Films you've seen recently and would recommend WITH reservations

[shakahislop]

So... yeah, with reservations right?
One thing I don't know much about is Netflix so can't comment... or, missed that let's say.

i don't know if i'd even recommend it to be honest. it was OK. there were good bits. i'd recommend it but the reservation would be that the second half is worse than the first.

on netflix it specifically reminded me of this LA based one-off series that the new york times was into where there's like one rich lady in a mansion and one poor dude who have a car crash and then start trying to mess with one another's lives. it was the same tone. plus the crowbarred in 'making points'. the style of filming i thought was similar to netflix productions as well. basic and functional. between that and the usual thing of it being shot on digital, it makes 90s films (that i'm watching a lot of at the moment) look luxurious. i saw this film the music of chance as well over the weekend, a really minor thing all things considered, but there's an additional level of care to it.

 

[IdleRich]

That rings a bell...The Music of Chance I mean - oh is it a Paul Auster adaptation? Anyway I don't disagree with you about the second half but it's such a common flaw and many others just don't know where to go with their premise. You could argue that the basic photography was in line with the kinda gritty, shitty working life it portrayed... but that's probably more by accident than design.

 

[DLaurent]

Street of Sinners 1957, a lesser known later period low budget noir. I watch tons of these and not all are watchable. This was not bad. It's about a rookie New York cop who finds himself in trouble when he has overblown aspirations to clean up a street that's run by a mobster with connections in town hall. The usual really.

 

[version]

Roadgames (1981) and Curse of the Cat People (1944).

 

[DLaurent]

Straight Time (1978) I saw the cast and thought this will be good, and then heard the theme by David Shire and thought I recognise this from a 'High Contrast' track, then I watched it and thought the cast and acting was spot on, but there wasn't enough plot for me.

 

[rubberdingyrapids]

killers of the flower moon is good. better than the irishman. scorsese is such a good filmmaker that hes never boring to watch, but its not what he seemed to try and sell it as - ie. the story told from the osage perspective (occasionally it tries to shoehorn in background on the osage probably to make sure no one can allege it sidelines them). but thats true to the book, which is all about the (white) villains of the story, and the fbi. i kinda think if scorsese just stuck to that more, the film might have been a bit tighter. as it is, lily gladstones character is def not just a victim as a character (and you do get some good moments of the osage objecting to the murders, but the film never bothers trying to explain or understand just what makes these women marry all these men despite their suspicions), but shes def not got that much to work with - the script is really all about dicaprio and deniro, which is typical of scorsese, who often seems better at stories from the POV of the bad guys. it takes about 20-30 minutes to really get going (basically from when you see the sequence of dead bodies). its a bit 'prestige picture' at times - you think scorsese could have made it a bit less spacious, and made it a great tightly coiled piece, but hes obv thinking about what 'important' films (or tv shows) these days are meant to be like. i dont actually have that much to say about it really - its def well acted (though dicaprio does that weird facial expression he has for quite a bit of it), and made me angry, which must have been one of its aims, so it does that well. i dont think it could be broken up easily into episodes, though maybe a tv series would have been a better way to do it, as then you could focus on other characters more, like the book does (from memory), but scorsese is all about saving cinema these days, so i doubt hes interested in doing more tv.

 

[version]

... its not what he seemed to try and sell it as - ie. the story told from the osage perspective (occasionally it tries to shoehorn in background on the osage probably to make sure no one can allege it sidelines them). but thats true to the book, which is all about the (white) villains of the story, and the fbi. i kinda think if scorsese just stuck to that more, the film might have been a bit tighter. as it is, lily gladstones character is def not just a victim as a character (and you do get some good moments of the osage objecting to the murders, but the film never bothers trying to explain or understand just what makes these women marry all these men despite their suspicions), but shes def not got that much to work with - the script is really all about dicaprio and deniro, which is typical of scorsese, who often seems better at stories from the POV of the bad guys.

A few years ago there was a piece published on how white writers should handle this sort of thing which claimed what Pynchon did in V. with the Herero genocide was perhaps the only ethical way to go about it, i.e. to tell the story from the perspective of the white oppressor rather than attempt to speak on behalf of the oppressed.

 

[rubberdingyrapids]

you couldnt say he glorifies or lets them off lightly. he should have stuck to the perspective in the book as i dont think hes got what is needed to tell it from the osage perspective, despite his best intentions. but i think he didnt have the courage of his convictions to commit to that so the film gets a bit baggy.

 

[version]

It seems like there was a lot of pressure on him to tell the Osage side of it. They had to do rewrites after feeling there was too much emphasis on the white guys.

 

[rubberdingyrapids]

yeah, i know that. i think he and dicaprio made the decision to rework the script a bit during lockdown. but im not sure the rewrites are really that significant, even if that the marketing/interviews/pre-release hype has tried to pretend otherwise, which is why i went into it with some different expectations.

 

[version]

Orson Welles' Macbeth. He reminds me of Corpsey.

 

[Corpsey]

Temperamentally?

 

[craner]

Temperamentally?

Take the win, Corpsey

 

[Corpsey]

I've never been compared to Orson Welles (having been compared to numerous actors—Jack Black being the obvious one)

but now I'm seeing it, there are definite similarities

the slightly upturned pig nose, the knotted brow, the fleshy underlip that begs to be kissed

i used to be significantly thinner than him but i'm getting there now

 

[IdleRich]

A few years ago there was a piece published on how white writers should handle this sort of thing which claimed what Pynchon did in V. with the Herero genocide was perhaps the only ethical way to go about it, i.e. to tell the story from the perspective of the white oppressor rather than attempt to speak on behalf of the oppressed.

I remember someone complaining about The Wire saying "why do we need a white person to tell our stories?" - but the thing to me is that The Wire is not 'just' the story of depressed black ghettos, it's many stories intertwined - to a greater or lesser degree it tries to tell the stories of the community sure, but also those of the dealers and the gangs, the police, politicians, teachers, journalists and so on, and it also makes some attempt to tie them together.

And so to me - probably inadvertently - that argument was one of the best refutations I've heard of the idea that only someone from group x can presume to tell a story which prominently and in-depth features group x. Cos it leads inexorably to the conclusion that if groups x and y have no overlap then NOBODY can write something that deals deeply and sincerely with both groups - and this becomes even more the case with each extra group you involve.

So to me we have the choice of either

a) Everyone sticks to their lane and writes about what they know - and only what they know - and it's the end of creative writing and storytelling as we know it... or
b) we drop any and all mooted rules which seek to limit who can write about what (or whom) and simply evaluate the results on their merits. And if some home counties posh kid has inadequately captured the experience of an inner city dealer then lay into them cos they failed.

 

[mixed_biscuits]

I remember someone complaining about The Wire saying "why do we need a white person to tell our stories?" - but the thing to me is that The Wire is not 'just' the story of depressed black ghettos, it's many stories intertwined - to a greater or lesser degree it tries to tell the stories of the community sure, but also those of the dealers and the gangs, the police, politicians, teachers, journalists and so on, and it also makes some attempt to tie them together.

And so to me - probably inadvertently - that argument was one of the best refutations I've heard of the idea that only someone from group x can presume to tell a story which prominently and in-depth features group x. Cos it leads inexorably to the conclusion that if groups x and y have no overlap then NOBODY can write something that deals deeply and sincerely with both groups - and this becomes even more the case with each extra group you involve.

So to me we have the choice of either

a) Everyone sticks to their lane and writes about what they know - and only what they know - and it's the end of creative writing and storytelling as we know it... or
b) we drop any and all mooted rules which seek to limit who can write about what (or whom) and simply evaluate the results on their merits. And if some home counties posh kid has inadequately captured the experience of an inner city dealer then lay into them cos they failed.

The smartarse would say 'have you ever heard of collaborations?' Really only person X can write about the experience of person X or the experience of fictional person X i.e. any fictional character must be wholly autobiographical. Not only that but the character must be the age of the person who is writing as older people's experiences are opaque for obvious reasons and memory of one's past experiences are fallible, so younger characters are out of the window too. All fiction will be diaristic.

 

[IdleRich]

All actors should only play people who are like themselves. That will make it a lot easier.
There is one issue that can arise, obviously a character with no legs should only be played by a limbless actor. But what if a film calls for a guy who has legs to start with but loses them during the story? There is an obvious solution but it may be hard to find a willing actor...

 

[mixed_biscuits]

All actors should only play people who are like themselves. That will make it a lot easier.
There is one issue that can arise, obviously a character with no legs should only be played by a limbless actor. But what if a film calls for a guy who has legs to start with but loses them during the story? There is an obvious solution but it may be hard to find a willing actor...

Expired actors from the morgue can be easily persuaded to play the part of the already dead on film but other actors are less willing to be dead, hence the apparent immortality of Tom Cruise in the Mission Impossible films, in which he famously plays himself.

 

[maxi]

I remember someone complaining about The Wire saying "why do we need a white person to tell our stories?" - but the thing to me is that The Wire is not 'just' the story of depressed black ghettos, it's many stories intertwined - to a greater or lesser degree it tries to tell the stories of the community sure, but also those of the dealers and the gangs, the police, politicians, teachers, journalists and so on, and it also makes some attempt to tie them together.

there's also the fact that film and tv are collaborative projects. it's not just the writer or creator telling the story, it's all the actors too. all the consultants and contributors. the set designers and costume people. everyone's involved in telling the story.

a) Everyone sticks to their lane and writes about what they know - and only what they know - and it's the end of creative writing and storytelling as we know it... or
b) we drop any and all mooted rules which seek to limit who can write about what (or whom) and simply evaluate the results on their merits. And if some home counties posh kid has inadequately captured the experience of an inner city dealer then lay into them cos they failed.

yeah the first option is anti-art, anti-truth and segregationist. ultimately it's racist, like much of the so-called woke/identity politics approach. considering a particular identifier the only relevant aspect of an individual, and viewing individuals as representatives of a group. which is sort of the definition of racism.

 

[DLaurent]

Hannibal Brooks. Apparently it plays on telly a lot but I ain't seen it until my Brother in Law recommended it. Light entertainment, some alright humour, and basically just a blast and escape the Nazis film. Can't believe how clever Elephants are and how long they live for.