the LAST FILM YOU'VE SEEN thread

I watched "Roger Dodger" on DVD. Campbell Scott gives an amazing performance as a totally self-centered, sad and lonely man trying to give his nephew tips on picking up girls during a visit to the night-life scene in New York.

The way the film is shot and edited makes it easy to get immersed. The writer director's keen insight comes through in nearly every scene. We see the facade of cynical confidence in the older man slowly deteriorate with each failure and the nervousness and inexperience start to melt away in the young man who is beginning to enjoy the "eternal struggle".

Rodger Dodger is a great effort by Scott and got good press, including from the New Yorker, when it came out. I find it a little too dark for my taste, and it is a terrible looking grimy grainy film, a good example of a film that it is fine, maybe even better, to watch on your home monitor. Which I didn't. I saw it in a theater.

Dark Star (1974) - John Carpenter

As low budget as it can possibly get. The film does have some of it's own charm though, I mean a blown up beach ball with feet for an alien, priceless. Musically it is pure Carpenter, and the score here could easily fit in any of his future films. Hey everyone had to start somewhere, and this ultra low budget 2001 knock off served to introduce the world to John Carpenter, one of the most original, and consistently overlooked moder directors.

True Crime (1999) - Clint Eastwood

Well this is the last of my Eastwood films, at least for now. Like most of his work, it is good, perhaps better than average, but not entirely fantastic. Don't get me wrong, Eastwood has some great movies, but more often then not his crime films wind up a little flat. This one is just a classic case of a story that's been told too many times. Couldn't really put an original spin on it, and that can be crucial in genre entertainment.

I didn't see this one, but I saw Blood Work from three years later (2002), and it was certainly mediocre, somewhat like a TV show. The original spin, if any, was the simplicity of it, and it was fun to watch an aging man playing an aging cop, the fact that his character has a heart attack right at the begining running after a crook, and has to move forward in his crucial investigation with a heart transplant---a setup which nicely uses Eastwood's age. That was interesting, but apart from one or two good moments with secondary characters, notably Anjelica Huston and Jeff Daniels, it's kind of flat.

I agree with you about Eastwood's crime films. The problem is that many times he casts himself in a role that might be better served by another less known actor.

In "Blood Work" Eastwood's character is an aged FBI agent and his physical frailty goes way against audience expectations of "Dirty Harry". It's like casting Arnold as a weakling.

The love story was also totally unbelievable in "Blood Work".

Good points. I know he was FBI, I just called him a cop, because there isn't much difference, at least not in this kind of story.

Saint Jack (1979) - Peter Bogdanovich

Somewhat mediocre fare from Bogdanovich, featuring a rather good performance by Ben Gazzara. Perhaps it is the presence of Gazzara, but this made me long for Cassavettes, and the film certainly has some similarities to The Killing of a Chinese Bookie. Speaking of Italians, time to watch Sopranos

Right on all scores.

Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949) - Robert Hamer

Well I think it's safe to say I've seen all of the major Ealing comedies, and honestly I'm not that impressed. This film was good, but I can't consider it a masterpiece, and don't see how other peole could. Perhaps someone could care to explain what makes the film so admired by so many. I had a similar unimpressed reaction to the Lavender Hill Mob and The Ladykillers as well. This may be the best of those films, but still a far cry from one of the 10 best British films, which I believe it was selected as by the BFI.

Quote:

---

How happy would I be with either,
Were 'tother, dear charmer, away.

Kind hearts are more than coronets,
And simple faith than Norman blood.

---

You're crazy, man, but you're young, and you may not be tuned in to late Forties, early Fifties English humor. The script of this movie is so witty.... It never gets old. I would like to write something to explain to you why it's so good. But not here or now. I think it's way better than Lavender Hill Mob and The Ladykillers.

The one I'd pair with it as an Ealing masterpiece is not them but The Man in the White Suit. That isn't as witty as Kind Hearts and Coronets, but it's a classic statement about individual creativity vs. corporate business, and another, simpler great role for Guinness, and it has the delicious Joan Greenwood, who's in both movies. With her long neck and teasing, cooing voice she had the most amazing mixture of haughty charm, sex appeal, and irony. She was perfect for these roles and added a lot to the movies which were made by the Ealing team and crowned by Guinness's talent. But I only want to champion these two -- not the other Guinness ones, which are not as great, and I would agree with you in finding pretty ho-hum today, though still nicely crafted, hence the stupidity of the Coen brothers in trying to ring some hip nasty new changes on The Ladykillers. Their effort is a turkey.

Let's pay attention to the BFI when they pick the ten best English films. What were the other ones?

I agree somewhat about the Ladykillers remake, to me it had more in common with Woody Allen's Small Time Crooks, at least early on. I think it's probably the weakest Coen Brothers film, which is unfortunate, because there are very few filmmakers I look forward to more.

As for the BFI Top 10

10. Trainspotting
9. The Red Shoes
8. Don't Look Now
7. Kes
6. Kind Hearts and Coronets
5. Great Expectations
4. The 39 Steps
3. Lawrence of Arabia
2. Brief Encounter
1. The Third Man

Obviously they appreciate David Lean over there, and rightfully so.

F For Fake (1972-1975) - Orson Welles

The films of Orson Welles are always a treasure. There are few of them, and therefore each one becomes remarkable. Welles spent the majority of his life running out of patience. He seemed to have the attention span of a perpetually 8 year old boy. Welles at the source was also seldom if ever original. Come to think of it, I don't think there is an Orson Welles film not based on the work of someone else, closest being Citizen Kane, which in turn was more the brainchild of Mankiewicz, at least the sotry of it.

F For Fake may be his most unique film, but like the 10 features preceeding it, this is also taken from other material. Assembled from another directors unfinished film, and thrown together some loose ideas the film is difficult by Welles standards. I believe it can be rewarding, but too unique to make the right first impression. I do think the film is uneven and a bit sloppy, and I for one didn't have my interest sustained throughout it, but again I may need a closer look.

I will always feel a slight melancholy watching the work of Welles, because it is so damn tragic, and Welles wasn't the victim. He welcomed his own destruction, and had the ambition to make the greatest films of all time, but lacked the determination to finish anything.

F for Fake seems finished only by a lack of ambition. Welles shot enough for a film, and this picture did no business whatsoever, and never even had an official US opening. Seen today some of it is dated, like the Hughes biographer and the forged painting, which served as the genesis of the picture. In other words I can't say I love the film, but I don't want to crucify it, because it isn't a film that has a reference point. I can't rate this film based on other work, and it certainly stands alone in the Welles catalogue.

Thanks for the BFI Best English list. I like a lot of those. These are classics with a couple of nods to the present time. The Third Man and King Hearts and Coronets are favorites of mine. I don't see anything wrong with the other choices, and the main thing is they're what the English like. What is Kes?

I think a lot of the Coen brothers movies have been disappointing lately. They're started to just crank 'em out. They're a slick team and the rhythm or the conviction or something has faded. Maybe my favorite was Blood Simple. It was all fresh and new then. Like Jarmusch's first big one, Stranger then Paradise. Not that in Jarmusch's case I see a falling off, I do like almost everything he does. But it was all fresh and new at first. He kept his rhythm for quite a while and when he shifted it was somthing interesting too.

Oh Brother! Where Art Thou? seemed too cruel to me, condescending, but it was also fun. That was the beginning of a shift. The Man Who Wasn't There had no emotion, Intolerable Cruelty was slick and crass, and The Ladykillers just sucked from first to last and it too was condescending. I reviewed it.

I quoted some of your comments on Welles over on Oscar's journal thread, where we've been tossing back and forth comments on Welles. I used you to back up my less than totally worshipful description of the man, though I do think he was a genius, not just in his own mind, but in a lot of his work, despite the self-sabotage you point to. Oscar might claim that's just bad press. I don't know. i just know a number of his productions turned disastrous and it wasn't entirely everybody else's fault.

Kes was directed by Ken Loach, and as far as I know it is OOP. I for one loved O Brother, and the all time favorite is Raising Arizona. As for Jarmusch I'd give my vote to Dead Man.