Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 367
Amen!
I'm not sure if you are cold, heartless and soulless, it's certainly up for debate after that review.
But that's how I'd describe every Tati movie I've seen.Movies: The Official "Movie of the Week" Club Thread II
- Thread starter kihei
- Start date
- Status
Amen!
I'm not sure if you are cold, heartless and soulless, it's certainly up for debate after that review.
But that's how I'd describe every Tati movie I've seen.
I'n an idiot. I just got done watching City Lights, not Limelight. Obviously I will rectify my error. Never liked City Lights anyway which I last saw at university half a century ago (and I even remember the ending differently as in my version the flower girl never recognizes the Tramp and thinks a rich guy gave her the money to get her eyes fixed, WHICH, GODDAMNIT, IS A MUCH BETTER ENDING than the saccharine schlockola that Chaplin comes up with. 
Last edited:
Limelight (1952) Directed by Charlie Chaplin
This movie about a December/April romance was Chaplin's last work of consequence. Indeed Limelight plays like a valedictory, a rather maudlin one. Chaplin stars as a down-on-his-luck, aging comedian named Calvero, once applauded by all but now way past his prime and nearly destitute. Calvero befriends a waif (Chaplin seems to like waifs) played by the beautiful Claire Bloom. After her ill-judged suicide attempt, he nurses her back to health and she, of course, falls in love with him, though she is forty years his junior. Often the movie seems like a bully pulpit for Chaplin who all too eagerly passes along his acquired wisdom to his lovely captive audience (initially she has lost the use of her legs, so she can't escape and neither can we). In addition to the sentimental love story, Limelight seems to be testimony that Chaplin has realized that his time as one of Hollywood's greatest and most important stars has well and truly passed. He seems simultaneously to accept that fact and mourn it. On one level, Limelight is a tremendously egocentric work; on another level it is a sober reminder that time waits for no one. Cue the Mick Taylor solo.
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
Clean and clever, Truly Madly Deeply comes across like the pilot for a British sitcom, but a really good bingeworthy one. That quirky British humour, I think in only a nation that could produce Python could telling your life story while hopping up and down on one foot be considered reasonable behaviour. I can see it now, a spinoff show for Jaimie's deadbeat dead friends. All sorts of fun and laughs can result from this madcap premise. Even if some of it baffles me...like why does Nina scramble to hide Jaimie from being discovered? He’s not a criminal, fugitive or secret lover, he’s just dead. Nothing wrong with that. And what kind of dizzy bird falls for the guy who can turn a Russian novel into a pigeon, a relatively cheap trick compared to the genuine miracle which has just befallen her. Yes, the mysteries of love.
One trick that I fell for was the shot of Jamie playing the cello freezing and transitioning to a photo on the wall. Amid all the screwball stuff there are gags like this that eloquently remind us of our mortality.
One trick that I fell for was the shot of Jamie playing the cello freezing and transitioning to a photo on the wall. Amid all the screwball stuff there are gags like this that eloquently remind us of our mortality.
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
I'n an idiot. I just got done watching City Lights, not Limelight. Obviously I will rectify my error. Never liked City Lights anyway which I last saw at university half a century ago (and I even remember the ending differently as in my version the flower girl never recognizes the Tramp and thinks a rich guy gave her the money to get her eyes fixed, WHICH, GODDAMNIT, IS A MUCH BETTER ENDING than the saccharine schlockola that Chaplin comes up with.
Saccharine schlockola!!
Say what? That's one of the greatest movie endings of all-time!
And what's with all the Tati-bashing?
I have a short list of about 20 movies that I think might be good picks for this thread and Tati`s on that list...why I oughtta...
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
The acting in Limelight is laughable, the plot is ridiculous, the technical quality often B-movie level. And yet Chaplin lifts the movie above these shortcomings. Carvelo may be a sanctimonious windbag when offstage but his clowning is a hoot, and most of all a real sense of Chaplin's compassion for his character comes through in his quiet moments. The movie is set in London, Chaplin's hometown, but the year is 1914; he'd long split by then and was just striking it rich in Hollywood. Yet Carvelo is clearly an autobiographical figure in a way, and Chaplin is acknowledging that his own success had a lot to do with being in the right place at the right time; had he been born 50 years earlier he would be Carvelo, eking out a living on the streets instead of retiring to his mansions. This sense of humility makes all the bluster easier to take. Limelight is a lesson in growing old gracefully while hanging on to the values that transcend time: dignity, self-respect, lovelovelovelovelovelovelovelovelovelovelovelovelove.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,528
- 3,377
Amadeus
Forman (1984)
“All men are equal in God’s eyes.”
“Are they?”
Amadeus is the tale of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. You might have heard of him. It’s told through the eyes of Salieri. You probably haven’t heard of him. He is aged and mad, fresh off a suicide attempt and confined to a sanitarium, tormented both by memories of Mozart (who has been dead for years at this point) and God himself. As a younger(ish) man, he loved two things – God and music. He was called to it. He learned of Mozart and is eager to meet the man who turns out to be a “giggling, dirty-minded creature.” How can this braying ass be endued with such wonderful gifts? It’s a question that eats at him, filling him with the need for justice, for revenge. He sets out to ruin Mozart’s life, manipulating the man and his situation from behind the scenes. He interferes with potential lucrative teaching jobs (which was where the money was, not in composing). He tries to sabotage an opera. He plants a spy in the house. He even nearly sleeps with Mozart’s wife. Money is a constant stress for Mozart. Still, Mozart never looses his gift. “Page after page, as if he was taking dictation.” The stresses and drink and drugs begin to wear away. Mozart slowly begins to go mad and he gets sick. Even on his deathbed, he remains blissfully oblivious to all of Salieri’s machinations, which in a way is a fitting final insult to this rival he didn’t even know he had.
What I’ve always loved about this movie that it’s vibrant. It isn’t as stiff as the topic might imply. It isn’t stodgy in the least despite the presence of breaches and powdered wigs. It isn’t out of bounds to call Mozart a rock star the way Milos Forman presents him — a preternatural, yet petulant talent. He’s adored by the masses and a lover of vices (and pink wigs), not unlike so many famed musicians who would follow. It is an obvious point, yet it isn’t hammered too hard, which I appreciate. And Salieri is just a juicy character, borderline Shakespearean, outwardly helpful while otherwise plotting and scheming, driven by an unquenchable jealousy. He’s a villain, but there’s something so sad and human and understandable about his motivations. F. Murray Abraham never loses grip on that. There’s a lot to feast on visually with the stagings of various operas through the run time and I loved Forman’s technique of playing the music out loud as characters would read music sheets wide-eyed. But at the end of the day, it’s so much a character study of Salieri. For all its pomp and bluster, Abraham is what stays with me. Well that and Tom Hulce’s earworm of a laugh. With this, The People vs. Larry Flynt and Man on the Moon, Forman has shown quite the hand with an entertaining bio pic (a type of film I typically find fairly dull).
It’s an approach to biography I wish more would take -- seeing a legend through the eyes of an inadequate lesser. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and The End of the Tour are a pair of unsimilar films that have a similar character POV that popped immediately to mind as I was thinking about this.
I can’t go away without a nitpicky complaint though. I thought Salieri’s old man makeup was distracting. He looked like a melted candle. Or maybe some rejected old character from a Mel Brooks movie.
I watched the director’s cut which has about 20 added minutes, but it’s been so long since I’ve seen it, I couldn’t ID what was there that i didn’t remember before.
Forman (1984)
“All men are equal in God’s eyes.”
“Are they?”
Amadeus is the tale of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. You might have heard of him. It’s told through the eyes of Salieri. You probably haven’t heard of him. He is aged and mad, fresh off a suicide attempt and confined to a sanitarium, tormented both by memories of Mozart (who has been dead for years at this point) and God himself. As a younger(ish) man, he loved two things – God and music. He was called to it. He learned of Mozart and is eager to meet the man who turns out to be a “giggling, dirty-minded creature.” How can this braying ass be endued with such wonderful gifts? It’s a question that eats at him, filling him with the need for justice, for revenge. He sets out to ruin Mozart’s life, manipulating the man and his situation from behind the scenes. He interferes with potential lucrative teaching jobs (which was where the money was, not in composing). He tries to sabotage an opera. He plants a spy in the house. He even nearly sleeps with Mozart’s wife. Money is a constant stress for Mozart. Still, Mozart never looses his gift. “Page after page, as if he was taking dictation.” The stresses and drink and drugs begin to wear away. Mozart slowly begins to go mad and he gets sick. Even on his deathbed, he remains blissfully oblivious to all of Salieri’s machinations, which in a way is a fitting final insult to this rival he didn’t even know he had.
What I’ve always loved about this movie that it’s vibrant. It isn’t as stiff as the topic might imply. It isn’t stodgy in the least despite the presence of breaches and powdered wigs. It isn’t out of bounds to call Mozart a rock star the way Milos Forman presents him — a preternatural, yet petulant talent. He’s adored by the masses and a lover of vices (and pink wigs), not unlike so many famed musicians who would follow. It is an obvious point, yet it isn’t hammered too hard, which I appreciate. And Salieri is just a juicy character, borderline Shakespearean, outwardly helpful while otherwise plotting and scheming, driven by an unquenchable jealousy. He’s a villain, but there’s something so sad and human and understandable about his motivations. F. Murray Abraham never loses grip on that. There’s a lot to feast on visually with the stagings of various operas through the run time and I loved Forman’s technique of playing the music out loud as characters would read music sheets wide-eyed. But at the end of the day, it’s so much a character study of Salieri. For all its pomp and bluster, Abraham is what stays with me. Well that and Tom Hulce’s earworm of a laugh. With this, The People vs. Larry Flynt and Man on the Moon, Forman has shown quite the hand with an entertaining bio pic (a type of film I typically find fairly dull).
It’s an approach to biography I wish more would take -- seeing a legend through the eyes of an inadequate lesser. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and The End of the Tour are a pair of unsimilar films that have a similar character POV that popped immediately to mind as I was thinking about this.
I can’t go away without a nitpicky complaint though. I thought Salieri’s old man makeup was distracting. He looked like a melted candle. Or maybe some rejected old character from a Mel Brooks movie.
I watched the director’s cut which has about 20 added minutes, but it’s been so long since I’ve seen it, I couldn’t ID what was there that i didn’t remember before.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,528
- 3,377
In the spirit of the season (despite the fact that the season I'm referencing will be gone by the time this slot rolls around ...) my next pick is Kon Ichikawa's Tokyo Olympiad (1965). I hope it isn't difficult to track down.
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 367
Amadeus (1984) dir. Milos Forman
An old Antonio Salieri (F. Murray Abraham), confesses the story of how me met Mozart (Tum Hulce) at the royal court in Vienna. How professional envy led to an unhealthy obsession, and Salieri's eventual murder of Mozart. In his story Salieri presents himself as hardworking, but under appreciated by his peers and contemporaries . While he presents Mozart as a much loved wunderkind, who wastes away his talent on women and parties, instead of being a serious musician like Salieri. When Salieri first met Mozart, Salieri was the court composer, and much respected by the Holy Roman Emperor. He is initially curious about seeing Mozart, expecting a distinguished man. But instead sees a kid, behaving like a young man does when he is first out of side of his father, and surrounded by beautiful women. This upsets Salieri greatly, as much to his dismay, Mozart proves a brilliant composer, despite his behaviour. The movie then follows Salieri and Mozart over the next several of years. As Salieri's obsession with Mozart increases, while Mozart's own life slowly spirals downwards, eventually leading to his untimely death.
I'm not sure the movie tells an accurate story of the lives of either Salieri or Mozart's real lives. The rough outlines are there, but that's probably about it. That doesn't really matter though. I have seen many biopics, and they don't always get better by trying to tell an accurate story, instead of a good story. And Amadeus tells a good story. Salieri is the narrator, and he's quite an unrealiable narrator. Something I had to remind myself of at times. I was getting a bit annoyed with Tom Hulce's acting at times. Because his Mozart is very over the top at times, and his forced laughter gets to me after a few times. Luckily that fades a bit as the movie progresses. But that's how Salieri sees Mozart. So in that context, it makes sense for Hulce to act Mozart in that way. Still there are times where I think it's a bit much, even with the correct context. And that's why I still have some reservation about Hulce's performance. But in scenes where it's a bit more toned down, he does a great job. He does bring a lot of energy to the movie, which it would otherwise lack. It's one of the things that makes the movie as entertaining as it is. And at three hours, it actually doesn't feel particularly long.
Another thing that makes the movie as entertaining as it is. Is Milos Forman's ability to get the comedy of the story out. Of course there's some in the script. But Milos Forman as a director, is very good at getting more comedic value out of a lot scenes, than they probably deserve. He's just very good at getting script, actors, visuals and editing to play together and enhance these moments. There's not many outright laughs in the film, but many small smirks, that help keep it ticking along at a good pace. The closest thing to a comic relief character in the film, is probably the emperor. I really love Jeffrey Jones performance, where he takes a wonderful deadpan approach to the character. Who is devoid of any self-awareness surrounding his own musical talents, or his general knowledge about the musical arts. But goes at it with great enthusiasm, just not for more than about an hour at a time. When watched through the lens of Salieri, this gives us a very simple minded emperor, whom he doesn't have much respect for. But whom he has please and put up with, because he pays Salieri's wages, and Salieri's employment at the court, ensures that many students with rich parents are lining up to be his pupils. It's really well done, and I had a lot of fun with the emperor.
Technically it's really hard to criticise the movie. The sets, the costumes and the make-up are top notch. The acting is great all the way round more or less. It looks stunning, and the editing is very fine as well. Of course the music is amazing, has to be when you are portraying some of the biggest composers in history. Forman makes all this work together with a good script, and then you have the recipe for a good movie. It's Forman at the top of his game, or close to it. One of his most important achievements in this film, is that he has made a movie based on a play, that looks nothing like a play, and very much like a movie. Something many people tend to forget when adapting plays.
An old Antonio Salieri (F. Murray Abraham), confesses the story of how me met Mozart (Tum Hulce) at the royal court in Vienna. How professional envy led to an unhealthy obsession, and Salieri's eventual murder of Mozart. In his story Salieri presents himself as hardworking, but under appreciated by his peers and contemporaries . While he presents Mozart as a much loved wunderkind, who wastes away his talent on women and parties, instead of being a serious musician like Salieri. When Salieri first met Mozart, Salieri was the court composer, and much respected by the Holy Roman Emperor. He is initially curious about seeing Mozart, expecting a distinguished man. But instead sees a kid, behaving like a young man does when he is first out of side of his father, and surrounded by beautiful women. This upsets Salieri greatly, as much to his dismay, Mozart proves a brilliant composer, despite his behaviour. The movie then follows Salieri and Mozart over the next several of years. As Salieri's obsession with Mozart increases, while Mozart's own life slowly spirals downwards, eventually leading to his untimely death.
I'm not sure the movie tells an accurate story of the lives of either Salieri or Mozart's real lives. The rough outlines are there, but that's probably about it. That doesn't really matter though. I have seen many biopics, and they don't always get better by trying to tell an accurate story, instead of a good story. And Amadeus tells a good story. Salieri is the narrator, and he's quite an unrealiable narrator. Something I had to remind myself of at times. I was getting a bit annoyed with Tom Hulce's acting at times. Because his Mozart is very over the top at times, and his forced laughter gets to me after a few times. Luckily that fades a bit as the movie progresses. But that's how Salieri sees Mozart. So in that context, it makes sense for Hulce to act Mozart in that way. Still there are times where I think it's a bit much, even with the correct context. And that's why I still have some reservation about Hulce's performance. But in scenes where it's a bit more toned down, he does a great job. He does bring a lot of energy to the movie, which it would otherwise lack. It's one of the things that makes the movie as entertaining as it is. And at three hours, it actually doesn't feel particularly long.
Another thing that makes the movie as entertaining as it is. Is Milos Forman's ability to get the comedy of the story out. Of course there's some in the script. But Milos Forman as a director, is very good at getting more comedic value out of a lot scenes, than they probably deserve. He's just very good at getting script, actors, visuals and editing to play together and enhance these moments. There's not many outright laughs in the film, but many small smirks, that help keep it ticking along at a good pace. The closest thing to a comic relief character in the film, is probably the emperor. I really love Jeffrey Jones performance, where he takes a wonderful deadpan approach to the character. Who is devoid of any self-awareness surrounding his own musical talents, or his general knowledge about the musical arts. But goes at it with great enthusiasm, just not for more than about an hour at a time. When watched through the lens of Salieri, this gives us a very simple minded emperor, whom he doesn't have much respect for. But whom he has please and put up with, because he pays Salieri's wages, and Salieri's employment at the court, ensures that many students with rich parents are lining up to be his pupils. It's really well done, and I had a lot of fun with the emperor.
Technically it's really hard to criticise the movie. The sets, the costumes and the make-up are top notch. The acting is great all the way round more or less. It looks stunning, and the editing is very fine as well. Of course the music is amazing, has to be when you are portraying some of the biggest composers in history. Forman makes all this work together with a good script, and then you have the recipe for a good movie. It's Forman at the top of his game, or close to it. One of his most important achievements in this film, is that he has made a movie based on a play, that looks nothing like a play, and very much like a movie. Something many people tend to forget when adapting plays.
Amadeus (1984) Directed by Milos Foreman
To spite what he believes to be an insanely unjust God, Salieri, a lesser composer, plots to undermine, even kill, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, the greatest composer of Classical music who ever lived. Amadeus is about as close as one can come to a perfect movie. So why isn't it a fixture in the discussion of best movies ever? The original play is a work of wit and intelligence with meaty themes about the fickleness of God. Director Milos Foreman's sumptuous adaptation totally liberates the play from the theatre and transforms it into a superb subject for cinema. I mean, objectively as one can muster, what would one change about the movie that would improve upon what is already there? Amadeus should be a fixture in any list of top ten US movies, yet it is seldom mentioned in the same breath with Citizen Kane, Vertigo, The Searchers, or Modern Times. For that matter. I myself have never considered it for any of my top fifty lists. Its quality is obvious, to me anyway--so what makes it so easy to overlook? As far as I can fathom, the problems with it as perceived by many viewers and critics are four fold. There is too much opera in it; it is too long for its own good; the plot takes too many liberties with Mozart's and Salieri's lives; the acting of Tom Hulce as Mozart and Elizabeth Berridge as his wife are so annoying it takes people right out of the movie.
Is the movie too long in this case is like accusing a Mozart piece as having too many notes. Length should not be a serious objection in this work. There is no wasted footage anywhere in the movie.
Is there too much opera in it? Opera is certainly an acquired taste and I struggled with the amount on display in Amadeus when I first saw it. The older me doesn't mind (some) opera as much, and I can now see how well the music is integrated into Foreman's adaptation to shed light on the characters of Salieri and Mozart. So what once was problematic for me is now a positive strength.
The criticism that it falsifies the lives of Mozart and Salieri misses the point. Of course, Salieri didn't kill Mozart. The play is a fanciful "what if" that playwright Peter Shaffer concocted to explore a lot of great characters and great themes--he never claimed that his play was anything more than a highly fictionalized account of one of the most beloved composers in history and one of the most obscure.
That leaves the acting of Hulce and Berridge. They annoyed me, too, the first time I saw the movie, but I have modified that position as well. I now think that Hulce is great, the equal of the scene-stealing F. Murray Abraham as Salieri. Hulce portrays Mozart perfectly as a vulgar man with annoying habits (that laugh, for instance) who nonetheless is insecure about the art which he constructs so easily (one of the few actual truths in the movie is that Mozart seldom corrected his original scores). On the other hand, my opinion of Berridge's performance hasn't changed greatly. Why did Foreman want basically a late 20th century Bronx shrill, dripping Method Acting technique from her every pore, in that role? Age hasn't helped me figure that one out. It is not so much a terrible performance as a colossally misguided one. Still, it is little more than a beauty mark on an otherwise appealing face, a lapse of judgement but hardly a deal breaker.
So, looking at this work as free from bias as I can, I have no choice but to conclude that Amadeus is one of the seven or eight great American movies.
Last edited:
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 367
The Killers (1964) dir. Don Siegel
Hitmen Charlie Storm (Lee Marvin) and Lee (Clu Gulager), perform a successful hit on former racecar driver, now teach at a school for the blind, Johnny North (John Cassavetes). Something troubles them though. Johnny was too calm. He knew what was happening, and accepted his fate. This bothers the two hitmen, this combined with their knowledge of his involvement of a big heist a few years earlier, sets them on a search into Johnny's past with hopes of a big score. This brings them in contact with a former lover (Angie Dickinson) and a ganster kingpin (Ronald Reagan).
The story is fairly regular for a noir only spiced up by being mainly told through flashbacks. Even if the movie isn't very "noir". If it has to be classified as a noir, it has to the most intensively coloured noir ever made. it is an entertaining story though, and a fun time on a friday evening, where you just want to watch something fun with a nice glass of your drink of choice.
I've always had a bit of a soft spot for Lee Marvin and John Cassavetes. Especially Marvin in this movie, is able to take a character, who in the script is about as shallow as the Coyotes play off chances this year, and somehow give him a resemblance of depth. Cassavetes in his Hollywood movies, always seems be really cool. Whether he's playing hero or villain. For Ronald Reagan. It's probably good he left acting after this movie. Because I didn't find him very convincing.
Don Siegel was the kind of studio director, who'd direct pretty much anything. More often than not, the scripts weren't anything worth talking about. But Siegel often made them into better movies than they deserved. That's also the case here, but I'm not sure it's enough to make it rise above being entertaining for an hour and a half. At least I don't think I'll be thinking much about it after this.
Hitmen Charlie Storm (Lee Marvin) and Lee (Clu Gulager), perform a successful hit on former racecar driver, now teach at a school for the blind, Johnny North (John Cassavetes). Something troubles them though. Johnny was too calm. He knew what was happening, and accepted his fate. This bothers the two hitmen, this combined with their knowledge of his involvement of a big heist a few years earlier, sets them on a search into Johnny's past with hopes of a big score. This brings them in contact with a former lover (Angie Dickinson) and a ganster kingpin (Ronald Reagan).
The story is fairly regular for a noir only spiced up by being mainly told through flashbacks. Even if the movie isn't very "noir". If it has to be classified as a noir, it has to the most intensively coloured noir ever made. it is an entertaining story though, and a fun time on a friday evening, where you just want to watch something fun with a nice glass of your drink of choice.
I've always had a bit of a soft spot for Lee Marvin and John Cassavetes. Especially Marvin in this movie, is able to take a character, who in the script is about as shallow as the Coyotes play off chances this year, and somehow give him a resemblance of depth. Cassavetes in his Hollywood movies, always seems be really cool. Whether he's playing hero or villain. For Ronald Reagan. It's probably good he left acting after this movie. Because I didn't find him very convincing.
Don Siegel was the kind of studio director, who'd direct pretty much anything. More often than not, the scripts weren't anything worth talking about. But Siegel often made them into better movies than they deserved. That's also the case here, but I'm not sure it's enough to make it rise above being entertaining for an hour and a half. At least I don't think I'll be thinking much about it after this.
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
Given the choice between probing the mind of a sublime creative genius or a petty middling hack, Amadeus goes for the latter; but then there's more Salieri in us than Mozart (most of us anyway) and you know what they say--it takes one to know one. Let's not get carried away though--this may be Salieri's story, but it sure as hell is Mozart's soundtrack. The music is just one of the great things about this highly fictionalized account of the rivalry between two 18th century composers in the court of Austrian emperor Jeff.
They're an odd couple, Mozart and Salieri. But Mozart really isn't the vulgarian Salieri thinks he is. Mozart is simple is all, innocent like a child. In an early scene Mozart takes a Salieri composition that he has just heard for the first time and plays it back note for note, then proceeds to improvise and improve the piece. He is oblivious to Salieri's glare, unaware that if not for the presence of the emperor Salieri would be throttling him on the spot. Mozart doesn't mean to offend, he thinks it's all good fun. Salieri is Mozart's complete opposite. Mozart may represent divine grace in the body of an obnoxious brat. Salieri OTOH is sin incarnate in the guise of respectability and piety. I don't know if he checks all seven deadly boxes but he's got envy, pride and wrath nailed down, he confesses to lust and given how often we catch him reaching for an unhealthy snack I'd say gluttony is a good bet too. Indeed this sinner’s story is told as a confession structured as a series of flashbacks.
Salieri feels God is mocking him through Mozart. Plausible enough, I knew a guy who was convinced David Bowie was speaking to him through his albums. Salieri vows to destroy Mozart and plans to do this by dressing up in a scary costume and commissioning Mozart to compose a requiem for a death mass, which should kill him because...um...well, as I said, it’s highly fictionalized.
Three of Hollywood's finest hours. Well, there it is. Amadeus sails by without dragging, mixing high culture with low, opera meeting vaudeville with American accents, it's as entertaining as it is enlightening. Profoundly true and cosmically comical. God has a wicked sense of humour.
They're an odd couple, Mozart and Salieri. But Mozart really isn't the vulgarian Salieri thinks he is. Mozart is simple is all, innocent like a child. In an early scene Mozart takes a Salieri composition that he has just heard for the first time and plays it back note for note, then proceeds to improvise and improve the piece. He is oblivious to Salieri's glare, unaware that if not for the presence of the emperor Salieri would be throttling him on the spot. Mozart doesn't mean to offend, he thinks it's all good fun. Salieri is Mozart's complete opposite. Mozart may represent divine grace in the body of an obnoxious brat. Salieri OTOH is sin incarnate in the guise of respectability and piety. I don't know if he checks all seven deadly boxes but he's got envy, pride and wrath nailed down, he confesses to lust and given how often we catch him reaching for an unhealthy snack I'd say gluttony is a good bet too. Indeed this sinner’s story is told as a confession structured as a series of flashbacks.
Salieri feels God is mocking him through Mozart. Plausible enough, I knew a guy who was convinced David Bowie was speaking to him through his albums. Salieri vows to destroy Mozart and plans to do this by dressing up in a scary costume and commissioning Mozart to compose a requiem for a death mass, which should kill him because...um...well, as I said, it’s highly fictionalized.
Three of Hollywood's finest hours. Well, there it is. Amadeus sails by without dragging, mixing high culture with low, opera meeting vaudeville with American accents, it's as entertaining as it is enlightening. Profoundly true and cosmically comical. God has a wicked sense of humour.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,528
- 3,377
The Killers
Siegel (1964)
“It’s alright. I know them.”
A famed Earnest Hemingway short story serves as the jumping off point for The Killers, essentially it’s opening sequence. Two mystery men bully their way into a school for the blind in search of a man. They’re menacing customers with no interest in wasting time. They accost and threaten an innocent secretary before barging into an office and murdering a defenseless man in cold blood. These men, it should be noted, are our heroes at least in so far as there are any heroes in this nasty little piece of work. Charlie (Lee Marvin) is troubled by the event – the lack of fight from their victim, the resignation to fate. He decides he wants answers. Partner (Clu Gulager) in tow, they start to piece this mystery man’s past together. Johnny, who we first meet as “Jerry” (John Cassavetes) was a race car driver (hey, that’s a song …), he falls for trouble in the form of Sheila (Angie Dickinson). Turns out she belongs to Jack (Ronald Reagan). That association pulls Johnny into a heist masterminded by Jack. At Sheila’s urging, he double crosses Jack, but then is triple crossed (my math may be bad here) by her. These shenanigans lead to his death way back at the beginning of the movie. As their investigation works its way through these tanglings, Jack kills Clu Gulager (I just like typing his name). Charlie, wounded by a gun shot, brings justice to both Jack and Sheila in the form of bullets and closes proceedings with an all time great last line, “Lady, I ain’t got the time.” BANG.
This is the good about The Killers: Lee Marvin is a world-class hard-ass. There are few actors I love seeing growl their lines like he does. The story, at least on paper, is solid, tawdry pulp.
This is the bad about The Killers: Everything else. A lot of recognizable names in this low budget offering, but outside of Marvin, I’m not sure a single performance would even qualify as passable. Normal Fell is fine, I guess. Dickinson, meh. Cassavetes is taking things way too seriously. Gulager isn’t taking things seriously enough. He (playing a 27 year old!) might be the worst of a bad bunch. He just wanders around and plays with shit in the background most of the time. I’ll get to Reagan in a second.
It’s hard not to knock The Killers for its cheapness too. The rear-projection racing and driving scenes are almost comically bad. Feels like there is some stock footage dropped in at points. Siegel has some notable work on his resume (Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Dirty Harry and a bunch of other Eastwood dreck) but this is more of a curiosity than a success. Also, maybe I’m expecting too much from a movie I’m already dogging for its shoddiness, but I think some of the witnesses interviewed shared stories that they weren’t actually privy to. Probably being too nitpicky but the realization made me laugh.
But this is what’s really fun about The Killers: Ronald Reagan. This is one of the eventually president’s final movies before going full into politics. (Only 16 years before he would be the leader of the free world). But he looks and sounds like the man who would be president. The wrinkles and crags and age is there. So it’s a real stunner to see him slap Angie Dickinson and struggle to portray a shifty, intimidating crook. He’s horribly miscast and isn’t close to carrying the weight the role needs. It's interesting to watch him try though.
Siegel (1964)
“It’s alright. I know them.”
A famed Earnest Hemingway short story serves as the jumping off point for The Killers, essentially it’s opening sequence. Two mystery men bully their way into a school for the blind in search of a man. They’re menacing customers with no interest in wasting time. They accost and threaten an innocent secretary before barging into an office and murdering a defenseless man in cold blood. These men, it should be noted, are our heroes at least in so far as there are any heroes in this nasty little piece of work. Charlie (Lee Marvin) is troubled by the event – the lack of fight from their victim, the resignation to fate. He decides he wants answers. Partner (Clu Gulager) in tow, they start to piece this mystery man’s past together. Johnny, who we first meet as “Jerry” (John Cassavetes) was a race car driver (hey, that’s a song …), he falls for trouble in the form of Sheila (Angie Dickinson). Turns out she belongs to Jack (Ronald Reagan). That association pulls Johnny into a heist masterminded by Jack. At Sheila’s urging, he double crosses Jack, but then is triple crossed (my math may be bad here) by her. These shenanigans lead to his death way back at the beginning of the movie. As their investigation works its way through these tanglings, Jack kills Clu Gulager (I just like typing his name). Charlie, wounded by a gun shot, brings justice to both Jack and Sheila in the form of bullets and closes proceedings with an all time great last line, “Lady, I ain’t got the time.” BANG.
This is the good about The Killers: Lee Marvin is a world-class hard-ass. There are few actors I love seeing growl their lines like he does. The story, at least on paper, is solid, tawdry pulp.
This is the bad about The Killers: Everything else. A lot of recognizable names in this low budget offering, but outside of Marvin, I’m not sure a single performance would even qualify as passable. Normal Fell is fine, I guess. Dickinson, meh. Cassavetes is taking things way too seriously. Gulager isn’t taking things seriously enough. He (playing a 27 year old!) might be the worst of a bad bunch. He just wanders around and plays with shit in the background most of the time. I’ll get to Reagan in a second.
It’s hard not to knock The Killers for its cheapness too. The rear-projection racing and driving scenes are almost comically bad. Feels like there is some stock footage dropped in at points. Siegel has some notable work on his resume (Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Dirty Harry and a bunch of other Eastwood dreck) but this is more of a curiosity than a success. Also, maybe I’m expecting too much from a movie I’m already dogging for its shoddiness, but I think some of the witnesses interviewed shared stories that they weren’t actually privy to. Probably being too nitpicky but the realization made me laugh.
But this is what’s really fun about The Killers: Ronald Reagan. This is one of the eventually president’s final movies before going full into politics. (Only 16 years before he would be the leader of the free world). But he looks and sounds like the man who would be president. The wrinkles and crags and age is there. So it’s a real stunner to see him slap Angie Dickinson and struggle to portray a shifty, intimidating crook. He’s horribly miscast and isn’t close to carrying the weight the role needs. It's interesting to watch him try though.
The Killers (1964) Directed by Don Siegel
I love Lee Marving. I love John Cassavettes, mostly as a director but he is fun to watch act, as well. As an actor (well, as a director, too) he can never hide his intelligence, though, in truth, he never seems much interested in trying. Angie Dickinson's legs were insured for a million dollars. $100, 000 would have sufficed, but, hey, perhaps that's ungenerous of me. Clu Gulager who I have recently slagged on these very pages is at least fun here--maniacally chewing up scenery but in character for a change. Don Siegel is a "B" movie director with a modest career until the French decided he was an auteur, and then he met kindred spirit Clint Eastwood and moved up in the ranks. He did makes some entertaining "Saturday matinee" type movies early in his career and if you give me six months, I can probably name one. This was Ronald Reagan's last movie before he saddled his country with his brand of fiscal conservatism from which the States never seems to have recovered. Look at his career. At best, he should have been vice president. Anyway, he was horribly miscast here, but that was the case anytime his co-star wasn't a chimpanzee. As an adaptation of Hemingway's story, this movie takes more liberties than a sailor on a 24-hour furlough. Burt Lancaster's 1946 version, also entitled The Killers, was actually made by people who read the book.
Only Lovers Left Alive (2014) Directed by Jim Jarmusch
Adam (Tom Hiddleston) is a vampire who has seen better days, many better day in many different eras. He has landed alone and lonely in bleak Detroit where he keeps to himself and composes his music, the only thing that seems to motivate him. He has a human pal, Ian, who is good-hearted and looks to his needs. Being a very civilized, 21st century vampire, he acquires all the blood he needs from a local hospital which he sips from delicate cordial glasses. He is so down in the dumps that his partner Eve (Tilda Swinton), much more the upbeat vampire, decides to visit him, though she hates the night flight from Tangier that will eventually take her to Detroit. She does her best to cheer Adam up, and things seem to be going pretty well, and then Eve's nutso sister Ava (Mia Wasikowska, never better) shows up and makes endless trouble in her own daffy fashion including "drinking" poor, trusting Ian. Ava is once again exiled to LA, and Adam and Eve decided to take off for Tangier where their friend Christopher Marlowe (yes, that Christopher Marlowe) awaits with a fresh supply of blood. Shit happens, and Adam and Eve finally have to act, well, how to put it?---like vampires.
This movie sounds like a trifle, and it is. I just happen to find it a very witty, pleasing one. I can't imagine a more offbeat vampire story, and it takes fine acting to pull it off convincingly--so kudos to the entire cast. Surprisingly Hiddleston and Swinton have great chemistry. Hiddleston is especially good as he creates a believable portrait of a vampire of tact and intelligence overwhelmed by an almost debilitating sense of ennui. In perfect counterpoint, Swinton plays a believable soulmate and a sexy one at that. They both create very likeable characters. Wasikowska is a total blast--just the right mix of schoolgirl sly charm with a dollop of creature-of-the-night menace around the edges. Yeltsin manages to be sweet and trusting, the perfect slightly zonked foil for irresponsible Ava. Only Lovers Left Alive is probably the only vampire movie that I have seen where I was encouraged to like everybody. That's Jarmusch's genius. His ability to dance stylishly to a different drummer defines the core of a lot of his movies, but this one is exceptionally droll.
Vampires are always the most interesting monsters to me because of all their ilk, they are the only ones that are sometimes allowed to be sexy. Could one be seduced to go to bed with a zombie or a werewolf? Hardly. How about the Catherine Deneuve's vampire Miriam in The Hunger? Where do I sign up? Anyway, this ability to exhibit and express desire adds an interesting edge to the breed. It also makes vampires easier to humanize, which is what Jarmusch does here. These are just two creatures of the night wanting life to be interesting again--who can hold that against them? Meanwhile Jarmusch, with assistance from the perfect mise en scene, squeezes in a few points about desolation and moribund locations more dead than his vampires. All in all, a winning little movie, seemingly just tossed off and very stylishly directed.
My next pick will be the first and likely last terrorist bomber comedy Four Lions (2010).
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 367
Nice pick. It's been on my list for a while, but I've never gotten around to picking it.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,528
- 3,377
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,528
- 3,377
Only Lovers Left Alive
Jarmusch (2013)
“They are deliciously beautiful, aren’t they?”
Adam (Tom Hiddleston) is depressed and contemplating suicide. He is a musician of some note, but has decided to hole himself up in an abandoned home on the outskirts of Detroit’s desolate downtown. He has music to listen to and a loyal go-fer Ian (Anton Yelchin) to see to his needs. Adam, you see, is a vampire. He has a line on a supply that spares him from getting it the old fashioned way. He asks for special bullet and places a call to an old love, Eve (Tilda Swinton). She leaves her home in Tangiers to try to perk up her lover. Not long after that into this equation arrives Ava (Mia Wasikowska), the stereotypical wild-child sister and one who hews a bit closer to what we imagine vampires to be. Poor Ian becomes a snack and circumstances drive Adam and Eve back to Tangiers where they learn the blood supply there, courtesy THE Christopher Marlowe, is tainted and now dry, which forces them to resort to the old ways. Adam seems a little happier though.
I’m a total Jarmusch homer. He isn’t without sin (always been lukewarm on Dead Man and the less said about The Limits of Control, the better), but this one has steadily risen up my personal ranks a little more each of the three times I’ve now seen it. He’s a creator who plays in genre on occasion, but never leaves his own world. I adore Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai, which is a samurai/gangster/hiphop mash-up that’s probably Jarmusch’s closest comparable to this in terms of clear genre grounding/inspiration. He remains his distinctly droll self though, no matter how he chooses to dress up his fims.
Much to love here. The languid pace may be off-putting for some. Ava’s the only real injection of energy and she doesn’t arrive until about half-way through and doesn’t stay long. But liked it, especially having seen it a few times now. Easy to relax into. Despite the fantastical nature of their beings, Adam and Eve make for a sweet match. You can’t help but root for them despite Adam’s evident depression. The jokes! While not quite a laugh riot, I do laugh quite a bit. The handful of scenes between Adam and his reluctant doctor (Geoffrey Wright) with their exchanges of pseudonyms, John Hurt as a cantankerous Marlowe who is still a pissy about Shakespeare, sightseeing for Jack White’s house, etc. The setting is a great choice as well. I am in Detroit annually for a work function and though pockets of its downtown are improving, it is a ghostly, abandoned place often at night. The music was hypnotic and well done as well.
A bit of an under-seen gem that improves upon viewings.
Jarmusch (2013)
“They are deliciously beautiful, aren’t they?”
Adam (Tom Hiddleston) is depressed and contemplating suicide. He is a musician of some note, but has decided to hole himself up in an abandoned home on the outskirts of Detroit’s desolate downtown. He has music to listen to and a loyal go-fer Ian (Anton Yelchin) to see to his needs. Adam, you see, is a vampire. He has a line on a supply that spares him from getting it the old fashioned way. He asks for special bullet and places a call to an old love, Eve (Tilda Swinton). She leaves her home in Tangiers to try to perk up her lover. Not long after that into this equation arrives Ava (Mia Wasikowska), the stereotypical wild-child sister and one who hews a bit closer to what we imagine vampires to be. Poor Ian becomes a snack and circumstances drive Adam and Eve back to Tangiers where they learn the blood supply there, courtesy THE Christopher Marlowe, is tainted and now dry, which forces them to resort to the old ways. Adam seems a little happier though.
I’m a total Jarmusch homer. He isn’t without sin (always been lukewarm on Dead Man and the less said about The Limits of Control, the better), but this one has steadily risen up my personal ranks a little more each of the three times I’ve now seen it. He’s a creator who plays in genre on occasion, but never leaves his own world. I adore Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai, which is a samurai/gangster/hiphop mash-up that’s probably Jarmusch’s closest comparable to this in terms of clear genre grounding/inspiration. He remains his distinctly droll self though, no matter how he chooses to dress up his fims.
Much to love here. The languid pace may be off-putting for some. Ava’s the only real injection of energy and she doesn’t arrive until about half-way through and doesn’t stay long. But liked it, especially having seen it a few times now. Easy to relax into. Despite the fantastical nature of their beings, Adam and Eve make for a sweet match. You can’t help but root for them despite Adam’s evident depression. The jokes! While not quite a laugh riot, I do laugh quite a bit. The handful of scenes between Adam and his reluctant doctor (Geoffrey Wright) with their exchanges of pseudonyms, John Hurt as a cantankerous Marlowe who is still a pissy about Shakespeare, sightseeing for Jack White’s house, etc. The setting is a great choice as well. I am in Detroit annually for a work function and though pockets of its downtown are improving, it is a ghostly, abandoned place often at night. The music was hypnotic and well done as well.
A bit of an under-seen gem that improves upon viewings.
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
The movie is called The Killers, and it stars Lee Marvin.
Honestly, does anything else really need to be said? Right away you get the idea. Marvin delivers the goods at his usual reptilian badass best, he'll kill you for money and not lose any sleep over it.
As a bonus however he gets a sidekick in Clu Gulager, who holds his own as a sharp-dressed smart-ass psycho punk you'd love to slap around except he'd kill you just for kicks. This is clearly a dream job for him, tormenting and provoking innocent people is a side benefit to go along with the main gig. They make a good team and it's fun to watch two professionals go about their work. The actual story of a hapless sucker who falls for a double-crossing dame is just filler. That might not have been the intention...the trailer really emphasizes the sucker/dame romance (plus the race car scenes which probably weren't that thrilling even back then), but there's a reason this is called The Killers, and it's got nothing to do with Hemingway.
And speaking of getting slapped around, here's Ronald Reagan as a gangster boss, his first bad-guy role apparently, and he's...interesting. Not exactly Henry Fonda/Once Upon A Time In The West against-type-casting brilliant, but still he's got a natural sleaze going for him, who knew? He's not really convincing when he calls Angie Dickinson “baby”…he sounds like he's never used that term of endearment ever before…but otherwise he's a serviceable heavy and it's near-impossible to disassociate him from his better-known role of politician. Even though it's understood that he's just an actor playing a role here it is startling nevertheless to see the 40th President punch a woman in the face.
Pulp Fiction fans should get a kick out of The Killers.
Honestly, does anything else really need to be said? Right away you get the idea. Marvin delivers the goods at his usual reptilian badass best, he'll kill you for money and not lose any sleep over it.
As a bonus however he gets a sidekick in Clu Gulager, who holds his own as a sharp-dressed smart-ass psycho punk you'd love to slap around except he'd kill you just for kicks. This is clearly a dream job for him, tormenting and provoking innocent people is a side benefit to go along with the main gig. They make a good team and it's fun to watch two professionals go about their work. The actual story of a hapless sucker who falls for a double-crossing dame is just filler. That might not have been the intention...the trailer really emphasizes the sucker/dame romance (plus the race car scenes which probably weren't that thrilling even back then), but there's a reason this is called The Killers, and it's got nothing to do with Hemingway.
And speaking of getting slapped around, here's Ronald Reagan as a gangster boss, his first bad-guy role apparently, and he's...interesting. Not exactly Henry Fonda/Once Upon A Time In The West against-type-casting brilliant, but still he's got a natural sleaze going for him, who knew? He's not really convincing when he calls Angie Dickinson “baby”…he sounds like he's never used that term of endearment ever before…but otherwise he's a serviceable heavy and it's near-impossible to disassociate him from his better-known role of politician. Even though it's understood that he's just an actor playing a role here it is startling nevertheless to see the 40th President punch a woman in the face.
Pulp Fiction fans should get a kick out of The Killers.
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
Jevo
Registered User
- Oct 3, 2010
- 3,487
- 367
Only Lovers Left Alive (2013) dir. Jim Jarmusch
Adam (Tom Hiddleston) and Eve (Tilda Swinton) are an unusual married couple. Not just because he lives secluded in a house in an otherwise abandoned Detroit suburb, while she lives in Tangier. They have been married for 150 years, and are in fact vampires. Not the scary Dracula kind. They are the cultured and sophisticated, and doesn't go around biting people. It's the 21st century after all. Instead they rely on corrupt doctors, to supply them with pure blood from blood banks. Adam is a musically and scientific genius, who has inspired and affected many of the most important musicians and scientist throughout history. Now he laments the state of the modern world, referring to humans as zombies, and is depressed. Eve senses that he is further down than usual, and travels to Detroit to be with him. Things are going fine, until Eve's "teenage" sister Ava (Mia Wasikowska) turns up, and starts making all kinds of trouble for Adam and Eve.
Prior to 2014 Jim Jarmusch was one of the last people I'd ever expect to make a vampire movie. Safe to say I hadn't imagined you could make a vampire movie like this. It's perhaps not that different from what Jarmusch would usually make. It feels very much like a Jarmusch movie, and in a good way. I think the script really shows that Jarmusch has had a lot of fun with the premise of, what if vampires lived among us and were immortal, but not blood thirsty, rather benevolent in terms of arts and science. What if Kit Marlowe actually faked his own death, and wrote all of Shakespeare's works under a false name, and was a vampire. I think you really can tell that he's had fun with it, in a Jim Jarmusch kind of way, and it's something that makes the movie very watchable.
Apart from just having fun with the vampire premise. There's also a beautiful love story between Adam and Eve. They don't really need to tell each other what they feel. Their love is apparent just from their actions, and perhaps even most clear when they are just together without talking. It's the kind of love that sustains a marriage for more than 150 years. But just because you live forever, and is sophisticated, and an arts and science genius, simply from having been able to dedicate so much time to it, life isn't necessarily great. Depression can take its toll after a couple hundred years. Some people get angry in old age, as they perceive the world to be worse than it was in their youth. Normally death cures them of this problem, but if you live forever, you are not so lucky. You are just left eternity to grow even more bitter and angry at the world around you, and the people who inhabit it.
My favourite things about this movie though, have to be the cinematography and the set design, and the music. It's so beautiful to look at, in every scene. It's surprisingly extravagant for Jarmusch, who I more associate with toned down black and white. But he sure pulls it off. Music is something I think Jarmusch often has excelled in, and this movie might be his best in this department.
When I watched Only Lovers Left Alive for the first time about three or four years ago I really liked it. Watching it again now, I think my appreciation for it has only risen. Has to be one of the best movies of its year.
Adam (Tom Hiddleston) and Eve (Tilda Swinton) are an unusual married couple. Not just because he lives secluded in a house in an otherwise abandoned Detroit suburb, while she lives in Tangier. They have been married for 150 years, and are in fact vampires. Not the scary Dracula kind. They are the cultured and sophisticated, and doesn't go around biting people. It's the 21st century after all. Instead they rely on corrupt doctors, to supply them with pure blood from blood banks. Adam is a musically and scientific genius, who has inspired and affected many of the most important musicians and scientist throughout history. Now he laments the state of the modern world, referring to humans as zombies, and is depressed. Eve senses that he is further down than usual, and travels to Detroit to be with him. Things are going fine, until Eve's "teenage" sister Ava (Mia Wasikowska) turns up, and starts making all kinds of trouble for Adam and Eve.
Prior to 2014 Jim Jarmusch was one of the last people I'd ever expect to make a vampire movie. Safe to say I hadn't imagined you could make a vampire movie like this. It's perhaps not that different from what Jarmusch would usually make. It feels very much like a Jarmusch movie, and in a good way. I think the script really shows that Jarmusch has had a lot of fun with the premise of, what if vampires lived among us and were immortal, but not blood thirsty, rather benevolent in terms of arts and science. What if Kit Marlowe actually faked his own death, and wrote all of Shakespeare's works under a false name, and was a vampire. I think you really can tell that he's had fun with it, in a Jim Jarmusch kind of way, and it's something that makes the movie very watchable.
Apart from just having fun with the vampire premise. There's also a beautiful love story between Adam and Eve. They don't really need to tell each other what they feel. Their love is apparent just from their actions, and perhaps even most clear when they are just together without talking. It's the kind of love that sustains a marriage for more than 150 years. But just because you live forever, and is sophisticated, and an arts and science genius, simply from having been able to dedicate so much time to it, life isn't necessarily great. Depression can take its toll after a couple hundred years. Some people get angry in old age, as they perceive the world to be worse than it was in their youth. Normally death cures them of this problem, but if you live forever, you are not so lucky. You are just left eternity to grow even more bitter and angry at the world around you, and the people who inhabit it.
My favourite things about this movie though, have to be the cinematography and the set design, and the music. It's so beautiful to look at, in every scene. It's surprisingly extravagant for Jarmusch, who I more associate with toned down black and white. But he sure pulls it off. Music is something I think Jarmusch often has excelled in, and this movie might be his best in this department.
When I watched Only Lovers Left Alive for the first time about three or four years ago I really liked it. Watching it again now, I think my appreciation for it has only risen. Has to be one of the best movies of its year.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Pinguins Bremerhaven @ Eisbaren Berlin - Eisbaren Berlin leads series 2-1Wagers: 2Staked: $400.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-
