-
Content count
105 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Head Spin
-
Lewis is the most important single element for sure, and you can't imagine it without him. But it's not as though his performance is the film's only merit. His performance is the engine, but there's a whole damn Lamborghini around it. It's essential, and it even uplifts the surrounding elements, but that shouldn't take away from the credit of all those elements. Instead you owe credit to a film for getting all the essential stuff so right. As Mecks states, it's a collaboration. Look at how successful everyone was on this film.
-
Great episode guys. The best in recent memory. I have to say I expected the choice to be more brutal then it was. I don't deny that Boogie Nights is as good as people say, but it left me somewhat cold on rewatch. Not sure what it was. It's missing neither craft nor performances nor soundtrack. It has it all, but I just didn't connect with it this time past a pleasant smile. I was damn sure that in rewatching both that Boogie Nights would be the chosen brother. But it was TWWB who was chosen. I have had snippets of dialogue from that flick rattling through my head all week, and I don't want it to stop. And whoever calls Daniel Plainview non-sexual forgets that great line on the beach where he yells: "I SAID WE'LL GET LIQUORED UP AND TAKE 'EM TO THE PEACH TREE DANCE!!" TWWB is just an astonishment. It's magnetic for all the reasons the hosts stated and more. And while I absolutely agree with Amy that the "BIG IMPORTANT" feel to it stands in its way a bit, I've found it such a fun movie to dwell on after the credits roll in a way that restores what power it keeps itself from in the moment. I think self-important movies tend to build to a deep and specific idea or point. TWWB's point is deep, but it's the opposite of specific. It captures Daniel Plainview but also keeps him mysterious enough for a really "here's the point" kind of big finish to be impossible (and unnecessary). I love how the movie approaches its tight focus on Daniel. Some movies might feel thin around the edges with that approach, but Anderson fills the movie with interesting side characters and relationships and then deliberately places them out of focus to demonstrate how single-minded Daniel is. The perfect example is Daniel's business partner Fletcher. I'm not sure I took any real notice of him the first time I saw this movie. But he's around a ton, just to the right. The movie shows him taking care of H.W. at the first Coyote Hills claim. Soon thereafter Paul enters Daniel's office to trade information. Paul's body takes up the entire right of the frame while Daniel sits at a distance to the left. When Paul is finally invited to sit, he moves and reveals that Fletcher has been sitting there the whole time. Fletcher is his business partner for the entire film, at least until the final time jump where Daniel's business is just another something that's happening outside his mansion. He's probably the most important man in his life, and the person who's spent the most time with him during it. But he isn't meaningful to Daniel, so he's off to the side. We see Fletcher develop a full paternal relationship with H.W. From Fletcher rescuing H.W. from the exploding derrick to Daniel sending him to be his replacement father in San Francisco. Anderson dangles Fletcher around the film to remind us that there are real people with full lives all around Daniel, but that he'd would never interact with any of them except H.W. and finally Henry. The hosts spoke about Daniel jilting Eli at the derrick blessing, but there's an even greater perversity to that scene. Daniel has clocked Eli's ambition and the dangerous religious power he wields when he asks to perform the blessing. It's hard to imagine that Daniel hadn't planned his betrayal instantaneously. But what's so interesting is that we're never sure how conscious Daniel's reactions are. He might just be consciously plotting to humiliate Eli, but the truth is that he's decided to war with God. Daniel gives his own blessing and ushers everyone to the free buffet afterwards, and he sits there eating contented like a new god. And when Mary comes running by he grabs her by the arm and asks her if she likes her new dress and she does. He asks if she's glad that he came here and she is. And then he declares, right in front of Abel Sunday that there would be no more hitting ever again. He's stretching his legs with his godhood. And maybe anyone would start their power trip off by trying to be the beloved benevolent one, but it's another testament to Anderson that he both shows a power-hungry monster enjoy his latest conquest, but also that he expresses a genuine (if tiny) benevolence - we never get easy answers about who Daniel is, and there are hints like these to remind us he has a human heart somewhere in there. In fact, if there's any spirituality or grace in this film it's represented by Mary. Mary saves H.W. from Daniel, and almost saves Daniel himself. Not only does she inspire him to that one good gesture, but after Daniel returns smugly to his seat post-baptism Mary hugs him from behind around his neck. We don't see Daniels face, but he appears to be deeply moved by the gesture, and the very next scene shows him reuniting with his son. It's not enough, but the film suggests that there was a way back for Daniel, and it required him to renounce his quest for omnipotence and actually reconnect with humanity. Too long, as usual, but I love this film so goddamn much. There is huge power and depth and -yes - heart to the film as long as you're willing to drill past some of the pompous artifice. Go on, and drink the Blood of Lamb from Bandy's Tract.
-
I'd pick Django. I'm not sure it's good enough to make it into the Canon, but it's a beautiful movie made entirely out of ugliness. And Franco Nero's eyes. It's the western I most often revisit. It's probablyThe Mercenary that would be the real Canon candidate for Sergio Corbucci.
-
I rewatched both this weekend and had the opposite the reaction of my prediction. It was There Will Be Blood that held up and Boogie Nights that lost shine in my eyes. I think I may just be done with connecting to the "Behind the Music" style of story where young guns have wild success and then flame out from their excess. Maybe that's why I've never been big on Goodfellas either. Still a pretty fun movie, but it sort of bounced off me this time. Which is what I expected TWWB to do.
-
Some of the films I hadn't seen from this thread made it on my "to-watch" list, and I just finished watching Black Orpheus. I'm kind of conflicted about it. On the one hand it's gorgeous, it's beautifully musical, and it stands apart. I think it's multicultural at its core; it feels like Camus is going out of his way to show how the substance ancient Greek myth are universal in a culturally-affirming way, especially how they use that Brazilian religious reverie to stand in for the Greek underworld at the climax. And it enjoys its character, giving them a humanity and inner life that you don't except from a 50s movie about a black culture. On the other hand... it still feels like an "exotic" movie. Obviously the movie luxuriates in the sights and sounds of the Carnival, but even in the way shots terminate by panning off to enjoy the natural beauty of Rio feels gawking in a way that falls just on the uncomfortable side of appreciation. And I just find it hard to enjoy thought-free all the time the movie spends trying to get me to enjoy how sensual the Brazilian are of this white guy's depiction. I know it's meant to be magical fantasy, but either ins pite of that or even in part because of it, it just creeped me out a bit. I don't know Camus' politics, but it definitely has the feeling of a well-meaning liberal movie. I imagine Camus as a nice, progressive guy trying to be culturally inclusive, but who also falls into his own pitfalls of exoticism. There's just this "gawking white man's vision of black culture" element that's hard to get over. It doesn't mean that the movie still isn't really good, but it did sort of keep me from enjoying it as viscerally as I think it wanted me to. If anything as a message to the present, it shows the difference between white people trying to be nice and depict minorities and empowering actual minorities to do it themselves. That is to say that it's great for white people to branch out, but it can't replace the real thing. With the Rio Olympics and all the more-POCs-in-pop-culture thing being super topical at the moment (especially with Bendis writing his new 15-year-old black female Iron Man lead), maybe Black Orpheus is a perfect film to discuss on the Canon. In any case, I did really enjoy it, I want to thank Felipe for the suggestion, and I'm curious to know what other people thought about it. Am I totally off base? I thought it was great, but what I loved about it also held me at arm's length.
-
I agree with both of that. I'd love to see Videodrome vs. some horror movie based on the fear of some other media. Has there been a Canon-worthy internet-paranoia movie? You could do Ring for a TV vs. TV horror movie. Or just do Videodrome vs. Network for the clashiest TV battle of them all.
- 5 replies
-
- suggestion
- cronenberg
-
(and 4 more)
Tagged with:
-
Curiously, I went a few episodes back on that list. Boyz N The Hood has 131 votes, with "no" beating out "yes" 67 to 64. We know it went in, so I wonder how many of those came in afterwards. Marathon Man and Lost Weekend are now exactly tied with 72 and 48 total votes, respectively. Is someone going in after the fact and tying up the ball-games out of compulsion?
-
You're probably right, but I have way more affection for Shaun then Dawn, and I like Dawn a lot. I think it'd get killed by the historical importance argument, but I could easily see myself voting for it.
-
Couldn't find a place to quote Lancelot Link in my earlier posts, but it as a postscript to the most contentious vote in Canon history.
-
3. Re-fuckin'-Animator Yes! Yes, all that preamble aside, I think that Re-Animator belongs in the Canon. It's that good! All that shit above talking about the discussion and the Canon... a lot of that was based in the fact that I'd love, in the depths of my heart, so see more then 3 of 22 films get voted out of the Canon. I do want more "no" votes. But at the end of the day, I believe that people are just voting based on whether they think it's worth it to them, and that's what they should vote on - not some nebulous notion of reaching some mathematically pleasing ratio of no's to yes's. I wanted to sync up with Amy's argument and make the argument that while Re-Animator's great, it isn't exceptional enough to go in. But fuck that, Re-Animator is exceptional squared. I just don't know another film like it. It succeeds like few films do. I've heard the guys at RedLetterMedia call Robocop a perfect film. Not the greatest film ever, but a film that sets out to do something interesting and does it PERFECTLY. I have a few nitpicks about Re-Animator, but it is quite nearly perfect at what it wants to do. Devin said it best, in the second half of the episode, when he described its perfect tone. It has this knife's-edge balance between comedy, horror, suspense, and gory thrills. Herbert West is a FUCKING MADMAN, and it's a marvel how much zany fun is capable with a character that's so repulsive. The multitudes of West are total in every scene, not just over the course of the film. In his early interactions with Dr. Hill he is such a disrespectful asshole, but you also love his guts and passion when he dresses down a doctor that you immediately recognize to be a stuck-up hack. I don't want to shortchange the script, or even the editing (the movie is pared down to an extremely tight 87 minutes, minus some fat between HIll dying and the final confrontation), but the performances really steal the show. It's essentially a five-hander, and each hand is attached to a perfectly casted character actor giving their best. I think Devin maybe oversells it with the Grand Guignol stuff, but he is right that the movie explores a theme spectacularly. It isn't a deep, nuanced study of death and mortality. But it uses a core theme for the emotional throughline of the film, and I do think it leaves you with a statement. So many horror movies are about the fear of death through some weird supernatural mediary: this film gets a lot out cutting out the middle. I think the film posits that wanting to prolong life is good, and fear of mortality is natural, but it gets at the perversity of trying to thwart death. Failing to accept the natural course of death obsesses West, Hill, and Cain by the end; it gets at the real unnaturalness of people who refuse to accept death, and insist themselves above the natural order. You can find the Lovecraftian center in the concept. It's surprisingly potent for a comedy/horror, and its a marvel alone that they manage to power the whole narrative with this simple concept. I don't think it's all that remarkable for a movie to be "fun," but Re-Animator exists as something like a spectacular adventure-thriller. It's such an odd beast, but it succeeds at such a high level. It bustles at the speed of Herbert West, who the audience get to watch pivot from grifting to scheming to seizing opportunities for research while evading the penalties for his crimes. It's all a delight, and Dan Cain is a surprisingly interesting ingredient to the whole film working. Watching West blustering all over the amenable Cain mirrors how West's antics sweep the audience off their feet even as he causes more and more carnage. The film has enough craft to keep all these elements working in sync, and still have enough focus to keep the final confrontation thrilling, but also able to sustain West yelling "OVERDOSE!!" and sealing his own fate with one final irreverent ambitious urge. I just fucking love this movie like few others. I get that to some it plays as a misfire, but to me it's a perfectly measured symphony of intestines and Jeffrey Combs. And one final shoutout to Richard Band's score, which pirates the Psycho theme to maintain musically that weird midpoint between thrills and spills. It may be the single most important factor to the film's tonal success. Some films are as great, but few are as exceptional as Re-Animator. OK I'm exhausted. Goodnight.
-
I hope this comes in a full version next week.
-
2. The Canon and Genre Did you know that of the 22 single (non-versus) episodes of 2016, the Canon voters have voted in 19? Only Broadcast News, Lolita, and The Lost Weekend failed the cut. What do we think of that? I don't know, for one. I know I don't want a Small Canon. I've argued before that the format of the show will always skew towards the hosts picking stacked candidates. Occasionally there's a Lolita or Shawshank Redemption that makes for a compelling discussion because it isn't a strong candidate. But by and large a movie that inspires a meaty discussion probably has a good shot of winning out. Better that then Amy and Devin choose average films that inspire little discussion and get voted out for the novelty of padding the ledger with losses. So what's the line? Amy re-animates the old discussion this week, teeing the world up for a shitty pun. For her, if I have this right, Re-Animator represents yet another piece of good genre fare overpraised and which would over-represent B-movie comedy/horror, especially with Evil Dead II is running circles around it up in Canon heaven already. Why are we arguing about yet another genre horror film of the late 80s when there are so many other unexplored areas, and even better horror movies, that haven't been discussed yet? And how far down the list of presidential succession do we go before we actually start saying no to something instead of everything that's just fun? Perhaps, first, we address this genre argument that everyone's buzzing about before we get into the macro-stuff. The posts on the forum might have you believe that there is a sharply contested conflict between people who think genre film is too niche and minor to get massive representation, and those who believe such films deserve far more consideration then they're given. Let's take a look at that. There are plenty of anti-genre arguments. I can make one. It goes like this: "People over-respond to genre fare in all media. Some people are uncomfortable with the status quo of what gets praise, so when, say, a really fun B-movie comes along they overreact huge to praise it with an argument like: 'Man, it's just fun! Fun stuff doesn't get its due from the mainstream.'In truth, genre stuff deserves legitimacy, it's really fun, and it's valuable for the variety and influence it provides to cinema. But some people seize on it and trick themselves into thinking its better than it is so that they can be in the ahead-of-the-curve contrarian minority of fandom. Or they." Now that argument exists nowhere in the forums but here. That argument probably works in extreme cases, but I don't believe it describes a majority of genre fans. Most people are fine with it even if it isn't for them, and I'm confident that more film fans like genre film then don't. Many just have opinions like brianoblivion's, with which I agree: Those people simply don't want fan's eagerness for genre film to cloud their judgement. But does that opinion, either, appear in the forums anywhere? Look at what DocScotticus wrote: I admit I'm choosing my favorites, but I promise I'm not selecting against the grain. People aren't going overboard here. And that goes both ways. Look at Joseph Daley's screed here: Again, I don't really see people making the errors people are afraid of - just reacting as though they're happening all around them. There aren't people being unfairly hard in this forum against Re-Animator (who aren't named Newlin). Check out good ol' Nathan Roberson: I disagree personally with his take on Re-Animator, but it's as reasonable as can be. He's not taking a hard line against genre. In fact, I agree with his second paragraph in total. I thought that They Live passed muster, and I thought Kiki's Delivery Service wasn't nearly substantial enough a movie to warrant Canonization. Which brings me to a reiteration of the crux of this genre argument: people are voting based on whether or not they think the movie is People are mistaking a war for the nature of genre. Genre films are divisive! Horror movies especially! People have wildly different reactions to them; to use a statistical term, the standard deviation of their reactions are way larger then the average. Someone's favorite horror movie is another's terrible schlock. Threshold, a poster who I respect a great deal, said he hates Re-Animator more than Working Girl. He's not wrong, he just responded to weird art differently. So when it comes to genre and beyond, people ought to stop confusing naturally different reactions with intractable ideological disagreements. And that includes me - if I'm being honest I had a real sourness about Kiki's Delivery Service passing the bar. My knee-jerk reaction was that there was something rotten with people's Canon philosophy, and I don't think there is. People just got considerably more out of that film than I did. I'm happy to be outvoted in that case, and I think others would be too if they really read these posts and considered the true perspectives of their dissenters. If this sounds familiar it's because Morgoth said it way better already: So as far as the genre discussion and the Canon voting in general, I think people are working themselves into a false argument. Every vote has people who likes it more or less than you. People are basically voting on the same criteria all around: Is this movie great enough to be considered in the Canon of all-time greats. When people vote differently, it's their reaction and not their criteria. This brings us to one final area: slots and comparisons. The tension is that in defining a Canon of all-time greats, we absolutely have to compare movies to each other. And yet, the idea of their being quotas on certain fare grosses everyone out - again, everyone talks about it like someone is saying that ought to be the case when no one is. Maybe Amy. Let's take two quotes at once. Those of Rotmonian and Stickman Cinema: I agree with both of these posts. A movie's either that good or it isn't, and it would be silly to treat every movie in the Canon as a strict bar for each new film to clear. Rotmonian gets at the idea behind my own personal criteria: a film must be great and exceptional to make it into the Canon. I want to hone in on the latter, because it makes all the difference to this issue. And I don't want to put words in Amy's mouth, but I always took her comparisons to voted-in films to mean this: the Canon has no quotas, but a candidate must distinguish itself from other successful entries (e.g.: be exceptional from one another). I believe that Amy doesn't feel the movies that Rotmonian listed are different enough from one another to all warrant inclusion. I disagree, but again, we need to take a person's answer as one based in personal reaction and less in argumentative difference. I absolutely agreed with her when it came to Slacker being the millionth 90s indie film that all claimed to be the same big deal - that's too far. There is a line somewhere. Let's look at the Empire Strikes Back. Not the greatest example since it was rooted in versus episodes, but I saw someone react to it on the site. To some, Empire Strikes Back is unique enough from Episode IV, and then obviously great enough to warrant its inclusion. To me, personally, Empire Strikes Back is great, but not exceptional from the first installment to warrant its own spot. So one has to vote understanding that part of the rigor of the Canon probably should require that we don't pack in too many similar movies, and that these comparisons are useful to the process. But also we ought to not worry about "too many" of some kind of movie in general, and have an understanding that the difference between two movies being indistinguishable from one person and vibrantly dissimilar to another is what I think has caused most of these Canon debate issues: people easily mistake different personal reactions to film as different criteria for voting. I swear, and it's obvious when you read the comments, that our voting philosophies are all extremely similar, just not our reactions. Look at the Homework for Boogie Nights vs. TWBB! People are nervous to admit that they don't get anything from the latter while others are praising it as the greatest film of a decade. Find that understanding of the other side of the reaction. I'll finish in my next post with my reaction to Re-Animator. I shuddered when I read that. Have no fear, I don't think anyone should care about this stuff! EDIT: By the way, Lancelot Link at the bottom of page 4 of this thread had my favorite response of the whole thing. It's great, go read it! I just couldn't find a place to quote any of it. And I'm not in the habit of upstaging myself, in any case.
-
Oh man. I started posting in the forums because I enjoyed reading the discussion so much that it felt lecherous to not contribute. In the past few weeks the active users and the word count have both been bursting at the seams; I love it, although it's a cruelty that it blew up biggest in a week that I wasn't around. Even so, it's all been great to read. Feel no need to read any of this - it's just one guy rambling after the party already let out. But I've gotta get my thoughts out. I'll try to neatly divide the subjects. 1. DEVIN AND AMY I find it hard to compliment people online without feeling like a sycophant, but I love Devin and Amy. I love their opinions, their perspectives, and I love this little corner of film fandom that they've carved out for us all to enjoy (a non-broken fandom to boot, I think). In pro-wrestling they say "styles make matches." It's true in many things, and here Amy and Devin's weirdly different takes on film clash beautifully. Your instincts weren't wrong; I wrote that to to qualify some disappointment. Our hosts spent a great deal talking about what ought to define the Canon when perhaps they owe themselves an internal discussion about what ought to comprise their Canon debate. I imagine a spectrum of what this podcast's content can be. One side reads: "Discussion that interrogates the films merits;" the other, "Devin and Amy struggle to win an argument." I'd say that this week's content leaned well to the right, and often I found myself wishing I could scrub away the petty griping and just get to talking about the film, unencumbered by ego. Sparks are fun to look at, but in episodes like these I long for a healthier ratio of "genuine conversation" to "petty power plays." One of the issues is that Devin is often all offense and no defense. By that I mean that Devin starts in his comfort zone of laying out his opinions. He gives two or three different theses in a row. If you think a co-host's input would be a great way to spice things up here, well, this is when Devin takes a counterpoint from Amy as a "fight-or-flight" level survival event. Either he flees by disagreeing quickly and immediately changing the subject, or he fights by going hard and calling her "ignorant" and relishing the future shot he gets at attacking her film. Way more than usual in this episode Devin goes to ten, and when Devin goes to ten it's clear at once that he's stopped talking about his genuine beliefs in the film and starts bullshitting to win an argument that he has committed to. It sucks to listen when it gets like that - you need look no further then the Homework thread of last week to see how excited people were to hear about the film and not someone misrepresent their own ideas to win a fight. If you must look further, look to the discussion thread to see how disappointed people were in his arguments. That "too-hot" approach fails because he never rests on a position to defend, he just darts around rhetorically to finish a fight. And when things cool down, his insight is great. The second half of the episode was wonderful, with Amy making her case against a passionate-but-reasoned argument from Devin. He's got a great critical mind and a passion for this film, and it's just a shame that those two things have to oppose when they should compliment one another. The difference in this case is that it was Devin's indulgence pick. Of course he got emotional in its defense, who wouldn't in theirs? But if this is meant to be a regular feature in the build to #100, I'd suggest a greater rigor and/or care to its approach. It's easy to get too hot, and when the emotion gets high the episode and argument quality suffers. It'd be another thing if it kicked up the quality in a meaningful way, but instead it leaves much of the episode to be side-stepped. I thought Amy's argument was great, and it throws into relief the value of a consistent argument that a person actually defends, whether or not it's valid. In fact I don't agree with every single point, but I agree with the spirit that the Canon ought to be somewhat more discriminating. I think I'll address the argument proper separately, but she approached her response to the movie in a way I really appreciated. I'm bothering typing this at all because I think there's a value to pausing and reflecting before we get another indulgence episode that runs thin on interesting analysis and high on uncomfortable bickering. I hope I'm not suggesting what two creators' show should be. Otherwise maybe my fandom's broken, too. But understand it's meant with humility and genuine constructiveness. Disregard at will. I'd like to write about the larger Canon argument, but I'll post that separate below.
-
Although it's possible that the cat died randomly and certain that Herbert would use that dead cat if he found it, there's no doubt in my mind that he'd kill a cat in a second for his ends. I think you could argue that he has empathy of Dean, at least by the end, but I don't think that empathy would stand in the way of his ambitions. So I can't iamgine him keeping the cat alive for his sake. As to whether he has empathy for Rufus himself, Herbert's cackling starting at the cat after Dean re-kills it. As A House Plant said above, it's abiguous for the fun, and because the movie walks a fine line to allow the audience to enjoy Herbert when they're supposed to and to be shocked by him when his ethics are on display. If we knew he killed the cat it would be much harder to enjoy him, but that isn't to say he isn't a monster. He's just a great monster.
-
Also I think people have a hard time empathizing with teenage characters, especially teenage girls. Granted, a lot of times in TV and film teenagers can be the worst written and most irritating agents. But in Game of Thrones, for example, Sansa and even Tommen, recently, got a lot of hate from fans unfairly. They were both sheltered rich teenagers, and both were completely exploited by more mature and powerful political forces. You get the feeling that people write teenagers off just for not having grown up yet. I didn't feel like Sansa was naive or irresponsible in early seasons past her age and experience, and the more she's grown and lived in the world the more impressive a character she's become. Tommen, too, was a sweet kid who mostly tried to do right by his conscience, his religion, and his elders. He wasn't savvy enough to realize that his advisors were manipulating him to awful ends, and the realization of what he had been compelled to allow destroyed him. Maybe tangential to the discussion, but I think in fiction, and probably in life, people write others off instead of allowing them to be imperfect as they mature.
-
FUN?!? /s There is something to be said about P.T.A. kind of going off the rails with Important Artistic Dramas for a while until Inherent Vice. Which isn't to say that those were bad, but after The Master I would've had a hard time bringing myself to anticipate yet another Big Important Drama, so Vice came at the right time. In any case, I was all about There Will Be Blood when it came out, and I'm a little worried that it won't shine as bright years later. On the other hand I'm pretty confident that I'll love Boogie Nights the same or more. So I'm with you: I can see Boogie Nights winning my vote. Preach.
-
I think it's to the forum's credit that I see hardly anyone making a "minor work" argument. I've been reading closely and most people mention that Kiki's isn't their favorite Miyazaki no matter how they voted. I may have missed one, but I don't see anyone saying that it's unworthy just because it isn't another movie. They're saying that they don't think the movie is itself Canon-worthy, and then separately noting that there are other movies that they would vote in instead. I'm only bothering posting because people are usually going out of their way to give props to Miyazaki and how much they like him to balance out their "no" vote. I don't want people mistaking respect for pettiness.
-
I think it'll be a landslide win. Part of me does think "maybe this isn't high enough quality for the Canon," but fuck that - it's near-perfect at what it is. The movie drags a little as it winds up for the big climax (bouncing between overlong scenes with Hill in his office and spending a limp beat on the Dan/Meg relationship), and I guess the scene where Meg searches for Rufus is overlong and flat. That's nitpicking and it's pretty much all I've got to hold against it. Re-Animator is perfectly executed fun. And the hardest worker in the movie, second only to Jeffrey Combs, is the soundtrack. That bouncing strings n' oboe theme gives everything just the right tone between horror, comedy, and adventure. And it does play a little more like adventure than action.
-
This one is a heavy indulgence, but I'd consider Shogun Assassin.
-
I just started listening to the Kiki episode with the wonderful Film Crit Hulk, and had no idea that we shared a favorite movie: Mike Leigh's Happy-Go-Lucky. I titled the topic as such because I feel Mike Leigh deserves discussion all on his own, with Happy-Go-Lucky easily being my favorite of the bunch. It's a classic Leigh character study with a theme and moral that really intensely jives with my worldview. And additionally it's the great kind of movie, like an Ex Machina, where the movie leads the viewer down a mental path and surprises them with a gentle re-contexualization by the end. Kind of a dry way to rep a movie that means a lot to me, but this movie in amazing, and it's Film Crit Hulk approved!
- 1 reply
-
- 3
-
People aren't taking the poll "seriously," but the discussion on the back end of the episode about culture was interesting, so people are chatting about it on a message board.
-
Let's take a moment in all this to reflect on the unmade "House of Re-Animator" where: "Ignoring the previous three films, the story focuses on a "Bush-like president" who dies in office and his staff covertly brings in Dr. Herbert West to reanimate him."
-
I just want to bump this. I'm not quite as down on Miyazaki as Holden, but I think that's a fantastic write-up, and it absolutely reflects my opinions on Kiki's. I think the movie "references" or "suggests" dramatic power rather than demonstrating it.
-
AHAHAHAH! I love it!
-
This is a perfect example of a great movie that doesn't get into the Canon for me. Devin said that it "has the consistency of muzak," and I agree. Kiki's does try to demonstrate its power through that gentleness and it's soft-touch vérité, but somehow it doesn't penetrate to me. Maybe the distinction is that it's deeply sentimental, and not as dramatic. And it should be, right? I think the ending moment when Jiji doesn't talk to her at the end and she just nuzzles him in acceptance is tremendously powerful. It's a really thrown away and powerful moment of maturation. Kiki's struggles are mundane, but they're life. The movie may be at its most brilliant in the prologue where the "leaving the nest" process takes place in beautiful miniature. We never see those parents again, until the credits, and it's a few small moments like these that fulfill the movie's promise of low-key gravitas. However, many moments are purely sentimental. The interactions with the old ladies are sweet but skin-deep. It's sweet that Kiki's helpful, it's funny that the 2nd lady likes brooms, and it's sweet that Kiki and the grandma bond some time after her snooty granddaughter rebuffed her (awful) pie. It takes on the appearance of dramatic heft but is more just a contrivance for an "awww" moment. This movie hammered my heartstrings. It's gorgeous not only in the fluid animation and the detailed backgrounds, but in what it chooses to depict; I love how much we get to enjoy Kiki's flying through long landscape shots and intermittent interactions with geese. But ultimately I think the movie throws out all these perfectly saccharine moments and heaps of nostalgia for a realistically-perfect city, but it really comes up short on genuine drama. Plus there's a few elements that fall kind of flat for me, including Tombo in total, who's obnoxiousness isn't saved by the kind of kind humanization and life-affirming content of the rest of the film. My greatest fear is that I'm being too hard on it for not being something it has no interest in being, and something that would be more traditional. But I don't think it had to change fundamentally to be Canon-worthy; It just needed a greater count of low-key dramatic moments to low-key sweet nothings. In writing this out, I've satisfied my fears. I think the movie is just too light and airy to be Canon-worthy. Kiki's Delivery Service is a perfectly sentimental ride, and that makes it easy to mistake it for being far more powerful then it really is. It fails to break the skin. I've always felt a Canon movie must be great and exceptional. It's great, but it doesn't truly distinguish itself. I can already feel it washing off my brain. In short, I agree pretty much entirely with Devin this week. Sorry, Hulk!