Re: Return of the RECENT VIEWING
Posted: 12 Aug 2017, 21:54
Oops.
Providing a platform for the petty and the uninformed since 2003
http://bcb-board.co.uk/phpBB2/
Matt Wilson wrote:
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.
Classic Rock Sneelock wrote:Matt Wilson wrote:
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.
Goat Boy wrote:
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
Matt Wilson wrote:
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.
Goat Boy wrote:Free Fire
I was underwhelmed by High Rise but this was much better. It’s a simple set up but delivered with real style and humour. The violence in particular is unlike the kind of violence you normally see in other action films so when people get hit by a crow bar they react like you’d expect somebody who had just been hit with a crowbar would. Wheatley stretches the absurdity of the violence to breaking point to great effect and the performances are great too. Everybody has good moments, Sharlto Copley as South African Verne and Jack Reynor are Harry stand outs and the movie fizzes with a real energy.
Snarfyguy wrote:Goat Boy wrote:Free Fire
I was underwhelmed by High Rise but this was much better. It’s a simple set up but delivered with real style and humour. The violence in particular is unlike the kind of violence you normally see in other action films so when people get hit by a crow bar they react like you’d expect somebody who had just been hit with a crowbar would. Wheatley stretches the absurdity of the violence to breaking point to great effect and the performances are great too. Everybody has good moments, Sharlto Copley as South African Verne and Jack Reynor are Harry stand outs and the movie fizzes with a real energy.
I enjoyed the set-up to this, but once it became apparent that the balance of it was going to be nothing but people shooting at one another for the next hour or so, in real time, I quickly lost interest. I'd forgotten that I'd rented it because it was directed by Wheatly, whose work I generally enjoy - and I think it was the case that there were no opening credits whatsoever. Perhaps I should have stuck with it.
Snarfyguy wrote:
One for Matt: Rafferty and the Gold Dust Twins (1975). Alan Arkin, Sally Kellerman and Mackenzie Phillips star as down-and-out misfits in a bonding/road movie. Alex Rocco (Moe Green from The Godfather), Charles Martin Smith (the nebbishy guy from American Graffiti) and the great Harry Dean Stanton provide support. Writer John Kaye went on to script American Hot Wax and Where the Buffalo Roam. It ambles along amiably and it's very much of its time and place, which is a good thing.
Matt Wilson wrote:
Out of Sight
I looooooooove this one. I hadn't seen it in maybe fifteen years. Remember when Elmore Leonard films were en vogue? In the second half of the '90s we got this, Get Shorty and Jackie Brown and I dug 'em all. Read all the books too and virtually every other novel he wrote. I even love the look of the picture. Soderbergh oversaturated the color and its beautiful. If I were a director this is exactly the kind of film I'd want to make. Probably wouldn't make a dime though as it's not a movie about superheroes. Hell, it wasn't even a hit in 1998. I'd forgotten that Albert Brooks was in it too.