the LAST FILM YOU'VE SEEN thread

Hell in the Pacific (1968) - John Boorman

This film today seems like a gimmick, and something tells me it did in 1968. The Vietnam War was raging, and of course someone had to humanize war. So why not cast two top notch action stars and no one else? I admired how Boorman made Mifune's dialogue unsubtitled. This gives us the perspective of Lee Marvin's marooned soldier and ads a degree of realism. We never know more than any individual character.

This came right after Boorman's remarkably brilliant Point Blank, and this doesn't really measure up. There is only one brief moment where the temporal fun of Point Blank is brought here, when both men envision killing the other, or rather being killed. Aside from that the tale is rather straight forward, to a boring extent. There doesn't seem to be anything different here, and the early tension between the two evaporates quickly and we're left with a formulaic and kind of drab film.

Grade B

Boorman has a tendency to do what you just described: "pseudo-political" films like Beyond Rangoon and Country of My Skull are even worse than Pacific for many of the same reasons. But he can still come up with the likes of The General or the underrated Where the Heart is, so he can't totally be ignored.

It's not a great film but I plan to watch it again if only because it was lensed by Conrad Hall, which always meant great cinematography. Hall was nominated for Oscar ten times and won three. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "of course someone had to humanize the war".

There just seemed like a tendancy to make a humanistic war film especially during the Vietnam War as a social commentary and some sort of hippy crap like we're all god's children.

Obviously Boorman did a lot of different kinds of movies an he is uneven. Doesn't anybody love The Emerald Forest? I do. But I haven't seen it for a while.

Whirlpool (1949) - Otto Preminger

Another in a string of Fox Film Noirs, this one features fantastic performances from Jose Ferrer and Gene Tierney but lacks a little overall.

Signs of Life (1968) - Werner Herzog

Early film from the German master, this is amateur filmmaking with inspired moments of greatness.

RIchard Shepard: The Matador

The Ringer (2005)

Bad, just plain bad. After several dates where I picked the movie, I conceded this one, hoping that I'd at least get a laugh, and I did. Exactly one laugh amidst this god awful nonsense. The crowd was rather young, the night before they all had to return to high school. I heard some people laugh, and a few people comment "fucking retards". They may try to make us laugh with them, but this film is relying on the basic assumption that the mentally retarded are funny just because of that, and it's even funnier when they try and act like "normal people". Fuck this movie.

arsaib-Ballets Russes--Saw it. It's very interesting. Though I had gone to performances as a child, I didn't know that there were two "Ballets Russes" or what the split was about etc., and this clarified that. The aging dancers are indeed charming. It's not a film celebrating dance -- I mean, you don't get a lot of extended dance footage, or detailed information about dance styles, choreography, etc., -- but a history of the (two) Ballets Russes, but that's an important topic and the history is presented in detail..

wpqx-The Ringer. Please, wpqx, try to keep your comments on a more respectful, decent level, respectful of us, and yourself. You don't give the topic or the filmmaker, so your comment is pretty much useless, frankly. Even if the movie is tasteless, you don't have to descend to its level.

There's nothing respectful to say about the Ringer, just god awful predictable nonsense.

I did manage to see Good Men, Good Women (1995) from Hou Hsaio-Hsien. I'm not going to bother comparing, but this was certainly a refreshing film, continuing the theme of the modern history of Taiwan. Although this film jumps back and forth with the present, and makes for a rather remarkable viewing. Hou makes a case for being the best filmmaker of the 90s, and this film is certainly evidence to help support that claim.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
arsaib-Ballets Russes--Saw it. It's very interesting. Though I had gone to performances as a child, I didn't know that there were two "Ballets Russes" or what the split was about etc., and this clarified that. The aging dancers are indeed charming. It's not a film celebrating dance -- I mean, you don't get a lot of extended dance footage, or detailed information about dance styles, choreography, etc., -- but a history of the (two) Ballets Russes, but that's an important topic and the history is presented in detail..

---

I was hoping that you had seen this. I knew about the troupes but certainly wasn't aware of their history and all the accomplishments in detail. Was also surprised to learn the influence they had on other art forms. Yeah, it was more about the people, many of whom probably haven't had a chance in quite some time to talk about their past. They seemed healthy and energized. Do you remember any specific details from the performances you saw?

The Dark Corner (1946) - Henry Hathaway

Well finally a Hathaway film that actually is a film noir. This story has all the right formulas, a somewhat shady private detective, an even shadier past, a murder, a cover up, and even a dame or two. This seems to follow in a general trend of Fox film noir of not having the female be an antagonist. Lucille Ball plays the secretary here, and is an anchor, support, and companion for our hero, not the reason for his misery. She seems to fall right in line with the "female as crutch" roles given out in many of this studios film noirs, most typically Where the Sidewalk Ends, but Gene Tierney was slightly more motivating in that.

The film is shrouded in darkness, and that is of course the biggest characteristic of noir. Joe MacDonald (a Fox regular for years) did the cinematography, and in many scenes, particularly in Brad's (Mark Stevens) office the look is absolutely perfect. MacDonald wound up with a trio of best cinematography nominations, but won none.

Mark Stevens may not be a name in the noir genre, but he does a damn good job here. His character recalls a little of the reckless violent screenwriter of Nicholas Ray's In a Lonely Place. Mark doesn't seem to be able to function without at least a little drink. Not sure how intentional his drinking is, but later in the film when he's asked for a drink he says "Never touch the stuff", we know that there was a dependency. In that scene Mark has finally figured things out, put two and two together, and can now make his move without being loaded on sauce.

Lucille Ball got the top billing, even though she is more of a support for Stevens, but well she was the "Queen of the B's" at this point. One of her few non-comedic roles, she still manages to get most of the few laughs, and there's a slight chuckle to be had watching her bat. She's charming here and is never too far behind her man, and as Stevens' Brad gives up at nearly every corner, Ball's Kathleen is quick with an idea, even if it's a bad one.

Aside from a few brilliantly constructed night time shots, there is hardly anything here of overwhelming value. This was film noir by the books, and it touches all plot points necessary. The plot works, although not in an overly compelling way. Clifton Webb plays a bit of a villian again, and his character is so obsessively smart that it makes him a downright awesome noir villian. You should have suspected it, after seeing his rather young wife (Cathi Downs). Hollywood's way of saying dating an older man is fine, just be careful. Ironic when Mari (Downs) blows off thinking that the man she's having an affair with is too young to be intimate with the old Constance Collier, an actress as old proportionately to her on screen husband.

The Dark Corner remains a damn good film noir. Not among the all time best, but certainly a text book case. And from what I've seen the pick of the litter regarding the somewhat lackluster filmography of Henry Hathaway.

Grade B+

Match Point (see thread)

Winner of the Camera d’Or ("Best First Film") and the Critics’ Week prize at 2004 Cannes film festival, Israeli filmmaker Keren Yedaya's Or (My Treasure) (Mon trésor) paints a gritty and uncompromising portrait of a mother-daughter relationship through which it ultimately points toward pertinent issues facing the society at large. Set in an unsavory part of Tel Aviv, the film concerns a hard-working 17-year-old Or (Dana Ivgi, from Broken Wings [2002]) and her immature prostitute mother Ruthie (Ronit Elkabetz, from Late Marriage [2001]) who is recovering from her latest bout with drug addiction. Or is desperate to find another line of work for her mother, also addicted to her profession but less for monetary reasons than to fulfill her desire for affection. But the teenager doesn’t quite realize that her own nightly heavy-petting sessions with neighborhood boys serve the same purpose for her. Yedaya’s long, stationary shots are at once intimate and distant to this grim reality, forcing the viewers to interpret the complexity of her protagonists and their decisions. Her images often dismember the characters, not only stressing their fractured lives, but in Ruthie’s case also accentuating the scars of her rapidly decaying flesh (the filmmaker then contrasts this aesthetical choice with a bold, seemingly never-ending shot of Or’s nubile body in a shower). While Or (My Treasure) doesn’t hesitate to capture the banality of life in all of its glory, the film’s specificity with moments strong enough to unravel it is quite unique and powerful. From Or internally questioning her self-worth after the decision of her lover’s mother to ultimately staring at Ruthie and finding someone quite different, Yedaya measures her descent to be perceptible enough to ultimately unleash an accusatory gaze, one which is perhaps also filled with shame.

Grade: A-
__________________________

*After premiering at Cannes, OR (MY TREASURE) went onto play at festivals such as Vancouver, New York, and London. The film was released theatrically in the U.S. by Kino International and it is now available on DVD.

Have not seen it; is it newly out on dvd? Reviewing this film in October 2004 at the time of its NYFF showing Manohla Dargis called it "well-meaning but irritatingly naïve" and a "feel-bad drama" that did well because "grim is always big at film festivals." She says " Ms. Yedaya's take on prostitution would be tolerable if her characters, especially Ruthie, weren't such ideological constructs." Your comments?