Recommend Me a Movie

[Kingpun]

ip man 1 is pretty good but ip man 2 really doesnt have the punch. only one guy dies, pfft who cares

+im absolutely SICK of everything ip man, not that i can blame the film itself for that

[Buttercup]

I watched Tron: Legacy for the second time today. That movie is so much fun.

[Buttercup]

Today's been a movie kinda day. I also just got done watching , a documentary about the mysterious MPAA ratings board. I don't think I've ever laughed so hard at the end of a documentary. I don't know if I was supposed to be laughing, but there seemed literally nothing else to do.

[leokef]

Saw Inception for the second time tonight. Still very impressed with the film. Christopher Nolan literally has his action down to a science, and this film feels like the most organized work he's yet made, combining the non-linear framing of Memento with the gripping action of Batman, fueled by the poignant sorrow of The Prestige. The score by Zimmer--which I deliberately paid more attention to this time around--provides quite the heart-pounding soundscape as well. I think, however, that Inception's application of sound and visual effects is the greatest on-screen since The Lord of the Rings. Amazing combination of practical and CGI. Expertly crafted and never to excess, always punctuating the drama rather than distracting from it. Take for example the shot of Leo and Marion as they begin to create their ideal world. On the beach, they shape simple blocks in the sand. Cotillard knocks one over. Though the camera focus is still on the couple, far off in the background a great monolithic block tumbles, representative of Cotillard's influence upon the dream world with all the wondrous and thrilling implications thereof.

I almost feel sorry for Nolan. He's like a post-Signs M. Night Shyamalan. All his tools have been honed to their sharpest edges so that now the limits of his technique begin to appear. He can do mind-blowing action, no doubt about it. Yet his grasp of drama lacks, mostly owing to his reluctance to direct his actors as anything more than broad archetypes. Emotional moments feel forced. Characters sometimes disappear entirely and become little more than plot devices or shocking exclamation points. I think of how Cotillard becomes more like a boogeyman as the film goes on. An interesting progression and perhaps legit since she primarily exists as a subconscious projection. Even so, her being little more than scary, pointy furniture at times undercuts the film's probing of reality and its manifestations.

Overall, a fantastic experience and probably my favorite Nolan film after The Prestige. I find myself hoping that Nolan actually will try to top himself with Batman 3: flood it with action on top of action until it bursts at the seams. Give people in the audience heart attacks from the constant explosions and shootouts and rapid-fire editing and bombastic sound design and mercilessly complicated narrative.

[leokef]

Also saw The Prince of Persia. I wound up enjoying the film as an unrepentant piece of old-fashioned sword-and-sandals epic with a delightfully realized half-mythical setting. Jake Gyllenhaal sucked and Ben Kingsley was underused (surprise, surprise), but Alfred Molina kept my interest and everyone else did a serviceable job. The dialogue was a mixed bag, snappy in delivery if stilted in composition. The film might have been great if only the filmmakers had properly exploited the key plot device. The famed Dagger of Time served as little more than a gimmicky excuse for special effects. They did found only one good reason for its existence when Dastan used it to prove a point to his brother. That was all. The next time someone used it, they essentially undid the whole damn film to make way for an incredibly shitty quasi-happy ending. At least they didn't try and set up a sequel.

A decent movie, overall. Much better than you might expect of a videogame adaptation.

[Red Omen]

There's even more to the soundtrack than meets the eye. Ear. Whatever.

I'm sure you're aware that "Non, je ne regrette rien," the song used for the music cue in the kick, is sung by Edith Piaf, whom Cotillard played in a biopic. However, that swung brassy crescendo that serves as the signal, when slowed down, becomes the infamous BRAHM BRAHM in Zimmer's soundtrack. At one point he segues the two brilliantly. There's another track called Dream Within A Dream wherein he accompanies quick cuts between dream levels with music that plays in two meters simultaneously (called polymeter). It's a simple example of the technique, just three-against-two, but it's certainly there by design.

The ending theme, Time, is just wonderful. Amazing what you can do with just four chords.

[leokef]

[Red Omen]

.

[Martin Penwald]

[Kingpun]

the whole point as i recall was the fantasy world was there to escape that particularly nasty reality. i really didnt see the film properly though, i watched it with a bunch of noisy 15 year olds

[Smasha]

So I saw Strangers on a Train.

Supposed to be one of the finest psychological thrillers or suspense movies ever. If it is, then I guess I just don't care for those genres.

A woman is murdered when she is visiting a carnival with some friends. Early in the movie, we hear a line like this: "The men she was with that night are the ones who found her body, so they aren't suspects." The line is a pretty good summary of why I think this movie is stupid.

Spoilers aplenty ahead.

So Bruno's big idea is that if two strangers who meet at random and who meet only once each agree to kill someone for the other person then the murders won't be solved since motives won't be linked to the murderers. It isn't too long after Bruno commits the murder for Guy that he forces himself into Guy's presence - just outside his home in fact, on the night of the murder, carrying evidence (the victim's glasses), just while the police show up to break the news to Guy, who surely is already a suspect. Bruno says that Guy can't possibly turn him in since Guy will be charged as an accessory. I can buy this, though Bruno is taking is a big risk here. But besides this risk, Bruno has still violated what seems to be a key premise of his theory of the perfect murder. No longer have the two men just met once, at random. Someone could have seen Bruno and Guy together - the police themselves were right there.

Okay, so the first scene on the train has already established that Bruno is a little unhinged and far too direct. And if it hasn't been established in the first scene that Bruno's theories would never work, it will be established later. At the latest, it will be established through his failure during the denouement. Before then, it could be established when he tells the senator that he wants to "harness the life force," at least if we assume he isn't trying to bullshit the senator. But, despite all this, for the plot to work, we are required to believe that Bruno is "clever." This might mean that he is good at manipulating people. But at least it means that he has a high degree of foresight and is great at making plans. After all, he is able to follow Guy around for a significant amount of time without being noticed by the detectives who are also following Guy. Bruno is able to predict where and when Guy will be present with uncanny precision. He can somehow sneak notes into Guy's place. When Guy's fiancée confronts Bruno about the murder, he seems to have expected her, and is successful in his use of double-talk to both threaten her and Guy and convey to her what line he would give to the police should they come to him. If Bruno isn't "clever" then it would be some miracle or enormous set of coincidences that he would be successful at all those things that make him a menacing adversary.

Maybe that stuff about only meeting once wasn't really part of Bruno's theory of the perfect murder. He might be more clever than that; he said that the murderers should only meet once in order to manipulate Guy. Even assuming this, though, when Bruno inserts himself into Guy's social life it taxes our suspension of disbelief. How could he know Guy wouldn't panic at the sight of him and make conspicuous that Bruno is the murderer? How does Bruno know Guy wouldn't turn himself and Bruno in as part of a desperate attempt to keep a murderer away from his beloved future wife and in-laws? Maybe Bruno is right that Guy is only interested in this family for selfish reasons, for political power, not for love, but the movie leaves rather ambiguous if this is the case. At any rate, Bruno's self-insertion into Guy's social life does cause Guy's fiancée to figure out Bruno is the killer. What was Bruno trying to gain by making himself so present? Couldn't he just continue badgering Guy through telephone calls, visits alone at night, and notes snuck into Guy's presence? It couldn't have been that Bruno made his presence obvious in an attempt to make clear to Guy that he would murder someone else close to Guy if Guy didn't murder for Bruno. Bruno didn't know he was going to threaten to kill again until after he had already inserted himself into Guy's social sphere. The whole point of the sequences where Bruno fixes a dark stare at Guy's future sister-in-law is that he is compelled to kill her since she looks like his previous murder victim. It is also the point of the cinematography during the first murder. We only see the murder reflected in the victim's fallen glasses, glasses very similar to the one Guy's future sister-in-law wears.

So suppose we continue to suspend our disbelief. Bruno is indeed clever even though his choice to become known to Guy's family eventually causes him to be found out by someone. Just how clever is he? There is a rather precise moment where the movie deserves a throaty groan. Guy takes the key, gun, and map Bruno sent him and makes his way into Bruno's house late at night. He sneaks upstairs quietly, into Bruno's father's bedroom. We know he's going to find Bruno there, not the father. This scene is predictable, but that's not why it deserves a groan. Maybe in the 50's the conventions had not been established yet; maybe the scene wasn't predictable back then. No, the scene is stupid because Bruno doesn't turn on the light until after Guy calls out into the dark. How does Bruno know Guy wouldn't panic at the light and shoot blindly? How does Bruno know Guy wouldn't sneak toward the bed without calling out, or shoot toward the bed without entering the room? How does Bruno know Guy wouldn't take this opportunity to kill him, considering that he is prepared to kill at least someone? Before, it was questionable if Bruno is as clever as the plot needs him to be in order for the plot to work and for Bruno to be menacing. Now, Bruno seems too clever. He can see the future. We might try to find an excuse for this scene, still. Guy says to Bruno he came to "talk" to his father. This is a confabulation on Guy's part. Maybe he needed to visit at night, to escape the detectives who have been following him. But he could have rang the doorbell, or turned on some lights upstairs. He wouldn't have worried about the dog while trying to sneak upstairs (his worry is established quite clearly by the cinematography). Most importantly, he didn't need to bring the gun. But maybe we are really generous to this movie and say that, despite all that evidence, Guy really did just want to talk to Bruno's father, not murder him. Isn't Bruno still unreasonably clever here? Could Bruno have really known that Guy wasn't going to kill him in an attempt to kill his father?

The final scenes are maybe even worse. Bruno stole Guy's lighter during their first encounter on the train. The lighter has Guy's initials engraved on it. Even though it has been days (weeks?) since the murder, Bruno thinks that by planting the lighter at the scene of the crime he can frame Guy. We are expected to believe that the police hadn't already searched the scene of the crime, or that if they have, they will search it again. We are further expected to believe that if they do search the scene of the crime again they will not be able to tell that the lighter is planted evidence. Where will Bruno place it? If it is near the precise spot where the body was found, then the police would wonder how they could have missed it before.

Guy is in a big hurry to get to the scene of the crime, but why? The danger is that the police will find the planted evidence. Couldn't it be hours, or even days, before it is found? What is Guy's rush? Well, let's try to come up with explanations. Maybe Bruno would manipulate someone into calling the police saying he found a lighter at the place people say a murder occurred recently. This is rather a stretch; the movie gives no indication Bruno had any idea to do anything like this, or that Guy thought Bruno would do something like this. But even if Guy did, why would Bruno bother to plant the evidence anyway? Just give it to someone and manipulate him into turning it in to the police with the lie that it was found at the scene of the crime. Maybe Guy thinks that, once it is planted, he wouldn't be able to find the lighter. This is pretty reasonable, actually, but the movie doesn't do enough to show that this is what Guy thinks.

The detectives following Guy have not tried to arrest him before (they did consider it, though). They are following Guy to try to get dirt on him. When Guy runs away from the detectives to rush to the scene of the crime, and when they learn from a ticket salesman that Guy has gone to the town where the murder took place, the detectives call the police in that town. The movie establishes that now the police are out to arrest Guy, not merely trail him. They shoot at Guy (albeit after he shouts out at Bruno and chases after him) and when they eventually catch up to Guy (after the climatic battle and crash) they (nearly) arrest him. Well, what grounds do they have for shooting at Guy and trying to arrest him? The murder took place in his home town after all; he isn't breaking any laws or doing anything too suspicious by coming here. His earlier escape from the detectives that had been following him would get the police suspicious, of course, but it is hard to see how they are justified in trying to shoot him or arrest him. I dunno; maybe I just don't understand how things worked in the 50's.

Guy shouts out Bruno's name and chases him. Why doesn't he try silently following Bruno to see where Bruno plants the evidence? The movie isn't really clear on this, but we do know that Guy knows the police are looking for him, so maybe he is in a hurry to stop the evidence from being planted before the police stop him. Bruno inexplicably boards a carousel. Guy runs onto the carousel and the police shoot at him, accidentally killing the carousel operator. We are expected to believe the police would shoot in the direction of a carousel filled with people, some of whom are children. And that the person they hit just so happens to be the operator, even though he ought to be hard to hit, since he is standing in the middle of the carousel and hence has people and the carousel horses between him and the police. The control lever slips and the carousel speeds up, spinning around at a frightening pace. A stupid fight between Bruno and Guy commences on the carousel, one whose outcome matters nothing for the resolution of the plot. The crowd panics about the people trapped on the carousel; Guy saves a kid from falling off, and Guy desperately holds on at the end, barely able to stay on. I guess maybe I overestimate how much impact a human body can withstand, but what is the big deal if people fall off? The ground is a few feet below at most. People in the crowds could try catching the children. The carousel is spinning around fast, but how fast would it need to be going before falling off would be dangerous? At worst, wouldn't people just kinda roll?

Someone crawls under the carousel, reaches the middle portion, and pulls one of the control levers. The carousel shudders, horses go flying, sparks flash, and the carousel comes to a crashing halt. Presumably the carousel isn't meant to stop suddenly when it goes that fast. Fair enough, but why didn't the man who reached the lever pull it more gradually or something? Maybe he didn't know better. Contrary to appearances, maybe he didn't work for the carnival, or maybe he did but never operated the carousel. This would make some sense, but the problem is that the movie shows us that he is actually quite knowledgeable about the carousel. He knows that someone needs to reach the lever, he knows it can be reached by crawling underneath, and he even knows where to crawl so that he emerges right near the lever rather than on the side opposite the carousel's central axis from the lever. He was probably killed or injured when the carousel crashed. He must know a lot about the carousel, but not enough to stop the crash or prevent injury to himself. This is implausible. The implausibility might be forgivable if the movie's denouement otherwise made sense, but it doesn't. Bruno is pinned under a portion of the carousel and dies; this has no clear connection to the outcome of the fight on the carousel; it seems Bruno was just unlucky. Guy seems mostly uninjured. All the other people who must have been killed or injured in the crash are not mentioned or captured in frame. In fact, the movie at this point seems to try to create a tone of relief. Certainly it tries to suggest that, in this crash, everything is rather neatly resolved. Guy takes the lighter from Bruno, and Guy gives it to the police, who indicate that they think the case has been closed. From shooting at a guy (shots so desperate they are in the direction of a crowded carousel) to confidently proclaiming he is innocent, all within a few minutes.

Besides the lighter, the police get the testimony of the man who operates the love boat ride. It turns out that he was suspicious about Bruno since the time of the murder. During the carousel scene, he wonders why the police move to arrest Guy, when Bruno is the one he saw the night of the murder. The film needs this bit of testimony, since Bruno's possession of the lighter hardly seems a good enough reason for the police to think the case is closed and Guy is innocent. But the question then must be raised: was the love boat operator questioned by police before, during the initial investigation of the murder? Couldn't they have shown him a photo of the suspect, Guy? If the police did question the boat operator before, and show him a photograph of Guy, it is a little awkward the movie makes no indication of this. If the boat operator wasn't shown a photograph before, it could be because the police were not thorough when they spoke to him, or that the boat operator didn't bother to talk to the police. If the former, then the police are nincompoops. If the latter, then the boat operator has bizarre priorities. He didn't care to talk to the police shortly after the murder, but he is eager to talk to them after the fight on the carousel. Of course, if the boat operator was shown a photograph and he pointed out that Guy was not the man he saw the night of the murder, it would hardly clear up Guy's name. The boat operator could have had a false positive; he could have been suspicious about someone who is in fact innocent. The police were not investigating Bruno, so no photo of him could have been shown to the operator. The importance to the plot of the boat operator's testimony isn't stupid in itself. But the testimony kinda comes out of left field, and it is a bit of a coincidence that the boat operator would be present to see the fight on the carousel, which could only have lasted a few minutes.

Despite all these plot holes and inconsistencies, I can kinda see how some people would like this movie. The acting is strong, though the male characters were done better than the female. It is remarkable how much can be conveyed in a glance that is just a little too still, or in a smile that lingers just a little too long. The symbolism is both subtle and powerful. Criss-crossing murders are compared to the criss-crossing back-and-forth of tennis. The doors of a bus snap shut like a trap. The cinematography is outstanding. The mansions and frequent shots through gates and grills make Washington DC strangely (though delightfully) Gothic.

I can kinda see. It is a movie that requires you to expend some effort to follow along with the character's intentions. Is it not a psychological thriller, where we are motivated to wonder deeply about the attitudes and mental faculties of the characters? Is it not suspense, where we are expected to be wondering hard how the main character can be rationally proven innocent? Yet it seems the same amount of thought it takes to follow the movie is sufficient to reveal myriad implausibilities and contrivances. I guess there are some people who just don't see these things when they watch the movie, or do see them but quickly ignore them or find excuses for them. I guess those are the people who like psychological thrillers and suspense movies. I guess I am not one of them.

[Ace!]

Of all the Hitchcock I've seen, I like that one the least. To be honest, I strongly dislike it. It's goofy, it's melodramatic and there is far too much ridiculous humor to make anything tense. Aunt Clara in particular was too Bewitched for me to take anything she had to say seriously, and the stunning conclusion on the merry-go-round of doom made me laugh out loud.

I think you'd be a fan of the genre if you watched a solid entry. Strangers on a Train most certainly is not one of those.

[Smasha]

Well I did very much enjoy Rear Window. The Birds I don't have strong opinions about. I think I might have seen Psycho once, but I don't remember it well. I know what happens in it since it has diffused throughout our culture.

[Red Omen]

Why not try Vertigo?

[Ace!]

YES. Please do Vertigo. That and North by Northwest are my two favorite Hitchcock movies.