criterionforum.org

mfunk9786 wrote: Tue Nov 20, 2018 4:19 pm

Spoiler

The Frenchman in the first and final stories were supposed to be played by the same actor but scheduling conflicts prevented it. There's your clue to making the final act work much better the next time around, but from merely a dialogue perspective they tie together very nicely

Thanks! For some reason I got distracted during the last episode and thought I might be missing something.

Walter Chaw's insightful review
https://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/20 ... .html#more

I liked this quite a bit, for a variety of reasons but the thing I appreciate about films like these is that the people who made them know exactly what is and what isn't worth taking seriously. Perhaps it's my lifelong inundation and exposure towards Western material (In all artistic facets) that makes this so funny to me. For instance, the first segment's dialogue is deliberately complex...... and yet parts of it are delivered through song. The finesse Nelson displays contradicts the usual Western stereotype of a strongman. By traditional film standards he should very much be saying all the things he says but he shouldn't be doing anything much past that. The first segment is the least realistic but it provides a good primer for what's to come even if said segments take a less fantastical approach.

Brian talks about how ambiguous certain segments of The Meal Ticket appear to be and frankly I agree there. It's a bizarre and frankly distressing segment that reminds me in some ways of a more straight laced yet horrific Jodorowsky act. But what's the game here? Is it meant to be overtly cruel? Sadistic? I'm not entirely sure but it's the segment I look forward to revisiting in the future.

Spoiler

Perhaps Neeson's character killed him out of a desire to no longer feed him because he has a new act? Perhaps he killed him out of pity? Why does the young man look that way in the first place? What is the agreement between the two men?Perhaps the reason it sticks with me so is that clarification would enable me to make a coherent judgement.

I do however quite like the Zoe Kazan segment for the opposite reasons Brian does. It's direct and to the point, far more so than some of the other segments. Had it ended like the Tom Waits one I'm unsure if the repetition would have been as powerful. Irony can be very funny sometimes but not so much here which is what I felt made the part more emotional. Perhaps I'm just a sap?

I like this film quite a bit, as I mentioned above mainly because at the end they all mesh together in some manner even if the tone of each segment varies wildy. It's an easy watch too and definitely something I'll be watching again in the future.

I liked this a lot. And I’m all in with Brian C’s take. To me the first segment was the cartoon before the feature like in the old days of movie theater going (the whole film is an ode to westerns and hollywood). Every section and the order they are in has a purpose and I think subsequent viewings will reveal more and more. My personal favorite was the Prospector because of Tom Waits. He was awesome.

It’ll be curious to see how this gets released on the physical.

There's no how, Netflix has never released any in-house original films on physical media

domino harvey wrote: Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:56 pm There's no how, Netflix has never released any in-house original films on physical media

They did announce The Other Side of the Wind will get a physical release though.

Also, the Coens said this is absolutely, unequivocally a stand-alone film, so why would the physical release be any different if it happens at all?

KJones77 wrote: Sat Nov 24, 2018 7:14 pm

domino harvey wrote: Sat Nov 24, 2018 6:56 pm There's no how, Netflix has never released any in-house original films on physical media

They did announce The Other Side of the Wind will get a physical release though.

But isn't that to honour the original Kickstarter pledges? I think The Other Side of the Wind will prove to be rather unique for Netflix in terms of its original films, because there were a variety of contracts and commitments made before Netflix came on board. I can't see The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, or Roma for instance, getting physical releases.

There is basically no evidence to suggest it even a little, but I do think Netflix will probably start doing home releases with their titles from this fall at some point next year. Just feels like it’s how the wind is blowing, but again really nothing in particular to point to as why I think this.

Altair wrote: Sat Nov 24, 2018 8:59 pm I can't see The Ballad of Buster Scruggs, or Roma for instance, getting physical releases.

Ever?! I don't see that. I can't believe that neither the Coens or Cuaron will not have a deal in place to have their films released on DVD/bluray at some point in time.

FrauBlucher wrote:Ever?! I don't see that. I can't believe that neither the Coens or Cuaron will not have a deal in place to have their films released on DVD/bluray at some point in time.

Why not? It’s easy to believe. Netflix was stridently anti-disc before the Coens or Cuaron came around. Seems significantly more likely that those deals got made on Netflix’s terms than the filmmakers’.

I think Netflix is indifferent to physical media. If they were dead set against it they would have played hard ball with the producers of The Other Side of the Wind. They had all the leverage. Coen as a cinephile would want to see his films released for the collectors. Cuaron I'm not sure about.

If anyone can find an article or an interview they can post that states definitively that no Netflix films will be released on physical media, then I will move on, disappointingly of course.

If Netflix shows like Master of None and The Crown are getting blu releases, why can’t the films?

The shows aren't produced or owned by Netflix. Netflix is simply the station that runs them.

Netflix fully owns and produces Stranger Things and has released it on BD and UHD though.

(This is literally their biggest, most succesful, most commercial product, so it’s not really a fair standard to expect more based upon, though)

I mean, who knows. Could be that these films blow up and Netflix sees an opportunity to cash in.

All I’m saying is that because it’s Netflix, there’s every reason for the default assumption to be no instead of yes.

One thing is for sure though, the whole "if I can't watch it in a theater I MUST watch it on physical media" philosophy is going to disappoint an increasing lot of people over the next few years

I just don't want to pay the Netflix monopoly for their mediocre service.

Isn't there a free trial? Or the ability to just pay for one month and catch up on some things? Surely you can't acquire too much guilt from such a solution

If I was going to pay for a month of something there are better streaming options out there. That said I plan to use my sister's account when I visit San Diego next month.

mfunk9786 wrote: Sun Nov 25, 2018 3:21 am Isn't there a free trial? Or the ability to just pay for one month and catch up on some things? Surely you can't acquire too much guilt from such a solution

Yes. You get a month free when you sign up but you have to enter in a valid credit card number and all the fixings.

Am I crazy or was that song Tom Waits sings in The Departed?

flyonthewall2983 wrote: Thu Dec 06, 2018 8:39 pm Am I crazy or was that song Tom Waits sings in The Departed?

Yep. It's Mother Machree (from a show written by Rida Johnson Young who also wrote the basis for Ford's film Mother Machree).
Nicholson sings it in The Departed with a restraint and low-key intensity that encapsulates his measured performance in that film.

I definitely liked best the three everyone else seems to. I think the last segment holds the film back a little because of how great the previous one is, probably their best anything since at least True Grit, and would have done well to switch their order even if thematically that wouldn't work 100%.