Rules Don't Apply : Excellent FIlm
Re: Excellent FIlm
Reply |
an answer to past behaviors, this film is a love letter to children, as personal and exceptional as anything he has done.
Personal? Now that you raise the topic, yes, I can see that.
Exceptional? If anything, I thought that Beatty made a film whose imperatives were ultimately quite conventional and routinely sentimental. I do not believe the "best of his generation" hyperbole regarding Beatty, but his past films as a writer-director tended to possess consistent energy, definite edginess, or both. In Rules Don't Apply, he seemed to soften those edges, while the film's energy appeared to ebb and flow in desultory fashion.
Re: Excellent FIlm
Reply |
http://dennis-brian.blogspot.com/2016/11/mr-beatty-has-made-one-of-his-best-films.html
Here is my full review. I disagree about the aimlessness and would argue that there is no fat here. All the scenes are just enough to give the necessary info to lead to the next thing. I do regard Beatty as one of the best of his generation because he took the personal and made it for everyone, the way Woody Allen is able to do sometimes.
Think of Tom Cruise. I am a fan of Cruise. He makes generally, at least, three star films, rarely bad films, yet I know next to nothing about him from the screen. And it feels like he just moves from job to job, picking quality co-stars and crew but no consistent theme.
Redford is a Beatty contemporary. He has made classics and, percentage wise, has made less stinkers than Beatty (especially in the early career). But the great Beatty films are much better. And sure WB only made three films since 1998 while Redford keeps trying and made some very good stuff (Truth, Pete's Dragon), but only All is Lost is comparable to Bulworth or Rules Don't Apply.
Here is my full review. I disagree about the aimlessness and would argue that there is no fat here. All the scenes are just enough to give the necessary info to lead to the next thing. I do regard Beatty as one of the best of his generation because he took the personal and made it for everyone, the way Woody Allen is able to do sometimes.
Think of Tom Cruise. I am a fan of Cruise. He makes generally, at least, three star films, rarely bad films, yet I know next to nothing about him from the screen. And it feels like he just moves from job to job, picking quality co-stars and crew but no consistent theme.
Redford is a Beatty contemporary. He has made classics and, percentage wise, has made less stinkers than Beatty (especially in the early career). But the great Beatty films are much better. And sure WB only made three films since 1998 while Redford keeps trying and made some very good stuff (Truth, Pete's Dragon), but only All is Lost is comparable to Bulworth or Rules Don't Apply.
Re: Excellent FIlm
Reply |
I agree with you. It's an excellent film.
And I agree on the comparison between Beatty and Redford.
Beatty is much better as a director.
Redford directs whatever he can get his hands on, apparently ("Lions For Lambs" was unbelievably bad!), while Beatty directs only what he deeply cares about, most of the times his own scripts.
All of his movies are either great or - at last - very good.
I think "Heaven Can Wait" was very good. Definitely the best one in the saga ('43, '78, '01).
"Reds" is a pure masterpiece (his masterpiece, after all).
"Dick Tracky", as childish as it can be (the only movie he directed but he didn't write) is a love letter to a character he loved when he was a child and - by God - is jaw-dropping, visually speaking. People praised Rodriguez a lot after "Sin City" came out but I think Warren Beatty made a much better job directing "Dick Tracy".
Last but not least: "Bulworth". One of the smartest comedies I've ever seen and - once again - a heartfelt movie.
I think there's no comparison between Beatty and Redford. Beatty wins. All the way.
I think he's also better than Clint Eastwood (the man is a Maestro but, by God, he makes a movie every year and most of them aren't very good).
I think quality should matter more than quantity, when it comes to movies.
And I agree on the comparison between Beatty and Redford.
Beatty is much better as a director.
Redford directs whatever he can get his hands on, apparently ("Lions For Lambs" was unbelievably bad!), while Beatty directs only what he deeply cares about, most of the times his own scripts.
All of his movies are either great or - at last - very good.
I think "Heaven Can Wait" was very good. Definitely the best one in the saga ('43, '78, '01).
"Reds" is a pure masterpiece (his masterpiece, after all).
"Dick Tracky", as childish as it can be (the only movie he directed but he didn't write) is a love letter to a character he loved when he was a child and - by God - is jaw-dropping, visually speaking. People praised Rodriguez a lot after "Sin City" came out but I think Warren Beatty made a much better job directing "Dick Tracy".
Last but not least: "Bulworth". One of the smartest comedies I've ever seen and - once again - a heartfelt movie.
I think there's no comparison between Beatty and Redford. Beatty wins. All the way.
I think he's also better than Clint Eastwood (the man is a Maestro but, by God, he makes a movie every year and most of them aren't very good).
I think quality should matter more than quantity, when it comes to movies.
Re: Excellent FIlm
Reply |
Clint Eastwood (the man is a Maestro but, by God, he makes a movie every year and most of them aren't very good).
I disagreeEastwood has directed thirty-six feature films (one, Tightrope, uncredited), and I would say that over 75 percent of them have been "very good," with close to or around 50 percent being "great." But those judgments can come down to taste.
I like Beatty, toohe is capable of great energy, even if I find that energy erratic or wayward in Rules Don't Apply. But from surveying responses on this board and others, opinions about him seem to be polarized, more so than with most stars or directors. Why exactly that is the case, I am not sure.
Re: Excellent FIlm
Reply |
two words for you: Blood Work.
Actually, I'll throw a couple more words into the mix: Space Cowboys.
Say what you want but the only time Beatty did a silly movie it was "Dick Tracy" and, at least, that movie was magnificent, visually-speaking (and he's the director!).
"True Crime" is also a piece of *beep* movie.
Nobody will argue that "Unforgiven", "Million Dollar Baby" and "Mystic River" are great movies.
Actually, I'll throw a couple more words into the mix: Space Cowboys.
Say what you want but the only time Beatty did a silly movie it was "Dick Tracy" and, at least, that movie was magnificent, visually-speaking (and he's the director!).
"True Crime" is also a piece of *beep* movie.
Nobody will argue that "Unforgiven", "Million Dollar Baby" and "Mystic River" are great movies.
Re: Excellent FIlm
Reply |
I feel that True Crime is terrifica very good film and, in certain ways, one of the best American films ever with regard to racewithout ever being pretentious or self-conscious in that regard. The movie is powerful and probing socially, it is full of irony, it constitutes a rich character study with an excellent and underrated cast, and it maintains a bleak, tensely atmospheric tone while nimbly varying mood. The film also brilliantly navigates the conventions of expectation in both its climax and its coda.
I would say that the late Roger Ebert captures a lot of that nuance here:
I had not read that review previously, but I sense that Ebert and I saw matters much the same way.
I liked Blood Work as an atmospheric neo-noir of sorts with a memorably vulnerable protagonistvulnerable in a very tangible, physical wayand as an exciting mystery that occasionally even creates some phenomenology. I know from audience reactions at the time that some people found the mystery totally obvious, but I feel that many of those people are the kind who go into this kind of movie actively searching for the "whodunit" based on other types of films from the genre. Personally, I do not view films that way. Although I have not seen Blood Work since I viewed it three times in the theater in August 2002, when I was twenty-one, I would at least consider it "good" based on those experiences. Certainly, it is not one of Eastwood's major films, but I found it worthwhile.
I viewed Space Cowboys three times in the theater in August 2000, when I was nineteen, and once on DVD two years later. I liked the film on all those instances as a well-judged entertainment piece, an atmospheric movie with a real sense of flight. But when I viewed it again in September 2012 on DVD at the age of thirty-one, I gained a whole new appreciation for the film. Obviously, it is not one of Eastwood's weightier works, but he ingeniously finds the sweet spot between parody and homage. I feel that Eastwood's skills as a director turned what would have been a ridiculous movie in almost anyone else's hands into a very good filmand that ability is as much a sign of a great director as any. To have just made a parody might have been fun, but that sort of thing has been done before and it would have been hackneyed and of little value. To have just made an homage or a fully serious film, while potentially noble, would have been preposterous. Finding the sweet spot between parody and homage is what really makes Space Cowboys work, but it is not an easy task to accomplish. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, Steven Spielberg finds the middle ground between parody and homage, and the film is effective for that reason, but I believe that Space Cowboys goes further, in part because it is more subtle. And then, in the middle of the movie, Eastwood adjusts and sharpens the tone in a perfectly timed, perfectly judged manner. The movie is well-cast, well-scored, and quite striking visually in some of its compositions, with the CGI stuff from 1999 really holding up. And the coda is absolutely classic. Finally, Space Cowboys is surprisingly eloquent in its style, especially in the sense that Eastwood says as much by what he leaves out as what he leaves inand he leaves out a lot of conventional filler that 95-99 percent of Hollywood directors would have included.
I agree with what the late Richard Corliss wrote in Time:
Once again, I had not read that review previously, but he seems to have seen the movie the same way.
As an aside about sweet spots between otherwise different elements, I feel that for the first half or so of Manchester by the Sea, writer-director Kenneth Lonergan finds the sweet spot between comedy and tragedy. Unfortunately, in the second half, he pushes the combination too hard or veers unevenly between the twohe struggles to maintain a middle ground, let alone a sweet spot. I still find the film good, but this sort of ability is difficult to maintain for an entire movie.
I assume that you meant that no one will argue that they are not great movies. For even if you feel that they are not great, many (perhaps most) would argue differently.
I would say that the late Roger Ebert captures a lot of that nuance here:
This is Eastwood's 21st film as a director and experience has given him patience. He knows that even in a deadline story like this, not all scenes have to have the same breakneck pace. He doesn't direct like a child of MTV, for whom every moment has to vibrate to the same beat. Eastwood knows about story arc, and as a jazz fan, he also knows about improvising a little before returning to the main theme.
"True Crime" has a nice rhythm, intercutting the character's problems at home, his interviews with the prisoner, his lunch with a witness, his unsettling encounter with the grandmother of another witness. And then, as the midnight hour of execution draws closer, Eastwood tightens the noose of inexorably mounting tension. There are scenes involving an obnoxious prison chaplain and a basically gentle warden, and the mechanical details of execution. Cuts to the governor who can stay the execution. Tests of the telephone hotlines. Battles with Everett's editors. Last-minute revelations. Like a good pitcher, Eastwood gives the movie a nice slow curve and a fast break.
Many recent thrillers are so concerned with technology that the human characters are almost in the way. We get gun battles and car chases that we don't care about, because we don't know the people firing the guns or driving the cars. I liked the way Eastwood and his writers (Larry Gross, Paul Brickman and Stephen Schiff) lovingly added the small details. For example, the relationships that both the reporter and the condemned man have with their daughters. And a problem when the prisoner's little girl can't find the right color crayon for her drawing of green pastures.
In England 25 years ago, traditional beer was being pushed off the market by a pasteurized product that had been pumped full of carbonation (in other words, by American beer). A man named Richard Boston started the Real Beer Campaign. Maybe it's time for a movement in favor of Real Movies. Movies with tempo and character details and style, instead of actionfests with Attention Deficit Syndrome. Clint Eastwood could be honorary chairman.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/true-crime-1999
I had not read that review previously, but I sense that Ebert and I saw matters much the same way.
I liked Blood Work as an atmospheric neo-noir of sorts with a memorably vulnerable protagonistvulnerable in a very tangible, physical wayand as an exciting mystery that occasionally even creates some phenomenology. I know from audience reactions at the time that some people found the mystery totally obvious, but I feel that many of those people are the kind who go into this kind of movie actively searching for the "whodunit" based on other types of films from the genre. Personally, I do not view films that way. Although I have not seen Blood Work since I viewed it three times in the theater in August 2002, when I was twenty-one, I would at least consider it "good" based on those experiences. Certainly, it is not one of Eastwood's major films, but I found it worthwhile.
I viewed Space Cowboys three times in the theater in August 2000, when I was nineteen, and once on DVD two years later. I liked the film on all those instances as a well-judged entertainment piece, an atmospheric movie with a real sense of flight. But when I viewed it again in September 2012 on DVD at the age of thirty-one, I gained a whole new appreciation for the film. Obviously, it is not one of Eastwood's weightier works, but he ingeniously finds the sweet spot between parody and homage. I feel that Eastwood's skills as a director turned what would have been a ridiculous movie in almost anyone else's hands into a very good filmand that ability is as much a sign of a great director as any. To have just made a parody might have been fun, but that sort of thing has been done before and it would have been hackneyed and of little value. To have just made an homage or a fully serious film, while potentially noble, would have been preposterous. Finding the sweet spot between parody and homage is what really makes Space Cowboys work, but it is not an easy task to accomplish. In Raiders of the Lost Ark, Steven Spielberg finds the middle ground between parody and homage, and the film is effective for that reason, but I believe that Space Cowboys goes further, in part because it is more subtle. And then, in the middle of the movie, Eastwood adjusts and sharpens the tone in a perfectly timed, perfectly judged manner. The movie is well-cast, well-scored, and quite striking visually in some of its compositions, with the CGI stuff from 1999 really holding up. And the coda is absolutely classic. Finally, Space Cowboys is surprisingly eloquent in its style, especially in the sense that Eastwood says as much by what he leaves out as what he leaves inand he leaves out a lot of conventional filler that 95-99 percent of Hollywood directors would have included.
I agree with what the late Richard Corliss wrote in Time:
Four guys doing something kooky-that sounds like a teen-hormone romp. But the Space Cowboys quartet has been alive for a cumulative 261 years, and in films for 156. They're too mature to fiddle with bra straps or play with pastry. Besides, Eastwood is a gentleman of sorts, so-except for displaying the four men's naked behinds, which is quite an archaeological sight-he will embarrass neither them nor us. Directing from a script by Ken Kaufman and Howard Klausner, he finds fresh breezes in familiar vectors: the residual rivalry of Frank and Hawk, the tensions between the ancient astronauts and the modern ones, the impact of decay and disease on minds that are still bright, wills that are still strong.
For its first hour, this is an engaging rite-of-passage comedy for the Grumpy Old Men set. When the men go into orbit, so does the film. It blends tension and emotion, computer wizardry and dramatic skill in a vigorous climax-and the most impressive, haunting final shot of the movie year.
Eastwood's message is clear: he wants Hollywood to see how an old man can play a young man's game. Find a story that allows elbow room for star quality; hand the old boys some new toys; don't try to be a kid. Deep into Act 3 of his career, Eastwood still has the goods.
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2047803,00.html
Once again, I had not read that review previously, but he seems to have seen the movie the same way.
As an aside about sweet spots between otherwise different elements, I feel that for the first half or so of Manchester by the Sea, writer-director Kenneth Lonergan finds the sweet spot between comedy and tragedy. Unfortunately, in the second half, he pushes the combination too hard or veers unevenly between the twohe struggles to maintain a middle ground, let alone a sweet spot. I still find the film good, but this sort of ability is difficult to maintain for an entire movie.
Nobody will argue that "Unforgiven", "Million Dollar Baby" and "Mystic River" are great movies.
I assume that you meant that no one will argue that they are not great movies. For even if you feel that they are not great, many (perhaps most) would argue differently.
Re: Excellent FIlm
Reply |
"I think he's also better than Clint Eastwood (the man is a Maestro but, by God, he makes a movie every year and most of them aren't very good). I think quality should matter more than quantity, when it comes to movies."
Filompra, are you seriously suggesting that Beatty is a better director than Eastwood??? That's like saying that Carmelo Anthony is better than Michael Jordan. Although a famous actor, Eastwood will go down as one of the most prolific directors in history; and has arguably directed as many good movies as any famous director in history. Eastwood has directed, among other things,
(1) Unforgiven; (2) Million Dollar Baby; (3) Mystic River; (4) Bird; (5) Josey Wales; (6) American Sniper; (7) Perfect World; (8) Bronco Billy; (9) High Plains Drifter; (10) Sully; (11) Letters from Iwo Jima; (12) Flags of or Fathers; (13) Gran Torino; (14) Misty; etc. Moreover, Clint directed virtually all of those movies both timely and cost efficiently. Furthermore, he knew when to step aside and cast others.
Beatty has directed two good films, Reds and Heaven Can't. Both, however, are over rated. Moreover, Reds took something like three years to make, went ridiculously over budget, and bombed at the box office. Furthermore, it was beyond ridiculous for Beatty to cast himself in the lead role, while he had both Nicholson and Hackman, two of the greatest actors in history in supporting roles.
Filompra, are you seriously suggesting that Beatty is a better director than Eastwood??? That's like saying that Carmelo Anthony is better than Michael Jordan. Although a famous actor, Eastwood will go down as one of the most prolific directors in history; and has arguably directed as many good movies as any famous director in history. Eastwood has directed, among other things,
(1) Unforgiven; (2) Million Dollar Baby; (3) Mystic River; (4) Bird; (5) Josey Wales; (6) American Sniper; (7) Perfect World; (8) Bronco Billy; (9) High Plains Drifter; (10) Sully; (11) Letters from Iwo Jima; (12) Flags of or Fathers; (13) Gran Torino; (14) Misty; etc. Moreover, Clint directed virtually all of those movies both timely and cost efficiently. Furthermore, he knew when to step aside and cast others.
Beatty has directed two good films, Reds and Heaven Can't. Both, however, are over rated. Moreover, Reds took something like three years to make, went ridiculously over budget, and bombed at the box office. Furthermore, it was beyond ridiculous for Beatty to cast himself in the lead role, while he had both Nicholson and Hackman, two of the greatest actors in history in supporting roles.
Re: Excellent FIlm
Reply |
"[T]he great Beatty films are much better" than Redford's films. "[M]uch better"??
That statement is just ridiculous. Redford has, among other things, the Sting, Butch Cassidy, & All the President's Men; which are all arguably better than anything Beatty has ever done. Redford also has Out of Africa; the Natural; Three Days of the Condor; the Candidate; Jeremiah Johnson; the Way We Were; Barefoot in the Park; Sneakers; and more. Moreover, he directed Ordinary People and Quiz Show; and exec produced Motorcycle Diaries. Redford's historical filmography is far superior to Beatty's.
That statement is just ridiculous. Redford has, among other things, the Sting, Butch Cassidy, & All the President's Men; which are all arguably better than anything Beatty has ever done. Redford also has Out of Africa; the Natural; Three Days of the Condor; the Candidate; Jeremiah Johnson; the Way We Were; Barefoot in the Park; Sneakers; and more. Moreover, he directed Ordinary People and Quiz Show; and exec produced Motorcycle Diaries. Redford's historical filmography is far superior to Beatty's.
Re: Excellent FIlm
Reply |
Those are great films (cept Sneakers) I would further add All is Lost, Truth and The Company You Keep just from the past few years. He has a remarkable run, yet none of those films are as good as Shampoo, Bulworth, Rules and a few others. His track record is sort of 50-50 but the best are well..the best
Re: Excellent FIlm
Reply |
I was talking about directing, man.
As a director Redford made only 2 good movies:
"Ordinary People" and "Quiz Show".
The rest is pretty bad (unless you want to difend "Lions for Lambs" and "The Horse Whisperer").
As a director Redford made only 2 good movies:
"Ordinary People" and "Quiz Show".
The rest is pretty bad (unless you want to difend "Lions for Lambs" and "The Horse Whisperer").
Re: Excellent FIlm
Reply |
I almost forgot!
"The Legend of Bagger Vance"! WOW! That was one big steaming pile of horse manure!
"The Legend of Bagger Vance"! WOW! That was one big steaming pile of horse manure!
Excellent FIlm