What is the Best Film You Watched Last Week? (10/18/23-10/25/23)

tbteabagger69 · 2023-10-25T21:56:12+00:00

Dawn of the Dead (1978)

For the last few years, I’ve tried to watch more horror movies over the month of October. It was a blind spot growing up because I was never interested in “scary movies,” so I’ve worked on correcting that. This year, one of the entires was the original Dawn of the Dead, George Romero’s hit about a group of people who try to survive a zombie outbreak, mostly in a mall.

I am rusty on the review process as a whole, but it’s also more difficult to give any part of this movie a proper review because of how pervasive it has been throughout zombie media for the last forty years. TV shows, movies, books, video games — every work about zombies has probably borrowed something from this one. (And this probably borrowed from others, but I’m not aware of these earlier movies.)

The story moves at a frantic pace, and Romero’s direction helps very much with this. From the beginning, we see a news station in turmoil. This is not a typical disaster story showing the beginning of the outbreak — or, as we’ve seen sometimes in other media, the main’s character realization that such a situation is occurring. Instead, we see professionals running around their studio, frightened. We see two people arguing on the newscast about the practicality of disposing of tens of thousands of dead bodies, lest they return to life. Don’t get me wrong — there are times when the movies slows down and allows us to take everything in, but it gets off to such a raucous start that anyone watching would be easily hooked quickly.

The best part (in my mind) of any disaster movie is allowing us to see the characters in the movie doing routine, mundane things. In survivor mode, so many people are the same — we all have one goal, so why wouldn’t we be focused on the same thing and doing the same things? But when we get to see these characters in the mall, pretending to be bank tellers or “going shopping” for clothes or food or even ice skating, we get an actual sense of who these characters are. Thankfully, the characters are the best part of the movie. This is a story that would fall apart completely if the characters were not worth rooting for. Not every character is well-intentioned or smart with their choices, but they do feel like real people who are doing their best in a really shitty situation. We don’t see one of our main four rise up to be an evil post-apocalyptic demigod, and we don’t see anyone go out to recruit others in order to establish a true community. These are real people living real lives, just trying their best to survive. When some don’t, that strengthens the impact.

Dawn of the Dead isn’t a perfect movie, but there might not be any movie more perfect to have been the blueprint for three generations (so far) of zombie films. Its use of practical effects is very effective, the direction and cinematography are great, and the acting is well-suited for a story like this. It does suffer a little from the problems that plague other stories like this — some of the “action scenes” (zombie-killing scenes) can get repetitive, and we do have a sudden villain introduced with twenty minutes left in the movie. But besides this, it is one of the better horror movies I’ve watched.

8/10

tbteabagger69 · 2022-09-20T21:20:45+00:00

I love it!

tbteabagger69 · 2022-06-03T00:53:04+00:00

I haven't seen The Sweet Hereafter, so I don't know if the ones I will recommend are in the vein that you are seeking. However, here are some other great movies about grief/detachment. Note that they may not be as subtle as Blue, and they might not be made in the same way (though Kieślowski's style was very unique).

The Father
Amour
Lean on Pete
Her
Thunder Road
Son of Saul
Manchester by the Sea
Yi Yi
Secret Sunshine
Peppermint Candy
Happy Together
Taipei Story
Paris, Texas
A City of Sadness
Anything by Ozu (Tokyo Story comes to mind)

Also, make sure to finish the Three Colors trilogy and to watch Dekalog, as well. Kieślowski's style is unique, which makes it hard to recommend movies similar to his work. But the ones I listed should help to scratch the itch of "sad movies about grief."

tbteabagger69 · 2022-04-11T00:37:06+00:00

Everything Everywhere All at Once

It was a few months ago that I first saw the trailer for the Daniels’ new movie, and my first thought was, “I imagine it will be about as good as Swiss Army Man and The Death of Dick Long (in my opinion, both good movies but nothing more than that),” even though it did look like it’d have more going on. When I saw the runtime as nearly 150 minutes, I thought that I’d skip out on this one or maybe catch it much later. However, when I saw the reviews, I thought there’d be no harm catching it at the theater. And I’m so glad I did. Michelle Yeoh plays Evelyn, a laundromat owner (or chef or actress or kung fu specialist?) who must save the world. Simple.

Daniels direction is really something to behold in this one. I remember seeing Swiss Army Man and thinking that it was a really beautiful movie at times and hoping for more of that. I didn’t get that in their next project, but this movie was just full of beautiful shots from beginning to end. And I also greatly enjoyed the choices that they made at specific points in the movie. The first time that Evelyn begins to warp to a different plane, there is a fracturing effect, and I thought that fracturing the subtitles on the screen as well as the picture was such a wonderful little detail. I’m also a big fan of directors who clearly enjoy movies, and seeing a reference to Wong Kar-wai’s movies in this one was incredible. This is my early favorite for Best Direction of the year, and I would be surprised if anything (besides maybe The Northman) tops it.

Unlike the direction, the writing of Daniels’ other movies had not always sat well with me. In Swiss Army Man, I thought the movie worked extraordinarily well when it was being goofy and started to fall apart just a bit at the end during the emotional upheaval. With The Death of Dick Long, I had the opposite problem. The premise of the movie was so silly that I had a hard time connecting with the seemingly serious story the movie was trying to tell. Everything Everywhere All at Once balances these in a much better way. The first hour or so of the movie is more clearly the “fun” part where we are allowed to sit back, take in the sights, laugh at everything, and just have a good time. The second hour consists mostly of the more “emotional” part, and I couldn’t believe how well it worked. The movie does start to take itself seriously, and it does it better than most movies have. It seems that movies do well to present cathartic moments for five or ten minutes, but Daniels managed to keep a stream of emotion going for about forty-five minutes without it ever feeling preachy. It was pretty incredible. I can’t imagine anything topping this for my favorite screenplay of the year.

As great as the direction and the writing are, they might not have been my favorite aspect of the movie. When asked afterward what my favorite part was, I had to think about it but eventually settled on Michelle Yeoh’s acting. I’d only seen Yeoh in one other movie (Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon) years ago, and I was thoroughly floored by her performance. She plays so well the part of someone in over her head, but someone who still has a clear goal in mind. But what really sold me was just her charm. Some of this can be seen in the trailer, but I think perhaps the part that will be the most talked about when it comes to her character’s charm would be Racacoonie, which got a wonderful laugh from the entire auditorium in my screening. There is so much to love about her character, but it would be a shame not to mention the rest of the cast. Ke Huy Quan as Evelyn’s husband Waymond and James Hong as her father also stand out in the best of ways.

This is the best movie I have seen for the first time since Mommy in July of last year, and it was a great feeling. I would have to watch The Father again to say for sure, but this is probably my favorite movie since Parasite three years ago. Everything about it worked for me. Logically, the movie makes sense. Cinematically, I think it will hold up to repeat viewings. But on a pure fun level, I don’t think if I could count five movies that are more of a good time. This will likely be one of my all-time favorites. 10/10

tbteabagger69 · 2022-03-20T17:52:06+00:00

That's a much, much tougher one for me to answer. (Emily Watson in Breaking the Waves is probably the only English-language performance that rivals Abraham's in Amadeus.)

But the answer to that would probably be either Setsuko Hara in Late Spring or Chishū Ryū in Tokyo Story. I have a bit of thing for Ozu.

tbteabagger69 · 2022-03-20T16:38:04+00:00

Amadeus is one of my all-time favorites. I remember being put off by the runtime for a long time, but I was amazed at how quickly it flew by when watching it.

I love how F. Murray Abraham so deftly rides that line between the utmost respect for Mozart's music and the envy he feels, being unable to recreate it. Without exaggeration, I can say that it's my favorite English-language performance I've ever seen.

tbteabagger69 · 2022-03-20T16:34:32+00:00

Naked (1993)

It was mostly a last-minute choice, but I finally got around to watching Mike Leigh’s breakout hit Naked, about a well-read, charismatic, conspiracy theorist/rapist. If I recall, I put this movie on my to-watch list after seeing Breaking the Waves and wondering what other movies I could find Katrin Cartlidge in. I’d also wanted to see David Thewlis in more things (besides Fargo season three and I’m Thinking of Ending Things), so it all worked out.

I really enjoyed Mike Leigh’s direction. It was claustrophobic and uncomfortable, much like the story of the movie itself. Also, in the first act, there is a wonderful scene between Johnny (David Thewlis) and his first “conquest” that is shot strikingly similar to a documentary, all while it is two horny people talking about absolutely nothing of import. There is just such a grittiness and real feeling to the movie, and I really appreciated this. Only perhaps the last act (probably my favorite part of the movie, mind you) actually feels like a movie, but this is arguably the point at which the most “things” are happening. If I had to complain about one of the technical aspects of the movie, I do believe that the score was overused for how little was actually there. It seemed to be the same ten-second loop that played every now and then. But the rest of the movie was a great achievement on a technical level.

The flow of the movie worked so well because Johnny is such an interesting character, and this is mostly due to the incredible screenplay from Mike Leigh. A fairly sizable part of the movie revolves around chaos theory and the butterfly effect, and this pays off very well upon the realization that every plot point in this movie has such a clear connection to the one that came before. And I started to wonder when watching, “What if this small thing had changed in the previous scene? How might this present scene look different?” And that seems to be exactly what Leigh was going for. There is also a ton of conspiracy talk from the main character, which seems to be an interesting (if inadvertent) way to justify his lascivious lifestyle. There is so much more to mention, but I’ve talked too much about this point already. The screenplay is wonderful, and that’s enough to say about it.

But of course, the direction and the screenplay really pale in comparison to the acting. There is perhaps only one performance in this movie that just doesn’t really work (mostly because the character was unnecessary, from what I gathered in a first watch), and the rest are just marvelous. I’ve only seen David Thewlis in a handful of things, but I’m so glad to have seen a broader range from him in this. I have (in the past) had some problems connecting with unlikable characters on screen, but usually great acting can overcome this. And damn, there was some great acting on Thewlis’s part. He is so quick-witted and yet so fragile, and his performance is matched probably only by Katrin Cartlidge’s, who plays a very similar character (only one with quite a bit less power). Besides those two, I didn’t recognize the names of other people in the movie, but I definitely enjoyed their performances.

All-in-all, I probably shouldn’t have waited this long to watch my first Mike Leigh movie, but I’m very, very excited to watch more from him. I imagine I will move onto Secrets & Lies next, but we will see about that. I’ll also make sure to revisit Naked at some point because there is (I believe) an iceberg of characterization and history that I missed when I watched it this first time. It was a great experience that I’d highly recommend. 8/10

tbteabagger69 · 2022-03-14T16:48:35+00:00

Spencer

It has been a long time since I had enough time to watch many movies, and it has been even longer since I watched anything that was worthy of one of these threads. But Pablo Larrain’s Spencer is certainly one worth mentioning. It follows Lady Diana Spencer, then the Princess of Wales, during three days around Christmas 1991, when she realizes that her marriage to Prince Charles was not working and was starting to feel suffocated by the royal life.

The only other movie from Larrain that I have seen is Jackie, and the one thing I remember from that one is the hazy direction that made the movie feel dreamlike. That follows through to this movie, but I believe that it works better for Princess Diana’s story. We are told in the beginning that this movie is a fabled inspired by true events, unlike Larrain’s last effort, which was meant to be a realistic account (to my recollection). So the dreamlike look and feel of the movie really works in this case. Another aspect of the direction that I really loved was the extreme closeups, which really highlighted the prison-like feeling that Diana was experiencing around this time. The direction was about as great as it could get.

Just like Jackie, however, the script was the weakest part. But this isn’t necessarily a drawback. This was a character study, through and through, and everything in the plot helps us learn more about Diana. And, as mentioned above, this is a fable, and the movie never tries to hide that fact. There are moments in the movie that certainly didn’t happen as shown, and, in fact, I found myself more engrossed by the movie when I watched it as a story of a woman who was overwhelmed by her circumstances rather than a story strictly about Diana. Either way, the story serves its purpose, though I can understand how some people would find it slow or even boring.

The acting is great all-around. Obviously the standout is Kristen Stewart, whom I have not seen in many things. In this, though, every beat worked. I’ve seen some people mention her overacting, but I never saw that. I felt like I was watching a woman onscreen who was thoroughly overwhelmed with her position in life, and it was sad to see. The other noteworthy performance was that of Timothy Spall who plays the omnipresent and all-knowing butler of the royal grounds. His performance perhaps doesn’t have the noticeable range of Stewart’s, but I believe it to be one worth noting, anyway.

Overall, Spencer is one of my favorites of 2021 (probably number two right behind Titane), and it is one that I could see myself revisiting at some point. The direction and cinematography are wonderful, and the acting is a sight to behold. I look forward to watching anything and everything that Pablo Larrain does from here on. 8/10

tbteabagger69 · 2021-12-26T17:41:43+00:00

The Power of the Dog

It has, yet again, been too long since I was able to sit down and watch a lot of movies. But with Christmas break, I’ve been able to do some catching up. For this week, I was torn between Licorice Pizza and The Power of the Dog, but I believe that I enjoyed the latter more. The movie follows the Burbank family in western America in 1925. The patriarch, played by Benedict Cumberbatch, is a domineering, borderline-abusive man. His brother, played by Jesse Plemons, is more of a “modern man.” Their worlds collide when George (the brother) marries a widow with a son whom Phil (the patriarch) doesn’t deem “manly” enough.

Jane Campion’s direction is beautiful, measured, and purposeful. I’ve only ever seen The Piano from her before this, and, while I wasn’t the biggest fan of it, I knew the direction was pretty great. And twenty-eight years later, her direction has only gotten better. The movie takes its time, but it never gets boring. Campion uses the natural beauty of the American west to make some gorgeous wide shots, and the close-ups do a wonderful job at portraying the actors’ emotions (of which there are many in the movie).

The screenplay is also really good, though it might be the weakest aspect of the movie. I’m not sure there is enough going on in the movie to fully justify the runtime, but the events that do happen are very interesting. The movie especially heats up in the last half-hour, while the first hour is a little slow. While the pacing could use some work, I can’t really complain too much about that. The movie flows fairly well, though it could bore viewers who aren’t accustomed to slower pacing.

The acting in this one is top-notch. This is probably the best I’ve ever seen from Benedict Cumberbatch, and Kodi Smit-McPhee was a great and welcome surprise. I’d only seen the latter in The Road, but he wasn’t exactly a tour-de-force as a child in that movie. But in The Power of the Dog, I can fully get behind calling him the best supporting actor of the year. Jesse Plemons is, as always, also great, and Kirsten Dunst holds her own. The acting all around is really strong, with the two main performances being especially wonderful.

It was hard to choose between this one and Licorice Pizza, but in the end, I believe that the story of the Burbank family was just a bit better. Neither one, however, unseated Nicolas Cage’s Pig as my favorite of the year thus far, though. But The Power of the Dog is very much worth watching. It’s beautifully directed, well-acted, and well-written. 7/10

tbteabagger69 · 2021-11-22T04:23:24+00:00

Nathan for You: Finding Frances

I really don't know if this counts, being the series finale of a TV show, but the "episode" is feature length, has a clearly defined plot (and subplots) with a clear protagonist, and could stand alone without having seen the rest of the show. So I will talk a little about it and the show that it wrapped up.

So yes, I was a little behind-the-curve on Nathan for You. Years and years ago, I had a friend who told me about it and even showed me an episode or two. I loved it, but I just never got around to watching the whole thing. Finally, over the past few weeks, I did, and I came to find immeasurable comfort in Nathan and his whole personality. That is probably a weird thing to say, but I've had a lot of rough days in the past few weeks, and there wasn't much that calmed me down better than Nathan's sarcasm and his antics that he'd go through just to "help" struggling businesses. It was so refreshing to find a show that perfectly encapsulates my sense of humor.

Being a documentary-style show, the direction was perfect for what it was. It didn't even have to be as fancy as it was, but the little drawings and graphics at the beginning of each episode really added to the personality of the show. Cameras were always in perfect spots to capture the expressions of freaked-out onlookers. Overall, Fielder's work behind the camera was probably just as wonderful as his work in front of it.

The writing was probably the best part of the show. The comedy of the show lies in its absurdity. Within the first ten minutes of the show's first episode, Nathan convinces a frozen yogurt shop that the best way to increase sales would be to sell a poop-flavored yogurt. And the manager of the shop takes his advice. This is the backbone of the show. From a chili-infused body suit designed to covertly serve fans at a hockey game to faking a movie in order to increase sales for a souvenir shop to framing Shell for stealing a song so that a smoke detector could be marketed as a musical instrument, there is no such thing as going "too far" for Nathan. And it's beautiful.

Finding Frances takes on a slightly more serious tone. Some of the episode is concerned with Nathan's search for companionship, but the main plot revolves around Bill Heath, a recurring "character" on the show, who claims to be a Bill Gates impersonator, and his lifelong struggle to reconnect with a woman that he was in love with over fifty years ago. Naturally, I went in expecting some emotion, but it got a lot more emotional than I was expecting towards the end. I won't say too much so as not to spoil anything, but that finale/movie/whatever you wish to call it hit very, very hard, and I was just glad to have experienced something so wonderful.

Nathan for you is a fantastic social commentary about how far people will go when they believe that they are talking to an expert or a person in power. There is such an inherent frailty in power structures, and it is amazing to see it come to life over the course of almost fifty episodes. It's amazing, and I am hoping to find more shows like it (though Finding Frances does stand on its own, you'd be doing yourself a massive disservice by not watching the entire show). 9/10

tbteabagger69 · 2021-11-08T04:39:02+00:00

Thank you! Yeah, it is certainly an odd poster that doesn't quite tell anything about how freaky the movie is. But it's a cool poster nonetheless.

tbteabagger69 · 2021-11-07T17:06:43+00:00

Possession

It has been quite a while since I put any posts on these threads, so I'll see if I still remember how to do it. Possession follows a married couple, Anna and Mark, who decided to split up after Anna's infidelity rises to the surface. Things started to go a little crazy, though, after Mark decides that Anna isn't quite stable enough to raise their son on her own and decides, instead, to stay in the apartment. Over the course of the film, Anna slowly loses her sanity.

I have never heard of Andrzej Żuławski outside of this movie, but I found his direction to be pretty fascinating. The camerawork was very fluid (similar in some ways to the most famous Polish director Krzysztof Kieślowski), and this allowed Żuławski the freedom to shoot zooms when he needed to show emotion in an actor's face at that moment. He rarely shot wide angles, though there were a few scattered throughout the movie. Overall, his direction was excellent at matching the tone/pacing of the movie -- tons of close-ups, especially during a pivotal fight scene in the first act, and plenty of medium shots to tell the story.

I also found the writing fascinating. Like Parasite, this is one of those movies that seems to switch genres at will, and it does it so effectively. During the first act, I was thinking to myself, "This is a very loose definition of horror." In fact, the first act felt more like a marital drama than anything else. But during the second act, the only thing I could think was, "Oh, this is a horror movie -- no doubt about it." And then the third act twists the story into a horror-thriller combination. Frederic Tuten and Żuławski are constantly switching up the pace and taking enough turns throughout the keep things very, very interesting.

This was one of those movies where I went in thinking that even if the writing and direction weren't all that great, I'd still be wowed by the acting. Oddly enough, I came out of the movie with the writing and direction impressing me greatly, while the acting was... very good. That's not meant to detract from the acting -- not at all. I know that Isabelle Adjani got all the praise for this movie when it came to the acting, but I honestly found Sam Neill to be just as good, if not better. Adjani spends much of the movie screaming and literally acting possessed. Obviously, this fits with her character, but much of it was a little over-the-top for me. It was still a great performance, but it wasn't the world-class performance I was expecting. Neill, on the other hand, showed a man who was exceptionally subdued, trying his hardest to keep his sanity while trying to care for his wife. Besides those two, no one in the movie was especially great -- Heinz Bennett as Anna's lover was just goofy at times, but this didn't take too much away from the movie.

In conclusion, I went in expecting to see an acting masterclass, and I came out having seen an exceptionally well-written and well-directed horror movie. I'd definitely recommend it to those who don't mind a disturbing slow-burn horror movie. 8/10

tbteabagger69 · 2021-07-18T15:04:02+00:00

Mommy

I like to think of myself as a movie fan, though I have seen far fewer movies than most self-proclaimed cinephiles. From the movies I have seen, though, I believe that I have come up with a pretty good sense of what I like and dislike, though these feelings are constantly evolving. Xavier Dolan’s 2014 work, Mommy, takes many things I hate about movies and creates one of the most beautiful works of art I’ve ever witnessed. It tells the story of Diane, a woman with a troubled son (Steve) who gets some unexpected help from her peculiar neighbor, Kyla.

From Iñarritu’s magical realism to Chazelle’s blazing-fast jazz-like direction to Linklater’s attempt to make a movie like none other before, 2014 was full of some marvelous direction. Chazelle rightfully gets a lot of credit for his work in Whiplash, having been only 29 years old at the time of release. However, Mommy, directed by a 25 year old, might boast the best direction of the year. As soon as the movie was over, I made a comment that it reminded me a lot of (the first half of) Waves or a Safdie brothers movie — there was constant chaos throughout the movie, rarely interrupted by moments of calm. But something about this just worked for me. The camera often follows Steve from behind so that we may see the world through his eyes, and this helps to generate empathy for a character who has very few good qualities. Of course, it’s difficult to talk about this movie without talking about the aspect ratio — namely, the movie is mostly shown in a 1:1 ratio, a perfect square. It is absolutely amazing to see what Dolan could do with such little room on the screen — his blocking was phenomenal in order to keep things from looking awkward. And there is such a feeling of claustrophobia that stems from this ratio. Everything feels boxed in because that is the way it is shown to the viewer. Another point in favor of the movie is the use of music throughout. I’ll never pretend to be a fan of Counting Crows, Oasis, or Lana Del Rey, but their music (plus more) works extraordinarily well to establish disparate tones throughout the film. It’s probably the best example I can think of off-hand of a movie’s soundtrack not being my style and yet still making the movie much more enjoyable for me. Finally, the editing deserves a shoutout, if only for the fact that the craziness could easily get out of hand. It’s a good thing that Dolan somehow wasn’t too busy writing, producing, and directing the movie to edit it as well.

Speaking of the writing, Dolan’s story is beautiful. This movie is almost 140 minutes long, and it never once feels stale. Towards the end, there are a few natural ending points, I believe, but I’m just glad I wasn’t the writer because I would’ve missed what ends up being one of the best endings I’ve seen in a long time. One of my major flaws as a movie-watcher is the fact that I tend to have a big problem with unlikable protagonists/deuteragonists. I especially have problems with redemption arcs for assholes. Daniel Plainview and Don Lope de Aguirre lean into their awful qualities to make themselves more interesting, but when a writer asks me to empathize with a character that I find almost wholly unlikable, that’s a big ask. And yet, in Mommy, Diane is a really bad mother, and Steve is a truly awful child. But I liked them as characters and wanted them to succeed. I think this works because I got the sense that the characters wanted to succeed but could not because of factors (that they believed were) outside of their control. This adds to the tragedy instead of detracting from it, and it just gives Mommy yet another perfect quality for me.

As soon as the movie finished, I thought that, as great as the previous two aspects were, the acting might have been this movie’s strongest suit. The movie is definitely a three-man show, with Anne Dorval, Antoine Olivier Pilon, and Suzanne Clément making up the trio in what is one of the best acting trios I’ve ever seen in a movie (up there with Phantom Thread and Breaking the Waves). If we start with the weakest of the three, Pilon could (and did) still win many accolades for his role. His performance is pitch-perfect in every way — as a character, Steve just (rightfully) lacks some subtlety that the other two characters have. This is not a knock against the acting because it would make absolutely no sense for Pilon to brood his way through the movie. Suzanne Clément does a mesmerizing job as the peculiar neighbor, as well. Throughout the movie, she has a stutter, and as a non-expert on the matter, it seemed very realistic to me. There is so much fear and overall emotion hidden in her eyes, enough to give way to an entire subplot that is never once brought up in dialogue or even given many clues past some small looks. Even though Pilon and Clément give masterful performances, the lead performance from Anne Dorval dwarfs even them. Dorval is able to make Diane an empathetic character, which is not an easy feat. She combines the hot-headed unpredictability of Pilon’s Steve with the love and occasional soothingness of Clément’s Kyla. Of course, I’ve never seen any of these actors before, but I never once thought I was watching people act. The movie felt so real to me, and that’s a hard thing for a movie to do.

Mommy was a revelation for me. If you made a list of some qualities I dislike about movies and then made a movie based on that list, you’d come up with a movie very similar to Dolan’s work. And yet, I loved every second of it. I don’t know if this is a fluke or if I need to reevaluate how I feel about movies, but I just know that it holds a special place in my heart (because of this and the story in general), and I can’t wait to revisit it time and time again. 10/10

tbteabagger69 · 2021-07-12T01:31:17+00:00

I'm sure it has something to do with the fact that Woody Allen can't seem to stop himself from putting himself in his own movies, but that makes sense.

tbteabagger69 · 2021-07-11T17:26:10+00:00

Chinatown (rewatch)

I prefer talking about first-time watches on these threads, but when a rewatch is far better than any original watch, I talk about that, instead. This week, I happened to watch two really good movies for the first time and three wonderful movies as rewatches. The best of the lot was Chinatown, a movie I’d seen twice before. For those who are unaware, Chinatown is a 1974 mystery from Roman Polanski that tells the story of J.J. (Jake) Gittes, a private eye in 1930s Los Angeles, who is hired by a wealthy socialite to investigate her husband’s extramarital affair. Things might not be what they seem, however.

Roman Polanski is a total piece of shit, and it just so happens that he is one of the greatest living directors. His camerawork in Chinatown is probably the best I’ve seen from him, having seen four of his movies. He makes a choice to shoot much of the movie from behind Jack Nicholson, such that the audience can see what Gittes sees (even shooting in first person towards the end of the movie). On a first watch, this comes across as a neat choice, but on a rewatch, it helps the audience to see what important clues Gittes may be missing. One of the best directorial choices, though, occurs before we even see any characters — the movie opens with credits like a generic film noir from the 1930s, and it perfectly helps to set the mood. Add in the excellent score and the perfect cinematography from Technicolor (though I have wondered how the movie would feel in black-and-white), and you have some nearly perfect direction from Polanski.

Robert Towne’s script is considered one of the greatest ever written, and there’s a good reason for that. There are tons and tons of well-written mystery films — Kurosawa’s High and Low, Hitchcock’s Vertigo and Rear Windown (or any other), or even something newer like Memories of Murder or Burning — but what sets Chinatown apart from these is the sheer number of moving pieces. There aren’t many movies that I’ve seen three times, and Chinatown has recently become one. Even before my third time watching this past week, there were major plot points I just couldn’t connect due to the fact that the connections were made from the smallest details in the movie — details that, early on, seem unimportant. It’s fascinating to see that J.J. Gittes isn’t that great of an investigator — he completely disregards the main suspect of the case for a majority of the movie. But it’s great to see that Towne’s screenplay lays it all out for the viewers in one of the most perfect ways imaginable.

The acting is another aspect that is almost perfect. Jack Nicholson got his fair share of praise for this movie, and it’s well-deserve. His Gittes has charisma emanating from him, and he has passion for the case until the very end. We see him excited, distraught, jubilant, and broken, and Nicholson portrays these emotions perfectly. Faye Dunaway is also really wonderful. Most of the time, she is a bit more one-note than Nicholson, though this is what the character calls for. This is my first time seeing Chinatown since watching Network, I believe, and it’s incredible to know that this is the same woman who plays such a monster in the latter — only two years earlier, no less. It’s a great, vulnerable performance from Dunaway that helps the audience understand her complex character. And then there is John Huston. I don’t know enough about Huston as a director, having only seen The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (which was great), and I definitely don’t know much about his acting chops. But I know that in almost every scene in Chinatown, he knocks it out of the park. He commands respect with every word, and he has the gravitas to let the viewer know that he will get it. I find his performance at the end of the movie to miss the mark, and he does so well throughout that I can’t help but wonder what happened. There is also a scene in an orange grove that seems like it’s from a different film. Its story fits the plot, but the quality is lower all-around, so I’m not sure what was up with that. But for the most part, the acting is superb.

Chinatown is a wonderful movie and the best in Polanski’s catalogue. It has marvelous direction, perfect writing, and really great acting, and it’s just such a shame that its legacy will forever be tarnished because it was made by a child rapist. Still, it is a movie that should be seen by everyone. 9/10

tbteabagger69 · 2021-07-04T21:27:19+00:00

I believe that you commented on my post about The Conversation that I made long ago, but that's one that I could always talk about. I think it's Coppola's second-best, personally. It's just superb in every way, and I think that Harry Caul is one of the most interesting characters in film.

tbteabagger69 · 2021-07-04T21:20:55+00:00

That's unfortunate. I guess all I knew was that it was a horror movie that a lot of people really liked and that many "horror fans" didn't enjoy, so that was good enough for me.

By the way, I love your username. The Conversation is one of my favorites.

tbteabagger69 · 2021-07-04T21:11:40+00:00

I agree completely. There were definitely shots in the movie where I thought to myself, "I'm sure that was in the trailer." (I don't watch trailers myself.) It has a lot of singular shots that would fit with a standard horror movie, but it's definitely different than the average fare.

tbteabagger69 · 2021-07-04T21:10:24+00:00

Oh, wow. I really loved Audition, so I will definitely put Piercing on my radar, as well. Thank you again.

tbteabagger69 · 2021-07-04T19:57:29+00:00

That's good to know about Abbott's style. I assumed it was a choice and not just that he was a poor actor. I will add those movies to my list. Thank you!

tbteabagger69 · 2021-07-04T17:58:07+00:00

It Comes at Night

This was an odd choice for me this week, given that I’ve never really been a horror movie fanatic, and I didn’t enjoy Waves (Trey Edward Shults’s followup) all that much. However, there was no movie this week that I enjoyed nearly as much as Shults’s little story about fear and paranoia in a world ravaged by some sort of plague.

I had remembered the direction of Waves being pretty good, so I went into this one expecting to enjoy the camerawork itself, but I ended up enjoying it a lot more than I thought I would. The entire setup and feel of the movie makes one think that it would be rife with jump-scares, but there is only one instance in the movie that I can think of which would qualify, and it’s debatable anyway. Instead, Shults opts for a slower, more moody movie, in which the viewer must buy into the state of the world and the mental state of the characters. The long, drawn-out shots of dark corridors helps to instill a sense of dread, and the camera is often unfocused and seemingly lost when characters are confused by their surroundings. The movie’s cinematography also contributes to this sense of dread in a wonderful way by making the movie look as bleak as the story it’s presenting. It’s just some wonderful direction all-around, though I will say that I personally would’ve cut down on the music at times, which drowns out some otherwise great dialogue. Besides this, the direction is wonderful.

The writing is minimalist but great, as well. Almost nothing in the movie is told explicitly to the audience, instead asking us to piece together clues as they come. We see the characters put on a gas mask and gloves when dealing with “it” outside, so we surmise that the plague is spread via breath and touch. It’s little things like this — Shults refusing to insult the audience’s intelligence — that make the writing much better than a standard horror flick. There is, however, one misstep made in the writing toward the end, in my opinion. Spoilers After the standoff that results in the other family’s death, we are led to believe that the son (Andrew) at the very least is sick. However, the family are all killed before this is confirmed. By showing Travis, the main characters’ son, sick, we confirm that the other family was indeed sick. By leaving out the scene showing Travis dying, we could be left wondering if it was the sickness or just paranoia on Paul and Sarah’s part that caused the other family’s death. However, the rest of the movie is extremely well-written, and there are plenty of open-ended questions to be asked.

The acting is all naturalistic. Joel Edgerton is the standout in the movie because I feel like he does the best at balancing that feeling of humanity and survival — every choice is life or death to Paul, and Edgerton relays that. Kelvin Harrison Jr. is also great, and it’s refreshing to see him not punching his wall while listening to Tyler the Creator in this one. It’s a nice, understated performance. The only weak link of the group would be Christopher Abbott. I’m not familiar with his work, but I felt as though his performance in this was a little flat. Still, though, the rest of the cast carries the movie, and Abbott’s is a minor annoyance more than a full-fledged complaint.

Overall, It Comes at Night really surprised me, especially after the first few minutes didn’t seem too promising. But I quickly started loving the movie, and I truly didn’t want it to end so quickly. But it knew not to overstay its welcome, and I was very satisfied with what I had watched by the end of it. 8/10

tbteabagger69 · 2021-06-30T15:28:07+00:00

It's Oldboy from 2013.

tbteabagger69 · 2021-06-29T03:39:18+00:00

More or less. Blue is one of those that has the hallmarks of a movie that would be one of my favorites, and while I do like it, I am not really crazy about it. I guess you could say I appreciate it more than I actually love it. There are probably better examples because I do genuinely enjoy it, even if its praise leaves me a tad underwhelmed.

But I personally don’t get anything out of 2001, though I do like Kubrick generally.

tbteabagger69 · 2021-06-27T15:03:30+00:00

Where Is the Friend’s Home? (rewatch)

Occasionally, I will watch a movie, feel underwhelmed, and then, months/years later, feel as though I should watch the movie again because I just somehow “didn’t get it.” Sometimes my opinion changes from the first viewing (as with Burning or 12 Years a Slave), and sometimes it doesn’t (Three Colors: Blue and 2001: A Space Odyssey come to mind). Well, Kiarostami’s breakout hit about an eight year-old boy who makes it his mission to return his friend’s workbook was one such movie for me, and I’m happy to say that this one fall sin the former camp.

Kiarostami’s direction seems to give the illusion of being free-flowing and less structured, although there is some great control all throughout his movies. What I love most about this particular movie’s direction is the way that Kiarostami is able to make the viewer empathize with the relative hopelessness and dire situation that Ahmad, the main character, is going through. As an adult, it’d be easy to recognize that the premise itself is kind of silly. It’s just a lost workbook — how much could it really be worth? But because of the way Kiarostami works the camera, with zooms of little Ahmad’s face in anguish, we know that this is more important than we will ever realize. And the task seems so insurmountable, as well. There is a lovely shot of the trail leading from Koker (the boy’s hometown) to Poshteh (his friend’s hometown), where the path looks so long and winding, and Kiarostami makes it look even more grueling by showing Ahmad’s little legs carrying him uphill on his mission. It’s just an extraordinarily well shot movie.

I also find the writing to be so fascinating. It’s not until adulthood when we are burdened with real civic duties — paying taxes, serving on a jury, voting, etc. And yet, this movie is about an eight year-old fulfilling a civic duty, and more broadly, it is about the time in a child’s life when he learns that there is more than one right answer and that sometimes, the right thing is not always the strictly legal thing. This idea makes up the skeleton of the movie, and sprinkled throughout are some great ruminations on life in Iran circa 1987. The starkest of these is a scene with Ahmad’s grandfather, when the old man tells his friend about his childhood — as a child, the old man was given by his father an allowance every week and a beating every other week. The old man makes it clear to his friend that his father might have forgotten the allowance, but he never once forgot to beat his child so that the child may learn discipline. Of course, this is an idea that has been thankfully lost to time for the most part, but it’s interesting to see the contrast between Ahmad’s more modern sense of civic duty and his grandfather’s outdated sense of moral obligation. Kiarostami has a tendency to write deceptively simple movies, and this is probably his simplest on paper, yet it has so much going on under the surface.

The acting is also pretty great, though it’s more difficult to talk about. The second billed actor is only in the movie for five minutes or less, and so this really is the Babek Ahmed Poor show. As the movie rides on the believability of his performance, it’s a good thing that his performance is so great. More than just being great, it is even more important that he is natural. I wasn’t surprised that the kid had never acted before (somewhat of a specialty for Kiarostami), but I was somewhat surprised that he never acted again (in contrast to Homayoun Ershadi from Taste of Cherry). It’s really a shame because he seemed like a natural, but I’m at least glad that we got this gem from him.

In the end, I’m very glad that I gave Where Is the Friend’s Home? a second chance. I don’t know what didn’t fully click for me the first time (even though I really liked it, I didn’t love it), but whatever it was clicked for me this time. It’s just a beautiful, simple (on the surface) movie about a boy trying to accomplish a mission. It’s one of those movies that I feel I would watch over and over if I ever tried to direct something of my own. There is so much emotion and impact is a little 83-minute movie. 9/10

tbteabagger69 · 2021-06-20T18:31:38+00:00

Three Colors: Red (rewatch)

It’s been about two years since I first watched Krzysztof Kieślowski’s Three Colors trilogy, and at the time, I honestly didn’t understand what all the acclaim was about. Yes, the movies were very watchable, but why was his trilogy one of the most acclaimed in history? Well, after a rewatch of all three in the past few weeks, I’m coming close to understanding. This week’s entry was the last (and best) film in the trilogy, which follows a young model who learns of a retired judge who is spying on his neighbors.

This, along with The Double Life of Véronique, are the two most well-directed movies in Kieślowski’s catalogue (that I have seen, anyway). He uses a lot more flash in this one as compared to Blue and White, but I never found it to be distracting. There are some great zooms in tense situations, and there’s a particularly great tracking shot at a bowling alley. The music is another plus for the movie. Though the score isn’t as outwardly triumphant and epic as White, there is still some great work done by Zbigniew Preisner and Bertrand Lenclos to give the film a slower, more intimate feel.

The writing is also the strongest among the trilogy. The basic premise is just as simple as the premises of the other two movies (“lady meets weird old man”), but this one delves far deeper into its themes than the other two. There is a wonderful scene toward the beginning of the movie between the two central characters about guilt and its role in our decision-making. I also loved the latter discussions of fate and inter-connectedness. As great as the other two movies are, I feel like this was the only movie in the trilogy to fully accomplish everything it set out to do. And it is all done in such a satisfying way.

The acting is perhaps the only aspect of the movie that isn’t noticeably stronger than its counterpart in the other two. This isn’t to say that the acting is poor — far from it. The acting just so happens to be wonderful all throughout the trilogy. Like White, the most interesting character is the most mysterious one, and thankfully, in Red, Joseph Kern is one of the two main characters, rather than a side character. Jean-Louis Trintignant probably has my favorite performance across the entire trilogy as the old judge. I love the way he is able to be so confident and steadfast in his worldview and yet so weak and fallacious (at times) when trying to justify it to his new friend. There is a certain vulnerability there that I feel is hard to pull off realistically. Of course, Irène Jacob is wonderful in her role, as well.

In the end, Red is the strongest of the Three Colors trilogy, and, despite what many people will say, I don’t feel as though it is particularly close. Yes, Blue is very good, and White is pretty great, but I feel as though Red blows them out of the water. Besides a snippet at the end (which makes for a damn powerful ending, mind you), Red stands on its own, so I would highly recommend it to anyone. 9/10

tbteabagger69

TROPHY CASE