MICKEY 17 (2025)–theatrical screening.
In a near empty theater. Maybe 10 people. 42nd Street in Manhattan.
Sci-fi satire that hits it marks, had me wondering what comes next, made me laugh, and kept me absorbed.
Bong’s mise en scene is exquisite, demonstrating a precision that is rare in not just this kind of film, but in cinema in general. The acting was also superb.
Have to sit with the movie more, and also see it again. But I better do it fast:
Definitely a must see for me. But even if this is sci-fi, it all boils down to Woody‘s one-liner „too much reality is not what people want to see“…
Anora
Definitely well directed, shot and edited, with convincing performances and a, I suspect, realistically displayed setting.
But this one was definitely not for me. And I am flabbergasted why this won so many Oscars when a perfectly calibrated movie with a great topic like „Conclave“ did not.
And boy, had any Oscar winner so many sex scenes before?
Very realistic.
Too perfectly calibrated, maybe?
Or deployment of what my mother used to refer to as “the F word”?
Maybe I am just too old for that kind of filmmaking and prefer the kind „Conclave“ employs (which would have won more 20, 30 years ago, I guess).
Also, I did not like any of the characters in „Anora“. But that’s just me.
I do not think it is a matter of age.
CONCLAVE is more classical in it structure, approach, and mise en scene. I go back and forth on whether I find this invigorating or airless. I love bringing back old approaches to filmmaking, and I think it was probably the right choice with this material, but doubts nag at me. I know that l have to watch the movie again, but keep putting off the viewing (last night I watched Mamoulian’s HIGH, WIDE AND HANDSOME from 1937).
Understood. That could affect your reception of the film.
But is classical old - or just a way that works without ageing?
I definitely am „old school“ and despite all my liberalism conservative in this regard: the partying, drug taking and empty sexual experiences of the young generation depicted in the film leave me either feeling pity for Anora or disgust for the Russian oligarch son she supposedly feels at least attracted to.
That’s what went through my head for the rather long running time: I am spending time with people I would not want to spend time with in real life, I see all the problems coming up that they create, and still the filmmaker asks me to enjoy this.
What I was referring to was Classical Hollywood style, which suits CONCLAVE’s narrative well. Pardon for not being as clear as I could have been.
This is where we differ. I wouldn’t want to have dinner with the Macbeths, but enjoy them on stage and screen.
The problems the characters face arise from the intersection of their circumstances, and the choices they make in those circumstances. The problems are not the results solely of their own volitional acts.
The enjoyment comes from how the director uses the formal elements of cinema to tell (or not tell) a story. To reference “Macbeth” again: I do not think Shakespeare is asking me to enjoy regicides. But the verse he uses to tell their story is sublime.
Recently, watched Wall-E and Up for the first time in years. It’s nice being able to rewatch these older movies now that my kids are old enough to enjoy them.
I admire your ability to perceive and enjoy a work of art without that kind of personal limitations I bring along (baggage I carry?).
But I am curious - you repeatedly said that you do not enjoy horror movies. What is different for your perspective on that genre?
I do enjoy a good horror movie - but again I bring my personal limitations to that, too. I hate gore and cannot understand why people enjoy that. I sometimes tolerate those scenes if the movie works. But I prefer the goreless ones.
Maybe I am too squeamish for that and too much of a prude for „Anora“.
We all bring our baggage to screenings.
Like you, I am squeamish, and will look away at depictions of gore and violence. The other evening I watched the European cut of THE SHINING, and I still looked away when Dick Halloran got axed–and I know exactly when it is coming, and how it is shown.
My husband is different–he can eat dinner while watching surgery shows, and longs for the horror movie that makes him turn his head away. He is a connoisseur of the SAW film franchise, and can discuss these movies akin to the way I discuss Mankiewicz movies.
But I would argue that being squeamish is one category of response (a bodily reaction), and being prudish is another (a moral reaction). A person can be squeamish about depictions of gore, violence, and even sex, but have a different moral response to the depictions of such things, as well as to the characters engaging in them.
Anora engages in survival sex work, which may be the best option that she has in her present circumstances. Full disclosure: during my career, I have known and worked with many individuals who engaged in such work. The reasons they did so were complex, and never could be boiled down to the pronouncement “They were slutty, and had no decency.”
Anora engaging in survival sex work may (and does in the film) create problems for her, but those problems are not of her authorship alone. I wonder if what you describe as being “too much of a prude” comes as a consequence of understanding Anora as a totally autonomous agent, who chooses to engage in survival sex work, when, at the same moment, there are other, better, more decent options within easy reach, which she rejects for lascivious reasons.
True. I lack that insight you gave. It makes for a better understanding.
Glad I could help. I like to recall what Alain Resnais said when asked if he made the films he wanted to make. His response was “I make the films I am allowed to make.”
Human choice is circumscribed by both the circumstances of the situation, and an individual’s autonomy at any given moment. One of the reasons I love SPECTRE is that it is a movie about a person reclaiming his ability to choose.
I think movies falter when they portray characters as possessing both numerous, unconditioned options, and an unrestricted ability to choose.
Oppenheimer (2023).
This is my second time watching it. Still a masterclass of acting. It saddens me that RDJ threw away a part in The Odyssey by going back to the MCU. It’s one of his best performances. He should have thought less about the MCU’s check, and more about the creativity of Nolan. One of the best villains in recent movie memory. Emily Blunt is one big name that should be looked at for Bond, she has worked for a great part. She did a lot with not much screen time. Cillian Murphy has truly graduated to leading man status. This was my mom’s first time watching it, and she really liked it. I can’t praise this movie enough, and I would be happy to see Christopher Nolan on any project.
The Original Star Wars Trilogy, (1977, 1980, 1983).
Still timeless classics. My complaints are minor. Yes, the original versions should be released. There are some pacing issues in Empire and Jedi. Namely in the midsection in Empire, and the final battle(s) in Jedi. It’s a shame that the Emperor was brought back in TROS, as it feels that he died the death of deaths. His story felt truly finished. I just hope that Lucasfilm (namely Kathleen Kennedy) needs to watch these again. Simply to find ideas that HAVEN’T been used yet. Alec Guinness should have won the Oscar, as it is flawless (although Ewan McGregor did his performance justice). Perfect arcs for the main characters, particularly Luke, Han and Darth Vader. A great source of influence in the arts and life in general.
Two last things that I forgot to say in my SW OT review. I wish that Irvin Kershner and Gary Kurtz would have stayed on the series longer. Or other movies would have been made sooner. They really helped make the series become timeless in their own personal stories.
Also, the Jonathan W. Rinzler Making of Books are a gold mine of behind the scenes stories. They are for SW fans what The Charles Helfenstein OHMSS and TLD books are for us Bond fans. It’s a shame that his Revenge of the Sith Making of book isn’t longer. Or that his The Force Awakens book was cancelled, probably thanks to it probably not making Kathleen Kennedy look good.
Basic Instinct.
Much, much better than I remembered it being. There isn’t that much to it, admittedly, and Mr Douglas seems horrendously miscast, so much so it is awe-inspiring, but that adds to its daft charm. A hoot.
Why?
One of my favorite movies from Dutch compatriot Verhoeven. I don’t think Douglas was miscast at all.
Good actor, but too old for that role. I like to think of it as part of the joke. All good nasty fun.
I always thought it became flabby in the final act.
The Parallax View
The 4K restauration for Criterion is absolutely stunning. And this movie still works brilliantly over half a century later. Pakula, Willis and Small create something that gets under your skin, and these days, it unfortunately stays there.
I had not seen this one for many years, and I was surprised about the bar brawl and the car chase - I had completely forgotten about those elements, to be honest. But they both come at the right time in the movie and they are capped by scenes which immediately reverse any feeling one might have at first.
And the ending is filmed like a true nightmare. So disturbing.
The Conversation
I also had not seen this in ages - and it still is deeply disturbing. Taking its time to really immerse the audience into the main character´s small world. When the twist comes it really pulls out the rug from under you. A fantastic film, and Hackman is so straight forwardly, unfussily and without any vanity delivering a perfect performance.
And by the way, Harrison Ford is so smartly hateable here. To think that this guy would become a megastar as a hero, with a career lasting into his 80´s - who would have thought?