BanksIsDaFuture wrote:One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest - 8.5/10
Really good movie, great performance from Jack Nicholson and just about all the mental patients (including an unrecognizable Danny DeVito). I don't get why people say Nurse Ratched is a villian though, she never does anything wrong or evil the entire film. She's just trying to keep her hospital in order, and Nicholson comes and starts fucking with it. Yeah, she was cold and obviously didn't like Nicholson, but a villian? Especially one where people say she's one of the most evil villains on screen? Nah, can't see it at all.
Well in a span of a few minutes, she drives Billy to suicide and lobotomizes the main character...
(I guess you have to highlight that black bar.)
That's the tip of the iceberg, though the two most evil things that she did. Most of the time its the subtle things. Watch it again some time with that in mind.
I think, if anything, McMurphy is more responsible for Billy's suicide than Ratched. Yes, she didn't really have to tell his mother, but had McMurphy not forced him to have sex with Candy, none of that wouldn't happened in the first place. And I'm sure she's not the one who lobotized him (I didn't even know that's what happened to him until I read it on IMDb. Maybe it was more prevalant in the 60s, but just showing a scar on his head wasn't enough for me to connect the dots. Hell, I thought only the ancient Egyptians ever did that. How is that even legal?), and what was the hospital supposed to do with him? He was wreaking havoc on the ward, disrupting the order and trashing the place. Yes, they could've maybe let him go, but they had a case to keep him as well.
On the run from Johnny Law ... ain't no trip to Cleveland.
Matchstick Men - well-made film... but, as it goes with most "con" movies--the twist was a bit TOO elaborate and, if you bother to break it down, there were just WAY too many "what-if" scenarios that completely would've foiled the plan.. (think: watching The Game on multiple viewings)..
also, i thought that this particular con movie was especially predictable--but that may simply be due to the fact that i've been through so many similar stories and there is typically only one way that they play out (at least in terms of who the "bad guy" is ultimately revealed to be)..
Nick Coppola was good.. I guess that I'm one of the few people who still thinks that he's a very talented actor... his choice in WHICH projects he works on is certainly questionable, however... Sam Rockwell was the reason i bothered to go back and finally pick this movie up--and he didn't disappoint (even if it wasn't exactly a showcase of his skills as an actor)... and, hey, it turns out that Alison Lohman is more than just "Girl Ash".. she wasn't half-bad--considering the fact that she was intentionally playing a bubbly/annoying 14-year old girl..,
One of these days, I'm going to write something about Ridley Scott being the anti-auteur... for the all the hubbub that directors like Wes Anderson, David Lynch, etc get for having such a distinct "style" in their filmmaking--i'm starting to find it even more impressive when an accomplished director has the ability to make someone else's project! Directors like Anderson and Lynch (whom i love and admire, respectively) make every project distinctly their own.. and that's cool, in a way.. but, at some point, you gotta wonder if they're capable of working outside their own set of rules.. of all the most acclaimed directors, i think you could argue that Ridley Scott has one of the most diverse filmographies and manages NOT to imprint his name and style on every project he makes.. for example, if you were to watch five of his films in a row (let's say Matchstick Men, Kingdom of Heaven, Thelma & Louise, Blade Runner, and American Gangster) without seeing the credits, would you really be able to say with any confidence that they were all products of the same artist? on the other hand, watch 5 Martin Scorsese movies and you KNOW you just watched 5 scorsese movies.. same goes for Woody Allen, Sam Peckinpah, Werner Herzog, Quentin Tarantino, hell even Hitchcock and Fellini... Auteur-theory is interesting, but--at this point--it might be getting in the way of good film-making.. i bet Tarantino has the ability to make a brilliant adaptation--and truly transcribe another person's work onto film--but he's obligated to make "Tarantino movies" because that's what people expect from him.. and, in a way, that's a shame.
last thing to be said of Matchstick Men: while watching it, I thought the editing and direction was a bit derivative of The Aviator... but, after checking IMDB, Matchstick Men actually came out a year earlier.. Nice!
B-on first viewing (though that'll almost definitely go down when I eventually rewatch it)
On the run from Johnny Law ... ain't no trip to Cleveland.
It's an interesting point about Scott being that you'd call a salary director, someone who takes on multiple genres and adapts multiple styles. Perhaps its from his early days as an ad man and so HAD to take on different styles, tones, visual sets, etc. But it is worth noting that while Scott has made some great films (notably Alien and Blade Runner), a lot of his films come across as bland. In fact I'd say everything he has done since Thelma and Louise is pretty much uninspired. American Gangster is an uninspired gangster movie, Kingdom of Heaven and Gladiator are (and I know many would disagree on the latter) uninspired epics, Matchstick Men (although I also see merits in this film) is a mostly uninspired con-man flick, and so on. Perhaps Scott has become a hack. His return to the Alien franchise certainly suggests so.
I would say the best anti-auteur I can think of is Billy Wilder. He managed to make one of the best comedies (Some like it Hot), one of the best romances (The Apartment), one of the best thrillers (Sunset Boulevaard), and one of the best dramas (The Lost Weekend) around.
For what it's worth, those you label as auteurs are people I'd rather not see try to change genre/style to tackle another, possibly more "normal", genre. There's not that many distinct directors around at the moment (and even Scorsese lost his "style" as far as I'm concerned), so I cherish the ones with their own vision. Except for Tarantino- he needs to be restrained.
And Banks, as for your thoughts on McMurphy in One Flew Over..., you could say that McMurphy prompted the suicide, and was uncontrollable. But the point of the movie is that there are thousands of McMurphys in each town, city, etc. They may not be the norm, but they are normal. To label McMurphy insane is to claim that a huge percentage of the human population is insane, and that's the problem with the kind of institute the film portrays. The division between insane and sane is a hugely blurry one, and there are many things McMurphy does that most of us could do or may have done at some stage. I would say the suicide is more of a product of the tension between McMurphy's joie de vivre and the strictness of the institution that tries to define what's normal by repressing every natural instinct.
Last edited by numbersix on November 9th, 2009, 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
as a quick note: when I first saw Kingdom of Heaven, my response was an overwhelming "meh".. but i finally gave the 3+ hour director's cut a chance--and, wow. It's actually a very good movie.. by comparison, the theatrical version borders on non-sensical..
also, i think the so-called "director's cut" tacked-on ending to American Gangster would have ruined the movie for me--had i watched that version first..
Last edited by NSpan on November 9th, 2009, 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
On the run from Johnny Law ... ain't no trip to Cleveland.
numbersix wrote:It's an interesting point about Scott being that you'd call a salary director, someone who takes on multiple genres and adapts multiple styles. Perhaps its from his early days as an ad man and so HAD to take on different styles, tones, visual sets, etc. But it is worth noting that while Scott has made some great films (notably Alien and Blade Runner), a lot of his films come across as bland. In fact I'd say everything he has done since Thelma and Louise is pretty much uninspired. American Gangster is an uninspired gangster movie, Kingdom of Heaven and Gladiator are (and I know many would disagree on the latter) uninspired epics, Matchstick Men (although I also see merits in this film) is a mostly uninspired con-man flick, and so on. Perhaps Scott has become a hack. His return to the Alien franchise certainly suggests so.
My opinion of Scott is that, while I dislike many of his movies, I feel that they are consistently well crafted. Usually, if I don't like one of his films, it's more a matter of me disliking the genre in general--rather than his specific take on it... I guess that's the pitfall of being a "non"-auteur
numbersix wrote:For what it's worth, those you label as auteurs are people I'd rather not see try to change genre/style to tackle another, possibly more "normal", genre
I'm certainly not suggesting that any of these directors attempt to homogenize their work... my idea is much more about working outside of the particular artistic confines that they have put on themselves.. sure, breaking out of that box may result in catastrophe for some (or, as you fear, blandness)--but it could also produce something brilliant.. you never know--and we'll never find out if directors aren't willing to take that leap
On the run from Johnny Law ... ain't no trip to Cleveland.
Buscemi wrote:I found The Believer a dull imitation of American History X. Ryan Gosling was average in the film (this was back when he was just an actor in some short-lived Canadian teen shows) and Summer Phoenix was terrible as usual. The direction (by B-movie producer Henry Bean) was pedestrian and it doesn't surprise me that the film bypassed theatrical release in favor of premiering on Showtime.
I definitely saw the comparison when watching The Believer, but I thought both films stood by themselves. There are common qualities, but I found American History X unnecessarily violent and it seemed to ride on shock value, The Believer was more about story telling and taking a slightly different perspective on the topic than you usually see.
At least we can abort fetuses. Bad grammar and language last a lifetime.
- Donte
Good little thriller. Pretty suspenseful and well acted. I think the only downside was Tony Scott's manic directing style he is unique but can get a little out of hand sometimes.
numbersix wrote:
And Banks, as for your thoughts on McMurphy in One Flew Over..., you could say that McMurphy prompted the suicide, and was uncontrollable. But the point of the movie is that there are thousands of McMurphys in each town, city, etc. They may not be the norm, but they are normal. To label McMurphy insane is to claim that a huge percentage of the human population is insane, and that's the problem with the kind of institute the film portrays. The division between insane and sane is a hugely blurry one, and there are many things McMurphy does that most of us could do or may have done at some stage. I would say the suicide is more of a product of the tension between McMurphy's joie de vivre and the strictness of the institution that tries to define what's normal by repressing every natural instinct.
Well, I never said he was insane. Yeah they were keeping him against his will and that'll make anyone do anything to get out. But I place all the blame of Billy's suicide on his shoulders, and not Nurse Ratched's. And so for him to get what happens to him, is really just a case of karma. While Murphy is the hero of the story early on, I think he becomes the villain, and Ratched is merely the catalyst for that change. But not through anything she did, just how McMurphy reacted to her authoritive manner.
Alexandra Daddario: Eyes of a Demon, Face of My Future Ex-Wife
That ain't "karma." at least not in its real definition..
and, anyway, Billy was being held down by his mother and Ratched.. McMurphy was trying to help.. it wasn't his fault that Ratched manipulated the situation in order to compel Billy to suicide..
On the run from Johnny Law ... ain't no trip to Cleveland.
NSpan wrote:That ain't "karma." at least not in its real definition..
and, anyway, Billy was being held down by his mother and Ratched.. McMurphy was trying to help.. it wasn't his fault that Ratched manipulated the situation in order to compel Billy to suicide..
Where do they say this?
And that's a pretty spot-on case of karma - his actions led directly to the death of an innocent person, so it's only right that his actions lead to the death (basically) of himself.
And Ratched manipulated the sitatuon? By planning to tell a underage patient's guardian (and her friend of hers) that her son snuck a woman into a mental hospital and had sex with her? That sounds like something any hospital administrator worth her salt would do.
Alexandra Daddario: Eyes of a Demon, Face of My Future Ex-Wife
