With the doldrums of winter, and the wasteland of the multiplex in January – March, I expect this section to be a lot bigger in the next (increasingly inaccurate) fortnightly occurring edition. Here is what the Rowthree writers have been looking at (but not necessarily writing up a complete post) in the film world. Want the full list? Just click the “Movies We Watched” icon on the sidebar.
Scenes from a Marriage (1973) 5/5
Here I speak of the six hour mini-series rather than the film version (both of which are on the Criterion Collection edition). Rarely would I give something a perfect rating but something of this magnitude, that rewrites the rules of engagement for how a film can render reality, and tear open the scab of supposed understanding of how marital relationships work, this is more than a film, this is a revelation. I like Bergman best when he tones down his style, when he writes his rigmaroles and lets the dramatic thrust of his stories play out in static ’scenes’ where your entire attention is rapt by dialogue and faces, and this is the finest ever written on the issue of divorce. Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut is shamefully amateur in lieu of what Bergman pulls off in this series (and I say that as a fan of Eyes Wide Shut). The only criticism I can give is perhaps Liv Ullmann wasn’t the right actress for the role of the wife because it seems impossible to conceive of her as anything but the luminous vision she is, Erland Josephson deserves accolades if only for his acting as if Ullmann was undesirable. -MIKE
Gran Torino (2008) 4/5
So blunt with its imagery and portentous with its message that it is quite easily to overlook an interesting take on how one generations values can show up not in the direct offspring, but rather in other cultures. Structured like a western but set in modern America, the film isn’t of the calibre of Unforgiven, but its not of the low-note Space Cowboys variety either. It won me over in the end. -KURT
Of Time and the City (2008) 3.5/5
Of Time and the City is Terrence Davies’ My Winnipeg, only instead of the cold and inhospitable Canadian city of Guy Maddin’s film, it is the cold and inhospitable English city of Liverpool. Davies lays on thick the bitter theatrics in his narration, reciting quotations, poetry and his own snide remarks about how the city from which he was born came to transform his life. Liverpool is brought to life with historical and present day footage, weaving a story of insurmountable poverty and absurd contradictions, at times heavenly and hellish. While some of the footage was incredible, I did find Davies’ vision a bit anachronistic, more personally removed from the events than Maddin’s approach. The Beatles are glossed over in lieu of Davies’ classical tastes, and his world feels hermetically sealed, not quite familiar to my own. -MIKE
The Woodsman (2004) 3.5/5
Kevin Bacon kicks ass as always. Putting with him his real life wife helps make the intimate scenes that much more interesting. We never really get to know Bacon’s past troubles with minors sexually, but we can tell it is bad. It’s interesting that they manipulate the audience in such a way that we end up rooting for a person that we know did some really bad things and those demons still haunt him. If you liked 2008’s Boy A, The Woodsman has a similar feel. -ANDREW
“Gossip Girl” (2007) 4.5/5
On the surface Gossip Girl appears to be a new version of The OC but after a few episodes, it is clear that there is a whole lot more going on here than there ever was in Josh Schwartz’s previous show. So yes, it’s glitzy and hip but it actually does have something more important to say, if you’re willing to give it a chance. And just in case you need another excuse to watch it, be sure to check out NY Mag’s feature on why the show is genius. -MARINA
5/5 for Scenes from a marriage sounds about right. Maybe even a 6/5 would be appropriate.
kurt, you are the last person i thought would like Gran Torino. i am surprised you seem to like it even more than me.
nevermind, Henrik is the last person, but then you.
I actually expect to thoroughly enjoy Gran Torino. It looks hilarious, and I love stereotypes being made fun of it’s some of my favorite humour. Like the jewegg in Borat.
No-one was more surprised than I, Murph. I like Clint Eastwood as an actor, but his directorial choices are not always my cup of Tea (Million Dollar Baby = BOO!) There is a dogged persistence in the American myth vs. the American reality (whatever that means) at play in Gran Torino. And I have a soft spot for American cinema where nearly every single problem is solved by a strange cocktail of love and violence. That is why the Western endears itself to me so much, and really, when you boil it all down, Gran Torino is a western at heart (Same with A History of Violence for that matter).
Everything I’ve seen directed by Clint Eastwood has been mediocre-to-terrible, except for Unforgiven which is great.
Henrik: Yes, Unforgivin is actually a given, easily Eastwoods best film, but I’d offer these for consideration:
A Perfect World
Bird
The Eiger Sanction
The Gauntlet (unbridled fun closing sequence!)
High Plains Drifter
Probably best to avoid:
Million Dollar Baby
Space Cowboys
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
The Rookie
I have not bothered with is WWII pair of films (I’ll take Malick, thankyou very much or The Changeling (I’ll take Curtis Hanson’s LA Confidential over this. LA CONF is not quite a perfect film, but its a darn good one, which Changeling looks to not be.)
I’m going with ‘The Outlaw Josey Wales’ as Eastwood’s best. Unless you can count the entire Man With No Name trilogy. ‘The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly’ is one of the most beautiful films ever shot.
Well, we’re talking about films Clint directed, so obviously Leone’s films are excluded. As far as Clint’s directorial efforts, I’d put The Outlaw Josey Wales right behind Unforgiven as his best.
Besides the aforementioned High Plains Drifter, I’d also recommend Bird, with Forest Whitaker as Charlie Parker. It’s an often overlooked Eastwood film, which I love.
And Kurt, I’ve said it before, but I recommend you check out Letter from Iwo Jima. Great WWII film.
I second Jonathan’s recommendation of Letters from Iwo Jima – that was a great little film (though I can’t speak for Flags – still haven’t seen it).
“Kevin Bacon kicks ass as always.”
Yes.
I hated Letters, Flags is actually better even though it sucks.
Herik, you just can’t admit that the Japanese are human, can you, you racist communist bastard?
Sure. Allthough I have never been there, Yasujiro Ozu is proof that not only are japs (is that derogatory?, I don’t know what to call them in english) human, some of them are great artists.
Letters From Iwo Jima is an americanized cockshit version of japanese cinema, literally the only thing japanese about it is the language, and the stereotypical excessive shouting, everything else about it screams Hollywood.
yes, “Japs” is considered derogatory by most English-speakers.
and it isn’t supposed to be Japanese cinema, it’s directed by Clint Eastwood for chrissake. it’s an American take on the Japanese side of the war made in Hollywood… what else did you expect from it?
you butter cookie
Something good and worthwhile.
Do you have to say japanese people all the time then? There is no “danes” equivalent for Japan? English is a nonsense language!
Henrik, “Jap” did not used to be offensive (and it may not be offensive in other English speaking countries, I’m not really sure), but after WWII, all the internment camps in America, all of the propaganda against the Japanese, it has taking on a very derogatory meaning. So, yes, “Japs” used to be an acceptable equivalent to “Danes,” but no longer.
‘Letters from Iwo Jima’ is an excellent film. Very worthwhile. I wish it’d win some kind of award. Like an Oscar, or something.
@ Do you have to say japanese people all the time then?
actually you don’t have to specify “japanese people” you can just say “japanese”.
I watched the Fall yesterday – 5/5
a link to Andrews negative review to maybe spur argument?
http://www.moviepatron.com/moviereviews/f/fall.html
I don’t get what is to hate, and this is from someone who pretty much loathes the Cell. What’s not up for debate is the film is gorgeous and worse case scenario even if you find it boring, its going to be pretty. In my case though, I really actually was completely drawn into the story, and it clicked with me from the get-go. I ‘got’ it I suppose is the way of saying it.
I expected a pretentious bore, which is why I waited so long to see it, but to me any calls out for that sort of thing are written off easily by the storytelling device where Roy is basically making it all up as he goes along. It’s probably the prime ‘fairytale’ defense that we’d been talking about lately. Overall while compared to Pan’s Labyrinth, I see a lot of Princess Bride and even Wizard of Oz in there too, def. more PRincess Bride in there than was in Stardust, even though that aims for a more similar audience.
I guess a lot of people had trouble with the little girl. I fucking loved that kid, they didn’t have to have any put on sense of wonder or ‘real’ acting, this is how most kids actually are. Naive, easily scared, easy to hook. Most movie kids are way smarter and sharper than kids actually are. I love how this movie doesn’t sugarcoat shit – Roy is using her and even when he’s in full on dick mode at the end its all believable, and transitions back on track seem just. He had no problem hurting this kid but even he had a line.
Yeah, so if I had a Blu-Ray player, this would probably be the first thing I pick up. Just all around loved this thing.
As for some things in Andrew’s negative review:
“Things seem to start off well enough with a set-up for a fast paced, adventure story with great, interesting and deep characters”
I never saw a promise for that. All along Roy was using her and it was evident, he was just telling whatever and shaping it at a moments notice to fit what she wanted to get her to do his bidding. The fantasy story is tied a whole lot more to whats really going on with Roy and Alexandra. They are definitely not two separate stories.
“Hence the flat acting is bothersome. Besides Pace and Untaru, who are serviceable in their roles, most of the other characters in the movie, despite looking like hearty and interesting souls, completely fall flat and are frankly pretty boring.”
I didn’t find them boring, but at the same time yes, they are all one dimensional characters. So what. I’m invoking fairytale defense 1A.
“With jumps in logic in the already uninteresting storyline towards the end of the movie, it was difficult not to just harrumph my way through the final ten minutes.
To quickly tie up the story, the script calls for some storytelling tactics that are, I’m sorry to say, just plain stupid and don’t fit with the rest of the style of the film.”
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. One, complaining about the logic of the film in the fantasy world is again, pretty much moot. Roy finds his line that he couldn’t cross and does whatever he can to tie up the story to make Alexandra feel better, realizing what he had done.
As for the very end, well even though the fucking movie box had spoiled it for me, the movie doesn’t make it particularly clear about Roy’s profession and how his role of the stuntman ties everything together. Perhaps knowing this in advance makes a difference? or are you talking about something else?
Anyways, if I were to make one complaint about the film, it would probably be the opening shots. He went a bit overboard with the slow mo, and while I understand why he used it later, it is still maybe a bit too much like a Stella Artois commercial
It’s been far too long since I saw this to argue anything. I remember it is gorgeous, but myself and the group of friends I was with were impossibly bored to tears. I couldn’t wait to get out of the theater. I’d give it a second go-around one day, but I remember it was very clunky and was trying to tell two stories at once that were both uninteresting. The final ten minutes if I remember correctly were preposterously stupid.
And I’ve recently come to love The Cell. I think it’s a fantastic film. Simple, but effective. The Fall is not simple and not effective.
I thought the Fall was actually pretty simple, and that both stories are really one. He’s telling the story to get what he wants, and inserting people both he and the girl know into the story. A few are simply for her entertainment, but the villains are Roy taking his personal problems out on the guy through his storytelling.
I mean would you call Princess Bride two stories, because I would consider it like that, except in a way its in reverse. In Princess Bride the actual story is more of the real focus and the Fred Savage cutaways are serving that story. In The Fall, the fantasy story to me is in service to the real Roy/Alexandra story.
You’re not simple or effective!
The Fall was one of the best movies of last year