THE FORTUNE COOKIE (1966)

I wanted to see what Walter Matthau won his Oscar for, and his character at least plays fast, broad, and comedic as a shady lawyer who tries to net his cameraman brother-in-law (Jack Lemmon) a large insurance settlement after a run-in on the field with a black football player (a very endearing performance from Ron Rich). It was fun seeing Matthau up against the stuffy insurance lawyers (he could mine comic gold just by answering the phone -- "Helloooo?"), and his chemistry with Jack Lemmon was undeniable. The story played out well enough, and as much as I wanted to see Harry do the right thing by the end, there was a particular pleasure in seeing Willie getting away with the con and coming so close to seeing his dream happen. Judi West was fun too and had a solid arc. I wouldn't have minded seeing her in the film more. I loved the added touch of the title introductions for each new section. Kind of a slight film, but engaging enough all the same.

Grade for "The Fortune Cookie": B/B+

Could Matthau's win be considered category fraud? I'm asking cause I've never seen the film.

quote:

Originally posted by Stinger:
Could Matthau's win be considered category fraud? I'm asking cause I've never seen the film.

I love Walter Matthau and think him to be a comedic genius but in "The Fortune Cookie" he and Jack Lemmon are comic team in much the same way they are in "The Odd Couple". Both actors are in most scenes- to my memory at least.

The Aura
2005, Fabián Bielinsky
Grade: B

Doubt: C

One of the more disappointing films I've seen recently. I was expecting something fantastic, and I got a film that had potential, but was so over-acted and overdone. The only character who I cared for was Amy Adams character.

Also, what the hell was up with Mrs. Miller? Your child is possibly being molested by a priest, and all you say is, "Well, at least someone loves him." LOL WUT.

quote:

Originally posted by MissyGal:
Doubt: C
Also, what the hell was up with Mrs. Miller? Your child is possibly being molested by a priest, and all you say is, "Well, at least someone loves him." LOL WUT.

That's the moment where 'Doubt', which had me fairly hazy and bored throughout, completely lost me. Allegory needs to work both ways. Ain't no sane parent (and Mrs. Miller seemed very sane and knowing) gonna allow their kid to be molested just because she wants him to have a friend. Definately the eye-rolling-est moment in a movie full the of eye-rolling moments. Only that last line competes with.

M*A*S*H

This is a classic? I found it practically unwatchable.

quote:

Originally posted by Brilliance inmorbid:

quote:

Originally posted by MissyGal:
Doubt: C
Also, what the hell was up with Mrs. Miller? Your child is possibly being molested by a priest, and all you say is, "Well, at least someone loves him." LOL WUT.

That's the moment where 'Doubt', which had me fairly hazy and bored throughout, completely lost me. Allegory needs to work both ways. Ain't no sane parent (and Mrs. Miller seemed very sane and knowing) gonna allow their kid to be molested just because she wants him to have a friend. Definately the eye-rolling-est moment in a movie full the of eye-rolling moments. Only that last line competes with.

It was a difficult moment, but Mrs Miller convinced me of her motivations. Because, the alternative was death for her son. It seems, almost inconceivable, esp now when we can all talk about it openly.
Anyways, she didnt 'lose' me. For a few months, with the circumstances what they were, she was doing what she felt she had to to protect her son. It was an impossible choice which Mrs Miller conveyed pointedly, to Sister Streep.

quote:

Originally posted by babypook:

quote:

Originally posted by Brilliance inmorbid:

quote:

Originally posted by MissyGal:
Doubt: C
Also, what the hell was up with Mrs. Miller? Your child is possibly being molested by a priest, and all you say is, "Well, at least someone loves him." LOL WUT.

That's the moment where 'Doubt', which had me fairly hazy and bored throughout, completely lost me. Allegory needs to work both ways. Ain't no sane parent (and Mrs. Miller seemed very sane and knowing) gonna allow their kid to be molested just because she wants him to have a friend. Definately the eye-rolling-est moment in a movie full the of eye-rolling moments. Only that last line competes with.

It was a difficult moment, but Mrs Miller convinced me of her motivations. Because, the alternative was death for her son. It seems, almost inconceivable, esp now when we can all talk about it openly.
Anyways, she didnt 'lose' me. For a few months, with the circumstances what they were, she was doing what she felt she had to to protect her son. It was an impossible choice which Mrs Miller conveyed pointedly, to Sister Streep.

I'm with babypook. MILD SPOILERS AHEAD. I'm surprised by the lack of empathy for Mrs. Miller in the above posts, which approach the characters from much too contemporary a perspective. Here is a black woman in the 1960s, which is to say in other words, here is a person with no power and no options. Her husband is abusive, and her son, who is emerging as a homosexual, is in danger from him. Newly desegregated schools are surely not the most hospitable place for a lone black student. The economic reality is such that she needs to work and isn't there to protect him. And there is Father Flynn, who may be guilty of a horrible crime but may also be the only thing standing between her son and death. The choice she makes is horrifying, but the point is not that she's a bad mother. The horror is the fact that any mother and child can be placed in such a circumstance that child molestation is the least of all possible evils.

It's not a lack of empathy. I simply was not buying her motives. How did she and her husband and the kids at his former school know her son was gay? There was nothing boldly effeminate about the boy. Just because he was soft-spoken? Certainly at that time people wouldn't immediately assume such a thing and the Black community was (and still is) very much in denial about homosexuality. Surely no kid at that age and that time would admit to being gay. It just didn't compute. The movie needed to adhere to the time and place, and it abandoned any realism in that scene. I also thought it was fairly presumptuous of her to assume her son was gay just because he was 'different'.

Perhaps 'Doubt' would have been a better movie had they focused on Mrs. Miller and her family. As it is that one scene (while greatly acted by Davis) did not do such a revelation justice. It felt like a device.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Brilliance inmorbid,

quote:

Originally posted by Stinger:
Could Matthau's win be considered category fraud? I'm asking cause I've never seen the film.

No, I don't think it is.

The Barbarian Invasions
2003, Denys Arcand
Grade: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

quote:

Originally posted by puxzkkx:
The Barbarian Invasions
2003, Denys Arcand
Grade: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

WWWWHHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY? LOL

It's a borderline case from my recollection of the film.

It's original title (and the one used in the UK) was meet Whiplash Willy, indicating that Lemmon's character is the center of the story. Someone who saw it recently can confirm my recollection that there were several scenes of Lemmon without Matthau, but few of Matthau without Lemon.

quote:

Originally posted by Pucifer:

quote:

Originally posted by puxzkkx:
The Barbarian Invasions
2003, Denys Arcand
Grade: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

WWWWHHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY? LOL

I can't even digest the depths of noxiousness this disgusting piece of filth exhibits. It is made of suck and fail. I can't believe how bad it is. It's just offensive and awful on every level.

Everyone involved in the making of this film needs to just die, srsly.

The critique is there (and OTT offensive as is everything else in this film - the stupid political subtext[s], the atrocious painful acting, the ridiculous dialogue that sounds like it was written by a 15yo, the stereotypical cardboard cutout characters, the ugliness of the cinematography, complete incompetence of the editors and whoever decided which piece of music should go in which scene, the repulsively smug direction, the lowbrow humor disguised with a bunch of grad-school lingo etc etc etc) but the film isn't a satire on the whole. Easy to see why this won Best Foreign Language Film - the humor is simple enough to cater to American audiences, and the use of big words makes them feel smart for laughing at the jokes, the characterizations are devoid of complexity and easy to swallow for a FFL selection committee that doesn't want to use their brains, a lot of the film is in English (because why vote for a foreign film in a foreign language, anyway?!) and they even slip in a lengthy discussion of America AND a 9/11 reference in there! GOD BLESS AMERICA AND LET'S VOTE FOR THIS **** FILM

i absolutely loathe almost everything about this film. only croze (who is merely poor instead of downright atrocious), an actress who has proven herself elsewhere, and blais (who is actually very good in a tiny role, perhaps because she clearly got to film her scenes without having to put up with the rest of the cast as scene partners) surive with dignity intact. Girard and Curzi, especially, deserve to go to hell for the performances they gave in this film.

EDIT: oh, you deleted your post. well the moral of this post is don't watch this film, ever

This message has been edited. Last edited by: puxzkkx,

quote:

Originally posted by Brilliance inmorbid:
It's not a lack of empathy. I simply was not buying her motives. How did she and her husband and the kids at his former school know her son was gay? There was nothing boldly effeminate about the boy. Just because he was soft-spoken? Certainly at that time people wouldn't immediately assume such a thing and the Black community was (and still is) very much in denial about homosexuality. Surely no kid at that age and that time would admit to being gay. It just didn't compute. The movie needed to adhere to the time and place, and it abandoned any realism in that scene. I also thought it was fairly presumptuous of her to assume her son was gay just because he was 'different'.

Perhaps 'Doubt' would have been a better movie had they focused on Mrs. Miller and her family. As it is that one scene (while greatly acted by Davis) did not do such a revelation justice. It felt like a device.

We don't see all there is to see about Mrs. Miller and her family because they are not the central focus of the film, so I had no difficulty accepting that in more than a decade of raising her son she has seen signs that he might be gay that we aren't privy to. The point is to show Sister Aloysius, who is much too certain in her convictions, as well as the audience, that there may be more to a situation than meets the eye. I don't see how you can assume that she couldn't know her son might be gay, just because he doesn't demonstrate it in broad strokes to you in his limited screentime.

For me, Mrs. Miller's revelation no less than shapes my analysis of what really happened between Father Flynn and the boy. Of course, it remains open to interpretation, as is the point of the film, which to me is a powerful illustration of how humility in the face of doubt is righteous and that certainty can be the real force of evil.

On Barbarian Invasions -
I think the film is slight and quite overrated, but not worth getting too excited about. Its main appeal was to older audiences, and that is why (not because of things put in to appeal to Americans) that earned it the Oscar. The Academy voters were the perfect audience for it with its interest in looking back over one's life, hospitals, family disappointments, as well as an older lead character who was both a former leftist and outspoken.

quote:

Originally posted by 742:

quote:

Originally posted by Brilliance inmorbid:
It's not a lack of empathy. I simply was not buying her motives. How did she and her husband and the kids at his former school know her son was gay? There was nothing boldly effeminate about the boy. Just because he was soft-spoken? Certainly at that time people wouldn't immediately assume such a thing and the Black community was (and still is) very much in denial about homosexuality. Surely no kid at that age and that time would admit to being gay. It just didn't compute. The movie needed to adhere to the time and place, and it abandoned any realism in that scene. I also thought it was fairly presumptuous of her to assume her son was gay just because he was 'different'.

Perhaps 'Doubt' would have been a better movie had they focused on Mrs. Miller and her family. As it is that one scene (while greatly acted by Davis) did not do such a revelation justice. It felt like a device.

We don't see all there is to see about Mrs. Miller and her family because they are not the central focus of the film, so I had no difficulty accepting that in more than a decade of raising her son she has seen signs that he might be gay that we aren't privy to. The point is to show Sister Aloysius, who is much too certain in her convictions, as well as the audience, that there may be more to a situation than meets the eye. I don't see how you can assume that she couldn't know her son might be gay, just because he doesn't demonstrate it in broad strokes to you in his limited screentime.

For me, Mrs. Miller's revelation no less than shapes my analysis of what really happened between Father Flynn and the boy. Of course, it remains open to interpretation, as is the point of the film, which to me is a powerful illustration of how humility in the face of doubt is righteous and that certainty can be the real force of evil.

And that's one of the key problems with the film. After such a scene where is the doubt? The ambiguity is awashed. Mrs. Miller is either crazy or desperate or both. I still don't think at that time and with it being a Black family that everyone would just assume he was gay, and none of the kids at his new school seemed to make that assumption either. Unless someone caught him with penis down his throat I just don't buy it.

But that's only part of the reason this movie didn't work for me as a whole. It was poorly paced. Streep overdid it. The allegory didn't transfer very well. Dialogue that worked on stage was overwrought on screen. I also thought Adam's acting was cartoonishly niave. For a movie about uncertainly there was such a lack of subtlety in every aspect of its execution.

quote:

Originally posted by seanflynn:
On Barbarian Invasions -
I think the film is slight and quite overrated, but not worth getting too excited about. Its main appeal was to older audiences, and that is why (not because of things put in to appeal to Americans) that earned it the Oscar. The Academy voters were the perfect audience for it with its interest in looking back over one's life, hospitals, family disappointments, as well as an older lead character who was both a former leftist and outspoken.

Clearly as critics age they lose all sense of taste and perspective. How they could buy that ridiculous schoolroom fantasia of a deathbed film is beyond me, if I were old or dying I would be personally insulted by the scenarios that film offers up. Not to mention a film that tries to make us see nothing wrong in bribing hospital owners, police officers etc and being a heroin junkie is obviously not on the right path to begin with.