Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 121

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

The Circus ended up being my favorite Chaplin, actually!


#285 - Meet Me in St. Louis

Really wonderful. The plot is pure fluff... based on the mildest of dramatic conflicts, if you could even call them conflicts at all. But it is a warm and inviting story. And anyway, you don't watch a musical for the plot, you watch it for the musical sequences. And oh, how joyous and transcendent they are. "The Trolley Song" and "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" are glorious, soaring highlights, but there really isn't a stinker in the bunch (I guess I didn't care much for the title song). My only big complaint is that it needed MORE songs! There's a long stretch without any, especially while we sludge through the Halloween business which is the most uninteresting part of the film (gah, who cares about Tootie?). So I would have appreciated a couple more tunes, but I'm still going to add this to my collection at some point (I'll probably wait for the inevitable Blu-Ray, where the Technicolor should really shine). Rating: 9

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

I'm going to be tackling the canon pretty hard for a while, so I expect to fill in a lot of the gaps in my list.


#286 - Letter from an Unknown Woman

Expertly filmed with wonderful camera moves, evocative lighting, and beautiful sets. It was well-acted, and there were some very memorable moments. It comments elegantly on the harsh realities of romance. The score was very nice, too. That is to say: I liked it, quite a bit. On the whole, however, it just didn't strike me as a masterpiece and I'm left wondering why it has such a mighty reputation. Sure, it was tragic and lovely, but it certainly didn't dig deep into my soul or anything. I was more impressed by the other Ophuls film I've seen, Leibelei. What am I missing that elevates this one above the level of "very good"? Rating: 8

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

how did you see leibelei and how can I see it? it's one of the legendary thirties films I've not gotten to.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

The public library had it on VHS.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#287 - The Earrings of Madame de...

Ophuls again. I liked this one a little bit more. Of course, the camerawork is incredible... full of long, graceful, carefully choreographed tracking shots. The shot of the torn letters turning into snow was genius. And the use of the earrings as a symbol for the various relationships of love and deception among the characters was novel. It's an excellent film, but I'm afraid that, again, it did not connect with me on a gut level. I cannot point to a particular flaw or provide an example of what I would have preferred to see. I simply wasn't swept off my feet by it. My reaction to Ophuls has been similar to my feelings about Ozu -- he made very good films, quite watchable and impressive in their own way. Just not MY KIND of films, whatever that might be. Rating: 8

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

I agree, they are very well made, I just didn't like them that well. Still I'll have to poke around looking for Liebelie cause I just assumed it was never available.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#288 - Celine and Julie Go Boating

In some ways a tremendous rip-off of Daisies, although there are enough differences to make it fresh. In Chytilova's film, the girls are playful forces of destruction; in Rivette's they are playful forces of creativity. This film is really about the power and joy of imagination, and it's executed in a way that incorporates surreal elements without ever getting too confusing. It does get rather tedious at times, though, and most of the themes/scenes/points are lingered on far longer than necessary. The girls (again, like those in Daisies) are alternately charming and annoying. The identity switching is possibly influenced by Persona, and in turn is most likely an influence on Altman's 3 Women. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing this again, but I'd rather watch Daisies, which is more concise and exciting, and does more with camera technique. Rating: 8 


#289 - The African Queen

An entertaining adventure tale, good but not great. The pacing and plotting are spot on, but Huston's direction (as is often the case) lacks distinction. Nothing makes this movie shine, and even Cardiff's Technicolor photography is a bit lifeless (although I'm sure it'd look a lot snappier with a proper DVD release). Bogart and Hepburn give charismatic performances, but one wishes there was more spark between them. The romance definitely feels forced, and I didn't buy it until the very end. I entertained the possibility that Bogart's character was faking it for a while, but that theory didn't hold up. I thought it would have been more interesting that way. Nonetheless, it's an enjoyable tale. Rating: 7

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Cries and Whispers - 7 of 10
35mm 040608, 210th film


Certainly not the worst film ever, but I don't fully embrace it just yet either. This film requires a more nuanced and considered view than an immediate reaction provides. Suffice to say that I found the photography incredible, the imagry utterly stunning and the actions of the two vile ones to be as horrifying as anything Scarlett OHara managed to accomplish when she worked her evils. I'm not sure if I can interpret this film outside of the feelings of class warfare it sparks in me, certainly I now see the spiritual elements, but they had less of an impact on my appreciation than the injustice treated upon Anna (and Agnes).

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#290 - The Wind

In which the horrors of living in a godforsaken backwater place with dumbass hicks is weighed against the horrors of a creepy married guy trying to rape you. This is not lighthearted fare, and the climax is as intense as any modern movie I've seen. The craftsmanship on display is impressive, not just for 1928 but for any era. Most of the really good stuff comes in the third act, but I wouldn't say that the buildup is boring or anything. Rating: 9

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

I mentioned it in my review of THE WIND last year but this was released nearly an exact year after THE JAZZ SINGER and a lot of people used this film as to why films didn't need sound. I for one agree. It's certainly one of the greatest films I've ever seen and I think it speaks very loudly that silents are a lot more powerful than sound. There's no way in hell you could make this film with sound and have it have the same impact.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Norma Desmond is ALIVE!

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

I might end up embarrassed but who is that?

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

The female lead in Sunset Blvd., an aging silent film star who thinks that silents are a lot more powerful than sound.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Joe: You’re Norma Desmond. You used to be in silent pictures. You used to be big.

Norma: I am big. It’s the pictures that got small.

Or

Norma: We didn’t need dialogue. We had faces.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

No wonder she was half a nut!

Hey, Michael, even *I* know who Norma Desmond is!

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

how does the biggest silent buff on HTF not know Norma Desmond?

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

1. I've seen RAGING BULL 50+ times but can't remember all of their names.
2. I've seen SUNSET once and don't remember it.

Hey, I said I'd probably be embarrassed. At 28 today I must say I wasn't in the right mindset last night to remember who directed RAGING BULL.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Sunset Blvd. is #25 on this list, #12 on the AFI, 100 Movies list (16 on the 2007 list), 2 entries in the AFI 100 Quotes list, included under William Holden’s films in our version of the 100 Stars list, #26 in AFI’s 100 Years of Film Scores list, rated 4 stars by Brook (and less, not unsurprisingly by George), and me. Amazingly, also rated 4 stars on November 5, 2006 by Michael Elliott.

As I think about it, you need to lay off whatever is killing off your brain cells—else you won’t make it to 30.

Perhaps watching Raging Bull so many times has actually resulted in your becoming ‘punch drunk’. I’m guessing that virtual battering resulting in brain damage is quite rare. It may be possible to live out your days as an exhibit at a major medical facility. Think of the awe and wonder you will inspire in med students (though of course you won’t be aware enough to appreciate their admiration).

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#291 - The Story of the Late Chrysanthemums

I've been wanting to see this for years, ever since I saw Sansho the Bailiff back in 2003. I loved it, and most of the subsequent Mizoguchi films I saw, but and always heard that this one was his finest. So when I finally got my hands on a decent copy, there were some pretty high expectations to live up to. And, well, I have to admit I'm a bit underwhelmed. It's the best of his pre-war films that I've seen (which aren't that many) but I didn't like it as much as the stuff from the late 40's/early 50's. But don't get me wrong, it's an excellent movie. The craftsmanship is wonderful, some very dramatic angles and expressive camera language (although there were a few rather dull shots too). And the acting, costumes, music is superb. The story touches on themes of loyalty and integrity in ways that are poignant. It just didn't quite have that extra something to put it over the top for me. The ending is quite moving, however you can really see it coming a mile away. So, there are better Mizoguchi movies, but this one certainly is worth watching. I'd especially like to see a restored print (c'mon Criterion!). Rating: 8

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

I bet it's all the silent films, apparently the soporific effect isn't benign after all.



I agree on being a little underwhelmed by this one. Personally I find both Sisters of the Gion and Osaka Elegy to be better than Last Chrysanthemum. That said I'd watch all three of them again. but I don't think I'd watch Sansho again. Too much misery for me.

I read a comment on the criterion forum that there hasn't been good elements seen of Last Chrysanthemums since the sixties or seventies, so the best we may be able to hope for is an eclipse release rather than a full blown criterion version.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#292 - Topsy-Turvy

My father, uncle and cousin are all big Gilbert & Sullivan fans. I am not. Oh, the tunes are alright, but all that laboriously clever wordplay irks me. It seems like the kind of thing people say they like so that they can appear cultured but whimsical, but in reality probably most of them aren't really that fond of it. Like Tom Lehrer. At any rate (before I start offending my family members), being a G&S fan is thankfully not an absolute requirement for appreciating this movie. It would help, as there is quite a bit (too much, I'd say) of their work in it, but it's more about the creative process. And on that score, it's quite engaging. It also helps that the characters are exceptionally well-drawn, even the minor players. I did think the period reproduction was a bit obtrusive, with all the detail crying out "look at me! I'm so AUTHENTIC!" and the over-attention to things that were new in the 1880's (the telephone scene, for example). It was impressive set design, but too in-your-face. Of course I'm nitpicking, and overall it was an entertaining film, though probably more so for devotees of musical theater. Rating: 7


#293 - The Gospel According to St. Matthew

I fully expected to hate this. I haven't liked Pasolini much, and I'm an atheist (though notably, so was Pasolini). But I was completely won over. The bold realism and utter lack of Hollywoodization gives the film an undefinable quality, but a powerful one. The handheld work was especially effective in bringing the story to life. The music and editing is quite bold, too. Pasolini wastes no time, nothing is superfluous. It's almost a Reader's Digest version of the New Testament, but in a good way, with the important points being captured and then moving on. There are no loving, lingering shots of a perfectly groomed Christ bathed in a beam of light. Enrique Irazoqui's performance is stern and determined, his portrayal of Jesus is far from the typical gentle, saintly one we're used to. The film isn't going to make a convert out of me or anything, but I was considerably impressed. Rating: 9

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#294 - Greed

The four-hour restored version. I believe that much of the love for this film (and there's an awful lot of it) stems from the fact that so much footage is missing. Like the Beach Boys "Smile" album, we always imagine that the thing we can never experience must have been the greatest thing ever. I'm unimpressed with what I've heard of "Smile", and similarly less than bowled over by this film. Four hours of this is enough, I don't even want to know how the hell it ever went on for over nine hours. And how about that title? They should do this with modern films. Crash could be renamed Racism, and Requiem for a Dream could be Drugs. As you would expect, the story is extremely blunt and one-note. To Stroheim's credit, though, he does manage to get a lot of mileage out of that note. Despite making its point early and often, the film somehow never feels repetitive. For such a lengthy work, it goes by pretty quick, culminating with one hell of an ending. Worth watching... once. If I were to see it again, I'd probably go for the shortened version. Rating: 8

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

I'm perfectly content with having watched the two hour version and I thought it was excellent. No interest really in watching another two hours of still pictures added to an already good film.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

edit

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Sorry that I offended you Michael. That was not my intent. I thought that my post was so over-the-top that you would see it in the same light that I meant: humor. Clearly I missed the mark and I apologize unreservedly.

Of course no one remembers every detail of every movie they watch, none more so than I.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

humour, yo, it's meant to be funny, playing off Lew's over the top comment. I apologize, it wasn't meant to antagonize.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

No need for either of you to apologize, I apologize for the way I reacted. I've been off the boards for a couple days because something bad happened to my girlfriend's daughter so my comments were out of line and have been deleted. Again, I was hoping to delete them before anyone read them but that didn't happen. I can be a major jerk but try to admit when I'm wrong and I was wrong here in what I said so I apologize to both of you. I guess you could say I was coming here to let off some steam, which was wrong on my part.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#295 - A Matter of Life and Death

So, so close to being a perfect film. It's beautiful, witty, touching, inventive, and life-affirming. The performances are all endearing, Cardiff's handling of color (and monochrome) is astounding as usual, the set design is wonderful, the idea of it is intriguing, it all comes together exquisitely. It's marvelous, definitely my favorite film by Powell & Pressburger, and one that encourages me to revisit their other works. But there is one thing that keeps it from perfection. The film was commissioned to smooth over relations between Britain and America, and it shows. Boy, does it show. The trial scene, in which the virtues and flaws of the two countries and their feelings toward each other are explored, feels like it belongs to entirely different movie. It's awkward and transparent and just plain wrong. I mean, I appreciate the sentiment, but it seems like it belongs in an educational reel or something. Other than that scene, though, I was really thrilled. Rating: 9

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#306 A Matter of Life and Death

My view is pretty much Martin's taken down a notch at each level except Cardiff's cinematography and the use of Technicolor, which is brilliant as you come to expect from The Archers. The visualization of Heaven, both the design and the ideas behind it I found fascinating. Turning to the actors, I found David Niven just a touch strident, and a bit stiff, which throws off the romance a tad. Marius Goring on the other hand is terrific and steals all his scenes, a nice contrast to The Red Shoes, where he is the one who's a bit awkward as a leading man. Roger Livesy is the center of the film, carrying much of the drama and wit single-handedly, so no complaints there.

However, I was even more turned off by the U.S. vs. Britain trial, which drones on and on to little effect in an endless tit for tat argument that feels like it belongs in an entirely different film. Much of the argument didn't even make sense and seemed to me to concentrate on differences and negativity. This threw the film off just enough that I didn't experience much of the emotional involvement I usually do with their films and it didn't hit me as deeply. It's certainly quite good, but at least on this initial viewing, I would have to list it as a bit of a disappointment (of course this is vs. a personal favorite in The Red Shoes, and "A" films like Colonel Blimp and A Canterbury Tale) - B+

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

my thoughts on the trial varying by viewing:

1st viewing: Where the hell did that come from?
2nd viewing: Why is this ruining this great Film?
3rd viewing: Ugh this is so awkward
4th viewing: This is absolutely and completely brilliant, I love it, Damn this is awesome, I get it now.
5th viewing: One of my favorite scenes of the entire film, I will now watch anything with Raymond Massey in it.