the LAST FILM YOU'VE SEEN thread

Intimate Strangers (2004)

Intimate Strangers is yet another middle-of-the-road psychological drama from Patrice Leconte. This time an enigmatic young woman (Sandrine Bonnaire), searching for a psychiatrist, mistakenly walks into the office of a tax-lawyer (Fabrice Luchini). After listening to her concerns, the companionless middle-age lawyer ends up agreeing to see to her again. Thankfully, the tawdry suspense of the initial set-up is released early on but what follows is perhaps even less intriguing. Leconte’s images are always handsome and they want you to look beneath the surface but the narrative isn’t very supportive here. Leconte has been making these half-baked films for quite a while now and its time to move on, but on the other hand, these miramaxical efforts are what selling nowadays in foreign lands. Bonnaire’s facial features have aged rapidly and she hasn’t appeared in a great film in recent years but all that is negated upon a look at her earlier work and she still has a long way to go (she’s only 37!).

Tout Va Bien (1972) - Jean Luc Godard and Jean Pierre Gorin

Enjoyable as it might be, I felt that Godard was starting to repeat himself with this one. The same old direct narratives, long takes, and standard political subtext. Still worth a look, particularly for the supermarket sequence, and set design of the factory, but overall not among Godard's best, imo.

Babes In Arms (1939)

In this one, Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney happen to be the children of penniless parents and they need to put on a variety show in order to raise money to save them from being sent back to the farm. Their obstacles include a Hurricane and Margaret Hamilton (yes, from Wizard of Oz). This musical has none of the grandeur Busby Berkeley was famous for and save for "Good Morning," most of the other songs are only passable. Mickey Rooney does a few impersonations which earned him an Oscar nominations which only proves that our Academy was just as clueless back then. The theater I went to admitted anyone over 60 for free - too bad I didn’t qualify.

I'm amazed you sat through Babes in Arms, didn't really sound like a film of note for you, perhaps my ridiculous Oscar research is getting contageous?

I just watched The Incredibles (2004) directed by Brad Bird. Shame I missed it in the theaters, but it was worth the wait. The film was fantastic, as I was hoping it would be. I can't say I jump for joy at every computer animated film, but this one looked good, and it was. One of those rare animated films that gets its assed kiss deservingly so.

As you know, I've been sarcastically critical of your Oscar research but after you're "done," just imagine the knowledge you'll have of classic American cinema. That's where I want to expand since I feel confident with what I know about Foreign, new and old. Films like Babes in Arms can certainly be avoided but I want to see the "classics" in theaters; unfortunately films like these are the kind that are usually playing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by wpqx
I just watched The Incredibles (2004) directed by Brad Bird. Shame I missed it in the theaters, but it was worth the wait. The film was fantastic, as I was hoping it would be. I can't say I jump for joy at every computer animated film, but this one looked good, and it was. One of those rare animated films that gets its assed kiss deservingly so.

---

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!

Bride and Prejudice is yet another adaptation from the novel by Jane Austin (poor woman), but this one is set to the rhythms of what you may call a Bollywood musical (many of the films I've seen this week have somehow turned out to be musicals). A rich young man (Martin Henderson) meets a beautiful woman (Aishwarya Rai) while visiting India and they instantly fall for each other (did I mention that we're in Bollywood territory?). Anyway, cultural differences raise their ugly heads, mostly in a cute way, and another man comes into the picture for our Bride to be, but needless to say it all ends well. Chadha is obviously trying to reap the rewards of what she cultivated with her last picture, Bend It Like Beckham, as this one also follows a similar vein. Aishwarya Rai is considered by many to be the most beautiful woman on Earth (I haven't seen all of them so I'm not positive but from I've seen she certainly ranks up there); the fact that there are about a Billion Indians in the World certainly helps her cause. Performance wise I saw better from her in a couple of art films recently (Chokher Bali: A Passion Play and Raincoat) as here she seems to be trying to act for the "western" audiences and it's not very subtle. Also surprising for this big production are its shoddy production values which at times resemble a 70's potboiler starring the Big B. Still, all in all, if you enjoyed Beckham then the Bride probably has enough to please you.

Bride and Prejudice - Grade: C+

*2005 U.S. releases are being graded.

The Incredibles really is excellent and I don't like most animations either; I saw it in a big auditorium of the Regal Union Square in NYC with a very appreciative audience. Their favorite character was the bossy fashion designer but really there are a lot of good ideas and characters in the movie.

There's some value in seeing all of anything, including Oscar-winning Best Pictures. Then you become an authority, of sorts anyway, and you have a wide frame of reference which at the same time has depth.

I don't get the " Yes that's right I am gay" about Hiller's Love Story unless you just thought Ryan O'Neal was cute. Yes that's right I am gay but does that mean I'd want to see this corny movie and that I would cry at it? I can definitely see the value of a good cry though, and sometimes it's easier to cry in a movie than about the real sadness in one's own life.

I think Godard was repeating himself almost from the start. But Wong Kar Wai repeats himself even more closely; that doesn't make him bad but simply a distinctive stylist. I can't remember Tout va Bien though. I stopped seeing all of Godard's films after Sympathy for the Devil and I guess I missed Tout Va Bien. A new Criterion DVD issue, right? MIchael Atkinson of the Voice has some good things to say about it http://www.villagevoice.com/film/050...61365,20.html.

As I've said Amelio deeply impresses me from what I've seen, which is The Housekeys and The Way We Laughed, but while others including Oscar have said Lamerica (which I haven't seen yet) is the great one my Italian teacher said she differed from the majority and was unimpressed by it; The Way We Laughed impressed her much more and we had a long discussion of it.

A friend I go to movies with who is pretty uncritical and open to anything and has Indian friends said Bride and Prejudice is really bad. It sounds more like a C- to me, but I haven't seen it and I admit Bend It Like Beckham left me cold. Bride and Prejudice seems an odd choice to go and see but there isn't a lot out there. I hope you have seen Nobody Knows and Downfall though.

I have bought a DVD of Wong's 2046 (boxed 2-disc Special Edition, Mei Ah Entertainment) and am watching it at home, but I am not in a hurry to finish it or to comment on it. That's one of the virtues of home viewing, isn't it? that you can linger over a viewing. The annoyance of DVD's is you have to go through the warnings and menu (on my machine anyway, not on the pc program) all over again every time you want to go back and pick up where you left off, compared to a videotape that you can just turn on again.

Ravishing images and color. I've just gotten the BFI (British Film Institute) World Directors series Wong Kar-Wai by Stephen Teo (London, 2005), 191 pages (in a nifty DVD-sized format). It seems like the first intelligent and intelligible study of Wong and its penultimate chapter is a discussion of 2046.

arsaib4---

What about Téchiné's latest, have you seen that on TV5, or is it too soon?

I just watched a trailer of it and I like the setting, Tangiers. a largely Arab cast other than Depardieu and Deneuve.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Knipp
[B]I think Godard was repeating himself almost from the start. But Wong Kar Wai repeats himself even more closely; that doesn't make him bad but simply a distinctive stylist. I can't remember Tout va Bien though. I stopped seeing all of Godard's films after Sympathy for the Devil and I guess I missed Tout Va Bien.

This is a a bit odd I must say. Even the non-fans see all of his films they can.

A friend I go to movies with who is pretty uncritical and open to anything and has Indian friends said Bride and Prejudice is really bad. It sounds more like a C- to me, but I haven't seen it and I admit Bend It Like Beckham left me cold. Bride and Prejudice seems an odd choice to go and see but there isn't a lot out there. I hope you have seen Nobody Knowsthough.

I'm certainly not open to "anything" but once in a while you have to give in when your partner demands to see a certain film. I still haven't seen Nobody Knows but hopefully will soon. Techine's film opened in France in December so it's still a little early. Loin, I think will play soon on TV5 but I've seen it. The cast is mostly Arab in this one also, I think you'll like it.

Has Wong Kar-wai finished it? On many occasions I've read that the tinkering he has done so far with the film will continue and much like Hero we'll see additional scenes in the future. (Some nude scenes have been cut so far from what I've heard.) Believe it or not, I'm planning to wait until it gets distributed here; I'd like to see it on the big screen first, even though the DVD's are practically available for free now.

Well a pair of silent films for me.

1. The Student Prince in Old Hiedelberg (1926) - Ernst Lubitsch
I was surprised to find out how high a rating this film got on AMG. This was second rate Lubitsch in my opinion. It was neither charming, humorous, or risque. Perhaps it is because I'm not a huge Ramon Navarro fan (at least the Navarro of this film). Hard to see an action star reduced to a little kid in a film like this as well as Across to Singapore. As I've said elsewhere though, my taste in Lubitsch films are slightly off from at least mainstream critics. Good news is that Design for Living (my favorite film of his) is going to be released on DVD in May as part of a Gary Cooper set, so perhaps a few people may jump on the film like me.

2. The Last Command (1928) - Josef Von Sternberg
Won of the last great silent films from the year that Peter Bogdanovich called the greatest year in film history. This was one of the few honored films at the first Academy ceremony that has held up. Jennings might have won the first best actor Oscar for this, but the real star of the film is Sternberg, who makes this film the most visual of all his pictures I've seen. Quite remarkably visually.

Suspicion (1941)

Suspicion is certainly not known as one of Hitchcock’s best but that should be because he simply made better films as Suspicion is not a bad effort by any means. However, it is still ignored by many (partly because of its infamous studio-tampered ending). A rich playboy (Cary Grant) marries a soon-to-be heiress (Joan Fontaine) but as Grant's background (and financial position) is slowly revealed and with his increasingly deceptive behavior it leads Fontaine to believe that her own life could be in danger. This was the first collaboration between Grant and Hitchcock and the master has certainly done some justice to his leading man by presenting him in the proper light and angles that only add to his mysteriousness. Fontaine won both an Oscar and the NYFCC award for her performance.

I agree that Suspicion is second rate Hitchcock. I'm an enormous Joan Fontaine fan, but this film pails in comparisson to Rebecca (which should have brought Fontaine the Oscar).

1. Of Human Bondage (1934) - John Cromwell

I watched this based on exceptionally positive reviews of Bette Davis. I found that Davis' role was supporting, and not very good. Her accent is faulty, and although she has a few shining moments, particularly near the end of the film, overall her performance seems uneven. The film itself is a little uneven in general, and Leslie Howard is just too pathetic for words. Still it has its moments, so can't say it was a waste. Plus it was nominated for best picture, so that gets me one more closer to seeing all the nominees from 1934.

2. House of Games (1987) - David Mamet

Another film watched for a performance, this time for Joe Mantegna. I did think he did a great job, although not Oscar material as Danny Peary would suggest. The film itself was entertaining at parts, but I think I'm a little put off by films about con men. A few subjects just don't seem interesting regardless of the film. I have a similar distaste for pirate movies.

Since You Went Away (1944) - John Cromwell

Wow two Cromwell films in two days, although this is much more the work of Producer/Writer David O'Selznick, in his never ending quest to top Gone with the Wind. A good film, perhaps too ambitious (at least in its run time), but certainly had it's moments. I loved the romance between Robert Walker and Jennifer Jones, and thought that over all the acting was pretty damn good. At times it seemed a little negative, but I suppose that goes with the territory.

I strongly agree with the idea of watching it on a big screen. However I am a fan of Wong and decided to buy DVD's of all his films, so I got this. I will watch it in a theater when it comes. I saw As Tears Go By, Ashes of Time, and Days of Being Wild in a theater in the early Nineties but have gone back to see Days of Being Wild in the new print as I've mentioned, and have videos of the others which I rewatch, and would gladly rewatch Ashes of Time on a big screen. For me as I've said elsewhere Wong is an artist whose work has such rich style one can enjoy watching it any number of times. I am sorry if the collaboraton with Christopher Doyle is over, even if the replacements are good, because Doyle was responsible for so much that was adventurous and free.

As for whether 2046 will be further altered, that is possible, but perhaps unlikely at this point. Who knows? I have read the chapter on it in the new book and clearly Wong worked on it a long time. Wong himself may feel that that chapter of his creative life comprising the Sixties love trilogy is over, as he has more or less said.

As for Godard, well I'm glad his non-fans see all his films, but he has made quite a lot, and I got bored with them, because they stopped making sense to me. Chacun à son goût.... I have seen Notre Musique. I was not as impressed as many seem to be, but it made sense, at least. The Hebrew-Arabic discussion was particularly interesting. It all seemed so much fresher in the Sixties....

I hope the new Téchiné will be better than Loin.

Well, you've must've finished 2046 by now; any thoughts?

From our recent conversations I was under the impression that you hadn't seen Loin, I thought I brought it up in the Strayed thread. Anyway, what didn't you like about it?

Fear X

I liked your coverage of this film, which seems a very fair assessment, without having seen it.

I haven't seen Loin, but I'm going by reports that it's not among Téchiné's best works; the Indie Wire description seemed convincing: http://www.indiewire.com/movies/rev_...0906_Loin.html

2046

It is ravishing and complex, and certainly a must-see. Beyond that, I prefer to reserve comment for a complete review. I don't want to challenge or influence anybody before they've even seen it.

It's funny that you don't want to influence anyone on 2046 but that indiewire article has certainly influenced you about Loin and it even prompted you to say earlier that "I hope Techine's latest is better than Loin." A bit unfair don't you think since you haven't seen it yourself? (Actually the Indiewire review is not all that negative.) Anyway, I taped the film last night and saw it again so I'll try to "influence" you soon. I'm also looking forward to your 2046 review.

I was just giving a polite excuse. I prefer to write a complete review, and I prefer to review films when or just after they have US theatrical showings. Do you know when that will be happening for 2046?
I'll read whatever you write, of course.

I hope 2046 is happening soon, and they're not saving it for the actual year, lol. I think I might give up soon and just pick it up on DVD. As for my last film I watched Five Fingers (1952), directed by Joseph Mankiewicz. The film is pretty good with a strong performance from James Mason. Came out in a rather weak year though. 1952 brought Singin' in the Rain and to a lesser extent High Noon, I'm not really fond of any other film from that year, and I've seen a bunch. This film is probably more noted for it's screenwriter Michael Wilson than for any other factor. The script is tight, but Wilson did better work, particularly with Bridge on the River Kwai and Planet of the Apes (where he didn't have to take an alias).

Quote:

---

I watched Five Fingers (1952), directed by Joseph Mankiewicz. The film is pretty good with a strong performance from James Mason. Came out in a rather weak year though. 1952 brought Singin' in the Rain and to a lesser extent High Noon, I'm not really fond of any other film from that year, and I've seen a bunch.

---

Others from 1952 besides High Noon and Singin' in the Rain:

The Big Sky (Howard Hawks)
My Son John (Leo McCarey)
Park Row (Sam Fuller)
Umberto D (Vittorio De Sica)
Moulin Rouge (John Huston)
Othello (Orson Welles)
Robinson Crusoe (Luis Bunuel)
Ikiru (Akira Kurosawa)
Carrie (William Wyler)
Fanfin la Tulipe (Christian-Jaque)
The Quiet Man (John Ford)
The Life of Oharu (Kenji Mizoguchi)

I would hardly call the year of Ikiru a "weak" one. I would say it was one of the great years.

Well, perhaps I should have rephrased and said weak for Hollywood films, or weak in terms of my Alternate Oscar research. Sure Ikiru is a great film, but it wasn't released in the US until 1960. As for the rest of the films you've listed, well I stand by my previous remark. Sure Othello is great, in my opinion better than High Noon, but that film was buried for nearly four decades. Now we can get in an arguement about the rest, but hey some years don't do much, they might have lots of noteworthy films, but very few really amazing ones. I also realize that this may turn into a massive debate between us, so I'll try and stop now, and get back to the lecture at hand.

Satan's Brew (1976) - Rainer Werner Fassbinder

All I'll say is if anyone can think of a stranger Fassbinder film, by all mean's let me know. This film is an interesting one, everyone is high and everything that should be abnormal is normal and vice versa. Fassbinder effectively created a unique and at times ridiculous world. The film isn't really surreal in terms of impossible things happening (for the most part), but surreal in the ridiculous seeming plausible. Well worth watching, and the best of the five most recent Fassbinder films I've seen. As to what those films are, Whity, The American Soldier, Pioneers in Ingolstadt, and Effie Briest. Soon enough I'll get a few more of his films, so I'll soon be an expert, or at least an authority.

BTW I have similar complaints about film from 1934 and 1944 and come to think of it 1937.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by wpqx
I also realize that this may turn into a massive debate between us, so I'll try and stop now, and get back to the lecture at hand.

---

I know the remark is specifically addressed to Chris, but allow me the opportunity to say that the main, perhaps the only, reason why I post at filmwurld is the possibility of debate. I've found that it's most likely to happen here than anywhere else. Debate is the type of exchange most likely to result in some type of a learning experience, an enlargement of one's narrow, subjective perspective. I would definitely be disappointed if no one challenges my opinions. Otherwise it becomes a banal, self-congratulatory enterprise.

I see, but I didn't think our discussion on Todd Haynes went off very well, so I was being cautious. If you must though . . .

Films of 1952

The Quiet Man - decent at best
Park Row - weak Fuller effort
The Big Sky - again mediocre at best
My Son John - propoganda
Moulin Rouge - weak
Robinson Crusoe - never saw it
Carrie - ignorance again (but on my list)
Fanfin la Tulipe - never heard of
The Life of Oharu - overly pessemistic
Umberto D - again more depressing than necessary, although a damn good film, but again this wasn't released in the US until 1956, so I don't usually count it.

as for one's not mentioned
The Greatest Show on Earth - entertaining as it may be, it is considered by many to be one of the worst best picture winners
Ivanhoe - how this got a best picture nod is beyond me
The Bad and the Beautiful - a damn good picture, but again not really worth awards
Casque D'or - likeable, but again not stellar
Limelight - second rate Chaplin

Now I will hold off judgement regarding Elia Kazan's Viva Zapata, a film that I have not yet seen, which could restore some of my faith, but until then . . .

Bay of Blood (1971) - Mario Bava

Influential early slasher film this one is style over substance. I can't even tell you what it's about, but it had something to do with some lakefront property. All I know is lots of people die very gory deaths, and that is the center of the film. Bava gets creative with how his victims are dispatched, and although the camera work seems amateurish it does work for this film. I was however impressed with the editing, and in general the dubbing wasn't too bad, but perhaps I'm building a tolerance.

wpqx

I understand your reluctance to enter into a debate, depite Oscar's point that what we need is discussion, dialogue, exhange, not just listing the notches we've put on our hobby charts. Debate means being challenged, having one's facts and ones arguments held up to public scrutiny. And sometimes they don't survive the test. That has happened to me plenty of times, and it can happen to others.

I don't want to get into an argument with you particularly about 1952. This is not a huge issue with me. But if you toss off each title of the ones I listed with a quick phrase, we can't necessarily get anywhere; you haven't necessarily proven anything. The three-word response can work fine if purely informational, for instance "Fanfin la Tulipe -- never heard of." Fair enough. Others you give, however, that presumably are meant to give a critical evaluation, such as

The Life of Oharu - overly pessemistic
Umberto D - again more depressing than necessary, although a damn good film, but again this wasn't released in the US until 1956, so I don't usually count it.

--just don't cut it. Whether or not the film was released in the US, you can't say 1952 was a bad year, and "pessimistic" is hardly a valid criticism of any film as you admit in admitting Umberto D is "a damn good film."

But the whole issue of whether good films were being made in 1952 is one you dodge, with good reason, because it isn't a claim that will stand up.

Personally, for me Ikiru is the film I chose long ago as the greatest film experience of my life, and hence for me personally the greatest film. I don't make great film lists, but it is at the top of any I'd make. Apart from that personal 'prejudice,' which I think is a justified one, Ikiru is one of Kurosawa's acknowledged masterpieces and I'm not alone in placing it highest of all.

As for the others, I merely wanted to point out that your remark that 1952 was a lackluster movie year was a bit facile, to say the least.

Perhaps you need not know about Fanfin la Tulipe but Gérard Philipe is good to know about as a French cultural icon, romantic idol, and star. I notice that Phillipe won the best actor award at Cannes in 1954; this was the time when he was in his heyday. http://theoscarsite.com/chronicle/1954c.htm. He was a remarkable actor and starred in three dozen films though he lived only to be 37.

I don't see the point of your listing inferior, even award-winning, 1952 pictures (I would not argue taste was at an all-time high in that year) as proving anything. Your point to prove is that 1952 was a weak year, not that it produced some bad pictures.

Since I am old enough to have been growing up in the Fifties, the movies of that time have the quality of legend or icon. Most of Hollywood's pop flicks of the time repelled me, as many of today's products. But for me, the Fifties was a wonderful time for film and I don't think I would be the film fan I am today if the movies of the Forties and Fifties hadn't been great. And Hollywood wasn't without masterpieces or wonderful actors. To say that one year is weak or another strong seems a bit pointless. Better to comment only on general periods and specific films. That's what I think, anyway.

I like the following comment from wpqx: "I'm not really fond of any other film from that year" because it implies and takes into account the subjectivity of one's personal taste. Granted, such a statement also implies that the person making it has managed to view under desirable circumstances a great percentage of the films released that year. It's obvious to me that wpqx has watched a ton of movies despite his youth. Personally, I would be reluctant to call any year "a weak year" without doing a great deal of research and some serious viewing and re-viewing. I do make lists by year so here I submit my 1952 lists (why not?) by year of world premiere.

English Language

1. Othello (Welles)
2. On Dangerous Ground (Ray)
---The Big Sky (Hawks)
-- Clash By Night (Lang)
5. Rancho Notorious (Lang)
-- Limelight (Chaplin)
-- Singin' in the Rain (Donen)
8. The Bad and the Beautiful (Minelli)
-- Bend of the River (Mann)
-- Park Row (Fuller)
11.Angel Face (Preminger)
-- The Lusty Men (Ray)
-- Monkey Business (Hawks)

Honorable Mention:The Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, The Quiet Man, The Narrow Margin, Rabbit Seasoning, High Noon, Moulin Rouge.

Not Seen: My Son John (McCarey), Son of Paleface (Tashlin), Macao (von Sternberg)


Foreign Language

1. Ikiru (Kurosawa)
-- Life of Oharu (Mizoguchi)
3. Umberto D. (De Sica)
4. Casque d'or (Becker)
-- Europa '51 (Rossellini)
-- Flavor of Green Tea Over Rice (Ozu)
-- Forbidden Games (Clement)
-- Le Plaisir (Ophuls)
-- Mexican Bus Ride (Bunuel)
-- The White Sheik (Fellini)

Honorable Mention: A Woman Without Love (Bunuel)

Not Seen: Beauties of the Night (Clair), Fanfin la Tulipe (Jaque), The Citizen (Ghatak)

I can't believe I forgot to note Forbidden Games. That is another one that I saw at the time and that made a huge impression, one of the biggest impressions of any film I saw in my youth. I didn't see The White Sheik till quite a bit later, though. I don't know if I saw Fanfin la Tulipe at the time, but I think I did. It was kind of mainstream. Really this to me was a very fertile period, especially for foreign films. 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. There was Gift Horse in 1952 with Trevor Howard and Richard Attenborough, a war movie, but I didn't see it. I wonder what the Ealing studios were doing in 1952. I didn't see Rancho Notorious till much later but it is very interesting with a remarkable cast and of course La Dietrich.
I did not see The Bad and the Beautiful because I did not like that kind of movie. Did not see Limelight; I didn't like Chaplin. By then he was passé. But, yeah, the year grows back to life. I can never say whether a year is good or bad even today. The more movies I see, the more I think it was a good year. 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. 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. But I don't even think we see a really complete picture of what comes out of Italy or France each year. To generalize about a year you have to be somebody who sees three new films a day, and you have to have an axe to grind. I am frankly uneasy about broad generalizations.

Actually it appears The Man in the White Suit opened in the US in 1952, and while I can't have it both ways, that is another indication of the fact that there was some marvelous cinematic fare available even on our rustic shores in 1952. The Man in the White Suit is not only a supreme Alec Guinness vehicle; a great Ealing comedy; but also a comic indictment of capitalism's monopolistic lust for control, against the interests of practicality --but then it also makes fun of the clever inventor who thinks his new technology will solve all life's problems for us.

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.