Movies you've just watched

[Lord British]

While perusing the 'hey, this is about to leave, you've probably never heard of it' section of Criterion Channel, I happened upon this little strange slice of Iron Curtain Phantasmagoria.

I'll check that out!

[Sima Tuna]

I love sword and sandal/sword and sorcery movies.

Hell, I just love sword and sorcery fiction in general. But back to epic historical/mythological films.



I think what I love so much about these is it's really not something you can convey in another medium easily. The scope. The scale. The colors. The pageantry. The pure chaos. A video game can try but they're stuck using programming tricks (like brainless npcs in musou games) to compensate. You can't actually have 5,000 individually-realized unique human beings with their own behaviors fighting 5,000 other unique human beings all doing something individually... A game can't handle it. I dunno, maybe some games can but every game I ever saw with that scale cheated somehow to get it. EDF comes the closest but they sacrifice every other aspect (frame rate and fidelity both) to get there. Even they don't have thousands of friendlies fighting thousands of bugs. That many rockets going off all at once would brick your PC.

Historical epics on a proper scale, like a Cecil B. Demille's The Crusades, The Ten Commandments... Alexander Korda's Thief of Bagdad... All those mythological films Ray Harryhausen worked on, such as the Golden Voyage of Sinbad and Clash of the Titans... There's something about this kind of movie that's magic. Pure movie magic. The films are larger than life, made by people who yearn for that larger than life spectacle. Many of these movies are created by people who yearn to be in that part of history they're recreating. They love what they are making and the result is truly a marvel.



Now yes, Hollywood did rather beat historical epics into the ground at one point. I presume because these hilariously expensive sets were already made for certain films, and the wardrobes were already there, and you might as well make 10 films as make one. But that era passed fairly quickly, tbh. Historical epics (and larger-than-life epics in general) are rarely made anymore. We get a few, once in a while. Sometimes a western epic. Maybe a modern business epic. Or a director like Ridley Scott will try his hand at them. But we don't have the kind of historicity and pageantry anymore. Just compare the costuming in The Crusades to the costuming in a contemporary historical epic... Modern historical films and tv shows get everything wrong. Too much black leather biker gear, everybody has dirt smeared on their faces, the sets are CGI slop, horsemen are multiplied via CGI so that there are really very few extras in those war shots... It's just a mess. In a film like Ran, what you see is what you get. Kurosawa couldn't cheat. A pitched battle between two forces required hiring that amount of extras and outfitting them with the bits and pieces they'd need to look convincing.




Plus, those directors who made historical epics were passionate about those periods of history, so that a film like Ugetsu Monogatari or Throne of Blood would be as close as possible to historically accurate as it was possible to achieve. I don't pretend to claim every DeMille movie was historically accurate, but at least he had the right idea of large crowds, shining armor, blasting horns and constant noise. He had Harold Lamb consulting in The Crusades, who was another one who loved that period of time.

And again, although I can't profess to the historicity of The Ten Commandments (the film, not the event), the commentary track on the dvd at least SUGGESTS that DeMille made the film as close to what he believed the reality was as he could. To the point of giving Moses a black wife from his time as an Egyptian prince (supposedly this is something that was in the Bible or Torah, I dunno.)



Well. I've rambled quite a bit. I mostly watch old movies these days and that's because the movies I like don't get made. Hell, the movies I like haven't been made since about 1985, which is before I was born. Excalibur came out in 1981 and is one of the last of the "hey, the historical accuracy on this is pretty ok, despite it's based on a legend." I mean, it's not historically accurate to the King Arthur time period, but it IS historically accurate to the late 15th Century. At least they actually bought full plate suits for the guys to wear and they show some real knight vs knight combat. The pageantry and epic scale is preserved as well, which I suppose is what real viewers care about more anyway, rather than historicity.



TL;DR I gush about a genre of movie I really enjoy but which never gets made anymore. I know why they don't, too. A lot of extras costs money. Horses cost money. Real sets cost money. Filming in the real hot sun on a real location with a real set and a real 50,000 extras costs a SHITload of money. This is why so many modern "epic" films today feel tiny by comparison to the old movies. Because they are. They don't have real giant sets or real loads of extras or real, massive amounts of horses. Or real armor. They use black leather scraps with a little dirt smeared on instead of real riveted chain mail because it's cheaper. They carry plastic or rubber weapons instead of blunted metal ones because it's cheaper.

But you can't make this kind of movie on the cheap! The only way to do that would be to dramatically reduce the scale. The movie Beowulf and Grendel tried. They used real, period-appropriate ponies on the real nordic coast, with period-accurate armor. But a very, very small cast. The movie carries a middling review score. I liked it, but the scale is very small for what's supposed to be one of the great epics of English (pre-christian) mythology.

[Sumez]

I think it's not hard to understand why Carpenter was considered a cult film auteur for so long. He has a very idiosyncratic style that either resonates with you or it doesn't. Not personally liking the aesthetic is a completely valid position, even if you can see that other people who's taste you respect or even admire do.

I'm among the "love Carpenter" people, but I also was very primed on his movies early in my life at the time when his work was a more contemporaneous part of the zeitgeist. I absolutely do not expect everyone I meet and who's taste in movies I respect to like his stuff, and I think it's unfortunate that taste has to be wrapped up in a notion of "cool" or whatever. I wish we could all just appreciate and talk about this stuff without having to dance around all that BS.

Oh, I think it's easy to see as well. And I do think the aesthetic is cool as well. It's just that beyond the "idea" of the movies, and their tone, style and vibe. The actual movie itself, the story and events etc. just really doesn't do anything that makes them interesting to me. Like I said at first, I feel like I probably "should be" a Carpenter fan, but he's the kind of director I probably enjoy more at a distance, or as an idea.

[Sumez]

While perusing the 'hey, this is about to leave, you've probably never heard of it' section of Criterion Channel, I happened upon this little strange slice of Iron Curtain Phantasmagoria.

God, there's so much amazing stuff on the Criterion Channel I've always wanted to see!
Just like with 98% of their bluray releases, it's so fucking frustrating that you can't just get it and watch it. I feel like that should be the whole point of streaming services.

[vol.2]

Oh, I think it's easy to see as well. And I do think the aesthetic is cool as well. It's just that beyond the "idea" of the movies, and their tone, style and vibe. The actual movie itself, the story and events etc. just really doesn't do anything that makes them interesting to me. Like I said at first, I feel like I probably "should be" a Carpenter fan, but he's the kind of director I probably enjoy more at a distance, or as an idea.

In that case, it sounds like you are making a wholly "style over substance" argument against Carpenter's best work, which I would disagree with. Structurally, he makes stylistic choices that take the place of narrative beats that would otherwise be filled with overt referential set-dressing or dialog. He makes a cartoon out of live action by distilling everything into minimalist takes and caricature-like performances.

I think his greatest weakness is probably just how connected the references in his cultural vocabulary are to a specific time and place. I can see how anyone outside of that frame would not click with his work without an outsized interest in it for other reasons.

[sumdumgoy]

x

[vol.2]

so why bother putting up with some trumped-up, boring movie that has moments when I could be having a really good time?

There are a lot of good reasons for pushing oneself outside of one's comfort zone.

[sumdumgoy]

x

[sumdumgoy]

x

[Lord British]

Okay, I wanna gauge this thread:

I want you to name me the movie/movies that scared/disturbed you so much, you never want to experience it/them ever again. Not that you wouldn't be able to, but that you're extremely apprehensive about doing so, out of sheer fear.

Spoiler

Mine's Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. And next to that, Eraserhead.

Both branded on me for life. No need to experience them again, 'cause the titles alone brings those feelings back like a tidal wave. Freaks me right out.

What's yours?

Well obviously Salò. I've only watched it alone, and though I don't want to do it again I'd really like to watch it for my bi-monthly film group. Not sure if they're up to it though, I'm sure they've all seen it.

Another one would be Threads (1985). It took me about 5 tries over a period of 20 years to finally finish.

The most horrifying single scene I've seen in a movie is The Eyes Of My Mother from 2016. It's not a great movie, but the bathtub scene haunts me still as a grown adult.

Another diamond in the rough is Backcountry from 2014. I'm a midwestern boy who never grew up around bears, and I saw Backcountry only a week before my first Appalachian Trail campout. Big mistake.

Noe's Irreversible would be a tough one to re-watch.

Kilmov's Come and See is one that I will watch many times, but always scares me to revisit.

Requiem For A Dream and The Wrestler I would not watch again. I saw RFAD in the theater, and I remember feeling dizzy walking out of it. Aronofsky was cool when I was 23, but not so much now.

Movies I saw too young:

Pink Floyd: The Wall - The meat kids

The World According To Garp - Made me afraid of dogs, nurses, marriage, single engine planes, zippers on your pants, feminazis, blowjobs, car crashes and THE UNDERTOW

Watership Down - If there's any childhood left in your heart, destroy it with Fiver's Prophecy



It's complicated when people ask me if I like "Horror Films"

[RGC]

In classic Gen X style, I was exposed to material WAY too intense for such innocent eyes (think TCM, AAWiL, ANoES, DK, etc). However, I think that paved the way for a solid appreciation of horror in later years, and definitely shaped me into the completely normal adult male I am today.

Blip.

The only films I flat out refuse to revisit are those tacky Italian cannibal ones featuring animal snuff that we talked about before. It's indefensible, whatever bullshit stories are concocted to try and justify it.

In terms of difficult viewing, Jonathan Glazer's adaptation of Under the Skin (2013) has a devastating beach scene (not in the novel), that it hurts watching; even getting psychosomatic "grief pain" in the gut -- which is mad when the brain knows it's fantasy. I think the film offers a solid version of very difficult material to adapt, but yeah, that one scene means I hardly ever watch it, even though I bought the bloody disc. Bit pointless really.

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) is supposed to be a comedy! Talk about pitch black. I saw it once in my teens, was pretty disturbed and haven't bothered revisiting. Good call on that one.

Re. LB's mention of Watership Down (1978). Ffs, how can that film still illicit an emotional reaction but actual horrors I saw at <10 do not! Desensitization? I wouldn't characterize the feeling as fear as such, but whatever it is it's potent. Poor fluffy bunnies! I actually love that film, and the music, animation and voice acting are all top notch!

I felt fairly detached watching Salò tbh, just had a morbid curiosity to see how far it would go (ouch, me nipples!). In fact, I'd go as far as to say there aren't many films where if the obvious intention is to disturb or horrify that it has that effect on me. I'm obviously made of sterner stuff. Just...don't talk about the bunnies!!

[vol.2]

What's yours?

Henry was pretty nuts. I don't want to watch it again for sure, but I'm not sure I'd put it on that list. As it was (more or less) a bio film about a serial killer, so it doesn't have a lot of replay value. It's not like there's a subtle message or something particularly poetic or contemplative about it that would demand a rewatch. Most bio films are like that to me.

I guess I would probably say the movie "Crack House" was pretty disturbing to me. I saw it when I was pretty young at a friend's house who's dad didn't care if we watched R rated films. I was definitely too young for that one. Maybe after that, Barbarian.

[Lord British]

Henry was a movie you could smell

[Sima Tuna]

I love sword and sandal/sword and sorcery movies.

Hell, I just love sword and sorcery fiction in general. But back to epic historical/mythological films...

Very cool post! I love your enthusiasm for the epics. Makes me wanna sit down to a few.

Now I feel a bit sad, reading back my post and realizing how much of it was mindless gushing.

I don't know what your experience level is with historical epics, but I can name a few to try. If you are interested. I don't know what period of history or mythology you are most interested in. That can play a part in how invested one becomes in the movie... Although on balance, I would say it matters surprisingly little. I have less than zero interest in Biblical mythology stories, but Ben-Hur is still a tour-de-force spectacle that must be seen.

The absolute top-of-the-line spectacle epics are probably these:

Lawrence of Arabia

THE epic. The moment when Lawrence's camel comes out of the desert, the music swells and he starts riding to rejoin the others... I probably don't even need to describe the scene more than that. Lawrence of Arabia is a movie about everything. The impossibly high fidelity of the film stock means they were filming... I think basically in 8k? Something like that. The film's level of detail is mind-boggling, and the desert scenery is so vast as to not waste an inch of the frame. The immensity of the environments contrasts with the relative smallness of the people, matched against the enormity of the task they are undertaking. It's also a character study movie, so it weights the great against the small very well. A part of me likes A Passage to India more as a movie... But that one lacks the spectacle of Lawrence. A million film critics have written a billion lines about Lawrence of Arabia, so there's no point my belaboring the matter.

Ran

Kurosawa came to color film very late, but Ran demonstrates his absolute mastery of it. Ran is one of the most beautiful films you will ever see, purely in a color composition sense. It's comparable to Lawrence of Arabia in that way. The scale of conflict is also on a level above what Kurosawa had shown in prior films. Kurosawa tended not to want to show battles between armies very often in his films... There are a few moments in other movies, but Ran is one of the main examples where he really is willing to show everything on that larger register (not just conflicts between small groups of men.) I think the larger scale and the fact it's filmed so beautifully is a big part of why many people say Ran is Kurosawa's best film. I prefer Seven Samurai myself, and even Throne of Blood, but Ran is an undeniable masterpiece. Particularly on a technical level, although the story underpinning the action is a Shakespeare adaptation and thus rather hard to fault.

Seven Samurai

I almost did a "pick your favorite" between Ran and Seven Samurai, but you really SHOULD see both. One is moderately optimistic in tone and the other is quite pessimistic. Made during different periods of Kurosawa's life and reflecting different attitudes towards humanity. Ideally, anybody who likes historical epics should also see Kagemusha, The Hidden Fortress and Throne of Blood.

Waterloo

If you want spectacle, you will find it here. Poor guy, he was just trying to clean up that crown of France he found in the gutter...

Ben-Hur/Ten Commandments/The Crusades (take your choice of DeMille's offerings)

^If you haven't seen any of these, I would just say to pick whichever appeals to you more based on the setting. Ben-Hur is contemporary with the time period of Christ's death. The Crusades is during the period of one of the crusades (I forget which, but it's the crusade Richard Lionheart led) and Ten Commandments is during the supposed Egyptian enslavement of Israel.

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

I count this movie as an epic, more than a western. Because the core of this film is the Civil War, and lives torn apart by war and poverty. Tuco is the real main character in this one. Hardly needs recommending, as most people who watch movies have seen it.

Khartoum or Zulu

In general, I am somewhat wary of pro-Colonialism messaging in certain older epics... But it's been my experience that truly excellent films tend towards criticism of the systems they portray rather than blind support of them. I believe that is the case here as well, in both of these movies. Khartoum is the story of Chinese Gordon's last stand holding a doomed city. Zulu is a story of a British outpost facing down an infinitely larger army of Zulu warriors. Both films are surprisingly not very racist, aside from perhaps the presence of a certain famous white actor wearing blackface, which we may laugh about now, but was certainly quite common in those days. Both films do a good job portraying the horrors of war and its ultimate futility. The outcome is opposite across the two movies, but the message feels similar.

Dune (Spicediver Edit)

NOT historical! Hey, did you like Lawrence of Arabia? Here it is again, but in SPAAAAACCCCEE! David Lynch's Dune is good. Don't let people tell you otherwise. It's best when seen with the Spicediver edit, however. Watch this one however you can watch it. I remember watching the Spicediver Edit and then reading the book and thinking to myself, "DAMN! That was an amazing film translation of the contents of this book!" The tv show looks cheap as fucc compared to Lynch's beautiful costumes and sets.

There are some more modern epics I could recommend. I tend to not want to wholeheartedly recommend these AS strongly, because they are modern and so they lack in scale somewhat. Troy was pretty alright. Alexander is there. Gladiator was solid. Kingdom of Heaven was ok. Prince of Egypt was surprisingly good. For Chinese epics you have Hero. There are others but most chinese wuxia/kung fu films run on the smaller size in scale. Rob Roy. Das Boot. The Great Escape, if that counts? Derzu Uzala. All the Arabian stuff is fun. Thief of Bagdad is the best one of the lot, far and away. Harryhausen is required viewing if you like spectacle more than story.

Anyway, good watching, all! Most of these suggestions aren't very "hidden gem" because this was a pretty mainstream film genre for a solid 50ish years of cinema. I'd say from around the 1920s era (Metropolis etc) up until maybe the 1970s when directors like Kurosawa found themselves gaining a reputation for going over time and budget/being hard to work with. The western died in the '80s so that didn't help either. We got Unforgiven and now we still get a drip-feed of a few every so often, but westerns are out of the cultural zeitgeist. It was a generational thing.

Edit: I forgot to mention The Wild Bunch. Pretty essential viewing for western fans. Spartacus for fans of ancient Rome.

[sumdumgoy]

x

[sumdumgoy]

x

[RGC]

TL;DR I gush about a genre of movie I really enjoy but which never gets made anymore.

Great post! A couple of others that fit the bill, which I grew up watching (thanks to grandparents who loved their epics): El Cid (1961) & Mutiny on the Bounty (1962). The former being another project for Spartacus co director Anthony Mann. I know what you mean about the spectacle of it all, those enormous sets and all that Technicolor! For me, the historical accuracy (or lack thereof), was never especially important. They were just great adventures to lose yourself in for 3 hours!

Sadly, these days I'd struggle to find a solid 3 hour window to do anything that isn't paid work. I've really liked Kurosawa's Ran for a long time, but his Seven Samurai I actually didn't get around to until just a few years back, and thanks to competing priorities had to split it over two evenings. Still highly enjoyable, but it was a shame to break the flow rather than experience it in one go, as it was intended.

[Lord British]

... although, I've read Kael gush over The Man Who Would Be King. She was positively giddy over that one.)

That's my favorite movie that's stars Michael Caine

EDIT:

No, technically that's Mona Lisa, but that's because of Bob muthafuckin Hoskins

[RGC]

... although, I've read Kael gush over The Man Who Would Be King. She was positively giddy over that one.)

That's my favorite movie that's stars Michael Caine

EDIT:

No, technically that's Mona Lisa, but that's because of Bob muthafuckin Hoskins

Not Interstellar then.

[Lord British]

... although, I've read Kael gush over The Man Who Would Be King. She was positively giddy over that one.)

That's my favorite movie that's stars Michael Caine

EDIT:

No, technically that's Mona Lisa, but that's because of Bob muthafuckin Hoskins

Not Interstellar then.

To be fair, that's the only Nolan movie I haven't seen except Tenet.

Why did I watch his others? Why? Why?

[Sumez]

In classic Gen X style, I was exposed to material WAY too intense for such innocent eyes (think TCM, AAWiL, ANoES, DK, etc). However, I think that paved the way for a solid appreciation of horror in later years, and definitely shaped me into the completely normal adult male I am today.

Come on. You don't *HAVE* to use abbreviations for everything. I'm not sure I can guess what even a single one of those are

[sumdumgoy]

x

[Lord British]

In classic Gen X style, I was exposed to material WAY too intense for such innocent eyes (think TCM, AAWiL, ANoES, DK, etc). However, I think that paved the way for a solid appreciation of horror in later years, and definitely shaped me into the completely normal adult male I am today.

Come on. You don't *HAVE* to use abbreviations for everything. I'm not sure I can guess what even a single one of those are

Yeah WTF (what the fuck)

I have no clue on the second or fouth one

[Lord British]

Saw this for the first time last night. What in the actual fuck?

[RGC]

In classic Gen X style, I was exposed to material WAY too intense for such innocent eyes (think TCM, AAWiL, ANoES, DK, etc). However, I think that paved the way for a solid appreciation of horror in later years, and definitely shaped me into the completely normal adult male I am today.

Come on. You don't *HAVE* to use abbreviations for everything. I'm not sure I can guess what even a single one of those are

I dunno, seems clear to me. You've got Texas Cheesecake Massacre, Around A World in Ladydays, Another Nightmare on Easy Street and Donkey Kong.

Nailed it.

Maybe this'll help:

Spoiler

[RGC]

Saw this for the first time last night. What in the actual fuck?

More words please. Don't "Crispin Glover" and "what in the actual fuck?" normally go hand in hand?

[Lord British]

Spoiler

Saw this for the first time last night. What in the actual fuck?

More words please. Don't "Crispin Glover" and "what in the actual fuck?" normally go hand in hand?

I don't want to spoil anything, so I'll be as concise as possible.

I'm not making this up.



In 1979 an aspiring filmmaker (Trent Harris) runs into a young man who refers to himself as "Groovin Gary" taking photos of the news chopper outside of the local news station in Beaver, UT. Groovin Gary "hams it up" in front of the camera, doing impressions of John Wayne, Stallone, and Barry Manilow. He also appears to be obsessed w/ Olivia Newton John. We then see him live on public access dressed in drag (his make up applied by the only place you can put make up on a man in Beaver- the local mortuary) singing a Olivia newton John song live on the air terribly, horrifically.



In 1981, Harris releases a follow up-in b&w (under a budget of $100) with a then unknown actor named Sean Penn, pre-Fast Times and even pre-Taps. Penn re-enacts all of the actual Groovin Gary footage (this time as "Groovin Larry"), but does him totally as Spicolli. I'll spare the rest of the details on this.



In 1985, Harris releases a second follow-up in color featuring a mostly unknown (unless you were a fan of "My Tutor") Crispin Glover, this time as "Olivia Neutron Bomb", and does him totally as, well, Crispin Glover. I'll spare the details on that.

It's fascinating that this exists.

[sumdumgoy]

x

[Lord British]

Maybe this'll help:

Ahh, that's what "DK" stood for! Stumped me good.

Should've guessed 'cause of the whole "Video Nasty" thing you guys had back in the day.

You were Abel to figure it out

[BIL]

You were Abel to figure out