NitrateVille.com

I try to keep up with the film world , so that I don't descend into fuddy-duddyism.

I just got GRAVITY and AMERICAN HUSTLE from my library.

Gravity was one long roller-coaster ride. Some well-executed scenes with computer graphics, but too many were very similar to each other. Nothing like a great director's eye (John Ford)--but not much of that here. Too much reliance on CGI. I kept waiting for some character development, as well. The film needed ten minutes or so to set-up the story and characters, and a little less "lost in space." This seemed like an exercise in 3-D---we made it cause we could.

AMERICAN HUSTLE had style, a literate script, and intricate characters. Easy to see why it was so praised, but at times it felt like too much characterizing thru talking-heads, and not enough incident that would reveal character. Fatigue-inducing, even with the good acting. Woody Allen meets the Sopranos. And what is this obsession with the f-bomb? Aren't there other words that work better? Cheapens the effect. Robert DiNiro has a memorable cameo--but I caught merely one second of crooner Jack Jones--don't get that one.

How about American Hustle on the space shuttle? A mash-up!

Maybe I am an old fuddy-duddy. What do others think?

I have an unviewed copy of THE WOLF OF WALL STREET on hand. I hear it coins a new word, "fumbah," instead of the usual f-bomb. I'll find out soon if this is true or not.

The last movie I actually saw in a theater was last year's THE GREAT GATSBY, hardly a wild choice. I was tempted to see GRAVITY but will settle for cable, even though it's not the ideal option.

I agree about American Hustle. The characterizations were good but the story wasn't engaging enough for me to be wholly interested in the movie. Worth seeing once but I wouldn't seek it out again.

The Wolf of Wall Street was definitely more entertaining, but it was uneven and pretty long. I got a lot of good laughs from it though. If you're sensitive to language, I would avoid it. (But what do you expect from Scorcese?)

I watched Inside Llewyn Davis the other day and it typified the mediocre (at best) award nominee that was just crafted with cliches because the filmmakers wanted to win an award. The cast was very good but the story just wasn't there and it dragged on and on and on. It was depressing for the sake of it and never seemed to really say anything. It just was. I wanted to see it because I love Carey Mulligan, and while she usually picks great films to work on, this one fell completely flat.

The best modern movie I saw recently was called About Time. I heard about it from Leonard Maltin's blog and it is definitely a sappy movie, but in a good way. It held my interest the entire time and I think it had a lot to say about appreciating each day of your life and realizing that even your smallest decisions can change your course.

Phillyrich wrote:I try to keep up with the film world , so that I don't descend into fuddy-duddyism.

Is that what the application of taste, discrimination, & intelligence is called in 2014? When ignoramuses think well of you, that is just cause for concern.

Anyway, can't one learn all one doesn't want to know about the modern film world merely by perusing the magazine covers displayed at the supermarket checkout lane?

entredeuxguerres wrote: Anyway, can't one learn all one doesn't want to know about the modern film world merely by perusing the magazine covers displayed at the supermarket checkout lane?

No. Often the hidden gems aren't well advertized. Just because it is modern doesn't mean it should be ignored, just as modern audiences shouldn't ignore the classic film era simply because it is old.

the issue is what you bring to the movie as well as what the movie brings to you. In SF, there is a subgenre of "hard sf" in which the revelation of the physical universe as it exists in the principal plot. Larry Niven's Neutron Star is a fine example of that: minimal character, but the central mystery sustains the story. Even though that central item will become a standard item in the sf lexicon in time, that first appearance is startling, engaging and an utter mystery to future generations. It's like the youngster who said of Shakespeare that he just stole a bunch of old quotes, or the panel I used to run at conventions. "Science Fiction Before You Were Born", I always started with the observation that H.P. Lovecraft had not stolen Hastur and the Lake of Hali on the Plateau of Leng from Marion Zimmer Bradley; he had stolen them from Robert Chambers, who had stolen them from Ambrose Bierce.

Gravity is an example of this story and it serves its purpose admirably. The point is the roller coaster ride and the grandeur of Earth and Space.

The other two movies mentioned are ones I feel are lesser. I knew some of the people involved in the reality behind The Wolf of Wall Street and they were not fun-loving folks. They were mean bastards who f**ked over anyone for their own pleasure and profit and I am more than tired of the Scorsese character. In Final Cut, one of the people at UA who was not thrilled with the idea of Raging Bull said "I don't know if people will want to see a movie about a cockroach." This enraged DeNiro, but I am sorry: Scorsese makes movies about cockroaches and I don't like cockroaches.

As for Inside Llewellyn Davis, some days I think that the Coen Brothers hate everyone but Jeff Bridges and Frances McDormand.

Bob

I too watch as many modern pictures as I watch old ones. The three you have quoted viz., "Gravity", "American Hustle" and "The Wolf of Wall Street" would be on the bottom of the heap as far as I am concerned.

Whilst the scenery in "Gravity" was visually pleasing, the storyline was rather thin and basically there wasn't all that much to it.

"American Hustle" was just plain boring. I fell asleep somewhere along the way. I found it a very poorly made picture.

The subject material of "The Wolf of Wall Street" was so revolting that it overpowered any possibility of enjoying this picture.

Whilst we have an argument thrust upon us that the constant swearing is a reflection of realism I often wonder where that realism is? The group of people with whom I congregate certainly don't speak like those nowadays portrayed on the screen. We considered it to be the language of the gutter and used by "low life" - so it would appear that films these days are made about such people?

Of the modern pictures I have enjoyed - and there are some, I would far rather include "Philomena", "Saving Mr. Banks". "The Book Thief". "The Best Offer", "All is Lost" and "Captain Phillips" on my list.

In conclusion, I would say there is nothing at all wrong with being a fuddy-duddy. I have been one for many years - even when I was young.

I knew I was a fuddy duddy in training during grade school, when I would read volumes of an encyclopedia during free time.

westegg wrote:I knew I was a fuddy duddy in training during grade school, when I would read volumes of an encyclopedia during free time.

God bless the door-to-door salesman who sold my mother World Book when I was about 10; by the time I reached high-school, I'm sure I had about half of it memorized.

entredeuxguerres wrote:Anyway, can't one learn all one doesn't want to know about the modern film world merely by perusing the magazine covers displayed at the supermarket checkout lane?

Just returned from grocery store--that's how I know that Angelina is preggo again; thrilling news, what?

Bob, I always enjoy your carefully thought-out responses. People sure can see things differently. With GRAVITY though, I'd have to say we already have a pretty good idea (film-wise) of the majesty of outer space. I always thought what made outer space special--is that we journey into it. The human story in GRAVITY is strangely cold to me--two cliché characters. Of course one dare not make a sci fi movie with something thoughtful about religion connected to the universe--but that I didn't expect.

In thinking more about it, GRAVITY might have been better as a silent movie!

Phillyrich wrote: ...Of course one dare not make a sci fi movie with something thoughtful about religion connected to the universe--but that I didn't expect.

The Incredible Shrinking Man dared to do so; but that was in 1957.

entredeuxguerres wrote:

entredeuxguerres wrote:Anyway, can't one learn all one doesn't want to know about the modern film world merely by perusing the magazine covers displayed at the supermarket checkout lane?

Just returned from grocery store--that's how I know that Angelina is preggo again; thrilling news, what?

That's celebrity gossip. Not movies.

entredeuxguerres wrote:

Phillyrich wrote: ...Of course one dare not make a sci fi movie with something thoughtful about religion connected to the universe--but that I didn't expect.

The Incredible Shrinking Man dared to do so; but that was in 1957.

I recently saw, The Magnetic Monster, from the 1950s, and I really enjoyed the didactic
element of teaching raw scientific facts that one sometimes came across in earlier science fiction.
That would be awesome today, when so much advanced goes on under our fingertips,
with many not knowing much about it.

Phillyrich wrote:Bob, I always enjoy your carefully thought-out responses. People sure can see things differently. With GRAVITY though, I'd have to say we already have a pretty good idea (film-wise) of the majesty of outer space. I always thought what made outer space special--is that we journey into it. The human story in GRAVITY is strangely cold to me--two cliché characters. Of course one dare not make a sci fi movie with something thoughtful about religion connected to the universe--but that I didn't expect.

In thinking more about it, GRAVITY might have been better as a silent movie!

Me too, but we are not the intended audience of Gravity, any more than Richard Feynman was the intended audience of Neutron Star. We're a couple of old fuddy-duddies who have bookmarked the Hubble scope pix. As you note, what makes outer space so special is that we journey into it, despite the risks, portrayed here. There used to be lots of sf movies with something to say in the subtext. Now it's all "Sparkly vampires are cool and zombies like hirnzuppe.

Bob

Gravity isn't a movie about space, it's a movie about a woman who's lost all her connections to other people. Space is the metaphor her story is set in. It could have been set in a boarding house in London, but then it would be a Harold Pinter play instead of a special effects extravaganza.



Tomorrow I'll explain why Jean Arthur's husband's ship rams into an iceberg in History Is Made at Night.

Just leave Groucho's cigar alone!

Bob

Yeah, what Mike said about Gravity. It also takes place in space, mostly outside of the spacecraft. The whole point of the movie is that she is alone with no hope of rescue so she has to find the inner and outer strength to survive. How would you expect them to film this without CGI special effects?

If you saw it in 3-D in a theater, you really get the feeling of weightlessness.

If you saw it in 3-D in a theater, you really get the feeling of weightlessness

For that alone, this rather corpulent correspondent would be eternally thankful!