Movies: The Official "Movie of the Week" Club Thread IV
- Thread starter hangman005
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,505
- 406
The Servant (1963) dir. Joseph Losey
The young wealthy Tony who claims to be part of a scheme to build cities in the jungle in Brazil, moves into a new house in London, and decides to hire a man-servant for his house. He decides on Barrett after others doesn't give him a good gut feeling. Tony and Barrett quickly grows a close bond, but Tony's girlfriend Susan doesn't is suspicious of Barrett and wants Tony to dismiss him, but he refuses. When Barrett's sister Vera comes to London, she is allowed to stay in the house. Vera quickly starts flirting with Tony, and it becomes clear that Barrett and Vera have some sort of ulterior motives.
What is really scary about The Servant, is that at the end, there doesn't appear to be any real ulterior motive behind Barrett and Vera's actions. They simply seem to do it to torture and break down Tony, so they can have him completely in their domain. They enjoy it, but it doesn't appear to be because they want his money or anything like that. Barrett in particular is a very scary character. He doesn't appear to have any real emotions, but is able to put on any needed facade to trick Tony. Tony himself seems somewhat naive, or at least of the belief that due to his heritage and social status, bad things can't happen to him. So he doesn't see any warning signs at all regarding Barrett and Vera. Even Susan's apprehensions about them isn't enough for him to notice anything. Dirk Bogarde also plays Barrett exceptionally well, both scary and enticing.
One of the best things about The Servant is the cinematography. It's beautiful black and white, and the film does a lot of really cool stuff with shadows, but also with a lot of interesting angles and stacking characters in depth. It's almost as interesting just to watch the pictures as it is to watch Barrett break down Tony.
The young wealthy Tony who claims to be part of a scheme to build cities in the jungle in Brazil, moves into a new house in London, and decides to hire a man-servant for his house. He decides on Barrett after others doesn't give him a good gut feeling. Tony and Barrett quickly grows a close bond, but Tony's girlfriend Susan doesn't is suspicious of Barrett and wants Tony to dismiss him, but he refuses. When Barrett's sister Vera comes to London, she is allowed to stay in the house. Vera quickly starts flirting with Tony, and it becomes clear that Barrett and Vera have some sort of ulterior motives.
What is really scary about The Servant, is that at the end, there doesn't appear to be any real ulterior motive behind Barrett and Vera's actions. They simply seem to do it to torture and break down Tony, so they can have him completely in their domain. They enjoy it, but it doesn't appear to be because they want his money or anything like that. Barrett in particular is a very scary character. He doesn't appear to have any real emotions, but is able to put on any needed facade to trick Tony. Tony himself seems somewhat naive, or at least of the belief that due to his heritage and social status, bad things can't happen to him. So he doesn't see any warning signs at all regarding Barrett and Vera. Even Susan's apprehensions about them isn't enough for him to notice anything. Dirk Bogarde also plays Barrett exceptionally well, both scary and enticing.
One of the best things about The Servant is the cinematography. It's beautiful black and white, and the film does a lot of really cool stuff with shadows, but also with a lot of interesting angles and stacking characters in depth. It's almost as interesting just to watch the pictures as it is to watch Barrett break down Tony.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,505
- 406
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,807
- 3,886
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,807
- 3,886
The English Patient
Minghella (1996))
“I remember a garden plunging into the sea.”
Now: It’s the waning days of WWII. An airplane crashes in the dessert leaving a sole survivor badly burned. A Canadian nurse takes it upon herself to care for this mystery patient. They settle into an abandoned Italian monetary and a small community of soldiers and other mystery people begins to form around them. Then: Count Almasy, a Hungarian explorer and cartographer is part of a team mapping the African dessert as WWII looms. Into this world comes Geoffrey a fellow adventurer but he’s brought his wife Katherine with him. Almasy is angered by this. Women have no place in the dessert. Circumstances drive them together. Very together. An affair begins between the two. Now: Hana begins to grow close to Kip as the patient’s story is gradually revealed. Is he a traitor to the British? Then: War tears apart the lovers. Geoffrey learns of the betrayal and attempts to kill the three of them in a plane crash. He only succeeds in killing himself, initially. Severely wounded, Almasy takes Katherine to their cave where he stashes her until he can find help. Mistaken for German, he’s unable to get back to her in time. Trading maps for transport from the Germans he finally returns to the cave … too late. Now: War is ending, Hana has found love with his help, a small amount of peace/redemption has occurred. He finally dies.
When this first came out I was a freshman in college. I was enough of movie fan to want to see as much as I could, especially anything prominent that was getting award nominations, even if it wasn’t the type of movie I’d typically gravitate toward. Willingness of body, I wasn’t always willing of mind. Factor in my Seinfeld fandom (which made a joke of the movie’s length) and this was always an easy “overrated” dismissal for me, especially when you factor in the “cool” movie at this time was the Coen brothers’ Fargo. God forbid two different things can be good at one time! I eventually revisited (and now revisited again) and see how wrong I was. Smarter about film, smarter about life. I’ve loved and lost. Felt passion. Finally saw Lawrence of Arabia. Grew to love the writing of Graham Greene (which I feel has some echoes here).
The English Patient is old school epic filmmaking. The sweeps of the vistas only are rivaled by the sweep of the emotions. It’s all that PLUS genuine adult and heat and horniness that wouldn’t have been permitted in comparable films of the past. This is quite the fetching cast and I’m not sure any of them have ever looked better than they do here … even Willem Defoe whose visage is more often vampiric or demonic looks positively dashing here (even without thumbs).
Fiennes has the toughest lift needing to convey both his stern standoffishness, but also his consuming near mania for Katherine. A man of great discipline, who begins to lose that. Before the passion is ignited within him, he’s a bit of … if not a cipher, a definite cold fish. Cool and standoffish. He’s truly a man without a country (or belief) so much so he’s mistaken both as German and, in a sad irony, English in points of the story.
It's a film that in many ways does things the way they used to be and to great effect.
The discussion of the length of this (fueled by Seinfeld) is such a funny relic to me. At 2 hours, 42 minutes, it was a classic double-tape VHS. That could be an intimidating visual! But with DVDs, blu rays and and streaming we don’t think of things in that way anymore. For fun I did some research. This is 1 minute SHORTER than the newest Bond movie, 19 minutes shorter than Avengers: Endgame, 7 minutes shorter than Interstellar, just five minutes longer than The Eternals, and only 23 minutes longer than the last EPISODE of season 4 of Stranger Things (but 1 hour and 2 minutes shorter than the last two episodes of that season if anyone watched them in one binge sitting when they came out).
Minghella (1996))
“I remember a garden plunging into the sea.”
Now: It’s the waning days of WWII. An airplane crashes in the dessert leaving a sole survivor badly burned. A Canadian nurse takes it upon herself to care for this mystery patient. They settle into an abandoned Italian monetary and a small community of soldiers and other mystery people begins to form around them. Then: Count Almasy, a Hungarian explorer and cartographer is part of a team mapping the African dessert as WWII looms. Into this world comes Geoffrey a fellow adventurer but he’s brought his wife Katherine with him. Almasy is angered by this. Women have no place in the dessert. Circumstances drive them together. Very together. An affair begins between the two. Now: Hana begins to grow close to Kip as the patient’s story is gradually revealed. Is he a traitor to the British? Then: War tears apart the lovers. Geoffrey learns of the betrayal and attempts to kill the three of them in a plane crash. He only succeeds in killing himself, initially. Severely wounded, Almasy takes Katherine to their cave where he stashes her until he can find help. Mistaken for German, he’s unable to get back to her in time. Trading maps for transport from the Germans he finally returns to the cave … too late. Now: War is ending, Hana has found love with his help, a small amount of peace/redemption has occurred. He finally dies.
When this first came out I was a freshman in college. I was enough of movie fan to want to see as much as I could, especially anything prominent that was getting award nominations, even if it wasn’t the type of movie I’d typically gravitate toward. Willingness of body, I wasn’t always willing of mind. Factor in my Seinfeld fandom (which made a joke of the movie’s length) and this was always an easy “overrated” dismissal for me, especially when you factor in the “cool” movie at this time was the Coen brothers’ Fargo. God forbid two different things can be good at one time! I eventually revisited (and now revisited again) and see how wrong I was. Smarter about film, smarter about life. I’ve loved and lost. Felt passion. Finally saw Lawrence of Arabia. Grew to love the writing of Graham Greene (which I feel has some echoes here).
The English Patient is old school epic filmmaking. The sweeps of the vistas only are rivaled by the sweep of the emotions. It’s all that PLUS genuine adult and heat and horniness that wouldn’t have been permitted in comparable films of the past. This is quite the fetching cast and I’m not sure any of them have ever looked better than they do here … even Willem Defoe whose visage is more often vampiric or demonic looks positively dashing here (even without thumbs).
Fiennes has the toughest lift needing to convey both his stern standoffishness, but also his consuming near mania for Katherine. A man of great discipline, who begins to lose that. Before the passion is ignited within him, he’s a bit of … if not a cipher, a definite cold fish. Cool and standoffish. He’s truly a man without a country (or belief) so much so he’s mistaken both as German and, in a sad irony, English in points of the story.
It's a film that in many ways does things the way they used to be and to great effect.
The discussion of the length of this (fueled by Seinfeld) is such a funny relic to me. At 2 hours, 42 minutes, it was a classic double-tape VHS. That could be an intimidating visual! But with DVDs, blu rays and and streaming we don’t think of things in that way anymore. For fun I did some research. This is 1 minute SHORTER than the newest Bond movie, 19 minutes shorter than Avengers: Endgame, 7 minutes shorter than Interstellar, just five minutes longer than The Eternals, and only 23 minutes longer than the last EPISODE of season 4 of Stranger Things (but 1 hour and 2 minutes shorter than the last two episodes of that season if anyone watched them in one binge sitting when they came out).
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,807
- 3,886
The Servant (1963) Directed by Joseph Losey
The Servant is what I call a "We hate us" movie. About a toxic relationship between an upper-class twit (James Fox) and his manservant (Dirk Bogarde), The Servant takes a deep dive into British class divisions and doesn't care much for what it sees on either side of the equation. For all the focus on two characters, neither seems especially well-defined or particular. Rather they are "types" who depend on their actors to flesh out their characters. So with admirable performances from Fox and, especialy, Bogarde, we get two different flavours of wretched humanity. While not high on backstory, the script by Harold Pinter does give both actors big juicy lines of dialogue to sink their fangs into. Fox brings out the pitiful nature of his character while Bogarde steals the show with his barely raised eyebrow disdain. He is great at this sort of thing, one of my favourite English actors, an actor who can communicate what he is thinking just by the subtlest manipulation of facial expressions. His line deliveries are acidic, though in Dwight Macdonald's phrase, he can also be "ostentatiously diplomatic," which can work equally well. Whatever, Bogarde is never not fun to watch and he dominates The Servant much the way his character Hugh comes to eventually dominate the hapless Tony and his repellent girlfriend.
Last edited:
The English Patient (1996) Directed by Anthony Minghella
I hated the novel, couldn't get through it; didn't know what was going on. Its author, Canadian Micheal Ondaatje, is a poet in addition to being a novelist, and his use of language in the novel just left me stone cold. When I first saw the movie, the first thing I was pleased about was that the story and characterizations all made sense. But beyond that, I was really taken by the tragic arc of the love story which seemed to me desperately romantic but in a reserved way, a cinematic oxymoron.
I like almost everything about this movie, except for Colin Firth's unfortunate husband Geoffrey whose part I thought was terribly underwritten. But the movie gets a big checkmark for everything else, acting, direction, cinematography, editing and so on. In terms of romantic movies, it would make my top ten most likely. I thought both the leads were great, Fiennes especially. His Count Almasy is not an easy character to like which suits Ralph to a tee as I can't remember a single scene of his in any movie in which he stoops to ingratiate. He meets the audience on his own terms. And no mistake, Almasy is as complicated a character as they come, a mix of noble breeding, natural reticence, and barely disguised disdain. Katherine is complicated, too, so they make for a different kind of romantic couple for the audience to deal with. Their class and haughtiness make the inclusion of Juliette Binoche's very warm and life-affirming nurse Hana an absolute necessity. Without her pulling a ton of secondary weight, the story might have collapsed in on itself.
The English Patient has a lowly reputation on these boards, kind of the Nickelback of movies. The film is often commented upon as among the worst Oscar winners for best picture, I suspect the naysayers fall into two categories: a smaller group of people with a genuine beef; and a larger group of people who don't like romantic movies in general and who may have not even seen this one. For the latter group, my reaction is, okay, name a better tragic romance at the movies. If they can, let's talk; if they can't, they don't deserve a vote because they don't possess enough currency to enter the game and likely are blowing smoke rings up their own nether regions,
Last edited:
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,505
- 406
The English Patient (1996) dir. Anthony Minghella
A mysterious burn patient is being trafficed around Italy by the allied forces. His idendity is unknown, and he knows nothing about his life before the plane crash that injured him, but based on his accent he's being assumed English. Hana is a Canadian nurse, who takes pity on him, and decides to move into an abandoned convent with him, so she can ease his suffering until he will inevitably die. They get joined by Caravaggio, an italian thief tasked with making Italian paramilitary groups give up their arms. Also he belives he knows who the patient is, and that the patient knows more about his past than he lets on. Also setting up camp at the convent is an English bomb clearing squad, where Hana starts a romance with their lieutenant Singh. Through flashbacks we get to see the patient, Almasy, life before his crash, where he was an explorer in Africa who fell in love with the wife of one of the others on his mission.
Ralph Fiennes is hardly anyone's first choice for a leading man in a romance film. But everything that makes Fiennes unsuited for a leading romance, is what makes him perfect for Almasy's character. Almasy is also hard to like as a leading man in a romance. He seems intent on distancing anyone that dares try to get near him on a personal level, and he almost revels in his rudeness to others. Most of all towards Katherine, because he seems to hate that he's let his guard down and let himself fall in love with her. The fact that she is married, doesn't appear to be his biggest gripe, that is simply the fact that he loves her, at least at first. Fiennes is perfect for this inner turmoil that Almasy struggles with. Kristin Scott Thomas is perfect opposite him, and she too is great as Katherine and her own struggles. Their story is heavy and filled with big emotions, so much that it might have been too much, had the story not been broken up by the story of Hana caring for Almasy and Hana's own current experiences as she recovers from her own heart break after losing her boyfriend in the war and finding love again. A story with much warmth and heart, and shows a different, albeit almost equally to maneuver, way to experience love, that means you won't have to go away from the movie with a gut punch that will last you a week.
There's not much to dislike about The English Patient. Perhaps unless you vehemently detest romance. It's long, and perhaps it drags a bit in places. But these slow parts are most likely crucial, as they allow the audience to recover between the more emotionally intense parts. Perhaps all the way since the movie came out, it's been somewhat cool to hate it, which means the movie is probably underrated, even though I really don't like that term at all. But considering a lot of the haters probably haven't seen it, they probably should.
A mysterious burn patient is being trafficed around Italy by the allied forces. His idendity is unknown, and he knows nothing about his life before the plane crash that injured him, but based on his accent he's being assumed English. Hana is a Canadian nurse, who takes pity on him, and decides to move into an abandoned convent with him, so she can ease his suffering until he will inevitably die. They get joined by Caravaggio, an italian thief tasked with making Italian paramilitary groups give up their arms. Also he belives he knows who the patient is, and that the patient knows more about his past than he lets on. Also setting up camp at the convent is an English bomb clearing squad, where Hana starts a romance with their lieutenant Singh. Through flashbacks we get to see the patient, Almasy, life before his crash, where he was an explorer in Africa who fell in love with the wife of one of the others on his mission.
Ralph Fiennes is hardly anyone's first choice for a leading man in a romance film. But everything that makes Fiennes unsuited for a leading romance, is what makes him perfect for Almasy's character. Almasy is also hard to like as a leading man in a romance. He seems intent on distancing anyone that dares try to get near him on a personal level, and he almost revels in his rudeness to others. Most of all towards Katherine, because he seems to hate that he's let his guard down and let himself fall in love with her. The fact that she is married, doesn't appear to be his biggest gripe, that is simply the fact that he loves her, at least at first. Fiennes is perfect for this inner turmoil that Almasy struggles with. Kristin Scott Thomas is perfect opposite him, and she too is great as Katherine and her own struggles. Their story is heavy and filled with big emotions, so much that it might have been too much, had the story not been broken up by the story of Hana caring for Almasy and Hana's own current experiences as she recovers from her own heart break after losing her boyfriend in the war and finding love again. A story with much warmth and heart, and shows a different, albeit almost equally to maneuver, way to experience love, that means you won't have to go away from the movie with a gut punch that will last you a week.
There's not much to dislike about The English Patient. Perhaps unless you vehemently detest romance. It's long, and perhaps it drags a bit in places. But these slow parts are most likely crucial, as they allow the audience to recover between the more emotionally intense parts. Perhaps all the way since the movie came out, it's been somewhat cool to hate it, which means the movie is probably underrated, even though I really don't like that term at all. But considering a lot of the haters probably haven't seen it, they probably should.
The English Patient (Anthony Minghella, 1996)
At the dawn of WWII, Count Almásy is an explorer for the Royal Geographical Society in north Africa. Arriving to the help with the efforts is Geoffrey and his wife Katherine with their own private plane and funds from the British military. Almásy is a cold and standoffish man believing that the desert is no place for a woman, but after being stranded in the desert with Katherine begins a romance and doomed affair with her. Flashforward to the end of the war Almásy has crash-landed in the desert covered in severe burns, haunted by his past while being cared for by a Canadian nurse.
I am a staunch defender of The English Patient and I believe its reputation as an overlong and boring film is unearned. I was too young to see it in theatres when it came out and only saw the film for the first time about two years ago, but I was familiar with its reputation since I grew up a Seinfeld fan. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a sitcom so effectively damage a film’s reputation. Like all films that get a ton of Oscar nominations (9 for The English Patient), there’s bound to be some claims that the film is overrated, but I think the criticisms today have been far too harsh and are more based on reputation alone rather actual seeing the film.
It is an old school style film, epic in length and style; old fashioned but with the benefits of being made in the post-Code era (meaning its sexy). So for those unfamiliar with historical epics from the 1940s-1960s, I can see how the film may be a little offputting. But if you accept the film on its terms, there is so much to chew on and enjoy: gorgeous cinematography of the desert, wonderful performances by an all-star cast at the top of their game, a rich narrative and a steamy romance. And its two-hour 42-minute runtime? Goes by in a breeze.
I would implore anyone who thinks this film is boring or overrated to cast aside their preconceived notions and just watch it again. Although for many of those haters, they're probably watching for the first time
At the dawn of WWII, Count Almásy is an explorer for the Royal Geographical Society in north Africa. Arriving to the help with the efforts is Geoffrey and his wife Katherine with their own private plane and funds from the British military. Almásy is a cold and standoffish man believing that the desert is no place for a woman, but after being stranded in the desert with Katherine begins a romance and doomed affair with her. Flashforward to the end of the war Almásy has crash-landed in the desert covered in severe burns, haunted by his past while being cared for by a Canadian nurse.
I am a staunch defender of The English Patient and I believe its reputation as an overlong and boring film is unearned. I was too young to see it in theatres when it came out and only saw the film for the first time about two years ago, but I was familiar with its reputation since I grew up a Seinfeld fan. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a sitcom so effectively damage a film’s reputation. Like all films that get a ton of Oscar nominations (9 for The English Patient), there’s bound to be some claims that the film is overrated, but I think the criticisms today have been far too harsh and are more based on reputation alone rather actual seeing the film.
It is an old school style film, epic in length and style; old fashioned but with the benefits of being made in the post-Code era (meaning its sexy). So for those unfamiliar with historical epics from the 1940s-1960s, I can see how the film may be a little offputting. But if you accept the film on its terms, there is so much to chew on and enjoy: gorgeous cinematography of the desert, wonderful performances by an all-star cast at the top of their game, a rich narrative and a steamy romance. And its two-hour 42-minute runtime? Goes by in a breeze.
I would implore anyone who thinks this film is boring or overrated to cast aside their preconceived notions and just watch it again. Although for many of those haters, they're probably watching for the first time
One-Eyed Jacks (1961) Directed by Marlon Brando
As it turns out, One-Eyed Jacks sole real claim to fame is that it is the only movie that Marlon Brando directed. As a Western, it is good, but not great, a betrayal and revenge story. Dad Longworth (Karl Malden) and Rio (Marlon Brando) are a pair of seemingly bonded desperadoes. Escaping from a robbery, Dad leaves Rio in a tough spot and Rio vows revenge at all costs. When next the pair meet, Rio has escaped from prison and has joined up with a trio of scummy bad guys who have plans to rob a bank in picturesque Monterrey. Dad, it turns out, is sheriff of the town now, trading his criminal ways for respectability. He also has a pretty young stepdaughter named Louisa. Rio and Dad seem to patch things up, but we know it is just a matter of time until the showdown arrives.
Stanley Kubrick bowed out of directing the movie late in the day and Brando took over. So One-Eyed Jacks is no long-cherished labour of love, more like a practical business decision by Brando to complete the movie rather than to write it off. Despite a photogenic location--who would think to shoot a Western in Monterrey?-- there is nothing else particularly distinctive about the movie. The movie's most distinguishing quality is its bleak view of human nature. There is no rooting interest, as Rio is as flawed and compromised as every other male in the movie. As such, one could argue that the movie is a precursor to Peckenpah, who took the evil nature of men several steps farther in his work. But the general grubbiness of One-Eyed Jacks sort of works, so Brando should get some credit for that.
Parts of the movie seem thrown in for the hell of it. The movie possesses one of the least convincing love stories ever, not to mention a totally discordant happy-ish ending. The love interest, Dad's step-daughter Louisa, looks about 15 years old when we first meet her. She and Rio have no chemistry. Every time she is on the screen with him, it feels like the movie is wasting time on a convention that it doesn't really care about anyway. The end result is that maybe Kubrick knew what he was doing baling out of this thing because the movie doesn't really hang together all that well.
What Brando is good at is creating an atmosphere of extreme brutality, another Peckenpah-like trait. Certain scenes really have an almost sickening impact. There is the murder of a Mexican gang member by Bob (Ben Johnson), who thinks he is the leader of the gang but isn't. Bob takes such cool glee in the execution that it seems genuinely shocking. That scene stayed with me for decades. There are other moments as well where actors, encouraged by Brando, improvise their lines. At one point, Brando spits in Malden's face, something Malden didn't know was coming. He responded with a line that fit perfectly in the scene, testimony to his professionalism as an actor, but that must have been quite the shock.
Last edited:
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,807
- 3,886
One-Eyed Jacks
Brando (1961)
“You think that to kill him will make you a man?”
A sturdy Western plot — a trio of men commit a robbery, one of them is arrested and does five years of hard time in Mexico while the other two suffer no consequence. When he’s released, he wants his revenge.
A blending of beautiful moody pretty boy Brando with a cracking Western revenge tale that works a lot better than it probably should. That clash between modern and classical. Not sure what Brando is doing with his voice but I amused myself with thoughts of how often Ben Johnson probably wanted to punch him (Ben Johnson is the best). I know so many actors openly and gleefully pull from Brando, but tell me you don’t see every Val Kilmer performance ever wrapped up in this role in particular.
There’s a thing folks like doing where they look back at a popular movie and reassess it through the lens of “Wait, are the good guys actually the bad guys?” The two more famous and comedic examples are The Karate Kid and Ghostbusters. Daniel Larusso is a bit of a dick and the Ghostbusters really are a potential environmental catastrophe, right? One-Eyed Jacks isn’t popular enough to warrant a full reevaluation like that but I definitely walked away feeling like maybe Rio actually is the one in the wrong here at least in regards to his relationship with Karl Malden’s Dad. Malden certainly doesn’t help his case when the two are united, but in regards to the initial crime, I feel like Rio’s at fault, not Dad.
Brando is Brando for all the good and bad that entails. Mostly good here, but again that voice? Malden is good. The coastal setting gives it a different visual flavor than a lot of Westerns. The cinematography was nominated for an Oscar.
Beyond being Brando’s only directorial effort, this also has the fun movie trivia fact that Stanley Kubrick was developing the film with Brando for nearly two years before he stepped away. It was to be his post-Spartacus film, but he left to do Lolita instead (Brando surely was a factor as well). Sam Peckinpah wrote one of the (many) drafts of the screenplay as well. Quite the collection of talent. An intriguing and worthy entry in any one’s Western education.
Brando (1961)
“You think that to kill him will make you a man?”
A sturdy Western plot — a trio of men commit a robbery, one of them is arrested and does five years of hard time in Mexico while the other two suffer no consequence. When he’s released, he wants his revenge.
A blending of beautiful moody pretty boy Brando with a cracking Western revenge tale that works a lot better than it probably should. That clash between modern and classical. Not sure what Brando is doing with his voice but I amused myself with thoughts of how often Ben Johnson probably wanted to punch him (Ben Johnson is the best). I know so many actors openly and gleefully pull from Brando, but tell me you don’t see every Val Kilmer performance ever wrapped up in this role in particular.
There’s a thing folks like doing where they look back at a popular movie and reassess it through the lens of “Wait, are the good guys actually the bad guys?” The two more famous and comedic examples are The Karate Kid and Ghostbusters. Daniel Larusso is a bit of a dick and the Ghostbusters really are a potential environmental catastrophe, right? One-Eyed Jacks isn’t popular enough to warrant a full reevaluation like that but I definitely walked away feeling like maybe Rio actually is the one in the wrong here at least in regards to his relationship with Karl Malden’s Dad. Malden certainly doesn’t help his case when the two are united, but in regards to the initial crime, I feel like Rio’s at fault, not Dad.
Brando is Brando for all the good and bad that entails. Mostly good here, but again that voice? Malden is good. The coastal setting gives it a different visual flavor than a lot of Westerns. The cinematography was nominated for an Oscar.
Beyond being Brando’s only directorial effort, this also has the fun movie trivia fact that Stanley Kubrick was developing the film with Brando for nearly two years before he stepped away. It was to be his post-Spartacus film, but he left to do Lolita instead (Brando surely was a factor as well). Sam Peckinpah wrote one of the (many) drafts of the screenplay as well. Quite the collection of talent. An intriguing and worthy entry in any one’s Western education.
One-Eyed Jacks (Marlon Brando, 1961)
On the run from a bank robbery in Mexico, a pair of outlaws, "Kid" Rio and Dad (Marlon Brando and Karl Malden) are being heavily pursued by Mexican authorities. When all hope seems to be lost Dad abandons Rio and takes off with the gold. After five years Rio escapes from prison and sets out to get his revenge on Dad. The only directing work from Brando after Stanley Kubrick pulled out at the last minute, it is a competent work although not particularly impressive. The Monterrey coast is a unique place for a western and looks great, and Brando has some great shots of a sandstorm in the desert, so kudos to Brando for those. The performances range from good to hacky, Brando for some reason has put on an awful accent and voice but his performance isn’t bad other than that. Really odd and unnecessary love story tied in between Brando and the teenage stepdaughter of Dad that is equal parts unconvincing and kind of incestuous.
Which brings me to what is probably the most interesting part of the film – the easy Freudian/Oedipean analysis that can be made of Brando’s film. Dad abandons surrogate Kid (no coincidence their names are Kid and Dad), Kid sets out to murder Dad, Kid sleeps with stepsister etc. Which given Brando’s background gives a lot to chew out (he hated his father, and was sexually abused by his nanny but romantically/sexually attracted to her due to trauma bonds). The film definitely is ripe for analysis, as I am sure it has been done in critical reassessments of Brando’s life and career.
The film is kind of long at over two hours and never drags aside from the love story, but I read that Brando originally wanted the film to be five hours long to further draw out that love interest. To which I say, thank god Brando didn’t get his way there.
On the run from a bank robbery in Mexico, a pair of outlaws, "Kid" Rio and Dad (Marlon Brando and Karl Malden) are being heavily pursued by Mexican authorities. When all hope seems to be lost Dad abandons Rio and takes off with the gold. After five years Rio escapes from prison and sets out to get his revenge on Dad. The only directing work from Brando after Stanley Kubrick pulled out at the last minute, it is a competent work although not particularly impressive. The Monterrey coast is a unique place for a western and looks great, and Brando has some great shots of a sandstorm in the desert, so kudos to Brando for those. The performances range from good to hacky, Brando for some reason has put on an awful accent and voice but his performance isn’t bad other than that. Really odd and unnecessary love story tied in between Brando and the teenage stepdaughter of Dad that is equal parts unconvincing and kind of incestuous.
Which brings me to what is probably the most interesting part of the film – the easy Freudian/Oedipean analysis that can be made of Brando’s film. Dad abandons surrogate Kid (no coincidence their names are Kid and Dad), Kid sets out to murder Dad, Kid sleeps with stepsister etc. Which given Brando’s background gives a lot to chew out (he hated his father, and was sexually abused by his nanny but romantically/sexually attracted to her due to trauma bonds). The film definitely is ripe for analysis, as I am sure it has been done in critical reassessments of Brando’s life and career.
The film is kind of long at over two hours and never drags aside from the love story, but I read that Brando originally wanted the film to be five hours long to further draw out that love interest. To which I say, thank god Brando didn’t get his way there.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,505
- 406
One Eyed Jacks (1961) dir. Marlon Brando
After robbing a bank in Mexico, Rio (Marlon Brando) and Dad Longworth (Karl Malden) gets chased into the countryside and cornered by the Rurales. Their only chance of escape is Dad taking their tired horse to a nearby homestead, and exchanging it for two others, and then coming back to get Rio who will try to hold down the Rurales meanwhile. But dad doesn't come back, he gets scared and runs off, leaving Rio to end up in prison. When Rio escapes after five years, he starts looking for Dad. Another couple of robbers wants him to help them rob the bank in Monterrey California, where Dad happens to be sheriff. Rio can't say for a chance of revenge. But Rio falls in love with Dad's stepdaughter Louisa, and gets conflicted about his love and his desire for revenge.
This is Marlon Brando's only film as a director, and that's also the films claim to fame. That doesn't mean it's by any means a bad film. But Brando is an actor, and actors often like actors and characters, and it shows in this film. Brando is by far the most preoccupied with the characters and their motivations and relationships. A flowing story seems to be a secondary concern. All of the more prominent characters, even deep into the supporting characters, have strong motivations and conflicting desires within themselves. The cast is strong, and they make many of these characters memorable. Most of all Dad and Rio who are played perfectly by Brando and Malden. Their relationship is great, and almost Freudian with Dad and the 'Kid' battling it out. Seeing Malden and Brando go up against each other is by far the best parts of the film for me.
On the other hand things such as pacing and editing seems to have been less of a concern. At least these parts of the film are noticeably weaker. It drags in several places, and it seems to take an eternity before Rio gets to Monterrey, with the time often spent on character moments instead of story development. It means One Eyed Jacks will never be an all time classic, but more of a curiosity. But fans of Brando will want to see it.
Originally Stanley Kubrick was hired as the director, but he left the film early on. It's hard to imagine what a Stanley Kubrick version of One Eyed Jacks would look like. But it certainly would have been different.
After robbing a bank in Mexico, Rio (Marlon Brando) and Dad Longworth (Karl Malden) gets chased into the countryside and cornered by the Rurales. Their only chance of escape is Dad taking their tired horse to a nearby homestead, and exchanging it for two others, and then coming back to get Rio who will try to hold down the Rurales meanwhile. But dad doesn't come back, he gets scared and runs off, leaving Rio to end up in prison. When Rio escapes after five years, he starts looking for Dad. Another couple of robbers wants him to help them rob the bank in Monterrey California, where Dad happens to be sheriff. Rio can't say for a chance of revenge. But Rio falls in love with Dad's stepdaughter Louisa, and gets conflicted about his love and his desire for revenge.
This is Marlon Brando's only film as a director, and that's also the films claim to fame. That doesn't mean it's by any means a bad film. But Brando is an actor, and actors often like actors and characters, and it shows in this film. Brando is by far the most preoccupied with the characters and their motivations and relationships. A flowing story seems to be a secondary concern. All of the more prominent characters, even deep into the supporting characters, have strong motivations and conflicting desires within themselves. The cast is strong, and they make many of these characters memorable. Most of all Dad and Rio who are played perfectly by Brando and Malden. Their relationship is great, and almost Freudian with Dad and the 'Kid' battling it out. Seeing Malden and Brando go up against each other is by far the best parts of the film for me.
On the other hand things such as pacing and editing seems to have been less of a concern. At least these parts of the film are noticeably weaker. It drags in several places, and it seems to take an eternity before Rio gets to Monterrey, with the time often spent on character moments instead of story development. It means One Eyed Jacks will never be an all time classic, but more of a curiosity. But fans of Brando will want to see it.
Originally Stanley Kubrick was hired as the director, but he left the film early on. It's hard to imagine what a Stanley Kubrick version of One Eyed Jacks would look like. But it certainly would have been different.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,505
- 406
The Handmaiden (2016) dir. Chan-Wook Park
In Japanese controlled Korea, Sook-Hee is going undercover as the Handmaiden of a wealthy Japanese noble, Hideko. She's involved in a plot to defraud Hideko of her wealth by having Hideko marry an ally of Sook-Hee who claims to be a Japanese noble by the name Fujiwara. But Sook-Hee herself falls in love with Hideko, and Hideko seems to fall in love with her.
The Handmaiden is in many ways vintage Chan-Wook Park. It includes fun plot twists, gory torture, it's sexy, it's incredibly stylish, and has loads of black humour. As a fan of Park, it's hard not to be satisfied, because you get basically just what you wish for. And as usual with Park there's hardly a finger that can be put on it. Films with stories that are heavy on plot twists, can often lead to be a bit of eye rolling. But there's none of that here. Firstly because the plot twists aren't actually that important to the film. What's more important is the threesome of Sook-Hee, Fujiwara and Hideko, and how their relationships develop. the twists also allow Park to show scenes from more than one point of view Also the twists aren't coming back to back in the last five minutes, but mainly come halfway through the film. Here it makes for a really fun story, and Park with his dark sense of humour clearly loves to play with these twists and his audience.
The Handmaiden is a lot of fun to watch and thought provoking. A psychologist could have a lot of fun analysing Hideko and her upbringing by her uncle, and how she was forced to read porn novels for foreign men, and was taught to read by reading said novels. Those of us untrained in psychology can also have a lot of fun with it. At the very least just because it's so absurd to watch. The Handmaiden is Park when he's at his very best.
In Japanese controlled Korea, Sook-Hee is going undercover as the Handmaiden of a wealthy Japanese noble, Hideko. She's involved in a plot to defraud Hideko of her wealth by having Hideko marry an ally of Sook-Hee who claims to be a Japanese noble by the name Fujiwara. But Sook-Hee herself falls in love with Hideko, and Hideko seems to fall in love with her.
The Handmaiden is in many ways vintage Chan-Wook Park. It includes fun plot twists, gory torture, it's sexy, it's incredibly stylish, and has loads of black humour. As a fan of Park, it's hard not to be satisfied, because you get basically just what you wish for. And as usual with Park there's hardly a finger that can be put on it. Films with stories that are heavy on plot twists, can often lead to be a bit of eye rolling. But there's none of that here. Firstly because the plot twists aren't actually that important to the film. What's more important is the threesome of Sook-Hee, Fujiwara and Hideko, and how their relationships develop. the twists also allow Park to show scenes from more than one point of view Also the twists aren't coming back to back in the last five minutes, but mainly come halfway through the film. Here it makes for a really fun story, and Park with his dark sense of humour clearly loves to play with these twists and his audience.
The Handmaiden is a lot of fun to watch and thought provoking. A psychologist could have a lot of fun analysing Hideko and her upbringing by her uncle, and how she was forced to read porn novels for foreign men, and was taught to read by reading said novels. Those of us untrained in psychology can also have a lot of fun with it. At the very least just because it's so absurd to watch. The Handmaiden is Park when he's at his very best.
The Handmaiden / 아가씨 (Park Chan-wook, 2016)
During the interwar period of Japanese occupied Korea, a conman recruits a thief to be the handmaiden to a wealthy Japanese heiress as he tries to woo her and steal her inheritance. However, as the handmaiden and heiress become acquainted the develop a romance with each other. I’ve watched a few Park Chan-wook films in recent months that caused me to really revaluate what I thought of him – he’s a director that uses convolution, plot twists, and stylish cinematography as a crutch for a lack of substance in his films. I think that same argument could be made for The Handmaiden, but this is one of those times that his filmmaking style actually works for me and I consider The Handmaiden by far his best film.
The plot is undoubtably convoluted but it works due to the chemistry between the menage-a-trois at the core of the film. Kim Min-hee, Kim Tae-ri, and Ha Jung-woo all put in incredible performances that ensures that well defined and believable characters and relationships do not get lost in the plot. There is also a rich feminist theme to his film regarding male sexual perversion and female objectification, and female and queer liberation. (Weird transition given the preceding sentence but don’t know where else to bring it up) The film is also incredibly sexy, but not in a super male gazey way, with great emotional and sensual sex scenes that are erotic and risqué but don’t feel exploitative like say in Blue is the Warmest Colour. Although I have to laugh whenever I see films depicting lesbian sex showing the pair scissoring each other, as it is my understanding that is something that only occurs in porn. I suppose that is a counterpoint to my claim it isn’t male gazey, but whatever it mostly isn’t and it feels like a sincere and passionate romance rather than male fantasy.
This was a good one to revisit after revisiting a couple of Park films and his most recent Decision to Leave and being disappointed in them. I had considered The Handmaiden his best film then and I still consider it his best film now as it is his work that contains the most depth.
During the interwar period of Japanese occupied Korea, a conman recruits a thief to be the handmaiden to a wealthy Japanese heiress as he tries to woo her and steal her inheritance. However, as the handmaiden and heiress become acquainted the develop a romance with each other. I’ve watched a few Park Chan-wook films in recent months that caused me to really revaluate what I thought of him – he’s a director that uses convolution, plot twists, and stylish cinematography as a crutch for a lack of substance in his films. I think that same argument could be made for The Handmaiden, but this is one of those times that his filmmaking style actually works for me and I consider The Handmaiden by far his best film.
The plot is undoubtably convoluted but it works due to the chemistry between the menage-a-trois at the core of the film. Kim Min-hee, Kim Tae-ri, and Ha Jung-woo all put in incredible performances that ensures that well defined and believable characters and relationships do not get lost in the plot. There is also a rich feminist theme to his film regarding male sexual perversion and female objectification, and female and queer liberation. (Weird transition given the preceding sentence but don’t know where else to bring it up) The film is also incredibly sexy, but not in a super male gazey way, with great emotional and sensual sex scenes that are erotic and risqué but don’t feel exploitative like say in Blue is the Warmest Colour. Although I have to laugh whenever I see films depicting lesbian sex showing the pair scissoring each other, as it is my understanding that is something that only occurs in porn. I suppose that is a counterpoint to my claim it isn’t male gazey, but whatever it mostly isn’t and it feels like a sincere and passionate romance rather than male fantasy.
This was a good one to revisit after revisiting a couple of Park films and his most recent Decision to Leave and being disappointed in them. I had considered The Handmaiden his best film then and I still consider it his best film now as it is his work that contains the most depth.
The Handmaiden (2022) Directed by Park Chan-wook
For starters, The Handmaiden is such a visual feast. I think there are a small group of directors who were just born to make beautiful movies to watch. The directors whom I usually have in mind are Antonioni, Bertolucci, Kubrick, Wong, Dolan, and Park. Not all those guys make consistently good movies, but the movies that they do make are usually stunners to observe. The Handmaiden certainly fits this particular bill. In addition, this tale of multiple betrayals is among the most consistently erotic films ever made. In fact, it's hard to think of its equal on that score. However, there is a viper in the flower bed as the eroticism on display very often tears a page from the Marquis de Sade, an eroticism based on physical cruelty and abject domination. This eroticism is used so extensively that it is sometimes difficult to tell whether the perverse sensuality is there to comment on the themes of the movie or whether the themes exist as an excuse to focus on the sadomasochistic eroticism.
The Handmaiden possesses one of the more interesting menage a trois in fairly recent movies. Kim Min-he and Kim Ti-re, who alternate between hunter and prey, are both excellent. Ha Jung-woo, the male leg of the triangle, isn't in the same class. The movie needed a more ambivalent, moody type, like Tony Leung for instance. Still given the complex structure of the movie where a major reveal is given half way through the film that changes everything, good acting and compelling characters are an absolute prerequisite for a movie of this extended length (I watched the long version which clocks in a 2 hours and 45 minutes).
Feminist critics might find the movie a challenge. The movie certainly comes down hard on sleazy manipulative men who use power to subjugate and humiliate women. Yet there is a lot of fairly explicit lesbian sex that may appeal to many members of the male audience not in dissimilar fashion to the way it appeals to the sleazy old guys in the movie. A bit of a conundrum, that.
I would rate The Handmaiden among Park's best work along with Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, Old Boy and Decision to Leave, all gorgeously shot movies with compelling story lines. I was going to close with a joke about how at least the movie encourages little girls to read, but maybe I will just pass on the attempt entirely.
subtitles
Last edited:
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,807
- 3,886
Ack! Sorry gents. Didn't realize I was the logjam here.
The Handmaiden
Park (2016)
"Where I come from it's illegal to be naive."
Goddamn I love this movie. A twisty gothic-horror-con-artist-erotic-thriller-love-story. Truly something for the entire family. That descriptor sounds like it risks collapsing under the weight of its own excesses, but it never comes close thanks to Park's confident direction. He keeps all those plates spinning with a level of skill few others exhibit.
Amid all that juggling of narrative and style he also gives you a sumptuous looking film rich with color. So many examples, but I'm particularly fond of a very early scene of a car driving through a serene landscape. There's a striking contrast of pinks and greens that almost makes you want to hang it on a wall. (Maybe a bathroom though given the heavy pastels).
I can certainly understand any push back on the "male gaze" aspects of this and its portrayal of sex. It is titillating. But thinking back to something like Blue is the Warmest Color I don't feel the same awkwardness on that front here. This may not be the best defense, but I feel like the very potboilery nature of this compared to the high-minded vibe of Blue is perhaps my distinction. For all its ample beauty and artistry, there is a noir trashiness about The Handmaiden. And I mean that with the highest of high praise.
There's something about Korean filmmakers and their ability to make movies that are both high and low. Ideas and messages, but also wildly entertaining. I just don't see filmmakers from other countries executing in the same way. I've rambled about it before but American film in particular too often has the dials turned too far in one direction between "artsy" or "serious" and "fun." The top tier of Korean directors have repeatedly been able to pull off both.
Maybe I'm being unfair comparing one country's elite vs. the whole of another country's output?
The Handmaiden
Park (2016)
"Where I come from it's illegal to be naive."
Goddamn I love this movie. A twisty gothic-horror-con-artist-erotic-thriller-love-story. Truly something for the entire family. That descriptor sounds like it risks collapsing under the weight of its own excesses, but it never comes close thanks to Park's confident direction. He keeps all those plates spinning with a level of skill few others exhibit.
Amid all that juggling of narrative and style he also gives you a sumptuous looking film rich with color. So many examples, but I'm particularly fond of a very early scene of a car driving through a serene landscape. There's a striking contrast of pinks and greens that almost makes you want to hang it on a wall. (Maybe a bathroom though given the heavy pastels).
I can certainly understand any push back on the "male gaze" aspects of this and its portrayal of sex. It is titillating. But thinking back to something like Blue is the Warmest Color I don't feel the same awkwardness on that front here. This may not be the best defense, but I feel like the very potboilery nature of this compared to the high-minded vibe of Blue is perhaps my distinction. For all its ample beauty and artistry, there is a noir trashiness about The Handmaiden. And I mean that with the highest of high praise.
There's something about Korean filmmakers and their ability to make movies that are both high and low. Ideas and messages, but also wildly entertaining. I just don't see filmmakers from other countries executing in the same way. I've rambled about it before but American film in particular too often has the dials turned too far in one direction between "artsy" or "serious" and "fun." The top tier of Korean directors have repeatedly been able to pull off both.
Maybe I'm being unfair comparing one country's elite vs. the whole of another country's output?
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,505
- 406
Gladiator (2000) dir. Ridley Scott
Aging emperor Marcus Aurelius picks general Maximus as his succesor over his son Commodus, because he wants Rome to return to a time where the people had a say. Maximus declines because he just wants to retire at his farm with his family. When Marcus Aurelius informs Commodus of his decision, Commodus kills the emperor and takes the title of emperor for himself. He also orders Maximus killed. However Maximus narrowly escapes death and embarks on a long journey to his home. There he finds that his wife and son have been murdered, and the weakened Maximus gets taken prisoner and sold into slavery as a gladiator. There he excels, and when Commodus announces 100 days of games in Rome, and thereby overturning Marcus Aurelius' ban on gladiator fights in Rome, Maximus gets a chance of revenge.
What Gladiator lacks in historical accuracy, it makes up for in coolness. I was a kid when Gladiator came out. So I was the prime age for running aruond pretending to be a gladiator. Also I was a huge sucker for anything historical then. So Gladiator was basically the perfect movie for me back then. While the main attraction back then might have been the Gladiator fights. There's a lot to appreciate about Gladiator than just the fights, and that's good because the fights would probably not be enough to entertain me for 2½ hours nowadays. Gladiator is a great revenge pic, and you can't help but root for Maximus. The only problem is that Maximus is perhaps too good. There's no negative thing you can say about his character. But that doesn't really matter that much. Because Joaquin Phoenix is such a good Commodus. There's very few characters I've loved to hate as much as him. For years I thought I hated Joaquin Phoenix for some reason I didn't really understand. But it turned out I just hated Commodus. Russell Crowe is good Maximus, but for me Joaquin Phoenix is the true star of the cast in this film. The costumes might not be entirely historically accurate, but they are really cool. The kid inside me wants to see masks that makes the wearer look like a sabertooth, or masks made to look like the wearer is wearing a lion skin as a cape.
You shouldn't watch Gladiator if you want to learn more about the Roman Empire. You shouldn't really watch a fiction film if that's your goal, documantaries are the right medium for that. But if you want a great fictional story, Gladiator is a great choice.
And don't worry Maximus, I am very entertained.
Aging emperor Marcus Aurelius picks general Maximus as his succesor over his son Commodus, because he wants Rome to return to a time where the people had a say. Maximus declines because he just wants to retire at his farm with his family. When Marcus Aurelius informs Commodus of his decision, Commodus kills the emperor and takes the title of emperor for himself. He also orders Maximus killed. However Maximus narrowly escapes death and embarks on a long journey to his home. There he finds that his wife and son have been murdered, and the weakened Maximus gets taken prisoner and sold into slavery as a gladiator. There he excels, and when Commodus announces 100 days of games in Rome, and thereby overturning Marcus Aurelius' ban on gladiator fights in Rome, Maximus gets a chance of revenge.
What Gladiator lacks in historical accuracy, it makes up for in coolness. I was a kid when Gladiator came out. So I was the prime age for running aruond pretending to be a gladiator. Also I was a huge sucker for anything historical then. So Gladiator was basically the perfect movie for me back then. While the main attraction back then might have been the Gladiator fights. There's a lot to appreciate about Gladiator than just the fights, and that's good because the fights would probably not be enough to entertain me for 2½ hours nowadays. Gladiator is a great revenge pic, and you can't help but root for Maximus. The only problem is that Maximus is perhaps too good. There's no negative thing you can say about his character. But that doesn't really matter that much. Because Joaquin Phoenix is such a good Commodus. There's very few characters I've loved to hate as much as him. For years I thought I hated Joaquin Phoenix for some reason I didn't really understand. But it turned out I just hated Commodus. Russell Crowe is good Maximus, but for me Joaquin Phoenix is the true star of the cast in this film. The costumes might not be entirely historically accurate, but they are really cool. The kid inside me wants to see masks that makes the wearer look like a sabertooth, or masks made to look like the wearer is wearing a lion skin as a cape.
You shouldn't watch Gladiator if you want to learn more about the Roman Empire. You shouldn't really watch a fiction film if that's your goal, documantaries are the right medium for that. But if you want a great fictional story, Gladiator is a great choice.
And don't worry Maximus, I am very entertained.
Gladiator (Ridley Scott, 2000)
After the aging Emperor Marcus Aurelius handpicks the popular General Maximus (Russell Crowe) to replace him and to return Rome to its people, the Emperor is murdered by his son Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) who is jealous of his love towards Maximus and Maximus is condemned to death. After managing to escape his execution, Maximus becomes a gladiator set on revenge.
I was too young to see this when it came out and had never seen it until. It’s a curious film, it is influenced by the 1950s sword and sandal epics and set off a trend of these types of films in the early 2000s (Troy, 300, HBO’s Rome etc), and won Best Picture at the Oscars. But I don’t think it has remained that popular or in the public consciousness once the 2010s hit; I suppose the pop culture craze for all things ancient Rome had passed.
I think part of the problem for Gladiator is that it looks and feels like a film from the late 90s/early 2000s, in the worst ways. The digital cinematography and the CGI looks unremarkable at best and at time downright ugly , and Ridley Scott had an obsession with using slow mo in action scenes paired with quick cuts. It hasn’t aged very well in these instances.
What does work very well though is the performance by Phoenix who blends into his role as the villain Commodus who is motivated by a desire to be liked. Russell Crowe is okay, I’m not sure how he won his Oscar with the performance but I guess he did what was required of him for his role.
It’s certainly one of the more oddball picks for Best Picture in Oscar history, although quickly looking at the other nominees for its year I don’t think any of the others are that remarkable – maybe Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon but that would be a longshot to win - and I think its most notable achievement was reviving sword and sandal trend which just as quickly died out.
After the aging Emperor Marcus Aurelius handpicks the popular General Maximus (Russell Crowe) to replace him and to return Rome to its people, the Emperor is murdered by his son Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix) who is jealous of his love towards Maximus and Maximus is condemned to death. After managing to escape his execution, Maximus becomes a gladiator set on revenge.
I was too young to see this when it came out and had never seen it until. It’s a curious film, it is influenced by the 1950s sword and sandal epics and set off a trend of these types of films in the early 2000s (Troy, 300, HBO’s Rome etc), and won Best Picture at the Oscars. But I don’t think it has remained that popular or in the public consciousness once the 2010s hit; I suppose the pop culture craze for all things ancient Rome had passed.
I think part of the problem for Gladiator is that it looks and feels like a film from the late 90s/early 2000s, in the worst ways. The digital cinematography and the CGI looks unremarkable at best and at time downright ugly , and Ridley Scott had an obsession with using slow mo in action scenes paired with quick cuts. It hasn’t aged very well in these instances.
What does work very well though is the performance by Phoenix who blends into his role as the villain Commodus who is motivated by a desire to be liked. Russell Crowe is okay, I’m not sure how he won his Oscar with the performance but I guess he did what was required of him for his role.
It’s certainly one of the more oddball picks for Best Picture in Oscar history, although quickly looking at the other nominees for its year I don’t think any of the others are that remarkable – maybe Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon but that would be a longshot to win - and I think its most notable achievement was reviving sword and sandal trend which just as quickly died out.
Latest posts
-
Friedman: Pittsburgh wants Buffalo’s NHL ready prospects- Latest: OtherThingsILike
-
Tennis: Australian Open 2025- Latest: ZachaFlockaFlame
-
-
