170. Almost Famous: The Bootleg Cut (A+)
171. About Schmidt (A-)
172. Drive (B)
173. Hugo (A)
174. Ed Wood (A+)
175. Out of Sight (A)
176. Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (B-)
177. O Brother, Where Art Thou? (A)
178. Jackie Brown (A)
With this, I've now seen all the major Tarantino movies (which I define to mean "every Tarantino movie other than Death Proof
"), and, on one watch, I would say this is probably my second-favourite of them after Inglourious Basterds
. Tarantino's slowest-paced work, by far, and I imagine this threw a lot of his Reservoir Dogs
fandom for a loop. Grier and Forster are very memorable.
179. Fanny and Alexander - Theatrical Version (A-)
You it's a Bergman project where you're an hour into a three-hour film before they identify Fanny.
Bergman's last theatrical release (he made a TV miniseries version of this same movie, which I'll watch at some later point), having reined in the pessimism considerably from some of his other work. Usually thoughtful, often ponderous, with many memorable scenes.
Did you actually watch the movie?
Much more closely than you did. The response of the crowd to the stutter displayed contempt for the speech, either directly or in assuming the prince was humiliated in public.
Which was true to life. What's your problem?
The sadness over the fate of "Cousin Wilhelm" makes German princeling not a stretch.
Wilhelm II was descended from George's great-aunt, Princess Victoria of the United Kingdom, who married the Crown Prince of Prussia. My great-aunt may marry a Romanian, but that doesn't make me Romanian.
There's certainly plenty of intermarriage with German royal families in the history of the Windsors, but that hardly makes them "German" (particularly ludicrous with George V, who was the quintessential Little Englander).
The notion that modern audiences should share the adoration of monarchy is stupid. The bland assumption that we shouldn't even notice the obsequiousness of the characters toward the monarchy borders on the offensive.
Modern audiences do
care about the monarchy, quite a few of them; you can see that in everything from the reaction to the death of Princess Diana to the recent royal wedding. Moreover, since the monarchy did/does exist, and George has a duty to perform, I don't see how it's some big problem to present a very relatable problem and ask the audience to care. Movies ask audiences to relate to and care about things not comparable to their own situations as a matter of course.
And you seem to have missed that one of the main themes of the movie is interactions between the isolated royal family and the down-to-earth Australian commoner, who is very uninteresed in many of the pretensions of the upper class.
One of the most pressing questions about this movie is why does any of this matter to anyone except the man and his family? This question is not even addressed.
I'd hardly call that a pressing question, but the movie raises that subject at least twice; George himself explicitly notes in one scene that if he were a private citizen, no one would care about his situation. And in the climactic discussion with Logue he points out that, as a constitutional monarchy, he has no real authority, and his main role is to speak as the head of state, something which, due to his situation, he cannot do. That's the whole crux of his situation.
Publics always support wars in the beginning, just because authority says they are in some fashion self defense.
That's complete nonsense, and demonstrably false from history. Heck, in this specific instance, the public was initially extremely hostile to the idea of another European war; that was the whole reason for appeasement.
No, the movie's revisionist take on the importance of the essence of Englishness being foes of Hitler is just drivel.
What on Earth are you talking about?
You aren't reviewing the movie, you're listing things you disagree with in reality and then complaining that the movie reflects this.