The Film Lounge

[Ebbywebby]

I've seen it already, but Kieslowski's "The Scar" is a pretty cool rarity for TCM to show (on January 9th).

There used to be a secret URL where the TCM site aiways had the next month's schedule displayed (the address would end in, for instance, january2023.html), but that vanished when the site revamped its design a couple of years ago.

[Minkin]

I can't recall "A Man and a Woman" (1966) EVER being on TCM. It was quite popular in America by foreign-film standards, wasn't it? Is there a copyright dispute or something in play?

Da da da
da-da-da-da-da
da-da-da-da-da....

I recorded this on TCM + saw it back in 2014 and remember quite enjoying it! It really deserves some rescue / love - I would hope this would be on Criterion's radar.

It doesn't appear to be streaming anywhere, but it can be found online in the right places though.

[Good_Will_Harding]

Forget about Jeanne Dielman, there's another King in town that has dethroned Citizen Kane off of another pedestal.



It's giving Kaiju supremacy!

[Torgo]

/

Great reviews for Guillermo Del Toro's Pinocchio (really?, that's the original, full title): 97% on RT, 83 Meta; both IMDb 8.1 and LB 4.1 .. not bad for another Netflix film!

[Lakigigar]

Finally saw a film again after 2 months of drought. I will try to pick it up again more, just maybe not at the pace I used to years ago. I saw Roma which is useful since i've seen that there will be a Mexico country ballot list. It started very slow, i also expected slow cinema, and after 40 mins i had trouble with it, than the pace started to pick up but a few things started to happen that didn't make sense and I wasn't really engaged in it. However the last quarter or third probably is the best part of the film, or in my case, the most interesting part. Pace was higher than early in the film. I just don't think i'm a fan of these type of "episodic-period films" or "family eposes", and they usually do very well on the Academy Awards because i feel like most nominees in recent times are period films. It's okay, just not my type of film i'm afraid.

[Good_Will_Harding]

Not sure how many have had the chance (or cared enough to even try ) to catch Spielberg's latest, but this is a pretty neat find.

[Torgo]

I just don't think i'm a fan of these type of "episodic-period films" or "family eposes", and they usually do very well on the Academy Awards because i feel like most nominees in recent times are period films. It's okay, just not my type of film i'm afraid.

You will be thrilled to hear that the Awards tried to repeat it with last year's Belfast, and Roma arguably was the better film of both.

[Ebbywebby]

I didn't adore Roma, but comparing it to Belfast is not a close call for me. Roma easily better.

[Torgo]

Language bareer / hiccup there. I think I used 'arguably' exactly in the wrong way, as I too found Roma to be easily better. Sorry
They're both arguably films Laki would get too excited about, anyway, and I have other focuses, too. But when the Academy calls, I follow ..

[Lakigigar]

I just don't think i'm a fan of these type of "episodic-period films" or "family eposes", and they usually do very well on the Academy Awards because i feel like most nominees in recent times are period films. It's okay, just not my type of film i'm afraid.

You will be thrilled to hear that the Awards tried to repeat it with last year's Belfast, and Roma arguably was the better film of both.

I actually meant slice of film instead of period drama, period drama is more like drama set during a certain historic time, although period dramas also do usually very well among the Academy Public... One would wonder why. To be fair though few films are set in 1960-1970s Mexico. Acting performances (esp. the kids did pretty well in that regard, was very realistic). And cinematography was solid, just don't know why it had to be in b/w. Feels kinda gimmicky (or nostalghia-triggering maybe for some?). Personally i do think b/w can work in certain conditions, esp. minimalist cinema or where it would benefit cinematography. But here i fail to see why, unless you want to give people the idea that you're watching the film also in the 1960s?

Good, at the very least i'm glad i've finally seen it.

[Good_Will_Harding]

As 'top ten of the year' lists from critics start rolling in, I found this selection and the writeups about them to be among the most insightful.

https://www.theringer.com/movies/2022/1 ... ersun-nope

[outdoorcats]

As 'top ten of the year' lists from critics start rolling in, I found this selection and the writeups about them to be among the most insightful.

https://www.theringer.com/movies/2022/1 ... ersun-nope

I hope they're not the only critic to acknowledge Nope, which still might be my #1.

[peeptoad]

https://thefilmstage.com/sundance-film- ... 23-lineup/

Sundance Film Festival Unveils 2023 Lineup

[Torgo]

The most recent work by Terrence Malick has dropped and it's... a commercial for Louis Vuitton.



I have no strong feelings either way towards this company or its marketing, but all I know is that there's sure some pretty images in this ad.

I've just watched this ad and my desire to buy a Louis Vuitton product has changed by ±0 percent.

[Good_Will_Harding]

As 'top ten of the year' lists from critics start rolling in, I found this selection and the writeups about them to be among the most insightful.

https://www.theringer.com/movies/2022/1 ... ersun-nope

I hope they're not the only critic to acknowledge Nope, which still might be my #1.

Agreed. Since the end of summer, Nope has been dethroned as my top pick for the year, but it still stands out as one of the better films I've seen this year.

[Torgo]

First critics' reviews for Avatar are out after the world premiere and some already loove it! Did you bet on a raving reaction by David Ehrlich?!
https://www.esquire.com/uk/culture/a421 ... t-reviews/

[Good_Will_Harding]

While we're on the subject of Twitter reactions, there's only one person whose opinion I trust on the subject of water and its respective wetness, and that's from one of the foremost intellectual minds this country, nay, the entire WORLD has ever known.

[Torgo]

LOL

Great reviews for Guillermo Del Toro's Pinocchio (really?, that's the original, full title): 97% on RT, 83 Meta; both IMDb 8.1 and LB 4.1 .. not bad for another Netflix film!

Full circle ..:

[Good_Will_Harding]

Less than a week until James Cameron's latest opus hits theaters and I thought it'd be a good time to finally re-watch The Abyss, which I haven't seen in about fifteen or so years. And yet for some reason it's nowhere to be found on any of the major streaming platforms, nor is it even available to rent on YouTube, Amazon, iTunes, etc. Looking into it further, apparently it hasn't even received a proper blu-ray release yet either.

Less than the case of this one specific film not being easily accessible to a willing and paying customer (I've had similar issues with Heavenly Creatures, L.A. Confidential, and Amelie all within the last year as well), here we have another example of a telling commentary on the way our entertainment is marketed and consumed in this increasingly digital era. Billion-dollar filmmaker James Cameron has made less than ten features and at least one of them can't be immediately accessed less than a week before his newest film comes out, also from the same studio as the older one that's not available online for one of the few people of their generation still willing to pay money to watch a non-current release. Long live physical media, streaming found dead in a ditch, etc.

[Onderhond]

Long live physical media, streaming found dead in a ditch, etc.

Yeah, that never was a problem with physical media right ... every film was always available everywhere ...

[Good_Will_Harding]

Long live physical media, streaming found dead in a ditch, etc.

Yeah, that never was a problem with physical media right ... every film was always available everywhere ...

Not exactly the point I was making, but true. Physical media wasn't perfect either and not everything is available in that way either, but at least in certain cases, I would be able to run out to a nearby chain that still carries DVDs/blu-rays and have a better chance at finding what I was looking for, rather than the purported advent of supposedly having every film in existence right at our fingertips.

Of course the obvious solution to my specific situation would be just to take a certain course of action that rhymes with schmorent, but that's a whole other discussion for a different day.

[Onderhond]

I would be able to run out to a nearby chain that still carries DVDs/blu-rays and have a better chance at finding what I was looking for

It really depends what you're looking for then. Popular films ... sure. More obscure films? Streaming does it way better.

Edit 1: nothing beats "the internet" of course.
Edit 2: eh, the most obvious solution would be to just order the DVD/BR, no? The Abyss can't be that hard to find

[OldAle1]

Did you check your local library system? You got me curious so I looked it up in mine - my local system (which is basically SE Wisconsin, including Madison and Milwaukee suburbs but not the city of Milwaukee itself) has half a dozen copies - the one at my own city's library is currently checked out but maybe I'll get on a wait list or get it sent from another library; I've been curious to re-watch it too, and I last saw it when it came out. Of course there is a problem with that, as anybody who has used their library for dvds much knows - they are frequently in bad shape and turn out to be unplayable. I'd say roughly 1/4 of the discs I've gotten out have been too damaged to play - and given that The Abyss came out on DVD quite a few years ago and is a reasonably well-known title, chances aren't bad that you'd get a disc with problems. The movie IS still available on DVD, if you haven't already checked - you can get it on Amazon for under $20. But you probably feel the same way I do - why spend full price on an old format? I don't mind it for box sets or certain kinds of older films where the chances of a BD (let alone 4K) release seem quite remote - but for something like this, eh, no. I feel exactly the same way about a favorite we share, Shyamalan's The Village. So for me, checking stores that sell used stuff (Half-Price Books is my only real option close by; Madison has a few places) and thrift stores is the way to do. I actually came across a copy of The Village at Goodwill a few days ago, but it was full-frame! Uh, no.

As to the point about availability in general, yeah, while we do have wider choices/more options now than ever overall, the same old problem that has persisted since home video began (or you could say, since TV began I suppose) continues - some fairly popular stuff just isn't available for a variety of reasons. Obviously most of us know how to find stuff outside of the normal system but it sucks that that is the only option sometimes for films that are still in the public consciousness, films from major filmmakers or with big stars that were box office hits or award winners. This seems much more the case in the film world than with music or literature - the concept that one couldn't find a Hemingway or Faulkner novel or a Beatles album is a pretty alien one - and I assume it has as much to do with the more complex way that rights are handled, as well as the notion that owning a film never quite got the chance to become a totally normal thing the way owning a CD/LP or book did. I suppose the same thing has happened to a certain extent with CDs but I don't buy enough physical music to really be able to say for certain - I do know that when I look up popular stuff it's typically not hard to find or expensive, and the stuff that does have to be searched for is the same kind of stuff that wasn't easy to get 25 years ago either.

[Good_Will_Harding]

Yeah, there's a few libraries within a reasonable drive that I could try where I know of at least two for sure that have it. But as you say, the copies are pretty old and who knows how many times they have been used over the years. The most sure fire way for me to get a reliable copy is to nab a fresh copy at an FYE or Barnes and Noble. Probably the best bet for this particular case. I know Cameron himself doesn't have especially fond memories of the production (nor do many members of the cast and crew I'd imagine), so maybe that's why he hasn't utilized his gigantic influence to at least get it a blu-ray restoration.

Doing a little more digging, True Lies is in a nearly identical predicament. No blu-ray release as of yet, though at least that one is streaming somewhere, albeit only behind a paywall on Peacock, hardly the most widely used or in demand of the major streaming platforms.

[OldAle1]

I think Cameron is also a control freak who wants to make sure the HD copies are done to his specifications - but he doesn't want to spend any of his precious time working on them. So that's part of it.

I actually did re-watch True Lies not all that long ago, and, meh. I like it, but not enough that I feel the need to own a copy (unless it were on BD, and I found it sealed for $2-3 somewhere). I think what I watched was a library DVD but not sure.

I can't say overall that I care *that* much about these films, or other 'missing' blockbusters, but it does say something about the market - whether it's mostly the people that control the films, or the public is most to blame - that there are big films like these in limbo, sometimes for quite long periods of time. In certain respects the arthouse market seems healthier in terms of catalog titles, because the boutique distributors like Criterion, MOC, Arrow, Kino, etc, keep putting out stuff and mostly trying to keep it in their catalogs, and there seem to be new little distribs all the time. The market has never been better for film noir and I think it's probably doing well by giallo, spaghetti westerns and a few other niches as well. I do have several personal favorites that still don't seem to have any legit HD releases and aren't widely available streaming but nothing's ever going to be perfect, and if they're films that never had commercial appeal to begin with I can't expect miracles.

[kongs_speech]

The Golden Globe nominations are very good, probably better than the Oscars will end up being. I'm really glad to see the love for Triangle of Sadness, Ana De Armas and Inu-Oh.

[Good_Will_Harding]

The biggest takeaway from the Globe nods is just how big of an awards player Ava2r is turning out to be. In a very short amount of time, it went from merely a shoe-in for some tech nods and possibly wins, and now is probably going to snag Best Picture and Best Director nominations as well. The top three for this awards season seems pretty locked in (Everything Everywhere All At Once, The Banshees of Inisherin, The Fabelmans), but Cameron's opus is climbing up to a strong fourth and seems to have jumped ahead of previously strong contenders like Tar and Women Talking.

[Torgo]

And RRR got nominated for best international film - Letterboxd is going to explode

[Ebbywebby]

Looked up a Variety article to read about the GG noms and I get this:

"But the big headline is that in a year when female auteurs such as Sarah Polley ('Women Talking') and Gina Prince-Bythewood ('The Woman King') created some of the most critically acclaimed films, the best director category is entirely comprised of men."

God, when will it end? Remember when the "big headline" of award nominee/winner articles was who got the most, rather than the writer's neurotic count of the "inclusive" honorees?

"Elvis" being nominated for Best Drama rather than Best Comedy/Musical makes a lot of sense, not.

[Torgo]

"Elvis" being nominated for Best Drama rather than Best Comedy/Musical makes a lot of sense, not.

This is the other thing I wondered about. The category consists of ... Avatar, Top Gun and Elvis? Peak drama, eh.
Now I haven't seen Elvis and although it's by Baz Luhrmann, it could still be a regular-flowing biopic about a musician .. and not a musical. But yes, it seems odd.

[kongs_speech]

Looked up a Variety article to read about the GG noms and I get this:

"But the big headline is that in a year when female auteurs such as Sarah Polley ('Women Talking') and Gina Prince-Bythewood ('The Woman King') created some of the most critically acclaimed films, the best director category is entirely comprised of men."

God, when will it end? Remember when the "big headline" of award nominee/winner articles was who got the most, rather than the writer's neurotic count of the "inclusive" honorees?

People really need to get over obsessing about this shit. It's not inclusion. It's not progress. Stop trying to demand quotas and being outraged when it doesn't happen.

[Ebbywebby]

Looked up a Variety article to read about the GG noms and I get this:

"But the big headline is that in a year when female auteurs such as Sarah Polley ('Women Talking') and Gina Prince-Bythewood ('The Woman King') created some of the most critically acclaimed films, the best director category is entirely comprised of men."

God, when will it end? Remember when the "big headline" of award nominee/winner articles was who got the most, rather than the writer's neurotic count of the "inclusive" honorees?

People really need to get over obsessing about this shit. It's not inclusion. It's not progress. Stop trying to demand quotas and being outraged when it doesn't happen.

And these comments never have any GUTS, because they're just trying to score points for looking w*ke and don't want to rustle any feathers. If you want to make this complaint, don't just vaguely whine that some of the year's most acclaimed films were female-directed. Blahblahblah. Say "THIS WOMAN WAS ONE OF THE YEAR'S TOP FIVE DIRECTORS. AND THIS IS THE NOMINATED MAN WHOM I SAY ISN'T DESERVING." But they NEVER do this. No guts.

[brokenface]

I'm wondering which one of the big film awards will be first to make the break from female/male performance categories. Brit Awards did it this year in music and some of the smaller ones started doing it (e.g. British Independent Film Awards).

method will probably be to replace them with other types of categorisation, e.g. BIFA had Lead, Supporting, Duo, Ensemble so there's still 4 main acting awards and actually more people win with the latter two. Or you could go the globes route of having Comedy/Drama categories and possibly expand that way (Action?)

But it will also open up the arguments about balance into more fronts beyond Director, if e.g. you ended up with more than 50% men nominated etc. Anyway, I can see it happening pretty soon, next year maybe.

[Torgo]

I'm wondering which one of the big film awards will be first to make the break from female/male performance categories. Brit Awards did it this year in music and some of the smaller ones started doing it (e.g. British Independent Film Awards).

Not the Academy or Globes here, but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Be ... Best_Actor
"Beginning with the 71st Berlin International Film Festival [in 2021], the award was replaced with the gender-neutral categories, Silver Bear for Best Leading Performance and Silver Bear for Best Supporting Performance."

[kongs_speech]

The extreme majority of people, whether cis or trans, identify with a gender. Taking away gendered awards categories is a very poor idea that creates inequality rather than the desired effect. Non-binary actors should be allowed to choose which category they'd rather submit in. There's no perfect option to make it wonderful for everyone, but that's clearly the best.

[Ebbywebby]

The Independent Spirit Awards dropped gender....

[St. Gloede]

The extreme majority of people, whether cis or trans, identify with a gender. Taking away gendered awards categories is a very poor idea that creates inequality rather than the desired effect. Non-binary actors should be allowed to choose which category they'd rather submit in. There's no perfect option to make it wonderful for everyone, but that's clearly the best.

In that case, we could technically have best director and best directress as well.

I believe the idea behind non-gendered acting categories is that acting is acting. I'm not sure what the main counter-argument is beyond tradition and more awards/recognition to go around. I could see a case being made for there not being as many strong roles for women, is that what you are referring to when you say that it creates inequalities?

(Mind you, I don't have any strong inclination toward removing gendered categories)

[kongs_speech]

The extreme majority of people, whether cis or trans, identify with a gender. Taking away gendered awards categories is a very poor idea that creates inequality rather than the desired effect. Non-binary actors should be allowed to choose which category they'd rather submit in. There's no perfect option to make it wonderful for everyone, but that's clearly the best.

In that case, we could technically have best director and best directress as well.

I believe the idea behind non-gendered acting categories is that acting is acting. I'm not sure what the main counter-argument is beyond tradition and more awards/recognition to go around. I could see a case being made for there not being as many strong roles for women, is that what you are referring to when you say that it creates inequalities?

(Mind you, I don't have any strong inclination toward removing gendered categories)

Yes, I think it will primarily punish women. On the other hand, I also believe that it's not fair for a male actor who wins the award to inevitably be slammed and receive backlash, which you will very obviously happen.

[Ebbywebby]

Looked up a Variety article to read about the GG noms and I get this:

"But the big headline is that in a year when female auteurs such as Sarah Polley ('Women Talking') and Gina Prince-Bythewood ('The Woman King') created some of the most critically acclaimed films, the best director category is entirely comprised of men."

God, when will it end? Remember when the "big headline" of award nominee/winner articles was who got the most, rather than the writer's neurotic count of the "inclusive" honorees?

People really need to get over obsessing about this shit. It's not inclusion. It's not progress. Stop trying to demand quotas and being outraged when it doesn't happen.

And these comments never have any GUTS, because they're just trying to score points for looking w*ke and don't want to rustle any feathers. If you want to make this complaint, don't just vaguely whine that some of the year's most acclaimed films were female-directed. Blahblahblah. Say "THIS WOMAN WAS ONE OF THE YEAR'S TOP FIVE DIRECTORS. AND THIS IS THE NOMINATED MAN WHOM I SAY ISN'T DESERVING." But they NEVER do this. No guts.

https://www.avclub.com/golden-globes-20 ... /slides/10

Typically, the writer is peeved that five "and more" women weren't nominated in a category with just five possible nominees, but of course she takes no position on which male nominees were unjust. So who's the undeserving hack? Cameron? Spielberg? Some other no-name loser?

And then there's the complaint that the nominees are "nearly all white men (the exception being Everything Everywhere All At Once’s Daniel Kwan)." Really, so one out of six nominees is not a white man and that's some shocking, heinous bias.

[kongs_speech]

People really need to get over obsessing about this shit. It's not inclusion. It's not progress. Stop trying to demand quotas and being outraged when it doesn't happen.

And these comments never have any GUTS, because they're just trying to score points for looking w*ke and don't want to rustle any feathers. If you want to make this complaint, don't just vaguely whine that some of the year's most acclaimed films were female-directed. Blahblahblah. Say "THIS WOMAN WAS ONE OF THE YEAR'S TOP FIVE DIRECTORS. AND THIS IS THE NOMINATED MAN WHOM I SAY ISN'T DESERVING." But they NEVER do this. No guts.

https://www.avclub.com/golden-globes-20 ... /slides/10

Typically, the writer is peeved that five "and more" women weren't nominated in a category with just five possible nominees, but of course she takes no position on which male nominees were unjust. So who's the undeserving hack? Cameron? Spielberg? Some other no-name loser?

And then there's the complaint that the nominees are "nearly all white men (the exception being Everything Everywhere All At Once’s Daniel Kwan)." Really, so one out of six nominees is not a white man and that's some shocking, heinous bias.

Aside from The Woman King and Women Talking directors, no one she mentions had a snowball's chance. Those two films are very acclaimed, but not to such a massive degree that them missing out on Director nods is suspicious or an injustice. What's the alternative, rig it to have a female nominee every year? I'm all about feminism and solidarity with my ladies, but fair is fair and I do not condone tweaking awards voting to get a specific desired outcome. That's not what progress is. The ideal situation would be that we reach a point soon where every year has some undeniably brilliant and popular film directed by a woman, thereby ensuring her nomination. But we're not quite there yet, and I think it's dumb to act like awards bodies are doing something unjust.