Serious Movie Discussion

[Bullitt68]

Originally Posted by sweede

Road to Perdition (2002) - 8/10

Tom Hanks and Paul Newman. Two of my least favorite actors. Doesn't make for a good combination

I liked this movie well-enough, but I don't think it's underrated. I think it's rated just fine: Some people have seen it and some like it a lot and some just think it's meh.

Originally Posted by sweede

The Assassination of Jesse James (2007)

I talked about this one a while ago when I first watched it.

Originally Posted by Bullitt68

I watched The Assassination of Jesse James last night and wow, what a mixed bag.

First of all, I think this is the perfect film to showcase Brad Pitt's limitations as an actor. I've never thought he was that great and is FAR from deserving consideration even as one of the best actors working today, let alone of all-time, and this film is an example of what he can't do.

However, I'm not blaming him for the performance. Andrew Dominik made a lot of mistakes in that film and I think the biggest one was the way he handled the Jesse James character. I don't even really know what he wanted from the character. Was he trying to juxtapose the mythical nature with his troubled human side? I honestly don't know. All I know is that, if that's what he was trying to do, he needed a better actor because Pitt couldn't pull it off.

The scene where Pitt is going to kill Garret Dillahunt is probably the best piece of acting I've ever seen from Pitt and I don't know why the director didn't make the character like that for the whole film. He should've used the mythical qualities of Jesse James instead of bringing them out for a scene or two and then switching back to making him a weird mix of a tough front hiding a troubled soul.

When Pitt was quiet, pensive, and menacing, it was really something else. A marvel to watch, but then he's given tons of lines and has to flip out like he did on the train and at the farm with the kid and with Casey Affleck near the end and he's not a good enough actor to pull off those scenes in a believable fashion and he brings the character down and the film down, too.

I also thought Affleck was pretty poor casting. I don't think he did a very good job and considering how important the character was to the film, a better actor would've helped a lot.

Overall, I'll say the film was a disappointment since there were so many choices made by the director that I didn't agree with at all, but I'll also say that I think the film should've won for Cinematography over There Will Be Blood. I can't recall ANY film over the last five or ten years shot better than this one, and the opening train robbery was one of the most magnificent scenes I've ever seen.

The whole film was a how-to when it comes to lighting and easily the best lighting in film since Barry Lyndon, and the combination of the lighting and the cinematography made the film a visual treat. Not enough to make me think any higher of the film, but the visuals definitely deserve all of the praise that they can possibly be given.

Originally Posted by Bullitt68

This I disagree with. I thought their relationship left way too much to be desired. Where the director succeeded was in letting us see how strong Affleck's idolatry was. The scene where Sam Rockwell and Jeremy Renner are making fun of him and his book collection is great, but the scenes where Affleck and Pitt were actually together and were forming some semblance of a relationship were poor IMO.



I got this, too, but I think it could've been done better by doing a better job handling the character throughout. Scenes like when he's on the ice or about to cry after giving Affleck the gun seem random and out of place, and the randomness coupled with Pitt's weak performance hurt the resonance.



I didn't mention the score but I agree that it was very good.



This I just disagree with vehemently since I don't think the acting was top drawer at all, and when Pitt "plays crazy" is when he's at his worst in the film. It's when he's quiet and staring through you as if he sees the gears in your mind working and knows what you're going to think of before you come to the conclusion yourself is him at his strongest---and scariest---and again, the fact that that wasn't played up more is the fault of the director, not Pitt himself.



I actually don't think it's anything you need to run out and see if you haven't already done so. It's a watchable film with tremendous visuals, but if you haven't seen it, it's not like it's this gaping hole in your moviegoing.

Originally Posted by Bullitt68

If you liken [Pitt's] character to a coin, he had the heads down---the bad ass outlaw, the terrifying killer---while the tails side of the coin was lacking severely---the wild man who can't control his emotions under stress, as evidenced in the train robbery or at the farm with the young boy, and the unraveling outlaw waiting and hoping for death.

His character was, essentially, two different people, and he only had the capability to pull off one of the two sides of the coin.



I'm not going to pretend I'm a casting director and I can spot the diamonds in the rough and know who would play what part and how well they'd do it. All I know is I didn't get from Brad Pitt what was necessary to bring all of the elements of the character the writer/director seemed to want out of him.

A lot of times I was likening Pitt's Jesse James character to Russell Crowe's Ben Wade, and I think the way Wade was constructed and performed was a lot better. In Ben Wade, you got the larger-than-life mythical outlaw, but instead of flip-flopping back and forth to an in-control bad ass killer and a whiny, childish, out-of-control, unraveling mess of a human, we just saw cracks along the way. Ben Wade wasn't made as much of a schizo as Jesse James was.

I was also reminded of Tom Cruise in Collateral, whose breakdown was much larger and who was already at a much more volatile psychological state. Cruise's character seemed closer to Jesse James since it was a character used to being in-control and whose facade was breaking away, but it wasn't conveyed as well in Pitt's case since the director seemed to be all over the place with what he was trying to do and because Pitt didn't have the acting ability to play the character the way the director seemed to want him played.

Now just because I'm saying Russell Crowe and Tom Cruise did a better job in their respective characters, both of which were similar to Pitt's Jesse James character, doesn't mean I'm saying that they could've done Jesse James better. I'm just saying that I wish the character had been handled closer to the way those characters were handled, but even if they weren't, with the way the character ended up appearing on-screen, it would've been better if someone else had done it other than Pitt because I felt he gave his best effort but he just didn't have what it took to make scenes like when he's got the knife to Affleck's throat or when he's slapping the young boy around very emotional. In both of those scenes, I was kind of cringing because I knew I was seeing an actor trying to do something he didn't have the skill to pull off.

And since you like the film, sweede, I'll recommend Samuel Fuller's film I Shot Jesse James.

Originally Posted by Bullitt68

Last night, I watched my first Samuel Fuller film. TCM showed the first three films he made as a director after he got back from WWII, and his first film is the one I watched: I Shot Jesse James.

It was a really good Western, and more than that, it was really a character study set in the West. Like The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, the film shows Ford kill James, but unlike the newer film, which is really an epic Western that follows Ford from the time he joins James' gang all the way through to when he finally dies, I Shot Jesse James pretty much begins at the ending of The Assassination of Jesse James where Ford and his brother are at James' house before Ford kills him.

What I loved about Fuller's film was the way he didn't make his own ideas about Ford known through his handling of the character. He didn't make the film trying to show the audience that Ford was a coward. He showed him as a conflicted man feeling extremely guilty about killing his friend, but he did it so he could be with the woman he loved, so he felt justified, and that's why he felt so conflicted before killing him and why he's so torn up after he kills him.

The film includes several scenes later included in The Assassination of Jesse James, and if you liked that film, I think you'd find Fuller's film pretty interesting. John Ireland did a great job as Robert Ford, too. Much better than Casey Affleck, IMO.

Originally Posted by sweede

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009)

I'd give that like a 4 or 5 out of 10 and I'd give the first one a 6.

Originally Posted by Article125

You know what movie kicks ass? Virtuosity.

Fuck yeah it does.

[hugekent]

Originally Posted by Joe McPherson

Completely agree. Probably one of the best gangster movies ever made and it's pretty much forgotten about by most people.

I'll third that. Paul Newman is excellent in it, as is everyone really. It was especially weird seeing Jude Law as the creepy bad guy, and I though he was very good. I've only seen it once but I was really into it so I'll have to revisit.

Soda, you can add John Malkovich to your list. I was on Rotten Tomatoes today reading various people's top 5 movies and he had Tropa de Elite in his.

[gunranger2]

Originally Posted by Johner

Agreed, this movie should have been a sure winner on Cinematography, Musical Score and Supporting Actor for Casey Affleck.

It's visually awesome, had some quality acting, one of the best scores ever and I felt so much anger towards Robert Ford, I fucking hated that piece of shit character. Which means Casey did an excellent job.

I agree. I cared more for Casey's character than I did Bardem's.

[Johner]

So, has anyone mentioned Tropa de Elite yet in this thread?

[SpiderFan4life]

Watched several movies recently:

Up - a truly excellent movie,heartfelt,funny and lovely.

Slumdog Millionaire- a mix bag of bad acting/screenplay and great cinematography...how this won 7 oscars is beyond me.

No Country For Old Men-Great directing by the Coens and a great acting ensemble make this very absorbing and thrilling movie.

Star Trek(2009) - Surprisingly very,very entertaining and fun...the story could have been worked out a little bit more,but on the whole a satisfying blockbuster.

[xtrailx]

Originally Posted by gunranger2

I read about that movie and it got all positive reviews. Dont hear that often about straight to dvd flicks.

You do when the movie is of the 'horror' genre. Mainstream or theatrically released films (at least in the US) are done for the sole purpose of generating revenue.

Most 'great' horror recently have been making the festival run then maybe after a year or 2 getting a VERY limited theatrical run.

The only reason that 'Paranormal Activity' was given such a wide release is because 1)over a million 'fans' demanded it, and 2) the studio approached the writer/director/actor about him remaking the film with a far greater budget, it only cost 10k, but when the screeners were sent out the response was overwhelmingly positive so the studio made the smart money-decision and released a great $10k movie so they could make a HUGE profit off of it.

Straight to video movies aren't necessarily done so because they are bad. Its just cheaper to do so than risk something in theaters that only appeals to a select audience.

[jlagman]

Originally Posted by flemmy

i also liked the payoff of seeing him unmasked. a little goofy, but they at least went for it and it's always satisfying to see the monster behind the mask.

Sorry, gotta disagree with this part, I hated seeing Sam unmasked, generally I find leaving things shrouded in mystery much more scary than revealing it. Part of the creepiness comes from wondering and imagining. I dunno, perhaps it was a throwback to the practical effects used in '80s horror flicks, but I didn't care for it one bit.

[Will Jacobs]

Originally Posted by Johner

Find two others you disagree with or that you're unsure of so we can have a best out of three. The Fischer-Stevenson one is the one I'm most unsure of, I just expect the "I CAN BOX WHILE YELLING REALLY LOUD" Stevenson to come out and get decisioned by a better striker.

There are none others I'm willing to bet on. It's a one fight bet or nothing.

[F[o]rged]

I watched All the President's Men this past week for a humanities class. Anyone else seen it? It was pretty good.

[JSN]

Originally Posted by Article125

YouTube - Virtuosity Trailer (1995)

haha i remember watching that at my friends grandma's house when we were in like middle school. when russel's crowe's butt was exposed, she blurted out "great tush."

there's something especially hilarious about hearing that from a 70 year old mexican lady.