Films you've seen lately

[vinteuil]

'Hollywood Boulevard'. I've seen this film at various intervals in my life but somehow it resonated more on this viewing. What's surprising to me is that Norma Desmond is portrayed as being an old woman when if fact she was only 50.

Marvellous to see that short scene from the doomed movie 'Queen Kelly' where Gloria Swanson watches herself from her glory days. Really very moving. This is a film that has so much story behind its creation it makes doing some research well worth while.

... I think 'Sunset Boulevard'.

'Hollywood Boulevard' a different kettle de poissons -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Boulevard_(1936_film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_Boulevard_(film)

.

[Pulcinella]

I don't follow this thread too closely, so this might have been mentioned before.
Watched it last night and very much enjoyed it.

Lad: A Yorkshire Story on Prime Video.
If you don't have Prime, it is also available on YouTube https://youtu.be/DUEIpF0-vfM so you could watch it there instead.

https://www.ladayorkshirestory.com

[BBMmk2]

Saw the film For Olivia, last night. A very moving film. A must see, imo.

[richardfinegold]

... I think 'Sunset Boulevard'.

'Hollywood Boulevard' a different kettle de poissons -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_Boulevard_(1936_film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_Boulevard_(film)

.

I find that film resonates more as one gets older, probably as we watch generations younger than us assume control of the world, for better or worse...

[Keraulophone]

I happened to catch most of Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979) the other night, having never seen it before. I hadn’t realised that it was so revered as ‘one of the greatest of all films, because it pushes beyond the others, into the dark places of the soul. It is not about war so much as about how war reveals truths we would be happy never to discover’ (Ebert). Shown in incomplete form, it won the Palm d’Or at the 1979 Cannes Film Festival. There are now at least three versions of this lengthy film, which took three years to shoot, beset with casting and location problems and going way over budget (soon recouped), and nominated for eight Oscars (winning Sound and Cinematography).

What do others here think of this adaptation of Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, transferred from C19th Belgian Congo to the Vietnam war? It’s the sort of film one needs to be in the right mood to appreciate, and TBH I’m not often in that frame of mind. Anyhow, now I’ve bought the DVD (Final Cut version) and am awaiting the right moment to come along...

[Belgrove]

I happened to catch most of Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979) the other night, having never seen it before. I hadn’t realised that it was so revered as ‘one of the greatest of all films, because it pushes beyond the others, into the dark places of the soul. It is not about war so much as about how war reveals truths we would be happy never to discover’ (Ebert). Shown in incomplete form, it won the Palm d’Or at the 1979 Cannes Film Festival. There are now at least three versions of this lengthy film, which took three years to shoot, beset with casting and location problems and going way over budget (soon recouped), and nominated for eight Oscars (winning Sound and Cinematography).

What do others here think of this adaptation of Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, transferred from C19th Belgian Congo to the Vietnam war? It’s the sort of film one needs to be in the right mood to appreciate, and TBH I’m not often in that frame of mind. Anyhow, now I’ve bought the DVD (Final Cut version) and am awaiting the right moment to come along...

It’s one of the greatest films ever made, the original limited release is without flaw. I’ve discussed it elsewhere, including the various versions, in this long thread.

[Belgrove]

Watched No Country For Old Men for the umpteenth time. An existential thriller that is definitely not for the squeamish. I can’t really find any flaw in it, from the construction of its propulsive scenes to the harsh landscapes of the Texas borderlands painted by Roger Deakins’ photography. The Coen’s are famous for the distinctive but slightly unreal dialogue in their films, but this is almost word for word from Cormac McCarthy’s novel. Chigurh is an astonishing literary invention (only topped by McCarthy’s Judge Holden), but Javier Bardem’s portrayal of this force outside of nature is mesmerising. And Tommy Lee Jones’ beautifully understated Sheriff, who has seen it all before, but never quiet like this, subtlety embodies the Yeats poem. I always set myself the task of finding where the money goes (the ‘muguffin’), but always get so absorbed by the storytelling that it slips by yet again.

[Keraulophone]

I’ve discussed it elsewhere, including the various versions, in this long thread.

Thanks, I found your earlier posts. It would be helpful to have access to all the versions, but they may only be available in an expensive 4-disc collectors’ edition.

[Belgrove]

It would be helpful to have access to all the versions, but they may only be available in an expensive 4-disc collectors’ edition.

It’s worth it, not least for the extras - Hearts of Darkness is a documentary about the troubles in getting the film made which is worth a watch - Sheen’s mental state (exploited by Coppola) followed by a heart attack whilst filming, the sets being destroyed by a typhoon, the Philippine Air Force not turning up with their helicopters, Marlon Brando turning up the size of a zeppelin and reluctant to learn his lines...; its a wonder a masterpiece emerged. I don’t know which version you saw Keraulophone, but any version is better than most films that get made, indeed it wouldn’t get made nowadays.

[Katzelmacher]

Wake In Fright - a long-suppressed/neglected film from 1970.

Hugely controversial in its day due to its supposed ‘reinforcement’ of Australian cultural stereotypes, this was a much, much better film than I’d expected. A small masterpiece, in fact, comparable to the (later and much better-known) Deliverance.

Its principal notoriety stems from the featured kangaroo hunt - filmed on a real kangaroo hunt - in which the animals are despatched by the obnoxious, drunken hunters with greedy and exultant savagery. One of director Ted Kotcheff’s objectives was to confront audiences with the brutal reality of kangaroo hunting, in the hop that it would lead to the banning of the practice. But as the film ran into distribution troubles, hardly anyone saw it at the time.

Strongly recommended, for those with strong stomachs. It’s on youtube.

[Serial_Apologist]

One of director Ted Kotcheff’s objectives was to confront audiences with the brutal reality of kangaroo hunting, in the hop that it would lead to the banning of the practice.

Nice Freudian slip of the finger there, K!

[Katzelmacher]

I happened to catch most of Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979) the other night, having never seen it before. I hadn’t realised that it was so revered as ‘one of the greatest of all films, because it pushes beyond the others, into the dark places of the soul. It is not about war so much as about how war reveals truths we would be happy never to discover’ (Ebert). Shown in incomplete form, it won the Palm d’Or at the 1979 Cannes Film Festival. There are now at least three versions of this lengthy film, which took three years to shoot, beset with casting and location problems and going way over budget (soon recouped), and nominated for eight Oscars (winning Sound and Cinematography).

What do others here think of this adaptation of Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, transferred from C19th Belgian Congo to the Vietnam war? It’s the sort of film one needs to be in the right mood to appreciate, and TBH I’m not often in that frame of mind. Anyhow, now I’ve bought the DVD (Final Cut version) and am awaiting the right moment to come along...

I’d say it’s auteur American filmmaking at its most decadent. It would’ve worked better with a smaller budget and a (much) shorter running time.

Brandon’s performance is HORRIBLY self-indulgent. But by this point, no-one could direct him.

I do have a prejudice against big budget films, though.

Fortunately, Heaven’s Gate put an end to this kind of nonsense a couple of years later.

[Katzelmacher]

Watched No Country For Old Men for the umpteenth time. An existential thriller that is definitely not for the squeamish. I can’t really find any flaw in it, from the construction of its propulsive scenes to the harsh landscapes of the Texas borderlands painted by Roger Deakins’ photography. The Coen’s are famous for the distinctive but slightly unreal dialogue in their films, but this is almost word for word from Cormac McCarthy’s novel. Chigurh is an astonishing literary invention (only topped by McCarthy’s Judge Holden), but Javier Bardem’s portrayal of this force outside of nature is mesmerising. And Tommy Lee Jones’ beautifully understated Sheriff, who has seen it all before, but never quiet like this, subtlety embodies the Yeats poem. I always set myself the task of finding where the money goes (the ‘muguffin’), but always get so absorbed by the storytelling that it slips by yet again.

Agree. A film that repays repeated viewings.

[richardfinegold]

It’s one of the greatest films ever made, the original limited release is without flaw. I’ve discussed it elsewhere, including the various versions, in this long thread.

I thought that it captured the mood of Conrad’s work well. I remember seeing it when it first came out. I was a Graduate Student, and there was all the publicity about the Film but I hadn’t read anything about the actual content. I had read Conrad a few years prior as an Undergraduate and immediately realized that it was Conrad updated into Vietnam. Supposedly there had been multiple rewrites of the script and that bogged down the whole thing while the cast was stuck in the Philippines and I remember thinking all that they ended up with was Conrad with the helicopter attack scene thrown in. Perhaps the subsequent re releases add more.

Regarding both the book and the movie, I think they both promised more than they deliver. The book is a rumination on the nature of good and evil, on what can happen when the restraints of civilization are caste off and the baser instincts of Man are allowed to erupt in a feral way. The actual meeting with Kurtz is anti climatic. In that since the movie is absolutely faithful to the book, as it ends with a whimper and not a bang

[Richard Barrett]

I must see it again some time. I've only seen it once and that was almost 20 years ago, as part of a somewhat self-flagellatory plan to watch every film I could about the Vietnam War. For sure it has its flaws, although I don't think Brando's weird performance is one of them. The only one of those war films I watched then that I've seen again subsequently was Full Metal Jacket which for me really is a masterpiece, like almost everything by its director. What I still admire about Apocalypse Now, though, is its ambition (whether fulfilled or not) to be a serious film dealing with serious issues, which is extremely rare among big-budget films these days. The recent film that I found most memorable has been Nomadland, without a doubt.