ItsFineImFine
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2019
- 3,745
- 2,389
Hands Over The City (1963) - 7.5/10
The first Francesco Rosi film of the two I saw this week and it's an ambitious one with some interesting special effects recreating a building collapse and a giant cast. You don't see such a high degree of 'politicking' even in a Sorkin film and it isn't subtle at all about right-wing corruption in Italian politics. The forever land development = people and taxpayers being screwed theme is nothing new so there's nothing revelatory but it does feel interesting to see it play out in black and white with stylish Italian cinematography for so long and to show how systematized it is as it focuses on one city. The best political scenes have to be the yelling in the assembly but I also thought the quieter ones where the leftist politician tries to point out the hypocrisy in smaller scenes were better done.
One of the problems with paying so much detail to the politicking though is that it makes the film feel like a documentary but it isn't a film that tries to consistently keep that style the way a Battle of Algiers does so there are some rough transitions here. It tries to focus on a handful of characters while also having no real lead which feels a bit disorientating with how many characters come and go from each scene. I think if Rosi had re-made this film in a later era, we'd probably see a bit more focus on the actual people affected by the building crash rather than just following politicians and officials around and we'd probably see more of those quieter scenes rather than the more obvious ones in the political assembly.
And mamma mia is this a loud film, you get the full stereotypes with the hand waving and the yelling in Italian on display throughout, listen to this one on low volume. It had to be Italian or European made though. A Hollywood film in the early-60s was going to go a more optimistic route and probably focus more on getting justice than exposing injustice.
Dangerous Liaisons (1988) - 6/10
I hate John Malkovich. It isn't a baseless hate, it's the smugness of not only his face but his voice and really everything he does. He is well-suited to playing a villain in an unsubtle 90s movie like Con Air but here, it becomes hard to do. This is a very talkative film which relies heavily on setting up conniving and trickery along with the usual detail to costume and music in period pieces. One issue with conniving and trickery is that for it to really be juicy, you can't spell it out so plainly and overdose on it so much the way this film does. We have no real protagonist to root for and I don't think it does a good enough job of creating an antagonist to root against either so it becomes a case of just being a spectator and watching over the top 'conquests' being successfully pulled off one after another. I never truly felt like the stakes were that high because if the stakes are just potential sexual context, it might seem like a good idea but it fails to make viewers care enough.
This film also suffers from one other issue which is two leads that belittle everyone else's stage presence. It must've been a conscientious choice to cast a young Uma Thurman and Keanu Reeves next to a talkative and dominant Glenn Close & Malkovich but it also makes those other characters meek while making Close and Malkovich tiresome, not that Malkovich is ever not tiresome with his constant 'look-at-me' acting. I'm not sure if you blame the editing for this but the film decides to talk its way through Close & Malkovich bragging to each other and Malkovich conducting these sexual conquests then in the final 10-15 it causes both characters to become unhinged and sets up a duel minus the actual set up part meaning we just jump to a scene outside in winter. It's a very in your face type of film-making that probably swoons Academy voters through sleight-of-hand rather than substance. Also f*** John Malkovich.
Christ Stops At Eboli (1979) - 7/10
Was alright.
The first Francesco Rosi film of the two I saw this week and it's an ambitious one with some interesting special effects recreating a building collapse and a giant cast. You don't see such a high degree of 'politicking' even in a Sorkin film and it isn't subtle at all about right-wing corruption in Italian politics. The forever land development = people and taxpayers being screwed theme is nothing new so there's nothing revelatory but it does feel interesting to see it play out in black and white with stylish Italian cinematography for so long and to show how systematized it is as it focuses on one city. The best political scenes have to be the yelling in the assembly but I also thought the quieter ones where the leftist politician tries to point out the hypocrisy in smaller scenes were better done.
One of the problems with paying so much detail to the politicking though is that it makes the film feel like a documentary but it isn't a film that tries to consistently keep that style the way a Battle of Algiers does so there are some rough transitions here. It tries to focus on a handful of characters while also having no real lead which feels a bit disorientating with how many characters come and go from each scene. I think if Rosi had re-made this film in a later era, we'd probably see a bit more focus on the actual people affected by the building crash rather than just following politicians and officials around and we'd probably see more of those quieter scenes rather than the more obvious ones in the political assembly.
And mamma mia is this a loud film, you get the full stereotypes with the hand waving and the yelling in Italian on display throughout, listen to this one on low volume. It had to be Italian or European made though. A Hollywood film in the early-60s was going to go a more optimistic route and probably focus more on getting justice than exposing injustice.
Dangerous Liaisons (1988) - 6/10
I hate John Malkovich. It isn't a baseless hate, it's the smugness of not only his face but his voice and really everything he does. He is well-suited to playing a villain in an unsubtle 90s movie like Con Air but here, it becomes hard to do. This is a very talkative film which relies heavily on setting up conniving and trickery along with the usual detail to costume and music in period pieces. One issue with conniving and trickery is that for it to really be juicy, you can't spell it out so plainly and overdose on it so much the way this film does. We have no real protagonist to root for and I don't think it does a good enough job of creating an antagonist to root against either so it becomes a case of just being a spectator and watching over the top 'conquests' being successfully pulled off one after another. I never truly felt like the stakes were that high because if the stakes are just potential sexual context, it might seem like a good idea but it fails to make viewers care enough.
This film also suffers from one other issue which is two leads that belittle everyone else's stage presence. It must've been a conscientious choice to cast a young Uma Thurman and Keanu Reeves next to a talkative and dominant Glenn Close & Malkovich but it also makes those other characters meek while making Close and Malkovich tiresome, not that Malkovich is ever not tiresome with his constant 'look-at-me' acting. I'm not sure if you blame the editing for this but the film decides to talk its way through Close & Malkovich bragging to each other and Malkovich conducting these sexual conquests then in the final 10-15 it causes both characters to become unhinged and sets up a duel minus the actual set up part meaning we just jump to a scene outside in winter. It's a very in your face type of film-making that probably swoons Academy voters through sleight-of-hand rather than substance. Also f*** John Malkovich.
Christ Stops At Eboli (1979) - 7/10
Was alright.
