Does "complexity" and different readings necessary confirm on a film "good movie" status, though? Don't get me wrong, I think you give a likely purrfect reading of between-the-lines Neon Demon, one that at my most catty I would not dispute. And I can see why one might want to bump a movie a point upwards because of clever use of symbolism, subtext, academic cleverness, and so on. But to me, even with your reading, Neon Demon is still a tedious, excessive, indulgent mess of a movie. So while the dimension you discuss is of interest, it does not significantly transform the value of the movie in my eyes. I have a feeling this sort of stuff goes on a lot with both directors who I actively dislike on the whole--Jadoworsky, Aronofsky, some Pasolini--and directors who I usually tolerate well--Von Trier, Malick, Bunuel. It would rarely if ever make or break a movie for me, though.
Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate it | {Insert Appropriate Seasonal Greeting Here}
- Thread starter ProstheticConscience
- Start date
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,997
- 2,914
Doesn't necessarily makes a movie great, for sure, but to me it's enough to avoid the "bad movie" tag. Bad movies don't go there. And (again, to me), none of the directors mentioned ever made a bad movie (well, I haven't seen Jodo's and Aro's last few).
Oh, and I really don't think TND is a mess. I think it's a rather beautiful film, and it feels pretty calculated to me (until Jesse's death anyway).
I know you are restricting this to you, which is laudable, but c'mon, none of them has ever made a bad movie? That's an almost ecclesiastical dispensation. I think I might make that claim for Michelangelo works of art but that's where I would draw the line. No other human can claim perfection on that level.
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,997
- 2,914
Never said they made "perfect" movie. They made pretty good films. I know you hate everything by Jodo, that you hate Teorema... all great films IMO.
As for restricting my opinions about art to myself, I think everybody should - I know few people watch films or listen to music the way I do, and as much as I appreciate Jauss' reception theory, I still don't think a greater experience with the artform, allowing one to better appreciate more difficult works, equates to these works being objectively better than simpler productions (in other words, I think my uncle's love for Bud Spencer is as valid as my love for Raoul Ruiz).
Unholy Diver
Registered User
Mufasa: the Lion King 6/10
Lion King prequel story of how Mufasa grew from a cub separated from his family to become the eventual leader of Pride Rock, it had it's moments, and the music was decent with songs from Lin Manuel Miranda, but overall I'd say it was just pretty good, a clear and distant 2nd place to fellow holiday family drop Sonic 3
Lion King prequel story of how Mufasa grew from a cub separated from his family to become the eventual leader of Pride Rock, it had it's moments, and the music was decent with songs from Lin Manuel Miranda, but overall I'd say it was just pretty good, a clear and distant 2nd place to fellow holiday family drop Sonic 3
I think Carry-On represents everything that is wrong with 98% of Netflix movies: high production values but totally anonymous direction; a script that virtually screams "nobody around here actually gives a f***;" and sloppy plot holes you can drive a 747 through. Carry-On is not a contender for Christmas season Die Hard status; if that was the intent, the notion is ludicrous. Soon, very soon, Carry-On will come to rest in the Netflix graveyard where close to all of their godawful movies end up and no one will ever think of it again.
Been thinking about this one some. At the risk of sounding elitist, I don't think art is egalitarian. Loving a work enough is not sufficient to presume that said work is the equal of a masterpiece. Somebody might like the lesser work better, fine, I have no problem with that. And that person's pleasure and mine in watching the works of our choice may be equally ecstatic. I mean, taste is incredibly subjective. But if a Ruiz work is "objectively" on the same level of a Bud Spencer work, well, so must Hamlet be on a par with Barefoot in the Park; the Beatles on a par with the Monkees; and Melville's Moby Dick on a par with Peter Benchley's Jaws. I don't think you have to be fascist about standards to recoil at those comparisons.
Last edited:
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,997
- 2,914
I get exactly what you mean, and it's been my position too for the longest time. And of course, from a "scholar"'s point of view, I could argue about why/how Pasolini / Jodorowsky did great stuff (for example, my thread about Panic films), or that TND is "objectively" more complex both in narrative structure and in themes than The Substance, or, to hit it through the park, that Bud Spencer never did a film on the level of the worse of Ruiz's filmography. None of that would really be objective, though. It would be, as I said, from a scholar's point of view. I think that's exactly what I was missing from Jauss' theory: yes, my field of experience will determine what I receive as pleasant, original, or brilliant (if it manages to stray away from the banal and retain its meaningfulness), but this horizon of expectations is everything but objective and will differ from one reader to the other, no matter their prestigious academic level or experience.
For sure, I'm for the Hippotomaus is an "objectively" better (and certainly more pleasant) experience than On Top of the Whale for most viewers (and I say that confidently without having seen the Hippo one - I just looked through Spencer's filmo and thought it was a great title to oppose to Ruiz's Whale film). I'm pretty sure most people wouldn't even get through Ruiz's film. I would not agree, I could write an essay and back it up, but there still would be no objectivity either way. We tend to think our subjectivity, based on experience, readings and studies, is closer to the truth of what makes a great film, or a great work of art, but in fact, there is no measurable determinant other than consensus, which is determined by a selected group that mostly agrees with itself (and is often fabulously wrong).
Still, I think you are right when you say Carry-On is a smelly pile of garbage that will soon be forgotten. I can't help myself.
Methinks "objectivity" has pretty much gotten itself blown out of the water. Quantum physics, the teensy little bit I pretend to understand anyway, has pounded several extremely sharp stakes through the heart of that one. So I would never claim objective standards for anything, not even the excellent Irish whiskey that I am sipping right now. Doesn't mean that I don't think that some aesthetic standards are better/wiser/smarter/more useful/more pleasing/more revealing/more persuasive than others. Eye of the beholder thing? Sure, no question.
Tasty Biscuits
with fancy sauce
Hundreds of Beavers (2022). B+
Summarizing the plot of Hundreds of Beavers seems pretty pointless, but I'll do it anyway. An alcoholic cider man has his farm destroyed by beavers and must learn to survive in the harsh winter. That's it. But the hook is in the presentation. Equal parts 20th century silent film and live-action Looney Tunes, Hundreds of Beavers is a predominantly dialogue-free, slapstick-driven one-man-show, and boy oh boy, what a show it is. I wouldn't have minded a couple mins being trimmed here or there, but it by-and-large justifies its 100min+ run time (and gives Love Exposure a run for its money in how late the title sequence is revealed).
Though a festival release in 2022 & 2023, it's finally enjoyed a very limited, select theatrical run in 2024, and trust me, the theater (preferably packed with unsuspecting patrons) is the place to see it. Made on a shoestring budget of 150K (I guess that's shoestring these days), its manic DIY-energy results in one of the more inspiring trips to the cinema in quite some time (it's also streaming on Prime if it's not playing in your area).
You'd be forgiven 15 minutes in thinking this is just a pale imitation of the films of yore it's paying tribute to, but stick with it and you'll bear witness to some truly inspired world-building.
Case in point: a common complaint of detractors is the repetitiveness of some jokes, but this isn't the same joke being beat to death as much as it is the film slyly teaching you the rules of the world, and working these rules out alongside the protagonist can result in an especially rewarding viewing experience, including a supremely satisfying button at the end. Simply put, it takes real smarts to be this dumb.
Summarizing the plot of Hundreds of Beavers seems pretty pointless, but I'll do it anyway. An alcoholic cider man has his farm destroyed by beavers and must learn to survive in the harsh winter. That's it. But the hook is in the presentation. Equal parts 20th century silent film and live-action Looney Tunes, Hundreds of Beavers is a predominantly dialogue-free, slapstick-driven one-man-show, and boy oh boy, what a show it is. I wouldn't have minded a couple mins being trimmed here or there, but it by-and-large justifies its 100min+ run time (and gives Love Exposure a run for its money in how late the title sequence is revealed).
Though a festival release in 2022 & 2023, it's finally enjoyed a very limited, select theatrical run in 2024, and trust me, the theater (preferably packed with unsuspecting patrons) is the place to see it. Made on a shoestring budget of 150K (I guess that's shoestring these days), its manic DIY-energy results in one of the more inspiring trips to the cinema in quite some time (it's also streaming on Prime if it's not playing in your area).
You'd be forgiven 15 minutes in thinking this is just a pale imitation of the films of yore it's paying tribute to, but stick with it and you'll bear witness to some truly inspired world-building.
Case in point: a common complaint of detractors is the repetitiveness of some jokes, but this isn't the same joke being beat to death as much as it is the film slyly teaching you the rules of the world, and working these rules out alongside the protagonist can result in an especially rewarding viewing experience, including a supremely satisfying button at the end. Simply put, it takes real smarts to be this dumb.
The Return (2024) Directed by Uberto Paolini 4B
The Return is a deadly serious retelling of Odysseus' return to Penelope after years seemingly lost at sea. It is a modernized version of The Odyssey that jettisons all the mythical elements--no Cyclops, no sirens, no sorceress, no fun, basically. Ralph Fiennes plays Odysseus like he is auditioning for King Lear, which, when you come to think of it, would not be a bad idea at all (I'd take him over Branagh and even Day-Lewis in this specific instance). Juliette Binoche provides the best performance in the movie as the long suffering Penelope, who has spent years knitting and then unravelling a never-completed shawl, thus keeping her legion of suitors at bay. The movie hints, but doesn't develop, the notion that there might have been a little more to it than that. Missed opportunity, I'd say. One wonders who will want to see this movie. I suspect it may find its niche in first year, required Western Civilization courses at universities where its discussion will directly lead to thousands of earnest essays primarily written by AIs.
Gladiator 2
A worthy enough successor to the first one. I love Denzel, but he was miscast in this one.
6.5/10
A worthy enough successor to the first one. I love Denzel, but he was miscast in this one.
6.5/10
