but who cares? It was very well done.  I'm scraping the barrel to find very good  Westerns at this point and it was nice to find this one.  8 out of 10.

Other Films / Re: Tombstone (1993)
« on: December 09, 2020, 08:21:10 PM »
Hey fluisterwoud you hit the nail right on the head!

That was Leone's chief complaint with American westerns, he thought the love/romance side plots killed the stories of a lot of good western films.

I said the same thing.  The romance subplots detract from American Westerns.  Butch and Sundace for instance,  spent about a third of its plot on the love triangle in that film.

  As far as the film thats the subject matter of this thread, it was well done for a modern Western. The Hollywood blockbuster treatment was there but it was somewhat restrained.  The romance stuff was there, but not over bearing.  7 out of 10 stars.

Other Films / Re: Cutthroats Nine (Condenados a vivir)(1972)
« on: November 29, 2020, 12:43:03 AM »
This was bad. Horrible plot and not much else.  2 out of 10...

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Li'l Duce's Reviews Palace
« on: September 08, 2020, 05:07:25 AM »
this is better than 8/10

I didn't like it so 8 is even high for me with that movie. 

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Rate The Last Movie You Saw
« on: September 07, 2020, 04:09:17 PM »
The Sleeping Car Murders (1965) 

CigarJoe turned me on to this:

Finally got around to watching this.  FABULOUS!  For some reason I knew this was gonna be good and it didn't let me down.   First off, the cast was fantastic.  It starts with my favorite French Actress ( who is gorgeous)  Simone Signoret.  Jean Louis Trintignant and Yves Montand headline a fabulous cast.  Next, the crazy good plot was made even better by fantastic cinematography and musical scoring.  Everything was very good here.  The fast paced and VERY nuanced plot was the obvious centerpiece.   It was VERY well done and directed.  It lost me in a LOT of places, but you were still able to figure out what was happening.  Its gonna take a rewatch to really hone in on the plot as it unfolds.  Its a must watch.  Thanks CigarJoe...   8 out of 10...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 20


SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines