The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Scott Foundas for Variety on May 2.

Don't read Variety, but I'm pretty sure the line isn't the first time it's been used.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

That sequence is how I remember it as well. And you are correct, they never show them collect the farmer target. That was what seemed jarring to mer when I thought about it. So, it still confuses me why it would be in that order. Or, it confuses me as to why they would inject the flash forward, IF that's what it is.

Check it out when you get home.

Double-checked the scene in question.

[Show spoiler]The order of scenes I posted before is accurate. In the winter scenes (shown last), Django and Schultz shoot and bring in the Wilson Lou gang. Dr. Schultz confirms the bodies on the horses, saying it's "he and his acolytes."

In the warm-weather scene (shown mostly first), Django shoots and kills Smitty Bacall, as indicated on the wanted poster. So they are definitely separate bounties and separate scenes. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the warm-weather scene is a flash-forward into springtime, if for no other reason than the guy was plowing, everything is green, and if this is after the winter thaw, then that would have been the perfect time for Schultz to make good on his end of the deal and allow Django to kill his first target before setting off for Candieland.

I can see how this would be confusing, especially when you look back and say "wait a minute..." When watching it though, it kinda breezes by, mostly because the scene fades in from the scene where Django's in the water and sees Broomhilde; the scene's surreal to start with, so you'd naturally assume that the movie just pushes forward to show Django's progression. But then it double-backs.

I don't mind these scenes though. It reminds me of a Kill Bill training montage, like with Pei Mei or something. KB jumped back and forth a lot, and the impression I get is that QT wanted to do the same thing with Django, by showing his first bounty first, and then showing how he got to that level.

Hope that makes sense...even though it doesn't make sense.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Don't read Variety, but I'm pretty sure the line isn't the first time it's been used.

Yeah, I figured as much.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Don't read Variety, but I'm pretty sure the line isn't the first time it's been used.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Yeah, I figured as much.

I'm sick of the line already.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I'm sick of the line already.

But my use of it was good right?

[jvince]

The Philadelphia Story (1940)
dir. George Cukor

The Good: What a fantastic ensemble! -- Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant, James Stewart, Ruth Hussey, Roland Young, and Virginia Weidler all in top form. Excellent dialogue (Hussey's lines here are priceless). Playful, likable characters. Wonderful musical score by legendary composer Franz Waxman (Sunset Boulevard, Rear Window, The Bride of Frankenstein, Rebecca).

The Bad: Not a fan of the fairy tale ending.

The Bottom Line: A top-notch cast playing delightfully charming characters in a whimsical romantic comedy. You rarely see anything as good as this nowadays.

[Abdrewes]

The Girlfriend Experience (2009)
Directed by Steven Soderbergh

Steven Soderbergh's millennial output has ordered around the "one for them, one for me" rule. For every commercial project he would release an independent, low-budget one. On one end of the spectrum lie the Oceans Trilogy, Erin Brockovich, Contagion, Magic Mike, Haywire, and most recently, Side Effects (which may be the most genre-bending of the lot), whereas Full Frontal, Bubble, And Everything is Going Fine lie on the other end. It is safe to categorize The Girlfriend Experience as one of his "experiments." It's very playful in regards to film form: structure, editing, camera placement, lighting & performance. In the audio commentary for the home video release, Soderbergh described the production phase as a "process of structured improvisation." The lead actress, Sasha Gray became well acquainted with her co-stars (many of them non-professional actors) to facilitate the fly on the wall improvisation. The sound mixers were always recording conversations on set (a wealth of material only enhanced editorial ease), so often, Soderbergh would a quick set-up to record his actors from afar incognito. Masking the fact by pretending to be conferencing with his DP. This on-the-fly methodology (80 to 90% of the film is comprised of first takes) is not groundbreaking per-say, the Cinéma vérité of Robert Flaherty, Jean Rouch, Fred Wiseman and D.A. Pennebaker can attest to that, but in tandem with a two-camera, Red-One digital cinematography, a familiar environment is molded into a foreign and sterile recess of slick surfaces, advertising and disconnect. Soderbergh states he was doing nothing that Alain Resnais and the masters of the French and British New Waves didn't already do in the 1960's. however, he states that he is curious of unlocking a new cinematic language and is adamantly opposed to repetition: "I'm interested in trying to push it."

The barriers to getting on the same wavelength as this film are two fold: having the patience to savor the act of re-constructing the free-form narrative and to sync with Soderbergh's distanced gaze. Christine (Sasha Gray) is an escort that caters to wealthy New York clientele, all in the economic sector. The impending financial downturn looms over their dates. The libido of her clientele is as curiously nonexistent as the spotless glass and metal surfaces. They confide in Christine worries over the state of the economy and their waning financial prospects (yet, they advise her to invest in gold). The few sources of extemporary relief in her banausic life are a single female friend whom she meets at a cafe and her boyfriend whom also has similar upwardly mobile wily intentions in selling bulk sessions and pursuing a managerial role at the gym (although he refuses to wear the uniform). She also discusses with several consultants how to gain prominence on search engines, and the benefits of obtaining a professional review. The complications of this prospect and that of taking off with a client constitute what little there is in the way of traditional drama. The proceedings are underplayed by Soderbergh as he directs us to look askance at a venomous pre-Bailout Wall Street. The underpinnings of her clients' materialistic world are starting to loosen. Similar to Michael Mann's Miami Vice (2006), through images and sounds alone, Soderbergh paints a modern American tragedy.

Whereas Michael Mann's trademark was a widescreen, high contrast close up, Soderbergh's is an antiseptic tableaux that often chooses to isolate elements in the foreground such as chairs, couches, apartment barriers, wine glasses and mirrors. His camera is most often fixed in a place that accentuates the sodden metropolitan materialism. It's only suiting that these multi-fold melodramas play out obscured by logos and chic, IKEA bric-a-brack. Soderbergh's eye here is closer to the mathematical precision of Hollis Frampton than the angry expressionism of Oliver Stone.

The focal dexterity of the film cements this film as Soderbergh's most sophisticated visual work as he He has eluded to the impact the work of Michelangelo Antonioni had on the film in interviews. Detailing environments through contrast and a busy, teeming sound sound design not only nods to Antonioni, but galvanizes his innovations in a way integral to the core of the film. Consider the scene where Christine and her jealous boyfriend drink at a crowded pub. Their faces are half dimmed and out of focus, whereas the bar, probably 15-20 feet away is swathed in light and in full focus. Our attention is directed away from the human drama which is the the point. It details the anonymity of metropolitan existence like a small scale rendition of the master-shots in King Vidor's The Crowd. This isn't the sole instance, later when the boyfriend considers breaking up over Christine's tentative weekend getaway (he is accepting of her line of work, just as long as she doesn't take off with any of her clients), the camera is, again, fixed low in the apartment, behind two gray couches- and is more interested in highlighting the details of their apartment: leather couches, a curved overhanging fluorescent light, a framed square print in the hallway to the right, and the modern kitchen. This time, the boyfriend is only half in view, whereas the line of sight to Christine is impeded by the left couch (in a stroke of fate, Sasha Gray studied the mise en scene the morning of the shoot and decided to place herself out of view). These images are pure Soderbergh and work in tandem with an elliptical narrative that provide a glimpse behind the curtain of Wall Street. They also serve as an ironic counterpoint to the outbursts of melodrama and tear-shed in the final act. The characters are deliberately alien & unsympathetic: a mirror only reflects the truth.

The Girlfriend Experience is one of the key cinematic texts of the Twenty First century not only because of it's timeliness, released in the Spring of President Obama's inaugural year (it actually premiered at the Sundance Film Festival the same day the President was sworn into office), but also it's formal dexterity. It's unique visual sensibilities transform interaction to commodity. There are no relationships in the film, only detailed transactions- Christine's narration is candid in revealing each detail of her dates, from the brand of lingerie, jeans, to the pre-coital conversations and preferences if her clients. Each deal is self serving, and is squarely fixed for their own upward mobility (much alike the sub-prime loans sold in the period of extreme deregulation). To Soderbergh it all looks the same. His eye focuses on the "wrong things" because (to utilize yet another cliché) there's no "right thing" he treats the corroded environment much like Antonioni did in Red Desert: it's grip is suffocating and inescapable.

The films Soderbergh made afterwards shared his fascination with finance, but he seemed to find a silver lining: the protagonists are complacent in having to play the game for their upward mobility - stock manipulation and double crosses in Side Effects, commercial entrepreneurship in Magic Mike. This is not unlike the role he accepted in the Hollywood Studio system from 2011 to 2013. The four wide releases of this period are genre films: a disaster film, an action thriller, an exploitation film and a psychological thriller. All these films certainly draw from the core set of values of The Girlfriend Experience and are all highly enjoyable in their own right, but none of them provoke the same level of visual and aural fascination.

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Foggy

But my use of it was good right?

That happened and we all let it happen - YouTube

I'll let you guys off for now, but you better not let it happen again.

[legendarymatt92]

"It's a matter of professional integrity! No girl wants to marry a doctor who can't tell if a man's dead or not!"
Sherlock Holmes

The Good Points: Fantastic performances from Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law and Mark Strong. Perfect dialogue, especially with regards to the interplay between characters. Finds a neat balance between Holmes' traditional sleuthing and the more modern fighting aspect. Superb comedic moments, and some extremely quotable one-liners. Ritchie's fast-paced, almost maniacal style.

The Bad Points: The middle act drags on a bit. Ritchie's style as noted above may be too overbearing for some, and possibly doesn't quite suit the material.


Ritchie's style may be hard to digest for some, but Sherlock Holmes deserves praise for the truly incredible way it brings traditional material into a more modern perspective without losing the heart or originality at its core -- and, of course, for just being as outrageously entertaining as it is.

8/10

[Abdrewes]

I really dislike Guy Ritchie. Other than Lock, Stock, elements of Snatch, and the production design of SH2, I can't reccomend him as a filmmaker.

What really turns me off about the SH Series is the careless pacing and the obnoxious planning scenes. Guy Ritchie thinks he's just way too cool, but doesn't have the visual interest to sell me

I'm selling my Guy Ritchie films for $5, whoever wants them

[Al_The_Strange]

I think the two Sherlock Holmes are the only Guy Ritchie movies I seem to like. I thought his others (Lock Stock Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch) were good, but I never wanted to buy or rewatch them.

Sherlock Holmes is a weird animal imo, but I wound up loving it after the second viewing.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

I think the two Sherlock Holmes are the only Guy Ritchie movies I seem to like. I thought his others (Lock Stock Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch) were good, but I never wanted to buy or rewatch them.

Sherlock Holmes is a weird animal imo, but I wound up loving it after the second viewing.

I'm not sure if I've watched anything other than his two Sherlock Holmes movies. I've had to look up the rest of his work, but it's late.

As for Sherlock Holmes, I agree that it's a little odd, but I liked it more after the second viewing. It's pretty enjoyable in my opinion.

[Al_The_Strange]

Dune

Dune is a very strange, vicious, beautiful place, from a very renowned series of novels by Frank Herbert and his son. Book fans and sci-fi aficionados should already be familiar with this fantastic franchise full of otherworldly planets and empires, of fremen and sandworms, and the spice melange.

This 1984 film is an attempt to adapt Frank Herbert's deep and dense story into a palpable format. At the time of its release, the film was a massive flop, and it has garnered its fair share of complaints. The biggest issues are that the film is gaudy, messy, and pretentious. Chances are that if the world of Dune doesn't captivate you, these issues will beat you over your head, and you'll walk away thinking the film overly long and dull.

Dune does captivate me, however. From start to finish, it dishes out a plethora of fantastic imagery, thanks to its strange array of baroque props and costumes, its elaborate settings, it the story overall. David Lynch manages to squeeze in a few of his signature freak-out scenes, with strange images and scenes overlaid over each other in surreal montages, mostly during dream and spice-induced sequences. The man also tends to focus a lot on strange and grotesque details, many of which are so weird and out-there that they might seem out of place or unintentionally funny. And yet, that's one of the things I love about this film: the strangeness of it. I believe it's immensely successful at being otherworldly, and I feel that's most appropriate for Dune.

This film's pacing can be a hit or a miss though. The first half is entirely devoted to House Atreides settling on Arrakis, and these scenes can be rather dry. The more interesting segments occur in the last half, with the fremen uprising against House Harkonnen. There are big, epic battles at key moments, but they are pretty short, and special effects are of such mixed quality that it can be distracting (the biggest gripe I have is that many guns go off without producing any visible beams or bolts). What really makes this film interesting will be the individual scenes involving the characters and their journey.

That brings me to the most important aspect to this film: the story. Fans of the book may complain that the film swaps out "desert power" with weirding modules, thus undermining the tactical prowess of the characters. However, I feel the movie does the book decent justice, especially in the overall tone and style. A lot from the story and characters are lost between the book and the movie, but the fundamentals remain. On its own merits, the movie is not hard to follow, even with its vast array of Dune lore laid out. The plot is sound and interesting, and there's just enough to the characters to make them endearing. As the plot and characters progress, themes of destiny are strongly enforced.

On a cinematic level, the film is superbly constructed, with quality photography and very vivid editing. A few shots appear cheap, especially with some special effects appearing incomplete or gaudy, but other effects are great. Acting is very strong all around: Kyle MacLachlan is especially powerful and commanding as Paul Atreides. I enjoyed the performances of Francesca Annis, Sean Young, Jose Ferrer, Brad Dourif, Linda Hunt, Dean Stockwell, and Max Von Sydow. Kenneth McMillan is extremely hammy as the baron, and I love him that way. Sting offers a brief and gratuitous cameo, but he delivers a deliciously fun performance as Feyd Rautha, and he delivers one of the best psychotic smiles of all time. Writing can be a hit and a miss. This production uses some very elaborate, very interesting, and very big sets, props, and costumes. The music, by the rock band Toto, is really awesome and epic, and is one of my favorite music scores.

This adaptation of Dune has its share of issues that hasn't sat well with many viewers. However, it is a big, sweeping, epic sci-fi adventure with a very interesting universe. The film has a strong emotional power in its presentation, and that alone has cemented it as a personal favorite of mine, despite all its problems.

5/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Story: Very Good | Film: Perfect)

Recommendation: Give it a try. Alternatively, if you have given this film a try and hated it, give the 2000 Sci-Fi Channel miniseries a try.

[Abdrewes]

^^^
Nice! I have only seen the film on DVD, so I need to dust off the BluRay now. It's not even close to being my favorite Lynch (he actually wanted to take his name off the credits), but the production design, off kilter performances, and ansurdity did lure me in. For some reason, the first image that comes to mind is the epic Sting battle, so funny!

[Al_The_Strange]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

^^^
Nice! I have only seen the film on DVD, so I need to dust off the BluRay now. It's not even close to being my favorite Lynch (he actually wanted to take his name off the credits), but the production design, off kilter performances, and ansurdity did lure me in. For some reason, the first image that comes to mind is the epic Sting battle, so funny!

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Dune

Dune is a very strange, vicious, beautiful place, from a very renowned series of novels by Frank Herbert and his son. Book fans and sci-fi aficionados should already be familiar with this fantastic franchise full of otherworldly planets and empires, of fremen and sandworms, and the spice melange.

This 1984 film is an attempt to adapt Frank Herbert's deep and dense story into a palpable format. At the time of its release, the film was a massive flop, and it has garnered its fair share of complaints. The biggest issues are that the film is gaudy, messy, and pretentious. Chances are that if the world of Dune doesn't captivate you, these issues will beat you over your head, and you'll walk away thinking the film overly long and dull.

Dune does captivate me, however. From start to finish, it dishes out a plethora of fantastic imagery, thanks to its strange array of baroque props and costumes, its elaborate settings, it the story overall. David Lynch manages to squeeze in a few of his signature freak-out scenes, with strange images and scenes overlaid over each other in surreal montages, mostly during dream and spice-induced sequences. The man also tends to focus a lot on strange and grotesque details, many of which are so weird and out-there that they might seem out of place or unintentionally funny. And yet, that's one of the things I love about this film: the strangeness of it. I believe it's immensely successful at being otherworldly, and I feel that's most appropriate for Dune.

This film's pacing can be a hit or a miss though. The first half is entirely devoted to House Atreides settling on Arrakis, and these scenes can be rather dry. The more interesting segments occur in the last half, with the fremen uprising against House Harkonnen. There are big, epic battles at key moments, but they are pretty short, and special effects are of such mixed quality that it can be distracting (the biggest gripe I have is that many guns go off without producing any visible beams or bolts). What really makes this film interesting will be the individual scenes involving the characters and their journey.

That brings me to the most important aspect to this film: the story. Fans of the book may complain that the film swaps out "desert power" with weirding modules, thus undermining the tactical prowess of the characters. However, I feel the movie does the book decent justice, especially in the overall tone and style. A lot from the story and characters are lost between the book and the movie, but the fundamentals remain. On its own merits, the movie is not hard to follow, even with its vast array of Dune lore laid out. The plot is sound and interesting, and there's just enough to the characters to make them endearing. As the plot and characters progress, themes of destiny are strongly enforced.

On a cinematic level, the film is superbly constructed, with quality photography and very vivid editing. A few shots appear cheap, especially with some special effects appearing incomplete or gaudy, but other effects are great. Acting is very strong all around: Kyle MacLachlan is especially powerful and commanding as Paul Atreides. I enjoyed the performances of Francesca Annis, Sean Young, Jose Ferrer, Brad Dourif, Linda Hunt, Dean Stockwell, and Max Von Sydow. Kenneth McMillan is extremely hammy as the baron, and I love him that way. Sting offers a brief and gratuitous cameo, but he delivers a deliciously fun performance as Feyd Rautha, and he delivers one of the best psychotic smiles of all time. Writing can be a hit and a miss. This production uses some very elaborate, very interesting, and very big sets, props, and costumes. The music, by the rock band Toto, is really awesome and epic, and is one of my favorite music scores.

This adaptation of Dune has its share of issues that hasn't sat well with many viewers. However, it is a big, sweeping, epic sci-fi adventure with a very interesting universe. The film has a strong emotional power in its presentation, and that alone has cemented it as a personal favorite of mine, despite all its problems.

5/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Story: Very Good | Film: Perfect)

Recommendation: Give it a try. Alternatively, if you have given this film a try and hated it, give the 2000 Sci-Fi Channel miniseries a try.

Glad you liked it.Remember seeing a DL interview when this came out,and despite the Delaurentis bashing from fans and media,DL emphasized that having restrictions can be an advantage sometimes.Think it a seminal movie which at certain times is my favourite Lynch movie.Not often,but sometimes.

[jvince]

Before Sunrise (1995)
dir. Richard Linklater

The Good: Holy shit... I got some serious goosebumps while revisiting this film, especially now, knowing what becomes of our star-crossed lovers. Perfect screenplay (How in the hell did this not win anything back in '95?). The stunning Julie Delpy. The listening booth scene. The "phone call." The station scene. The closing montage. Excellent replay value. Pure, f*cking magic from start to end.

The Bad: None.

The Bottom Line: All I got to say is thank God for that bickering German couple. Celine and Jesse forever.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Double-checked the scene in question.

[Show spoiler]The order of scenes I posted before is accurate. In the winter scenes (shown last), Django and Schultz shoot and bring in the Wilson Lou gang. Dr. Schultz confirms the bodies on the horses, saying it's "he and his acolytes."

In the warm-weather scene (shown mostly first), Django shoots and kills Smitty Bacall, as indicated on the wanted poster. So they are definitely separate bounties and separate scenes. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the warm-weather scene is a flash-forward into springtime, if for no other reason than the guy was plowing, everything is green, and if this is after the winter thaw, then that would have been the perfect time for Schultz to make good on his end of the deal and allow Django to kill his first target before setting off for Candieland.

I can see how this would be confusing, especially when you look back and say "wait a minute..." When watching it though, it kinda breezes by, mostly because the scene fades in from the scene where Django's in the water and sees Broomhilde; the scene's surreal to start with, so you'd naturally assume that the movie just pushes forward to show Django's progression. But then it double-backs.

I don't mind these scenes though. It reminds me of a Kill Bill training montage, like with Pei Mei or something. KB jumped back and forth a lot, and the impression I get is that QT wanted to do the same thing with Django, by showing his first bounty first, and then showing how he got to that level.

Hope that makes sense...even though it doesn't make sense.

Yeah, that makes sense.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by jvince

Before Sunrise (1995)
dir. Richard Linklater

The Good: Holy shit... I got some serious goosebumps while revisiting this film, especially now, knowing what becomes of our star-crossed lovers. Perfect screenplay (How in the hell did this not win anything back in '95?). The stunning Julie Delpy. The listening booth scene. The "phone call." The station scene. The closing montage. Excellent replay value. Pure, f*cking magic from start to end.

The Bad: None.

The Bottom Line: All I got to say is thank God for that bickering German couple. Celine and Jesse forever.

Only a few more days for number three.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

I really dislike Guy Ritchie. Other than Lock, Stock, elements of Snatch, and the production design of SH2, I can't reccomend him as a filmmaker.

What really turns me off about the SH Series is the careless pacing and the obnoxious planning scenes. Guy Ritchie thinks he's just way too cool, but doesn't have the visual interest to sell me

I see where you're coming from with his obnoxious style, but it's just his manic, almost impulsive, nature that appeals to me; his films never seem to rely heavily on planning or script, everything just seems to hinge on his almost instantaneous, natural decisions. I know that isn't the case, of course, but I like that it feels as such.

As for the visual interest, I'd argue that Ritchie's style is amongst the most distinctive within British (if not American) cinema; you can recognise one of his films from one or two scenes, usually. Sherlock Holmes is almost the culmination of his previous projects in that it takes his unique style but applies it to a surprisingly strong and coherent storyline (something he'd been missing before) so it becomes even more zany than usual.