Recently Watched Films 2010

District 9 (Blomkamp, 2009) - What an impressive debut. Leroy's ghost was right, definitely one of the best movies of the year.

Max Ophüls - Caught (1949)

i don't get this one. while i can certainly appreciate how it's done, the script strikes me as pretty poorly written and the plot as a whole feels rushed and lacking in any real character development. it reminds me of Preminger's Laura and Fallen Angel: lot's of cool camera moves, but otherwise pretty empty aside from some slightly taboo subject matter (homosexuality, incest, abortion, etc.). i also think that the film would have been much more interesting if James Mason had played the husband and Robert Ryan had played the doctor.

i don't get this one. while i can certainly appreciate how it's done, the script strikes me as pretty poorly written and the plot as a whole feels rushed and lacking in any real character development. it reminds me of Preminger's Laura and Fallen Angel: lot's of cool camera moves, but otherwise pretty empty aside from some slightly taboo subject matter (homosexuality, incest, abortion, etc.). i also think that the film would have been much more interesting if James Mason had played the husband and Robert Ryan had played the doctor.

I like this more than you do, seems. Maybe Mason is miscast - he's always better as a slick baddie imo (North by Northwest, Five Fingers..) - but Ryan is terrific. And this has to be Barbara Bel Geddes' best performance. I also like how it plays around the edges of noir and melodrama, and ends up being neither. And you're right, great camera work and lighting. Of course. The only thing I didn't like was the ending.. she should have kept the baby and left Ryan to squirm on the floor..

Planet of the Vampires, while I'm usually not into the B-movie thing, holds up beautifully.

Psycho, while I have nothing against Hitchcock, seems to be completely overacted, in every scene. Make that overdetermined by the director, who wanted to get something across in every image, and it maybe makes more sense. This time, a complete failure to me.

No, I'm not watching films aphabetically.

Psycho, while I have nothing against Hitchcock, seems to be completely overacted, in every scene. Make that overdetermined by the director, who wanted to get something across in every image, and it maybe makes more sense. This time, a complete failure to me.

Very interesting, that "this time" - I take it you've already seen the film before and enjoyed it more last time round. And that knowing what's about to happen and who's sitting in the chair up in the old house makes a second, third or umpteenth viewing of the movie quite different (this connects with the previous page of the thread and the "how many times have you seen it" discussion with Jon). You can say that of any film, of course, but Psycho has always been something of a cause célèbre, hence perhaps Van Sant's much -criticised remake. On the subject of which, I rather like this article:
http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/00/10/psycho.html
Psycho's always been a very musical film for me, in terms of its pacing and structure; Robin Holloway told me once that Oliver Knussen had sat down with a stopwatch and made extensive notes on the duration of each shot.

Very interesting, that "this time" - I take it you've already seen the film before and enjoyed it more last time round. And that knowing what's about to happen and who's sitting in the chair up in the old house makes a second, third or umpteenth viewing of the movie quite different (this connects with the previous page of the thread and the "how many times have you seen it" discussion with Jon).

I would have made this a new thread, only I couldn't think of a title.

I always thought I knew Psycho, so never went out to watch it until maybe 10 years ago. I was completely surprised and delighted by the long build-up, it seemed so immediate, almost gritty, also I enjoyed Perkins much more then than I do now. The ending, well, you’ve got to tolerate an ending else you get no pleasure from the movies. I saw it again about 5 years ago and it held up. Yesterday I just pitied Perkins for typecasting himself forever (though he really got more comfortable in his role with time, here he’s still holding limbs askew at strange angles etc); perhaps the worst scene was how Leigh hit the shower telegraphing instant bliss like in some shampoo commercial, but really the whole thing didn’t have a natural moment.

So, yes, repeated viewings of films. I don’t care much for narrative, but of course will watch the storyline on first viewing, so I will very often completely change opinion when facing the expected at a second or third sitting.

With music it’s different. I’m comfortable to judge things for myself on first listen – but only if I sit down listening to a whole record on the home stereo. Stuff in the radio, on mp3s, in stores, at friends doesn’t count, I’m usually wildly off there (have a better track record sampling reviews than trusting samples), so let’s say at second listen the most. Impressions will change with time, not with the number of listens. I remember trying to keep certain records fresh by not listening to them too much when I was little, but when the expiration date is up, it’s up, no matter if I actually stuffed myself with the record or not.

yeah, I wonder sometimes about how fair it is to hold films to a similar "must hold up to multiple viewings" criterion a la music. I'm a fan of the bulk of Michael Haneke's work, but I'm not sure how much of its impact is retained on subsequent viewings (depending on the film, obviously), but I'm also not sure how legit of a criticism that is.

Wild Combination: A Portrait of Arthur Russell. It's entertaining, you even get a sense of being close, but somehow I don't trust it. Which might be wrong.

Down By Law (Jarmusch, 1986) - Yesss.

you have to see Johnny Stecchino.

Federico Fellini, Il Casanova di Federico Fellini, 1976

Extraordinary stuff - amazing decor (love the black hefty bag stormy sea) and costumes, another annoyingly memorable Rota soundtrack, and a magnificent performance from Donald Sutherland (tip: you might as well watch the film in its English version as in Italian, if your DVD has the option - at least that way you get his real voice). Not as far removed from La Dolce Vita as you might think, either. Like Marcello in the earlier film, Casanova seems to be in search of something he never finds. And, yes, I'll have to see it again to get more out of it.

A Prophet

I'm all for minimalism, but a little more detail would be appreciated, Ms Belle. I assume you're referring to the Jacques Audiard film Un Prophète http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1235166/ .

Yeah, this one.

D.O.A., 1950 version. This could have been so great. As it is, it's a film in dire need of a lead. He sometimes affects faces as if somebody had told him to impersonate Bogart and on rare occasions manages to look like Victor Mature. Some of the shots are really forward-looking, the story is cool, but burdened with a face like that . . .

There was a remake with Dennis Quaid, wasn't there? After Bogart, I would have enjoyed Widmark best in the role (with a totally different slant, of course), and Quaid was the best Widmark 20 years go. Still I have no good remembrances of that remake ...

you have to see Johnny Stecchino.

DL'ing it now, found it in this amazing website:

http://www.foriegnmoviesddl.com/

Otto Preminger, Laura, 1944

Thought I'd give this one another spin, after reading about LG's Preminger-fest towards the end of last year. Was more impressed by the cinematography this time, less taken with the story / acting. What's annoying about this is the disappearance of Lydecker as narrator; the film starts out with him telling the story of Laura's murder - but of course we later find out he did it (so we're in the same situation as the opening flashback in Hitchcock's Stage Fright, which is also a lie - a device Hitchcock described on numerous occasions as a mistake) - and Preminger soon abandons the voiceover and Lydecker becomes just another character. Clifton Webb's clipped Noël Coward delivery of the snappy Oscar Wilde-y lines soon becomes rather tiresome (George Sanders would have done the catty journalist better - in fact he did it better a few years later in All About Eve), as does Vincent Price's distinctive intonation (hard to take that voice seriously after all the horror films and Thriller.. amused how he always says "Lara" instead of "Laura"). And Tierney, though obviously very pretty, doesn't quite cut it as a femme fatale.

D.O.A., 1950 version. This could have been so great. As it is, it's a film in dire need of a lead. He sometimes affects faces as if somebody had told him to impersonate Bogart and on rare occasions manages to look like Victor Mature. Some of the shots are really forward-looking, the story is cool, but burdened with a face like that . . .

this is a little unfair. Edmond O'Brien may not be a great leading man, but he is a very solid supporting actor (The Killers, White Heat, The Hitch-Hiker, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The Wild Bunch). the real problem with D.O.A. is the poor scripting. far too many dead and stupid moments where there should be suspense.

Yes, but actors are for keeping the screen alive while the script takes a nap. The weaknesses of this here script are exactly its strength, a certain inconsequential feel helps the atmosphere a lot. No, a better script with O'Brien wouldn't help as much as a different actor, I think. (Wow, shot by the same cinematographer who also did Fantastic Voyage. That explains a lot.)

Detlef Sierck (Douglas Sirk), Das Mädchen vom Moorhof, 1935

Sirk's first UFA melodrama, and despite a rough print (Carlotta did their best to clean it up, but the image is still a bit scratchy), it's very enjoyable, and a clear indication of what was to come later.

Kobayashi, Mifune and Takemitsu....




I mean...how can you lose?

strange they misspell Kobayashi's first name there (Masaki), especially since it's actually correct on the real cover to the DVD.