NitrateVille.com

Well, 2015 is gone, and I'm glad for that for many reasons. I'll be seeing foreign films from last year in theaters for months to come, but with the total currently standing at 117 movies from the year, I'll start by noting it was a lousy year for movies. There were a couple of good franchise flicks -- Star Wars: The Force Awakens was a movie I went to see out of a sense of duty and turned out to be as good as it could be. However, overall it was a lousy year. Judging by my ratings on the IMDB, it was the 13th worst year of movies since 1894. I suspect the industry is fat and stupid and requires some shaking up. I hope I live to see that.

One of the reasons for this sour apprehension may be my seasonal depression during a cloud-laden winter solstice. However, I don't think so. The Oscar bait this year has been disappointing. It is good to know, as Suffragette informs us, that the movie industry is in favor of votes for women. Certainly they got some excellent actresses to make this point. However, they might have spent some effort on a script (this is usually my complaint) as this little more than an ABC After School Special.

On New Year's Day I saw the latest Quentin Tarrantino movie, The Hateful Eight. It more than lived up to its title. I wanted everyone dead and that does not endear a movie to me. Also, they pulled out some lenses not used in half a century to shoot it at 2.76/1. While this worked pretty well for long shots of horses running in the snow, I soon noticed that large swaths of the screen were left unused, with no blocking to indicate the composition. Thomas Ince figured out how to do this a century ago. By the 1920s, they had figured out how to move the cameras when people were moving to maintain composition. Perhaps while Tarrantino is not indulging his foot fetish or writing scripts by linking shots from old chop-socky flicks, he might spare few hours examining films from the studio era.

Last week my new movie was Joy, a feel-good movie with Jennifer Lawrence in an Oscar-bait role for David O. Russell. At least, it was Oscar bait until it broke apart with De Niro doing a Scorsese-level bit of creepiness at the end and I realized that all the emotions that Ms. Lawrence was showing so subtly was pure Kuleshov effect on a blank, beautiful face; and that the script was written n a way to make the heroine impossibly pure, beset in a hell of demons. When a popcorn movie is rushing along, such things are fine. However, Oscar roles require some thought afterwards. I predict laurels all around.

It wasn't all bad, of course. Spielberg gave us Bridge of Spies, with Tom Hanks doing his Jimmy Stewart shtick to comment on current US hysteria and I enjoyed greatly Tomorrowland with its hopeful message, with its clear warning that if you put Bertie Wooster in charge, things will not turn out well. I can only conclude from its poor reception that people are actively offended by the thought that they can make a difference. Probably it was an issue like John Carter of Mars with Taylor Kitsch (not the most propitious of names) or The Lone Ranger. with Johnny Depp and a dead chicken on his head. They had no idea who they were making these movies for. While I am glad they made Tomorrowland for me, it might have done better if some one else's taste was considered.

About Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 we will not speak.

And there were also three top-notch movies. As always, these are peculiar to me. When the nominations come in, there may be some nominations, but no winners.


Spy: While everyone is talking about how there are no women directors and no feminist impulses, Paul Feig has been directing hilarious feminist tracts like this one. Melissa McCarthy has talent, but her vehicles have not always been great. However, this burlesque of spy movies had me laughing so much I never had the chance to recognize the recognize the inevitable idiotic end twist. That's a great popcorn movie effect. Jason Statham continues to impress me. He is a performer with almost no range, but place him right in his comfort zone and he can be a great comic actor.

Chi-Raq: Spike Lee takes a break from paying his industry dues to produce an outrageous diatribe. At least part of my pleasure is his reliance on the source material -- I took advantage of free downloads to reread all of Aristophanes earlier in the year. While not as ill-mannered as the ancient Greeks were (no one flies to heaven on a dung beetle), this violent, bawdy semi-musical about gun violence is clear about what the film makers want.

Our Brand is Crisis: I don't demand much to make me think a movie is great. All that is needed is that everyone does his job competently, they make the right decisions instead of easy ones, and there is something new. This movie about campaign managers in South America does that. Plus I have been in love with Sandra Bullock since Love Potion No. 9.

Anyway, that's my 2015 in the movie theater. What was yours?

Bob

I went fewer times to the cinema last year.The problem is that once you are over 25(plus 40),they are not making films for your age group any more.Consequently only the following stand out
Woman In Gold
13 Minutes
Bridge Of Spies

You talk about only 2015 being a crap year for pictures? Good heavens, according to me (not a reliable source), the last 40 years or so have been crap years!

Pictures these days seem to be made by accountants and lawyers who have no real background in show business acumen. They pitch these pictures at the lowest common denominator - if one judges from the subject matter, the dialogue (read here - constant vulgarity) and of course the merchandising associated with the picture.

There is so much hype associated with pictures - and probably has always been, only today audiences seem to be taken in by it more and thus lose the power of discernment. They cannot adjudge quality.

Having said that, I still watch modern day pictures though I sometimes ask myself the question why, when I look at something and realise even before the first reel has finished, that I can endure watching it no longer. Then, I might just find one out of a pile of thirty or fifty that I have actually enjoyed. As you indicate above "Spy" managed, in between some awkward moments of absurdity - to bring forth an occasional titter. This was a rarity as I have not really found American comedies amusing since the Marx Bros., and the Great Man were making pictures. Then again, English comedy also seems to have made a downhill turn as "Absolutely Anything" was something that only just fired and probably could have been a lot better.

Pictures also seem to be made that bear the barest minimum of story and expect we, the audience, to sit through ten reels of something that amounts to virtually nothing - see "Life" which covers a few days in James Dean's early career.

Just off the top of my head, there were a couple of Robert de Niro pictures that I sat through and found some satisfaction with, and they were "Heist" and "The Intern". "Mr. Holmes" which I had been looking forward to seeing, disappointed me because of the hopscotch way chronology was dealt with.

In essence of course, with pictures, as in most things, one man's meat is another's poison. I suppose though I have some justification for my diatribe above in that Nitrateville exists for people like myself who prefer the older pictures where quality and craftsmanship were far more noticeable.

Donald Binks wrote:I suppose though I have some justification for my diatribe above in that Nitrateville exists for people like myself who prefer the older pictures where quality and craftsmanship were far more noticeable.

As the name of this place indicates, they would be pictures that originated on nitrate film stock.

Just squeaked in under the 2015 wire but The Big Short is highly recommended. That anybody could make a film about credit default swaps entertaining shows just how skillful the makers are. While he may be a painfully obnoxious wanker in real life, Christian Bale gives the performance of a career.

Did no one but me see Inside Out?

Jim

Jim Roots wrote:Did no one but me see Inside Out?

Jim

I saw it a few weeks ago (blu-ray, not theatrically). I'll have to watch it again to absorb it fully; it's quite an oddity IMO and needs another viewing to take in all of it.

Actually I found this year to be far less depressing that most. "Carol" is exquisite, 'Spotlight' was engrossing, 'The Big Short' is quite worth your time, 'Brooklyn' was wonderful and 'Mad Max' was a fabulous throwback to a beautiful and noisy kind of carnage. 'The Revenant' was quite good, as was 'The Assassin,' 'Diary of a Teenage Girl,' Ex Machina,' 'Experimenter,' 'Creed,' “Clouds of Sils Maria,” 'Son of Saul' and...

I even liked 'Ant Man.'

Jim Roots wrote:Did no one but me see Inside Out?

Jim

I had the pleasure of taking my six year old niece to see it at the El Capitan Theatre, complete with pre-movie floor show and Wurlitzer performance. I was a little worried that the concepts would go over her head, but we both loved it, and had much to discuss afterwards. It's a very nice piece of work.

Theater? What's that?

Jim Roots wrote:Did no one but me see Inside Out?

Jim

The Missus and I enjoyed it very much. The Pixar people are so good at these quirky, off the wall concepts, we almost take them for granted -- but not really. Their's are the only new releases we make a point of seeing, either in theaters or at home, as soon as they're available on DVD. There aren't any directors or stars we feel that way about, just Pixar.

I usually catch up on 2015 movies in 2016 via discs.

Oh, I did see SPECTRE. In a recliner chair! It was the kind of movie I'd rather first see on a big screen.

Interesting that the old time directors who didn't consider movie making an 'art' made, for the most part, infinitely finer pictures than the film-school educated pretentious twits that are around today. Cameramen (as opposed to cinematographers) who really knew how to create mood and ambiance, actors who moved their facial features, writers who favored great dialog over deafening obscenities, and directors who knew how to tell a story rather than rely on explosions, crashes, violence and CGIs. But then again, we now have audiences who are too busy talking, texting or blabbing on their phones to experience a film rather than merely watching the images flashing before them.

busby1959 wrote:Interesting that the old time directors who didn't consider movie making an 'art' made, for the most part, infinitely finer pictures than the film-school educated pretentious twits that are around today. Cameramen (as opposed to cinematographers) who really knew how to create mood and ambiance, actors who moved their facial features, writers who favored great dialog over deafening obscenities, and directors who knew how to tell a story rather than rely on explosions, crashes, violence and CGIs. But then again, we now have audiences who are too busy talking, texting or blabbing on their phones to experience a film rather than merely watching the images flashing before them.

You don't consider Mad Max, that "fabulous throwback to a beautiful and noisy kind of carnage," great storytelling?

Mitch Farish wrote:

busby1959 wrote:Interesting that the old time directors who didn't consider movie making an 'art' made, for the most part, infinitely finer pictures than the film-school educated pretentious twits that are around today. Cameramen (as opposed to cinematographers) who really knew how to create mood and ambiance, actors who moved their facial features, writers who favored great dialog over deafening obscenities, and directors who knew how to tell a story rather than rely on explosions, crashes, violence and CGIs. But then again, we now have audiences who are too busy talking, texting or blabbing on their phones to experience a film rather than merely watching the images flashing before them.

You don't consider Mad Max, that "fabulous throwback to a beautiful and noisy kind of carnage," great storytelling?

Ahhhh.......no.

Mitch Farish wrote: You don't consider Mad Max, that "fabulous throwback to a beautiful and noisy kind of carnage," great storytelling?

Does great storytelling make a story great?

Does great storytelling make a story great?

If we had some eggs we could have some ham and eggs if we had some ham...

busby1959 wrote:Interesting that the old time directors who didn't consider movie making an 'art' made, for the most part, infinitely finer pictures than the film-school educated pretentious twits that are around today. Cameramen (as opposed to cinematographers) who really knew how to create mood and ambiance, actors who moved their facial features, writers who favored great dialog over deafening obscenities, and directors who knew how to tell a story rather than rely on explosions, crashes, violence and CGIs. But then again, we now have audiences who are too busy talking, texting or blabbing on their phones to experience a film rather than merely watching the images flashing before them.

Just as an FYI George Miller, who directed Mad Max, never went to film school. He was a doctor who began a production company while still in residency. But you don't have to start liking his films just because he isn't a 'film-school educated pretentious twit.'

I'm not sure that banishing everything made after the collapse of the studio era is any more enlightened a view of cinema than the kids who won't watch anything made earlier than the 21st century. You can take or leave whatever you wish but there's neither truth nor merit to any argument between the ages, its always subjective. Each generation works with what they've got, and what they're reacting to.

Mad Max makes very pointed and clever, subversive arguments about Jihadism, slavery, and the objectification, subjugation and liberation of women. This is a very different depth of story/film than 'San Andreas.' If you're not into it so be it, but the theater I saw it in was packed with kids. With their phones off.

They were too busy loving the movie.

I do go to current movies a lot....I even saw "The Peanuts Movie". Nevertheless, more often than not, I'm disappointed. And I wholeheartedly believe that when comparing today's output with vintage films, the ratio is heavily on the credit side for the classic days. Yes, junk was produced - but of a higher grade than what is considered junk today. And of the current actors working in movies today, the ones I find the finest are, for the most part, over 50 - ancient to teens and twenty-somethings. I have greater respect for actors who are hired for their talent and range rather than the quality of their hair, biceps and pout. Few movies today touch me emotionally....all too often, they are formula-ridden, synthetic and soulless. I think the 1933 version of "King Kong", with all its quaintness (for lack of a better word), is much more moving than any CGI will ever be.
But these are only my opinions, and one of the many things I like about this site is the unspoken agreement to agree to disagree. No reason to have a Rosalind Russell/Paulette Goddard fight over anything.

busby1959 wrote: I think the 1933 version of "King Kong", with all its quaintness (for lack of a better word), is much more moving than any CGI will ever be.
But these are only my opinions, and one of the many things I like about this site is the unspoken agreement to agree to disagree. No reason to have a Rosalind Russell/Paulette Goddard fight over anything.

Well, I agree with that. Particularly about the '33 King Kong. Every attempt at a remake has been wanting.

Russell and Goddard would've been great in Mad Max, btw.

Mr.Mycroft wrote:

busby1959 wrote: I think the 1933 version of "King Kong", with all its quaintness (for lack of a better word), is much more moving than any CGI will ever be.
But these are only my opinions, and one of the many things I like about this site is the unspoken agreement to agree to disagree. No reason to have a Rosalind Russell/Paulette Goddard fight over anything.

Well, I agree with that. Particularly about the '33 King Kong. Every attempt at a remake has been wanting.

And I just watched it again for the Nth time on TCM; that's after firmly dismissing the idea earlier in the day when I first checked the schedule. There's a tactile quality to O'Brien's miniatures that CGI can't imitate--so moving to me, that I never watch the bitter end, when the machine gun bullets begin to tear Kong's flesh. And what imitation can there be of the indescribable delicacy of Fay Wray's face--a quality beyond beauty. Or the sweetness of her voice?

I haven't seen the latest Mad Max movie. On-screen violence, abetted by wire-fu and CGI effects, have become the spectacle of the movies and as I have commented elsewhere in regards Busby Berkley, spectacle is what you do when you can't think of anything more emotionally real. While I don't doubt that the fantasy of beating up the tough guys is telling to a lot of people, I am a suburban-bred, fat, intellectual coward and my fantasy is of using my brains to get out of trouble. That's why I saw and enjoyed The Martian It falls into my "Competent People Doing Competent Things Because It is Their Job"genre; the best one is probably Zinneman's Day of the Jackal.

Bob

Mr.Mycroft wrote:I'm not sure that banishing everything made after the collapse of the studio era is any more enlightened a view of cinema than the kids who won't watch anything made earlier than the 21st century. You can take or leave whatever you wish but there's neither truth nor merit to any argument between the ages, its always subjective. Each generation works with what they've got, and what they're reacting to.

Mad Max makes very pointed and clever, subversive arguments about Jihadism, slavery, and the objectification, subjugation and liberation of women. This is a very different depth of story/film than 'San Andreas.' If you're not into it so be it, but the theater I saw it in was packed with kids. With their phones off.

You're right. It's not enlightened at all. I'm not looking to be enlightened by "subversive films" on the subject of "Jihadism, slavery, and the objectification, subjugation and liberation of women," or any films with double-necked, flame-shooting electric guitars. When I cut the ties to contemporary film back in the '70s I was an odd kid. I thought the old movies on TV were better than any movies appearing on theater screens. The movies I didn't hate, and that gave me hope that the old style of films might make a comeback, I didn't really love, either. They were derivative. I don't think of the old films as occupying an evolutionary stage in the development of film; to me they are the pinnacle of humanistic filmmaking and cinematic craftsmanship. And the fact that the theater showing Mad Max "was packed with kids. With their phones off," doesn't bode well for the people like me, who want to spread the word about what I consider the good stuff.

Mitch Farish wrote: ...I don't think of the old films as occupying an evolutionary stage in the development of film; to me they are the pinnacle of humanistic filmmaking and cinematic craftsmanship...

It seems, as one becomes older,
That the past has another pattern, and ceases to be a mere sequence–
Or even development: the latter a partial fallacy
Encouraged by superficial notions of evolution,
Which becomes, in the popular mind, a means of disowning the past.

No one questions the proposition that civilizations rise, reach a pinnacle of development, eventually decline to some inferior level of accomplishment. Why should it be different with art? Or will someone assert that there are modern Bachs, Mozarts, Beethovens, Verdis, Puccinis, etc., to be found in the 21st Century?

I don't get out to see contemporary movies much, but I did enjoy Inside Out, Room, The Intern, and The Martian in the last few months. Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a fun movie, but it is quite a knockoff of the original A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back.

My All American is good if you like football movies. I can't quite judge it objectively since my son and I are extras in the film.

I saw 3 movies this year in the cinema: Jurassic World, Mad Max 4, and The Force Awakens.
Tent Pole movie to be sure but I would have seen more if it were not for the 30 minutes of
trailers and COMMERCIALS! I thought my overpriced ticket was enough to keep commercials
off the screen. I guess not.