^^^°°°
Fair enough. For what it's worth, my faves are Pale Fire and Speak, Memory
Fair enough. For what it's worth, my faves are Pale Fire and Speak, Memory
^^^°°°
Fair enough. For what it's worth, my faves are Pale Fire and Speak, Memory
Never said it was bad. Said it fell short in translating all of the complexity and nuance of the book, and instead came across as almost broad. I don't think there's a better way to adapt it, but just that the adaptation is lesser than the source material.I never thought in a million years I would ever wake in here and find myself reading Kubrick's Lolita slander.
As a big fan of Nabokov (my username is based on a short story of his, which is the one of the greatest works for all-time all artforms included) I think Kubrick's adaptation is a top-5 all-time film, the most perfect example of how novels should be adapted for the screen and I find it more satisfying than the book.
If it's of any merit, Nabokov himself (who didn't give a damn about movies and saw his own contributions to the film pretty much tossed out the window yet described by Kubrick as the greatest screenplay ever written) thought the movie was fantastic.
Watched Fallen Angels.
Wong Kar-Wai just makes cool f***ing movies man. Loved all the little winks at Chungking Express. Preferred the mute storyline to the assassin, but both were great. I've seen 4 of his films now and absolutely adore 3 of them (As Tears Go By is pretty middling imo). This guy just... idk from a technical perspective he does some weird shit with framing, when to go handheld, when to go with wide angle lenses and stuff, which could all easily be distracting but instead just pulls me in. He may have the best ear for music in creating his soundtracks. Just a wonderful film. Probably at the bottom of the three I loved (In the Mood For Love/Chungking Express can Duke it out for #1).
8/10
Never said it was bad. Said it fell short in translating all of the complexity and nuance of the book, and instead came across as almost broad. I don't think there's a better way to adapt it, but just that the adaptation is lesser than the source material.
Never thought that was a controversial opinion honestly.
I need to rewatch Chungking Express again nut I need to see Days of Being Wild and Happy Together soon too, so prioritizing is tough.It's not at all, I'm the outlier. I was just being funny. It's pretty much a forgotten film at this point, especially compared to his others. I just find it perfect and criminally underrated.
Fallen Angels is probably my favorite Wong-Kar Wai film as well lol
I need to rewatch Chungking Express again nut I need to see Days of Being Wild and Happy Together soon too, so prioritizing is tough.
Days of Being Wild is the only one of WKW's movies that I really bumped on. (Not counting the widely disliked My Blueberry Nights, of course). But the fact that that didn't work for me for some reason only makes we want to go back to it all the more. Did it just catch me on a bad day? Is it me? Is it it? My notes from my viewing are light on specifics.Haven't watched Happy Together but Days of Being Wild is fantastic
What I love about this assessment is that I agree with every point of fact here ... but while your reaction was negative, mine was overwhelmingly positive. The music, the sound, the overdirecting, the structure, the unlikability ... you're right. And I loved every minute of it.
Challengers (2024) Directed by Luca Guadagnino 4A
As a tennis player (well, former tennis player) you might think i would look forward to movies with tennis backstories, but I don't. There are usually two of me watching the film at the same time. The tennis me is picking out all the flaws, especially in the actual tennis playing. The only movie that I have ever seen that gets the tennis right is King Richard, so it is a rare occurrence indeed. Challengers does a better job than most at this but still falls well short of being convincing. To make matters far worse, the effort at tennis realism is compromised even more egregiously by the excessively loud sound of tennis balls virtually exploding every time that they are struck and by the exaggerated effort the players display when striking the ball, like pit bulls straining on a leash. This gets annoying very fast, and not just on the ear drums. The rest of the movie is about a tennis menage a trois told in a constant mishmash of flashbacks (Guadagnino's exertions only made me recall how infinitely better Alain Resnais was at this sort of thing). But I enjoyed the story part of the way. Our threesome has an early meeting on a beach that crackles with nascent desire and demonstrates how emotionally disconcerting those initial feelings can be. But, then, I really hated the last third of the movie. In fact, I would say that Challengers is the most overdirected movie that I have seen in years.
For starters, the tennis player in me couldn't believe the central premise of the rivalry, that a six-time Grand Slam champion, who probably spent a lot of time at number 1 or 2 in the world, could be totally owned by a player ranked #271 who never had the ambition to get out of Challenger tournaments, the AHL of tennis competitions. But beyond that there are several ultra annoying directorial unforced errors, including the vast overuse of blaring music to hype scenes and turn up the intensity, to the point that sometimes the dialogue was inaudible. Then there was the slow, excruciating build up once the final match was underway. I found that tedious as hell--like stretching a rubber band to the breaking point for no particular reason at all. On top of which we have a very stupid open ending that tells us nothing that we don't already know but leaves several plot developments thoroughly up in the air. As well, somebody should have explained to Guadagnino that whoever touches the net automatically loses the point, or maybe that was just a detail he didn't care about anyway in his rush to an exasperating conclusion. Zendaya and Josh O'Connor are very good playing characters that I liked less and less as the movie progresses, and Mike Faist is good, also, with a character who has his share of flaws as well. But this movie pissed me off from both my perspectives, and, despite the occasionally snappy dialogue, I think basically Guadagnino sank his own ship here.
Hadn't heard of this but will definitely will be checking this one out. Ikiru was surprisingly one of my favorite Kurosawa films.View attachment 869032
Living-2022
I'm always interested when a classic is remade, am often left disappointed. Even if it's based on the same story, enjoy them most when it's a much different film and this one is, set in 1950's England vs Ikiru's Japan. The elements of Kurosawa's classic are here: bureaucracy, a man faced with illness finding some joy and a purpose in life. Bill Nighy as Mr Williams is splendid as the man facing a crossroads late in life (in Takashi Shimura's role in Ikiru). Moving scene when he sings an old favorite song. Aimee Lou Wood is very good as Miss Harris, a cheerful young friend Mr Williams is able to confide in. Great score and attention to period detail including the trains. I love both the original and this version, believe the story is timeless.
I'm also a loyal Blankie so I watched Millennium Actress this weekend. I think it's actually the first time since I started listening a few years ago that I rushed to watch the movie prior to the episode (not counting new releases). I've often seen most of what they're covering or it's something I'm not eager to watch but I'll listen to an episode anyway. I do go back and listen to old episodes after I watch something. (Just did The Abyss, Ishtar, Split and Glass in the past week or so).And tonight I watched Paprika.
So im not a massive anime fan but Blank Check is covering the director so i went for it. And its pretty good. Very odd, and i refuse to believe that Nolan didnt rip 80% of this off for Inception. Plot is little aimless - a bit more of a vibes movie but i liked it. 8/10
Haven't listened to the last episode yet but I'm wondering if the kind of... surreal but not Lynchian surrealism is a little more daunting to adapt? It's weird - having now seen Paprika and Perfect Blue, there isn't really a live action director that plays in the same sort of playground that I've seen. Honestly Park Chan Wook might have the most similar vibe that I can think of (specifically thinking of some of the stuff in Lady Vengeance and Thirst that really play with that reality/non-reality imagery).I'm also a loyal Blankie so I watched Millennium Actress this weekend. I think it's actually the first time since I started listening a few years ago that I rushed to watch the movie prior to the episode (not counting new releases). I've often seen most of what they're covering or it's something I'm not eager to watch but I'll listen to an episode anyway. I do go back and listen to old episodes after I watch something. (Just did The Abyss, Ishtar, Split and Glass in the past week or so).
Anyway. Though Millennium Actress was pretty phenomenal. My immediate takeway was that I'm shocked someone hasn't tried to adapt it into a live action movie. (Griffin said the same but I swear I thought this before I listened). But it's a great concept and it feels like it would translate pretty well.
I feel like Millennium Actress is a little more straightforward, at least compared to those two. It bends reality but the memories and dreams are largely movie scenes so it doesn't feel quite as surreal or trippy. I feel like movie people love to create movies within movies (Hail Ceasar, Babylon, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood ) and the entire structure of this is basically a trip through Japanese movie history. Could easily see that porting over to America, though I'd be a little shocked if it kept the same ending.Haven't listened to the last episode yet but I'm wondering if the kind of... surreal but not Lynchian surrealism is a little more daunting to adapt? It's weird - having now seen Paprika and Perfect Blue, there isn't really a live action director that plays in the same sort of playground that I've seen. Honestly Park Chan Wook might have the most similar vibe that I can think of (specifically thinking of some of the stuff in Lady Vengeance and Thirst that really play with that reality/non-reality imagery).
It does seem like his ideas (and even some shots) have been lifted pretty directly. IDK it's interesting.
Jack Nicholson may be the most engaging screen presence in the history of film. What an insane career. He just dominates every scene he's in. Obviously this is one of his iconic performances, and it's earned. So good.
The pacing is insane. The first half feels like it's building to something, but even then there is so much energy putting flavor into the town that it eventually just kind of blends together.
Apparently he got paid 5 million for 10 days on set.Unforgettable with only 16 minutes of screentime.
I always felt like this film couldn't decide whether it was a Western action movie or a historic biopic and it shows.
Kept up with the nostalgia kick and watched Tombstone.
God damnit I shouldn't have. This may be the worst directed film I kinda like that I can remember. Just no... vision. If it wasn't for Kilmer and to a lesser extent Russel and Booth, this thing would be unwatchable.
It kind of reminds me of the original Willy Wonka where it all hangs on Wilder, but this is even more thin. Kilmer is undeniable, Russell delivers his Macho lines just fine but man he's struggling too. Loaded cast but needed someone to trim the script.
5/10
Edit: Just thinking about this more now that I'm on my computer and not my phone I can actually type. Like... why have a soundstage scene with bad lighting and Russell walking toward a camera with no one else on set shooting toward the camera? Like it feels like they were doing promo shots for Entertainment Weekly and the director said "f*** it let's put it in."
The pacing is insane. The first half feels like it's building to something, but even then there is so much energy putting flavor into the town that it eventually just kind of blends together. Like... Brandon Priestly (I think?) character is in like two scenes and like... other than liking art what does he serve? He doesn't even add depth - he just is a semi-recognizable face thrown in for a few scenes and doesn't do anything. The night where the cowboys kill Morgan - we have his brother and his wife getting shot at, so he leaves the relative safety of everyone to play pool alone away from everyone with a giant glass window at his back? What the f*** is up with Earp's marriage (was it a marriage?). We find out at the end that Mattie dies and it's clearly not a happy relationship but also... she is just kind of dealt with off screen? And during the climax of his brother dying and Earp weeping - is that the time to deal with the love triangle? No one's reactions or behavior makes sense there.
There are a lot of other terrible scenes, and there seems no interest in keeping track of how many bullets a six shooter can shoot before it runs out. And the scene at the creek where he just walks out and kills Booth - no one acts with any damn common sense.
I love Kurt Russell. I f***ing love him. I want to make that absolutely clear. But when I say he does any good in this movie I say that because I love him and I can't openly admit to anything else. The fact is I don't think he has a f***ing thing to work with but he's still not good in it. Biehl, Booth, and Kilmer are the only performances that anchor the film at all, and only Kilmer's is good enough to elevate it beyond it's terrible script and directing.
Ugh... I should not have watched this again. It was so disappointing. That being said it is impossible to overrate Kilmer's performance in this. It's worth watching just for him.