[Film] Most satisfying movie you have seen recently

[MugwumpHasNoLiver]

I saw The Godfather Part II last night, and while it was indeed a VERY worthy follow-up, it just didn't seem as fresh as the first. I can't deny that it's still a very powerful film, because it totally is; I was still tearing up unexpectedly for no discernible reason, (and I don't know if this was because I started it at three AM last night) but I found it a far more intellectually stimulating experience. I had to analyze and think about Micheal's actions far more than in the first one. "Is he siding with Roth or Pentangelli'?" Stuff life that. But it complements the first one so well, being that the first showed Micheal's rise and this shows his fall. But there's a sort of duel nature in that this also show's Vito's rise and the inter cutting with Micheal's fall is very effective parallelism.

I suppose I have to prefer the first for entirely superficial reasons. The family dynamic in the first is a big portion of what made me like it so much, so of course I'll be a bit turned off watching a film where the whole thing slowly deteriorates (although Kay's confession scene was a wonderful 'Oh shit' moment. The second she said she had an abortion, I knew she was getting smacked. I'm surprised Mikey held it in as long as he did.) And while this film was just as well written and acted as the first, it lacked the stylistic panache that made the first one stand out. Case in point: both films climax with a montage of death, but which one's the iconic scene? On that note, the strong family bond in the first was counterbalanced with a strong brutality which was also sadly lacking here. Not that that's a big deal, I'm not a gore hound or anything, I just found it refreshing that when someone was brutality murdered, you felt it.

Of course, these are petty nit-picks. The Godfather II, although not as personally preferable as the original, is still a masterful piece of film-making that has in spades the intellectual and emotional depth most Hollywood films today sadly lack. Tonight I'll watch Part III, then tomorrow, Apocalypse Now. Can anyone recommend me any other really good Coppola films while I'm on the subject?

[Bomby von Bombsville]

Can anyone recommend me any other really good Coppola films while I'm on the subject?

The Conversation. Dear god, The fucking Conversation.

[Uriel Septim VII]

Can anyone recommend me any other really good Coppola films while I'm on the subject?

The Conversation. Dear god, The fucking Conversation.

Anything with John Cazale is pretty much God-win. I mean it... anything.

[Bomby von Bombsville]

Anything with John Cazale is pretty much God-win. I mean it... anything.

If I'm thinking of the right guy... every movie he ever acted in was nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars.

[Eva Yojimbo]

Three Colors: White [1994; Krzysztof Kieslowski]

9.0/10

Quite different in tone than Blue, White could be considered a black comedy that still maintains Kieslowski impeccable sense of visual, narrative, emotional, and metaphysical aesthetics. The film begins with the divorce of a man, Karol, from his wife, Dominique (played by Julie Delpy) because they never consummated the marriage. Karol is left alone and poor, and sets out to make his fortune. When he does, he executes a convoluted scheme to get his "revenge" on Dominique.

As usual with Kieslowski, no plot summary can hope to capture the richness of the actual film. While Blue was meant to ironically represent "freedom" in which the protagonist was "freed" from the attachments of her family after they were killed, White is meant to ironically represent "equality"; which is ironically portrayed both with a political subtext (the dissolution of communism and rise of capitalism) and the equality between men and women. But Kieslowski had an uncanny knack for being able to dramatize themes (this was something even Kubrick praised him for). He somehow manages to create film which can be appreciated equally on three levels; the rich narratives, the rich themes and subtext, and the rich aesthetics. But no matter which angle you observe them at, they're inevitably superb.

As with Blue I wavered between 9.0 and 9.5; really, I could justify either writing for either film. Ultimately, I preferred Blue, but White really isn't a "lesser" film. They're both quite different but both could easily be called masterpieces. White has an elegant and dreamlike pacing that Blue lacks, but I think Blue has better performances and perhaps a greater emotional resonance.

Sergeant York [1941; Howard Hawks]

9.5/10

Sergeant York is an obvious piece of WW2 American propaganda but it's also one of the best bio-pics ever made about an American hero from WW1 who managed to capture an entire German battalion (some 130+ men) nearly all by himself. But the greatness of the film lies in the combination of excellent performances - especially Gary Cooper as the title character and Walter Brennan as the pastor and York's religious guide - and impeccable craftsmanship of the film-makers. It's really something that the film is able to transcend its own propaganda to actually be one of the great films of the Hollywood's golden age. But it must be said that the film is just scene-after-scene of flawless film-making.

It's often said that John Ford was the great film craftsman but the more I see from Hawks the more I consider him the great craftsman and Ford the great artist; this isn't a knock (at all) against Hawks, but he seems to have an innate knack for how every shot should unfold, where to cut for maximum effect, how to combine economy and aesthetics, and how every scene should develop visually. Hawks can so effortlessly move between humor and drama; between slapstick and introspection. Even if York's dilemma between "God and country" is a little TOO on the nose, the way in which it is portrayed carries it.

Even if we were to ignore the film-making, the acting would equally make the film worthwhile. Composed of a powerhouse lead performance by Cooper (who goes from rebellious to religiously devout over the course of the film) and a jam-packed cast of the Hollywood's best character actors of the period there isn't a wrong note in the entire film. The battle scenes are some of the finest ever filmed, but it must be said just how wonderful all of the scenes of quiet (and sometimes even rambunctious) character development is. And the characters are indeed one of the many great highlights.

Definitely a must see.

It's so rare that I see so many truly great films within such a short time; between Faces, Three Colors: Blue and White, and now Sergeant York that's 4 of the best films I've ever seen within the past month. Quite an impressive run.

What the fuck? You rank something like The Fountain higher than SA?

Actually, I think I gave SA a 9.0 and I originally gave The Fountain the same rating; though my ratings are flexible depending on my mood at the time. But I would definitely say I prefer The Fountain; but they're (obviously) completely different films. You haven't even seen The Fountain, have you?

oh, for a moment there with this reminder of Tautou in Amelie you nearly got me out of Mamegu-waifu phase. Whew, that was close one. Mameguu nnyaa

Uhhhh, Ok...

hmm, parts of my posts are propably pretty incomphrehensible

Ya think?

===============================================

Can anyone recommend me any other really good Coppola films while I'm on the subject?

Firstly, nice review on Pt. 2; as I said, if you put this to a poll you'd probably find it split pretty evenly with Pt. 1 probably winning only because it was "the first" and has more iconic moments. For me, I think it's the sustained elegiac tone that Pt. 2 does so extremely well that I miss from Pt. 1. Not that 1 doesn't have any such tone, but I do find it more stylistically conscious rather than tonally conscious. I think 2 tends to divert the cinematic style of the first to a more narrative side. For instance, while the first uses a kind of intellectual montage (the baptism/murder) the second is more subtle in how it intercuts the Michael and Vito storylines and how he uses the latter to comment on the former. For me, this creates a greater emotional, intellectual, and thematic richness than anything in the first. Plus, I think the whole Fredo murder is one of the most emotionally powerful scenes in all of film. You're definitely right that in trying to determine which is better (or personally preferable) you're ultimately going to resort to nit-picking; they're both two of film's finest masterpieces.

As for Coppola, after Godfather, Apocalypse Now, and The Conversation there really isn't much worthwhile. I can't think of any director that went through such a phenomenal period of masterpiece after masterpiece only to completely disappear and then proceed to turn out absolute crap (I guess The Outsiders and his Dracula are decent); probably because he started focusing on producing rather than directing.

[MugwumpHasNoLiver]

Firstly, nice review on Pt. 2; as I said, if you put this to a poll you'd probably find it split pretty evenly with Pt. 1 probably winning only because it was "the first" and has more iconic moments. For me, I think it's the sustained elegiac tone that Pt. 2 does so extremely well that I miss from Pt. 1. Not that 1 doesn't have any such tone, but I do find it more stylistically conscious rather than tonally conscious.

I know what you mean. These films are so rich that I'll watch them again and again many more times in my life. Knowing myself as I do I'll grow to appreciate things I didn't see before, then wind up at war with myself as to which I prefer at any given time of my life. These really are more like first impressions that reviews. But I have to admit the first seemed rather simple in comparison to the second and some stuff in the second probably went over my head. As I said, I watched the first with subtitles, but I watched the second without. I kept going 'Fuck, I think I missed something'. Like when the old man killed himself, I knew he was talking to Tom Hagen about the Romans bleeding themselves to death in the bath. But according to Wikipedia, Hagan TOLD HIM to do it to save his family. Yeah, I missed that part. Fuck, how did I manage to become more comfortable with reading words off screen that listening! Then again, the first is completely capable of standing on it's own, while the second exists in that parasitic sequel state, where you NEED to have seen the first one to understand most of what's going on. While parts of it did emotionally and intellectually surpass the original, it had a sort of footnote or expansion pack thing going on, if that makes any sense.

And you mentioned Fredo's death. For me, the more emotionally powerful part was were Connie begs Micheal to forgive him, then Micheal proceeds to hug him, but give the goon a signal. It was a sort of crescendo that toppled off. I was convinced for a moment, that Micheal would forgive, then that was quickly dashed. When his actual death came, it seemed to be a forgone conclusion. Ah well, such is tragedy.

I can't think of any director that went through such a phenomenal period of masterpiece after masterpiece only to completely disappear and then proceed to turn out absolute crap (I guess The Outsiders and his Dracula are decent); probably because he started focusing on producing rather than directing.

I think his Dracula would've been much better if he didn't cast FUCKING KEANU REEVES as Johnathan Harker. That man cannot act and it RUINED the film. All the lesbian/werewolf sex in the world can't save a film from Keanu Reeves!

[Bomby von Bombsville]

As for Coppola, after Godfather, Apocalypse Now, and The Conversation there really isn't much worthwhile. I can't think of any director that went through such a phenomenal period of masterpiece after masterpiece only to completely disappear and then proceed to turn out absolute crap (I guess The Outsiders and his Dracula are decent); probably because he started focusing on producing rather than directing.

Quoted for truth. Actually, I liked The Rainmaker, but I was also a much less discerning film viewer and still only in high school when I saw it. From what I've heard, Tetro is a pretty good film, though not at all on the level of his 70's classics.

Avoid Jack like death. What a horrible, horrible film.

[Merridian]

I think his Dracula would've been much better if he didn't cast FUCKING KEANU REEVES as Johnathan Harker. That man cannot act and it RUINED the film. All the lesbian/werewolf sex in the world can't save a film from Keanu Reeves!

What, you didn't like Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure or Johnny Mnemonic?
Though TBH, I'd take Keanu over Nicolas Cage, John Travolta, or Tom Cruise any day.

[MugwumpHasNoLiver]

What, you didn't like Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure or Johnny Mnemonic?
Though TBH, I'd take Keanu over Nicolas Cage, John Travolta, or Tom Cruise any day.

I admit, I've never seen those films, but at least Cruise had Eyes Wide Shut and Travolta had Pulp Fiction and Hairspray. I don't care what anyone says, Travolta as a morbidly obese middle aged woman is the highlight of my pathetic generation. And that just leaves Cage, who has contributed nothing to human society; bring on the gas.

Well, I'm going to watch The Godfather Part III, expect a write up in three hours.

[backseatjesus]

Full Metal Jacket 10/10
LOVE

Eyes Wide Shut 9/10
I usually dislike Tom Cruise, but he seemed incredibly decent in this film. Plus seeing Nicole Kidman naked is a plus.

[Merridian]

I admit, I've never seen those films, but at least Cruise had Eyes Wide Shut and Travolta had Pulp Fiction and Hairspray. I don't care what anyone says, Travolta as a morbidly obese middle aged woman is the highlight of my pathetic generation. And that just leaves Cage, who has contributed nothing to human society; bring on the gas.

That's cheating, though! Those movies were already decent (well, maybe not Hairspray) WITHOUT the actors' performances. And it isn't like Keanu didn't have The Matrix--arguably a film that had more of an impact than Eyes Wide Shut did (and Cruise's performance in it was just as stiff, unmemorable, overdramatic, and clueless as his performance in anything else, really).

[MugwumpHasNoLiver]

That's cheating, though! Those movies were already decent (well, maybe not Hairspray) WITHOUT the actors' performances. And it isn't like Keanu didn't have The Matrix--arguably a film that had more of an impact than Eyes Wide Shut did (and Cruise's performance in it was just as stiff, unmemorable, overdramatic, and clueless as his performance in anything else, really).

Yes, the movies are good without them, but at least their inclusion didn't ruin a good film, like Keanu Reeves in Dracula. Frankly, he would've been okay if he'd at least turned in a tolerable performance, but he couldn't even do that! Every time he opened his mouth, the film suffered for it! He acted like a deafening black hole that shattered and obliterated the cinematic illusion with every frame that held his vacant stare; every audio stream that carried his listless, half-confused voice! He killed that movie. No, he butchered, sodomizes, defecated, vomited and digested that movie-in that order. I have yet to see Travolta or Cruise deliver that much concentrated suck in anything as of yet.

Well, enough of my melodramatic rant . . .

I watched The Godfather Part III and can't even begin to comprehend why it gets as much hate as it does. Sure, Sophia Coppola's acting wasn't even in the same league as the other actors in the film, but it was competent and nothing she said made me cringe like a lot of bad actors make me do (see above Keanu rant). And my Grandma said the film was mis-cast because the next head of the family was 'clearly Mexican'. I was on the look-out for it and I couldn't tell. So either I'm color blind or Grammy's a racist. Or maybe the film managed to competently create the illusion we call cinema? Who knows.

Part III, to me, seems to perfectly balance the two moods set in the previous films. While it lacked the pure corporeal power of the first and the calculated emotional and intellectual power of the second, Micheal's struggle for redemption and his eventual failure was a very engaging and satisfying premise. In his sunken and world-weary eyes I can almost see the fresh-faced young man from the beginning of the first film set with a concrete cast of the ruthless scheming murdered from the second. I loved that Micheal's estranged wife and children were able to come together despite all he'd put them through and for a time, it seemed as though they could all be happy. But this film, like the one before it, is a tragedy. Although it manages to capture some of the warmth and humanity from the first that was sadly lacking in the second. I suppose that's why the second rubbed me the wrong way at first; the continuous mood of loss and contempt was a double-edge sword. Undoubtedly a true feat of film-making, but probably my biggest detractor. (Well not really, this may seem like a really petty indulgence, but New York and Sicily are just so much prettier than Nevada and Cuba-there, I said it).

While this film, in it's entirety, wasn't as emotionally powerful as the previous two, it's ending certainly was. The whole after the opera scenes where Mary gets shot, the Micheal dies later had me tearing up longer than any other scene in the series. I suppose the reason the ending to the second didn't was because it was just so much at once, it started to become too much. Like, I remember the first time I read the classic tragedy Antigone by Sophocles, I LAUGHED at the ending. Basically, Antigone and her boyfriend kill themselves, okay that's tragic. Then the boyfiend's mother and the Queen, walks on stage for the first time in the play, finds out they're dead, then walks off-staged and kills herself! I know it's really supposed to point out the guy's fucked, but it was so abrupt and over-the-top, I found it hysterical! That doesn't have much to do with Part II, but the effect is similar. Part II went so deep into isolation and corruption, I was emotionally drained by the three/fourths point. Part III kept toying with the whole redemption and undying familial love, so when tragedy struck, you felt it!

Personally, The Godfather Part III doesn't deserve the hate it gets, not at all. It's a very satisfying ending to one of the greatest film trilogies of all time, despite a few flaws. If I had to rate them, I'd give the first a 10, the second a 9 and the third and 8. I need to get all my moron teenage friends who've never seen these wonderful films to watch them all. They're an integral part of the American pop-cultural zeitgeist and with very good reason.

Now, onto Apocalypse Now, wooooo. I already saw some of it in a film class, but we only had two fifty minute periods left to squeeze it into, and my teacher had to skip large chunks in the middle. In the end, I only saw the very beginning, and some stuff at the end. I should be enraged, but meh.

[Xard]

On "Colours": If I remember anything (for the record most likely I don't) Red was best of them all.

What the fuck? You rank something like The Fountain higher than SA?

Actually, I think I gave SA a 9.0 and I originally gave The Fountain the same rating; though my ratings are flexible depending on my mood at the time. But I would definitely say I prefer The Fountain; but they're (obviously) completely different films. You haven't even seen The Fountain, have you?

Fountain fails by virtue of having Aronofsky.

oh, for a moment there with this reminder of Tautou in Amelie you nearly got me out of Mamegu-waifu phase. Whew, that was close one. Mameguu nnyaa

Uhhhh, Ok...

Mamegu is mai waifu

mai waifu  SPOILER: Show

[URL=http://img231.imageshack.us/i/megumiavataro.jpg/]
[/URL]
[URL=http://img697.imageshack.us/i/vlcsnap403577.jpg/][/URL]
[URL=http://img237.imageshack.us/i/mamegunyannyan.jpg/][/URL]
[URL=http://img246.imageshack.us/i/vlcsnap448145.jpg/][/URL]

Mai waifu. Not yours. Hands off!

(because mai waifu sillyness is SRS BSNESS I went to check on /a/ if Mamegu is valid choice. Apparently 3D waifus are ok if they're seyuus so nnyaa )

hmm, parts of my posts are propably pretty incomphrehensible

Ya think?

It's not like I mind being incomphrehensible. ;)

Now, onto Apocalypse Now, wooooo. I already saw some of it in a film class, but we only had two fifty minute periods left to squeeze it into, and my teacher had to skip large chunks in the middle. In the end, I only saw the very beginning, and some stuff at the end. I should be enraged, but meh.

hmm, I don't think I've ever seen Apocalypse Now original cut (not the AN: Redux) in full. Apocalypse Now Redux is absolute masterpiece and one of greatest films ever of course, but I wonder if original version is even better. I found the addition of the french colony in Redux version unneeded and that it needlessly muddled down the pacing of whole film (this is my only real criticism of Redux)

so, thoughts? Should I see the original and how it compares to Redux?

[Merridian]

so, thoughts? Should I see the original and how it compares to Redux?

You should. I haven't seen Redux (I have both versions, I just never got around to watching it ), so the only one I've seen is the original. I THOUGHT I'd seen Redux, but your mention of the French Colony rings no bells whatsoever, so I'm pretty certain I've only seen the original cut. It's one of my favorite movies of all time, and one of the few that's in the top ten of both the "movies that just kick ass" list AND "movies that are high-brow pomp & film geek" list. I'll never forget the day I lent it to someone and he gave it back, after watching only half of the film, saying "I don't see what the big deal is. Seems like just another war movie to me." Ironically enough, he also loved NGE "for its depth".

I just got Oshii's Patlabor and Talking Head today. I plan on watching them either this afternoon/evening or sometime this weekend. Almost picked up Red Spectacles as well, but I left it.

[Xard]

so, thoughts? Should I see the original and how it compares to Redux?

You should. I haven't seen Redux (I have both versions, I just never got around to watching it ), so the only one I've seen is the original. I THOUGHT I'd seen Redux, but your mention of the French Colony rings no bells whatsoever, so I'm pretty certain I've only seen the original cut. It's one of my favorite movies of all time, and one of the few that's in the top ten of both the "movies that just kick ass" list AND "movies that are high-brow pomp & film geek" list.

I'm starting to think I too should be making my own special lists like that

There's plenty of changes in Redux and it *is* genius film. I think you should see it (the french colony was put back because it solves the one plothole in the original, apparently. It was initially cut due to its lenght)

I just got Oshii's Patlabor and Talking Head today. I plan on watching them either this afternoon/evening or sometime this weekend. Almost picked up Red Spectacles as well, but I left it.

WHAT WHAT WHAT

HOW DID YOU GET YOUR HANDS ON TALKING HEAD??????????????????????????

[AchtungAffen]

I watched "On the Beach". The original version with Fred Astaire. Have got to rewatch it, because I saw it at night and had to lower the volume and couldn't quite get what many Australians said. Still, that's a beautiful yet totally sad story about how stupid we all are. I loved it.

[Eva Yojimbo]

Well, enough of my melodramatic rant

While I genuinely dislike Keanu as an actor I guess I wasn't really bothered by him in Dracula. I think the entire film was so OTT in its melodramatic romanticism that it almost reminded me of silent film. My attention was never really on the acting. I rather like the lush and stylish take on the myth and I think it's one of the few to really get that right combination of sexuality and violence and romanticism right. Plus, it had great production and art design.

I watched The Godfather Part III and can't even begin to comprehend why it gets as much hate as it does.

You pretty much nailed my thoughts on the third film... so much so I really don't have anything to comment on except to compliment you on the excellent reviews of all three films. It's made me all nostalgic for my first time seeing them (on VHS!).

==========================================

On "Colours": If I remember anything (for the record most likely I don't) Red was best of them all.

That's the popular opinion, though I was surprised that Blue is the highest on TSPDT 1000 list.

Fountain fails by virtue of having Aronofsky.

Aronofsky is actually a really capable director and the versatility of his films really shows an immense understanding of cinematic techniques and history since they're all so visually different yet all incredibly well executed. The Fountain is, to me, his most impressive but, then again, I love neo-classicism and Aronofsky really goes deep into the cinematic lexicon with that film.

Mai waifu. Not yours. Hands off!

Uhhh, ok. :)

Should I see the original and how it compares to Redux?

Yes. I have and love both versions but I actually prefer the pacing in Redux (I know I'm in the minority here).

HOW DID YOU GET YOUR HANDS ON TALKING HEAD??????????????????????????

Here if you want all three of his "cinema trilogy". or here for just Talking Head.

[Merridian]

WHAT WHAT WHAT

HOW DID YOU GET YOUR HANDS ON TALKING HEAD??????????????????????????

Why simple, my dear fellow! I trundled on into FYE and picked it off the shelf, slapping down a Hamilton as I passed the check-out counter and paying only $7.19 for it! :)

I'm rather interested in tracking down copies of Love & Pop and Shiki Jitsu. Admittedly, I'm pretty surprised I found Talking Head in the store, but needless to say I didn't waste the opportunity--I picked it up along with the GIANT ROBO OVA from the 90's. Patlabor came in the mail (strange I could get Talking Head from the store, but Patlabor I had to order...).

[LowerDefinition17]

This is kind of an awkward post after all these classics but-


I saw Zombieland tonight.

Fantastic, hilarious, and far exceeded my expectations

[Evangelion__x]

Terminator 2: Judgment Day -- bigger, dumber, louder movie than the first, which on its own hardly a very intelligent film in the first place, but just a great action thriller with a fantastic atmosphere and interesting mythology. Yeah, T2 boasts better action scenes, better effects (or at least newer effects) and a better musical score, but is inferior in every other way: the characterization is trite, the acting mediocre, especially from Linda Hamilton (although Edward Furlong who plays John Connor is surprisingly decent and Ahnuld's also actually pretty good in his own extremely limited sort of way), and James Cameron more liberally uses his trademark corny dialogue about love and friendship, and adds a lot of humor. The humor actually worked for me, a lot of it did anyway, particularly when it was one-on-one stuff between the Terminator and John Connor.

More importantly, although it is very different and also inferior as far as I'm concerned, T2 is a satisfying sequel. In any case the film adds some significant details to the Terminator mythology and works as a good, albeit different follow-up to the original film.