The Return of What Film Have You Watched Recently

[Global Honored]

I rewatched The Prestige earlier this week. The fourth time I have seen it and each time I pick up a little bit more of the details. Of course some things Nolan hits you over the head with repetitively to leave hints, which works on first viewing but seems a bit overboard on rewatch. Nevertheless, this is probably my fave Nolan film. Jackman and Bale are marvelous and David Bowie as Nikola Tesla is pure magic, pun intended. Maybe I am a sucker for Illusionist stories, but having Caine, ScarJo, Rebecca Hall, Piper Perabo and Andy Serkis in the cast doesn't hurt. Nolan has a knack for choosing superb ensembles. And Hans Zimmer is vital to his films.

BTW, I cant wait for Jackman to develop his Houdini musical on Broadway. Now that is gonna be something!

Dredd
This was fun. Urban and Thirlby make a great team and Lena Headey has never been nastier as the villainess. Nothing earth shattering, in fact most of this we have seen in similar films before but still a solid two hour escape and a movie that gets the Dredd concept. Hope they make a sequel.

[DebkoX]

Iron Man 3
Haven't felt so pleased from a movie in yonks. Amazing.

[Kieran_Frost]

NORA INU ~ Stray Dog ~ (1949)
dir. Akira Kurosawa
writer. Akira Kurosawa and Ryûzô Kikushima
Starring: Toshirô Mifune, Takashi Shimura and Keiko Awaji


What a masterpiece! Set just after WWII this is (on the surface) a simple film noir/police detective story, following Det. Murakami (Mifune) journey to retrieve his Colt pistol, that is stole by a harmless pickpocket on a crowded bus. Similar to Robert Altman's incredible Gosford Park (2001); the more obvious "plot" is merely a catalyst to explore far more interesting and complex social issues; in this case: poverty and the choices we make when we truly have nothing. Every person convicted during the London Riots should be made to watch this! The directing is first rate; with so many clever uses of music (by letting real life bleed into the scene; such as street performers, the radio, a neighbour playing the piano). And you can cut the atmosphere with a knife. I compare it most to David Fincher's masterpiece Se7en (1995); but whereas the unnamed city in America is awash with constant rain, here we have a never-ending heat wave; pushing tensions high, making people ill and irrational actions take grip. Shimura fills the role of Morgan Freeman as the world-weary experience cop taking the young detective under his wing. It's incredible. From the relentless pursuit of the kimono pick-pocket, to the cat-n-mouse game at the baseball stadium, to the climatic thunderstorm and the showdown in the mist covered rice fields; it's breathtaking from start to finish. One of the best films I've seen in a long, long time (probably not since the Devils (1971) this time last year).
~ rating: 5 out of 5 [grade: A++]

[Global Honored]

I really like Stray Dog. I have that one on DVD, a prized possession. Solid review.
KF, you should check out Mifune/Kurosawa's SCANDAL if you get a chance. Another of their modern society (no samurais) collaborations.

[aNamored]

As promised to coworker, saw Iron Man 3. Still did not like it beyond Sir Ben and Don Cheadle.

Today: King Arthur again. I've seen this enough where I can ignore Kiera Knightly now. Once I shut her out, wonderful.

[Deathstroke]

I saw Star Trek Into Darkness yesterday. I thought it was a good action flick but lacked something as a Star Trek movie.

[Kieran_Frost]

I really like Stray Dog. I have that one on DVD, a prized possession. Solid review.

Thank-you, as always.

KF, you should check out Mifune/Kurosawa's SCANDAL if you get a chance. Another of their modern society (no samurais) collaborations.

I'm loving watching Kurosawa films. I've just bought the box-set of his work and I know the FIRST one I'm going to watch (probably next weekend) is Throne of Blood (1957); I loved Ran (1985) but felt the Fool truly torpedoed the film; which is a real shame, since it's visually stunning, comes with a delightfully terrifying Lady Kaede and Tatsuya Nakadai delivered (to date) the best version of Lear I've seen (by ANY actor). I've never believed Lear's madness, until I saw his performance.

Scandal (1950) isn't in the box-set sadly (); but I will keep a look-out for it. I'm so excited. I try to watch all the "great works" of the great directors, and like to dive bomb each one over a period of about three weeks... I can already tell Kurosawa will be one of those who's masterpieces I adore sitting through/crossing off my viewing list; rather than doing it because "one should watch these things."

Visually, I think it's beautiful.
So lets see some scenes and sequences:


The opening: Starts off slow, music starting slowly and tone down and BAM! The music screams and we see a beautiful composition of LaMotta on the far left getting ready while credits show up between the ropes. The foggy scene matched with LaMotta slowed down adds a sense of regalness to LaMotta and his profession; BUT, it also does something else more beautifully: it tells the entire film in two minutes and thirty seconds. Yep, LaMotta in the ring, alone, foggied, with people staring as he fights his own demons, alone.

The composition matched with the the credits rolling and the excellent use of music adds this scene to a whole 'nother leve,.

Now lets take a look at this sequence:
http://youtu.be/9b6L1uq_bik

Starts of a raging LaMotta, taken some angry and fury out on his brother, preparing for the fight, getting pumped. The character composition of the team is visually appealing, the music toned down and Martin is only shooting their upper bodies; this is an intimate shot between the team. We also see how tight the team.

Also, this is a long take (correct? My film grammar has always been shotty) too. Right when we leave the room, the music starts to get louder and everything else is silent (except the crowd but in they're toned down a bit) and Martin only shoots the team, and it's just them and the music. Yeah, we see other people but they're not important; this a shot of only the team and how the battle they're preparing for.

Still the same shot and we're behind the team and the music and the crow is only getting louder and the scene is expanding, showing how huge the battle is for the team; this is a fucking title shot and it needs to be big and Martin shows this too.

The team start to get drowned out by the crowd and the music and see Martin slowing panning to show part of the crowd but in that shot we see how huge and boisterous the crowd is. It is a sight to see.

Then the fight, close, upper to face shots only. In these scenes, it's only LaMotta and the fighter, everything else does not exist. It's frantic and chaotic. The blows of the hits are thunderous and we see LaMotta winning. LaMotta is such that a, raging bull, and this is the battle he's been waiting for and my god we see him going to that title.

Then we see a beautiful angled and artistic shot of both fighters. The defender looks weary and defeated, he knows his time is up. Then round shot and then we see LaMotta. His eyes is closed but there's a feeling and look release. Of release that he knows he's won and of ecstasy.

I'll stop for now but I haven't even touched the crazy bar fight scene and LaMotta's last fight with Sugar.

I wanted to post this... this is NOT MINE!!! I think I took it off a review on IMDB, or a blog, I can't remember (it was over two years ago). I first found it after watching Raging Bull (1980) and being thoroughly underwhelmed. It's far more aggressive (and judgemental) than how I feel; but it does attack (for me) the biggest flaws in the film, and in Scorcese as a director. I've highlighted the two parts I 100% empathise with.

RE: Raging Bull
It's not a great movie because it has no story & because the central character is a dull, alienating bore. I think younger viewers on here get carried away because a) they're attracted by the style - the b/w look, the arty slo-mo violence, etc - & b) they see it praised in the magazines they read & the websites they visit & so, not wanting to venture an unpopular opinion or seem out of step, they go along with the herd & pretty soon they've got an echo chamber. They're all busy parroting one another’s opinion & trying to outdo each other with ever increasing levels of absurd hyperbole.

Personally, I think Scorsese's technique in RB - whether its individual shots or scenes - is impressive but none of it is in the service of a well constructed narrative or interesting characters, which is what it's all about. The entire film consists of nothing other than LaMotta attacking everything with violence. There's no shading of his character, no dimensions, no nothing. He behaves in exactly the same way towards everything & is impossible to empathize with. Not only don't we like him, we don't even understand him & yet we're stuck with him for two hours. Thus the film is a deeply dull & alienating experience, except for the style. It is, as one critic memorably described it, a cinematic bimbo.

Why did Scorsese refuse to explain what motivated his version of LaMotta? Because, incredibly, he doesn't care about such things. He actually says this on the commentary. I think that's an amazing admission. A filmmaker declaring he has no interest in why his characters behave in the way that they do. Well then why even bother to make the movie? That's what makes Scorsese such an overrated filmmaker. While his ability with a camera, the juiced up editing style of his movies & his obsession with the sordid side of life, makes him a popular choice with younger audiences, at the end of the day it's the characters & the story that most resonate with viewers not how well you move a camera. That's why so few of Scorsese's movies actually stand up.

Raging Bull is one of his weakest though. It really is pretty poor.

[Libaax]

I saw Fast and Furious 6

It was actually pretty good as popcorn film. It had a good mix of action,humour and it was darker,more serious tone because of the good villain played by Luke Evans.

Dwayne Johnson has added to a series that i thought was waste of time for the first 4 films. It was fun film and had awesome cliffhanger and i never thought i would look forward to the next film. Other than the silly over the top jumping from cars in the bridge scene it was an almost ideal popcorn film. They should have made the first 4 films have this much action, nice car chases.

[dupersuper]

Star Trek 12: Into Darkness

Superman Unbound

[jesse_custer]

RE: Raging Bull
It's not a great movie because it has no story & because the central character is a dull, alienating bore. I think younger viewers on here get carried away because a) they're attracted by the style - the b/w look, the arty slo-mo violence, etc - & b) they see it praised in the magazines they read & the websites they visit & so, not wanting to venture an unpopular opinion or seem out of step, they go along with the herd & pretty soon they've got an echo chamber. They're all busy parroting one another’s opinion & trying to outdo each other with ever increasing levels of absurd hyperbole.

Personally, I think Scorsese's technique in RB - whether its individual shots or scenes - is impressive but none of it is in the service of a well constructed narrative or interesting characters, which is what it's all about. The entire film consists of nothing other than LaMotta attacking everything with violence. There's no shading of his character, no dimensions, no nothing. He behaves in exactly the same way towards everything & is impossible to empathize with. Not only don't we like him, we don't even understand him & yet we're stuck with him for two hours. Thus the film is a deeply dull & alienating experience, except for the style. It is, as one critic memorably described it, a cinematic bimbo.

Why did Scorsese refuse to explain what motivated his version of LaMotta? Because, incredibly, he doesn't care about such things. He actually says this on the commentary. I think that's an amazing admission. A filmmaker declaring he has no interest in why his characters behave in the way that they do. Well then why even bother to make the movie? That's what makes Scorsese such an overrated filmmaker. While his ability with a camera, the juiced up editing style of his movies & his obsession with the sordid side of life, makes him a popular choice with younger audiences, at the end of the day it's the characters & the story that most resonate with viewers not how well you move a camera. That's why so few of Scorsese's movies actually stand up.

Raging Bull is one of his weakest though. It really is pretty poor.

The problem with the first bolded part is that to show LaMotta with more "dimension" would be bullshit. LaMotta himself would tell you the same. So what do you want: a movie that accurately captures an important and controversial figure in boxing, or a movie that makes up some shit about an important and controversial figure in boxing?

Scorsese didn't have to explain motivations in the traditional way that storytellers do. Most of the time, stories are about people with at least some humanity. LaMotta had none. He was an animal (hence the title, Raging Bull). Check out this admission:

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/closer/020703.html

After the film came out, La Motta said, "When I saw the film I was upset. I kind of look bad in it. Then I realized it was true. That's the way it was. I was a no-good bastard. I realize it now. It's not the way I am now, but the way I was then.

I might agree that some of Scorsese's stuff doesn't stand up, but Raging Bull is the exception to that "rule." You have yet to present an argument that actually recognizes the historical value of the film.