MovieChat Forums > ElizabethJoestar > Replies
ElizabethJoestar's Replies
Maybe the 1931 Dracula? Dude gets staked and the heroes walk free. But then again, there was that epilogue scene (cut due to censorious concerns) where Van Helsing warns the audience "Remember, there ARE such things!" (That is, supernatural threats.)
Definitely interesting! Of course, there are exceptions, like 1970s paranoia thrillers or the ending of Hitchcock's VERTIGO, which leaves the protagonist in a very ambiguous psychological space.
Arguments rage as to whether Psycho is a horror movie. And if it is, is it a 'slasher'? For me it's a psychological horror/proto-slasher, a forerunner.
--
I'd say it's certainly horror-- or at the very least, a thriller that slowly morphs into a horror film. The moment Marion gets knifed in the shower, you could argue it becomes almost a different film.
But the thriller/horror line is a notoriously precarious one. I once read that the difference between a thriller and a horror film is that a thriller villain can be killed and the protagonist can return to a safe, "normal" world, whereas horror villains are in a sense deathless and horror endings are not so comforting, even with the characters out of immediate danger. I think PSYCHO definitely fits the latter: "Mother" never dies and in fact takes over Norman completely. Even with Marion's disappearance solved and Lila and Sam out of harm's way, the ending of PSYCHO isn't really comforting at all. The last shot is of Marion's car being pulled from the swamp, wherein her body lays moldering in that plastic curtain. That implied image is a chilling one.
Capra is an interesting filmmaker I need to dive more into. I watch IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE every year during December. I think it's a masterpiece. One Capra title I was very fond of in college was THE BITTER TEA OF GENERAL YEN, a pre-code romance that's extremely anti-Capra in many ways. It's about a love affair between a white Christian missionary (Barbara Stanwyck early in her star career) and a Chinese warlord (unfortunately played by a Swedish actor in yellowface-- but what else would you expect from Hollywood in 1932?). It's both very of its time and weirdly progressive, making it a fascinating production. It has this heady blend of swooning romanticism and dour cynicism that's very pre-code. I haven't seen it in years, so I don't know what I'd think of it now, but ten years ago, I was floored that this was helmed by the same guy accused of producing "capra-corn" for the masses.
--
I myself saw Frank Capra in person at a screening of "Its a Wonderful Life" in 1981. Full house, loved it. The old, small man gave a quiet Q and A after the screening.
--
That is an awesome story! I rather like that Potter isn't punished. Unfortunately in real life, unpleasant people like that aren't often taken down for their awfulness, but it's clear from the last scene that he will never know the love and warmth of the community. He's consigned himself to a kind of hell, so I totally get Capra's perspective.
With Spielberg, I really liked THE FABELMANS (I think you didn't care for that one though, right?) and his WEST SIDE STORY. Comparing his work to his younger peers, it strikes me how "classical" his directorial style is, if that makes sense. It's appealing to me.
I still want to see MUNICH and WAR OF THE WORLDS. Actually, there's a lot of Spielberg I need to get off my ass and see (or I guess given how movie watching works, get on my ass and see?).
2019: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. I gave it a tie with Scorsese's The Irishman for Number One. I loved both of them, but each of them was flawed in some way and couldn't beat the other for Number One. With Scorsese, the first hour is too slow(but it really picks up once Pacino's Hoffa enters the movie). With QT, again as with Inglorious Basterds, ALL of Brad Pitt's scenes are great(he is a "real" movie star) but I found my interest dragging when Leo's part came up at the studio. Still, the "fantasy" of seeing Sharon Tate saved from the Mansons was bittersweet indeed, and the movie also lets us feel the sadness of her REAL last night on earth.
--
It's amazing how the ending of that movie is both awesome and sad.
I love the hangout vibe so much too. Who knew watching DiCaprio and Pitt watching TV and drinking beer could be so engaging?
Roger1, your ranking has made me realize how few QT films I've seen. I've watched Pulp Fiction countless times over the years. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is probably my favorite, though PF is a close second.
Saw RESEVOIR DOGS years ago and liked it. Same with INGLORIOUS BASTERDS. I don't recall thinking any scene ran too long. I found that first scene super tense and brilliant. The ending is fabulous.
Annnddd-- that's it. I still need to see JACKIE BROWN. Online, that seems to be the critic-anointed QT title.
I recall the brouhaha over the KILL BILL movies in the mid-2000s, when I was about 10/11ish. I remember teenage cousins loving it and the adults in my family (with the exception of an uncle who loved himself some ultraviolence in genre movies) calling it trash. It's overdue for a watch from me.
I have decided to here -- in an OT vein as we have been graciously alllowed here on this page -- to say a few things in FAVOR of QT even as he seems to be inviting invective. (QT is a guy who seems to have drawn haters equal to his fans in this internet era; Hitchcock had haters too but it was never like THIS.)
--
Oh yeah, he's always been that way, it seems. A very divisive filmmaker and his brash manner doesn't help. For me, it's a case of really enjoying the man's films while not caring for the man himself. I find him annoying in interviews and podcasts, though he is undeniably passionate about film and a talented creator.
--
No, what I go for with QT is...his dialogue. His "talk scenes." They are SO great, so entertaining, so unique. And I mean like almost ALL of them.
--
Oh without a doubt. I love the dialogue in his movies.
And the thing with Kubrick is that he tended to take longer and longer between projects because of research or-- as with Hitchcock-- doing pre-production on certain projects that didn't pan out (Napoleon and The Aryan Papers being two-- even Eyes Wide Shut had been percolating for decades-- at one point with Steve Martin in consideration for lead, if I remember correctly). It's not like Kubrick was like, "I'm only making a few films for quality purposes." He seemed to be very particular about which projects he was going to commit to.
ElizabethJoestar, you raise an interesting point here: when DOES a director's "late period" begin?
--
I feel like everyone defines it differently, so it's hard to measure. At least with hitchcock, PSYCHO tends to be the dividing line between Hitchcock in his prime and late period Hitchcock. Wilder is a bit trickier. I think THE APARTMENT is the perfect point, for all the reasons you spelled out.
--
BOTH directors probably peaked in 1960...everything they made after that (even The Birds and Frenzy for Hitchcock; even Irma La Douce for Wilder) wasn't really "of its time." So..QT is right?
No...QT is WRONG. ALL of those movies expressed their directors' visions with continuing power --I'd say ALL of those movies EXCEPT Buddy Buddy was worthwhile in SOME way.
--
Yes, even the lesser films are of interest from either of these guys. As boring as I find TOPAZ, it has some wonderful sequences. Same with FEDORA, which has a gothic camp quality and cynical twist I find interesting... though it generally feels like warmed over SUNSET BLVD, unfortunately. But still, these aren't worthless films by any stretch.
I am not versed in "foreign films"(anything other than American studio and indie product) but I wouldl guess that "foreigers" like Kurosawa and many European directors had the latitide, financial support, and "low stakes" to keep making great work into old age.
--
Kurosawa is an interesting case. He didn't have much financial support at all in the late 60s/early 70s, when his career went into a slump. He tried working on a Hollywood production, TORA! TORA! TORA!, but this ended badly, with Kurosawa directing the Japanese portions of the film for only a few weeks before being more or less fired from the project, his footage entirely scrapped. In 1970, one of his films flopped. He suffered from poor mental health and tried killing himself in 1971. Luckily, he survived, though his next few films were made with support from abroad rather than his native Japan. DERSU UZALA was technically a Soviet funded film and his 1980 KAGEMUSHA was funded by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, both big Kurosawa fans who were shocked to find the director struggling to get funding for future projects. KAGEMUSHA's international success helped Kurosawa going forward, and he was able to make some of his most striking work in his last years.
--
Ford and Hawks and Capra (if not Hitchcock) were faced with animosity from New Hollywood. Scorsese and Spielberg are embraced by TODAY's Hollywood, and Spielberg is so megarich that nobody CAN oppose him.
--
True, though Spielberg's name on a project no longer guarantees box office sadly, even though he's still a strong filmmaker. I watched his WEST SIDE STORY remake the other night and was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. He's adept at directing musical numbers and I'm sad he probably will never get the chance to do another, due to the film's poor box office and his own age.
It's definitely overlong and shapeless, but it is fascinating. I'll certainly never forget it, though I don't have much desire to rewatch it.
I always figured she mourned Tony but eventually moved on with her life. Of course, even if she married, Tony would still have a special place in her heart.
A boring answer, but the most likely one.
I despise QT's idea that all artists are subject to "diminishing returns." Some of my favorite filmmakers did their best work late in their careers, like Akira Kurosawa with KAGEMUSHA and RAN. While Billy Wilder's late period is hit and miss (FEDORA is damn bad, and I've heard terrible things about THE FRONT PAGE), it does contain gems like THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES and THE FORTUNE COOKIE. Even IRMA LA DOUCE has its moments and is hardly painful to sit through. Kubrick's EYES WIDE SHUT is as provocative as his most daring work of earlier years.
And don't get me started on the "10 movies" rule. It just doesn't bear out when you examine the great filmmakers of the past who had long careers. Yeah, not everything's gonna be a home run. So what, QT?
--
(Hell, try Hitchcock...does 10 end around The Lady Vanishes?)
--
Earlier than that. Hitchcock's tenth feature was BLACKMAIL, his first talkie in 1929!!
Considering this is a comedy, I thought Matthau being the object of desire for all these women was part of the joke.
No way-- Goldie ended up with the better guy in the end.
I wanted the doc to end up with nobody. He was a real jerk. Ingrid's character deserved way better than him, though the film is so funny and amiable that the ending didn't entirely ruin the movie for me.
I thought the same. Bergman was just luminous and lovely.
At the very least, Fincher is no slouch as a director, so I'm confident it won't be a shot for shot debacle. I'd certainly rather watch it than that proposed Vertigo remake from RDJ.
Oh crap, I deleted my reply by mistake.
Anyway, Ruffalo's character wanted Bella all to himself and tried controlling her. He initially planned on seducing and abandoning her. I assume that's the behavior the OP was mentioning.