Films you've seen recently and would unreservedly recommend:
- Thread starter Woebot
- Start date
-
- Tags
- beware the dog killer craner's got herpes damn well 'urts! don't be so basic eye-watering dick nailage gay cowboy death squad greek dudes herzog i went to oxford italo jamaican voodoo gang from marked for death jamaican voodoo gang from predator 2 rolling sultry voodoo sweat sex chicken stuff versioncore u know the score what's the frequency kenneth?
slim jenkins
El Hombre Invisible
Really? I surprised you found it so chilling. Great film though. 'Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer'...now that's chilling...(shudder). That and most Rom Com/teen American popcorn...find the thought of thousands of people liking those very chilling.
boombox
...
Sure.
By 'real' I meant plausibility within the films own world / rules. I wouldn't attack the Matrix for being unreal because it is consistent in and of itself. I would criticise The History Boys for being unreal because the dialogue and interactions are out of kilter with the real world / historical background.
Film Noirs do strive for a certain hard-hitting realism. The murders are normally seen as horrific and the games people play in these films are meant to ratchet the tension.
However, the characters are too often paper-thin mini-Grouchos - a 'witty' turn of phrase here and a world-weary sigh there. It makes the whole thing feel empty again. Properly drawn characters can really elevate the material. Asphalt Jungle is a prime example - you can feel the insecurities, vices and weaknesses which the violent situation plays on or brings to light.
(I meant light and shadow as in the lighting. Too much cheap symbolism and trying to look cool for the sake of it.)
fokse vektaire xeven
Arab Nazi
Film Noirs are violent and often cruel but one of the signature attributes of Film Noir- a cross generic form after all- is a heightening of reality. They can't be said or expected to operate in terms of realism.
boombox
...
You misunderstand what I mean by realism - you confuse internal narrative logic with world-outside-my-window realism.
Anyway, I am not saying that certain noirs are invalid. I simply prefer those that are less schizophrenic (heightened reality visually and in terms of plot with lowered reality in terms of deadpan, superficial characterisation) and more of-a-piece, with plot and emotion and characterisation driving each other.
Anyway, I am not saying that certain noirs are invalid. I simply prefer those that are less schizophrenic (heightened reality visually and in terms of plot with lowered reality in terms of deadpan, superficial characterisation) and more of-a-piece, with plot and emotion and characterisation driving each other.
Last edited:
IdleRich
IdleRich
Seconds was very good and I watched it last night. I seem to remember some slightly heated debate about Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind in these pages and there are strong similarities between the two films - although maybe saying that gives it away slightly - but I think Seconds is far superior. It's directed by Frankenheimer and stars Rock Hudson - at least for the second half of the film, and (almost) all the way through it has a paranoid and slightly psychedelic atmosphere although it's hard to put your finger on quite what causes the second of those two things.
The film starts with a man having an address put into his hand by a stranger on a train and seemingly being greatly shaken by this event. When he returns home it becomes clear that he has been receiving phone calls from a friend of his - a friend who happens to be dead - and that the man handing over the note is in some way connected to this. Despite himself the first man follows instructions given to him by his deceased friend and becomes embroiled in a bizarre series of events over which he has no control.
After a brilliant start the film seems to lose its way somewhat in the middle but when it picks up again towards the end you realise that every scene was relevant and that the boring ones (including some hippy folk festival) do have some importance to the horrors that finally unfold.
The music is great and makes the film extremely tense and creepy and combines nicely with the great use they make of very strange camera angles, close-ups and dream sequences. For me, what made the film so dark was the way that when the main character is able to (sort of) revisit the life he would have had if he had not followed the instructions from the mysterious phone call and you realise that that would have been just as empty and depressing as what did in fact ensue. It's only an aside to the main film and not much is made of it but it's a real nasty comment on the pointlessness of materialistic life in the US in the sixties. The idea that you can have a good job and wife and house etc and still be unhappy - but not even realise it until you step outside because you've been so strongly conditioned to think that happiness and those things are the same.
Also, a good bit of trivia, I read that Brian Wilson watched the film during the period when he was supposed to be making Smile and it had a profound effect on him. The fact that the protagonist was called Wilson and that the first thing he heard on walking in to the film was someone saying Mr Wilson caused him to believe that the film had been created specifically to mess with his head.
The film starts with a man having an address put into his hand by a stranger on a train and seemingly being greatly shaken by this event. When he returns home it becomes clear that he has been receiving phone calls from a friend of his - a friend who happens to be dead - and that the man handing over the note is in some way connected to this. Despite himself the first man follows instructions given to him by his deceased friend and becomes embroiled in a bizarre series of events over which he has no control.
After a brilliant start the film seems to lose its way somewhat in the middle but when it picks up again towards the end you realise that every scene was relevant and that the boring ones (including some hippy folk festival) do have some importance to the horrors that finally unfold.
The music is great and makes the film extremely tense and creepy and combines nicely with the great use they make of very strange camera angles, close-ups and dream sequences. For me, what made the film so dark was the way that when the main character is able to (sort of) revisit the life he would have had if he had not followed the instructions from the mysterious phone call and you realise that that would have been just as empty and depressing as what did in fact ensue. It's only an aside to the main film and not much is made of it but it's a real nasty comment on the pointlessness of materialistic life in the US in the sixties. The idea that you can have a good job and wife and house etc and still be unhappy - but not even realise it until you step outside because you've been so strongly conditioned to think that happiness and those things are the same.
Also, a good bit of trivia, I read that Brian Wilson watched the film during the period when he was supposed to be making Smile and it had a profound effect on him. The fact that the protagonist was called Wilson and that the first thing he heard on walking in to the film was someone saying Mr Wilson caused him to believe that the film had been created specifically to mess with his head.
She may have been gorgeous, but she was also pretty young - 20 in To Have and Have Not. Although she'd been modeling for a while, she may not have felt like she had all men on a string yet.
IdleRich
IdleRich
The Red House. I thought this was genuinely creepy.
http://www.timeout.com/film/newyork/reviews/76509/the-red-house.html
The film starts nicely enough with a fresh (and actually quite annoying) faced youngster taking an odd job for a kindly one-legged farmer played by Edward G Robinson who lives with his sister and their adopted daughter. Things take a turn for the strange when the new farm-hand announces that he has decided to take a short cut through the woods on the way home and Robinson's character gets very excited indeed about warning him off. The boy gets lost and frightened in the dark wood and returns to the farm but to the farmer's chagrin he vows to explore it in the day time so he can make the short cut in future. The film develops exploring the frankly weird relationship (with overtones of paedophilia, incest and arguably necrophilia) between the farmer and his adopted daughter as well as his constant terror of the screaming wood on their doorstep and the sinister red house at its centre. Matters are further complicated by the young hero's relationship with his girlfriend and her links to the handsome but thuggish gun toting hick who turns up at all the wrong times. In a sense, not that much happens but the constant references to the red house somehow make it scarier and scarier as the inevitability of the final scenes increases - I don't think I'd be giving too much away in saying that they take place in the red house itself.
http://www.timeout.com/film/newyork/reviews/76509/the-red-house.html
The film starts nicely enough with a fresh (and actually quite annoying) faced youngster taking an odd job for a kindly one-legged farmer played by Edward G Robinson who lives with his sister and their adopted daughter. Things take a turn for the strange when the new farm-hand announces that he has decided to take a short cut through the woods on the way home and Robinson's character gets very excited indeed about warning him off. The boy gets lost and frightened in the dark wood and returns to the farm but to the farmer's chagrin he vows to explore it in the day time so he can make the short cut in future. The film develops exploring the frankly weird relationship (with overtones of paedophilia, incest and arguably necrophilia) between the farmer and his adopted daughter as well as his constant terror of the screaming wood on their doorstep and the sinister red house at its centre. Matters are further complicated by the young hero's relationship with his girlfriend and her links to the handsome but thuggish gun toting hick who turns up at all the wrong times. In a sense, not that much happens but the constant references to the red house somehow make it scarier and scarier as the inevitability of the final scenes increases - I don't think I'd be giving too much away in saying that they take place in the red house itself.
slim jenkins
El Hombre Invisible
Sounds excellent. I'll try and get hold of it somehow.
Watched 'The Swimmer' last night - Burt Reynolds swimming home via pools en route. In a way typically 60s through depiction of middle-age life and materialistic values revealed by the swimmer's appearance at various homes. His story is only hinted at by the different reactions of those whose homes he invades. Naive romantic? Suburban stud? Welcome old friend? Success? Failure? Adventurer or con man? Great cinematography with poignant scenes (sometimes overdone).
Watched 'The Swimmer' last night - Burt Reynolds swimming home via pools en route. In a way typically 60s through depiction of middle-age life and materialistic values revealed by the swimmer's appearance at various homes. His story is only hinted at by the different reactions of those whose homes he invades. Naive romantic? Suburban stud? Welcome old friend? Success? Failure? Adventurer or con man? Great cinematography with poignant scenes (sometimes overdone).
Last edited:
IdleRich
IdleRich
With my record of tipping films for you I wouldn't bother... but I got it from lovefilm. I think the reason I heard about it was that it is quoted in this film. I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoire(s)_du_cinéma
Yeah, that's great. Surprisingly dark. Not sure it quite hangs together fully but it's an interesting idea for certain.
slim jenkins
El Hombre Invisible
Crazy coincidence! Two hours ago I finished watching the first episode of Godard's epic 'history' having just bought it (arrived today).
IdleRich
IdleRich
Was reminded of that and the rest of the debate when reading this in a Joe Queenan article in the Guardian today
Not sure that that's totally right though. He's talking about the Coen brothers so I guess he wants to say that because the two ideas are totally joined in Millers Crossing which probably ought to be the acme of the genre according to Coen - but isn't.
crackerjack
Well-known member
Which genre: noir, or ironic post-modern neo-noir?
slim jenkins
El Hombre Invisible
Mmm...can't say I get his point. The Coens like to subvert genres, play with them, pay homage to them...but I can't think of one that it totally 'ironic'. Perhaps that's why I'm not a film critic. I think 'Miller's Crossing' is a superb himage to the gangster movies of the 20s/30s - not film noir. 'The Man Who Wasn't There' is their great tribute to noir. I see a Coen Bros backlash based on their latest. But for my money they've been two of the modern age's great film makers - wit, style, originality, intellect...and with 'NCFOM' the darkest Oscar winner ever, probably.
crackerjack
Well-known member
Miller's Crossing is based on Red Harvest by Hammett and contains many of noir's most enduring themes - femme fatale, endless double crossing, honest-man-in-dishonest-world. You're right, though, it is fantastic. TMWWT I don't like, though - seemed like an attempt to take the title too literally, and though it was alll played out well, I was struggling to really give a fuck, because BBT was just so blank (which was the point, obv, but it just showed you why filmmakers don't generally put emotional voids at the film's core).
Did you not like No Country...? I loooooove that film, best I've seen in, oooh, years.
IdleRich
IdleRich
Well, I guess that what I meant to say is that Millers Crossing is, at least in some sense, a noir with added irony (I guess an ironic post-modern neo-noir if you like) so if Queenan is right then noir fans should go a bundle on it. Er, is that clear? In other words the post-modern neo-noir sub-genre of noir ought to be the best bit. But I don't agree, and I think that Millers Crossing was in some way unsatisfying - I can't quite put my finger on why, it just seemed that there was something about it that made it a pastiche. No Country on the other hand was great - it completely avoided that feeling.
crackerjack
Well-known member
There's been an element of pastiche about noir ever since Play It Again Sam, a very deliberate tinkering with the archetype. Doesn't have to be as out-and-out as something like Brick - even, say, Long Goodbye has that about it.