Return of the RECENT VIEWING

..and why not?
User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 51822
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: Return of the RECENT VIEWING

Postby Snarfyguy » 13 Aug 2017, 04:53

Classic Rock Sneelock wrote:
Matt Wilson wrote:Image
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

I've always enjoyed it, and though I think it misses the nuances (the political overtones, for one) of the book, I don't think we're going to ever get a better filmic adaptation of a Hunter Thompson novel. I met both Thompson and Depp when I went to Book Soup on Sunset Blvd in 1998 to get Thompson's signature on a book of his letters. Hunter was a giant, over six foot, while 'lil Johnny couldn't have been more than 5'6", maybe 130 lbs. Only in Hollywood would they think to get Johnny Depp to play Hunter Thompson... Alex Cox was originally going to do the picture so when Gilliam came onboard he was basically a director for hire.


I actively dislike the movie. I know it's much loved and I've tried making my peace with it but I think they missed by a mile. My problem is essentially one of tone. Things that strike me as hilarious in the book strike me as mean spirited in the movie. I like Gilliam's psychedelic touches visually but I think, overall that it's pretty much a travesty of one of my most beloved books.

I think it's too bad that Alex Cox & HST didn't hit it off. I think Cox's ideas about structuring the thing more straightforward and consolidating things would have made for a more engaging film. Still, you never know about tone. That's a genie in a bottle and hard to get on the page.

Cox has gone on record saying that he thinks he was only attached to the project in order to secure financing. He seems to think everybody was in it to score some big bucks. (Like with Barfly). He seems to feel that his "indie" approach was only really of value to the producers as a bargaining tool and that it wasn't really in anyone's interest to do something modestly budgeted.

Well, if you don't want a modest budget then Gilliam is your guy!

I know a lot of people thought Cox was being a primadonna. Maybe he was. I'm a Gilliam fan but I don't think he understood what was marvelous about the book. The draft of Cox's screenplay on his website makes me think that maybe Cox did. Gilliam said he thought Cox's script was shit and bragged that he banged his script out in 8 or 10 days. The writer's guild didn't agree and Gilliam Insisted the Cox script wasn't used at all. When the Cox script was given co-writing credits, Gilliam had a pissing match with the Writer's Guild so intense that he publicly resigned from the Guild..

The movie may have been a bomb but it's certainly well on the road to "cult classic" at this point.

I'd like to say some thing flattering about Gilliam's style. According to Cox - the mere mention of Ralph Steadman's name would throw HST into a rage. I thought Gilliam did a wonderful job of giving the movie a visual style anyway. Certainly it refers to Steadman's style but I guess they might have been trying not to over rely on it. This aspect of the film and Depp's performance ARE very accomplished. Even I can see that. I still spit on it. :x



I disliked it intensely on release, it being one of my favorite books, as just a sort of Dean-Martin-and-his-buddy-except-with-acid-instead-of-booze thing, leaving out the political angle and of course the wonderful writing. I've softened up on a (semi-)recent re-viewing, but it still rankles, only not as much.

There's deeper point to the book than drugged-out weirdos wreaking havoc and tweaking the nose of pomposity, but it seems to have been lost in the mix.

Meanwhile, I'm watching the Batman TV show with my six year-old, so I can't complain about anything. Shelly Winters is giving 'em hell as Ma Parker!

Clementine: Oh no, dad, I can't look!

Me: Don't worry, Clementine, they always get out of the trap they're in.

Clementine (sincerely): But dad, what if this time they don't?

:lol: (I laugh, but I'm actually crying for her all-too-soon-to-be-lost naivete.)

Wait, what was the question?
Jimbo wrote:In some ways, personality-wise, Trump and I are similar.

User avatar
Sneehosifatz
Posts: 9525
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: Return of the RECENT VIEWING

Postby Sneehosifatz » 13 Aug 2017, 05:04

"What if they don't?" :lol:
There is Titus Andronicus,
Titus Andronicus
wearing a snorkel
in my pool

User avatar
Darkness_Fish
Posts: 3272
Joined: 27 Jul 2015, 09:58

Re: Return of the RECENT VIEWING

Postby Darkness_Fish » 13 Aug 2017, 20:54

Image

Another low-budget horror flick. The soundtrack is the most interesting thing, featuring Myrkur, and somethings that sounded like Sunn 0))), but weren't. Didn't feature The Misfits' titular song at all, which seemed like a massive oversight. Actual film was ok, but by the numbers, and hampered by having a school-bullying storyline when everyone looked about 30, especially the useless Reznor-esque lead.
Saving my holier-than-thou nonsense for a more deserving cause since '82

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 28093
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Re: Return of the RECENT VIEWING

Postby Matt Wilson » 14 Aug 2017, 03:36

Image
Traffic

Still one of Soderbergh's best pictures and probably Benicio Del Toro's finest performance overall. The points the film makes are accurate: that there's no way the war on drugs can be won because the cartels will put more money into their business than governments are willing to spend to combat it, that as long as the demand is there, the supply will always follow suit, and that the issue of drug addiction spans all walks of life - no swath of humanity is immune.
John 'master of temperance and tolerance' Coan wrote:Oh calm down for fuck's sake!

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 29401
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Return of the RECENT VIEWING

Postby Goat Boy » 15 Aug 2017, 11:16

Image

The Battle of Algiers

I was surprised by how modern this was and how contemporary it felt. Unlike a lot of war films the violence and its context is not overly dramatic or romanticised. Instead it’s shot with a documentary style realism and objectivity that shows the violence on both sides for what it is.

Great stuff
Copehead wrote:You are making a fool of yourself.


Muskrat wrote:I'm undemonstrative during shows; no matter how much I enjoy them. People who get up and move around ("dance," if they will) strike me as show-offs

User avatar
The Modernist
Posts: 8141
Joined: 13 Apr 2014, 20:42

Re: Return of the RECENT VIEWING

Postby The Modernist » 17 Aug 2017, 04:04

Goat Boy wrote:Image

The Battle of Algiers

I was surprised by how modern this was and how contemporary it felt. Unlike a lot of war films the violence and its context is not overly dramatic or romanticised. Instead it’s shot with a documentary style realism and objectivity that shows the violence on both sides for what it is.

Great stuff


It really is. A seminal film.

User avatar
northernsky
Posts: 2188
Joined: 08 Aug 2005, 10:18
Location: East of Sweden

Re: Return of the RECENT VIEWING

Postby northernsky » 17 Aug 2017, 10:26

Matt Wilson wrote:Image
Death Wish 2

First of the Death Wish sequels and the only one with a Jimmy Page soundtrack. Dumber, sleazier, but almost as fun as the original. Bronson is too old for the role but it doesn't really seem to matter. By this point it's all just a right wing fantasy anyway. There's not one, but two rape scenes, the first of which goes on forever in the unrated version. A very grimy picture, indeed.


Bloody hell, that just seems like self-punishment.
Now, doesn't a Death Wish remake starring a similarly aged Bruce Willis, under the benign oversight of Eli Roth, sound like exactly what America needs right now?

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 28093
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Re: Return of the RECENT VIEWING

Postby Matt Wilson » 17 Aug 2017, 14:18

Oh, the Death Wish films aren't for everyone, that's for sure. There were actually four of them. The new one is a remake, as you mentioned.

Image
Night Moves

Now here's a real good one. Gene Hackman as a detective in a great neo noir. James Woods and Melanie Griffith are along for the ride too. In a better world, this would be as well known as Chinatown. Take note, Davey, it's twice the film that Cutter's Way is.

Image
Freebie & The Bean
Probably the most un-P.C. '70s comedy I can think of. Racial slurs, homophobia, cops taking bribes, beating up people, and destroying public property are just a few of the 'funny' things going on here. Yet I'd be lying if I said some scenes weren't amusing, and Caan and Arkin do have chemistry. Both Jewish actors, though Arkin is playing a Mexican. Caan's character has a racial epithet for every scene in the film. I guess in the '70s you could get away with that. The makers of the Lethal Weapon series had to have had this picture in mind when writing the Riggs/Murtaugh relationship years later.
John 'master of temperance and tolerance' Coan wrote:Oh calm down for fuck's sake!

User avatar
Matt Wilson
Psychedelic Cowpunk
Posts: 28093
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 20:18
Location: Edge of a continent

Re: Return of the RECENT VIEWING

Postby Matt Wilson » 19 Aug 2017, 04:04

Image
Che

Steven Soderbergh made this film in 2008, and it seems to have gutted him in terms of having faith in the reception of important films in the 21st Century. A good turn from Benicio del Toro didn't make an iota of difference as far as North American box office went, but it did well elsewhere. Of course, a two-part, four-and-a-half-hour picture about the life of Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara was doomed to financial failure from the outset, so I don't know where his despondency comes from, and he has directed multiple movies since then - so there's that.

As far as the film itself goes, it's rather dull, actually, with no attempt to humanize the man. It gets the facts right, and it's certainly well acted and photographed, but Lawrence of Arabia, it's not. If you've got the stomach for this kind of thing, then it's worth it. As for me, it was a blind purchase, so I rather had to watch the whole thing.

Image
Time Bandits

Gilliam's first film of the '80s doesn't impress me as much as it once did. The special effects are dated and it's not as clever as the younger me thought over thirty years ago. I liked seeing Cleese and Connery, the George Harrison song at the end was interesting, the transfer is okay, I guess (they rave about it on bluray.com), but I have to admit I was a tad bored watching it last night. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood.
John 'master of temperance and tolerance' Coan wrote:Oh calm down for fuck's sake!


Return to “Screenadelica”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest