Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request
Masirimso17 said:TM2YC said:I agree except the exact opposite of everything you both said .
So for a first viewing of both the first film and the sequel, which one is the way to go? Theatrical or Final Cut? I know next to nothing about the movies
TM2YC said:The Outsiders (1983)
The young cast that Francis Ford Coppola assembled for this 1960s teen greaser gang movie is insane. Matt Dillon, C. Thomas Howell, Ralph Macchio, Patrick Swayze, Rob Lowe, Emilio Estevez and Diane Lane are in their earliest roles, including a little known actor called Tom Cruise. Ralph Macchio's next film after this was 'The Karate Kid'. Coppola created the stars of the 80s right here. Sometimes the inexperience of the cast is apparent but mostly they are excellent. This is partly a nostalgic look back to the era of gleaming hot-rods and malt-shacks but from the wrong side of town, where it's all burned-out wrecks, poverty, black engine grease and flick-knives (it's like a film version of a Bruce Springsteen track). The jukebox soundtrack featuring Elvis, Van Morrison, surf music and Rockabilly is amazing. I liked that the movie starts and concludes in such a way that you can watch it on a perpetual loop.
I watched Coppola's "The Complete Novel" extended cut, adding back 22-minutes of footage cut from the theatrical release. Apparently Coppola's granddaughter was studying S. E. Hinton's book in class and they were planning on watching the film. He was a little embarrassed at the prospect of them seeing the hollowed-out 92-minute version, so he quickly put together a longer cut just for them to watch in school. This convinced him to revisit the film and release the 115-minute extended cut. I can't imagine the short release was better, although since it has a different score, it's probably worth checking out.
Rumble Fish (1983)
Francis Ford Coppola shot 'Rumble Fish' back to back with 'The Outsiders' (also based on an S. E. Hinton story) using many of the same cast and crew and released it six-months afterwards. Unusually he chose to do this narratively similar second film in a completely different way. 'The Outsiders' was a nostalgic sunlit evocation of the period in which it was set, with a 50s jukebox soundtrack and a classic film-making style not unlike actual films of the era like 'Rebel Without a Cause'. Where as 'Rumble Fish' is set in some sort of 50s/80s heightened reality, shot in Noir black & white, with extreme expressionist angles, wild editing, R-Rated sex, violence and drug taking, strobe lighting effects, deliberately artificial post-synced sound design, experimental shots and an avant-garde percussive score by The Police's drummer Stewart Copeland. The sequence of Matt Dillon's soul leaving his body and floating across various scenes, real or imaginary, looks extraordinary because it's accomplished in-camera using some kind of crane arm. There are also perfectly executed shots where the actors did their performance in slow motion, so when played back at the correct speed the sky would appear sped up.
The cast is incredible featuring Matt Dillon, Mickey Rourke, Diane Lane, Nicolas Cage, Chris Penn, Laurence Fishburne, Tom Waits and Dennis Hopper... often all in the same scene together. 50% of the words in the script seemed to be people saying "Rusty James" to each other (the name of Dillon's main character). You could accuse the film of being "style over substance", which I suppose it is but when there is this much style packed into every frame, it hardly matters.
^ The period trailer has the same energetic editing of the film.
Last Impressions said:As for Rumble fish i re-watched this again a couple of years ago and it still holds up, whether i was swayed by nostalgia or not "i don't know" but i enjoyed it , however i have been tempted to do a small edit of the film called "the Matt Dillon says less Man" edit it really does feel like he says the word "Man" every scene he is in and it just grated on me in the end....maybe i'm just getting old. The score by Copeland is stunning - i haven't heard anything else like it and iv'e heard a lot.
TM2YC said:Last Impressions said:As for Rumble fish i re-watched this again a couple of years ago and it still holds up, whether i was swayed by nostalgia or not "i don't know" but i enjoyed it , however i have been tempted to do a small edit of the film called "the Matt Dillon says less Man" edit it really does feel like he says the word "Man" every scene he is in and it just grated on me in the end....maybe i'm just getting old. The score by Copeland is stunning - i haven't heard anything else like it and iv'e heard a lot.
I didn't notice the over-abundance of "man"s, now you mention it though. A fanedit with less Man and less Rusty James. I did ponder the idea of a fanedit which would Rumble Fish-ify The Outsiders. Change the score, make it b&w, use the longer version but cut it back to about 90-mins by quickening the pace of editing etc.
<hr style="border: 1px solid white;" />
Mirror (1975)
Andrei Tarkovsky's 4th film 'Mirror' ('Zerkalo') has been accused of having an incomprehensible narrative but it was understandable to me and not overly complicated. However, the nonlinear way it's told through dreams, flashbacks/flashforwards and distinct vignettes do invite confusion. The adult and unseen Alexei recalls memories from his death bed about his family life, mainly focusing on three periods: Alexei's mother Maria in his grandfather's pre-war country house, Alexei as a boy training in war time and Alexei's post-war life concerning the breakup of his marriage to Natalia and focusing on his son Ignat. The same actors Ignat Daniltsev and Margarita Terekhova play Alexei/Ignat and Mother/Wife. Terekhova is amazing, her eyes combining both cool defiance and sad resignation. It's all ecstatically beautiful to look at and infused with wintry melancholy. Certain images really linger in the mind, like an impossibly strong wind suddenly sweeping a field, a barn burning in the rain, plaster cascading from a sodden roof, a sweat finger print evaporating, a women floating above her bed, or the final long tracking shot slowly going deeper into a dark forest.
^ Awesome fan trailer, captures the whole feel of the thing in 50-seconds.
Vultural said:Flawed, yet enjoyable adaptation of obscure Jane Austen novella. [...]
Lady Susan, an unscrupulous widow sets out to find rich, easy to control husbands for herself and her daughter.
She flirts, conducts affairs, oppresses her daughter, imposes on her relations.
A right piece of work.
Costumes, set design, photography are all excellent. Acting, top rate.
The pacing if off, however. Too modern. The story rushes at top speed throughout.
Numerous characters introduced, yet several are underutilized. Stephen Fry = 2 brief scenes.
More air, a longer cut would help immeasurably.
Amusing entertainment, nevertheless, and Austen fans will find this irresistible.
Masirimso17 said:TM2YC said:I agree except the exact opposite of everything you both said .
So for a first viewing of both the first film and the sequel, which one is the way to go? Theatrical or Final Cut? I know next to nothing about the movies
Last Impressions said:Now you mention it i think it might be Dillon saying "Rusty James"a lot not Man...
mnkykungfu said:Watch the Final Cut cold so that you can settle a bet between me and @"TM2YC"! I'm betting you'll find it pretty slow and to not have a whole lot to the story. You'll think it was "good..." but not get why it has such rabid fans.
mnkykungfu said:Masirimso17 said:TM2YC said:I agree except the exact opposite of everything you both said .
So for a first viewing of both the first film and the sequel, which one is the way to go? Theatrical or Final Cut? I know next to nothing about the movies
Watch the Final Cut cold so that you can settle a bet between me and TM2YC! I'm betting you'll find it pretty slow and to not have a whole lot to the story. You'll think it was "good..." but not get why it has such rabid fans. TM2YC, take me up on it?
mnkykungfu said:^Sorry, I'm one "serious fan of Indy" who pretty much hated that. For me, films begin and end with the script. A good script will shine through no matter what else screws it up, whereas you can put all the window dressing you want on a bad script, it'll still be a dumb movie.
TM2YC said:I loved 'Phantom' as a teen, it had one of 1985's 'Defenders of the Earth' in it after all :
mnkykungfu said:TM2YC said:I loved 'Phantom' as a teen, it had one of 1985's 'Defenders of the Earth' in it after all :
What a coincidence... I loved Defenders of the Earth as an almost-teen.
I've come to realize that I think there are people who are looking for pure escapism from their superhero films, and they tend to be much kinder of shortcomings in the plot or character. And then there are people like me who think the best comic book films pull them into a world that seems almost plausible. Maybe a good example would be like Burton's Batman vs Nolan's.
The Phantom is definitely in that first camp, for what that's worth.
Moe_Syzlak said:It’s good to hear that you’re not kind to Nolan’s many shortcomings in plot and character.
TM2YC said:Mid90s (2018)
Jonah Hill makes his assured directing debut (also writing and producing) in this skateboarding coming-of-age gem. The 4:3 16mm sun-bleached LA cinematography is beautiful and helps evoke the era. 12-year old Sunny Suljic is incredible in the lead role, he matches any seasoned older actor. The skate gang were in danger of being irritating "bros" but then the story goes deep on why they are all the way they are. It's often harrowing and bleak but life affirming too. I look forward to more films directed by Hill.