the LAST FILM YOU'VE SEEN thread

Well now that you mention it, well I wasn't too wild about the Man in the White Suit, or The Lavender Hill Mob for that matter. I feel like an ignoramous because I haven't seen Kind Hearts and Coronets, so I'll refrain from making some presumptious statement about Ealing studios.

Forbidden Games was a film that I didn't particularly like. Perhaps it was for the same reason that many of the Cahiers critics dismissed it.

Now perhaps I should have been more specific with my comment. 1952 was a weak year for films in Oscar consideration, or rather Hollywood films. I'm checking my commentary for the year, and I've noticed at least one other film no one has commented on yet, and that is George Cukor's Pat and Mike. Enjoyable as it may be, as nearly all Tracy and Hepburn movies are, this isn't the pair at their best. I have seen On Dangerous Ground, another film not mentioned earlier and I don't care for it. Nicholas Ray is one of my all time favorite Hollywood directors, but this isn't one of his best. In general I thought the film was weak, and the acting was unimpressive, particularly Ida Lupino.

Rancho Notorious was another film I thought was beneath the mark of Fritz Lang. I'm not gonna make too many comments about that film, because I get it confused with Robert Wise's Tribute To a Bad Man, don't ask me why I do. Robert Ryan seemed busy that year, because I did see Clash by Night, which again didn't do much for me. Perhaps I'm looking for truly extraordinary films of the year.

Here's my simple assessment. When I look at a film as being great I think of the year it was made, and ask if that film was worthy of getting say a best picture Oscar. Some films might be entertaining, innovative, interesting, moving, but films that just don't deserve that high praise (although the Academy is certainly ready, willing, and able to reward garbage). I think that Singin' in the Rain and High Noon are the only two films released theatrically in the US in 1952 worthy of that honor.

Ong-Bak (2003) - Prachya Pinkaew

Although this film is still in US theaters, I was able to find an import DVD of it. The film is formulaic as one might expect. Simple story of a stolen statue head and the great lengths one man goes to get it back. Regardless of what the plot synopsis might say the film is a showcase for Muay Thai martial arts. Each scene is basically set up as an excuse for elaborate choreographed fight scenes. In that respect the film is damn entertaining. I can watch martial arts all day every day, it's great fun, and that's what this film is. There is no great moral, and I can't even say that the story held up in even the slightest, but when it came to fight scenes, this was loaded. If you can't admire fighting for fighting's sake, then don't bother ever watching this film. If pictures like Once Upon a Time in China are among your favorites, then this is right up your alley.

It's a bit late for you to qualify your vast generalization. And after qualifying it, you go on to make more vast generalizations.

We will not have an argument. You say a movie isn't worthy of its director, and then you admit that you confuse it with somebody else's movie, and admit you don't even know why you do so. Such intellectual sloppiness makes discussion impossible. Your evaluations are drowning in a little puddle of contradictions. Your ratings may satisfy you, but they can't satisfy anybody else.

Why consider whether movies are worthy of an Oscar, when the Oscars have so often been awarded to inferior films?

Isn't it more logical to consider the Oscar lists like the bestseller lists, something of socioilogical interest, something that gives a reading of the popular tastes of the period, rather than any indication of true merit?

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a good English film in there somewhere, though the greatest Ealing comedies seem to have skipped that year, since 1949 brought King Hearts and Coronets (one of my all-time favorites--and it probably was released in the US in 1950), Passport to Pimlico and Whiskey Galore (all of which I saw at the time), 1951 brought The Man in the White Suit (another of the great ones) and the Lavendar Hlll Mob, the Ladykillers came in 1955.

Since I go by year of world premiere, I list The Man in the White Suit (directed by Alex Mackendrick, an American) under 1951. I agree with your comments about it at the conclusion of your post. Kind Hearts and Coronets is also special. My favorite Brit films of the 50s are by Powell and Pressburger, who didn't release a film in '52. Not a fan of Lavender Hill Mob and The Ladykillers but well worth seeing.

I can never say whether a year is good or bad even today. I am not jaded. I think there's a lot of good stuff out there, but I don't feel I ever see too much.

Yes, there's a lot of good stuff every year. In an attempt to relate to wpqx, I pulled out my canon, my list not of "great movies" but "great movies I love", the 220 or so films that make my toes tingle. I don't have a single movie from 1986. Another year that was challenging for me (as far as falling in love with a film) was 1984 until my third viewing of Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in America, his last, and best in my opinion. But I don't translate that into thinking those were "weak years" by any stretch. There were excellent films released in 1986 (and every year), and there are some promising ones I have not seen, particularly Melo from my beloved Alain Resnais.

The critics who comment on the quality of work emerging in general and lament the decline are usually full of crap. Rosenbaum has pointed to the fact that Denby has done that, without really seeing the vast spectrum of new films from Iran, Asia, Africa, etc.

Oh, yes, the "death of cinema and/or cinephilia" crap from Denby, Thomson, Sontag and even apparently J.L. Godard. I'm currently reading a book edited by Rosenbaum and Adrian Martin which is basically a retort to that ("Movie Mutations: The Changing Face of World Cinephilia"). Somewhere in the site there's an article by Dargis that addresses some of the issues also. I will find it and post there after I finish the book.

Alright then, I'm starting to refine what I say which I suppose is a good thing.

It's hard to say what I thought about a film that I haven't seen in a couple of years. The details of Rancho Notorious are very vague to me. I watched Tribute to a Bad Man about a weak after that, so seeing how they were both weak Westerns with a similar look, I couldn't really remember what the story of one film was vs. the other.

Some films all I can remember of them is whether or not I liked them. So generalizations are all I can readily offer, without watching a film again.

As for my Oscar comment, consider it Alternate Oscars, something that I've been working on for a couple years. I look at it as a fictional best film list. Rather than look at the Oscars for what they are (popular culture passed off as an assessment of art), I look at is what it should be. In my opinion I use my Alternate Oscars as a fantasy world where all the right films and performances get rewarded and mediocre and overrated films don't even get nominated. Granted this is purely my subjective opinion, which obviously doesn't match well with yours, nor should it. I didn't like Moulin Rouge, wouldn't consider it worthy of MY Oscar, but you are free to love it all you want.

I must admit though, I'm starting to like this, a fire (however small) has been lit in our asses. All over a comment that could have easily been ignored.

Ironically, as I'm checking my Alternate Oscar page, I'm realizing that 1953 might even be weaker, here we go again . . .

I agree, Oscar, about The Lavender Hill Mob and The Ladykillers. And perhaps Powell and Pressberger are more 'international,' less 'Brit,' hence more appealing to you, I don't know; but the Ealing comedies appeal to me precisely because they're so very English.

(wpxq writes:)

Quote:

---

Alright then, I'm starting to refine what I say which I suppose is a good thing.

---

EVen if this acknowledgement is slightly grudging, it's most encouraging and openminded of you. You're saying we might be onto something here.

(wpqx also writes:)

Quote:

---

It's hard to say what I thought about a film that I haven't seen in a couple of years. The details of Rancho Notorious are very vague to me. I watched Tribute to a Bad Man about a weak after that, so seeing how they were both weak Westerns with a similar look, I couldn't really remember what the story of one film was vs. the other.

---

Then the obvious choice is to say nothing, avoiding such terms as "weak westerns," at least till you've re-researched it.

I take your "Alternate Oscar" point, but hope you'll keep it clear it's your own personal Alternate Oscars you're talking about.

Quote:

---

I must admit though, I'm starting to like this, a fire (however small) has been lit in our asses. All over a comment that could have easily been ignored.

---

Even more encouraging.

Mouchette (1967) - Robert Bresson

One of Bresson's best, and a perfect companion piece for Au Hasard Balthazar. Both films were made close to each other, and focus on rural life, as well as abused main characters. Granted one the main character is a donkey, but the female lead in Balthazar is also victimized, as is the title character in Mouchette. Both films are transendental (hope I spelled that right), and well recommended for any cinephile.

No, you didn't spell that right but don't worry, I understand what you meant. It is that and much more. Quite possibly my greatest viewing experience.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fan of Kubrick
Les Choristes
I was blown away by the beauty of the music, and the simple but effective shots that Christophe Barratier used... Not much else to say....

---

me too
;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by arsaib4


The Incredibles proved, once again, that it's the idea and the effort that counts ahead of the people who are giving voice to the characters. Having said that, I thought Holly Hunter did a fantastic job as "Elastigirl." I guess you just saw another Oscar winner!

---

The script was very well written.
For the kids, it is fun entertainment.
For the adults, there are a lot of thought provoking issues/lines.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by arsaib4
Well, you've must've finished 2046 by now; any thoughts? ...

---

Hmmm ... I am surprised 2046 has not received a thread yet.
Maybe I will start it ... hee hee
;PPP

Quote:

---

Originally posted by wpqx
Ong-Bak (2003) - Prachya Pinkaew ...

---

one of the main draw about this martial arts film is:
-- there is NO "wire", everything is "real" kung fu ...

Well I keep this business for now.

An Unmarried Woman (1978) - Paul Mazursky

Always interesting to see a "woman's" picture directed and written by a man. This film gets lots of favorable press for being one of the few films made for women during that heyday of great Hollywood cinema (the other most obvious film being Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore). Like Scorsese's film, this one features an extremely strong performance from it's female lead, played here by Jill Clayburgh. Her husband is played by Michael Murphy who just seems to be playing his usual Michael Murphy role (which seems to predominantly be an insensitive asshole). The film itself was pretty good, if we're comparing the two, Scorsese's film was better, although this seemed a little more identifiable (which coming from a male viewer, I can't say if anyone should agree with me).

The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) - Orson Welles

Third viewing for this, see classic film.

The Ministry of Fear (1944) - Fritz Lang

Espionage thriller that seems right out of an Alfred Hitchcock film. Milland plays a recently released mental patient who accidentally gets a cake with secret Nazi film baked into it. Well much drama and intrigue follows and several people die, and well corruption is exposed and friends become enemies and the whole world is turned upside down. The film is uneven, and honestly a little disinteresting (not necessarily boring, but I just don't care about Nazi spies). Lang's direction keeps the film interesting though, and this is clearly one his noir films, particularly in one death sequence which I won't describe now.

Charade (1963) - Stanley Donen

A charming comedy/suspense film from Stanley Donen. This one was quite successful, as one might expect from a cast that includes Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn (both Donen veterans). The picture is entertaining, although perhaps not great art. Hard not to get a sense of enjoyment out of the picture though.