Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[noodles_leone]

Perceval le Gallois (1978) 11/10. A cinematic miracle: it's as if Rohmer was able to take his cameras back to 12th Century France and record, not real life (boring), but a dramatic performance of Chrétien de Troyes' Arthurian romance. And it's a musical! With Fabrice Luchini as the parapetetic title character. Rohmer is inordinately faithful to his source--he leaves that which was never finished incomplete, and does not shy away from that bane of modern storytelling, digressions. I have loved this film since I first saw it (at SIFF) in 1978, and it gets better every time I return to it. And now I can watch it endlessly on Blu!

Luchini often relates the shooting of this movie on stage (he's doing La Fontaine, Céline and others readings that usually become one man shows) and it's hilarious.

[Dust Devil]

The Brotherhood of the Bell (1970) -7.5/10

Great acting, atmosphere and pacing for a TV movie; it could have been even better without the naive ending.

[dave jenkins]

Luchini often relates the shooting of this movie on stage (he's doing La Fontaine, Céline and others readings that usually become one man shows) and it's illarious.

You've seen him do this?

[noodles_leone]

You've seen him do this?

Yes I did! I saw him three times on stage and it was in one of his "shows". There may be a version of this on YouTube, I'll try to find it.

[noodles_leone]

Steve Jobs (2015) 8.5/10
Great writing. Probably Sorkin's finest work, especially on structure. It's a shame Fincher wasn't around this time to refocus the film on Jobs' achievements and actual work rather than on his family issues. I was never a fan of Boyle, but the guy is inventive and really managed to add emotion to that cold huis-clos.

[noodles_leone]

You've seen him do this?

Here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VSB3Novw3ew

He starts out explaining how he got casted by Rohmer while Luchini was cutting hairs (his job at the time): Eric spotted a Nietzsche book in Luchini's hand that he had in his coat (Rohmer had the German version). He talks a bit about the preparation for the role and then goes on reanacting the film and the audience's reaction at the premiere. Deleuze, Foucault, Lacan, Barthes but also people like Fanny Ardant and Depardieu were attending.

[Groggy]

Steve Jobs (2015) 8.5/10
Great writing. Probably Sorkin's finest work, especially on structure. It's a shame Fincher wasn't around this time to refocus the film on Jobs' achievements and actual work rather than on his family issues. I was never a fan of Boyle, but the guy is inventive and really managed to add emotion to that cold huis-clos.

It stinks!

[dave jenkins]

Here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VSB3Novw3ew

He starts out explaining how he got casted by Rohmer while Luchini was cutting hairs (his job at the time): Eric spotted a Nietzsche book in Luchini's hand that he had in his coat (Rohmer had the German version). He talks a bit about the preparation for the role and then goes on reanacting the film and the audience's reaction at the premiere. Deleuze, Foucault, Lacan, Barthes but also people like Fanny Ardant and Depardieu were attending.

Much, much thanks!

[noodles_leone]

It stinks!

I'm afraid you inadvertently watched the Ashton Kutcher version.

[dave jenkins]

Two from Mizoguchi:
Utamaro and his Five Women (1946) - 7/10. A fictionalized account of the great wood block printer, of whom little is actually known. The five women in this are mostly his models; the film sticks close to them as Utamaro tends to stay home and paint. The film is OK. Actually looking at his prints is more interesting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utamaro

The Lady From Musashino (1951) - 7/10. Kinuyo Tanaka plays the title character, a woman caught between giri and ninjo, between tradition and a modernity without principles. Another film that is just OK. I guess I have a soft spot for it because I actually worked in Musashino for 6 years. The city just launched an English website for tourists two weeks ago: http://musashino-kanko.com/en/index.html

[Groggy]

I'm afraid you inadvertently watched the Ashton Kutcher version.

Nope.

[noodles_leone]

Nope.

(I was offering you an easy way out.)

I'm afraid you're very wrong, then.

I think when judging these films (Jobs and The Social Network) you're forgetting the one and only reason to watch them: what these guys have accomplished. TNS did a better work than SJ on this topic (also, maybe Facebook is a more interesting invention than anything Jobs ever did, but I suspect it's more about Fincher having a better idea of what he's doing than Boyle) but that's still the key point that you completely left out of your reviews although the films heavily deal with it.

[Groggy]

The useless three-act structure for Steve Jobs, plus the flat characterization, overshadowed any of its positive attributes. Hated how the movie kept leaping forward in time, then awkwardly doubling back to fill in exposition.

you're forgetting the one and only reason to watch them: what these guys have accomplished.

Not forgetting, I simply don't see how that's important. An unimportant person can be the subject of a great movie; a great man can make a boring movie.

[noodles_leone]

The useless three-act structure

? How is it useless? I thought it was a great idea when I first heard about it in the early stages of the development of the film but now I've seen it I like the idea so much better. It's a very elegant solution to the most dangerous trap for every biopic: becoming a biography.

for Steve Jobs, plus the flat characterization,

Definitely flatter than in TSN, but I'll still be proud the day I'll write characters like these ones.

overshadowed any of its positive attributes. Hated how the movie kept leaping forward in time, then awkwardly doubling back to fill in exposition.

I'll just assume you missed the point here. That was actually the smartest structural move by Sorkin. I'll steal it as soon as possible.

Not forgetting, I simply don't see how that's important. An unimportant person can be the subject of a great movie; a great man can make a boring movie.

Your last sentence is true but does not apply to these two films, because they aren't biopics. What these guys achieved is as important as, say, adventure in Indiana Jones. It isn't the plot, it isn't the story but it's the heart of the film. It's what is supposed to talk to you. Just like I wouldn't advise anyone who dislike old west mythology to watch OUATITW, i wouldn't advise somebody who doesn't care for entrepreneurship to watch TSN or Steve Jobs.

[Groggy]

i wouldn't advise somebody who doesn't care for entrepreneurship to watch TSN or Steve Jobs.

Maybe I'll put it a simpler way. A movie about an entrepreneur be good, as in The Social Network. Or it can suck, as with Steve Jobs. The mere fact that it's about an entrepreneur is irrelevant to its quality.

I'll just assume you missed the point here.

No, I "get the point" of the structure and don't think it works. At all.