I really enjoyed The Outsider though there was an awful lot of down time in the second half--eight hours might well have sufficed rather than ten. Now I'm going to bed.
Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Mid-Spring Edition. Happy Beltane!
- Thread starter ProstheticConscience
- Start date
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
- Jan 29, 2004
- 34,439
- 19,485
If you haven’t had a chance, check out The Land of Steady Habits.
It’s one of my favorite Mendelsohn films.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,771
- 3,808
Blue Jackets fan so very, very same.
I miss comedies as well. I'm sure they exist somewhere but I ain't finding them. So many non-blockbuster movies have migrated directly to the streaming services, but that's often drinking from the fire hose. Definitely get most of my laughs from TV series. Watched The Bad Trip on Netflix recently and laughed my ass off so there's one movie, but that's definitely not going to be for everyone. Loved Palm Springs but that's almost a year ago at this point... I know Judd Apatow is one of the few doing his thing but man I'm so burned out on his bloated movies.
Perhaps it was a good year for no comedies though. Personally comedies are my favorite type of movie to watch in a crowded theater. Nothing quite matches the joy of waves of laughter over the course of 90-120 minutes.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,771
- 3,808
Speaking to mother! specifically since it would probably be one of my go-to examples of what I consider to be a pretentious movie. Well there is the actual title which is lowercase m and an exclamation point. I'd get a good natured laugh out of it if I wasn't so certain Aronfosky is very very serious. There are things I liked visually and conceptually about the movie, but I just couldn't shake the constant feeling Aronofsky was shouting at me "YOU DON'T GET IT, MAN!" while I feel like I very much did get it.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,771
- 3,808
Glad you enjoyed it. Definitely could've been tighter and the back half doesn't quite maintain the momentum of the first few episodes -- the mystery of what exactly is happening through those early episodes was really propulsive to me. I haven't been grabbed by a question like that in a while. Loses some steam as the explanation comes into focus, but doesn't collapse into ridiculousness as some of King's stories tend to do. As with a lot of King the setup is better than than conclusion, but in this case, the conclusion at least works. The big action set piece towards the end was gripping. Thought the story did a good job of even giving some more minor characters something so when they're all crowded into a bad spot, you feel it.
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
The only reason I'm reticent - and since I didn't shell out yet, I don't think I will - is that the damn thing got folded (Why, why, why?). The creases are there. If it was pristine, I think it would already be on the way. I'm going to look for another copy but I think that one's pretty rare. The other posters for Sonatine don't do anything for me either.
As for the film, easily a top-10 film for me, if not top 5. It's stayed with me for months. I gushed about it in my long review a couple months back but I'd say there's still things about it that resonate with me, especially between how sentiment and images intertwine that I wouldn't be able to put into words. I don't even know that I'd want to. I mean, even the way Kitano blinks - and that's before facial surgery - is enthralling. I've watched three Kitano films so far (Boiling Point, Sonatine and Hana-Bi) and I'd say that I'd rank Hana-Bi third, largely because I consider the other two outright masterpieces. While t I think Hana-Bi is a great film - and better than what most filmmakers can churn out - but not at the same level as the other two. It does have the coolest, smoothest heist that I've ever seen in a film though.
Last edited:
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
One can be wrong but I don't think it's silly for one to make an attempt. We do it every day in all walks of life. Movies have a self-awareness and many movies have public service in mind when being produced and released. You think it's always wrong on the part of the audience to make an attempt deducing what a film is thinking? I don't know that it's particularly important in the grand scheme of things - and surely, on a case by case basis, it can be pretentious - but by and large I see it more as a dialogue between art and recipient than anything else.
I understand - and appreciate - the point that you make about a viewer's perception of a movie saying more about the viewer than it does about the film but that idea that a film can't think is one that on the surface, I can't co-sign. All movies come from thinkers (i.e., a human being in the process of creating) and thus can't be separated from it. Most filmmakers have intent, goals, a desire to communicate (not all, but most) either something personal or universal. That inherently infers a self-awareness to a movie that can be perceived by (either rightfully or wrongfully) a viewer. Whether he's astute enough to do it correctly (or the movie crafted well-enough to communicate what it wants in an understood fashion - if that's what it wants to achieve) is a different dilemma.
Or maybe I've completely misunderstood you. I read the argument a couple of days ago.
Last edited:
The Killers (1946) directed by Robert Siodmak
When a former boxer known as “The Swede” (Burt Lancaster) is murdered, an insurance investigator (Edmond O'Brien)
wades through the Swede’s life to uncover what led to his cold blooded execution. A noir classic based off of a very good Hemingway short story (which is told in its entirety in the excellent first 10 minutes), which fleshes out Hemingway’s story to include a very engaging mystery. A quintessential noir, incredibly stylistic, with great use of shadows, and iconic performances by Lancaster and Ava Gardner as a femme fatale. Lancaster is making his film debut and he already seems like he enters the screen fully formed as an actor. Kudos also for this film at making insurance seem interesting. My father worked his whole life in insurance and he never got to investigate murders plots and interrogate dangerous femme fatales, his job seemed a lot more mundane than what was depicted here. Exceptionally good noir film, its no wonder why its dubbed “the Citizen Kane of noir”.
When a former boxer known as “The Swede” (Burt Lancaster) is murdered, an insurance investigator (Edmond O'Brien)
wades through the Swede’s life to uncover what led to his cold blooded execution. A noir classic based off of a very good Hemingway short story (which is told in its entirety in the excellent first 10 minutes), which fleshes out Hemingway’s story to include a very engaging mystery. A quintessential noir, incredibly stylistic, with great use of shadows, and iconic performances by Lancaster and Ava Gardner as a femme fatale. Lancaster is making his film debut and he already seems like he enters the screen fully formed as an actor. Kudos also for this film at making insurance seem interesting. My father worked his whole life in insurance and he never got to investigate murders plots and interrogate dangerous femme fatales, his job seemed a lot more mundane than what was depicted here. Exceptionally good noir film, its no wonder why its dubbed “the Citizen Kane of noir”.
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
You can understand the film (or any other art object) as a proposition (or a thought), but it is a finite one. It is not in the act of thinking, it can't produce the will necessary to be pretentious, to pretend to be (or to do, or to understand) something it is not (well, maybe it is possible - I can't see how right now - but that would be in itself an amazing feat and a grand artwork). Of course, filmmakers have intent and a desire to communicate, but films don't - film is the medium, the message that has to be read. You could say films carry an intention and I'd be fine with that, but that intention belongs to their maker(s) (and in the case of films, this is complicated).
What I understand from this is that mother! (I didn't even remember it was lower case) makes you think that Aronofsky is pretentious. Well, a lot of people feel the same way about Godard. You might be right, I don't know, but I still don't think it makes the movie pretentious. The lowercase and exclamation point are very interesting because it's the first concrete example that was proposed in this discussion. Is this pretentious or are you using it to amplify a trait you already associate to the filmmaker? Can the lower case and asterisk be read as pretentious in the case of *batteries not included?
Last edited:
I have. Me, too. Have you seen Babyteeth? Probably my favourite Mendelsohn performance.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,771
- 3,808
That's fair. I would call Aronofsky pretentious so if that's the lens you want to use, cool, though I feel like the product is a reflection of its maker. So while it seems like you see a line dividing the two, it feels like to-may-to vs. to-mah-to to me. Now perhaps Aronofsky is a playful scamp and his intent with the movie was that it's a fun puzzle to decode. Didn't play that way to me though. Feels like he's saying I'm smart and if you don't like this, you're dumb. Am I projecting? Perhaps! (or, perhaps!)
Godard is an interesting counter. I wouldn't push hard on any one who calls him pretentious (indeed he may be the poster child for it to some). I don't quiet view him that way. The key difference between him and Aronofsky to me is that I feel like Aronofsky wants to argue with me while Godard could care less. Both want to challenge and provoke, but one wants you to pat his head and tell him he did good, while the other doesn't really give a shit. Pretension, to me, carries an element of false intelligence or bravado. Aronofsky thinks he's better than me but I don't agree. Godard also thinks he's better than me but he is. Again, projecting? Perhaps!
Now all this rambling is about people, not product — so we may agree more than disagree if I've been following correctly — but pretentious does feel like a valid criticism/observation every bit as much as funny or scary or entertaining, etc.
As for *batteries not included, I believe the title was styled that way because that's how such a note would appear on the packages of toys and electronic devices at the time. No pretentiousness there, friend. That's just fact. Practically a documentary!
That's what we've been saying, but you keep arguing with it. When I or someone else pointed that out, you replied that a filmmaker's pretentiousness "doesn't affect his films." Now, you're agreeing that a film can carry the intention of the filmmaker. When kihei pointed out that "pretentious film" and "what the film is thinking" are simply figures of speech to indicate the intention of the filmmaker, you stayed focused on the figures of speech not being literally true (when a figure of speech, by its very definition, is not literally true). Ironically, in a discussion about intent, you're ignoring our intent and being dismissive because of a technicality, which is being obtuse and confusing because you're apparently "fine" with our intended argument.
Consider this: just as people like to talk about "pretentious films," you seem to like to talk about "reflexive films." To quote Mubi.com, "a reflexive film is a film with self-awareness." How can a film be self aware, though, if it has no mind and cannot think? You might argue that "self aware" is just a figure of speech, but then you'd be arguing what we're arguing with "pretentious." Are you willing to give up the idea that films can be reflexive just to hold firm that they can't be pretentious, or can you just accept what everyone means when they call a film pretentious, instead of being anal about it?
Last edited:
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
That's what we've been saying, but you keep arguing with it. When I or someone else pointed that out, you replied that a filmmaker's pretentiousness "doesn't affect his films." Now, you're agreeing that a film can carry the intention of the filmmaker. When kihei pointed out that "pretentious film" and "what the film is thinking" are simply figures of speech to indicate the intention of the filmmaker, you stayed focused on the figures of speech not being literally true (when a figure of speech, by its very definition, is not literally true). Ironically, in a discussion about intent, you're ignoring our intent and being dismissive because of a technicality, which is being obtuse and confusing because you're apparently "fine" with our intended argument.
Consider this: just as people like to talk about "pretentious films," you seem to like to talk about "reflexive films." To quote Mubi.com, "a reflexive film is a film with self-awareness." How can a film be self aware, though, if it has no mind and cannot think? You might argue that "self aware" is just a figure of speech, but then you'd be arguing what we're arguing with "pretentious." Are you willing to give up the idea that films can be reflexive just to hold firm that they can't be pretentious... or can you just accept what everyone means when they call a film pretentious, instead of being anal about it?
But anal is all the fun.
And then again, when I say it carries an intent (to be funny, for example), you can point to formal elements that actualize this coded intention. The film doesn't intent to be funny, but it is coded to be. Same with reflexivity, I can point out to you elements that actualize this strategy to produce meaning. I've been asking all along for these formal elements that would identify a film as being pretentious, and as of now there's only Kallio that proposed something concrete.
Again, I could say a film is jealous, or it is curious - all the crap you want - but to me it remains crap if you can't formally explain your reading. I can accept that someone feels a film is pretentious and feels that it tries to tell them their idiots, but not that it's in the actual film.
Last edited:
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
Insane stupid infighting and the same circular arguments since 2014
with: the HFCanucks board.
You'd think I'd know better than to go there anymore. Wake me up when Benning's finally fired.
with: the HFCanucks board.
You'd think I'd know better than to go there anymore. Wake me up when Benning's finally fired.
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
- Jan 29, 2004
- 34,439
- 19,485
Teorema (1968) Directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini 3B
The movie starts out with some establishing shots around factories before it settles in on the stately home of a rich factory-owning bourgeoisie in a household that consists of himself and his wife, their son and daughter, and a maid. When we first visit this household, Pasolini shoots the scenes with a brown filter and no sound. Lips move but we can’t hear what they say (Pink Floyd reference, eh?). Why? Because he can. Presto chango, we suddenly have colour as now a small party is taking place. One figure stands out, a handsome but innocuous-looking young man (Terence Stamp). Of course, he doesn’t have a name being a heavyweight symbol and all, so I'll just refer to him as Terry. We don’t know who he is or why he is there (the family doesn't seem to either), but he’s real important. It isn’t that he seduces the entire family, oh, no; rather the entire family seduces him, one by one. The maid is first up to bat, mowing the lawn, staring at his crotch (there is a lot of male crotch ogling in this movie) and running off to the kitchen, er, twice. The second time she does that, she seems to harm herself and Terry comes to the rescue. Nudge, nudge.Then the son slips into Terry’s bed before retreating in embarrassment, no problem, Terry slides over. The wife also is reticent but takes off all her clothes and lays on the veranda naked inviting him to join her; Terry obliges. The daughter follows soon thereafter, and soon the husband, too, though that is a little subtler. Very little dialogue occurs in any of these scenes but there are a lot of very deeply concerned expressions on all the faces, really earnest looks, you know. Then Terry announce he is leaving, like, the next day. And off he goes after each of the seducers thanks him for what wonderful change he has brought to their lives. Bye, bye Terry; we hardly knew ye. Some folks think you are an angel; some think you are the devil. But I bet you can be read as both.
Some changes these people go through; I mean, wow: the son becomes a revolutionary artist (he literally pees on a canvas) trying to hide from the public his sudden knowledge that art is made by imperfect people; the pretty sister simply goes catatonic (a good choice methinks); the maid now can perform miracles and, as an added bonus, hover several feet above peasant shacks in the courtyard; the wife seeks the company of young men with whom she has passionless sex (then screams in her convertible, to show existential pain, I guess); and the husband contemplates giving his factory away while he strips naked in a railway station that somehow segues into a barren landscape, the same one we have seen brief glimpses of throughout the movie. He remains still naked tramping about in the symbolic wilderness and he is almost dead certain to miss his train. The final scene goes to the maid who has an old woman friend accompany her to an excavation site where she has her companion bury her alive, well, almost--she has a little bit of her eyes and nose peaking out. She reassures her friend that she is not dying, just contemplating things. The end.
Most of these scenes are presented with an inscrutability and mock seriousness that had me laughing more this time than the last time I saw this movie. What to make of this parable? Whatever you like, I guess. Pasolini was a Marxist and very anti-bourgeoisie, so you can play around with those clues if you like. He obviously wants his movie to be a statement of some kind seemingly about the state of society. But it all comes across as an exercise in pretentious self indulgence. Heavy stuff, man, but wtf, you know? There are a few markers of pretentious films in evidence. A book cover of Tolstoi, a collection of modernist paintings, and that old standby, a collection of poems by Rimbaud, all of which stand out to impress us about the high art we are dealing with here. As well, Mozart’s Requiem pops up at the damnedest times as background music to add makeshift gravity to whatever silly thing is going on at the moment. And then there are all the close ups of all the tortured people thinking really deep thoughts.
Teorema fits my Type 1 definition of a pretentious film, type 1 (Pretentious movie, type 1: any movie ( or director, if you prefer) that over-reaches for profundity that it (he) hasn’t achieved). But Teorema has elements of the other two definitions, as well, (post 6). I'm with former New Yorker film critic Paulene Kael on this one: "Some people profess to find spiritual sustenance in this movie; others break up on lines such as 'You came to destroy me' and 'I was living in a void,' and they find Pasolini's platitudes and riddles and the is-this-man-Christ-or-a-devil game intolerably silly."
subtitles
Criterion Channel
Last edited:
Stowaway (2021) - 7/10 (Really liked it)
En route to Mars, a 3-man crew (Anna Kendrick, Toni Collette, Daniel Dae Kim) discovers a stowaway, which jeopardizes their mission and forces some tough decisions. It's sort of like Lifeboat in space, a morality play about what to do when there aren't enough resources for everyone. As for space movies, I was reminded here and there of Apollo 13 and Gravity, but it's a more stripped down film. There's little action, but there is suspense. There's no soaring soundtrack, just an unobtrusive and ambient one that is often nothing more than steady and modulating tones. It's directed by Joe Penna, who did Arctic, and I like his old school filming style, utilizing few cameras, little camera movement and long takes. Most scenes are between just two people, lending an intimacy to the film. I enjoyed the relative quietness that made it feel like space. It's a relaxing film, aside from the moments of suspense. It's very slow and many reviewers have found it boring because of it, but I happened to not find it boring at all. The acting is very good, the dialogue is realistic, the characters are believable and I was hooked initially by the mystery and then by the premise.
I appreciated the attention to science, specifically artificial gravity. Instead of it being created by the whole ship being a rotating ring (ala 2001: A Space Odyssey), the crew compartments are on only one side of the center point, attached by a single "spoke," with a counterweight the same distance away on the other side. It's a ship design that I don't think that I've seen before in sci-fi movies and shows, so I found it very interesting, and it plays an important role in the film. While the science is mostly good, there are some storytelling issues that reviewers have been skewering the film for. One is how the stowaway could get there and not be found before takeoff and the other is a critical component not having a backup. I imagined that they could be partly because the SpaceX-like company behind the mission cut corners that NASA wouldn't have, but both are puzzling, nonetheless. I'm also in agreement with other reviewers about the ending feeling a bit abrupt and not as impactful as it should've been. Overall, though, I really enjoyed the film. If you like thoughtful sci-fi that's more about dilemmas and drama than action and special effects, it's worth checking out. Just be prepared for its slow pace and try not to think too much about possible plot holes. It's on Netflix in the US and most countries and Prime Video in Canada (thanks to @ItsFineImFine for that tip).
Last edited:
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
Let's stop. You don't believe there is such a thing as pretentious movies; and I do. You requested explanation and examples and I gave them to you. You didn't like them. Fine. We have reached the tedious level now. Enough is enough.
Ok, well...
Teorema (1968) Directed by Pier Paolo Pasolini 3B
The movie starts out with some establishing shots around factories before it settles in on the stately home of a rich factory-owning bourgeoisie in a household that consists of himself and his wife, their son and daughter, and a maid. When we first visit this household, Pasolini shoots the scenes with a brown filter and no sound. Lips move but we can’t hear what they say (Pink Floyd reference, eh?). Why? Because he can. Presto chango, we suddenly have colour as now a small party is taking place. One figure stands out, a handsome but innocuous-looking young man (Terence Stamp). Of course, he doesn’t have a name being a heavyweight symbol and all, so I'll just refer to him as Terry. We don’t know who he is or why he is there (the family doesn't seem to either), but he’s real important. It isn’t that he seduces the entire family, oh, no; rather the entire family seduces him, one by one. The maid is first up to bat, mowing the lawn, staring at his crotch (there is a lot of male crotch ogling in this movie) and running off to the kitchen, er, twice. The second time she does that, she seems to harm herself and Terry comes to the rescue. Nudge, nudge.Then the son slips into Terry’s bed before retreating in embarrassment, no problem, Terry slides over. The wife also is reticent but takes off all her clothes and lays on the veranda naked inviting him to join her; Terry obliges. The daughter follows soon thereafter, and soon the husband, too, though that is a little subtler. Very little dialogue occurs in any of these scenes but there are a lot of very deeply concerned expressions on all the faces, really earnest looks, you know. Then Terry announce he is leaving, like, the next day. And off he goes after each of the seducers thanks him for what wonderful change he has brought to their lives. Bye, bye Terry; we hardly knew ye. Some folks think you are an angel; some think you are the devil. But I bet you can be read as both.
Some changes these people go through; I mean, wow: the son becomes a revolutionary artist trying to hide from the public his sudden knowledge that art is made by imperfect people; the pretty sister simply goes catatonic (a good choice methinks); the maid now can perform miracles and, as an added bonus, hover several feet above peasant shacks in the courtyard; the wife seeks the company of young men with whom she has passionless sex (then screams in her convertible, to show existential pain, I guess); and the husband contemplates giving his factory away while he strips naked in a railway station that somehow segues into a barren landscape, the same one we have seen brief glimpses of throughout the movie. He remains still naked tramping about in the symbolic wilderness and he is almost dead certain to miss his train. The final scene goes to the maid who has an old woman friend accompany her to an excavation site where she has her companion bury her alive, well, almost--she has a little bit of her eyes and nose peaking out. She reassures her friend that she is not dying, just contemplating things. The end.
Most of these scenes are presented with an inscrutability and mock seriousness that had me laughing more this time than the last time I saw this movie. What to make of this parable? Whatever you like, I guess. Pasolini was a Marxist and very anti-bourgeoisie, so you can play around with those clues if you like. He obviously wants his movie to be a statement of some kind seemingly about the state of society. But it all comes across as an exercise in pretentious self indulgence. Heavy stuff, man, but wtf, you know? There are a few markers of pretentious films in evidence. A book cover of Tolstoi, a collection of modernist paintings, and that old standby, a collection of poems by Rimbaud, all of which stand out to impress us about the high art we are dealing with here. As well, Mozart’s Requiem pops up at the damnedest times as background music to add makeshift gravity to whatever silly thing is going on at the moment. And then there are all the close ups of all the tortured people thinking really deep thoughts.
Teorema fits my Type 1 definition of a pretentious film, type 1 (Pretentious movie, type 1: any movie ( or director, if you prefer) that over-reaches for profundity that it (he) hasn’t achieved). But Teorema has elements of the other two definitions, as well, (post 6). I'm with former New Yorker film critic Paulene Kael on this one: "Some people profess to find spiritual sustenance in this movie; others break up on lines such as 'You came to destroy me' and 'I was living in a void,' and they find Pasolini's platitudes and riddles and the is-this-man-Christ-or-a-devil game intolerably silly." Yeah, and pretentious, too.
subtitles
Criterion Channel
I see you didn't have quite enough of that dead horse and had to go out of your way to try to "be right". But to crap on a film that obviously went straight over your head and just (re)affirm that it's pretentious, I'm not sure, it's probably just me because you have quite the following around here, but it kind of makes you look not-good. But anyway... now showing off books and using classical music is proof of a film's pretentiousness? I hope you realize this points to a lot of other works, and I think you should first reconsider the répertoire of films you praise (Godard? Rohmer?). And no, quoting the "funniest lines" of an opinion writer of 20-lines reviews doesn't make you right about a film's worth. Loads of people hated that film, others (maybe see Ricciardi's The Ends of Mourning: Psychoanalysis, Literature, Film) have used it to feed great ideas around and about cinema.
And I'm not saying Rachel and you are wrong to dislike the film. It's obviously not for everyone's tastes.
Last edited:
ItsFineImFine will be happy to hear that, since he reviewed it last week.
I was thinking that it could be to your taste, and the pacing probably won't bother you, but your focus on the plot holes in The House of the Devil has me worried.
Last edited:
Apologies to him. I somehow missed his comment. Damn, I don't remember The House of the Devil. Probably not a good sign.ItsFineImFine will be happy to hear that, since he reviewed it last week.
I was thinking that it could be to your taste, and the pacing probably won't bother you, but your focus on the plot holes in The House of the Devil has me worried.
Got curious about Teorema as I haven't seen it in probably forty years. Sometimes opinions, especially visceral opinions, modify over time. This one obviously didn't.
ItsFineImFine
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2019
- 3,745
- 2,389
Stowaway actually sent me on the perfect space binge because AppleTV made a show called For All Mankind which is a fictionalized space race between the US & Soviets (from the US perspective obviously) and I'm really enjoying it.
I do think we peaked when it came to modern space films with Interstellar/The Martian though but I'll take what I can get.
I do think we peaked when it came to modern space films with Interstellar/The Martian though but I'll take what I can get.
The Killers (1964) directed by Don Siegel
After two hitmen (Lee Marvin and Clu Gulager) shoot their target, a former race car driver named Johnny North (John Cassavetes) who offers no resistance, the two hitmen investigate who was behind the mysterious contract for them. More loosely based off of Hemingway’s story than the 1946 version (Siegal was actually originally tapped to direct it before being fired) this version is a more colourful and violent adaptation. It is certainly a more quirky and playful version of the story - Marvin and Gulager are early versions of the talkative hitmen portrayed in Pulp Fiction - but there’s not much depth to the story compared to the 1946 version. The film is also notable as the final film role of future president Ronald Reagan who plays a menacing villain (in film and real life). I could watch Reagan’s character being pistol whipped and thrown out of a moving car all day long.
After two hitmen (Lee Marvin and Clu Gulager) shoot their target, a former race car driver named Johnny North (John Cassavetes) who offers no resistance, the two hitmen investigate who was behind the mysterious contract for them. More loosely based off of Hemingway’s story than the 1946 version (Siegal was actually originally tapped to direct it before being fired) this version is a more colourful and violent adaptation. It is certainly a more quirky and playful version of the story - Marvin and Gulager are early versions of the talkative hitmen portrayed in Pulp Fiction - but there’s not much depth to the story compared to the 1946 version. The film is also notable as the final film role of future president Ronald Reagan who plays a menacing villain (in film and real life). I could watch Reagan’s character being pistol whipped and thrown out of a moving car all day long.
The Killers [Ubiytsy] (1956) directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, Aleksandr Gordon, and Marika Beiku
Two hitmen walk into a bar seeking to kill a former boxer. A very faithful adaptation of Hemingway’s story, notable for being the student film of future auteur Andrei Tarkovsky when he was studying at the Gerasimov Institute of Cinematography. Tarkovsky along with Beiku were responsible for filming the beginning and ending of the film, while Tarkovsky’s brother-in-law, the very Russian sounding Alexsandr Gordon, filmed the middle section. Gordon would also play the bartender while Tarkovsky briefly plays a bar patron. The film is better than your average student film though, it has excellent black and white cinematography and very interesting choices of shots, notably some that use the serving hatch of the kitchen to the bar to frame shot. The film however does use racial slurs to refer to a character in blackface, both of which is not a great look these days, though to be fair the slurs are consistent with the original text from Hemingway’s story. The film is worth watching and is competently made and never feels like the work of an amateur – certainly hints at potential for Tarkovsky and co (though Gordon and Beiku would not go on to direct anything notable, talk about busts, sorry to whoever drafted them).
Two hitmen walk into a bar seeking to kill a former boxer. A very faithful adaptation of Hemingway’s story, notable for being the student film of future auteur Andrei Tarkovsky when he was studying at the Gerasimov Institute of Cinematography. Tarkovsky along with Beiku were responsible for filming the beginning and ending of the film, while Tarkovsky’s brother-in-law, the very Russian sounding Alexsandr Gordon, filmed the middle section. Gordon would also play the bartender while Tarkovsky briefly plays a bar patron. The film is better than your average student film though, it has excellent black and white cinematography and very interesting choices of shots, notably some that use the serving hatch of the kitchen to the bar to frame shot. The film however does use racial slurs to refer to a character in blackface, both of which is not a great look these days, though to be fair the slurs are consistent with the original text from Hemingway’s story. The film is worth watching and is competently made and never feels like the work of an amateur – certainly hints at potential for Tarkovsky and co (though Gordon and Beiku would not go on to direct anything notable, talk about busts, sorry to whoever drafted them).
