Recently viewed films

[BlueChair]

Are Red and I still the only people around here who have seen No Country For Old Men?

[martinfoyle]

Looks like it, it'll be here in a week or so, looking forward to it. Off to see I'm Not There for a second time tonight, it's that good.

[mood swung]

Are Red and I still the only people around here who have seen No Country For Old Men?

I saw Elf about 10 times over the holidays - does that count?

[Mr. Average]

I saw "No Country" over the extended weekend. Darkest of the Coen Bros films, in my opinion. Relatively unrelenting in its unrelenting nature, which is the thinly veiled pathological violence as the personification of hell, of the worst of times, or the bane to all things good.

In the love CSNY album "Four Way Street" Neil Young introduces a song "Don't Let it Bring You Down" by saying "it sort of starts out real slow then fizzles out altogether". This was the way I saw the overall audience reaction to the film. I liked the symbolism of unrelenting obstacles that invade us, at some level, everyday of our lives, and that we can either overcome or give in to.

But don't go expecting a rollicking good time for all. It is a downer on almost all levels.

As usual, Tommy Lee Jones is incredible. Worth the price of admission to see his effortless portrayal of the tired lawman. Woody Harrelson played something that was like a hybrid of Larry Flynt, Mickey from Natural Born Killers, and the White Guy who supposedly could not Jump. It did not work.

This is a sort of tangential remake of "A simple plan" another Coen's film that I think is better than Fargo and is a brilliant study in human deception and greed. And real, real, real. So in the long run, give me "A Simple Plan" over this movie and I am happy.

[Who Shot Sam?]

Are Red and I still the only people around here who have seen No Country For Old Men?

I saw Elf about 10 times over the holidays - does that count?

My kids love the bit where he jumps onto the Christmas tree.

I meant to see a film or two over the holidays, but never made it to the theaters.

[mood swung]

I love the part where he gives Dad a gift for Someone Special...

and the part where he sticks his head over the bathroom stall and says 'have you seen these toilets? they're ginormous!'

or the part where Miles comes to help with the book and Buddy thinks he's an elf. An angry elf. Or maybe a South Pole elf.

I just like to smile. Smiling's my favorite.

[BlueChair]

This is a sort of tangential remake of "A simple plan" another Coen's film that I think is better than Fargo and is a brilliant study in human deception and greed. And real, real, real. So in the long run, give me "A Simple Plan" over this movie and I am happy.

Hey Mr. A, A Simple Plan was actually directed by Sam Raimi (of Evil Dead and Spider-Man fame) and had no involvement by the Coens. Or did you mean Blood Simple, their first film?

I think I enjoyed the film more than you did, but I definitely agree that Woody's character seemed like kind of a waste.

[Mr. Average]

I blew it. Thanks for the correction, as I definitely thought "A Simple Plan" was a Coen Bros film. It certainly has that feel. Doesn't change my impression of A Simple Plan, though. Great study in the cancer of greed.

[johnfoyle]

Se, jie ('Lust, Caution')looks great but I couldn't believe any of the characters so it became just a series of pretty pictures ; a tv half-hour lost in a two hour epic.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0808357/

[Otis Westinghouse]

Guardian were more favourable:

http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/C ... 63,00.html

BBC3 seem to be having a Tarantino season, showing Pulp Fictin on Christmas Day (great to see it again, and my almost 15 year old boy loved it too, he's at an age where Tarantino seems like the coolest director ever), then Kill Bill 1, which I'd seen before and found pretty tedious, though of course very well done, blah, blah. what was silly was when I saw 1 before, on the telly, they didn't show 2, and 1 is rather pointless without 2 ('she wants revenge, so what?'). 2 is a more interesting proposition. Still no comparison to Pulp Fiction.

[martinfoyle]

Felt much the same way about the Lee film as John. Beautiful visuals, but totally uninvolving. During the supposedly controversial sex scene I kept wondering how may ice cubes were used, probably not the desired reaction.

[miss buenos aires]

I saw "No Country" and loved it. The Coen brothers definitely have a worldview... I liked the touch of, everyone who sees the chance for a little money immediately becomes an asshole (I speak of the various passers-by that Brolin and Bardem pay for help, and their friends' reactions—hope I'm not spoiling anything here).

Recently watched on DVD: The Godfather, Chinatown, Eastern Promises and Talk to Me. I think The Godfather and Chinatown have been hugely overrated. They both tell compelling stories, but they're not among the best films of the century, as several lists would have it. I think The Godfather, in particular, appeals to people at a level that doesn't have very much to do with the art of filmmaking.

Eastern Promises was very well done, but good Lord, people do some STUPID shit in that movie. Has anyone else seen it?

Talk to Me was really interesting—I put it in my queue on a whim and was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. Don Cheadle plays Petey Green, a DC DJ from the 60s who was apparently a big deal for a while, though I never heard of him. Cheadle, as always, is fantastic (I think he might be the best actor out there right now), and Chiwetel Elijor (sp?) is also really great (his role could have been a lot weaker than he made it). It's also fun to see a biopic of someone you've never heard of, because you're not sitting there going, "Oh yeah, here's the scene where he first gets into drugs, and here's where he meets the love of his life." Check it out...

[Richard]

Miss BA, If you have the inclination I would love you to elaborate on your comment about The Godfather. It has been one of my favorites for many years. I like Godfather II even more.

I have always enjoyed it for what I thought were the skills of Coppolla's craft. Much of the storytelling has become cliche now (see the very sub-standard Sopranos for evidence), but without acknowledging the filmmakers skill you only have the soap-like tale of a family saga soaked in blood. That might be compelling on its own, but was not new even when Hamlet was first performed. I have stood by The Godfather for telling its dark tale in a fresh and original way.

I ask because I have found that over time The Godfather is less well regarded, while in contrast the hack-work and hammy acting of Scarface is held in high esteem.

[Otis Westinghouse]

Then again recent TV list programmes such as '100 best films of all time' and some American body's 'Best American Films of All Time' (which was last done 10 years ago, and Citizen Kane is still number 1) both had Godfather or parts thereof flying high.

On what non-filmmaking level does The Godfather appeal to people? Compelling story, great acting, great script, great directing - sounds like good filmmaking to me.

[Richard]

True, Otis, I still see the Godfather well regarded in published lists. I guess I was reacting more to my own anecdotal evidence. In conversations about movies it seems to fare less well than Scarface or Sopranos etc.

Seeing American Gangster recently it is hard to not feel it works best when it tries to retell the family saga a la Godfather with its own 1970s Harlem milieu.
I enjoyed it, and didn’t even notice how excessively long it was.

[Otis Westinghouse]

Haven't seen that one. Sopranos does seem to be critically untouchable in the media and to discerning fans. My stock line is I tried one episode and thought 'Goodfellas with a shrink, so what?' OK it's something of an update of the genre and is class TV, etc., but how can you compete with cinematic classics of the genre such as Godfather and Goodfellas?

[ice nine]

Saw Juno. Excellent. I am proud to say that I own I Wish I Was A Carpenter and that the Sonic Youth cover is my favorite track.

Saw Sweeney Todd. Who knew that Capt. Jack Sparrow could carry a tune?

[miss buenos aires]

Okay, Otis and Richard, I will try to explain what put me off about The Godfather, hopefully a little articulately. Mostly I had a problem with Michael (I haven't yet seen Godfather II, so maybe he gets better). He's just a really opaque character, and his motivations seemed to be dictated by the needs of the plot. Here's a man who has spent his whole life trying to distance himself from "the family," and as soon as an attempt is made on Vito's life (which Michael had to have known was going to happen sooner or later), he's all, "Let's go gun some people down in a restaurant!" Then he goes to Italy and "falls in love" with some cute girl with whom he doesn't even share a language, and they get married before the bruise on his cheek is even healed. Then she gets blown up, so he pops up on Diane Keaton's doorstep and proposes immediately after not seeing her for how many years? Um, okay. The two most interesting characters, IMO, are Vito and Tommy. But Michael left me cold.

I also think that "a great film" should be, for lack of a better word, cinematic. The shot at the beginning, with the supplicant's little speech, that qualifies, to me. The juxtaposition of the baby's christening and the hits on the Five Families, that qualifies. But no other images or visual sequences from the movie stuck with me. Even the scene where Kay gets the door shut in her face, from all the times I'd seen it referenced, I had thought it would be more dramatic, somehow.

The "non-cinematic" reasons I suggested for its popularity are these: first of all, I think it does have a clever, subversive take on the American dream (as suggested by that first speech): work hard and play by the rules, and you'll get ahead. It's just a different kind of work and a different set of rules. Relatedly, I also think there is a very strong appeal to a depiction of a world with such a strict code of ethics. Betrayal and preying upon the weak are punished, severely. Justice, or this world's conception of it, is swift and implacable. And, in a way, these men (using the non-gender neutral term advisedly) are above our world, not subject to its rules. Cops are barely an inconvenience to the family's way of doing things. I think all of that does appeal on a level separate from the acting, directing, writing, etc.

[pophead2k]

Wow, MBA, that is a very compelling argument. I have always been a fan of The Godfather, but those are the best arguments against its almost universal popularity I've ever read. I have to agree that Michael's transformation in the movie is possibly contrived. However, I think the point that was being made is that no matter how far you travel, the 'family' has a pull on you that can't be overcome. At least not this family's pull.

I think you should see the Godfather II. Michael truly takes center stage and the dual plotlines help to continue the themes prevelent in I. Godfather III, IMHO, was pretty much a waste of celluloid (and not just because of Sofia).

[miss buenos aires]

Pophead, I agree with your point about the pull of the family, I just wish there were some kind of intermediary scene between "That's my family, that's not me" and "Let's hide a gun in the toilet."

I have actually have Godfather II from Netflix sitting on my coffee table right now! (I am going to rewatch "The Sopranos" soon and wanted to approach it with a bit more background this time around. Yes, I love "The Sopranos.")

[johnfoyle]

Recent viewing-
4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1032846/

Besides the thought provoking content ( basically , an abortion drama in 1980's Romania) this makes astonishing use of long takes. The lack of tricky editing means you get totally engrossed . I did bottle out and actually close my eyes for most of two scenes (after seeing it most of you will guess them) ; rarely has a film's content, for me, bypassed the format in such a way.

No Country for Old Men

The Coen Bros. latest ( in paid previews in Dublin this weekend) just about works. Looking as gorgeous as ever , the film slows to a crawl about twenty minutes before the end and reduces the impact of the overall production. The 1980's setting is only obliquely mentioned and will puzzle the uninformed viewer. I haven't read the source novel so maybe I'm missing out on something.

.......and ( one wet afternoon a few weeks ago) -

St Trinian's

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0964587/

The Saturday afternoon crowd of teenagers I saw it with had a total lack of reaction ; the 'Hogwarts for Pikes' line was the only one to get a laugh.

The real low point was when Everett and Firth's characters joke about having met before and how that was 'another country' , a risible reference to their break through roles in Another Country (1984). My loud groan got many a sideways glance.

[Otis Westinghouse]

The "non-cinematic" reasons I suggested for its popularity are these: ... I think all of that does appeal on a level separate from the acting, directing, writing, etc.

Good reasons suggested, and I wouldn't dispute them, but to me that's contradictory, as in the acting, directing and writing are all precisely what make these elements appeal so strongly. I think Part II is definitely the highpoint. It's years since I've seen it, and even longer since I saw part I, but recall vividly being enthralled by the quality of Pacino and everyhting else in II. When cinema is incredibly compelling, it is incredibly cinematic, no?

The Romanian abortion film was being RAVED about in Friday's Guardian, as it was during Cannes. 5 star masterpiece, etc. Sounds pretty unflinching.

Haven't seen much mention here of... whatever the Irish film about the Irish male D Rice-esque singer and the Czech girl was called. Lots of people on the Film 2007 review of the year raved about it as their fave.

John: well if you will go and see films like St Trinian's! I don't want to be overly influenced by reviews, but when they give something one star and say it's a national embarrassment, I know there are better ways to be spending my time and hard-earned!

[Richard]

Thanks for your thoughts MissBA.

Your take on Michael is interesting. He has become the decorated war hero. Vito himself seems to enjoy the legitimacy that Michael has forged for himself. I have always wondered though did Michael take this route to distance himself from the family? He was most likely drafted and being from an Italian/American family it was possibly encouraged to serve as a way of fighting the fascists that were ruling Italy and were in conflict with the Cosa Nostra families.
On returning Michael knows that Sonny will take over his father's empire, not Michael.
The sudden rush to violence that you see as out of character for Michael seems plausible. He grew up in a world full of that kind of violence. He has just returned a decorated war hero; he was not unfamiliar with killing. Also the code that you reference, that their world depends on would have demanded revenge for the attempt on Vito (and the killing of Sonny). Michael as the younger brother would have wanted to prove his mettle in the family and what better way than to avenge the family's dishonor (and remind their enemies of the many headed hydra that the family could be, take off one head and 100 will grow in its place.)
The sudden rush to marry when he is relocated to Italy is rash, but the hot-headed Sonny was his brother and they may share some of the same impulsive genes, if a little more controlled.
The return to Kay Adam (Keaton) was a more cynical decision. A chance to move the family in more accepted anglo circles.
Having said all that Michael is surely supposed to leave us cold. In fact as you will discover in Pt 2 he often makes your blood run cold. He is a cipher for us to view his world through, I just don't totally buy into the idea that his actions are totally unlikely.

You are right to be drawn to Tom Hagen. What a great character and amazing performance by Robert Duvall.

Sorry this is so disjointed. I hope it makes some sense. Be sure to post some thoughts when you have seen Pt2.

[BlueChair]

Saw Psycho on the big screen yesterday. I'd seen the film many times before, on television, VHS, DVD, etc., but there was something really rewarding about seeing it in a theatre... the audience's reaction to the now-dated dialogue was funny, but no one could deny how effective and thrililng the film still is. Bernard Hermann's score also makes a much bigger impression when played at that volume with that kind of set up. It was an actual film reel, so it had its fair share of scratches and blips, but it made the experience seem that much more authentic.

And then, of course, is the shower scene. 50 different shots in 2 minutes looks way more impressive on the big screen, especially that last shot of Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), dead on the ground, her eye as the main focus of the shot.

So freaking good.

[Who Shot Sam?]

Just watched this tonight. My god, what a devastatingly sad film. Beautiful filmmaking.