But wanted to add that our film club maven occasionally asks us to nominate genres, for which I commend her. Anyway, my next nominee will be 'best low-budget wonders', and Primer will be on that list, along with El Mariachi, and a few others. Need to define 'low budget' first (will be in $thousands, not $millions); there is something to be said for lean...
Mar 14, 2022·edited Mar 14, 2022Liked by Roy Edroso
I've decided that my absolutely arbitrary cutoff is $500k. HS fits. I'll add it to my list, thanks.
Also, in websurfing today I found many ways of ranking 'great low budget' films. The ranking scheme I like the least is based on the difference between cost and box office gross (because gross is meaningless and beside the point of greatness). That said, many of the lists have quite a few under $500k, and many of those are memorable (groundbreaking, even) and worth revisiting.
And edited to add, as today is 3.14, I should note that Pi is on my low-budget wonders list, and really a fun flick that I had forgotten about.
I saw Hope and Glory, a Boorman remembrance of his childhood recently and love the hell out of it . It sounds right up the same alley I've always liked
Branagh- he managed to move past that wunderkind thing into a pretty solid career. He works hard.I like the Shakespeare, loved Dead Again and Thor. I really loved Wallander. Have you've seen Death on the Nile?
I really liked Interiors. First time I saw it I was 17 or 18 and lacked the emotional background to really understand it. I still found it pretty engrossing. The second time I saw it I was plenty old enough to feel the despair disappointment and angst as one does in their 40s so it actually meant something to me. By then though, we were all skeeved out with his personal life of course. Oh yeah Woody Allen, great filmmaker but you wouldn't want them to babysit your kids. I guess you could say the same thing about Chaplin or Polanski.
I read once where some wag suggested Interiors would have worked better lensed by Sven Nykvist. Interesting idea.
Mar 14, 2022·edited Mar 14, 2022Liked by Roy Edroso
Holy fuck -- I did not notice that Branagh directed Thor.
I'm still catching up on the MCU, film by film in timeline order. I'm at Black Widow. I feel like this one is about to break into a scary girl voice cover of "Mad World" at any moment.
I only saw Branagh's Hamlet and Henry V. They struck me as flashy and not much else. (Give me Richardson/Williamson and Chimes at Midnight.)
I haven't seen Interiors since I was young and had a similar experience. Maybe I should revisit, too. (I love Nykvist but Gordon Willis is no slouch.) I'll take the art even if I must abjure the artist. (RIP BTW William Hurt.)
Mar 14, 2022·edited Mar 14, 2022Liked by Roy Edroso
His Much Ado About Nothing is pretty wonderful.,(Much Ado About Nuttin' here in the Heartland) Not just because Emma Thompson is amazing either (that doesn't hurt!)
He didn't direct, but his Iago is fantastic to Lawrence Fishburne's
Othello.
William Hurt is quite a loss. I couldn't believe he was 71. Then I realized I'm 64.
Branagh used to tell a story about how he got sorta famous after HVth hit the screens in England. It goes something like:
He was walking somewhere in the city and passed a black-leather clad half-shaved punk kid who yelled at him "Oy! You Branagh? That film was fookin' brilliant!"
Mar 14, 2022·edited Mar 14, 2022Liked by Roy Edroso
This sounds lovely & I agree it has a good chance: what Academy voter does not like an Irish growing-up memoir? And I appreciate you observing its lingering on the edge of too sentimental. In another era, this story might end with Paul Harvey concluding the film by saying, "And that Proddy little boy no one liked grew up to be... Kenneth Brannaugh."
In other news, I'm watching all 14 movies I've selected to be possibly be in my "Medievalist Ruins the Movies" course this summer -- I've got to whittle it down to 10 at best, plus I need to make sure I want to talk about the things these movies bring up.
[First on the list was "The Little Hours" -- which I loved.]
Last night was Derek Jarman's Edward II (1991), his adaptation of a tragedy by Christopher Marlowe. And I also loved it, and while it was more mainstream than say Jubiliee (1978), it was gloriously homoerotic & powerful. I'd definitely teach it, since a big part of the course is examining how the medieval world is adapting for later uses. Here there are two lenses of Edward's rise & fall (1307–27) as seen thru Marlowe's own early Tudor needs (1594) and the Jarman's post-HIV, post-Clause 28 UK.
[I'll share the list another time if folks are interested]
Coincidentally, I saw this last night. Here's one thing I found memorable: Buddy gets caught up in a mob looting a store and ends up taking a thing of detergent and bringing it home. When his mother asks him why he did it, all he can do is mutter "it's biological," 'biological' being the brand's marketing phrase. I thought that did a great job of capturing his confused state of mind.
Mar 14, 2022·edited Mar 14, 2022Liked by Roy Edroso
A movie I've actually seen for a change. My take is pretty much the same as yours, and I'm another one who immediately thought of Hope and Glory which I liked a bunch more. And is there anything that Ciarán Hinds doesn't make better? (Judi Dench is no slouch either -- she and Steve Coogan made even Philomena watchable.)
You are a great movie reviewer. There was a Los Angeles Times movie critic decades ago, Michael, can't recall his last name now. He was the best reviewer for my purposes in those days, because, regardless of negative or positive reviews, I could always tell whether I would like the movie. He did it that way intentionally. Your reviews are even better. Some day, we can discuss why. Cheers.
On the list (long list, no guarantees – I only just got round to Primer last week – edited to add Damn, Primer is good!))
I know, replying to my own damn message...sigh...
But wanted to add that our film club maven occasionally asks us to nominate genres, for which I commend her. Anyway, my next nominee will be 'best low-budget wonders', and Primer will be on that list, along with El Mariachi, and a few others. Need to define 'low budget' first (will be in $thousands, not $millions); there is something to be said for lean...
"Hollywood Shuffle"? Maybe. . . .
I've decided that my absolutely arbitrary cutoff is $500k. HS fits. I'll add it to my list, thanks.
Also, in websurfing today I found many ways of ranking 'great low budget' films. The ranking scheme I like the least is based on the difference between cost and box office gross (because gross is meaningless and beside the point of greatness). That said, many of the lists have quite a few under $500k, and many of those are memorable (groundbreaking, even) and worth revisiting.
And edited to add, as today is 3.14, I should note that Pi is on my low-budget wonders list, and really a fun flick that I had forgotten about.
Huh! Well that's on the list then
But is it as good as “The Snapper” or “The Van”?
Never saw The Van but no, it's not as good as The Snapper. Not as easy-going.
T’row in “The Commitments” and ye have yerself a foin St. Paddy’s Day Roddy Doyle trilogy o’ larks.
Waking Ned Devine is our flick this Thursday
Great review. I may actually see this one.
I saw Hope and Glory, a Boorman remembrance of his childhood recently and love the hell out of it . It sounds right up the same alley I've always liked
Branagh- he managed to move past that wunderkind thing into a pretty solid career. He works hard.I like the Shakespeare, loved Dead Again and Thor. I really loved Wallander. Have you've seen Death on the Nile?
I really liked Interiors. First time I saw it I was 17 or 18 and lacked the emotional background to really understand it. I still found it pretty engrossing. The second time I saw it I was plenty old enough to feel the despair disappointment and angst as one does in their 40s so it actually meant something to me. By then though, we were all skeeved out with his personal life of course. Oh yeah Woody Allen, great filmmaker but you wouldn't want them to babysit your kids. I guess you could say the same thing about Chaplin or Polanski.
I read once where some wag suggested Interiors would have worked better lensed by Sven Nykvist. Interesting idea.
Hope & Glory is a fine film.
Holy fuck -- I did not notice that Branagh directed Thor.
I'm still catching up on the MCU, film by film in timeline order. I'm at Black Widow. I feel like this one is about to break into a scary girl voice cover of "Mad World" at any moment.
I was thinking of Hope & Glory too!
I only saw Branagh's Hamlet and Henry V. They struck me as flashy and not much else. (Give me Richardson/Williamson and Chimes at Midnight.)
I haven't seen Interiors since I was young and had a similar experience. Maybe I should revisit, too. (I love Nykvist but Gordon Willis is no slouch.) I'll take the art even if I must abjure the artist. (RIP BTW William Hurt.)
His Much Ado About Nothing is pretty wonderful.,(Much Ado About Nuttin' here in the Heartland) Not just because Emma Thompson is amazing either (that doesn't hurt!)
He didn't direct, but his Iago is fantastic to Lawrence Fishburne's
Othello.
William Hurt is quite a loss. I couldn't believe he was 71. Then I realized I'm 64.
Branagh used to tell a story about how he got sorta famous after HVth hit the screens in England. It goes something like:
He was walking somewhere in the city and passed a black-leather clad half-shaved punk kid who yelled at him "Oy! You Branagh? That film was fookin' brilliant!"
This sounds lovely & I agree it has a good chance: what Academy voter does not like an Irish growing-up memoir? And I appreciate you observing its lingering on the edge of too sentimental. In another era, this story might end with Paul Harvey concluding the film by saying, "And that Proddy little boy no one liked grew up to be... Kenneth Brannaugh."
In other news, I'm watching all 14 movies I've selected to be possibly be in my "Medievalist Ruins the Movies" course this summer -- I've got to whittle it down to 10 at best, plus I need to make sure I want to talk about the things these movies bring up.
[First on the list was "The Little Hours" -- which I loved.]
Last night was Derek Jarman's Edward II (1991), his adaptation of a tragedy by Christopher Marlowe. And I also loved it, and while it was more mainstream than say Jubiliee (1978), it was gloriously homoerotic & powerful. I'd definitely teach it, since a big part of the course is examining how the medieval world is adapting for later uses. Here there are two lenses of Edward's rise & fall (1307–27) as seen thru Marlowe's own early Tudor needs (1594) and the Jarman's post-HIV, post-Clause 28 UK.
[I'll share the list another time if folks are interested]
What a wonderful idea!
Here's the list -- feel free to suggest others:
The Little Hours (2017, dir. Jeff Baena)
The Secret of Kells (2009, dir. Tomm Moore & Nora Twomy)
Saladin the Victorious (1963, dir. Youssef Chahine)
Red Cliff (2008–9, dir. John Woo)
Rashomon (1950, dir. Akira Kurosawa)
Alexander Nevsky (1938, dir. Sergei Eisenstein)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928, dir. Carl Theodor Dreyer)
Excalibur (1981, dir. John Boorman)
A Knight’s Tale (2001, dir. Brian Helgeland)
The Green Knight (2021, dir. David Lowery)
Edward II (1991, dir. Derek Jarman)
Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan (2007, dir. Sergei Bodrov)
Valhalla Rising (2009, dir. Nicolas Winding Refn)
Arabian Nights (1974, dir. Pier Paolo Passolini)
Beowulf and Grendel (2005, dir. Sturla Gunnarsson)
The Reckoning (2003, dir. Paul McGuigan)
The Seventh Seal (1957, dir. Ingmar Bergman)
Princess Mononoke (1997, dir. Hiyao Miyazaki)
Coincidentally, I saw this last night. Here's one thing I found memorable: Buddy gets caught up in a mob looting a store and ends up taking a thing of detergent and bringing it home. When his mother asks him why he did it, all he can do is mutter "it's biological," 'biological' being the brand's marketing phrase. I thought that did a great job of capturing his confused state of mind.
Yeah! Buddy's a real kid alright.
A movie I've actually seen for a change. My take is pretty much the same as yours, and I'm another one who immediately thought of Hope and Glory which I liked a bunch more. And is there anything that Ciarán Hinds doesn't make better? (Judi Dench is no slouch either -- she and Steve Coogan made even Philomena watchable.)
I've been a Ciaran Hinds fan ever since "Persuasion" (which was itself was just perfect).
You are a great movie reviewer. There was a Los Angeles Times movie critic decades ago, Michael, can't recall his last name now. He was the best reviewer for my purposes in those days, because, regardless of negative or positive reviews, I could always tell whether I would like the movie. He did it that way intentionally. Your reviews are even better. Some day, we can discuss why. Cheers.
Thanks!