Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Hell House LLC 2: The Abbadon Hotel 8/10

__________________

The Pink Panther (1963)

__________________

[ J ] - [ S ] - [ F ]

Immaculate 2024 This takes a little too long to get going, but it really picks up steam towards the end. Sydney Sweeney is effective here and there are some good moments in the latter half of the film. Out of the five horror movies I have seen this year, I would rank this as the best. Overall, I would rank Immaculate as the 10th best film of 2024. .

Umpeenth Rewatch...On of the best of the demented man/child comedies that made Sandler a star and millions at the box office. Sandler plays a goofball with serious anger issues who dreams of being a pro hockey payer, but finds himself becoming a championship golfer instead. It's the quintessential Sandler comedy rich with silly comfortable laughs. Ben Stiller is very funny as a sadistic orderly at Happy's Grandma's nursing home and that knock down drag out with the late Bob Barker never gets old. Mention should also be made of one of cinema's best comic villains in the form of Christopher McDonald's Shooter McGavin.

Until I got to the end didn’t realize I’d already seen this movie. Duh.



Thought I had seen this movie, but I hadn’t. Excellent movie.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

A Woman Like Eve 1979 Watched on Tubi. Directed by Nouchka van Brakel and starring Monique van de Ven and Maria Schneider. An interesting and well acted drama about a married woman who falls in love with a lesbian.

My latest home video purchases...



Destry Rides Again (George Marshall / 1939)
One-Eyed Jacks (Marlon Brando / 1961)
Texas, Adios (Ferdinando Baldi / 1966)
El Topo (Alejandro Jodorowsky / 1970)

My Western kick shows absolutely no sign whatsoever of abating in the immediate future! And here are my four most recent purchases.

First we have one of the greatest comedic Westerns of all time in Destry Rides Again, the film which marked Marlene Dietrich's big box-office comeback as well as James Stewart's very first entry in the genre (although it certainly wouldn't be his last). It also could be regarded to some degree as the prototype for Mel Brooks' much more broadly comedic Blazing Saddles from 1974, but while this 1939 classic certainly is funny it also works on a much more "straight" level.

One-Eyed Jacks, of course, is the only film that Marlon Brando ever directed. A problematic production with a somewhat mixed reputation over the years, it's actually a quite confident and assured piece of filmmaking. An uncredited Sam Peckinpah did the first draft of the screenplay, and the story is actually a sort of precursor to his Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid twelve years later, mainly in that both films are about the bad blood between a young gunslinging outlaw and his older mentor and friend who has "crossed over" and become a lawman. Also, Stanley Kubrick was originally slated to direct the film, ultimately falling out with Brando over the usual creative differences. (This would have been after Paths of Glory in 1957 but before Spartacus which actually came out in 1960.) Funnily enough, this film is kind of like this extremely slender, fragile tether between the Kubrick and Peckinpah filmographies, featuring future Peckinpah faces such as Ben Johnson, Slim Pickens and Katy Jurado, but also featuring Elisha Cook Jr. and Timothy Carey who had featured in previous Kubrick films. (And Pickens himself would turn up in Kubrick's later Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb in 1964.)

I got the Italian Western Texas, Adios as part of a Blu-ray 2-pack of 1966's Django released by Arrow Video. I already got Arrow's 4K UHD version of Django quite some time ago, but as a purely impulse buy I decided to get the 2-disc Blu-ray version anyway, seeing as how the second disc featured Texas, Adios which also starred Franco Nero in the lead role. Actually, there's really nothing much noteworthy here to report. I mean, yeah, it's an okay Italian Western, but it comes across as fairly conventional fare when set alongside the groundbreaking Sergio Corbucci classic it's paired with. Franco Nero plays a Texas sheriff who goes south of the border to track and bring to justice the crime boss responsible for killing his father.

And finally, speaking of groundbreaking... I also got Alejandro Jodorowsky's brilliantly unsettling, violently surrealist acid Western El Topo. Words kind of fail me here, as nothing I can say could truly convey the first-time impression one gets from this wonderfully warped and blood-drenched metaphysically gunslinging spiritual odyssey. You'll either love it or you'll hate it, that's really all one can say...

__________________
"Well, it's what people know about themselves inside that makes 'em afraid" - Clint Eastwood as The Stranger, High Plains Drifter (1973)

"I'll let you be in my dream if I can be in yours" - Bob Dylan, Talkin' World War III Blues (1963)

Meanwhile at the local multiplex...




APRIL 9, 2024:
Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (Adam Wingard / 2024)
The First Omen (Arkasha Stevenson / 2024)

APRIL 16, 2024:
Monkey Man (Dev Patel / 2024)
Civil War (Alex Garland / 2024)

Well! So much to unpack... so little time! But hey, I'll give it a shot...

My little monster mash last Tuesday was nothing much to write about. Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire is the latest FX bonanza to feature a lot of CG behemoths flailing about and knocking each other into next Tuesday (see what I did there? ), ultimately to little or no avail. I wouldn't quite make a claim of this being just a whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. But it amounts to a paltry minimum. Just color me very underwhelmed. I'm also sick and tired of seeing all these movies in which monsters or superbeings throw each other about and smash each other into buildings - y'know, big tall edifices of steel and glass in which people live and work in, for God's sake! I mean, does this not enter into the screenwriters' or the director's or the FX wizards' minds - at all?? Or do we just simply shrug it off and regard all those poor smashed-up people as mere collateral damage? Simply just necessary sacrifices to the spectacle? Or am I simply just overreacting like crazy? Well... perhaps. But my dissatisfaction remains regardless. I can trace the very first time I started to feel uneasy about mass destruction as cinematic spectacle to my very first viewing of Roland Emmerich's Independence Day back in 1996. (Before the horrors of September 11, 2001, take note.) Back then, I sort of shrugged off my humanist discontent as being inapplicable to any sort of valid criticism of a summer blockbuster, but later developments - or should I say degenerations - within the creative side of this kind of FX-laden cinematic spectacular filmmaking over the years have borne out those discontents. Hey, that's just how I feel. Deal with it...

The horror prequel The First Omen, on the other hand, was actually halfway decent. At least it was better than the 2006 remake of the 1976 original! But that's not really saying all that much. Of course I was immediately reminded of the recent Immaculate (which I had just seen the week before on April 2), in that both films deal with the diabolically-inspired pregnancy of a nun instigated by fanatical extremist elements within the Catholic Church. Admittedly, that's something of a new and "provocative" wrinkle within the Omen franchise. (I put "provocative" in scare quotes because trying to do or say anything casting the Church in a sinister light has become a rather tired cliché at this point. Not without justification to some extent, but a cliché just the same.) It's also worth noting how much of a '70s Euro-horror vibe has started to creep into the Hollywood satanic-horror genre. I already pointed out the similarities to the work of Argento in my recent review of Immaculate (y'know, the little American lamb abroad in decadent Europe and discovering scary things happening, a la Suspiria or Phenomena). And once it's time for our little infant anti-Christ to finally enter the world, our much put-upon heroine (in this case played by Nell Tiger Free) starts to manifest symptoms that immediately made me think, "No, wait a minute. That can't be, she can't... is she really...? Yes! Holy s***, she is actually channeling Isabelle Adjani in 1981's Possession!" (BTW, if you've seen that Andrzej Zulawski cult classic, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about!) So ultimately, it comes down to... is The First Omen actually any good? Well... it's not awful, mind you. And it's actually a couple notches above Immaculate. But that's not really saying a heck of a lot overall, is it? So I guess I can rank nun-themed horror movies alongside big glossy Japan-originated monster mash-ups as things which are pretty well played out for me.

Dev Patel's Monkey Man, on the other hand, is really something else! Yes, it's basically one of those one-man army Revenge-O-Matic action thrillers that - just like giant monster mash-ups and diabolically-impregnated nuns - have proliferated like piranha fish over the years. But this one has got a number of interesting wrinkles to it. Set in modern India, it has interesting spiritual and mythological themes, as well as a left-leaning political slant. Our hero (played by Patel) is out to avenge the rape and murder of his mother at the hands of a corrupt chief who has forced out the inhabitants of their village in order to acquire the land for the benefit of corrupt spiritual guru. Many years later, our hero is working as a monkey-masked fighter in a boxing club where is paid to lose.

(To be continued. I am seriously short on time at the moment and have other things to do. Damn it! But I will pick up where I left off at some point! Let me just get started on the next review...)

When I first saw the trailer for the new Civil War, my first reaction was, This is a rather cool and timely idea for a film in 2024. My second reaction, on the other hand, was that of, This is something that can quite easily go wrong in so many ways!. Or rather, specifically I was thinking of two ways: 1) The movie could make the mistake of taking cheap shots at the current election-year situation in order to score easy political points. And 2) The movie could make the mistake of being too evasive in the interest of not offending anybody. First of all, I'll just say when I saw Alex Garland credited as writer/director in the trailer I relaxed a little bit, knowing that his were the best possible hands for a movie like this to be in. I hadn't seen any of his earlier directorial efforts, but I was a huge fan of Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later and Sunshine, which I knew he had written, so I had a reason to be optimistic. And Garland quite expertly walked that tightrope and delivered a very moving, disquieting and compelling film with Civil War.

(Once again, I will continue this review at a later date, because I am currently pressed for time...)

Extraction follows mercenary Tyler Rake (Chris Hemsworth) as he is tasked with rescuing the son of an Indian drug lord who was kidnapped by his rival. However, after a double-cross, Tyler has to handle not only a rival sent by the father of the kid and the military controlled by the main baddie, but also his own inner demons.

When I set out to watch this, I was expecting your typical dumb, action film. However, I was surprised by two things: first, that the action is far from dumb, and the film is full of some really impressive action sequences. The highlight of that is a thrilling, "one shot" take that lasts almost 15 minutes, and includes numerous fights, a car chase, foot chase across multiple buildings and rooftops, another car chase, guns, rifles, knifes, and explosions.

Grade:


Full review in my Movie Loot

__________________

Yeah Extraction is surprisingly solid. 2 is worth a watch too.

By Millennium Media / Campbell Grobman Films / Lionsgate - IMP Awards., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=73983290

Expend4bles - (2023)

I hate really dumping on movies - complaining about plot holes, bad effects, bad performances and the like has a certain sound to it I don't like. But sometimes you come up against movies like Expend4bles - a film that is forcing me to look at the rest of the series in a more critical light. Look - they're bad movies I know, but what I got out of them was simply the fact that we were spending time with so many legendary stars crammed into the same vehicle. The more the merrier - and as such, the first three Expendables movies were well and truly bearable. Take that away, and what do we have? Something that's a little less bearable. Take that away and get ultra-sloppy in all other departments and what do we have? Yes. Expend4bles is absolutely unbearable to watch. It's a monstrous turkey. The next biggest names after Stallone and Statham are 50 Cent and Megan Fox - which to me, in context with what these films were all about, makes no sense at all. Then, there's the real kicker - Stallone's character, Barney Ross, is killed off at the beginning of the movie. So now, instead of a dozen superstars, we have Statham leading while being backed up by 50 Cent, Megan Fox and Dolph Lundgren. To be fair, unheralded action stars such as Iko Uwais and Tony Jaa get a chance to showcase their stuff - but all in all, this doesn't deliver on the nostalgia or star power these films have always relied on.

There's something about Expend4bles that is puzzling. It's budget is listed at being $100 million - but the effects are substandard and cheap. I'm not overstating anything at all when I say that this looks like a $1 million direct to DVD action film - the green screen is palpable, and the explosions along with explosive deaths would be unacceptable in a contemporary video game. Someone (and I'm not naming names) has made off with an absolute fortune here - I mean, what to us would be a life-changing, lottery-winning amount of money has been taken for a lazy few months of work. This movie didn't cost $100 million to make - I think it cost around a tenth of that to make. The rest has been divvied up. Someone has been duped - because this film has only just made up half of that amount at the box office, so those who put the money in will struggle to just make it back again. No Schwarzenegger, No Harrison Ford, No Antonio Banderas (who has been replaced with his character's "son" - only making me wish he was in this), No Jet Li, No Wesley Snipes and hardly any Sylvester Stallone. The action is mediocre, and the story typical for this franchise. They took away the only thing that I was okay with concerning these movies - what's left is an insult to fans.

2/10


By Lucasfilm / Walt Disney Pictures - https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/ind...s-celebration/, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=73491192

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny - (2023)

Not great, but Dial of Destiny does offer up the sweet nostalgia of seeing Indiana Jones get up to a bit of excitement in his old age, and Phoebe Waller-Bridge is great as a foil to the famous character. Mads Mikkelsen rises to the occasion as villain Jürgen Voller - somehow working Nazis into the plot again, despite this taking place in 1969. The climax I'm actually really pleased with - it's fantastic, albeit crazy. Everything other than what I've just mentioned - well, it didn't live up to what we might have hoped from another Indiana Jones film. Look, the character is in his 70s, and it doesn't make much sense to even make these films with Harrison Ford portraying Jones. In fact, it's insane - which is why I can't look away. Second watch for me.

6/10


By May be found at the following website: https://www.cinematerial.com/movies/...694/p/h2z59yzj, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=74489940

Black Rain - (1989)

Simply one of the best films ever made about the atom bomb and Hiroshima - devastating, powerful and extremely sad while at the same time being profound. Reviewed here, in my watchlist thread.

10/10

__________________

Two For The Road (1967)




Okay, the thing about this movie is it's got a gimmick - it's non-sequential (which makes for some confusion at times).

Unlike the non-sequential device of Pulp Fiction (1994), this one follows the same couple in every scene over the course of a 10 year relationship and marriage.



So it's unique as a film (although I sometimes found the time changes a bit annoying in trying to figure out what time period we were looking at, but by the end it kind of pulls everything together with a nice sense of cohesion).



It's a love story. But, although more serious than comedic, it does have a few surprisingly funny moments. It's also very sad in how it shows the burgeoning, true love of a young couple... and how such a love can go through different permutations over time under the stresses of life, career, family, social pressures, etc.



The performances are enjoyable. Overall, I found this very interesting if a little taxing (it felt like more participation on my part - to try to keep track of or place each scene since it's a sequential jumble - than I'd have to put into a regularly paced movie.) But sometimes having to participate in a movie can be a good thing - it worked for this one.

Last movie I saw was Riddle Of Fire, an English movie on top123movies.xyz. "Riddle of Fire" is an intriguing title that sparks curiosity. The name suggests a mystery or adventure, perhaps involving elements of suspense and exploration. Without specific knowledge of the movie's plot or genre, it's difficult to provide further insight, but the title alone hints at an engaging story waiting to be unraveled.

The Magnificent Ambersons -

If any movie makes you wonder "what could have been," it has to be this one. RKO Pictures not only excised over 30% of footage from Welles' cut, but they also lost it. The aftermath ends up being a more than worthy adaptation anyway. A little bit Knives Out and a little bit Cinema Paradiso - well, maybe more former than latter - it's a distinctly American story about what's lost and gained after the march of progress passes by.

RKO dealt a blow to the movie for sure, but they did not take the maverick out of Welles in the process. You definitely see it in how he presents the mini-Xanadu that is the Ambersons' mansion. While the camera glides through it during George's party, you can practically hear your favorite filmmakers taking notes. I also love how he makes the town gossip seem like a Greek chorus. Speaking of George, Tim Holt makes him an icon of toxic privilege if there ever was one. While he would make my list of characters I love to hate, Holt manages to humanize him enough so that when he and progress collide - no pun intended - I managed to eke out some sympathy for him. As much as I enjoy Welles' narration, I would have preferred more showing and less telling of the rise of American industry and the "horseless carriage," but I cannot fault what we do get. There's the reliable Joseph Cotten as automobile man Eugene, the construction footage, etc., but what really hits hard are the indications that nobody knows or cares about anyone's business, i.e., community, anymore. Agnes Moorhead also shines as the most sympathetic Amberson, especially during the wrenching "radiator" scene.

As Charlie Chaplin put it a couple years prior in The Great Dictator, "we have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in." Community indeed becomes less important as industrialization increases and as we're forced to spend more time in our cars, but as this movie also memorably demonstrates, something else goes away that few mourn: the more parasitical members of the 1%. They obviously haven’t completely gone away, but one thing's for sure: they're more likely to have to work for it than they used to. Again, what remains after RKO's cuts deserves its reputation, but the cuts are obvious whether or not you're aware of the movie's history. Aside from that out of place ending, there is more than one time when I felt out of the loop and/or had to rely on headcanon. Other than that, it’s a must-see if you're also fascinated by Welles, especially if you want more on his stance towards those who have their hands on the wheel - no pun intended - beyond Citizen Kane. Regardless, it will at least inform you why Mr. Burns from The Simpsons wore that hat and had such long and curly hair as a child.

2nd Rewatch...Scott Frank's razor sharp screenplay is the real star of this intricate story of Florida mobsters and Hollywood has-beens and wanna be's. This is one of those stories like The Sting, where if you miss five minutes of the film, you will be totally confused, but the undivided attention pays off in spades. Director Barry Sonnenfield works wonders with his perfect cast, several of them playing against type. John Travolta, who began his career playing morons like Vinnie Babarino and Billy Nolan, is undeniably slick paying the smartest character in the movie. Gene Hackman is surprisingly effective playing a desperate and pathetic loser who makes nothing but wrong moves throughout the story. Danny DeVito's arrogant Martin Weir adds a real intelligence to his accustomed smarm and even James Gandolfini brings a real vulnerability to his Hollywood thumb breaker. This movie improves upon each rewatch.

3rd Rewatch...Director David Fincher (Fight Club, Se7en) scores another direct bullseye with this chilling psychological drama that could have you talking back at the screen. Ben Affleck plays Nick Dunne, a man who comes home one day and his wife is wife Amy, an heiress and famous writer, is nowhere to be found. Within 24 hours of her disappearance, the police have compiled a case that says Nick murdered Amy, despite having no body and not investigating any other scenarios regarding what happened to Amy. That's what angers me about this story...we know from the opening scene that Nick is innocent, but the police don't even look into any other suspects. Affleck has never been better and Rosemond Park's bone-chilling performance as Amy earned her an Outstanding Lead Actress Oscar nomination. Also loved Kim Dickens as the lead detective on the case, Neil Patrick Harris as a man from Amy's past, Tyler Perry as Nick's attorney, and Missy Pyle as a fictionalized Nancy Grace. The the conclusion of the film does provide some satisfaction, I have to admit that the ambiguity of the ending makes this one of the few films I have ever seen that made me want to re-visit these characters in five years for a sequel. to see where these people are.

Laurie Metcalf was so good in Internal Affairs. "Plus he was rude to me!"