criterionforum.org

Never Cursed wrote: Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:22 pm Despite being made by the remnants of Fox, this is coming to HBO Max February 1, for those who want to see this but don't necessarily want to go to a theater now

Nice! MoMA's screening it, but honestly, the train rides are more of a concern since the museum has a strict mask and vaccination policy. For whatever reason, it seems that the people least likely to wear masks on the MTA are those who are hacking and coughing.

There better be a goddamn 4K UHD release...

Monterey Jack wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:48 am There better be a goddamn 4K UHD release...

https://yes.b2bwave.com/products/view/134739

Monterey Jack wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:48 am There better be a goddamn 4K UHD release...

I've heard it's a splendid looking film, especially the production design.

Looking forward to watching it once it hits HBO MAX.

The Shape of Water is really great/essential viewing on 4k UHD in my opinion as well.

sabbath wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:05 am

Monterey Jack wrote: Wed Jan 19, 2022 1:48 am There better be a goddamn 4K UHD release...

https://yes.b2bwave.com/products/view/134739

A black & white version of the film is touring several cities for a limited (I believe week-long) engagement starting tomorrow

Quite liked this. It never aims to replicate the meaner and more cynical tone of the original film but is another successful fablesque show in Del Toro's canon, made with a surprisingly old fashioned and classical golden age Hollywood style of filmmaking.

But by now you either like or dislike Del Toro's fabulist impulses and this will not change your mind wherever you stand.

Just got back from watching the 'Visions in Darkness and Light' version (I have not seen the standard version). Was blown away. Highly recommended. 5/5.

This is now on Hulu and HBO Max

What is del Toro’s fixation on having someone’s face nose or skull graphically bashed in? Every single time he does it for no real reason.

I was going to be sarcastic about that type of question, but del Toro has discussed this before in the Pan’s Labyrinth commentary. Basically he saw someone get their face smashed in with a bottle when he was young and it’s left a mark on him.

Did he also see a really overwrought gothic horror film once as a lad?

DarkImbecile wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 6:34 am

Brian C wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 11:24 pm The original felt overly schematic to me, but Power's take on the Carlisle character as an overly ambitious sociopath at least made sense; Cooper and Del Toro turn him into an outright psychopath.

This feels off to me by a degree of extremity in each case: where Power comes across as a mere asshole who stumbles almost blindly into his ruination and for whom the 1947 version feels compelled to attempt to manufacture sympathy, Cooper's version of Carlisle is more interesting because he actually is an ambitious sociopath who actively makes the choices that drive his downfall, all the while deluding himself as effectively as one of his marks as to his own true nature. Del Toro and Cooper flesh out Carlisle's corrosive sense of entitlement and callous willingness to use and exploit those around him, and effectively maintain Carlisle's seeming surprise at the new amoral depths he's willing to wade through at every stage until his final scene, when he finally acknowledges who he really is.

Rarely have I cared less about a character than I did for Cooper's Carlisle. I can kinda-sorta see where you're coming from, but the script is piss-poor and Cooper is horribly miscast. Given his consistent-MO of creative collaborator, DiCaprio would have demanded revisions to flesh out his motivations and bleed them into the script and performance in ways that engaged the audience with interest, but Cooper's antihero is devoid of any interesting developments, and his path of self-delusion (something that seems impossible to be 'boring') is lethargic and shallow. There is absolutely zero reason, for example, offered to why Cooper takes that first drink of alcohol, despite a montaged pronouncement that his sexual attraction to Blanchett + elevated high of power = sacrifice of awareness to his character's entire history. This could be accomplished either in atmospheric or character evolution (inflations of dread in friction with Cooper's self-knowledge, for instance), but instead he tosses in his trauma around alcohol carelessly without any attention to it (something that clearly is with him always, and that Del Toro has granted ample space for with heavy-handed gravity... Give me a break), and that is both structurally unforgivable and an exemplification of Del Toro's ineptness and dull approach to the material.

The whole film plays out on this ankle-deep wavelength dolled up as PERVERSE, and it's obnoxious, not because Cooper's character is a self-destructive antisocial megalomaniac (which has the potential to be incredibly interesting in its perversity!) or because Blanchett's contrived arc leans head-first into the oily wells of camp (which could also work in step with a carefully-constructed amplification of narrative that earns its arrival at '11'), or for any of the clearly-intentional engineered narrative choices Del Toro implements to sell his vision... but because they're sloppy half-measures, and inconceivably soft rather than the intended-LOUD volume, when he delusionally believes they are 'enough' to deliver an audience catharsis to our time, narrative, and character investments. A lot of Del Toro's work applies superficial Psych101 ideas to his stories, and sometimes they work, but this is one of his very worst films, sheerly because he's oblivious that he needs to take the extra time to weave precise markers for involvement along with the abstract gorgeous flourishes and broadly dark subject matter.

I hate this kind of criticism, which is why I (hopefully) wrote enough to justify my feelings before saying it, but if I'm being honest, the words that ran through my mind the most during the back-half of this movie were, "This is the one of the stupidest and laziest conceptions put on celluloid I've ever seen" though that's obviously not true- there's a lot to admire about the production design, costumes, cinematography, and some performances are okay; so to rephrase that knee-jerk criticism, and to use Red Screamer's apt "HBO" comparison, this resembles a lot of my impressions of HBO's over-hyped programs as of late: Sloppily-formulated trash disguised in pretty, lavish designs and sold as Art. Much like everyone jumps on the bandwagon of every HBO show, no matter how poorly written they are, people flock towards Del Toro. He's like a candy store or a funhouse, and there's nothing wrong with those things, but what he's selling this year makes me feel sick- and not cause I can't handle the sugar or thrills, but because the ingredients have been swapped with bland paste.

knives wrote: Tue Feb 01, 2022 11:13 pm I was going to be sarcastic about that type of question, but del Toro has discussed this before in the Pan’s Labyrinth commentary. Basically he saw someone get their face smashed in with a bottle when he was young and it’s left a mark on him.

I haven’t heard the commentary so thanks for that. I wasn’t even being sarcastic I had this in mind like it was on a bingo card and then bam I’m laughing at a dead guy.

twbb, I disagree with almost all of your conclusions, but even by your standards that was a well-written flaying! Given the intensity of your hostile reaction, I don't think I'll be able to convince you to rethink the film as a whole, but I do have a point I'd like to hash out:

therewillbeblus wrote: Wed Feb 02, 2022 12:32 am Rarely have I cared less about a character than I did for Cooper's Carlisle. I can kinda-sorta see where you're coming from, but the script is piss-poor and Cooper is horribly miscast. Given his consistent-MO of creative collaborator, DiCaprio would have demanded revisions to flesh out his motivations and bleed them into the script and performance in ways that engaged the audience with interest, but Cooper's antihero is devoid of any interesting developments, and his path of self-delusion (something that seems impossible to be 'boring') is lethargic and shallow. There is absolutely zero reason, for example, offered to why Cooper takes that first drink of alcohol, despite a montaged pronouncement that his sexual attraction to Blanchett + elevated high of power = sacrifice of awareness to his character's entire history. This could be accomplished either in atmospheric or character evolution (inflations of dread in friction with Cooper's self-knowledge, for instance), but instead he tosses in his trauma around alcohol carelessly without any attention to it (something that clearly is with him always, and that Del Toro has granted ample space for with heavy-handed gravity... Give me a break), and that is both structurally unforgivable and an exemplification of Del Toro's ineptness and dull approach to the material.

The complaint about Cooper being miscast is the line of criticism about this film I understand the least: Stanton Carlisle is an amoral sleaze with an inflated sense of entitlement, someone who uses his looks and natural charm to weasel his way out of trouble and into people's beds and/or wallets... and you'd have me believe Bradley Cooper is a bad fit for that?! To be clear, I have no indication that Cooper the human being is anything less than a good guy and a talented artist who has earned his success, but Cooper's on-screen persona up to this point in his career seems pretty spot on for this character.

As for Carlisle drinking, I think you came pretty close to articulating what's happening there before (unjustly, I'd argue) dismissing it: this is a guy who, at the height of his success, has gone from trying to be better than his weak, abusive father to believing he inherently is better than his father, and so instead of avoiding the booze that ruined his old man, he thinks he can have his drink and beat it too. Instead of acknowledging his weaknesses and using his considerable drive and ambition to work at overcoming them, he's just indulged the same traits that made his childhood miserable with the assumption that he can and still come out on top. I certainly wouldn't want any underlining of his motives more heavy-handed than what we already get, and I think the way that element is handled is one of the script's strengths.

The key theme of the film for me is the insidious, corrosive nature of lies, and while Del Toro and Morgan certainly explore the damage Carlisle's deceptions do to others, I think their primary concern is the way his dishonesty to himself is the root of his downfall. Which is why, for me, the finale delivers the dark catharsis you found lacking: Cooper's Carlisle finally drops the last shreds of his self-regard and recognizes what was always inside of him — and the tragic reality that he could have avoided this fate, had he not succumbed to the conman's fatal pitfall: believing his own bullshit.

That's a well-argued defense, and I appreciate you taking the time- though I don't think the depth you're reading into Carlisle's psychology is defined with an earned clarity by the parties involved. That's not to say it isn't true- and I'd be the last person to push back against a the act of dissecting meaning from a text that didn't merit the channels I'm arguing it's communicating, since that's like half my writeups!- but Del Toro and Cooper did not sell me on that pivot from meditating in one solemn tone on his past to drinking carefree and breezy. I mean, I certainly "get" it, but that just wasn't conveyed in an effective manner for me. Oh, and regarding the casting- that's definitely an inspired take, DI, though my concern was in comparing DiCaprio's infamously involved approach to Cooper seemingly offering himself up as a vapid puppet here- and even by his own standards of tiring out the 'sleaze' card, I found his character thin and lifeless. Still, interesting thoughts and I enjoyed reading them- though I wish the movie itself piqued my interest even a fraction as much as your analysis!

The Shape of Water succeeded because it used period and genre familiarity to criticize the perverse fears of that time, of ‘the other’ symbolized by the sea creature, while also drawing a through line to today. With Nightmare Alley, I don’t see this film as having a reason to exist. It feels like some sort of aspirational dream del Toro had, to remake a classic noir with resplendent visuals and a A-list cast, probably thinking that a story about a grifter would be relevant. But it never rises above the level of homage, it leaves the patina on. The source material doesn’t elevate it but weighs it down, it could have used a fresher take. As it stands it exists as a sort of quaint, picturesque moral tale with Bradley Cooper’s face and body language doing most of the storytelling rather than the script. I don’t mind the approach, Cooper has that mystery-to-himself quality that benefits the role; but there’s a shorthand to all the events that transpire that doesn’t allow me to buy into his rise, or really feel a sense of tragedy to his fall. Again the film relies on genre familiarity and archetypes, but it never turns or twists them, it’s boringly predictable and straightforward. I also didn’t understand the shifting motivations behind Cate Blanchett’s character,

Spoiler

whose sole purpose seems to just be the femme fatale who screws over the protagonist.

Though despite my misgivings I do think it’s worth watching. Visually it’s a real mood piece, with some beautiful Art Deco set design and cinematography (I wonder if they actually filmed all of those skies or did it in post? There’s such seamless continuity between shots). There’s also some standout performances, Dafoe is incomparable.

BTW, why doesn’t del Toro do a Bioshock movie already?

I’ve been contemplating why the ending to this not only has stayed with me, but has lifted my respect for what del Toro has accomplished after an initial nonplussed reaction.

Spoiler

The ending to me in a perversely positive one if not necessarily optimistic one. Akin to having the bestiality be seen as a good thing last time around here becoming the stereotype of a geek provided earlier in the film gives Cooper the opportunity to through off his sociopathy and cry. There’s an element of Kafka’s The Hunger Artist to this portrait where the geekification is a selfish way to reach reflection and peace. He’s no longer a slick conman, but rather someone ready to nakedly engage other humans. In a way I felt happier with this ending than the Power rendition.

Certainly this fits del Toro’s MO of beautiful beasts and horrific humans.

RIP Film wrote: Thu Feb 03, 2022 5:09 pm probably thinking that a story about a grifter would be relevant.

This was exactly my thought watching it over the weekend. For me, it was such an obvious allegory of the Trump era where everything is a grift, a con, a projection, an exercise in gaslighting. I don't like GDT's work in general so my partner really had to force this on me. It has a Best Picture nomination, so I begrudgingly watched it and was instantly enamored by it from the first shot of Defoe until the final scene. Having read the thread, the only criticism I can somewhat get on board with is his sudden about-face to alcohol and consequently his ruin. That seemed very clumsily handled IMO, I really appreciate Dark Imbecil's take above though on the issue. I haven't been as keen on this year's movies, especially the ones being showered with so much praise, but other than Flee and maybe The French Dispatch, I think this has been my favorite movie of the year.

Del Toro confirmed on X / Twitter that he’s working on a black & white extended version of the film. This practically guarantees a Criterion release.

He also said that news was forthcoming in the next couple of weeks. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a part of the Criterion announcements on the 16th.

yoloswegmaster wrote: Tue Dec 03, 2024 7:09 pm He also said that news was forthcoming in the next couple of weeks. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a part of the Criterion announcements on the 16th.

They’re really pumping out his stuff recently. Pinocchio, Shape of Water, and Cronos 4K UHD all within a year and three months. Would absolutely be expecting this Nightmare Alley extended cut to come within the next two announcements.

Noir fatalism has rarely been so alluring as in this vision of the world as a soul-sick carnival of corruption. Putting his own luxuriantly stylized spin on the classic hard-boiled novel by William Lindsay Gresham, master fabulist Guillermo del Toro conjures a sordid, seductive portrait of America on the cusp of World War II. The film follows Stan Carlisle (Bradley Cooper), a roustabout in a traveling sideshow who uses charm and deception to become a phony mentalist preying on the rich and powerful—but at what cost? Brought to life by an all-star cast that includes Cate Blanchett, Toni Collette, Willem Dafoe, and Rooney Mara, and nominated for four Oscars (including Best Picture), Nightmare Alley is a haunting descent into the illusory abyss of the American dream.

Film Info
United States, Mexico
2021
150 minutes
Color
1.85:1
English
Spine #1286
DIRECTOR-APPROVED 4K UHD + BLU-RAY SPECIAL EDITION FEATURES
4K digital master of Nightmare Alley: Vision in Darkness and Light, a new black-and-white extended director’s cut, supervised by director Guillermo del Toro, with 5.1 surround DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack
4K digital master of the theatrical version of the film, with Dolby Atmos soundtrack
Two 4K UHD discs of the films presented in Dolby Vision HDR and two Blu-rays with the films and special features
New audio commentary on the extended director’s cut featuring del Toro
New documentary on the film’s performances, visual language, costume and production design, and score
New conversation between del Toro and actor and producer Bradley Cooper
New conversation between del Toro and coscreenwriter Kim Morgan
Trailers
English subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing and English descriptive audio
PLUS: An essay by crime-fiction and true-crime expert Sarah Weinman

New cover by Thomas Ott