| Author |
 Topic  |
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
 Posted - 12/31/2008 : 14:36:04
|
| I've just become aware of your Xmas '08 film-watching thru my assiduous pursuit of accolades. AMADEUS and FARGO both disappointed? Fascinating. Why? |
|
|
bife 
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 01/01/2009 : 06:53:29
|
Randall, you make accolade-creation worthwhile! I'm sure no one else would have found it for ages. I will be adding a trophy soon 
To answer the question, I'll first apologise by admitting i am very inarticulate when it comes to film critique. I don't understand direction, scriptwriting, editing etc etc, and most of the time i can't even explain what i like or don't like about a film - i just do or don't.
And part of the problem with both of these films was expectation - I'd been looking forward to them for a long time and had heard consistently good things about them from people who's filmic opinion's i respect.
I found Fargo humdrum, didn't care for the story or the people, and it seemed to force form over substance. I tired quickly of the pseudo-dialogue (don't know if it was supposed to be 'realistic', i just found it annoying). I saw it 4 or 5 days ago, in truth I can already remember very little about it. It wasn't a bad movie, it was just very average and not worth any of the hype I'd heard.
** MINOR SPOILERS FOR AMADEUS **
Amadeus suffered from the same excess of expectation as Fargo, I enjoyed it even less at the time but i think in retrospect it was the better film, in that at least it left me thinking about it afterwards.
My main gripe with Amadeus was boredom.
It was a film with little story, where the focus was the two main characters, which could have been fine except that one of them was just a prick, and the other a small-minded, characterless nerd.
The film force-fed me Mozart's genius - I could have just accepted it, but that didn't seem good enough, I needed it shoved down my throat. Long, long stretches of classical music to show Salieri's mediocrity vs Mozart's brilliance, problem is I'm a bit of a pleb and i couldn't tell the difference between the two, I had to rely on Salieri's narrative explaining that his was so much inferior!
So, a character-based film with lead characters that were not only dislikable but also lacked any depth, on a subject matter i don't really 'get' but would happily have 'accepted' without the long 'proofs'.
What I did like about Amadeus, and what has stayed with me, are some of the themes. I loved the final scene, as Salieri was wheeled away proclaiming himself king of the mediocre and average folk, I loved the idea of him striving for greatness but only being good enough to recognise in someone else, and of his frustration as his legacy slowly dies.
But I loved the idea of these things, not their execution. The characters were too one-dimensional and the film too boring, too long and filled with too many opera excerpts.
Apologies again for the inarticulate response - "the films were a disappointment because they were boring" might not start a whole lot of discussion - but that's the nub of it |
Edited by - bife on 01/01/2009 06:56:28 |
 |
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 01/01/2009 : 13:00:08
|
No, you're very articulate about these flicks. It's fascinating to hear a dissenting view, since they've both been canonized by now.
Re FARGO, the "ordinariness" of it, for me, was the point -- almost to a suspect mode a la David Lynch. Most Americans were unfamiliar with the Upper Midwestern dialect before this movie appeared, and I can't count how many Midwesterners told me, "That's exactly how my gramma talks!" or such. The shock of recognition. And the fact that these [often comically] dark deeds took place against such a pure-driven backdrop also felt fresh.
AMADEUS is one of the few stage-to-screen transfers that works better, for me, as a movie. [I'm told FROST/NIXON does too.] [If GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS had included the Alec Baldwin scene on stage, it would fall into the vast majority as well, along with such stalwarts as A FEW GOOD MEN, a weak shadow of its stage self as a film.] The Prague backdrops, the incredible candlelit opera house [what a tinderbox: how did they ever get permission to shoot there?], they all open up the tale and leave jaws agape. That last scene which you admired is the story; I'm in the minority, but I felt that Tom Hulce was a weak link -- but perhaps that's only my repulsion to the character, not the actor, thus a high compliment to Mr. Hulce's craft!
Anyhow, it's tough to "keep the glow on" when discovering many of these movies many years later [CITIZEN KANE never fades!], and I'm delighted to have your contemporary take. |
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 01/05/2009 : 06:11:26
|
I'm sure time has something to do with it, many films I watched 15/20 years ago, which I considered classics, don't do the same for me now.
Fargo may be one of those films that brought new things to cinema, but watching it now for the first time there wasn't anything original there. Maybe I'm just 15 years too late.
I'm upgrading my opinion on Amadeus to 'good', because it really has stayed with me and I've found myself going over it again in my mind. You are right that the scene I enjoyed so much IS the film, but I still find it a shame that it took so long to get there, it COULD have been a classic for me too but falls short because it's just too damn boring.
I watched Casablanca for the first time on Sunday night. Black and white, no special effects, 'dated' acting and script - but not a shred of doubt that this IS a classic film, can't believe I went 39 years without seeing it.
Also saw Seven Pounds, at the cinema saturday night - what a waste of an intriguing concept. I wont give away the plot (although to call it a spoiler is really to insult your intelligence), but why take such an original idea and turn it into a second rate love story? Seems to be a Will Smith thing right now if this and I am Legend are representative of what he wants to do - great ideas badly executed.
Actually, was a busy christmas and new year, caught up on a lot of films i'd wanted to see for a long time; City of God (very good), Persopolis (good), Life is Beautiful (good but flawed), Baran (good, if you can look past what I assume is dubious acting even in Farsi) and Nine Queens (decent), as well as casablanca, amadeus and fargo and a pile of less remarkable (and mostly children's) titles. |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/06/2009 : 01:51:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
I found Fargo humdrum, didn't care for the story or the people, and it seemed to force form over substance. I tired quickly of the pseudo-dialogue (don't know if it was supposed to be 'realistic', i just found it annoying).
Not caring for the characters isn't a problem for me. E.g., Pulp Fiction, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels have no 'likeable' characters but they're excellent movies.
The 'pseudo-dialogue' is a part of the Coen style. They exaggerate character traits so the characters are a little OTT but not excessively so. I love this movie.quote:
My main gripe with Amadeus was boredom.
.
.
Long, long stretches of classical music to show Salieri's mediocrity vs Mozart's brilliance, problem is I'm a bit of a pleb and i couldn't tell the difference between the two...
...on a subject matter i don't really 'get' but would happily have 'accepted' without the long 'proofs'.
This all adds up to "you don't like the subject matter". I can't imagine someone loving this movie if they didn't inherently love the subject matter - the music. Likewise, someone could make the best-ever biographical drama about a musician, but if the subject in question was a hip-hop artist then I'd kill anyone who tried to drag me to the cinema to see it. 
If you don't love Mozart's music then I can see it being very difficult to like Amadeus. |
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 01/06/2009 : 02:45:16
|
I understand and agree with what you are saying about characters sean, but i think we are at cross-purposes. I have liked many films where I didn't 'like' any of the characters (both of the films you mention included), but then the characters usually have to at least engage me. The problem with Fargo wasn't that i didn't 'like' the characters, it was that I had no emotional or intellectual response of any sort to them.
It does help to like the subject matter of a film, but i don't think it's critical. I've long had an interest in 16th century english history but i can't think of a Tudor-period film that i have any regard for. And I've an extensive interest in 1970's Cambodian history but The Killing Fields, whilst shocking in its time and important in bringing events in cambodia to a wider public, is still a weak film. As a biography I'll admit to no interest in JM Barrie or Peter Pan, but I loved Finding Neverland. I also like the Johnny Cash biography, but have no interest in his music. And I just can't believe that in the late 20th century all the praise heaped on amadeus came from die-hard Mozart fans!
Amadeus did overplay the subject-matter for a non-Mozart fan, and that decidedly reduced my interest, but i think my disappointment stemmed from more than that. |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 01/06/2009 : 06:20:49
|
Fair enough. Then I'll remain confused about why you didn't like those movies.  |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/06/2009 : 12:01:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
I've long had an interest in 16th century english history but i can't think of a Tudor-period film that i have any regard for.
A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS isn't bad. 
|
|
|
|
bife
"Winners never quit ... fwfr ... "
|
Posted - 01/06/2009 : 12:22:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS isn't bad.
It's gone straight onto my 'movies to rent' list
Sean - what kind of a disagreement discussion is this? "Fair enough"? Pah! I smite your "fair enough" with my Bill & Ted box set ... |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 01/06/2009 : 12:40:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by bife
I've long had an interest in 16th century english history but i can't think of a Tudor-period film that i have any regard for.
A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS isn't bad.
Actually, A Man for All Seasons is EXCELLENT.
And while it isn't perfect, Anne of a Thousand Days does a very good job with investigating that primary Boleyn girl.
But if you're willing to go back several centuries before this period and still stick with English history, don't miss the original version (not the Hallmark remake) of A Lion in Winter and Becket - that famous duo of films where O'Toole plays Henry II in both of them, and got Oscar nominations for both performances.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/06/2009 : 12:45:28
|
I just KNEW you were going to say A LION IN WINTER.
And how did I know that? 
|
Edited by - Whippersnapper. on 01/06/2009 12:49:30 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 01/06/2009 : 14:03:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I just KNEW you were going to say A LION IN WINTER.
And how did I know that?
Um... maybe because it is one of my all-time favourite films starring my all-time favourite actress?
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 01/06/2009 : 15:07:26
|
You got it in one! |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 01/06/2009 : 15:31:20
|
Funny -- it's one of my least favorite movies.
Oooh, look at this guy being contrary over here. |
|
|
|
demonic
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 01/06/2009 : 16:22:12
|
| "A Lion in Winter" is a significant gap in my viewing, but I'd highly recommend "A Man for All Seasons" too. A brilliant play given a first rate cast on film; Scofield, McKern, Davenport, Robert Shaw and John Hurt are all awesome. I talked to John Hurt about it when I met him a few years ago having recently played the same part on stage and he had some interesting things to say about the parallels between the trecherous grasping Richard Rich and Tony Blair. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 01/11/2009 : 19:38:37
|
The good news: I played Thomas More in college.
The bad news: instead of A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, it was in ANNE OF THE THOUSAND DAYS. [It's only a cameo in that one.] |
Edited by - randall on 01/11/2009 19:39:15 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
bife bife bife!
