McNutt wrote: ↑Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:38 am
All Gold Canyon, and The Gal who Got Rattled were just fantastic.
Those ended up being my favourites. The others didn't do much for me.
naednek wrote: ↑Mon Nov 26, 2018 1:46 pm
Most Coen brother movies for me are hit and miss if I like it. Buster Suggs is pretty much the perfect example of this. Some of the stories I loved, others, were quite meh. I'm about half way through.
Yep, exactly how I've come to feel about the Cohen Brothers, and seems you have the same reaction to Buster Scruggs I had. I found it very uneven. And to make matters more complicated, everyone seems to like different stories for different reasons.
Even if you don't like the stories themselves, the imagery the Coen brothers evoke is amazing at times. I wasn't a big fan of the story for the Tom Waits prospector tale, but good Lord that camera work. Framing the opening shot through a deer's antlers was worth the time on its own.
Oh absolutely. In fact, I think it could be a good study for film students. The fact that they're all different and have something to offer in how they're filmed, etc.
Lurv me some Coen Bros. If I was pressed to give this ...(it’s not really a film, is it?) series of vignettes a score, I would say 75%, maybe 80 even.
I think my least favorite was the last one (shot mostly inside the carriage, ends at hotel). Hard to say which was my favorite.
One thing I found interesting about these was how freaking dark and depressing some of them were, with zero comedic elements, but then you open with a goofy, singing cowboy who talks to the camera, all cheese. And then more typically for the brothers, you had some that dipped into both tragedy and comedy within the same vignette.
Dialog was very ‘Coen’ per usual, and we also see actors they have used several times in the past.
I wish they would do something similar to “O Brother Where Art Thou?”, with the same cast if possible (just different setting). That movie is pure gold, with an amazing soundtrack to boot.
Last edited by Carpet_pissr on Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Yeah, that one was just odd. For me it didn't work because we just saw it as intertwined conversation without all that much going on until they get to their destination. And for me, I didn't find it particularly interesting; just a bunch of prattling on which bored me. I read that it was supposed to be like a take on a Twilight Zone type of story, but the execution left wanting and made the whole movie feel rather anticlimactic. I read a comment where someone saying that 5 & 6 should have changed order, and I agree with that. Would have ended things on a high note.
Rumpy wrote: the execution left wanting and made the whole movie feel rather anticlimactic. I read a comment where someone saying that 5 & 6 should have changed order, and I agree with that. Would have ended things on a high note.
But if the wagon ride was indeed the grim reaper bringing them to the afterlife, that can't be anywhere but at the end. As that was by far my least favorite segment, the movie could have just ended at 5.
Just chiming to say I loved the movie. I'm a huge fan of horror anthologies, westerns, and the Coens, so this was right up my alley. While not really horror, the stories were for the most part very dark which worked well for an anthology format.
Totally agree on the final segment. Any anthology is going to have its strengths and weaknesses, though, so it didn't ruin my enjoyment of the movie.
Also, I would pay good money to have an actual book (with illustrations) of these stories as shown in the interludes.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:44 am
Also, I would pay good money to have an actual book (with illustrations) of these stories as shown in the interludes.
Totally, same here.
As far as the 'grim reaper' ride. Is the idea that the two bounty hunters are 'the grim reaper', or are they also along for the ride?
Also, with the Chicken... I was trying to gather how he would buy that chicken and run with the show... I thought for sure they were going to show him 'trying and failing' to get the chicken to pick the right numbers, but it wasn't ever addressed. Was it assumed that he traded in his thespian for the chicken, and the chicken was gonna work out for him? I don't know why that point is sticking with me.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Nov 23, 2018 3:01 pmI confess the only reason I watched it is to see Kurt Russell playing a Kurt Russell version of Santa Claus. And I was not disappointed.
That moves it up the list on things to watch. I've enjoyed pretty much every role I've seen him play, even if the rest of the movie wasn't cutting it.
Black Lives Matter
2021-01-20: The first good night's sleep I had in 4 years.
I think the coachman was Charon and the bounty hunters were his assistants. "He never stops.". It's just an interpretation, but that place looked like some version of the afterlife.
The chicken was used to show that this guy is just another sucker. He's done something horrible and will now be left with nothing.
McNutt wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 11:26 am
The chicken was used to show that this guy is just another sucker. He's done something horrible and will now be left with nothing.
See, that's what I was thinking too... But, as YK said - it could be just as simple as this is how this guys always gets his new acts, and this chicken will work for him as well as it was working for it's original owner. (He was taught the trick)
So, it's either a story where he is going to be burned by his trade-in, or he isn't and it was indeed a good trade (fiscally).
It's a subtle difference in the feeling of the story, and I wish they made it more clear which it was.
The reason I came to my conclusion is that the original chicken owner hands him a bell when he was getting paid for the chicken. Liam Neeson looks at it kind of funny, so I figured the bell may be the secret to the trick somehow. I went back and watched the chicken's act, however, and the man only uses the bell to ring after the chicken picks (pecks?) correctly. So who knows.
I still tend to believe Liam Neeson is no fool, and wouldn't blindly buy an act he wasn't sure about. Wouldn't he test the chicken before doing something rash? I can understand McNutt's take on it as well, however.
[Edit] Screenrant's take is that Liam Neeson learns that he can make more money with a lowbrow chicken than a high art thespian. Thus it's a commentary on popular appeal. https://screenrant.com/ballad-buster-sc ... plained/2/
hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:55 pm
Even if you don't like the stories themselves, the imagery the Coen brothers evoke is amazing at times. I wasn't a big fan of the story for the Tom Waits prospector tale, but good Lord that camera work. Framing the opening shot through a deer's antlers was worth the time on its own.
I certainly agree that they have a knack of bringing out environment in most of their movies. To me it's more of the story telling and dialogue that bores me.
I love Narcos, but man I have to really pay attention. I'll usually have something playing along while at work (shhh don't tell) but because I no hable espanol I would easily miss what's going on
naednek wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 1:09 pm
I certainly agree that they have a knack of bringing out environment in most of their movies. To me it's more of the story telling and dialogue that bores me.
If you're stating that you feel their story telling and dialogue is the weak point of their films, I could not disagree more. It's often just as strong as their cinematography...if not stronger at times. There's a reason they're considered one of our finest film makers.
You'll need to change your signature at this point.
Tarantino is the only one I'm not sure about. My only issue with his dialogue is that it's relatively limited in its depth and scope. The Coen brothers I can see writing dialogue for a horror film, a comedy, a crime thriller, etc..(hell, they've done most of them already). But Tarantino? I can only envision him trying to send the same message in any setting. I know this sounds weird, but the only way I can think to describe it is, he can write about a storm, but never about the quiet aftermath of one.
Speaking of the coach ride, is it just my imagination or the trapper character the same one from True Grit? In True Grit, they encounter a trapper who wears very similar getup. I'm not sure, but it could possibly even be the same actor.
hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 2:04 pm
Tarantino is the only one I'm not sure about. My only issue with his dialogue is that it's relatively limited in its depth and scope. The Coen brothers I can see writing dialogue for a horror film, a comedy, a crime thriller, etc..(hell, they've done most of them already). But Tarantino? I can only envision him trying to send the same message in any setting. I know this sounds weird, but the only way I can think to describe it is, he can write about a storm, but never about the quiet aftermath of one.
Yeah, I'm thinking the same way with Tarantino. I admit to not being a big fan of his. I like your assessment. It's like the difference between someone who knows how to argue his way with a gun vs someone who can do it diplomatically. His style just tends to be overly blunt. It's a big reason as to why I'm not sold on him being able to do Star Trek.
Tarantion's movies don't rely on action though. He can have you mesmerized just with the dialogue. Look at the banter between Jules and Vincent. It was classic, as was anything in Inglorious Basterds, most notably the farmhouse scene and the game in the bar.
Rumpy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:43 pm
I'm not sold on him being able to do Star Trek.
I've given up on Star Trek. It used to be a little more cerebral. Now it's NOTHING but explosions. Tarantino would definitely draw me back in. I'm completely over Fast and Furious in space.
McNutt wrote:But if the wagon ride was indeed the grim reaper bringing them to the afterlife, that can't be anywhere but at the end.
Except there is no connection between the stories, or linearity, so not sure why that would matter. I guess the one thing connecting them all together is death at the end.
Rumpy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 5:43 pm
I'm not sold on him being able to do Star Trek.
I've given up on Star Trek. It used to be a little more cerebral. Now it's NOTHING but explosions. Tarantino would definitely draw me back in. I'm completely over Fast and Furious in space.
And Tarantino would be different from that, how? Like I said, I'm not convinced Tarantino has the touch to make it work. I don't feel it would really end up in any better shape than how it is currently.
McNutt wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:51 pm
Tarantion's movies don't rely on action though. He can have you mesmerized just with the dialogue. Look at the banter between Jules and Vincent. It was classic, as was anything in Inglorious Basterds, most notably the farmhouse scene and the game in the bar.
But that dialogue never seems to rise above discussing the violence that Tarantino wants to bring, or pop culture references that he seems to believe are deeper than they really are. I find his films entertaining, true. His scripts work when the characters are primarily not good people though, and/or are caught up in violent situations.
But the Coens and Mamets of the world elevate dialogue to art, imho. No matter the situation or characters.
McNutt wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:53 pm
I've given up on Star Trek. It used to be a little more cerebral. Now it's NOTHING but explosions. Tarantino would definitely draw me back in. I'm completely over Fast and Furious in space.
And Tarantino would be different from that, how? Like I said, I'm not convinced Tarantino has the touch to make it work. I don't feel it would really end up in any better shape than how it is currently.
Tarantino doesn't rely on action every two minutes and I'm guessing he wouldn't cram the entire film with fan service BS. If you don't like Tarantino then I doubt you'd like his version of Trek. I think it would bring some life back into it, even if it woudn't be for the masses.
hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Nov 27, 2018 9:02 pm
But that dialogue never seems to rise above discussing the violence that Tarantino wants to bring, or pop culture references that he seems to believe are deeper than they really are. I find his films entertaining, true. His scripts work when the characters are primarily not good people though, and/or are caught up in violent situations.
But the Coens and Mamets of the world elevate dialogue to art, imho. No matter the situation or characters.
I think you're selling Tarantino short. Just off the top of my head:
Vincent talking to his drug dealer about the quality of heroin.
Mr. Pink discussing why he doesn't tip.
Telling Christopher Walken why Sicilians have dark skin
The Bride talking to Bill in Mexico
These were not violent scenes (well, maybe the Sicilian part) and they were every bit as interesting as the Dude discussing his rug (which I loved). I will concede that Tarantino's talent might be a little more focused that the others, but when his dialogue is on, it's freakin' on.
McNutt wrote: ↑Wed Oct 31, 2018 11:38 pm
I finished The Haunting of Hill House. I am not a horror fan at all, yet I watched all 10 episodes of this. The story was told expertly and while it certainly had some jump scares, it didn't rely on them. I was also very impressed with the believability of Timothy Hutton playing an older Henry Thomas.
I didn't see much mention of HHH in the rest of this thread, but I just finished it last night and absolutely loved it. The scares were better than many of the horror movies I've seen of late, but more importantly the story and characters were all fantastic. They did an excellent job of casting the young/old versions of the characters. Quite a few interesting plot twists as well, though again, it didn't rely on the twists. At the heart of the show is a family broken by tragedy. It just happens that the tragedy is caused by an evil house filled with psycho ghosts lol.
Saw Christmas Chronicles and was pretty impressed. Not only a pretty good Netflix movie, but a good Christmas movie overall. It actually felt like something that should have been in theatres.
Interesting. I guess it's not terribly surprising then that they ended up being stronger stories with more going for them. Actually, I'd heard one of them was adapted from a Jack London story. Sounds like All Gold Canyon would most likely be that one.
Rumpy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 03, 2018 1:53 pm
Interesting. I guess it's not terribly surprising then that they ended up being stronger stories with more going for them. Actually, I'd heard one of them was adapted from a Jack London story. Sounds like All Gold Canyon would most likely be that one.
You are correct. Work has made it nigh impossible to browse, and linking is tortuous on the phone, so here we are, late. Apologies.
hepcat wrote:It's like watching someone that just wandered onto a film set accidentally. I kept expecting him to stop at some point and mumble, "Oh cool, there's sloppy joe sandwiches at the craft services table.", then wander off camera. He's so...relaxed....throughout the entire thing. If they'd replaced Mel Gibson in Braveheart with Pat Boone, I imagine it would be like this.
Also, the movie is just awful. Once again, the main villain (the Prince of Wales) is essentially Niedermeyer (the film ends with "historical" text that even lets us know he shared Niedermeyer's ultimate fate in Animal House). Plucky rebels build a trap out of the landscape that only they know well enough to make work. And we have a seemingly crazy sidekick that we're supposed to grow to love because he's so incorrigible, while in the real world, he would be called a "dangerous drifter" in any news article covering the conflict.
Two massive thumbs down.
...although my thumbs aren't really massive. That's just a saying.
I'm halfway through and that's spot on. He shows no emotion and is just sort of there. It's a very odd performance. It also doesn't help that his accent goes from nothing to over-the-top Scot between scenes.
So, Mowgli, the Andy Serkis directed Netflix Exclusive Jungle Book movie. It was amazing, and I think between the recent Disney movie and this one, I like this one more. I hear it's closer to the original story by Kipling, and if so, more power to them. I felt it was a more interesting nuanced story, and a bit darker as well. The first half of the movie is pretty much the same minus the musical numbers, but it's the second half where it diverges from Disney and where I find things get more interesting with the stuff happening in the village. The animation itself I felt was a little off at times, particularly around the eyes. For the most part though, I feel this is definitely one of Netflix's better movies.
Cumberbatch as Shir-Khan was so much more menacing than Elba in the Disney version. A force to be reckoned with and Cate Blanchette as Kaa had more of a powerful presence.
I see now why they've named this Mowgli than name it The Jungle Book. It's an unfortunate circumstance that Disney pretty much owns the title even though this one ends up being a more accurate rendition. Naming it this is a clear distinction that it isn't Disney.
