Author |
Topic |
Shiv "What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 07/04/2007 : 21:38:50
|
quote: Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Maybe someone here likes all those movies I listed. I admit that I haven't seen all of them so I can't assess them. But my point is, they're all very, very middlebrow. None of them are true crowdpleasers (like, say, Best Picture nominees E.T. or Raiders of the Lost Ark), nor are they really unique, something truly unlike anything else (like Platoon or Raging Bull in there). Even among cineastes, they haven't really carved out a space in the collective consciousness. They won their awards and they disappeared. I guess under those criteria I shouldn't have included Dead Poets Society, but I did because it's bullshit and I hate it.
But honestly, if they all turned out to be boring as hell, I wouldn't be surprised. The ones I have seen, star rating out of four:
The Dresser (**1/2): Brought down by boring direction. A movie where two hams play two hams should not be this earthbound. The Big Chill (**): Even duller. Who doesn't love boring, unlikeable yuppies whining about how they used to be cooler? Plus, they're all indistinguishable; imagine a Breakfast Club made up of five Emilio Estevezes and you'll get the idea. On Golden Pond: (**1/2) Very sweet but too understated for my tastes. My Left Foot: (**1/2) Fearless performance from Day-Lewis, but kind of awful in its shameless tardsploitation. So he can paint with his foot, so what? A friend summed this movie up as "Look what the cripple can do!" which I think is largely accurate. Chariots of Fire: (*1/2) Bottom of the barrel. Worst sports movie ever made. A movie devoid of suspense, tension, emotion, everything except the need for Britain to pat itself on the back. Without the iconic first scene I'd rate it even lower. Hannah and Her Sisters: (**1/2) One of those Woody Allen movies where the drama and comedy don't mix together well at all. Dead Poets Society: (*1/2) Awful.
I could have included Ordinary People, Rain Man and Driving Miss Daisy too, but I like all those movies and they've all taken their place in people's hearts. Those have largely stood the test of time. But compare the '80s to the '70s and see how many bonafide test-of-time classics they nominated in either decade. The '70s overpowers them. And really, who's going to say their lives were changed by Tender Mercies?
There is another thread for Worst Films ever for discussing this kind of thing. I do NOT think Prizzi'a Honor is a bad film. I'm just trying to get an understanding of what made it stand out so much at the time. I didn't see it until now and for me it seems not to have stood the test of time in regard to the uniqueness others are describing to me. |
|
|
MisterBadIdea "PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 05/05/2008 : 04:45:41
|
Just watched this. Gotta agree with Shiv -- I don't really get this movie.
I mean, it's certainly not sexy, and it's certainly not funny. I'm kind of amazed that anyone would consider it a comedy -- there's no jokes and no attempts at jokes. Someone else is going to have to explain to me what exactly is supposed to be funny about this.
Someone upthread called it unsentimental, and I definitely agree with that. It is cold, bleak and uncaring. In fact, I'd call it Huston's "Match Point" -- it's a late-period work by a great director examining a cold, uncaring, amoral world. Not just immoral but amoral. That's why the sex isn't sexy -- there's no heat or passion. When Nicholson says he's in love, it's obviously bullshit -- maybe that's one of the jokes I didn't get.
I like "Match Point" more. It's got more momentum, it builds. "Prizzi's Honor" just kind of meanders, twists around -- also, it has my least favorite Nicholson performance, although his flatness may just have been matching his cold, flat surroundings. (Save for her breakthrough role in "Body Heat," I never really got the appeal of Kathleen Turner.) It's okay, I guess but I stand by my original analysis -- it got an Oscar nomination because Huston was getting old. |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|