Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[Thief]

LEVIATHAN
(1989, Cosmatos)
A film with a title that starts with the letters K or L

https://i.imgur.com/lPiOB8z.jpg


"Natura non confucius. Loosely translated: 'don't fu¢k with Mother Nature'."



Leviathan follows an underwater mining crew led by Beck. When they stumble upon a Soviet shipwreck carrying the creature, they start being hunted and killed by it. The crew includes Dr. Thompson, wannabe astronaut Willie (Amanda Pays), and a bunch of other body bags for the creature to consume (most notably Daniel Stern and Ernie Hudson).

Like its "predecessor", DeepStar Six, which follows a similar story and similar beats, Leviathan is plagued by a certain laziness and lack of effort from its screenwriters. Which is surprising, cause one of them co-wrote Die Hard and the other one co-wrote Blade Runner. But here? they just don't seem to care and borrow a lot from The Thing and Alien, and a bit from Jaws and Aliens, usually to the point of eye-rolling obviousness.

Grade: 2


Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2216136#post2216136)

[Stirchley]

Wait, why didn't you like River?

Long time ago, haven’t a clue now. Most likely because I didn’t believe in the character(s). Always the kiss of death for me.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fthecriticalcritics.com%2Freview%2Fwp-content%2Fimages%2Fgoing_clear_scientology_and_the_prison_of_belief-still_1-1160x580.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief, 2015

This documentary explores the questionable practices of the Church of Scientology through a mix of interviews with former members, archive footage, and information gleaned from government investigation and trial transcripts.

Almost all the way at the end of this film, someone asks one of the interview subjects a really important question: "So how is Scientology different from any other religion?". The question is really key because a lot of the basic facts regarding Scientology (belief in invisible/incorporeal beings, internal terminology, enforced hierarchies, and even behaviors like isolating people or physical abuse) are not at all exclusive to it.

This question about what makes Scientology different is what drives the film and it is ultimately what makes it so powerful and so damning. It would be incredibly easy to spend most of the documentary making fun of the beliefs of the church (and there are a few zingers, such as "So then why is Tom Cruise paying $1000 a session to have invisible aliens sucked out of his body?"), but if you're being honest, just about any religion could be mocked in this way.

As becomes really clear in the film, the problem isn't WHAT the Scientologists believe, it's how they go about practicing their religion and specifically the cruel, creepy, and abusive way they handle dissent from inside or outside their walls.

People who use their power/influence to harm others makes me incredibly angry, and what the documentary exposes is that doing such harm isn't just the act of a few radicals in the church--it's a practice that is built into the beliefs themselves. L. Ron Hubbard gives explicit directions about how to handle those who cross them, and the new generation of leadership in the church, specifically David Miscavige, really seem to lean into the controlling and exploitative elements.

I thought I had something of a grasp on the behavior of Scientologists, but, wow. What you see in the film goes way beyond. Men from the church spend years filming, stalking, and harassing the wife of a former member. (The smirking man filming her as she grows more and more upset is maybe the most punchable person I've seen in a movie lately). People are sent to the homes of former members' elderly parents. Since this documentary came out, Danny Masterson has been accused of sexual assault by multiple women who claimed that the church helped to shield him from investigations. Watching this film, those claims seem incredibly believable.

One of the grossest stories is about a young woman in the church who was given a makeover under the pretense that she was going to be an ambassador for the church. Unbeknownst to her, she was being groomed to be Tom Cruise's next girlfriend because he'd just broken up with Nicole Kidman. The line "her hair was cut and styled to Tom's preference" is just cringe-inducing.

I had also not realized the extent of the implications of the church's tax-exempt status. While most of what I've read about that legal battle talks about the money implications (because the church is worth billions of dollars). But what surprised me were the revelations about the other legal benefits of being recognized as a religion. The church can have people doing labor for $0.40 an hour and it's fine. They are totally able to dodge child labor and human trafficking laws. When they harass or stalk former members, it can fall under first amendment protections.

This movie made me all kinds of angry. And shame on all of the celebrities (especially Tom Cruise) who lend their high profile to furthering the abusive and exploitative practices of this group.

4.5

[Fabulous]

The Desperate Hours (1955)

3.5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/1u9AsKOyHu1WzjHX467i11MWGwx.jpg

[hell_storm2004]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRxpN6Q5r4y3QTfXavfu2bQKmxDdqjn5KcqqA&usqp=CAU

Alone (2007) - 5.5/10. A decent Thai horror flick. Does create a spooky atmosphere. And some good scenes. Decent plot. Just s good one time watch.

[Gideon58]

In the Heights (2021)

I probably shouldn't rate this, considering I mixed up the timings for the movie and arrived at the cinema late and missed the first half hour of the film. Having bought popcorn and drinks and seeing as there was still 2 hours of the movie to go, we decided to go in anyway. It really wasn't hard to catch up with what was going on, might have missed some good songs though. It was quite a fun movie, with a hopeful, summery feel to it and some catchy songs. A bit cheesy and sanitised, but it's just good to see that musicals are still being made.

3.5


Sounds like you missed the opening number, which was incredible!

[GulfportDoc]

I'm not doing noir tonight, but Hitchcock. It's The Rear Window, a high-color, brightly lit, anti-noir movie. It's really quite a period piece. It has James Stewart being, well, James Stewart and Grace Kelly, before she became a princess in Monte Carlo. It's really a quiet movie, with little soundtrack music other than an across-the-alley pianist practicing, the music echoing across the alley. Dialog is quiet and action is nearly nil because Stewart's character, a news photog, is laid up with a broken leg, watching his neighbors out of the rear window of an apartment in "The City". Murder is afoot. Raymond Burr, who is NOT Perry Mason yet, did it. This really is good.

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
A brilliant film with zero flaws. Hitchcock's work is constantly being re-evaluated every 10 years or so, claiming one or other of his films to be the best. Rear Window is definitely in his top 5. Perhaps his most suspenseful film, the Master of Suspense let it all out here!

[Fabulous]

The Friends of Eddie Coyle (1973)

3.5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/ilUFiN6LpcJJdZIiCwQynlHAlqi.jpg

[Wooley]

LEVIATHAN
(1989, Cosmatos)
A film with a title that starts with the letters K or L

https://i.imgur.com/lPiOB8z.jpg




Leviathan follows an underwater mining crew led by Beck. When they stumble upon a Soviet shipwreck carrying the creature, they start being hunted and killed by it. The crew includes Dr. Thompson, wannabe astronaut Willie (Amanda Pays), and a bunch of other body bags for the creature to consume (most notably Daniel Stern and Ernie Hudson).

Like its "predecessor", DeepStar Six, which follows a similar story and similar beats, Leviathan is plagued by a certain laziness and lack of effort from its screenwriters. Which is surprising, cause one of them co-wrote Die Hard and the other one co-wrote Blade Runner. But here? they just don't seem to care and borrow a lot from The Thing and Alien, and a bit from Jaws and Aliens, usually to the point of eye-rolling obviousness.

Grade: 2


Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2216136#post2216136)

Honestly, when I saw it, I suspected a lot of studio-interference. Lots of "notes".

[Wooley]

Long time ago, haven’t a clue now. Most likely because I didn’t believe in the character(s). Always the kiss of death for me.

Oh man, I was so totally invested in the characters. Every one of them. Renner, Olsen, the great Graham Greene, Gil Birmingham as Martin kinda broke my heart, I liked Bernthal as Matt... man, I was engaged intensely in this film and, considering there isn't much action, it was all because of the characters.

[Wooley]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fthecriticalcritics.com%2Freview%2Fwp-content%2Fimages%2Fgoing_clear_scientology_and_the_prison_of_belief-still_1-1160x580.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief, 2015

This documentary explores the questionable practices of the Church of Scientology through a mix of interviews with former members, archive footage, and information gleaned from government investigation and trial transcripts.

Almost all the way at the end of this film, someone asks one of the interview subjects a really important question: "So how is Scientology different from any other religion?". The question is really key because a lot of the basic facts regarding Scientology (belief in invisible/incorporeal beings, internal terminology, enforced hierarchies, and even behaviors like isolating people or physical abuse) are not at all exclusive to it.

This question about what makes Scientology different is what drives the film and it is ultimately what makes it so powerful and so damning. It would be incredibly easy to spend most of the documentary making fun of the beliefs of the church (and there are a few zingers, such as "So then why is Tom Cruise paying $1000 a session to have invisible aliens sucked out of his body?"), but if you're being honest, just about any religion could be mocked in this way.

As becomes really clear in the film, the problem isn't WHAT the Scientologists believe, it's how they go about practicing their religion and specifically the cruel, creepy, and abusive way they handle dissent from inside or outside their walls.

People who use their power/influence to harm others makes me incredibly angry, and what the documentary exposes is that doing such harm isn't just the act of a few radicals in the church--it's a practice that is built into the beliefs themselves. L. Ron Hubbard gives explicit directions about how to handle those who cross them, and the new generation of leadership in the church, specifically David Miscavige, really seem to lean into the controlling and exploitative elements.

I thought I had something of a grasp on the behavior of Scientologists, but, wow. What you see in the film goes way beyond. Men from the church spend years filming, stalking, and harassing the wife of a former member. (The smirking man filming her as she grows more and more upset is maybe the most punchable person I've seen in a movie lately). People are sent to the homes of former members' elderly parents. Since this documentary came out, Danny Masterson has been accused of sexual assault by multiple women who claimed that the church helped to shield him from investigations. Watching this film, those claims seem incredibly believable.

One of the grossest stories is about a young woman in the church who was given a makeover under the pretense that she was going to be an ambassador for the church. Unbeknownst to her, she was being groomed to be Tom Cruise's next girlfriend because he'd just broken up with Nicole Kidman. The line "her hair was cut and styled to Tom's preference" is just cringe-inducing.

I had also not realized the extent of the implications of the church's tax-exempt status. While most of what I've read about that legal battle talks about the money implications (because the church is worth billions of dollars). But what surprised me were the revelations about the other legal benefits of being recognized as a religion. The church can have people doing labor for $0.40 an hour and it's fine. They are totally able to dodge child labor and human trafficking laws. When they harass or stalk former members, it can fall under first amendment protections.

This movie made me all kinds of angry. And shame on all of the celebrities (especially Tom Cruise) who lend their high profile to furthering the abusive and exploitative practices of this group.

4.5

I'm with you, Take, my blood was positively boiling during this film, I had genuine rage toward that church but, as you say, it really also applied to most "churches" or organized religions to me. I was steaming.
I have been a proud member of the Tax The Churches League for many years and man did this movie have me plotting Foul Play.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stageandcinema.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F11%2Fthe-revenant-re_select_1_00000874_rgb.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

The Revenant, 2015

In the 1820s, tracker Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio), accompanied by his teenage son Hawk (Forrest Goodluck), guides a troop of fur trappers through dangerous territory. When most of the trappers are killed in an ambush by a group of Arikara people who are seeking a kidnapped Arikara woman, the survivors retreat into the snowy mountains. While scouting for food, Hugh is savagely mauled by a bear. Unwilling to put Hugh out of his misery, the leader (Domnhall Gleeson) leaves Hawk, a man named Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), and a young man named Jim (Will Poulter) to stay with Hugh through his last hours of life. But Fitzgerald has other ideas, and his actions set off a tragic series of events.

I am still turning over in my mind how successful I think this film was in terms of seeing its themes through to the end. But in this moment my main reaction is that this was an immersive, propulsive, and deeply moving cinematic experience. The film manages to be a story of betrayal and revenge intertwined with a wilderness survival thriller.

On the wilderness front, the film does a great job of showing the danger of the intimate (as in, getting too close to a bear) and of the wide open space. The camera alternates between zoomed in close ups and sweeping overhead views of the snow-covered terrain. The land is its own character, alternately a deadly enemy and a savior. The brutality of the bear attack sequence sets the tone, and everything sits on a razor's edge from then on out.

In terms of the human side of the story, I felt that it was very well-realized. Glass is a compelling lead, but the film is filled with interesting supporting characters, from the good-hearted Jim (whose fear overrides his compassion in a moment that he will regret for the rest of the film) to Hikuc (Arthur RedCloud), a displaced Pawnee man who is journeying south in search of more of his people. Fitzgerald is a weasel, but even in his cruelty and selfishness, what we learn about his past makes sense of his actions, despicable though they might be. This is a film with so many moving parts--an interlocking mix of motivations and intentions--but it all works somehow with multiple minor climaxes stacked on one another and leading to the final act.

I thought that the performances were very solid. DiCaprio is an actor who I sometimes struggle to see as his characters. This is nothing against him or his talent, but I often watch him in a film and become hyper aware that I am watching an actor acting. While this film was filled with actor moments, the strong presence of the wilderness and the raw physicality of the role meant that DiCaprio (and the rest of the cast) really disappeared into their characters for me.

There were a handful of small issues I had with the film. In a few scenes there was something about the sound balance that sounded off to me, and it was always when it sounded like the dialogue wasn't quite in sync with what was on screen. Maybe I just imagined this, but a few times something in the sound took me out of the film for a moment. I am also still thinking over how some of the themes resolved. And kind of adjacent to that, I'm thinking back on the use of indigenous people in the film, and particularly one use of them as an almost deus ex machina-type device. The film is very even-handed in the portrayal of different indigenous groups, but that one element felt a bit off to me. The most one-dimensional characters are the French fur-trappers.

This was a really compelling, thrilling film. The kind of movie that feels like it's only just beginning and you realize you're an hour in.

4.5

[Wooley]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stageandcinema.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F11%2Fthe-revenant-re_select_1_00000874_rgb.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

The Revenant, 2015

In the 1820s, tracker Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio), accompanied by his teenage son Hawk (Forrest Goodluck), guides a troop of fur trappers through dangerous territory. When most of the trappers are killed in an ambush by a group of Arikara people who are seeking a kidnapped Arikara woman, the survivors retreat into the snowy mountains. While scouting for food, Hugh is savagely mauled by a bear. Unwilling to put Hugh out of his misery, the leader (Domnhall Gleeson) leaves Hawk, a man named Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), and a young man named Jim (Will Poulter) to stay with Hugh through his last hours of life. But Fitzgerald has other ideas, and his actions set off a tragic series of events.

I am still turning over in my mind how successful I think this film was in terms of seeing its themes through to the end. But in this moment my main reaction is that this was an immersive, propulsive, and deeply moving cinematic experience. The film manages to be a story of betrayal and revenge intertwined with a wilderness survival thriller.

On the wilderness front, the film does a great job of showing the danger of the intimate (as in, getting too close to a bear) and of the wide open space. The camera alternates between zoomed in close ups and sweeping overhead views of the snow-covered terrain. The land is its own character, alternately a deadly enemy and a savior. The brutality of the bear attack sequence sets the tone, and everything sits on a razor's edge from then on out.

In terms of the human side of the story, I felt that it was very well-realized. Glass is a compelling lead, but the film is filled with interesting supporting characters, from the good-hearted Jim (whose fear overrides his compassion in a moment that he will regret for the rest of the film) to Hikuc (Arthur RedCloud), a displaced Pawnee man who is journeying south in search of more of his people. Fitzgerald is a weasel, but even in his cruelty and selfishness, what we learn about his past makes sense of his actions, despicable though they might be. This is a film with so many moving parts--an interlocking mix of motivations and intentions--but it all works somehow with multiple minor climaxes stacked on one another and leading to the final act.

I thought that the performances were very solid. DiCaprio is an actor who I sometimes struggle to see as his characters. This is nothing against him or his talent, but I often watch him in a film and become hyper aware that I am watching an actor acting. While this film was filled with actor moments, the strong presence of the wilderness and the raw physicality of the role meant that DiCaprio (and the rest of the cast) really disappeared into their characters for me.

There were a handful of small issues I had with the film. In a few scenes there was something about the sound balance that sounded off to me, and it was always when it sounded like the dialogue wasn't quite in sync with what was on screen. Maybe I just imagined this, but a few times something in the sound took me out of the film for a moment. I am also still thinking over how some of the themes resolved. And kind of adjacent to that, I'm thinking back on the use of indigenous people in the film, and particularly one use of them as an almost deus ex machina-type device. The film is very even-handed in the portrayal of different indigenous groups, but that one element felt a bit off to me. The most one-dimensional characters are the French fur-trappers.

This was a really compelling, thrilling film. The kind of movie that feels like it's only just beginning and you realize you're an hour in.

4.5
Interesting.
DiCaprio just turns me off so much that, even though I connected deeply with Innaritu's Birdman the year before, I could not even bring myself to watch sit through this at home.
Perhaps I need to re-think. I mean, I haven't hated everything DiCaprio's ever been in, I just always wished there was someone else playing his role.

[skizzerflake]

A brilliant film with zero flaws. Hitchcock's work is constantly being re-evaluated every 10 years or so, claiming one or other of his films to be the best. Rear Window is definitely in his top 5. Perhaps his most suspenseful film, the Master of Suspense let it all out here!

I really love the bright, saturated color look. It seems to be a deliberate inversion of the high contrast black and white look of noir films (also favorites or mine) that were its immediate predecessors. Being so close to Stewart's character, you really relate to how desperate he is when the murderer comes after him.

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/37/Wild2014Poster.jpg
By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=43262370

Wild - (2014)

There seems to be something almost suicidal in Cheryl Strayed's 1,100 mile trek in Wild. Completely inexperienced, psychologically troubled and ill-prepared she is, but she also has the will to go on, and on, and on. She starts out with the wrong kind of fuel for her cooker, and far too much to carry on her back (she struggles gamely to lift her pack at all in the film's opening scenes.) There's constant anxiety. From wild animals to meetings with men who could turn out to be rapists if she's unlucky - you could forgive her easily for giving up. Reese Witherspoon gives a fine Oscar-nominated performance showing her vulnerability, while at the same time sporting a worn down edge. This is a woman coming off the unexpected death of her mother, and a descent into a drug-fueled orgy of self-abuse that left her divorced with nothing. As she hikes, long-repressed memories come to the surface.

Laura Dern portrays Strayed's mother Bobbi Grey, also earning an Oscar nomination for her supporting role. Ever since The Last Jedi I've gone off Dern quite a bit - but not for any reason I can clearly articulate. Still, it didn't ruin the film for me. Cliff de Young also appears - and I completely missed him, meaning I have to go back and watch the scenes he's in. It gives the film a very faint connection to Jessica Harper - giving the film an extra 0.1 on my rating, which is rounded down and completely doesn't matter. This movie is an okay addition to my fondness for wilderness/jungle/desert survival films - much better than Jungle, but still pales beside Wings of Hope.

7/10

https://i.postimg.cc/fLmg44Gd/paper.jpg

Paper Champions

This is my new 'obscurity' champion of a movie! 88 ratings on the IMDb, skewed to an undeserved 7.3/10. This film is something akin to The 40-Year-Old Virgin with Luke Saliba's "Rey" working an unremarkable job at a photocopier business, next to his best friend Wade. When he happens to come across nurse Holly, his mother's new ex-wrestler boyfriend (a performance by Gary Sweet that made me cringe) and Wade try and make him man enough to actually talk to her. All kinds of embarrassing situations ensue. Not least of which is Rey standing his new girlfriend up because he lacks the courage to follow through. It was this that finally put me off Rey for good.

Paper Champions crashes to the ground early on, because it simply isn't as funny as it sets out to be - and it bets everything on it's humour. There doesn't seem to be anything at all behind Rey's façade of shyness, and his future with Holly appears doomed to me. By the end he takes on a wrestling challenge which made no sense - and Holly forgives him his many transgressions for no other reason than it's in the script. Rey is a character completely devoid of personality - something that should have been amended.

3/10

[EsmagaSapos]

https://i.postimg.cc/tgWnSLFm/HTPoster.jpg

3

I'm sure many ex-soldiers in the US can take a lot from some characters Christian Bale has done, either this one: what war made me do and has done to me, or Out of the Furnace, that I personally enjoyed even more, the Appalachians are interesting, a moral code generation after generation and the lack of opportunities in the environment they live in. The ending is scary and very well done, without a background story it would not have worked.

[xSookieStackhouse]

5
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMGFmZTFhYjktMmYyZi00ZmE4LWI0NGEtMDY2MGEzMDY0YjdiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTQxNzMzNDI@._V1_.jpg

[Thief]

Honestly, when I saw it, I suspected a lot of studio-interference. Lots of "notes".

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me. It's obvious that they wanted to bounce off whatever other better films had done, so I wouldn't put it past the studio to request certain ties.

[cricket]

A Children's Story (2004)

3.5

https://www.lacooltura.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/certibambini.jpg

One of those coming of age films in which the main character gets into more and more trouble. It reminded me of Pixote and any number of downer British films. This is the first Italian film like that I can remember seeing. A very back and forth structure but it's fine because it's more about watching a life and a lifestyle than it is about a story. There are some hard hitting moments. These movies are an easy sell for me so thanks for the recommendation Chyp.

[Fabulous]

The Go-Between (1971)

3.5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/pmms2cLdjicLxBwmoisz83HU1Qs.jpg

[Takoma11]

Interesting.
DiCaprio just turns me off so much that, even though I connected deeply with Innaritu's Birdman the year before, I could not even bring myself to watch sit through this at home.
Perhaps I need to re-think. I mean, I haven't hated everything DiCaprio's ever been in, I just always wished there was someone else playing his role.

I know what you mean about DiCaprio, but I would still urge you to give this one a shot.

[WHITBISSELL!]

The Revenant is definitely worth watching. It's so much more than a frontier survival story.


And 2009's The Revenant is also pretty good. It's so much more than a dead guy surviving story. :)

[SpelingError]

Nomadland (2020) - 3.5

This is a film of two conflicting themes which work really well, but only by themselves. The first main theme is a celebration of nomads that explores how their lifestyle is enjoyable, that it isn't torturous or unlivable, that the nomads you meet are colorful and friendly, etc. The second theme is how Fern used that lifestyle to escape from her past and isolate herself from animals or people who may have potentially brought her happiness and lifted her out of her grief. To a degree, these two themes were executed pretty well: several scenes were emotionally powerful, with the standout being Swankie's monologue on her cancer diagnosis. These themes also competed with each other though. Of course, they could've worked in harmony if they came together, but they both remained static throughout the film. The nomad lifestyle seemed worthwhile at the start of the film and it ended this way as well. Also, Fern started out in a state of isolation and grief and the film ended with her in that state. Both these themes seemed at odds with each other and, while I enjoyed the journey along the way, the film didn't connect with me as much as I was hoping it would. As usual though, McDormand is great. I also liked the cinematography. It recalled Malick at times with the emphasis on natural light and the choice to shoot at golden hour.

[SpelingError]

Interesting.
DiCaprio just turns me off so much that, even though I connected deeply with Innaritu's Birdman the year before, I could not even bring myself to watch sit through this at home.
Perhaps I need to re-think. I mean, I haven't hated everything DiCaprio's ever been in, I just always wished there was someone else playing his role.

I'm of the mind that DiCaprio didn't deserve his Oscar for this film. Overall, he's fine and I get why many people like him, but as mentioned earlier, his performances often feel like "an actor acting" and I generally feel he isn't able to disappear into the characters he plays.

With that being said, the opening battle in The Revenant is easily the best fight scene in any 2010's film, so it's worth watching for that alone.

[Gideon58]

https://www.hdmoviesource.com/v/vspfiles/photos/13025-1.jpg



4

[Gideon58]

The Revenant is definitely worth watching. It's so much more than a frontier survival story.


And 2009's The Revenant is also pretty good. It's so much more than a dead guy surviving story. :)


The Revenant was great but I honestly don't think I could sit through that bear attack scene...I found that almost impossible to watch.

[Fabulous]

The Warriors (1979)

3.5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/acHqcl7ChzcGm0btil03kXzJCi4.jpg

[Marco]

Calvaire (2004)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/Calvaire_movie_poster.jpg
Bizarro story about a travelling entertainer that gets stranded in a strange town. There seems to have been a collective mania in the town where they covet him as a lady (indeed the in-keeper is convinced he's his dead wife). The whole thing just gets weirder from there on in. Few shocking scenes but overall I liked this....especially the dancing in the pub!!!

3

[manram24]

Scrooged (1988) 4/5
Universal Soldier (1992) 3/5
Joy Ride (2001) 3/5
Bloodwork (2002) 3/5

[GulfportDoc]

I really love the bright, saturated color look. It seems to be a deliberate inversion of the high contrast black and white look of noir films (also favorites or mine) that were its immediate predecessors. Being so close to Stewart's character, you really relate to how desperate he is when the murderer comes after him.
Good points. It's interesting that you mention color. I've always felt that his films from the '50s, say from Dial M for Murder through North by Northwest had a unique and distinctive pastel look about them. It's hard to put a finger on it, but the hues and fabric colors --even the atmospheres-- were almost misty. The ultimate of course was in "North", shot in glorious VistaVision, in which the zenith was Cary Grant's suit: a light grey flannel that is considered by many to be the finest suit ever in a movie. That film is another top 5 for sure.

[GulfportDoc]

Interesting.
DiCaprio just turns me off so much that, even though I connected deeply with Innaritu's Birdman the year before, I could not even bring myself to watch sit through this at home.
Perhaps I need to re-think. I mean, I haven't hated everything DiCaprio's ever been in, I just always wished there was someone else playing his role.
I too have rejected watching it, although it's surely a well made picture. But I assumed it was full of gore, which I don't like.

I sure agree with you about Birdman though. One of the great films. A dream cast and a fresh story.

[Wooley]

I'm of the mind that DiCaprio didn't deserve his Oscar for this film. Overall, he's fine and I get why many people like him, but as mentioned earlier, his performances often feel like "an actor acting" and I generally feel he isn't able to disappear into the characters he plays.

Yes, exactly!

[Takoma11]

I'm of the mind that DiCaprio didn't deserve his Oscar for this film. Overall, he's fine and I get why many people like him, but as mentioned earlier, his performances often feel like "an actor acting" and I generally feel he isn't able to disappear into the characters he plays.

I thought that the sheer number of believable emotional attachments and resentments helped to overcome this element of his performances. For example, the sequence where (MAJOR MAJOR SPOILERS!!!!!!)he watched Fitzgerald drag Hawk away and can't do anything to stop it. Yes, there was a lot of []i]acting[/i] happening there, but the relationship between the two had been so well grounded that the emotion of the moment overwhelms and "actorness" happening.. And I felt that way about a lot of the key scenes in the film.

I also think that his non-verbal work is stronger, and this film gives him a lot of opportunities to dig into the physical side of things without the burden of line deliveries.

If the Oscar was mostly given to him on the basis of the effort put in . . . well, I'm not mad about it. However we all feel about his acting, he was clearly all in with this role and I'm sure it upped everyone's game.

The Revenant was great but I honestly don't think I could sit through that bear attack scene...I found that almost impossible to watch.

At one point, that scene took on almost They Live levels of seeming infinity. At one point I actually said out loud "How is he still being mauled by this bear?!?!"

[ThatDarnMKS]

The Revenant is my possibly favorite from both Inarritu and DiCaprio. It's the kind of artistically driven, virtuoso filmmaking mixed with genre and existentialism that hits the cinematic sweet spot for me. It's as if Malick and Peckinpah decided to adapt McCarthy. It even has imagery that compliments the themes of Birdman and makes them companion films in way that Innaritu's previous films aren't.

[Takoma11]

The Revenant is my possibly favorite from both Inarritu and DiCaprio. It's the kind of artistically driven, virtuoso filmmaking mixed with genre and existentialism that hits the cinematic sweet spot for me. It's as if Malick and Peckinpah decided to adapt McCarthy. It even has imagery that compliments the themes of Birdman and makes them companion films in way that Innaritu's previous films aren't.

In a lot of ways it feels like a really effective blend of a lot of elements. I think that its momentum (for 2.5 hours!) is really something else.

[SpelingError]

I thought that the sheer number of believable emotional attachments and resentments helped to overcome this element of his performances. For example, the sequence where (MAJOR MAJOR SPOILERS!!!!!!)he watched Fitzgerald drag Hawk away and can't do anything to stop it. Yes, there was a lot of []i]acting[/i] happening there, but the relationship between the two had been so well grounded that the emotion of the moment overwhelms and "actorness" happening.. And I felt that way about a lot of the key scenes in the film.

I also think that his non-verbal work is stronger, and this film gives him a lot of opportunities to dig into the physical side of things without the burden of line deliveries.

If the Oscar was mostly given to him on the basis of the effort put in . . . well, I'm not mad about it. However we all feel about his acting, he was clearly all in with this role and I'm sure it upped everyone's game.

I appreciate your take on his performance, but from what I remember, I only felt what you felt for a couple of the more dramatic scenes in the film (to a lesser degree, the bear attack was another one). Most of the time when I watched the film though, he gave me the "I'm just watching an actor act" impression. It's been some time since I've seen the film, so another viewing may change my mind, but this is what I remember.

I also think that many people (not you, by the way) were willing to give whatever DiCaprio did a free pass before he won Best Actor for The Revenant. People should win Oscars because they deserve them. Not because we think their Oscar win is long overdue and that they've been snubbed for Best Actor in the past, and I think this was the prevailing attitude which many people felt for a while. Mainly "He should win an Oscar, because he's been snubbed for one in the past" as opposed to "He should win an Oscar, because he gave the best performance by any male actor this year".

I don't dislike DiCaprio per se. Like, he's watchable and I did enjoy a bit of his work in The Revenant. However, I don't think he gave the best performance of that particular year, so I don't agree with his Oscar win.

[ThatDarnMKS]

In a lot of ways it feels like a really effective blend of a lot of elements. I think that its momentum (for 2.5 hours!) is really something else.
Exactly! I think the film manages to hit those character and existential beats but it's all stitching these elaborate and effective sequences that are simply gripping. The way the film fluctuates between beautiful, harrowing and surreal within the context of one of these sequences (the opening battle between the fur traders and the natives exemplifies this) is the kind of thing too few films even attempt, let alone attain.

[ThatDarnMKS]

I However, I don't think he gave the best performance of that particular year, so I don't agree with his Oscar win.

I think DiCaprio said more with his eyes in a single scene than most actors could manage with a monologue. Compared to previous winners, it's a more than deserving win. His work here, Wolf of Wall Street, and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood are simply outstanding.

[SpelingError]

I think DiCaprio said more with his eyes in a single scene than most actors could manage with a monologue. Compared to previous winners, it's a more than deserving win. His work here, Wolf of Wall Street, and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood are simply outstanding.

It's been a while since I've seen TWoWS, so I don't remember much about his performance. I liked his performance in OUaTiH quite a bit better though, even though, yeah, his performance in The Revenant has its moments here and there. Just not enough for me to have the same connection that you did.

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/BbL6mz2y/phys.jpg
By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=41890578

The Physician - (2013)

Noah Gordon's The Physician was far more popular in Europe than his native United States, and thus the Germans saw fit to adapt his novel - the version I saw was the 150 minute version, but on television this was expanded to 180 minutes. It starts in the year 1021, where a child (Rob Cole, played by Tom Payne) latches on to a man only known as 'Barber' (the excellent Stellan Skarsgård) - these were the days where all your ailments, from cancer to the plague, were sorted out by barbers. Unsuccessfully. Cole becomes his apprentice, but is unhappy about how little they know about medicine, and how all their 'cures' just seem to make patients worse. He sets off for the world's only medical school - disguising himself as a Jew in the Far East.

I find this topic fascinating, but I never felt this film was reliably giving me any correct information. It depicts the Persians as having a medical knowledge beyond that which you'd expect a doctor to have in the year 1900 - and the exhortations of 'this is a true story' are conspicuously absent. Aside from Stellan Skarsgård, the actors seem to walk this job through - and it's a long walk, even at the reduced running time. Still, it captured my attention and left me hungry for more information. A highlight being what appears to be the World's first ever surgery - an appendectomy on the Shah. When were the first ever surgeries performed? Who brought medical knowledge to the rest of the world? The Physician gives us a melodramatic, and perhaps completely made up, answer.

5/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cb/Portrait_of_a_Lady_on_Fire.jpg
By Pyramide Films - http://distrib.pyramidefilms.com/images/films/824/_thumb1/pjff120x160.jpg, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60623391

Portrait of a Lady on Fire - (2019) - France

Noémie Merlant and Adèle Haenel disappear into their characters in Portrait of a Lady on Fire, so completely I forget they're actors. This is a bright, beautifully filmed tale about really seeing another person, completely, with penetration. With questioning eyes. It doesn't need big loud lesbian sex scenes - the real power lies in the way the two characters look at each other. Writer and director Céline Sciamma finds the perfect way to show us this with Marianne (Merlant) charged with painting a portrait of Héloïse (Haenel) in secret. Her long looks as she accompanies the latter on walks along a Brittany coast unleashes a kind of communication lacking if she didn't intend to find the soul of her subject, which indeed, at the start, she doesn't.

You really need the trailer though, to appreciate the beauty :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-fQPTwma9o

I look forward to seeing this film again, this time allowing my eyes to take everything I didn't see the first or second time. I found it hard to take my attention away from the two actor's expressive faces - especially Haenel. Céline Sciamma won 'Best Screenplay' for this at Cannes (it is good) as well as the 'Queer Palm' - an award I feel is odd. Very good movie.

8/10

https://i.postimg.cc/2jdLpJJD/butterfly.jpg

Butterfly on a Wheel - (2007) - (aka - Shattered, aka - Desperate Hours)

I caught this on television, 30 minutes in, and it held my attention well enough right to the finish - mainly due to a particularly strong performance by Pierce Brosnan. He kept on reminding me of the small part he played in The Long Good Friday way back in 1980. Although also an antagonist in this, he is at times far more fragile and wounded than a crazy gunman - when we come across his character's son (played by Dustin Milligan) his motivations for doing what he's doing become fascinating. I was already fascinated just by what he was doing at that stage.

I won't say much more, except that on a second viewing this fell more into the 'average thriller' range instead of something I insist everyone see. Gerard Butler and Maria Bello don't rise to the challenge as much as Brosnan does in this, and once you know what everything is about it doesn't hold the edge of anticipation it does on a first viewing.

5/10

[PHOENIX74]

Calvaire (2004)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/Calvaire_movie_poster.jpg
Bizarro story about a travelling entertainer that gets stranded in a strange town. There seems to have been a collective mania in the town where they covet him as a lady (indeed the in-keeper is convinced he's his dead wife). The whole thing just gets weirder from there on in. Few shocking scenes but overall I liked this....especially the dancing in the pub!!!

3

I've seen this film twice and I'm still not quite sure what to make of it. First put on to it from a great review in Empire. As you mentioned, the dancing scene in the pub is a highlight.

[ThatDarnMKS]

Vice Squad

Vicious, relentless, gritty and thoroughly engaging. Would pair nicely with either Taxi Driver or the Terminator. My kinda flick.

4.5

[mark f]

Mazes and Monsters (Steven H. Stern, 1982) 1.5+ 4.5/10
Carancho (Pablo Trapero, 2010) 2.5 6/10
American Badger (Kirk Caouette, 2021) 1.5+ 4.5/10
White Elephant (Pablo Trapero, 2012) 2.5+ 6/10
https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/images/newsite/elephant_g0Qexut_600.jpg
Priests Ricardo Darín and Jérémie Renier work to help their Buenos Aires slum community in the midst of police violence.
Un Film Dramatique (Eric Baudelaire, 2019) 2.5 6/10
Calm Like a Bomb AKA C.L.A.B. (Mauro Russo Rouge, 2021) 1+ 3.5/10
Under the Stadium Lights (Todd Randall, 2021) 2 5/10
The Green Fog (Guy Maddin, Evan Johnson & Galen Johnson, 2017) 3 6.5/10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaW09b6iisE
Indescribable use of footage of San Francisco movies/TV shows and recreation of iconic scenes to make what amounts [with a new musical score] to a very-Maddinesque remake of Vertigo.
Trapped by Television (Del Lord, 1936) 2+ 5/10
Lion’s Den AKA Leonara (Pablo Trapero, 2008) 2.5 6-/10
Bright Angel (Michael Fields, 1990) 2+ 5/10
Ice (Robert Kramer, 1970) 2.5 6/10
https://www.thespinningimage.co.uk/cultfilms/images/12935.jpg
Paranoid underground revolutionaries plot to overthrow capitalist countries seemingly starting with the U.S. and Mexico.
A Woman, a Gun and a Noodle Shop (Yimou Zhang, 2009) 2.5 6/10
The Clown Murders (Martyn Burke, 1976) 1+ 3.5/10
Texas, Brooklyn & Heaven (William Castle, 1948) 2.5 5.5/10
Habaneros (Julien Temple, 2017) 3.5 7/10
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jy03MrpjHSE/WxiArR3v03I/AAAAAAAAKw8/SDrgPSG5Obw2VsUG7IlbE2BWIth2ecyoQCLcBGAs/s1600/Habaneros-1.jpg
In-depth history of Cuba from the Cuban perspective with incredible documentary footage, directorial touches and music.
Sundays and Cybèle (Serge Bourguignon, 1962) 2.5 6/10
The Wreck of the Hesperus (John Hoffman, 1948) 2+ 5/10
New Mexico (Irving Reis, 1951) 2.5 5.5/10
A Quiet Place Part II (John Krasinski, 2021) 3 6.5/10
https://64.media.tumblr.com/dc48b2d588660d82f70db6537bb76c0b/fe1ff6aa7314250f-d4/s540x810/4a7b35e5aad68b2b9c83d20343f51ee6d66f9dcc.gifv
They're back, finally. Shh!

[EsmagaSapos]

The Warriors (1979)

3.5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/acHqcl7ChzcGm0btil03kXzJCi4.jpg
Come out to play-ay.

Wasn’t in the script, was improvised.

[Wooley]

I think DiCaprio said more with his eyes in a single scene than most actors could manage with a monologue. Compared to previous winners, it's a more than deserving win. His work here, Wolf of Wall Street, and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood are simply outstanding.

I will concede that his "best acting ever" scene in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood was impressive and was probably the first time I ever liked him as an actor or thought he was worthy of all the work he gets. But I kinda felt like, "See, Buckaroo! You can do this!"

[Wooley]

Vice Squad

Vicious, relentless, gritty and thoroughly engaging. Would pair nicely with either Taxi Driver or the Terminator. My kinda flick.

4.5

One of my personal favorites for the last 35 years or so. Another one I did a significant write-up of, in part out of the pleasure of it and part to shine a light on the film, that was lost to the death of Corri.
Wings Hauser is just so ****ing vicious in this. The movie, to me, has a real credibility to it.

[CharlesAoup]

Hell House LLC 2: The Abaddon Hotel (D)

Better than the original, but still very bad. I don't get why the original got a sequel, and why this one did as well. This one is at least corny ina 2000s/2010s kind of way.

[Thief]

BEYOND THE BLACK RAINBOW
(2010, Cosmatos)
Freebie

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Hol7v6rRFrc/UA4MZW7qNmI/AAAAAAAAMx8/RkhpLNCbU2U/s1600/Beyond+the+Black+Rainbow%28720p_H.264-AAC%29.mp4_snapshot_00.43_%5B2012.07.23_19.32.09%5D.jpg


"I'm not okay. I went to another world, Rosemary. I see what others cannot see. I looked into the eye of the god. It looked right back through me. It looked through everything. Rosemary, it was so, so, so beautiful. Like a black rainbow... and it chose me. It chose to reveal itself to me."



Set in 1983, the film follows Dr. Barry Nyle (Michael Rogers), the director at a New Age research facility that's selling itself as a haven for those wanting to find true happiness. However, in reality what he's doing is experimenting on unsuspecting patients, primarily a young woman called Elena (Eva Allan), who seems to have some level of telekinetic powers.

But anyway, Cosmatos makes an effort of conveying uneasiness, uncomfortability, dread, and mystery with pretty much every image. His clever use of colors and sterile aesthetics along with a very appropriate set design, a hypnotic 80s-synth score, and some odd, unique directorial choices certainly make this film one that will stick with you afterwards.

Grade: 4

(Tempted to go as high as 4.5, but I will let it sit for a while)

Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2216766#post2216766)

[cricket]

Portraits of Andrea Palmer (2018)

2-

https://morbidlybeautiful.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ap1.jpg

I came across this after watching the director's Flesh Meat Dolls, an extremely vile 15 minute short. I said hey this kind of looks like a normal movie. Well not quite as it's full of hardcore sex-not a complaint, just an observation. It's too low budget to be truly decent, but it effectively shows how some poor girls are preyed upon and taken advantage of in horrible ways.

[Torgo]

In the Heights - 4

I saw this musical, which is about the Hispanic residents of Washington Heights coping with oncoming gentrification, on HBO Max, but I encourage you to see it in a theater while you still can. It is a visual delight in every way, especially in terms of color. Everything on screen from the apartment buildings to the dancers' outfits to the products on the shelves at protagonist Usnavi's bodega make the movie burst with life. The emotional tone also has a lot to do with this, which I would describe and unashamedly and unabashedly sincere. The best thing of all, though, is that unlike other modern movies that fit this description, I never felt bombarded by the visuals or that I was forced to maintain a smile for the entire running time. Other things I appreciate about the movie are the song and dance numbers - each of which are fun, memorable and have just enough surreality to them - and that we never see the villains. The incoming "rich people and hipsters," as Usnavi refers to them, are only mentioned in passing, and I approve because it lets us spend more time with him, his friends, his family, etc. With all that said, this is no Hamilton (but what is) and it has an odd "siloed" quality that is also a problem in Jon M. Chu's last movie, Crazy Rich Asians. By that, I mean that some of the stories involving the supporting characters, pal Benny and just returned home love interest Nina in particular, often seem so removed from the main narrative that they might as well be in another movie. I get that this is an ensemble movie with many players, many stories, etc., but I would have liked for there to be a bit more interconnectedness. I still think this is the best movie I've seen so far this year and would not be surprised if it remains at or near the top by the end of it. Oh, and it may have the best scene that takes place on a subway train since the original The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3.

[Wooley]

A Quiet Place Part II (John Krasinski, 2021) 3 6.5/10
https://64.media.tumblr.com/dc48b2d588660d82f70db6537bb76c0b/fe1ff6aa7314250f-d4/s540x810/4a7b35e5aad68b2b9c83d20343f51ee6d66f9dcc.gifv
They're back, finally. Shh!


Honestly, this is just cracking me up.

[Wooley]

BEYOND THE BLACK RAINBOW
(2010, Cosmatos)
Freebie

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Hol7v6rRFrc/UA4MZW7qNmI/AAAAAAAAMx8/RkhpLNCbU2U/s1600/Beyond+the+Black+Rainbow%28720p_H.264-AAC%29.mp4_snapshot_00.43_%5B2012.07.23_19.32.09%5D.jpg




Set in 1983, the film follows Dr. Barry Nyle (Michael Rogers), the director at a New Age research facility that's selling itself as a haven for those wanting to find true happiness. However, in reality what he's doing is experimenting on unsuspecting patients, primarily a young woman called Elena (Eva Allan), who seems to have some level of telekinetic powers.

But anyway, Cosmatos makes an effort of conveying uneasiness, uncomfortability, dread, and mystery with pretty much every image. His clever use of colors and sterile aesthetics along with a very appropriate set design, a hypnotic 80s-synth score, and some odd, unique directorial choices certainly make this film one that will stick with you afterwards.

Grade: 4

(Tempted to go as high as 4.5, but I will let it sit for a while)

Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2216766#post2216766)

I really looked forward to this movie for years and when I finally saw it felt really let down.
I thought the third act was pretty weak. Really, the climax more than anything. It's so good looking most of the time I'll probably see it again, but I can't imagine it improving much on repeat viewing as it's really the script I thought was the problem. Gave me a Sunshine vibe. Though maybe not as bad as all that.

[Thief]

I really looked forward to this movie for years and when I finally saw it felt really let down.
I thought the third act was pretty weak. Really, the climax more than anything. It's so good looking most of the time I'll probably see it again, but I can't imagine it improving much on repeat viewing as it's really the script I thought was the problem. Gave me a Sunshine vibe. Though maybe not as bad as all that.

I would agree that the very last act, or the last 10-15 minutes are the weakest part. But I really didn't feel like it hindered the overall impact the film had on me, which to be honest, relied more on the visual and sensory aspect of it, rather than the script/story.

[Wooley]

I would agree that the very last act, or the last 10-15 minutes are the weakest part. But I really didn't feel like it hindered the overall impact the film had on me, which to be honest, relied more on the visual and sensory aspect of it, rather than the script/story.

I can understand that. Maybe I can be more forgiving on a second view. Like I say, I just got such Sunshine vibes it was like cinematic PTSD.

[Takoma11]

I don't dislike DiCaprio per se. Like, he's watchable and I did enjoy a bit of his work in The Revenant. However, I don't think he gave the best performance of that particular year, so I don't agree with his Oscar win.

What was your favorite lead performance that year? I looked at the other nominees (admittedly I didn't see a few of the films) and nothing really jumped out as a performance I'd heard people gushing about.

[pahaK]

A Quiet Place Part II (2020)
2
I may even be a little generous here, but at least the plotholes are impressive. Predictable and dumb, perhaps an attempt to catch all the post-apocalypse cliches in the same package. The editing of simultaneous events kinda underlines how there's almost no content at all. Oh, and I hated every scene with the baby - such a stupid and unneeded plot device like it was in the first film, too.

[Fabulous]

Barbarella (1968)

2

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/o8G9Sr35VyzUnhyrgh5GEYnRQvm.jpg

[CharlesAoup]

Flight That Disappeared, 1961 (B)

A B-movie about a plane that seems to fly right out time. It's not anything crazy, but it's not bad either. Classic anti-war sci-fi stuff, and all that. Not the first time this plot was used.

[Gideon58]

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51jKM-baGKL.jpg



3

[Gideon58]

In the Heights - 4

I saw this musical, which is about the Hispanic residents of Washington Heights coping with oncoming gentrification, on HBO Max, but I encourage you to see it in a theater while you still can. It is a visual delight in every way, especially in terms of color. Everything on screen from the apartment buildings to the dancers' outfits to the products on the shelves at protagonist Usnavi's bodega make the movie burst with life. The emotional tone also has a lot to do with this, which I would describe and unashamedly and unabashedly sincere. The best thing of all, though, is that unlike other modern movies that fit this description, I never felt bombarded by the visuals or that I was forced to maintain a smile for the entire running time. Other things I appreciate about the movie are the song and dance numbers - each of which are fun, memorable and have just enough surreality to them - and that we never see the villains. The incoming "rich people and hipsters," as Usnavi refers to them, are only mentioned in passing, and I approve because it lets us spend more time with him, his friends, his family, etc. With all that said, this is no Hamilton (but what is) and it has an odd "siloed" quality that is also a problem in Jon M. Chu's last movie, Crazy Rich Asians. By that, I mean that some of the stories involving the supporting characters, pal Benny and just returned home love interest Nina in particular, often seem so removed from the main narrative that they might as well be in another movie. I get that this is an ensemble movie with many players, many stories, etc., but I would have liked for there to be a bit more interconnectedness. I still think this is the best movie I've seen so far this year and would not be surprised if it remains at or near the top by the end of it. Oh, and it may have the best scene that takes place on a subway train since the original The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3.

I loved this movie but did not see it in a theater, but I agree this movie SCREAMS to be seen on a big screen.

[SpelingError]

What was your favorite lead performance that year? I looked at the other nominees (admittedly I didn't see a few of the films) and nothing really jumped out as a performance I'd heard people gushing about.

Looking at the other nominees from that year, I liked Michael Fassbender's performance in Steve Jobs quite a bit (I generally like Fassbender). He would probably be my top pick for that year. I've also seen The Martian, though yeah, one could make a fair argument that Damon doesn't have many chances to collaborate with other actors. I haven't seen The Danish Girl and Trumbo., Also, he wasn't nominated, but I liked Patrick Stewart's performance in Green Room (I'd have to rewatch it though to decide if I liked his performance better than DiCaprio's).

[skizzerflake]

A Quiet Place, Part II - The bugs are back to feast on what's left of the human stragglers. There's lots of running and screaming; some of the characters will make it, some won't. The children are our hope, if they don't get eaten.

Move to Part III, when that gets made.

This movie had all the hallmarks of an in-between sequel/prequel, a follow up plot with the same monsters and an ambiguous ending that seemed to set up Part III. Like lots of monster movies, it has a Macguffin and that reminds me of Mars Attacks, only this flick tries to take itself seriously unlike Mars Attacks, which was a parody.

It has lots of bump-scares, the monsters are really fast, which I suspect helped with the animation budget and it definitely set up Part III. It was my first theater experience in more than a year. I should have gone for a Dr Dolittle revival.

:popcorn::popcorn:

[StuSmallz]

A Quiet Place Part II (2020)
2
I may even be a little generous here, but at least the plotholes are impressive. Predictable and dumb, perhaps an attempt to catch all the post-apocalypse cliches in the same package. The editing of simultaneous events kinda underlines how there's almost no content at all. Oh, and I hated every scene with the baby - such a stupid and unneeded plot device like it was in the first film, too. Haven't seen Part II yet, but there was nothing "unneeded" about the presence of the baby in the original, (https://letterboxd.com/stusmallz/film/a-quiet-place-2018/) especially not since it resulted in the most suspenseful moment in the film.

[Fabulous]

The Wicker Man (1973)

3.5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/xOcVqlNnVUEQhQ3Xqhgh7mqeh9f.jpg

[cricket]

Black Sun: The Nanking Massacre (1995)

2.5-

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZJqSahnGq7M/ThMPFHA71GI/AAAAAAAAASI/FxhjD3o4rdM/s1600/Black%2BSun.jpg

AKA Men Behind the Sun 4, and probably the best of the series besides part 1. This is less of an exploitation film but no less disturbing because of it's meanness and historical accuracy. Fairly well made.

[Gideon58]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZDBhMDJkYjItODFlNi00NjMzLWE3MmQtZmUwNGQzMWE4NjMxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjY1MTg4Mzc@._V1_.jpg



3.5

[Fabulous]

Babette's Feast (1987)

3.5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/gGUxCPseBmBnuC8DoptbShEAMbD.jpg

[Insane]

A Quiet Place, Part II -

:popcorn::popcorn:


The first is another one of those movies I couldn't finish. This time, it was because I kept thinking what I would do in that position. None of my ideas involved sitting around the house trying to be quiet.

[StuSmallz]

The first is another one of those movies I couldn't finish. This time, it was because I kept thinking what I would do in that position. None of my ideas involved sitting around the house trying to be quiet.Why not? That's the obvious initial thing to do to keep safe in that sort of scenario, after all.

[Wooley]

The first is another one of those movies I couldn't finish. This time, it was because I kept thinking what I would do in that position. None of my ideas involved sitting around the house trying to be quiet.

Yeah, I've said it elsewhere, it's really a movie that's totally enjoyable, quite enjoyable really, if you just don't think about... anything.

[Rockatansky]

Black Sun: The Nanking Massacre (1995)

rating_2_5-

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZJqSahnGq7M/ThMPFHA71GI/AAAAAAAAASI/FxhjD3o4rdM/s1600/Black%2BSun.jpg

AKA Men Behind the Sun 4, and probably the best of the series besides part 1. This is less of an exploitation film but no less disturbing because of it's meanness and historical accuracy. Fairly well made.
I'm too much of a coward to watch this (or the original), but I did quite enjoy Trilogy of Lust, the movie he co-directed with Julie Lee. A lot of what transpires is outre and graphic, but I imagine it's a cakewalk compared to the one you just watched.

[StuSmallz]

Yeah, I've said it elsewhere, it's really a movie that's totally enjoyable, quite enjoyable really, if you just don't think about... anything.Sort of like a movie revolving around the idea that learning a new language could rewire your brain to the extent that you can start seeing through time, huh?



;)

[James D. Gardiner]

https://i.imgur.com/XuVasXp.jpg

Appointment in London (1953)
aka Raiders in the Sky
Directed by Philip Leacock

Good quality British World War Two drama concerning the Royal Air Force night-time area bombing offensive against Nazi Germany. Dirk Bogarde is excellent and convincing as a highly experienced Wing Commander determined to complete his 90th mission (3 tours of operations), whilst resisting advice from his superiors to step down from flying. As squadron losses mount and the crews come to believe they're up against a jinx, the responsibility and strain of command becomes apparent, as he must navigate a difficult balance of necessary discipline and natural sympathy towards the men.

Dinah Sheridan is fine as the obligatory love interest, who surprises everyone when she appears at a briefing as a naval intelligence officer (hello Top Gun!). William Sylvester's character as a grounded American bomber leader is likable as the ring-in Yank, as well as decent performances also from future director Bryan Forbes and Australian actor Bill Kerr.

Fans of aviation will enjoy the many beautiful scenes of the famous Avro Lancaster bomber throughout, in what is generally considered to be the other Lancaster film; the second being the much more popular and successful The Dam Busters (1955). The film also features good attention to detail in the pursuit of authenticity which keen enthusiasts will appreciate, such as Bill Kerr's Australian character wearing a noticeably darker shade of uniform appropriate for members of the RAAF, and the correct use and application of relevant terminology in the script. The film culminates in a fairly lengthy and in-depth portrayal of a typical night-time raid, and is probably the most accurate depiction of this sort of operation ever filmed, with lavish use of original wartime footage.

Certainly a very good, albeit lesser known entry in the genre of British war films of the '40s & '50s. It has its stereotypical and overly dramatized moments, but they're effectively countered by good attention to realism and authenticity in other areas, and an excellent performance from Dirk Bogarde.

8/10

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/1zsq16F5/queen.jpg
By Studio and or Graphic Artist - Can be obtained from film's distributor., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61401429

Queen & Slim - (2019)

I liked this a whole lot. Queen & Slim's journey across the United States in the aftermath of a police shooting. These two characters are law-abiding people, Queen a defense attorney and Slim a teetotaler - nevertheless they both know what's about to come down on them after a police officer is killed, even if it was in self-defense and caught on camera. Along their way they meet up with many people who are on their side, and protect them from being found. They also get closer and closer to each other - the horrific incident coming at the conclusion of a disappointing Tinder date.

This is a very poignant story - I think most of us have had at least one nightmare about being in such serious trouble over something we have no control over. The scene where they're pulled over repeats itself daily across the United States. Serious suspicion, the car being rigorously searched, gun pulled and pointed - after a routine traffic stop. Slim's annoyed "hurry up" is enough to lead to a violent escalation after Queen gets out of the car and starts to complain as well. The rest of the film deals with the flight, as one thing after the other goes wrong, though they do have their share of luck as well. In fact, as this luck holds, the characters experiment with riskier and riskier behaviour, which might lead to the viewer pleading with them to play it safe. We have so much invested in them by that stage.

7/10

[xSookieStackhouse]

5 rewatched <3 loved this movie
https://popcornusa.s3.amazonaws.com/movies/650/2419-11848-HowToTra.jpg

[Wooley]

Sort of like a movie revolving around the idea that learning a new language could rewire your brain to the extent that you can start seeing through time, huh?



;)

I'm gonna assume that's a movie?

[pahaK]

I'm gonna assume that's a movie?

Pretty sure he's referring to Arrival.

[Wooley]

Pretty sure he's referring to Arrival.

Oh, right, that astonishingly better film than A Quiet Place. :p

[Fabulous]

A Passage to India (1984)

3.5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/vhexJUk3sTEldSl3cI3eRzt6SZ5.jpg

[skizzerflake]

Why not? That's the obvious initial thing to do to keep safe in that sort of scenario, after all.

Because, you can only sit, be quiet and keep safe for so long before you either make a mistake or just go plain out bonkers. If you eat, you might drop your fork or you might need to flush, or expel some wind or the wind might blow the door shut, all of which could prove fatal.

Like nearly all monster movies, however, there's something like the vampire's stake in the heart, or water to the wicked witch in Oz. That's what made it so obvious to me, a veteran of so many of those kind of movies. Once I figured out that, the rest of the movie was just set decoration. Instead of a 90 minute transition to Part III, it could have had 15 minutes of hiding and being quiet and 5 minutes revealing the secret plan.

[Allaby]

I just finished watching America: The Motion Picture on Netflix. If you are looking for an educational, historically accurate film that honours America's history, then this is not the film for you! America: The Motion Picture is a ridiculously over the top, animated satirical comedy about the American revolution. Directed by Matt Thompson, the film features the voices of Channing Tatum, Jason Mantzoukas, Olivia Munn, Bobby Moynihan, Judy Greer, Will Forte, and Andy Samberg. It's intentionally wildly inaccurate and filled with outrageous humour and action I enjoyed it quite a bit and would recommend it to anyone who has a good, wacky sense of humour. My rating is a 4

[Fabulous]

Casualties of War (1989)

3

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/8bUUOgBO6mEO4p3OAxaCcajApVk.jpg

[Raven73]

Godzilla vs. Kong
6.5/10.
I was looking forward to this one for a long time. When I was a kid, I enjoyed the original Kong vs. Godzilla (1963), despite its cheesiness and bad special effects. Had I been 10 years old when I saw Godzilla vs. Kong (2021), I probably would have enjoyed it too. As an adult, I found the plot, the characters and the dialogue to be dumb beyond belief. The special effects were pretty good during the fight sequences, but were frequently overdone elsewhere, such as the underground sequences and the weird (and unnecessary) anti-gravity sequences. Can't we just get a good monster movie?https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/Godzilla_vs._Kong.png

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fthepeoplesmovies.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F05%2FThe-Hound-Of-The-Baskervilles-Sherlock-Holmes.jpg%3Fresize%3D640%252C340%26ssl%3D1&f=1&nofb=1

Hound of the Baskervilles, 1939

Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) and his partner Dr. Watson (Nigel Bruce) are called in to investigate when a wealthy man is found dead under suspicious circumstances and a local doctor suspects that the man's heir, the affable Henry Baskerville (Ricard Greene), may be next on the chopping block. It all seems to relate to a legendary family curse brought on by the cruel actions of Baskerville's ancestor.

I have seen many adaptations of this story, as well as having read the original text. At its core, it's a fun little mystery with the added bonus of some potentially supernatural shenanigans.

This is a fun and for the most part light adaptation, though it knows when to lean into the thrilling or suspenseful side of things. A flashback in which Baskkerville's ancestor laughs with a group of friends about the young village woman he's abducted and raped (or intends to rape? Unclear and gross either way) is disturbing. Sequences showing the attacks by the titular hound are sufficiently suspenseful and intense.

The performances are all perfectly fine. Rathbone's Holmes as never been my favorite, especially as his cutting remarks about Watson's intelligence can read more as nasty than impatience. Bruce's Watson is fine, and this film offers up the scenario of Watson pretending to be Holmes. My favorite detail is when Watson pulls a gun on Holmes who is in disguise and once Holmes reveals himself . . . Watson still has the gun pointed at him. Greene's Baskerville is incredibly likable--a rich, pretty person you can actually root for because he seems just so baffled by the whole ordeal and his romance with Beryl (Wendy Barrie) is so pure and adorable.

The only complaint I had with this one was that the very end was a bit weak. The film sort of ends with a shrug, and it's a tad anticlimactic. The explanation by Holmes about how the murder was committed and how he figured it out is done a bit too simply and off-handed for me. I also felt that the film didn't live up to the potential themes presented by a story in which two women have brothers who are murderers.

3.5

[Marco]

Wrath of Man (2021)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Wrath-of-man.jpg
Its a Statham, you know what you're getting. Maybe a bit more inventive with the timelining than most (down to Ritchie I presume, notorious for it :)). Personally, I enjoy these films and this wasn't at all a disappointment, neat(ish) story and good action. Pretty good cast also.

3.5

[ScarletLion]

'Limbo' (2020)

https://static.rogerebert.com/uploads/movie/movie_poster/limbo-2021/large_unnamed__6_.jpg

One of about 9 films to be called Limbo in the last 3 years. It's about a Syrian refugee in an immigrant community in Scotland waiting to be told what he officially is suposed to be doing next. He still has ties to his homeland, and carries his families musical instrument around with him, as well as a lot of baggage. Literally. He's supposed to be really good at playing it. Maybe he is, maybe it's a rouse.

The last 20 mins of this film reveals all and is a really charming take on the immigrant status in the UK. It's poignant, moving, very funny and has charisma.

I loved it.

4

[mrblond]

Michael Haneke's Code Unknown (2000)
4/5
https://e.snmc.io/i/fullres/w/a3422e6d077f4e2047ae1c2e04073b57/998619

[Gideon58]

https://i.postimg.cc/1zsq16F5/queen.jpg
By Studio and or Graphic Artist - Can be obtained from film's distributor., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61401429

Queen & Slim - (2019)

I liked this a whole lot. Queen & Slim's journey across the United States in the aftermath of a police shooting. These two characters are law-abiding people, Queen a defense attorney and Slim a teetotaler - nevertheless they both know what's about to come down on them after a police officer is killed, even if it was in self-defense and caught on camera. Along their way they meet up with many people who are on their side, and protect them from being found. They also get closer and closer to each other - the horrific incident coming at the conclusion of a disappointing Tinder date.

This is a very poignant story - I think most of us have had at least one nightmare about being in such serious trouble over something we have no control over. The scene where they're pulled over repeats itself daily across the United States. Serious suspicion, the car being rigorously searched, gun pulled and pointed - after a routine traffic stop. Slim's annoyed "hurry up" is enough to lead to a violent escalation after Queen gets out of the car and starts to complain as well. The rest of the film deals with the flight, as one thing after the other goes wrong, though they do have their share of luck as well. In fact, as this luck holds, the characters experiment with riskier and riskier behaviour, which might lead to the viewer pleading with them to play it safe. We have so much invested in them by that stage.

7/10


LOVED this movie

[Gideon58]

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/82/bf/98/82bf981e6df1484176256db67a06fd1e.jpg



4.5

[cricket]

Nobody (2021)

3.5

https://variety.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Bob-Odenkirk-Nobody-Film-Review.jpg?w=1000

I feel like this has a lot of what I hate about modern action films. It must do them well though because it's a hell of a lot of fun. Even my wife liked it. Having what appears to be a regular guy in the lead adds a relatable element. It's only an hour and a half long and it flys by, unlike other action movies like The Equalizer and John Wick.

[Fabulous]

Diva (1981)

3

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/aSEpN4kvsaKu6RfRtdrIEl8YKlM.jpg

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.tmdb.org%2Ft%2Fp%2Foriginal%2Fyyi6rpwvH5INxUKmgcfttbxnQv3.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Modern Times, 1936

An unnamed factory worker (Charlie Chaplin) struggles through a series of misfortunes and mishaps, eventually meeting up with a down-on-her-luck runaway (Paulette Goddard).

Sometimes you watch a classic that you've been aware of for a long time and it takes a very short period of time to be like "Oh, okay, I get it." And, yeah, I get it. From the numerous set-pieces to the commentary on "modern" life, the film is compelling and moves along like, well, a well-oiled machine.

From the very first shot when an image of herded sheep fades into a crowd of people emerging from a subway station, the commentary on the life of the worker is very blunt. In one of the film's most infamous sequences, Chaplin's character is actually sucked into a large machine, just one step away from being a literal cog in the machine.

In fact, I found the portrayal of Chaplin's factory job in the first 10-15 minutes of the film to be really compelling. The factory works in such a way that the human workers are essentially part of the machinery. There's this really strange visual dynamic where the factory's owner monitors the workers on a large television, shouting orders to a muscular shirtless man who uses a large control panel to control the speed at which the workers must complete their tasks. The factory owner has no care for the physical well-being of his employees, and we see that Chaplin's long hours on the factory line have physical side effects (humorous side effects, but side effects nonetheless). In a scene that is mostly funny but which I also found kind of disturbing, Chaplin's character is used as a guinea pig for a new machine that purports to feed workers as they work, eliminating the need for lunch breaks. The factory owner passes on the malfunctioning machine (which is more like a torture device) not because of its harm, but because it isn't efficient. Through the film there is a constant theme of workers and the unemployed, and Chaplin's character frequently finds himself in the middle of bread line riots, marches, protests, and other clashes between working people and the police.

Also unexpected was a sequence in which Chaplin's character accidentally eats/snorts like a full handful of cocaine and totally loves it. Just . . . not something I would have ever guessed would happen.

Another interesting element of the film is its strange status somewhere between a silent film and one with sound. Many sequences play like a silent film, complete with inter-titles. But in other scenes, characters speak or sing, or a single source of sound (like a radio or one speaker) will exist while everyone/everything else is silent. It adds a borderline surreal element to the film and, having only seen "true" silent films from Chaplin, was almost startling!

The stunts/setpieces are top notch here. I was familiar with a few just from famous screenshots (such as the part where he is in the large gears of the machine or a sequence where he dances), but other parts (such as a trip through a department store on rollerskates) were pleasant surprises.

The only slightly off note to me was the romance between Chaplin's character and Goddard's character. The main problem: she is a teenager and he very much is not. I was relieved to find out that the actress was at least in her 20s when the movie was made (in later scenes when her outfits change she looks more like an adult), but there is a 20+ year gap between the actors and it is very visible. More so, her character is actually meant to be a teen! A main subplot involves her avoiding being taken into foster care(!) and she is being pursued by the juvenile services(!!). There's also kind of an off note at the end where her character seemingly has totally forgotten about her sisters, who were taken into state custody. Like, I sort of get it. What could she do? But the fact that she doesn't mention them or think about them, apparently, kind of bugged me.

A lot of great stuff here, just wish that the romance could have actually been between two adults.

4.5

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/Young_victoria_poster.jpg
By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=28110559

The Young Victoria - (2009)

An interest in British monarchs led me here, but alas Victoria's reign was one of stability and calm (if you discount the surprisingly large amount of assassination attempts against her.) This mainly serves as a princely love story between her (Emily Blunt) and the Germanic Prince Albert (Rupert Friend) - and it's not a bad one, especially since it's a true story. Mostly true. At one stage Albert throws himself in front of her as Edward Oxford attempts to shoot her - he takes a bullet, but reading now I find out nobody at all was harmed. For a film that was bending over backwards to be accurate, that's a pretty big invention.

At around the half way point, a thought occurred that never bodes well for a film I watch. "This film is going through the motions and following the rule book." I never thought The Young Victoria was going to be some kind of experimental arthouse movie, but at the same time there's a deep sense of 'sameness' to it that means those who watch will probably never go back. It won an Oscar for costume design and was nominated for makeup and art design. Nevertheless, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, which I watched a few days ago, looked far more beautiful to me. There's little invention needed here - just an attempt at historical accuracy. This passes as a love story, and as an average film - but there's little excitement or invention to it.

5/10

[Fabulous]

Inferno (1980)

3

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/aRe42KQrHJ7yc8RduL5wcSD6qSQ.jpg

[StuSmallz]

Oh, right, that astonishingly better film than A Quiet Place. :pWhile I do feel that Arrival (https://letterboxd.com/stusmallz/film/arrival-2016/) is a slightly better movie than Place, the point I was making is that it doesn't make sense for all these people online to be hung up solely on the supposed (implausibilities) in the premise of the latter, harping on that while ignoring the fact that the premise of the former is not just implausible, but straight-up scientifically impossible; it's just a completely inconsistent standard when it comes to critiquing movies, if you ask me.

[ThatDarnMKS]

While I do feel that Arrival (https://letterboxd.com/stusmallz/film/arrival-2016/) is a slightly better movie than Place, the point I was making is that it doesn't make sense for all these people online to be hung up solely on the supposed (implausibilities) in the premise of the latter, harping on that while ignoring the fact that the premise of the former is not just implausible, but straight-up scientifically impossible; it's just a completely inconsistent standard when it comes to critiquing movies, if you ask me.
Implausiblity is not a one-size fits all maxim, nor does it relate to realistic possibility in any meaningful way. Much like a superhero film or fantasy, Arrival asks you to accept an impossibility for it's story and bases it's logic within a world where that is possible.

A Quiet Place asks for audiences to buy an improbable premise then asks audiences to not question when that premise breaks by the scenarios it tasks that premise with withstanding.

Find me a sequence when Arrival breaks the rules of its own universe or contrives reasons for sequences to happen beyond the initial premise. It doesn't.

Arrival's biggest sin is some horrendously on the nose dialogue. Something the Quiet Place luckily avoids.

[EsmagaSapos]

https://i.postimg.cc/2SbXtv6j/The-Ice-Road.jpg

3

I was picturing the The Grey before watching The Ice Road, it's actually why I decide to watch it, but this is a completely different film. I liked three things about it, the 1st were the first thirty minutes of the film mainly due to the characters introduction and construction, I liked the stories, the 2nd was the tension, the images of the ice under water are scary for anyone that suffers from thalassophobia, the 3rd was the idea for the film, a dangerous road and a dangerous job some truckers had to do, reminded me of a underrated movie with John Travolta called Life on the Line, reminded me because I thought that was what they were going to do, but they kept the typical Hollywood thing, a bad guy in the middle. I'd probably rate this movie lower if I see it a year from now.

[pahaK]

While I do feel that Arrival (https://letterboxd.com/stusmallz/film/arrival-2016/) is a slightly better movie than Place, the point I was making is that it doesn't make sense for all these people online to be hung up solely on the supposed (implausibilities) in the premise of the latter, harping on that while ignoring the fact that the premise of the former is not just implausible, but straight-up scientifically impossible; it's just a completely inconsistent standard when it comes to critiquing movies, if you ask me.

I've critiqued Arrival and its fantastical resolution myself (I thought I had a review in here, but apparently not, so it must have mainly been in some random Finnish forum). Still, there's a difference between the issues of the two films. Arrival only postulates the existence of such language and builds, more or less reasonably, from that assumption. A Quiet Place, on the other hand, postulates the monsters but fails to offer reasonable explanations on how the world got where it is or why people do what they do or even have any consistency in the threat. The sequel only adds to the plotholes instead of even trying to fix them:
The fact that the coastal guard figured the creatures can't swim on day one makes the lack of military action against them even more stupid. Now they'd have completely safe bases of operation floating in the seas.

[Wooley]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fthepeoplesmovies.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F05%2FThe-Hound-Of-The-Baskervilles-Sherlock-Holmes.jpg%3Fresize%3D640%252C340%26ssl%3D1&f=1&nofb=1

Hound of the Baskervilles, 1939

Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) and his partner Dr. Watson (Nigel Bruce) are called in to investigate when a wealthy man is found dead under suspicious circumstances and a local doctor suspects that the man's heir, the affable Henry Baskerville (Ricard Greene), may be next on the chopping block. It all seems to relate to a legendary family curse brought on by the cruel actions of Baskerville's ancestor.

I have seen many adaptations of this story, as well as having read the original text. At its core, it's a fun little mystery with the added bonus of some potentially supernatural shenanigans.

This is a fun and for the most part light adaptation, though it knows when to lean into the thrilling or suspenseful side of things. A flashback in which Baskkerville's ancestor laughs with a group of friends about the young village woman he's abducted and raped (or intends to rape? Unclear and gross either way) is disturbing. Sequences showing the attacks by the titular hound are sufficiently suspenseful and intense.

The performances are all perfectly fine. Rathbone's Holmes as never been my favorite, especially as his cutting remarks about Watson's intelligence can read more as nasty than impatience. Bruce's Watson is fine, and this film offers up the scenario of Watson pretending to be Holmes. My favorite detail is when Watson pulls a gun on Holmes who is in disguise and once Holmes reveals himself . . . Watson still has the gun pointed at him. Greene's Baskerville is incredibly likable--a rich, pretty person you can actually root for because he seems just so baffled by the whole ordeal and his romance with Beryl (Wendy Barrie) is so pure and adorable.

The only complaint I had with this one was that the very end was a bit weak. The film sort of ends with a shrug, and it's a tad anticlimactic. The explanation by Holmes about how the murder was committed and how he figured it out is done a bit too simply and off-handed for me. I also felt that the film didn't live up to the potential themes presented by a story in which two women have brothers who are murderers.

3.5

I grew up watching Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes films all the time as I think they were in public domain in the late 1970s so they were on as daytime movies all the time and my mom was a big fan.
I always loved Basil Rathbone in basically everything I ever saw him in because he had been Sherlock Holmes (14 times) but after reading all of Conan Doyle's stories and seeing a lot more representations of the character, I find it more of a nostalgic charm thing than actually really digging in on it.

[Wooley]

While I do feel that Arrival (https://letterboxd.com/stusmallz/film/arrival-2016/) is a slightly better movie than Place, the point I was making is that it doesn't make sense for all these people online to be hung up solely on the supposed (implausibilities) in the premise of the latter, harping on that while ignoring the fact that the premise of the former is not just implausible, but straight-up scientifically impossible; it's just a completely inconsistent standard when it comes to critiquing movies, if you ask me.

I disagree. The question on Arrival is "is the central conceit fantastical?" The question on A Quiet Place is "are the machinations of the plot so logically weak that people are constantly getting hung up on them?" As we keep seeing in these discussions.

[mrblond]

I have a technical question.
Can you please tell me how you add these Popcorn boxes for the ratings in your posts?

I see that there is some in the emoticons list but there are not grey one and half toned one. :rolleyes:

Is there a help page which lists all useful shortcuts?

[mrblond]

I have a technical question.
Can you please tell me how you add these Popcorn boxes for the ratings in your posts?

I see that there is some in the emoticons list but there are not grey one and half toned one. :rolleyes:

Is there a help page which lists all useful shortcuts?

After searching the answer for two days and finally decided to ask and then in seconds the clarifying thread came out.

Thanks!

[xSookieStackhouse]

I have a technical question.
Can you please tell me how you add these Popcorn boxes for the ratings in your posts?

I see that there is some in the emoticons list but there are not grey one and half toned one. :rolleyes:

Is there a help page which lists all useful shortcuts?

https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=45798

[xSookieStackhouse]

4.5
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e6/AI_Poster.jpg

[Takoma11]

I grew up watching Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes films all the time as I think they were in public domain in the late 1970s so they were on as daytime movies all the time and my mom was a big fan.
I always loved Basil Rathbone in basically everything I ever saw him in because he had been Sherlock Holmes (14 times) but after reading all of Conan Doyle's stories and seeing a lot more representations of the character, I find it more of a nostalgic charm thing than actually really digging in on it.

Also partly because of nostalgia, Jeremy Brett is "my" Sherlock Holmes. But when I revisit his work as the character, I really like the interpretation. I feel as though he embodies the restlessness of the character. I know this is dark, but Brett's portrayal makes you understand why the character would use drugs.

[AgrippinaX]

Also partly because of nostalgia, Jeremy Brett is "my" Sherlock Holmes. But when I revisit his work as the character, I really like the interpretation. I feel as though he embodies the restlessness of the character. I know this is dark, but Brett's portrayal makes you understand why the character would use drugs.

Agreed. Though I’ve always longed for an even more ‘antihero’ version of Holmes. Obviously.

[cricket]

Bacurau (2019)

4

https://i0.wp.com/www.tor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Bacurau03.png?resize=740%2C370&type=vertical&ssl=1

I didn't know anything about it going in but I thought it would be awesome and it was. I don't know what to say without giving something away. Maybe picture if John Carpenter made a Brazilian action thriller. The story turns out to be not so original, but it's presented in an original manner.

[Fabulous]

Lost in America (1985)

3

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/xmvOMRfHmfLXnWebB4cyyfYXUSd.jpg

[Stirchley]

… Victoria's reign was one of stability and calm (if you discount the surprisingly large amount of assassination attempts against her.)

Definitely wouldn’t describe Victoria’s long reign from 1837 to 1901 like this. To give just two examples, The Crimean War was huge during her reign & The Boer War also began during her reign though she died before its end.

[Takoma11]

Agreed. Though I’ve always longed for an even more ‘antihero’ version of Holmes. Obviously.

Not an anti-hero take at all, but I really like the Holmes presented in Laurie King's Mary Russell book series (starting with The Beekeeper's Apprentice) and also Michael Chabon's The Final Solution. I liked Ian McKellan's portrayal in Mr. Holmes

I'm not sure that I'd like a full-on anti-hero take on the character. To me, the great tension in his stories comes from the friction of living in a world where he is more perceptive than everyone else and largely lacking in true peers, and sometimes the frustration of not having enough facts at hand to make reasonable deductions. The character is isolated by his intelligence and quirks, and I enjoy more complex portrayals that explore his loneliness, frustration, and impatience. But if he were to turn sort of evil or intentionally harm others or something I don't think I'd be into it.

[Takoma11]

Bacurau (2019)

4

https://i0.wp.com/www.tor.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Bacurau03.png?resize=740%2C370&type=vertical&ssl=1

I didn't know anything about it going in but I thought it would be awesome and it was. I don't know what to say without giving something away. Maybe picture if John Carpenter made a Brazilian action thriller. The story turns out to be not so original, but it's presented in an original manner.

I really enjoyed it and agree on the solid presentation.

Just personally, I was kind of hoping for something more supernatural or sci-fi, but that's just personal preference.

[AgrippinaX]

Not an anti-hero take at all, but I really like the Holmes presented in Laurie King's Mary Russell book series (starting with The Beekeeper's Apprentice) and also Michael Chabon's The Final Solution. I liked Ian McKellan's portrayal in Mr. Holmes

I'm not sure that I'd like a full-on anti-hero take on the character. To me, the great tension in his stories comes from the friction of living in a world where he is more perceptive than everyone else and largely lacking in true peers, and sometimes the frustration of not having enough facts at hand to make reasonable deductions. The character is isolated by his intelligence and quirks, and I enjoy more complex portrayals that explore his loneliness, frustration, and impatience. But if he were to turn sort of evil or intentionally harm others or something I don't think I'd be into it.

Well, let’s not forget ‘antihero’ equals not ‘villain’ - not at all. So him being an antihero would not involve harming others or anything remotely similar. But I almost like your take more. :)

I think if he were a genius using his mind to do good (well, solve crimes), and at the same time were a brooding, misanthropic figure and an addict in his private life (which in my view is how the books present it, and the addiction is not explored enough) that would work just fine for me.

[skizzerflake]

The first is another one of those movies I couldn't finish. This time, it was because I kept thinking what I would do in that position. None of my ideas involved sitting around the house trying to be quiet.

I finished it mainly because it was my first theater outing in a long time and I didn't to squander it, but, yeah, I was underwhelmed. I really groaned when the end of the movie set up the third episode.

[AgrippinaX]

The first is another one of those movies I couldn't finish. This time, it was because I kept thinking what I would do in that position. None of my ideas involved sitting around the house trying to be quiet.

I have to give it to them that it’s very tense, which is hard to achieve. But I was underwhelmed too.

[Stirchley]

79077

Don’t think I’ve ever seen this movie all the way through, which seems odd. McGregor extremely charismatic in his first movie rôle. Flagged a bit toward the end (or maybe my interest flagged), but a very good movie overall.

[Fabulous]

Manhunter (1986)

3.5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/j9hw6ywA7WDEOxFXKlXEW8eHEL7.jpg

[CharlesAoup]

Censor, 2021 (A)

In the era of video nasties, a censor finds herself troubled after her parents bring her an in-absentia death certificate of her sister who vanished when she was a girl.

It's great. The violence isn't the over-the-top stuff you'd expect in a slasher, even though you see a lot of old, video-nasties type violence. The film goes by real fast. It feels much shorter than it is. It's a slow-burn, with a little happening for most of it. Like a faster paced Berberian Sound Studio. Because of that, it's hard to talk about what's happening without spoiling everything, but it's an interesting criticism of the panic around violent movies from back then.

Strong recommendation.

[AgrippinaX]

Censor, 2021 (A)

In the era of video nasties, a censor finds herself troubled after her parents bring her an in-absentia death certificate of her sister who vanished when she was a girl.

It's great. The violence isn't the over-the-top stuff you'd expect in a slasher, even though you see a lot of old, video-nasties type violence. The film goes by real fast. It feels much shorter than it is. It's a slow-burn, with a little happening for most of it. Like a faster paced Berberian Sound Studio. Because of that, it's hard to talk about what's happening without spoiling everything, but it's an interesting criticism of the panic around violent movies from back then.

Strong recommendation.

On watchlist now.

[Takoma11]

Well, let’s not forget ‘antihero’ equals not ‘villain’ - not at all. So him being an antihero would not involve harming others or anything remotely similar. But I almost like your take more. :)

I think if he were a genius using his mind to do good (well, solve crimes), and at the same time were a brooding, misanthropic figure and an addict in his private life (which in my view is how the books present it, and the addiction is not explored enough) that would work just fine for me.

Have you watched any Elementary? Yeah, it's network TV. But I felt that the exploration of his addiction and how it intersects with the way his mind works was really well done.

[AgrippinaX]

Have you watched any Elementary? Yeah, it's network TV. But I felt that the exploration of his addiction and how it intersects with the way his mind works was really well done.

Nothing against network TV on my end! Haven’t seen that, but will definitely check out now.

[cricket]

I really enjoyed it and agree on the solid presentation.

Just personally, I was kind of hoping for something more supernatural or sci-fi, but that's just personal preference.

I thought that was a possibility but it's against my preference so was glad it didn't go that way.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.wnyc.org%2Fi%2F1267%2F760%2Fc%2F80%2F1%2Fpygmalion_1938.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Pygmalion, 1938

Phonetics expert Henry Higgins (Leslie Howard) has a chance encounter with Colonel Pickering (Scott Sunderland) while the former is out observing the speech of a crowd outside a theater in London. Both are amused by the mannerisms and speech of a flower girl, Eliza (Wendy Hiller), and the men form a wager revolving around Higgins teaching Eliza to speak properly and passing her off as high-class at a swanky function.

This was a really fun and enjoyable film with one major flaw (which I will get to later). To start with, the film captures the wit and charm of Shaw's play. The actors, and especially Howard and Hiller in the lead roles) find the rhythms and little asides of their characters, so that they feel at once larger-than-life and at the same time relatable and human.

For the most part, the film does a great job of exploring the idea of perception and human value. The premise of the original myth is, of course, pretty sexist to modern eyes. A man literally creates a woman he finds hot, then gets to marry her. The twist in Pygmalion (the play and sort of the movie), is that when Eliza becomes a "real" lady, she comes to a series of revelations about herself and the way that she is treated and perceived by others. In this way, the story pushes neatly back against the inherent sexism in the premise. It was also nice to see multiple characters (Pickering and Higgins' maid) articulating that his arrangement with Eliza could be considered exploitative and urging him to make sure she won't ultimately be harmed by his little experiment.

There is a line late in the film that made me worried. Eliza says, "The difference between a flower girl is the way she is treated." I was afraid that there was going to be more to that statement about women insisting on proper treatment, but there wasn't. It is not on Eliza to determine how she is treated--some people (like Pickering) treat people with kindness no matter what their social status. Importantly, Eliza's morals and behavior don't change. Her speech and manners are altered, and suddenly she is worthy of love and respect and attention. This reflects poorly on society, not on Eliza.

There's also an interesting class critique centered on Henry. Throughout the film, we see that Henry commits many sins of manners. He swears. He has a tendency to drop his hat wherever he wants. He is rude and abrupt. He wears his bedclothes around the house. And yet all this is waved away because of his social status. Just as Eliza is treated with suspicion and pity because of her way of speaking and behaving, Henry is afforded patience and tolerance because of his.

So here's the problem with the film, and it's kind of major. (SPOILERS for the end of Pygmalion)Eliza realizes through the film that Henry has constantly objectified her and treated her as less than. No matter what she does or how she speaks, he will always regard her as being beneath him. In the play, she's had enough and she sweeps out, leaving him behind.

Oh, but the film can't resist a happy ending. Despite him articulating that he thinks everyone is beneath him (sort of? This is supposed to sound like some sort of equality, but clearly class has a lot to do with the way he lords himself over Eliza), Eliza comes back to him in the end . . . . because?

Listen, I loved the sparring between the two characters. But ultimately I did not believe that Eliza would choose to return to him. I could feel it coming in the last few minutes, but it simply did not feel right to me. Pickering would offer her respect. Freddy would offer her love. And Higgins offers her . . . what exactly?

The ending just didn't feel earned and it really bugged me. Eliza's series of revelations about herself and the way she is treated and her place in society were super compelling, and to end on such a false note was a let down.

A really fun adaptation of the play (aside from the ending).

4

[Takoma11]

I thought that was a possibility but it's against my preference so was glad it didn't go that way.

The detail of the town no longer existing on Google Maps was such a spooky, weird touch.

And maybe part of my problem is that I've seen several "rich people hunting poor people for sport" films in the last few years that I was underwhelmed by that dynamic.

Like you say, it was all done really well. I just sort of wish the dynamic had been a bit different.

[cricket]

The detail of the town no longer existing on Google Maps was such a spooky, weird touch.

And maybe part of my problem is that I've seen several "rich people hunting poor people for sport" films in the last few years that I was underwhelmed by that dynamic.

Like you say, it was all done really well. I just sort of wish the dynamic had been a bit different.

The map part was great, and at first I wondered if it was because they weren't really a town, but rather some kind of cult community that wasn't recognized. The unoriginal part of it was part of what prevented it from becoming a big favorite.

[Fabulous]

Mona Lisa (1986)

3.5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/l4fd85p8ct59qBfQRFf2mBxExIC.jpg

[Wooley]

Also partly because of nostalgia, Jeremy Brett is "my" Sherlock Holmes. But when I revisit his work as the character, I really like the interpretation. I feel as though he embodies the restlessness of the character. I know this is dark, but Brett's portrayal makes you understand why the character would use drugs.

I also enjoyed his version.
I don't know if I have a personal favorite Holmes, honesty.

[Wooley]

Have you watched any Elementary? Yeah, it's network TV. But I felt that the exploration of his addiction and how it intersects with the way his mind works was really well done.

I tried an episode of that but couldn't, especially next to the BBC version that was going on.

[Nausicaä]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/60/The_Tomorrow_War_%282021_film%29_official_theatrical_poster.jpg/220px-The_Tomorrow_War_%282021_film%29_official_theatrical_poster.jpg

3

Snooze factor = Z


[Snooze Factor Ratings]:
Z = didn't nod off at all
Zz = nearly nodded off but managed to stay alert
Zzz = nodded off and missed some of the film but went back to watch what I missed
Zzzz = nodded off and missed some of the film but went back to watch what I missed but nodded off again at the same point and therefore needed to go back a number of times before I got through it...
Zzzzz = nodded off and missed some or the rest of the film but was not interested enough to go back over it

[Takoma11]

I tried an episode of that but couldn't, especially next to the BBC version that was going on.

I would encourage you to give it another shot.

While I felt that the BBC version got increasingly cutesy (I watched the second season and couldn't take any more), the CBS version gets deeper and more complex as it goes. Holmes and Watson have interesting backstories that overlap in neat ways (thematically, not literally). I can't attest to the final seasons (I think I'm halfway through season 4?), but I feel like the first 3 are pretty solid.

[Gideon58]

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41jfoHgF%2BTL.jpg



3

[Fabulous]

My Beautiful Laundrette (1985)

3

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/u8LmABn5I5ZwOXBuZKh0iy6bNvE.jpg

[PHOENIX74]

Definitely wouldn’t describe Victoria’s long reign from 1837 to 1901 like this. To give just two examples, The Crimean War was huge during her reign & The Boer War also began during her reign though she died before its end.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Queen personally, and the royal household and family. Leading up I was getting used to beheadings, the sovereign dying in bloody battle, war against the church, disease, madness etc. Victoria had her assassination attempts, but by Lord her reign seems to be as sensible and stable as you can get compared to British Kings and Queens before her. Helped her set the record for longevity.

It's all relative though - calm and stability. It could be argued that the human condition itself precludes either of those two things.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/The_Goldfinch_%282019_film_poster%29.png
By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60892911

The Goldfinch - (2019)

Donna Tartt's Pulitzer Prize winning novel The Goldfinch polarized critics, but was still praised more warmly than this adaptation directed by John Crowley. I say that if you haven't read the novel it's still well worth a shot. Theo Decker (played by Oakes Fegley and Ansel Elgort over different time periods) has just experienced the death of his mother during a bombing at an art gallery. He blames himself, for reasons which don't reveal themselves until late in the film, and is about to go on an odyssey which involves life with his alcoholic and abusive father (who had abandoned him,) and a descent into alcohol and drug abuse. Decker has a secret though. A big secret with which he is biding his time and which will lead to unexpected consequences.

I felt the sense of mystery for me was held at just the right pace, and that Ansel Elgort proves himself in the crucial role of the older Theo Decker (I'm a big fan of Baby Driver.) Some people will again find that this film is simply too long - which has been a theme for me lately. I didn't mind though. I enjoyed watching Nicole Kidman and Luke Wilson, but felt that Jeffrey Wright was a little bit of wrong casting for the character of Obie. I would have very much enjoyed Ralph Fiennes (the first choice) instead. I didn't find much wrong with it at all - but most people will disagree with me there. The film was a box office bomb and was mauled by the critics.

7/10

https://i.postimg.cc/pL4BRXt6/runlolarun.jpg

Run Lola Run - (1998) - Germany - DVD rewatch - (aka Lola rennt)

The ball is round, a game lasts 90 minutes, everything else is pure theory.

Inventive and exciting, Run Lola Run is set at a cracking pace to techno beats and constant movement. Lola has just had a phone call from her boyfriend Manni, he's lost 100,000 marks, which he was due to hand over to his underworld boss in 20 minutes. Lola has little to no time to sit and plot his rescue. She has to find 100,000 marks. First and foremost, she has to run. As her attempts to save him fail in disaster, we're taken back to the starting point and given an alternative series of events.

This film exists as a good explanation of 'the butterfly effect', where minute changes to anything bring about massive differences over time. Writer/director Tom Tykwer uses deft techniques to illustrate this, running by the same people and initial circumstances with slight changes each time. First of all, Lola's flight down the stairs of her apartment are animated, and the source of the slight change. Secondly, the people Lola comes across have their 'future' revealed to us with the clever use of photographic stills. 7 or 8 stills gives us enough information to do this very effectively. The course of Lola's journey itself tells a coherent story as well - each time reveals a bit more - and Lola herself seems to be partly aware of this.

I remember being electrified by this film the first time I saw it - and nothing can really beat the impression you get from the film the first time around. It packs a lot into it's short running time and never lets go of you once it's off and running. Franka Potente and Moritz Bleibtreu give us enough insight into their personas that we're definitely on their side. Every desperate action appears completely justified.

Ironic though, that salvation could possibly come from an event that implies Lola is really master of her own fate, despite the chaos surrounding her.

Extra Features - Talent profiles for those who can't be bothered looking them up on the IMDb. The music video for Believe, which is performed by Franka Potente herself and I assume it was released as a single. The trailer. A commentary track by Tom Tykwer and Franka Potente which unveils a lot of things that most people will not have noticed, but didn't give me the motivation behind the making of the film. I always prefer 'why' they did it over 'how' they did it - and 75% of the commentary is 'how'.

8/10

[Fabulous]

Near Dark (1987)

3.5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/q9tyW0oXdWTTUK6eNFHCKh3gKNH.jpg

[hell_storm2004]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTwZ3_WbBddxpUIT1ObquGivzVJwSBG-lSWKA&usqp=CAU


Lila & Eve (2015) - 4.5/10. Just poor. I was planning to watch this for a long time. Now that I have seen it, what a disappointment. The meandering plot, the actors seemed disinterested,
the Fight Club like twist. It was just lame.

[xSookieStackhouse]

5 rewatched
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71ei51QdI6L._AC_SL1500_.jpg
5 rewatched
https://pisces.bbystatic.com/image2/BestBuy_US/images/products/6628/6628474_so.jpg

[Siddon]

https://occ-0-1068-92.1.nflxso.net/dnm/api/v6/E8vDc_W8CLv7-yMQu8KMEC7Rrr8/AAAABZdh5_UJzsIUaH7zSmDL8fN89E7eGcZMuRsRPoO75Es4GzQtSorZi8Cv1wU3-wHQw61nL3RprRRZKzcrdNWTZ_Cjitzi.jpg?r=217

Fear Street:1994(2020)


<sigh> Fear Street 1994 is a mixed bag, at times a pleasant homage to the 90's at other times a toothless reminder of the era we're in. While the film has the sadly obligatory multi-ethnic group of friends it has a first act twist that just sucks the life out of the story. If you are going to make a woke slasher film...which is fine stick to the slasher theme. You then get a second act twist that just ugh...is fine but not in a slasher film. And then you get a dreadfull CGI moment that completely killed the film for me.


You've got some good costume design but the filmmakers ADHD and failure to make a horror film killed it for me. Some people will like it and I'm going to keep with the series but this felt like an episode of Supernatural...not a solid horror film.

[AgrippinaX]

Come True (2021)
https://www.drm.am/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Screenshot_3.png
2
There are several reasons why I disliked this emphatically enough to put my thoughts in writing. Like any cinephile worth their salt, I abhor the ‘it was all a dream’ kind of ending, unless the film is a true masterpiece (can’t think of an example, actually). That said, I quite like films about dreams/sleep, perhaps because I suffer from insomnia (though none of that sleepwalking/sleep paralysis stuff).

Though undoubtedly visually striking (still, no Malick here, and the comparison to Cronenberg in some reviews seems preposterous), this made no sense, and not in a Lynchian kind of way. The so-called ‘twist’ ending is not as awful as it could have been, because in the context of a sleep study, it at least feels grounded, but it still induces the inevitable feeling of, ‘Why did I bother watching this?’

I find the idea that ‘dreams are real’ (as in, whatever the subconscious cooks up can manifest on a physical level) a perfectly good one for any speculative film. Yet there must be a reason why everyone who touches it messes it up. To me, the premise of Before I Wake seemed stronger than Come True, because it eliminated the need for the exhausting scientific study set-up that Come True gets bogged down in, and also because it was more focussed on the basic concept that people can bring whatever they dream of back with them. The emotional investment in Before I Wake comes from the promise of being able to bring back a dead relative - an opportunity Come True misses except for one brief moment where Sarah notices Jeremy had been dreaming about the two of them kissing, which motivates her to have sex with him.

My own pervasive problem is that I never feel invested in these troubled-“teenage”(note the quote marks)-girl protagonists, whatever the plot. The sympathy should apparently stem from the fact Sarah can’t sleep, but for me, that doesn’t work. Contrast with Trevor in The Machinist: there, we have real stakes, Trevor’s insomnia has a devastating real-life impact when he causes the accident in which his coworker loses a hand.. We sympathise because this is likely to haunt Trevor for the rest of his life.

Here the “teenager” can’t sleep; as someone who actually does have insomnia, I just didn’t feel the stakes were high enough. We’re not shown a single life-threatening situation where she walks head-on into traffic, nearly falls under a moving train, or something like that, which would demonstrate that her sleep problems constitute an acute threat to her life and safety.

If she eventually passed out at school, she’d have been taken to A&E, and something would have been done. Also, if she’s to have any hope of getting rid of her insomnia, she really shouldn’t be knocking back all that coffee.

The most interesting aspect of the film to me is the uncomfortable ambiguity regarding Sarah’s age, which is almost Lolitaesque. In several non-spoiler short synopses intended to encourage one to see the film, she’s referred to as “a teenager”. I know that even though she’s 18, this is technically correct, but it really changes the entire dynamic, and that felt almost like a letdown cop-out twist in itself. Legal definitions and debates aside, I think in a film synopsis the word “teenager” is a very deliberate one that evokes a 13-year-old in sneakers. In addition, we see her at school and there’s not a single mention of universities, application processes and matters 18-year-olds who do attend school would be concerned about, no matter how chaotic their home life.

This ambiguity was exploited masterfully in Hard Candy, but Come True doesn’t use it at all, which is a huge shame, especially as it suggests that it will be explored: JSS’ body is the Lisbeth Salander type of flat, with barely any breasts, which again misleads the viewer.

Worse still, Sarah does not behave like an 18-year-old, much less like a streetwise adult who’s been living alone/all over the place for some time. I appreciate I’m bringing my European perspective, where an 18-year-old is legally an adult (and hence, to me, not even much of a “teenager”), to this reading.

But I can’t help but feel she is ridiculously and unrealistically childish for any 18-year-old, except perhaps a super-sheltered daddy’s girl live-at-home rich kid, which is the opposite of what she is. Hence, when we suddenly get the sex scene with Jeremy, I, who is usually chill about such things, had a full-on ‘What the ****?’ reaction. Strong Orphan vibes. This was probably authorial intent. In the end, I think the disconnect between Sarah’s age and how she looks and behaves was the most unusual and fresh aspect of the film.

[chawhee]

Another Round (2020)
https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/w780/2mS9xXhy1myxR0UoYgz5nz0HVp7.jpg
4
This was much different than I expected, even after reading brief reviews of others' here. Starts out a bit slow, but for good reason once it gets going. I expect my score will be higher upon a rewatch. The only thing that threw me a bit was


the last segment of the movie had a lot thrown in as far as a funeral, a separation, a potential reunion...just seemed a bit hasty even if we really didn't need every detail of why it was unfolding as such


Definitely up there with Promising Young Woman as far as favorite from 2020

[cricket]

The Last Circus (2010)

3.5-

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8W9e8BwE1hw/Tfahw5BnSaI/AAAAAAAAC44/0iRimwVsNuc/s1600/Balada.triste.de.trompeta.2010.720p.BluRay.3AUDIO.x264-UNIONGANG.mkv_snapshot_01.14.10_%255B2011.06.13_16.46.18%255D.jpg

https://content.internetvideoarchive.com/content/hdphotos/7218/007218/007218_1280x720_53730_086.jpg

This movie is nonstop craziness, think if Guy Ritchie and Rob Zombie combined to make a foreign language version of Joker. Sometimes it's too comic bookish, and probably could have used a little more realism. It's still a great ride with a load of violence and some dark humor.

[AgrippinaX]

Another Round (2020)
https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/w780/2mS9xXhy1myxR0UoYgz5nz0HVp7.jpg
4
This was much different than I expected, even after reading brief reviews of others' here. Starts out a bit slow, but for good reason once it gets going. I expect my score will be higher upon a rewatch. The only thing that threw me a bit was


the last segment of the movie had a lot thrown in as far as a funeral, a separation, a potential reunion...just seemed a bit hasty even if we really didn't need every detail of why it was unfolding as such


Definitely up there with Promising Young Woman as far as favorite from 2020

Likewise, agree re: the ending, but overall, a fun little thing.

[John Dumbear]

"Delivery Man" - ('13 - Scott)

Better than average Vince Vaughn vehicle, co-starting Chris Pratt.

6.5/10

[Fabulous]

The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967)

3.5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/d93N5qXpFrrWlNxbDOoXd3OTEfr.jpg

[GulfportDoc]

79110
Killing Them Softly (2012)

Brad Pitt, James Gandolfini, Richard Jenkins, Ray Liotta, Ben Mendelsohn, Scoot McNairy, Sam Shepard.

Director/screenwriter: Andrew Dominik

This mediocre film squanders the talents of its group of high-test actors. I've always felt that it's often tricky for a director to helm his own screenplay into a first rate production. There are exceptions, but this picture is not one of them.

The technical aspects were high quality. The acting was predictably good, given the dream cast. James Gandfolfini steals the show as a weary, idiosyncratic, heavy drinking mob hit man, whose kooky philosophy on life provides for a memorable performance by Gandolfini.

Richard Jenkins too shines as a corporate style liaison with the hit man. Pitt starts weakly, then comes up a notch. But the part has some questionable writing.


The film could have been better with a more deft screenplay. It's puzzling that the movie had one of the dumbest endings so far in the 21st Century. They might as well have had someone simply face the camera to say. "Well, that's all folks. We couldn't think of a better way to end it." Whether the intent was comedy, irony, or artistry, it caused the film to land with a thud.

Doc's rating: 4/10

[AgrippinaX]

79110
Killing Them Softly (2012)

Brad Pitt, James Gandolfini, Richard Jenkins, Ray Liotta, Ben Mendelsohn, Scoot McNairy, Sam Shepard.

Director/screenwriter: Andrew Dominik

This mediocre film squanders the talents of its group of high-test actors. I've always felt that it's often tricky for a director to helm his own screenplay into a first rate production. There are exceptions, but this picture is not one of them.

The technical aspects were high quality. The acting was predictably good, given the dream cast. James Gandfolfini steals the show as a weary, idiosyncratic, heavy drinking mob hit man, whose kooky philosophy on life provides for a memorable performance by Gandolfini.

Richard Jenkins too shines as a corporate style liaison with the hit man. Pitt starts weakly, then comes up a notch. But the part has some questionable writing.


The film could have been better with a more deft screenplay. It's puzzling that the movie had one of the dumbest endings so far in the 21st Century. They might as well have had someone simply face the camera to say. "Well, that's all folks. We couldn't think of a better way to end it." Whether the intent was comedy, irony, or artistry, it caused the film to land with a thud.

Doc's rating: 4/10

Ha, I saw that one in the cinema and my seasoned cinephile mother fell asleep! I was so pissed off at her at the time, but now I kind of get it.

[Allaby]

I watched Marihuana (1936) on blu ray. This was actually pretty good, much better than I expected. The story was fairly interesting and it kept me entertained. The acting, for an exploitation movie, was decent. I would rate it a 3.5.

[Iroquois]

Independence Day - 1.5

rack off, Yanks

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.RdXCtCPE-OOA4JfXC7phQgHaFg%26pid%3DApi&f=1

A Nous la Liberte, 1931

Two prisoners, Louis (Raymond Cordy) and Emile (Henri Marcand) make a daring escape from captivity but only Louis actually makes it. Years later, Louis has transformed himself into the successful owner of a factory producing phonographs. Emile by chance shows up at the factory and becomes enamored with a young woman, Jeanne (Rolla France), who works there. Louis welcomes his old friend after some initial suspicion, but their criminal past threatens to derail their happiness.

After being disappointed in the way that Pygmalion totally chickened out on its ending--opting for a happy ending in defiance of the character growth made by Eliza--it was a real delight to watch this film in which a complex plot is resolved in a way that makes narrative and character sense.

To back up, the thing that makes this film so fun is the enjoyable friendship between Louis and Emile. In short, they are both nice guys, and it is easy to root for them. Louis has become wealthy, but he has retained his sense of humor and compassion. Twice--once in the prison and once after they are reunited in the factory--we watch Louis tend to Emile when Emile has cut himself. There is an ease to their friendship that adds a really pleasant note to the whole story. And in his pursuit of Jeanne, Emile also shows kindness and compassion. He first meets her after she's been sexually harassed and assaulted by a factory guard, and his wooing of her is marked by a gentle respect. When he realizes that she has a boyfriend, he does the right thing and backs off.

Funny to watch this film on the heels of Modern Times, as the factory dynamic is a major part of the plot here as well. In a sequence that feels a lot like something from Modern Times, Emile gets behind on placing a part so he hustles down the line, disrupting the next worker. The effect snowballs until there are half a dozen squabbling on the conveyor belt. When a manager appears, each man points the blame back down the line. The film embraces the vision of a future where machinery will free up people to leisure time, and it is interesting to see that portrayal. It isn't so much money that the characters want, but freedom. And, as the film acknowledges, you need money to have freedom sometimes.

From a style point of view, it is all very charming. There are frequent, short bursts of music/singing. The film has stakes for every character, and yet the tone manages to stay light and optimistic.

I had very few complaints about this one. I felt that there was a little lag heading into the last act. I just felt myself disconnecting from the story a bit. And while it is very much of the time, it's kind of off-putting to watch how part of the Jeanne romance is handled. When Louis finds out that Emile likes Jeanne, he tracks down Jeanne's uncle, who works at the factory. It's a bit gross watching Emile, Louis, and the uncle basically make a decision about Jeanne's future without any of them asking her what she wants. They make a deal for her to marry Emile without her knowledge or permission. It is to the credit of the story and Emile's character that he calls it off when he realizes she loves someone else, but still kind of icky overall.

Very charming, and not a film that was previously on my radar.

4

[CharlesAoup]

The Love Witch, 2016 (D)

A film about a witch, in what appears to be the 60s, using magic to seduce men.

There's traces of something like a Giallo in the movie's style, but it's very lazy. Either they realized how much effort it is to be on the entire movie they way Giallos used to be, or they just didn't get why any of it worked. The movie is shot mostly conventionally, with a few occasional stylised shots here and there. It's not cohesive or interesting, and it feels gimmicky.

I think they bet everything on the style, because there isn't much plot here to bolster the rest. The movie is pretty long at 2 hours, and involves a lot of conversations. It feels directionless. Either that or they really buried the point they were trying to make deep inside the film.

Lastly, and that might sound stupid, but here goes. The movie is about this really oversexed witch that wants to bone men to make them love her, but the two main witch ladies with speaking roles aren't really in in. There's 2 digits worth of extras showing full frontal, but the two leading witches won't even show nipples. And it's not like they don't get undressed. They do, but it's very perfunctory instead of commiting and going for the vibe. That took me out of it every time, and all I could think of is that they didn't find actors that would do everything they wanted.

[matt72582]

The Collector (1965)

rating_3_5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/w1TAMMJgJiOHaBOE7QHh3b8UnKH.jpg


I love this movie.. Would love to find similar movies.. If anyone has recommendation, I (and others maybe) would appreciate it!

[Corax]

The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967)

3.5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/d93N5qXpFrrWlNxbDOoXd3OTEfr.jpg

Getting some strong Peter Vincent vibes here.

[Wyldesyde19]

The Love Witch, 2016 (D)

A film about a witch, in what appears to be the 60s, using magic to seduce men.

There's traces of something like a Giallo in the movie's style, but it's very lazy. Either they realized how much effort it is to be on the entire movie they way Giallos used to be, or they just didn't get why any of it worked. The movie is shot mostly conventionally, with a few occasional stylised shots here and there. It's not cohesive or interesting, and it feels gimmicky.

I think they bet everything on the style, because there isn't much plot here to bolster the rest. The movie is pretty long at 2 hours, and involves a lot of conversations. It feels directionless. Either that or they really buried the point they were trying to make deep inside the film.

Lastly, and that might sound stupid, but here goes. The movie is about this really oversexed witch that wants to bone men to make them love her, but the two main witch ladies with speaking roles aren't really in in. There's 2 digits worth of extras showing full frontal, but the two leading witches won't even show nipples. And it's not like they don't get undressed. They do, but it's very perfunctory instead of commiting and going for the vibe. That took me out of it every time, and all I could think of is that they didn't find actors that would do everything they wanted.
Such a bad movie. Watched it and promptly forgot about it. Except for the witch of course.

[EsmagaSapos]

https://i.postimg.cc/bNbN8W5b/813-P1e-IBx-OL-SL1500.jpg

5

A lot of time I waited to be able to watch this film. It's available for eight bucks on Amazon or you can watch it on YouTube. It's my favorite poet, it became more known in the recent years, mainly due to, in his words: an artist has to be ahead of his time- something I'm not sure if I agree, but I respect. I don't agree with so many views he had, but the ones I agree, I agree deeply. This films talks about a lot of things, this charming Italian woman interviewing Hank had a way to take it out of him, she could have taken a lot more if Linda, his wife, were not there. The things about writers, and poets specially, is that, they can, with words, express things we think about, but we can't say it. To watch any documentary on Bukowski, like, The Charles Bukowski Tapes, or Born Into This, you have to separate the acting he does from what he means, and that takes a great deal of awareness about how he thinks. My favorite scene from this film is, to me, one of the best words I've heard spoken about love. Anyone who uses the term love, nowadays, it's accentuating a cliché, I've never heard my mother, my grandmother using that word, people didn't express feelings using words. He explained that very beautifully on minute 41:30 of the film: There's things that should be kept untold, like, when I see my women walking across the room, and, I think she's very cute, the way she walks, but I keep it to myself, I don't say, when she comes back out of the bathroom, I don't say: "Darling, you looked so cute going to the bathroom", because the next time she's walking towards the bathroom she's going to think: "I'm looking cute walking towards the bathroom". You see, there's things you leave along, eternally, so they can keep existing, you don't push things, you don't, talk, about love, you just let things be.

[Takoma11]

Lastly, and that might sound stupid, but here goes. The movie is about this really oversexed witch that wants to bone men to make them love her, but the two main witch ladies with speaking roles aren't really in in. There's 2 digits worth of extras showing full frontal, but the two leading witches won't even show nipples. And it's not like they don't get undressed. They do, but it's very perfunctory instead of commiting and going for the vibe. That took me out of it every time, and all I could think of is that they didn't find actors that would do everything they wanted.

While I had a mixed reaction to the film, I would say that accusing it of having no plot and just being about someone who wants to sex men into loving her is underselling what is happening in the film.

I actually thought that it was pretty funny and liked that the romantic dynamic (in which she immediately gets totally turned off when the men get emotional and clingy) sort of pokes fun at the whole "you can't have it all" thing that women are so frequently told.

The tragic part of the story is that you have this person who is willing to go to great, horrible lengths for "love", and yet she doesn't seem to know what love means to her. It seems to be some mix of sex, respect, and power, and she just can't seem to get the balance right.

And while I would have to watch it again to be more certain about this, I also thought that it made a point about the dangers in taking on the damaging behaviors of those in power when you take power for yourself. Which is to say: drugging people for sex, discarding someone for being too emotionally/clingy, even calling one of the men a "pussy"---these are all "traditionally" gross male behaviors. In carving a space for herself as being empowered, the lead character has also taken on the more abusive side of powerful people.

And if nothing else, the costume design and makeup along with the intentionally erroneous editing deserves credit. The fact that Biller did all of it herself (along with the music) is pretty incredible.

[Wyldesyde19]

The Love Witch had a plot. One terribly delivered. It wanted to be more insightful then the script provided, but didn’t really follow up. There were no lessons for her that maybe she could have had some personal revelation where hey, maybe I don’t need to hex these guys and go all Bill Cosby on them.

In the end, it went with cheap shock that one could see a mile away.
Ronson was really the highlight here. As well as some nice direction at times.

[ThatDarnMKS]

While I had a mixed reaction to the film, I would say that accusing it of having no plot and just being about someone who wants to sex men into loving her is underselling what is happening in the film.

I actually thought that it was pretty funny and liked that the romantic dynamic (in which she immediately gets totally turned off when the men get emotional and clingy) sort of pokes fun at the whole "you can't have it all" thing that women are so frequently told.

The tragic part of the story is that you have this person who is willing to go to great, horrible lengths for "love", and yet she doesn't seem to know what love means to her. It seems to be some mix of sex, respect, and power, and she just can't seem to get the balance right.

And while I would have to watch it again to be more certain about this, I also thought that it made a point about the dangers in taking on the damaging behaviors of those in power when you take power for yourself. Which is to say: drugging people for sex, discarding someone for being too emotionally/clingy, even calling one of the men a "pussy"---these are all "traditionally" gross male behaviors. In carving a space for herself as being empowered, the lead character has also taken on the more abusive side of powerful people.

And if nothing else, the costume design and makeup along with the intentionally erroneous editing deserves credit. The fact that Biller did all of it herself (along with the music) is pretty incredible.
I had a more positive reaction to anyone here. I think it could've stuck it's landing a bit longer but I think the aesthetic, sense of camp and amusing gender politics give it a Beyond the Valley of the Dolls meets Technicolor era filmmaking sensibility that I found fairly intoxicating.

The high point of the film is when the film shifted to the internal monologue of the lothario detective and the juxtaposition of her own, in essence becoming two sides of a similarly destructive coin. Inverse sexism.

It is much too long though but I suppose for a film this indulgent in every regard, that's an expected flaw.

I'm not surprised by its reception here though.

[hell_storm2004]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGMzSi72wOYuj8GAHMNehaJ_bpToIcNOaxWw&usqp=CAU


Fear Street: 1994 (2021) - 5/10. The starting hour is a bit lame. With a lot of people running in the background, loud music to scare people. Some glaring loopholes. The second half was just a bit better. And the setup to the next part was nicely done. Apart from that barely much to talk about. Just above average acting. There was just one kill that was worth watching. Not great, but the second part should be interesting at least front the teaser that I saw in the end.

[Corax]

The Tomorrow War- a film made by a computer algorithm. It's Live, Die, Repeat, Starship Troopers, The Thing, and Alien smushed together. Cheap parental issues? Check. One-liners? Check. It's simultaneously entertaining and forgettable. A visual spectacle, but what isn't these days? It's not good enough to love, but not bad enough to hate. It's OK. If you like action movies, its worth a watch. But you won't rush to rewatch it.

[Takoma11]

The Love Witch had a plot. One terribly delivered. It wanted to be more insightful then the script provided, but didn’t really follow up. There were no lessons for her that maybe she could have had some personal revelation where hey, maybe I don’t need to hex these guys and go all Bill Cosby on them.

But that's the point!! When you regard love as being about domination and power, it blinds you to the idea of compassion and gentleness and compromise. A woman thinking about love this way can be just as damaging as when a man thinks this way---it's a perverse presentation of "gender equality".

We as the audience can see how messed up this way of thinking is. And when the main character is confronted with the truth she can either be like "Oh, wow! Thank you for opening my eyes to the flaws in my mentality about love!" or she can fully commit and go off the deep end. If I'm watching an intentionally B-movie, I know which direction I want that character to go.

I had a more positive reaction to anyone here. I think it could've stuck it's landing a bit longer but I think the aesthetic, sense of camp and amusing gender politics give it a Beyond the Valley of the Dolls meets Technicolor era filmmaking sensibility that I found fairly intoxicating.

The high point of the film is when the film shifted to the internal monologue of the lothario detective and the juxtaposition of her own, in essence becoming two sides of a similarly destructive coin. Inverse sexism.

Exactly.

I think that maybe part of the problem is that when a film is up front about being feminist, the default interpretation is that any actions by the female lead are meant to be positive or aspirational.

This film is portraying an incredibly destructive interpretation of female empowerment, and one that basically revels in all the negative ideas about what that means. She uses sex to get her way. She's dismissive or derisive toward most of the men in the film. Heck, one of her spells centers on using a used tampon.

As if there aren't a thousand horror movies out there where we watch main male characters maim their way through female victims. Like, ain't nobody out here talking about how the main character in Maniac should have had a learning moment about his relationship toward women.

[AgrippinaX]

I had a more positive reaction to anyone here. I think it could've stuck it's landing a bit longer but I think the aesthetic, sense of camp and amusing gender politics give it a Beyond the Valley of the Dolls meets Technicolor era filmmaking sensibility that I found fairly intoxicating.

The high point of the film is when the film shifted to the internal monologue of the lothario detective and the juxtaposition of her own, in essence becoming two sides of a similarly destructive coin. Inverse sexism.

It is much too long though but I suppose for a film this indulgent in every regard, that's an expected flaw.

I'm not surprised by its reception here though.

I’m mostly in your camp. Thought it was beautifully shot and refreshing. Yes, there, I said it.

[AgrippinaX]

…I think that maybe part of the problem is that when a film is up front about being feminist, the default interpretation is that any actions by the female lead are meant to be positive or aspirational.

Well, I, for one, have seen this one a bunch of times and I always read it as intentionally anti-feminist, albeit in a tongue in cheek way. But then again, Anna Biller is a known feminist, yet I always thought she has enough irony in her to have a broader outlook on it all. Back to viewing films aesthetically and separately from authorial politics/convictions.

[Wyldesyde19]

But that's the point!! When you regard love as being about domination and power, it blinds you to the idea of compassion and gentleness and compromise. A woman thinking about love this way can be just as damaging as when a man thinks this way---it's a perverse presentation of "gender equality".

We as the audience can see how messed up this way of thinking is. And when the main character is confronted with the truth she can either be like "Oh, wow! Thank you for opening my eyes to the flaws in my mentality about love!" or she can fully commit and go off the deep end. If I'm watching an intentionally B-movie, I know which direction I want that character to go


I admit the ideas behind were interesting, but it was handled in a cheap way to fit into a horror/b movie trope. It would have been nice to delve more into her psyche a bit more, rather then she just wanted love. The flashbacks with the cult didn’t provide enough of an insight to highlight that.

[Fabulous]

Far from the Madding Crowd (1967)

3.5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/flf9z5JmZjf8ILyZxQSb7iqVYvb.jpg

[Torgo]

The Tomorrow War- a film made by a computer algorithm. It's Live, Die, Repeat, Starship Troopers, The Thing, and Alien smushed together. Cheap parental issues? Check. One-liners? Check. It's simultaneously entertaining and forgettable. A visual spectacle, but what isn't these days? It's not good enough to love, but not bad enough to hate. It's OK. If you like action movies, its worth a watch. But you won't rush to rewatch it.Pretty much what I expected. I swear, these algorithm-based movies are like cinematic LaCroix: they only have a faint hint of anything satisfying paired with a lot of fizzy, unremarkable nothing. It makes you want to game the algorithm by paying thousands of people to stream...I don't know, hippopotamus videos just to see how it will affect our entertainment.

[Wyldesyde19]

The Tomorrow War- a film made by a computer algorithm. It's Live, Die, Repeat, Starship Troopers, The Thing, and Alien smushed together. Cheap parental issues? Check. One-liners? Check. It's simultaneously entertaining and forgettable. A visual spectacle, but what isn't these days? It's not good enough to love, but not bad enough to hate. It's OK. If you like action movies, its worth a watch. But you won't rush to rewatch it.
I started this last night and promptly stopped right after they captured the female. Such a boring film.

[Torgo]

Enter the Ninja - 4

This is the first and my favorite of the three Golan-Globus ninja movies. This one's secret weapon - besides caltrops, of course - is its strong character development. I totally bought Cole and Frank's friendship and like how the wartime flashbacks enriched it. Also, your mileage may vary when it comes to sleaze - for me, the third movie, Ninja III: The Domination, has just enough while the second one, Revenge of the Ninja, takes it too far - but this one is refreshingly free of it. Most importantly, though, the fight scenes are so much fun, and with the reliable "they can't take our land" story and character work, there is just enough of this icing on the cake.

Sho Kosugi fans may be disappointed because he probably has the least screentime in this one, but he makes his time count. Besides, he's why the opening credits are so awesome. These movies have no order anyway, but if you haven't seen any of them, I recommend saving this one for last. Oh, and if it's comic relief you want, you'll get it in my favorite character, the posh Mr. Parker.

[Wyldesyde19]

As if there aren't a thousand horror movies out there where we watch main male characters maim their way through female victims. Like, ain't nobody out here talking about how the main character in Maniac should have had a learning moment about his relationship toward women.
Just to add something here but Maniac is a poor example, considering it’s just a cynical cash in on the slasher genre when it was hot, but it was all about murder- death - kill and didn’t even do that well.
Love Witch took itself a tad too seriously at times when the film clearly wasn’t suited well enough for it.

It had nothing to do it’s issues of feminism, which some seem to be implying.

[ThatDarnMKS]

Just to add something here but Maniac is a poor example, considering it’s just a cynical cash in on the slasher genre when it was hot, but it was all about murder- death - kill and didn’t even do that well.
Love Witch took itself a tad too seriously at times when the film clearly wasn’t suited well enough for it.

It had nothing to do it’s issues of feminism, which some seem to be implying.
Maniac is brilliant and is antithetical to the slasher tropes in a number of ways. It has far more in common with Taxi Driver than Halloween.

It's also a valid example for the specific point she's trying to make about the way we view films about misogyny vs films about feminism.

[ThatDarnMKS]

Well, I, for one, have seen this one a bunch of times and I always read it as intentionally anti-feminist, albeit in a tongue in cheek way. But then again, Anna Biller is a known feminist, yet I always thought she has enough irony in her to have a broader outlook on it all. Back to viewing films aesthetically and separately from authorial politics/convictions.
Something can critique specific feminist concepts without being anti-feminist, which is what the Love Witch does. The protagonist is a negative example, a femme fatale, of what not to do, and specifically victimizes a much more "modern" woman.

[Takoma11]

I admit the ideas behind were interesting, but it was handled in a cheap way to fit into a horror/b movie trope. It would have been nice to delve more into her psyche a bit more, rather then she just wanted love. The flashbacks with the cult didn’t provide enough of an insight to highlight that.

Just to add something here but Maniac is a poor example, considering it’s just a cynical cash in on the slasher genre when it was hot, but it was all about murder- death - kill and didn’t even do that well.
Love Witch took itself a tad too seriously at times when the film clearly wasn’t suited well enough for it.

It had nothing to do it’s issues of feminism, which some seem to be implying.

I never thought that the movie was taking itself seriously. And if you want a different example, Visiting Hours is a genuinely great horror-thriller, but no one would ever critique it by saying that the main male character needed to learn about his dysfunctional relationship with women.

And her wanting love is the lynchpin of the whole film. What does love look like for a "liberated", independent woman? That's why the whole climax of the film is the detective breaking her brain by making it clear that her concept of love--a man over whom she has power but who also is somehow not dependent on her--cannot exist..

When you break away from a conventional power structure, you have to create your own definitions for what certain things look like (respect, family, love, sex, loyalty, etc). In this film, the main character is trying to construct her own version of love, but the version she has created is inherently flawed and she makes herself crazy (and acquires a body count!) trying to achieve it. In a film that is deliberately evoking a very specific, stilted style, I'm not sure how much more into her psyche we need to get.

Well, I, for one, have seen this one a bunch of times and I always read it as intentionally anti-feminist, albeit in a tongue in cheek way. But then again, Anna Biller is a known feminist, yet I always thought she has enough irony in her to have a broader outlook on it all. Back to viewing films aesthetically and separately from authorial politics/convictions.

I don't think it is anti-feminist, but I do think that it takes aim at a certain type of feminism where the idea is something like "Men hurt women, so women hurt men. Equality!!", where the desire of most feminists would be that no one is hurting anybody. I think that it also critiques structures that purport to free women from patriarchy, but are themselves patriarchal and exploitative in their own way.

[Wyldesyde19]

Maniac is brilliant and is antithetical to the slasher tropes in a number of ways. It has far more in common with Taxi Driver than Halloween.

It's also a valid example for the specific point she's trying to make about the way we view films about misogyny vs films about feminism.


Maniac is far from brilliant, but we’ll just have to disagree with that. The comparison to a Taxi Driver is laughable.
We are talking about the original I presume? I haven’t seen the remake.

I take your second point, but that can reversed back as well in my experience.
I don’t support misogyny, to be clear, before that enters anyone’s mind.

Edit: it should be noted that I’m pretty sure it was reviled back in the day for its deprivation of violence towards women as well, as were many slashers, so thinking back, the point doesn’t hold up as no one defended it, as much as you seem to, considering you think it’s a classic.

[Fabulous]

The In-Laws (1979)

3

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/cxEyQsb7o7SgRRSgv0d1XS5O6we.jpg

[Wyldesyde19]

I never thought that the movie was taking itself seriously. And if you want a different example, Visiting Hours is a genuinely great horror-thriller, but no one would ever critique it by saying that the main male character needed to learn about his dysfunctional relationship with women.

And her wanting love is the lynchpin of the whole film. What does love look like for a "liberated", independent woman? That's why the whole climax of the film is the detective breaking her brain by making it clear that her concept of love--a man over whom she has power but who also is somehow not dependent on her--cannot exist..

When you break away from a conventional power structure, you have to create your own definitions for what certain things look like (respect, family, love, sex, loyalty, etc). In this film, the main character is trying to construct her own version of love, but the version she has created is inherently flawed and she makes herself crazy (and acquires a body count!) trying to achieve it. In a film that is deliberately evoking a very specific, stilted style, I'm not sure how much more into her psyche we need to get.



I don't think it is anti-feminist, but I do think that it takes aim at a certain type of feminism where the idea is something like "Men hurt women, so women hurt men. Equality!!", where the desire of most feminists would be that no one is hurting anybody. I think that it also critiques structures that purport to free women from patriarchy, but are themselves patriarchal and exploitative in their own way.
Those are actually some good points. But overall, the film didn’t work for me.

Actually, I sometimes do think men should have some sort of comeuppance in many cases.

Take My Fair Lady for example. Couldn’t stand Higgins. Treated Eliza like crap and then realized too late he did need her after all. And she comes back to him. It would have been far better had he been left alone realizing that his confirmed bachelorhood isn’t a choice of his but rather a constraint he has put upon himself by his behavior.

Good film, a tad overrated, disappointing ending, and the main saving grace was Audrey.

Another example, In the Company of Men, which is a great film, but leaves me disappointed with how Chad seems to have been completely unscathed of his treatment of Christine. If there was one guy who deserved it……

Each film is viewed on a case by case basis, of course, and I may not always be consistent.

[GulfportDoc]

Pretty much what I expected. I swear, these algorithm-based movies are like cinematic LaCroix: they only have a faint hint of anything satisfying paired with a lot of fizzy, unremarkable nothing. It makes you want to game the algorithm by paying thousands of people to stream...I don't know, hippopotamus videos just to see how it will affect our entertainment.
Ha! "Cinematic LaCroix". Good one. What a delightful metaphorical post...👍

[Takoma11]

Those are actually some good points. But overall, the film didn’t work for me.

Actually, I sometimes do think men should have some sort of comeuppance in many cases.

Take My Fair Lady for example. Couldn’t stand Higgins. Treated Eliza like crap and then realized too late he did need her after all. And she comes back to him. It would have been far better had he been left alone realizing that his confirmed bachelorhood isn’t a choice of his but rather a constraint he has put upon himself by his behavior.

Good film, a tad overrated, disappointing ending, and the main saving grace was Audrey.

Another example, In the Company of Men, which is a great film, but leaves me disappointed with how Chad seems to have been completely unscathed of his treatment of Christine. If there was one guy who deserved it……

Each film is viewed on a case by case basis, of course, and I may not always be consistent.

But what you are referencing are specific men. I think we can all agree that there are male characters (and female characters!) who more than deserve their comeuppance.

But in The Love Witch, she isn't seeking revenge for poor treatment. Any man who falls in her sight is going to get the same treatment.

I'm not saying that disliking this film is misogynistic. What I'm pointing out is that there are many horror films with anti-heroes or villains who are men and we watch them torment or rape or murder women, and those films just don't get some of the critiques that are leveled against The Love Witch.

Have you seen Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer? (Checking because I don't want to drop spoilers on anyone). If you have, I would say that there are some parallels between that film and The Love Witch. But would you ever say "I was frustrated because he never figured out that he didn't need to rape and murder women." No, because the character's demented and damaged worldview isn't something that the film wants to fix, it's merely something the film wants to explore. (And sidenote: could you imagine someone writing a review of it and complaining that they didn't get to see Michael Rooker's penis?)

I myself didn't think that the film was perfect. I think I gave it a 3.5/5 or a 4/5. I felt that the film brilliantly evoked that 60s B-movie look. But that's a double-edged sword because the deliberately stilted sequences and dialogue create some distance between the audience and the characters. But does the film accomplish what it set out to do? I think that for the most part it does.

[Wyldesyde19]

But what you are referencing are specific men. I think we can all agree that there are male characters (and female characters!) who more than deserve their comeuppance.

But in The Love Witch, she isn't seeking revenge for poor treatment. Any man who falls in her sight is going to get the same treatment.

I'm not saying that disliking this film is misogynistic. What I'm pointing out is that there are many horror films with anti-heroes or villains who are men and we watch them torment or rape or murder women, and those films just don't get some of the critiques that are leveled against The Love Witch.

Have you seen Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer? (Checking because I don't want to drop spoilers on anyone). If you have, I would say that there are some parallels between that film and The Love Witch. But would you ever say "I was frustrated because he never figured out that he didn't need to rape and murder women." No, because the character's demented and damaged worldview isn't something that the film wants to fix, it's merely something the film wants to explore. (And sidenote: could you imagine someone writing a review of it and complaining that they didn't get to see Michael Rooker's penis?)

I myself didn't think that the film was perfect. I think I gave it a 3.5/5 or a 4/5. I felt that the film brilliantly evoked that 60s B-movie look. But that's a double-edged sword because the deliberately stilted sequences and dialogue create some distance between the audience and the characters. But does the film accomplish what it set out to do? I think that for the most part it does.
I’d argue My Fair Lady was more then a specific character, but I get your point.*

I haven’t seen Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer yet, and yeah, complaining about the lack of nudity isn’t a legitimate crtitique, even for The Love Witch.
I get your point over the misogyny vs feminism treatment, but I’ve seen it go both ways. So really, I just go from film to film and don’t worry if I’m being consistent or not because it really depends on the movie. *
For Love Witch, I do think it took itself a tad too seriously considering it’s theme, love and her attempts to gain it and particularly the detectives accurate analysis he delivers towards her. Trying to be campy about it didn’t work, and really wasted a good performance by Ronson. My opinions on the film is that yes, i would have preferred she had some self realization about her because I never really viewed her as the “bad guy”, but rather she was just searching for someone to love her and was never able to find that without the help of a potion. She didn’t kill anyone purposely, but rather recklessly, with one big exception. I view her different from slashers who kill women because of their issues towards them, and quite purposely.

She wasn’t really evil, as opposed to misguided, and maybe altruistic.

[Takoma11]

I never really viewed her as the “bad guy”, but rather she was just searching for someone to love her and was never able to find that without the help of a potion. She didn’t kill anyone purposely, but rather recklessly, with one big exception. I view her different from slashers who kill women because of their issues towards them, and quite purposely.

She wasn’t really evil, as opposed to misguided, and maybe altruistic.

Huh. I mean, to me she is at the very least an anti-hero if not a straight-up villain.

She justifies her actions with a vocabulary of empowerment, but at the end of the day she is drugging people (negating their consent), betraying friends and acquaintances, and killing three people (even if one of them is an oopsie murder).

I think it's fine to sympathize with her and hope that she'll achieve some self-realization. But at the end of the day, that isn't the story the writer/director is telling. This is a story of someone following her own flawed, contradictory worldview on an inevitable downhill slide. She does have a moment of truth, but her reaction to it is not, um, positive or productive. Feminism (or this weird variation on feminism) is the framing device for how the character has developed her worldview.

[ThatDarnMKS]

Maniac is far from brilliant, but we’ll just have to disagree with that. The comparison to a Taxi Driver is laughable.
We are talking about the original I presume? I haven’t seen the remake.

I take your second point, but that can reversed back as well in my experience.
I don’t support misogyny, to be clear, before that enters anyone’s mind.

Edit: it should be noted that I’m pretty sure it was reviled back in the day for its deprivation of violence towards women as well, as were many slashers, so thinking back, the point doesn’t hold up as no one defended it, as much as you seem to, considering you think it’s a classic.
Saying stuff like "your comparison is laughable," especially when you're factually wrong, as even the casting of Spinell was motivated by his inclusion in Taxi Driver, makes you seem arrogant and ignorant in one fell swoop. May wanna chill with the blow hard attitude a bit.

As for it being reviled, it was controversial, certainly. As were many movies that are now considered classics (I think Maniac falls under the cult classic archetype). Pearl clutchers outraged by the graphic violence weren't confused by the film's depiction of misogynistic violence, they objected to the very nature of it being on film. Tak is discussing an analysis of the film. Nobody watches Maniac and thinks that Spinell needs someone to didactically explain that what he's doing is wrong. The film knows it and audiences know it, even the haters.

But go on with the condescension. It's a good look when basic comparisons are beyond your comprehension.

[mark f]

White on White (Théo Court, 2019) 2.5 6/10
Sangam (Raj Kapoor, 1964) 2.5 6/10
Youth Runs Wild (Mark Robson, 1944) 2 5/10
Shree 420 (Raj Kapoor, 1955) 2.5 6/10
http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwa9abOti71qmorsmo1_500.jpg
Romance and social commentary about class in a Bollywood musical with catchy songs.
The Twinkle in God's Eye (George Blair, 1955) 2.5 6/10
Delinquent Daughters (Albert Herman, 1944) 1.5+ 4.5/10
The Frontier (Oren Shai, 2015) 2.5 6/10
Summer of Soul (...Or, When the Revolution Could Not Be Televised) (Questlove, 2021) 3.5 7/10
https://media.breitbart.com/media/2021/01/wi/ap/29/sundance-film-festival-image-released-by-sundance-institute-scene-documentary-summer-of-soul-640x360.jpg
Among those performing at the 1969 Harlem Cultural Festival are Sly and the Family Stone. Combine that with a historical examination of the black community's thoughts and feelings now and at the time.
Nadia, Butterfly (Pascal Plante, 2020) 2.5 5.5/10
Flight That Disappeared (Reginald Le Borg, 1961) 2+ 5/10
Boy Slaves (P.J. Wolfson, 1939) 2.5 5.5/10
The Tomorrow War (Chris McKay, 2021) 2.5 6/10
https://i2.wp.com/i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/04/28/20/42337286-0-image-a-1_1619637345656.jpg?resize=634%2C262&ssl=1
Complicated sci-fi actioner about veteran Chris Pratt who tries to save his family and the world from aliens through time travel.
Being Natural (Tadashi Nagayama, 2019) 2.5 6/10
The Mayor of 44th Street (Alfred E. Green, 1942) 2.5 5.5/10
SoulMate (Derek Tsang, 2016) 2.5 6/10
Fragment of Seeking (Curtis Harrington, 1946) 2.5+ 6/10
https://harvardfilmarchive.org/public/upload/events/thumb/5ee7ac9f2b7d8.jpg?1592241311
Early Harrington surrealistic short about a weird young man (the director).
Fear Street Part 1: 1994 (Leigh Janiak, 2021) 2.5 6/10
Evil Nun (Multiple Directors, 2018) 2 5/10
Boys' Ranch (Roy Rowland, 1946) 2.5 6/10
No Sudden Move (Steven Soderbergh, 2021) 2.5 6/10
https://ic-cdn.flipboard.com/vox-cdn.com/3f32e0b1cb91e2c60284569df6a9d21367aa74ac/_medium.jpeg
Crooks Benicio Del Toro and Don Cheadle get in way over their heads when they get involved in a complex scheme in 1950s Los Angeles.

[Marco]

Another Year (2010)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/94/Another_year_poster.jpg/330px-Another_year_poster.jpg
Low key offering from Mike Leigh with a seemingly ideal couple dealing with workmates and friends who are in worse places than them. All the performances are spot on (particularly liked the wonderful David Bradley's monosyllabic introduction). It fell into twee as Leigh films often do but overall a nice snapshot of other lives without really being too interesting.

2.5

[Wyldesyde19]

Saying stuff like "your comparison is laughable," especially when you're factually wrong, as even the casting of Spinell was motivated by his inclusion in Taxi Driver, makes you seem arrogant and ignorant in one fell swoop. May wanna chill with the blow hard attitude a bit.

As for it being reviled, it was controversial, certainly. As were many movies that are now considered classics (I think Maniac falls under the cult classic archetype). Pearl clutchers outraged by the graphic violence weren't confused by the film's depiction of misogynistic violence, they objected to the very nature of it being on film. Tak is discussing an analysis of the film. Nobody watches Maniac and thinks that Spinell needs someone to didactically explain that what he's doing is wrong. The film knows it and audiences know it, even the haters.

But go on with the condescension. It's a good look when basic comparisons are beyond your comprehension.
Yeah, my remark wasn’t meant as a slight towards you so much as the comparison, but I do see the confusion. I do apologize for that. *
His inclusion in Taxi Driver being what lead to his casting doesn’t support your insistence on Maniac being like Taxi Driver, not in the least.
But as for your response, I do thank you for your exemplary example as well. Especially since I’ve seen more then a fair share of condescension from you on several occasions.

[Fabulous]

The Buddy Holly Story (1978)

3.5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/bx6eZlBOesFw8din6VGMiGpDvfF.jpg

[Wyldesyde19]

Huh. I mean, to me she is at the very least an anti-hero if not a straight-up villain.

She justifies her actions with a vocabulary of empowerment, but at the end of the day she is drugging people (negating their consent), betraying friends and acquaintances, and killing three people (even if one of them is an oopsie murder).

I think it's fine to sympathize with her and hope that she'll achieve some self-realization. But at the end of the day, that isn't the story the writer/director is telling. This is a story of someone following her own flawed, contradictory worldview on an inevitable downhill slide. She does have a moment of truth, but her reaction to it is not, um, positive or productive. Feminism (or this weird variation on feminism) is the framing device for how the character has developed her worldview.
Maybe a sympathetic villain. At least for me. And maybe that’s the problem I have with it. I felt the director didn’t tell the story well for how she intended it, and definitely could hav been handled differently. Maybe it’s because I did enjoy Ronson’s portrayal to the point that, yeah, I would have liked a different outcome considering the story.
Regardless of the intent, I wish it did delve deeper into her psyche.
But that would have been too deep for what she intended.

[Nausicaä]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/Babyteeth_%28film%29.jpg

2.5

Snooze factor = Zz


[Snooze Factor Ratings]:
Z = didn't nod off at all
Zz = nearly nodded off but managed to stay alert
Zzz = nodded off and missed some of the film but went back to watch what I missed
Zzzz = nodded off and missed some of the film but went back to watch what I missed but nodded off again at the same point and therefore needed to go back a number of times before I got through it...
Zzzzz = nodded off and missed some or the rest of the film but was not interested enough to go back over it

[Rockatansky]

Man, I wanted to like The Love Witch as its obviously a labour of love and Biller seems to like the same kind of films I do, but I found it a complete chore to watch. For every potentially incisive point the movie made on paper, it delivered it in a completely leaden manner. Every joke felt like it came with a bunch of citations to some fat gender studies textbook and landed with a thud. I wonder if Biller's aesthetic is a little too studied, as I found the stilted line delivery painful to listen to. I suppose you could hold that against its inspirations, but at their best, those movies moved with unusual, arresting rhythms. Biller is too busy showing her work for her movie to sing or for her jokes to land.


Glad people gelled to it, but probably one of my least favourite movies from the past decade.

[Rockatansky]

Enter the Ninja - 4

This is the first and my favorite of the three Golan-Globus ninja movies. This one's secret weapon - besides caltrops, of course - is its strong character development. I totally bought Cole and Frank's friendship and like how the wartime flashbacks enriched it. Also, your mileage may vary when it comes to sleaze - for me, the third movie has just enough while Revenge takes it too far - but this one is refreshingly free of it. Most importantly, though, the fight scenes are so much fun, and with the reliable "they can't take our land" story and character work, there is just enough of this icing on the cake. Sho Kosugi fans may be disappointed because he probably has the least screentime in this one, but he makes his time count; besides, he's why the opening credits are so awesome. These movies have no order anyway, but if you haven't seen any of them, I recommend saving this one for last. Oh, and if it's comic relief you want, you'll get it in my favorite character, the posh Mr. Parker.
Apparently Franco Nero was cast because he was in town for a film festival.*Ridiculous casting on paper, but he actually pulls off the role pretty well.*I assume most of the action scenes use doubles, but the movie does get good mileage out of his eyes for closeups.*

[Captain Terror]

Man, I wanted to like The Love Witch as its obviously a labour of love and Biller seems to like the same kind of films I do, but I found it a complete chore to watch. For every potentially incisive point the movie made on paper, it delivered it in a completely leaden manner. Every joke felt like it came with a bunch of citations to some fat gender studies textbook and landed with a thud. I wonder if Biller's aesthetic is a little too studied, as I found the stilted line delivery painful to listen to. I suppose you could hold that against its inspirations, but at their best, those movies moved with unusual, arresting rhythms. Biller is too busy showing her work for her movie to sing or for her jokes to land.


Glad people gelled to it, but probably one of my least favourite movies from the past decade.
Whenever The Love Witch is mentioned, I always recommend Biller's previous film Viva which I enjoyed more than TLW. (I see now that I gave both films identical ratings, so don't expect drastic differences or anything). Viva is a bit more ragged in a good way and I found Biller a more interesting presence than the star of TLW. Not that her acting is "better"; it's as deliberately stilted as everyone else, but again, just less polished. "Least favorite from the past decade" is pretty harsh so maybe she's just not your thing, but I do think Viva addresses some of your criticisms of TLW. Maybe.

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/00/MrsLowry%26SonSmall-min.jpg
By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61651664

Mrs Lowry & Son - (2019)

I have very recently been through a period that included looking after my poor old mother during the last few years of her life. Bedridden, cruelled by rheumatoid arthritis, emphysema, and heart attacks. Her large intestine removed. Her mind careening from lucidness to confusion and worse as she struggled for oxygen. But despite all of this, I had a close, loving relationship with this version of her. It so happens that Vanessa Redgrave's portrayal of L. S. Lowry's mother was so similar to my own that I can't help feel it's coloured my appreciation of Mrs Lowry & Son to the point where it will mean more to me than some others.

The film is set during a short time period - before renowned artist Laurence Stephen Lowry (played by Timothy Spall) had achieved much recognition in the world of painting, and before his mother had passed away. You can tell it was adapted from a play, as most of the film takes part in Mrs Lowry's bedroom - the rest of the house seems to be off-limits - but it takes advantage of being a film by giving us glimpses of Lowry scouring places such as Pendlebury for industrial scenes to paint. At times this takes him through more natural and beautiful landscapes, which he also appreciates yet doesn't feel the need to capture. His mother, who he very clearly loves a great deal, is probably the worst critic he ever had. She tries continually to dissuade him from painting, but at the first sign of an appreciation from outside their household, she begins to open herself up to this vocation of his. It is never a smooth road however.

Venessa Redgrave is terrific in this, and the story has an emotional balance that won't blacken your mood. Timothy Spall shines more during monologues to us, explaining directly what he feels. He holds his emotions in check for the most part with his mother, but on occasion her cruelty cuts deep and he's frighteningly wounded. The film plays briefly with cinematic flourishes such as capturing the faded sunlight on their feet as he lifts her into bed. An hour and a half pass in no time. As I say, this is a film which has a considerable amount of emotional impact for me - even Lowry's birthplace coincides with my mother's and I felt at home inside this story.

8/10

[ScannerDarkly]

3/10 The ending was hard to watch but i dont think the hour leading up to that made it any more shocking or emotional. Wasnt much of a film, the cinematography was trying but i think it was a miss and the long shots didnt really work for me.



https://resize-media.festival-cannes.com/fit-in/2560x1103/film_film/0002/11/373b6a8d272a7a812cd5be529b5a37d375a67f82.jpeg

[AgrippinaX]

Something can critique specific feminist concepts without being anti-feminist, which is what the Love Witch does. The protagonist is a negative example, a femme fatale, of what not to do, and specifically victimizes a much more "modern" woman.

‘Something’ for sure can, but I didn’t feel that was the case here, is all.

[xSookieStackhouse]

4.5
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/pv-target-images/fa34a18b6c0c05827190bfa37e44863b8581f33a27063e4d63cb83474837c383._RI_V_TTW_.jpg

[EsmagaSapos]

https://i.postimg.cc/NFrS3xK2/51-Hc-Xt-E0q-L-AC.jpg

5

The best black casting ever. Laughing, laughing, laughing since I was twelve and first saw it on the black screen.

[Torgo]

Apparently Franco Nero was cast because he was in town for a film festival.*Ridiculous casting on paper, but he actually pulls off the role pretty well.*I assume most of the action scenes use doubles, but the movie does get good mileage out of his eyes for closeups.*i don't remember seeing him in anything else. Looks like he was in his 40s at the time and he's famous for being in Westerns. Would that be like casting '60s-'70s era James Garner as the ninja?

[Fabulous]

The Gambler (1974)

3

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/6UcxfmIYvbhUQfEVY1Crx2ghxRV.jpg

[Wooley]

The In-Laws (1979)

3

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/cxEyQsb7o7SgRRSgv0d1XS5O6we.jpg

One of my all-time favorite movies.

[Wooley]

I would encourage you to give it another shot.

While I felt that the BBC version got increasingly cutesy (I watched the second season and couldn't take any more), the CBS version gets deeper and more complex as it goes. Holmes and Watson have interesting backstories that overlap in neat ways (thematically, not literally). I can't attest to the final seasons (I think I'm halfway through season 4?), but I feel like the first 3 are pretty solid.

I don't mean to be a contrarian, but I really cannot tolerate network television.
When I imagine what tortures one would have to lay upon me to break me, I just imagine my captors leaving me a in a room with 24-hour content alternating between network television and Bro Country. I wouldn't last a day.

[Wooley]

The Love Witch, 2016 (D)

A film about a witch, in what appears to be the 60s, using magic to seduce men.

There's traces of something like a Giallo in the movie's style, but it's very lazy. Either they realized how much effort it is to be on the entire movie they way Giallos used to be, or they just didn't get why any of it worked. The movie is shot mostly conventionally, with a few occasional stylised shots here and there. It's not cohesive or interesting, and it feels gimmicky.

I think they bet everything on the style, because there isn't much plot here to bolster the rest. The movie is pretty long at 2 hours, and involves a lot of conversations. It feels directionless. Either that or they really buried the point they were trying to make deep inside the film.

Lastly, and that might sound stupid, but here goes. The movie is about this really oversexed witch that wants to bone men to make them love her, but the two main witch ladies with speaking roles aren't really in in. There's 2 digits worth of extras showing full frontal, but the two leading witches won't even show nipples. And it's not like they don't get undressed. They do, but it's very perfunctory instead of commiting and going for the vibe. That took me out of it every time, and all I could think of is that they didn't find actors that would do everything they wanted.
Aw, bummer, I've only ever heard how good this movie is. Now you've given me doubt.
The run-time is the only reason I never watched it.

[Wooley]

Enter the Ninja - 4

This is the first and my favorite of the three Golan-Globus ninja movies. This one's secret weapon - besides caltrops, of course - is its strong character development. I totally bought Cole and Frank's friendship and like how the wartime flashbacks enriched it. Also, your mileage may vary when it comes to sleaze - for me, the third movie has just enough while Revenge takes it too far - but this one is refreshingly free of it. Most importantly, though, the fight scenes are so much fun, and with the reliable "they can't take our land" story and character work, there is just enough of this icing on the cake. Sho Kosugi fans may be disappointed because he probably has the least screentime in this one, but he makes his time count; besides, he's why the opening credits are so awesome. These movies have no order anyway, but if you haven't seen any of them, I recommend saving this one for last. Oh, and if it's comic relief you want, you'll get it in my favorite character, the posh Mr. Parker.

This is an old favorite of mine I revisited not long ago.
Basically, I'm planning to watch all the old Sho Kosugi movies. I did Pray For Death and Ninja III: The Domination in recent months.

[Torgo]

This is an old favorite of mine I revisited not long ago.
Basically, I'm planning to watch all the old Sho Kosugi movies. I did Pray For Death and Ninja III: The Domination in recent months.I've only seen him in the Golan-Globus movies, so I'll definitely check out Pray for Death as well. I've also been meaning to see Rage for Honor. Ooh, I see he's in the Rutger Hauer movie Blind Fury. That's a good a reason as any to bump it up in my queue.

Apparently, he has a walk-on role in The Godfather Part II!? If any of you eagle-eyed viewers spot him, let us know what scene he's in!

[Allaby]

Man of the World (1931) directed by Richard Wallace and starring Carole Lombard and William Powell. I like Lombard's performance, but I didn't really care for anyone else's. The story wasn't all that interesting. I did like the look of the film though. Worth watching once primarily for Lombard. My rating is a 3.

[Fabulous]

The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming (1966)

3

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/cr7yoBAdWUzJXPstff1p9rAjDnL.jpg

[Rockatansky]

i don't remember seeing him in anything else. Looks like he was in his 40s at the time and he's famous for being in Westerns. Would that be like casting '60s-'70s era James Garner as the ninja?

Aw man, you haven't seen Django? Will also highly recommend the psychological horror film A Quiet Place in the Country.


It's not quite as extreme as casting Garner, as Nero at least comes off as a bit worldly. You can believe he would have picked up martial arts at some point.

[Torgo]

Aw man, you haven't seen Django? Will also highly recommend the psychological horror film A Quiet Place in the Country.The Letterboxd shows him in a black cowboy outfit and wielding a chain gun. Sold!
If he had the same mustache that he had in Enter the Ninja, just looking at the picture would make your chest hair grow.

[Fabulous]

The Medusa Touch (1978)

3

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/7aY1ji2fVHVTAW9DjkpFvPMyLi9.jpg

[Allaby]

Thunder on the Hill (1951), directed by Douglas Sirk, starring Claudette Colbert and Ann Blyth. I enjoyed this film. Claudette Colbert did a good job as the nun trying to save a convicted murderer (Ann Blyth) from being executed. The story is interesting and there is a good mystery to it. Recommended to anyone who appreciates a quality film noir/mystery. My rating is 4.

[ThatDarnMKS]

Yeah, my remark wasn’t meant as a slight towards you so much as the comparison, but I do see the confusion. I do apologize for that. *
His inclusion in Taxi Driver being what lead to his casting doesn’t support your insistence on Maniac being like Taxi Driver, not in the least.
But as for your response, I do thank you for your exemplary example as well. Especially since I’ve seen more then a fair share of condescension from you on several occasions.
When was the last time you saw Maniac? Both are designed to place you in the subjective perspective of a disturbed, violent man that delves into the underbelly of New York. Both films explore their attempt and failure at creating a “normal” relationship that precipitates their downward spiral. There are even lines of dialogue lifted from Taxi Driver.

This is in stark contrast to classic slashers, which frame their narratives around the victims and operate akin to a “Three Little Indians” structure of being picked off one by one.

It’s clear that Lustig was trying to blend the two formulas and was trying to evoke Scorsese’s film as his primary influence. He’s not a filmmaker on the level of Scorsese but he is among the best low-budget directors to never break out and he still directs with a deft hand that captures the grime and scuzziness of the city and subject.

Still laughing?

[ThatDarnMKS]

‘Something’ for sure can, but I didn’t feel that was the case here, is all.
How is this film against the concept of feminism?

[ThatDarnMKS]

The Letterboxd shows him in a black cowboy outfit and wielding a chain gun. Sold!
If he had the same mustache that he had in Enter the Ninja, just looking at the picture would make your chest hair grow.
Franco Nero is one of the great Italian actors of that era and the spaghetti western and poliziotteschi genres. He is one of the few that rivals the imported actors with gravitas in the genre films.

His works with Corbucci and Castellari are all worth seeing. Django, Keoma and Street Law especially.

[AgrippinaX]

How is this film against the concept of feminism?

I felt that the very idea that Elaine is exclusively concerned with love (whatever that is) is playing into the most sexist of stereotypes, i.e. that women only care about romantic relationships. No matter how you spin it, even if, as Takoma says, for Elaine, love is about controlling men, the very idea that a woman’s life goal is to find love appears obviously antifeminist. To me, that is. It reminds me of 12-year-old schoolgirls in a dining hall whispering to each other, ‘But do you FANCY him? Well, do you fancy him then?’ Like it’s a must that someone should fancy someone.

I really wasn’t looking for a debate there. Then again, not sure what you mean by ‘against the concept of feminism’.

I’d be the first one to admit I don’t get films centring around ‘love’ in this all-encompassing way - hence the series You left a bizarre impression. I can never quite believe the MacGuffin is love.

[ThatDarnMKS]

I felt that the very idea that Elaine is exclusively concerned with love (whatever that is) is playing into the most sexist of stereotypes, i.e. that women only care about romantic relationships. No matter how you spin it, even if, as Takoma says, for Elaine, love is about controlling men, the very idea that a woman’s life goal is to find love appears obviously antifeminist. To me, that is. It reminds me of 12-year-old schoolgirls in a dining hall whispering to each other, ‘But do you FANCY him? Well, do you fancy him then?’ Like it’s a must that someone should fancy someone.

I really wasn’t looking for a debate there. Then again, not sure what you mean by ‘against the concept of feminism’.
I just find it curious that someone would call this film antifeminist.

I agree that Elaine being exclusively concerned with finding love isn’t feminist at all. But I think the film doesn’t align or agree with Elaine on virtually any of her choices or ideology. I could see calling Elaine anti feminist but the film is pretty anti Elaine.

[AgrippinaX]

I just find it curious that someone would call this film antifeminist.

I agree that Elaine being exclusively concerned with finding love isn’t feminist at all. But I think the film doesn’t align or agree with Elaine on virtually any of her choices or ideology. I could see calling Elaine anti feminist but the film is pretty anti Elaine.

That actually makes a lot of sense. I don’t know, is it anti-Elaine? The fact that she doesn’t succeed (does she?) doesn’t necessarily make it anti-Elaine. I think it’s useful to ask ourselves why Trish is presented as such as sad mess in contrast to Elaine’s knockout. There’s a bit of a sense that Trish is meant to be a little pathetic compared to Elaine, and Trish is the one with obvious feminist values. I feel like if the intention was for Trish to be the ‘authorial voice of reason’, she’d be a bit more credible/have more agency against Elaine.

Also, having unfortunately debated the topic a lot in recent years, I think ‘anti-feminist’ I refers to more than ‘against feminism’. It is an ideology in itself, a patriarchal/traditionalist/small-c ‘conservative’ look at relationships. It’s not necessarily so much about tearing down feminism.

[Wyldesyde19]

When was the last time you saw Maniac? Both are designed to place you in the subjective perspective of a disturbed, violent man that delves into the underbelly of New York. Both films explore their attempt and failure at creating a “normal” relationship that precipitates their downward spiral. There are even lines of dialogue lifted from Taxi Driver.

This is in stark contrast to classic slashers, which frame their narratives around the victims and operate akin to a “Three Little Indians” structure of being picked off one by one.

It’s clear that Lustig was trying to blend the two formulas and was trying to evoke Scorsese’s film as his primary influence. He’s not a filmmaker on the level of Scorsese but he is among the best low-budget directors to never break out and he still directs with a deft hand that captures the grime and scuzziness of the city and subject.

Still laughing?
I watched it about two or three years ago.
It seems you’re giving the film way too much credit. Much more then it really deserves.
No longer laughing. Just shaking my head. With a prolonged shrug of indifference.

[Rockatansky]

When was the last time you saw Maniac? Both are designed to place you in the subjective perspective of a disturbed, violent man that delves into the underbelly of New York. Both films explore their attempt and failure at creating a “normal” relationship that precipitates their downward spiral. There are even lines of dialogue lifted from Taxi Driver.

This is in stark contrast to classic slashers, which frame their narratives around the victims and operate akin to a “Three Little Indians” structure of being picked off one by one.

It’s clear that Lustig was trying to blend the two formulas and was trying to evoke Scorsese’s film as his primary influence. He’s not a filmmaker on the level of Scorsese but he is among the best low-budget directors to never break out and he still directs with a deft hand that captures the grime and scuzziness of the city and subject.

Still laughing?
I'll also add that while the level of grime is in part a result of the low budget production, having seen Lustig's pre-Maniac efforts, it's very much a deliberate artistic choice as well. The Violation of Claudia, despite the, uh, questionable title, is surprisingly elegant, like an explicit, low budget Belle du Jour. Will give that one a recommendation for more adventurous viewers.

[Rockatansky]

Also, tried looking for a gif of Joe Spinell laughing, but could only find close-ups of his contorted, sweaty, wide-eyed face with nary a hint of a smile. What a beautifully hideous man. Can't name many more actors whose ugliness has been as cinematically compelling.

[Takoma11]

One of my all-time favorite movies.

Serpentine!!

I don't mean to be a contrarian, but I really cannot tolerate network television.
When I imagine what tortures one would have to lay upon me to break me, I just imagine my captors leaving me a in a room with 24-hour content alternating between network television and Bro Country. I wouldn't last a day.

Fair enough. I enjoy procedurals/mysteries, and I thought that it did a good job of balancing the episode-by-episode mysteries and also the longer character/plot arcs. It did some fun stuff with the source material, both adhering to it and departing from it in a way that made certain elements unpredictable in a nice way.

If it's generally not your thing, cool. It's just that with many network shows I always feel it takes a few episodes to get its sea legs.

That actually makes a lot of sense. I don’t know, is it anti-Elaine? The fact that she doesn’t succeed (does she?) doesn’t necessarily make it anti-Elaine.

The film is anti-Elaine not in the sense that she fails in her mission, but in the sense that she is so obviously wrong-headed and selfish. She has crafted a desire and a world-view that are in opposition to each other, and she pursues her goals with little or no regard as to how her actions will harm (or kill!) others, male or female. She is narcissistic and demented. She is at best an anti-hero and at worst an outright villain. The only thing that complicates things (in a pleasant way, I think) is that the society that she is opposing--that of patriarchy--is also deeply messed up and demented in its own way.

it should be noted that I’m pretty sure it was reviled back in the day for its deprivation of violence towards women as well, as were many slashers, so thinking back, the point doesn’t hold up as no one defended it, as much as you seem to, considering you think it’s a classic.

I'm not saying that misogynistic films are allowed to slide and feminist films are critiqued. I'm saying that the criticism that the character didn't grow or that we didn't get to know them well enough is being applied to The Love Witch, but I have never seen it applied to a film where a male anti-hero/villain is the one running around wreaking havoc.

I also feel like the two critiques I most frequently hear of the film are oddly in opposition to each other. I'm not sure how a movie can be "just about style" and at the same time too serious about its themes.

Having seen the film, I totally get why it's polarizing. The pacing is weird (I liked it, but Rock obviously though it just dragged). There is a specific effect that comes from the stilted deliveries and on-the-nose dialogue that I mostly enjoyed, but I can see how it would be off-putting. I don't mind those criticisms. It's the "it only cares about style" or "Not enough nudity" type criticisms that bug me.

[GulfportDoc]

...
Summer of Soul (...Or, When the Revolution Could Not Be Televised) (Questlove, 2021) rating_3_5 7/10

Among those performing at the 1969 Harlem Cultural Festival are Sly and the Family Stone. Combine that with a historical examination of the black community's thoughts and feelings now and at the time.



About a week after Sly's show in Harlem, he was one of the acts invited to the Newport Jazz Festival (July, 1969). Why, I don't know. We were on the bill too (Zappa/Mothers). Most everyone was disgusted with him because he tried to incite a riot and have the fans tear down the fences at the festival. I'm sure he was on drugs, but the guy was a real a**hole.

[Wyldesyde19]

Serpentine!!



Fair enough. I enjoy procedurals/mysteries, and I thought that it did a good job of balancing the episode-by-episode mysteries and also the longer character/plot arcs. It did some fun stuff with the source material, both adhering to it and departing from it in a way that made certain elements unpredictable in a nice way.

If it's generally not your thing, cool. It's just that with many network shows I always feel it takes a few episodes to get its sea legs.



The film is anti-Elaine not in the sense that she fails in her mission, but in the sense that she is so obviously wrong-headed and selfish. She has crafted a desire and a world-view that are in opposition to each other, and she pursues her goals with little or no regard as to how her actions will harm (or kill!) others, male or female. She is narcissistic and demented. She is at best an anti-hero and at worst an outright villain. The only thing that complicates things (in a pleasant way, I think) is that the society that she is opposing--that of patriarchy--is also deeply messed up and demented in its own way.



I'm not saying that misogynistic films are allowed to slide and feminist films are critiqued. I'm saying that the criticism that the character didn't grow or that we didn't get to know them well enough is being applied to The Love Witch, but I have never seen it applied to a film where a male anti-hero/villain is the one running around wreaking havoc.

I also feel like the two critiques I most frequently hear of the film are oddly in opposition to each other. I'm not sure how a movie can be "just about style" and at the same time too serious about its themes.

Having seen the film, I totally get why it's polarizing. The pacing is weird (I liked it, but Rock obviously though it just dragged). There is a specific effect that comes from the stilted deliveries and on-the-nose dialogue that I mostly enjoyed, but I can see how it would be off-putting. I don't mind those criticisms. It's the "it only cares about style" or "Not enough nudity" type criticisms that bug me.
That’s fair, but I wasn’t complaining about the lack of nudity, although I kbow it isn’t directed at me as such.

It’s style isn’t the problem so much as to me, it was a tad too serious for how it represented itself.

I doesn’t find it boring, like Rock, because, again…..Ronson. I wish we could have gotten more insight into her life with the cult.

[GulfportDoc]

Mrs Lowry & Son - (2019)

I have very recently been through a period that included looking after my poor old mother during the last few years of her life. Bedridden, cruelled by rheumatoid arthritis, emphysema, and heart attacks. Her large intestine removed. Her mind careening from lucidness to confusion and worse as she struggled for oxygen. But despite all of this, I had a close, loving relationship with this version of her.

...
God bless you for caring for your mom until the end. I'm sure she was grateful that you tended to her.

[Fabulous]

The Player (1992)

3.5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/tKyxF6ZyxF65CcJKBKId1VavpGP.jpg

[Rockatansky]

Serpentine!
The benefits are terrific. The trick is not to get killed. That's really the key to the benefit program.

[Takoma11]

The benefits are terrific. The trick is not to get killed. That's really the key to the benefit program.

Peter Falk is a damn treasure.

[Rockatansky]

Peter Falk is a damn treasure.
Oh man, every line he says is comedy gold. Truly an all-time comedy performance.

[Takoma11]

Oh man, every line he says is comedy gold. Truly an all-time comedy performance.

Between Columbo and Wings of Desire the man lives in my heart.

Also "If the car's gone . . . I'll give you another cookie anyway. 'Cause I love ya."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACIjEqUG5oE

[ThatDarnMKS]

I watched it about two or three years ago.
It seems you’re giving the film way too much credit. Much more then it really deserves.
No longer laughing. Just shaking my head. With a prolonged shrug of indifference.
And I’d say you’re not giving it nearly enough credit.

I’ll take that shrug as passive admission that you were wrong about the comparison to Taxi Driver. I accept.

[ThatDarnMKS]

That actually makes a lot of sense. I don’t know, is it anti-Elaine? The fact that she doesn’t succeed (does she?) doesn’t necessarily make it anti-Elaine. I think it’s useful to ask ourselves why Trish is presented as such as sad mess in contrast to Elaine’s knockout. There’s a bit of a sense that Trish is meant to be a little pathetic compared to Elaine, and Trish is the one with obvious feminist values. I feel like if the intention was for Trish to be the ‘authorial voice of reason’, she’d be a bit more credible/have more agency against Elaine.

Also, having unfortunately debated the topic a lot in recent years, I think ‘anti-feminist’ I refers to more than ‘against feminism’. It is an ideology in itself, a patriarchal/traditionalist/small-c ‘conservative’ look at relationships. It’s not necessarily so much about tearing down feminism.
Elaine is a classic femme fatale. Her appearance and sex appeal are in her arsenal but the film portrays her and her ideals as deeply flawed (to put it lightly) and doesn’t seem to agree with any of her assertions.*

Trish isn’t used as a paragon and the film is all the better for that. The film isn’t trying to sell an ideology as being “correct,” as it’s not propaganda. But she is clearly intended to be more relatable in her scoffing at the idea Elaine spouts about giving men whatever they want, whenever they they want it, including constant sex.*

Instead, Trish is used as another victim of desiring to be the seductress. The film is a take down of virtually everything Elaine stand for and how much we desire people like her. The movie flat out makes loving her lethal.

Antifeminism literally means against feminism. Not really sure where to go on that note if there isn’t agreement.

[Wyldesyde19]

And I’d say you’re not giving it nearly enough credit.

I’ll take that shrug as passive admission that you were wrong about the comparison to Taxi Driver. I accept.


I did do a little bit of reading into it does seem I was in error on missing the comparison. So let me extend the apology, since it seemed like this became personal for you, which wasn’t my intention. I would like to point out that ad hominems were uncalled for earlier. This was on both of us, as well when I responded to yours with a similar response.
*
This wasn’t about being “right”. Even so, I should have measured my response a bit better with the “laughable” remark. Because I phrased it in such a way that it lead to that conclusion.

I still didn’t care for the film, but maybe I should revisit it, keeping in mind the info you’ve given. Thinking on it, from what I remember, I think the comparison is still tenuous at best, but a rewatch might confirm that.

Fair enough?

[ThatDarnMKS]

I did do a little bit of reading into it does seem I was in error on missing the comparison. So let me extend the apology, since it seemed like this became personal for you, which wasn’t my intention. I would like to point out that ad hominems were uncalled for earlier. This was on both of us, as well when I responded to yours with a similar response.
*
This wasn’t about being “right”. Even so, I should have measured my response a bit better with the “laughable” remark. Because I phrased it in such a way that it lead to that conclusion.

I still didn’t care for the film, but maybe I should revisit it, keeping in mind the info you’ve given. Thinking on it, from what I remember, I think the comparison is still tenuous at best, but a rewatch might confirm that.

Fair enough?
Aye. Tis fair enough indeed.

You should also check out the remake. It’s among the more effective remakes out there and is stylistically worlds apart from the original. Feels more like something influenced by Refn than Lustig and Elijah Wood gives a pretty surprising performance.

[Wyldesyde19]

Aye. Tis fair enough indeed.

You should also check out the remake. It’s among the more effective remakes out there and is stylistically worlds apart from the original. Feels more like something influenced by Refn than Lustig and Elijah Wood gives a pretty surprising performance.

I’ve heard of the remake, and I’ll probably catch it sometime after I rewatch the original.
Beyond The Black Rainbow is tap for tonight, and I’ve really been looking forward to that.

[ThatDarnMKS]

I’ve heard of the remake, and I’ll probably catch it sometime after I rewatch the original.
Beyond The Black Rainbow is tap for tonight, and I’ve really been looking forward to that.
I disliked BTBR the first time I watched it. My love for Mandy pushed me to rewatch it. I still think it’s got issues with pacing and narrative but I did enjoy it a good deal more. Just be prepared for a fairly standard horror/sci fi narrative to be told in the slowest, most garishly stylish way possible.

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/Cine_Quo_vado_singolo.jpg
By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49008607

Quo vado? - (2016) - Italy - (aka Where Am I Going?) - rewatch

I found Quo vado? to be just as humorous the second time around as the first. To say Italians are fond of Luca Pasquale Medici's Checco Zalone is quite the understatement. This film broke Italian box office records, but many of the records they were breaking included other Zalone movies. An extremely funny character.

6/10

[AgrippinaX]

´
Instead, Trish is used as another victim of desiring to be the seductress. The film is a take down of virtually everything Elaine stand for and how much we desire people like her. The movie flat out makes loving her lethal.

Yet she survives and can go on doing what she’s doing till the end of time.

Antifeminism literally means against feminism. Not really sure where to go on that note if there isn’t agreement.

If you want to be simplistic, sure. As was demonstrated during the ‘nepotism’ discussions, vastly diverging definitions exist for all these concepts.

Even ardent feminists disagree passionately on what feminism itself is (see second wave, third wave, TERFS, ad nauseum, ad infinitum), so saying antifeminism is an opposition to feminism is simply not saying anything at all. Some feminists would disagree that they are even for full gender equality.

I quite like this statement (which was applied to feminists where I got it from): “Activists and thinkers in both camps have sought to control the field of discourse by defining their opponents, while resisting definition themselves.”

Antifeminism, by contrast, posits that there are inherent biological and sociological differences between men and women which shouldn’t be ignored and should be used as a basis for shaping policy. Antifeminism also rejects the idea that women in any way have it ‘worse’. In many ways, antifeminism is actually a much better defined thing than feminism itself, which is why it’s simply unreasonable to see it as an ‘opposition to feminism’ and nothing more. To this end, there is not even yet scholarship that looks at international antifeminist mobilisation through the backlash framework. (Yes, I have references). Which would have made sense, you know, if it had been just ‘against feminism’.

[AgrippinaX]

It's the "it only cares about style" or "Not enough nudity" type criticisms that bug me.

Ha, oh, come on! I find myself levelling this charge against so many films in this sexless PG Disney-Netflixverse we’re living in. :)

[ThatDarnMKS]

Yet she survives and can go on doing what she’s doing till the end of time.



If you want to be simplistic, sure. As was demonstrated during the ‘nepotism’ *discussions, vastly diverging definitions exist for all these concepts.

Even ardent feminists disagree passionately on what feminism itself is (see second wave, third wave, TERFS, ad nauseum, ad infinitum), so saying antifeminism is an opposition to feminism is simply not saying anything at all. Some feminists would disagree that they are even for full gender equality.

I quite like this statement (which was applied to feminists where I got it from): “Activists and thinkers in both camps have sought to control the field of discourse by defining their opponents, while resisting definition themselves.”

Antifeminism, by contrast, posits that there are inherent biological and sociological differences between men and women which shouldn’t be ignored and should be used as a basis of shaping policy. Antifeminism also rejects the idea that women in any way have it ‘worse’. In many ways, antifeminism is actually a much better defined thing than feminism itself, which is why it’s simply unreasonable to see it as an ‘opposition to feminism’ and nothing more. To this end, there is not even yet scholarship that looks at international antifeminist mobilisation through the backlash framework. (Yes, I have references). Which would have made sense, you know, if it had been just ‘against feminism’.
And how does the Love Witch embody this concept?

[AgrippinaX]

And how does the Love Witch embody this concept?

You seem to think that you and I are in an exam-type situation here…

I already commented on that above in one of my first posts.

[ThatDarnMKS]

You seem to think that you and I are in an exam-type situation here…

I already commented on that above in one of my first posts.
No exam. I just like to ask for clarification on claims that don’t seem to make sense to me. Keeps me from making assumptions.

Your prescribed definition doesn’t seem to align with your previous description of the Love Witch.

[AgrippinaX]

It’s not necessarily appropriate to apply the exact same constructs to discussing film that are applied to sociological debates about feminism. In the above I argued exclusively against the statement that anti-feminism is “literally” about rejecting feminism, my reason being that to posit that you in the very least need to define feminism first.

The reason I think The Love Witch is antifeminist is a bit like the debate around The Hunt back when it got pulled. I don’t know if you’ve seen it, but all sorts of people, Donald Trump included, dished out ire on that film because of its premise that liberals are hunting conservatives for sport. That was interpreted as anti-conservative, and as evidence that dehumanising conservatives has become normalised. But if you actually watch it, it becomes obvious that it is pro-conservative, and the above is used to portray the liberals as “animals”. Yet many people continue to view it as anti-conservative, because that’s how the basic premise comes off.

I feel there is a bit of a similar situation with The Love Witch. Intended though it may be as feminist critique, I think it comes off as antifeminist because you may well find yourself rooting for Elaine. It may well get some people thinking that the “nostalgic” version of femininity Elaine embodies is not bad at all. Anticipating the joke about “and then the man dies”, I would argue that’s not the key thing here. All the other female characters in the film, feminist or not, are openly jealous of her appeal.

On a personal level, she is self-sufficient, presumably lives off making her soap and cooks like a pro chef. This suggests that a woman can embody sexist stereotypes and actively enjoy it, rather than suffer from it. She maybe suffers when it comes to finding a man, but there is no sense that she suffers from putting on all that makeup et etc, she likes it. There is no Orphan-like scene where she gets fed up with herself sand smears her makeup over her face and “chills in sweats”. This is where “there is no definition of ‘feminism’” comes in, because some feminists would say it’s all about her choice, but I would say that the idea that she chooses to always wear heels and look like she’s on a night out is against the idea that women want to be liberated.

It is also antifeminist because it demonstrates that the sexist-stereotypical woman is exactly what men want. Whatever-his-name-is is quickly turned off Trish once Elaine is in the picture.

Sure, the men all die, and it doesn’t last, but except for one example, we are shown that it is she that discards them. They continue to worship her to the point that it disgusts her (as with the guy who gets whiny in bed). I feel that even if she is a villain, and even if she doesn’t succeed, that puts forth a very specific worldview in which exaggerated femininity and subservience are valued by men, and where no man willingly chooses to be with “a feminist” (Trish) if he’s got a choice. That would have been the most obvious move if it were to be an overtly feminist film: as with those abysmal Netflix flicks called “Obsession” and the like, you could have the ugly wife at home that the man comes back to despite having the option of being with Elaine. We don’t get that. Whether or not Elaine herself is happy or successful is irrelevant.

In addition, much though some reviews make of the idea that Elaine behaves the way she does exclusively to get a man, I don’t think so. I think it is simply her philosophy. She applies the same standards to herself when she is alone. We do not once see her with a bed head and no makeup when she is alone. She lives and breathes and embodies antifeminist/sexist stereotypes not because she wants to get a man, but equally because she likes it. Now, sure, some people would argue that that’s the essence of feminism (women do what they like), but again, this is hotly debated. I would argue that the vast majority of feminist scholars/thinkers view the attributes Elaine has such as heavy makeup and the endless quest for self-perfection as relics of oppression and patriarchy. But she keeps at it and the very idea that women would choose to endure discomfort to look this way is antifeminist.

Even if she doesn’t succeed in getting a man per se, we see that her method of “existence” is perfectly viable. It would be an overtly feminist film if said men pointedly refused to engage with her and stayed loyal to their Trishes. Basically, as with The Hunt, whatever the intent, I feel it comes off as antifeminist.

But, as ever, this is my opinion, and unlike with some other discussions, I think this type of discussion will always be coloured by personal views/beliefs. Which is why I wrote, ‘I read it as anti-feminist’ and not ‘IT IS anti-feminist’. In fact, I would argue that is the case very often and that’s normal.

[xSookieStackhouse]

4.5
https://www.arthipo.com/image/cache/catalog/poster/movie/1-758/pfilm23-23-film-the-sixth-sense-2-1000x1000.jpg

[ScarletLion]

'Songs my brothers taught me' (2015)

https://64.media.tumblr.com/53580d1fe49d43e8d680488dc2590d3a/tumblr_py9f18uVt81r1spwro4_250.gif

Chloe Zhao makes beautiful films. No idea how she gets such natural performances from non actors. Maybe they're just not acting in the first place. This is such a tender, sweet film that mixes coming of age, geographical / social problems with belonging, life choices and love. Johnny is at a crossroads in life as he wonders whether to leave the reservation he lives on in South Dakota. He's very close to his young sister who is angered at the thought of him leaving her and her mum.

Joshua James Richards' photography is as stunning here as it is in 'Nomadland', and anyone who enjoyed that film or 'The Rider' should definitely seek this one out. Although this film is slightly predictable, it doesn't matter as the journey is so wonderful to watch unfold. Zhao's films have an almost spiritual feel to them, there's a strange connection to the landscape, community and characters that we see on screen.

8.4/10

4

[pahaK]

Sator (2019)
3
It took me days to decide the rating but went with the higher one in the end. A slow-burn and little artsy indie horror that people seem to (rightfully, I'd say) compare to VVitch and Hagazussa. It nails the atmosphere but doesn't really deliver storywise. I love the effort, though.

--
The 8th Night (2021)
2
A Korean horror or dark fantasy that is a mess. The first half is paced like an hour-long previously happened, and the second half is cliched and unrewarding.

[AgrippinaX]

Sator (2019)
3
It took me days to decide the rating but went with the higher one in the end. A slow-burn and little artsy indie horror that people seem to (rightfully, I'd say) compare to VVitch and Hagazussa. It nails the atmosphere but doesn't really deliver storywise. I love the effort, though.

Wonder how I missed that one. Need to check it out.

[Siddon]

https://www.sidewalkfest.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/werewolves-within-.jpeg



(WOKE) Werewolves Within(2021)


Basically just watch Clue, it's like most films today with lazy writing but I will give credit the black lead has a personality. The problem with the film is that many of the side characters are just lame and the third act is sadly uninspired. But the film has some strong characters and the pacing is pretty good. I would recommend watching the Wolf of Snow Hollow which covers the same subject matter but is better shot, acted and made.

2.5

[Takoma11]

I disliked BTBR the first time I watched it. My love for Mandy pushed me to rewatch it. I still think it’s got issues with pacing and narrative but I did enjoy it a good deal more. Just be prepared for a fairly standard horror/sci fi narrative to be told in the slowest, most garishly stylish way possible.

I felt incredibly let-down by Beyond the Black Rainbow, and I wasn't necessarily expecting anything amazing. I just felt like the pacing was off and the story didn't go anywhere satisfying. I loved Mandy, but it didn't inspire me to revisit Black Rainbow. If anything, it made the thought of a rewatch feel incredibly arduous.

On a personal level, she is self-sufficient, presumably lives off making her soap and cooks like a pro chef. This suggests that a woman can embody sexist stereotypes and actively enjoy it, rather than suffer from it. She maybe suffers in oven, but there is no sense that she suffers from putting on all that makeup et etc, she likes it. There is no Orphan-like scene where she gets fed up with herself sand smears her makeup over her faces and “chills in sweats”. This is where “there is no definition of ‘feminism’” comes in, because some feminists would say it’s all about her choice, but I would say that the idea that she chooses to always wear heels and look like she’s on a night out is against the idea that women want to be liberated.

But . . . she is (1) deeply, incurably unhappy and (2) a horrible, horrible person.

Yes, she looks gorgeous and her makeup and clothing is drool-worthy. But if someone came away from this film being like "Wow, she really had her life together! Jealous!!", I would say they have very poor comprehension. That would be like coming away from American Psycho thinking "Yeah, he had a few problems, but his body was on point and that apartment was banging!"

[AgrippinaX]

But . . . she is (1) deeply, incurably unhappy and (2) a horrible, horrible person.

Yes, she looks gorgeous and her makeup and clothing is drool-worthy. But if someone came away from this film being like "Wow, she really had her life together! Jealous!!", I would say they have very poor comprehension. That would be like coming away from American Psycho thinking "Yeah, he had a few problems, but his body was on point and that apartment was banging!"

I mean, I have thought pretty much word to word that about American Psycho, especially with friends in investment banking circles - and so do they, at the time it was a running joke… same with The Wolf of Wall Street - they’re often psychopaths, but at least they’ve got a yacht/Lambo to shipwreck/crash. Don’t see anything odd about this response at all.

So to me that’s a perfectly possible reaction. The stuff about ‘poor comprehension’ is…. Loaded. I’ve always found it amusing how some creators think they can predict the response to their ideas/characters a 100 per cent. Same goes for critics. You and I were discussing Holmes just a few days ago, who continues to be perceived very differently than the author intended. I don’t see why an investment banking intern wouldn’t be jealous of Patrick’s apartment or an aspiring influencer appreciative of Elaine’s looks and lifestyle. If you set aside the witchcraft, many women live pretty much exactly like she does, engaging in constant manipulation - and many men too. It can even be a job. I wouldn’t even be so sure that they’re all so terribly unhappy.

Yes, she is a horrible person, so what? Walter White is a horrible person, does that make him any less of an alpha male?

P.S. I’m sorry, forgot you haven’t seen it! Same can be applied to any character who is a horrible person but nevertheless is getting along fine. For example, Daniel in There Will Be Blood. He may not be ecstatically happy every minute of the day, but why such a focus on happiness, who is happy, anyway? Daniel has reached the top of his profession and has a ****load of money, that suggests his method of existence ‘works’.

You know how in one discussion you said to me that even if my intention is not to show kids how to shoot heroin, that’s what I’m doing if a film includes a scene like that? Well, same applies above, if you’re showing me Patrick’s gorgeous apartment or Elaine’s gorgeous body, I’m within my rights to think, ‘Damn! Good for you, guys’.

[Thief]

I disliked BTBR the first time I watched it. My love for Mandy pushed me to rewatch it. I still think it’s got issues with pacing and narrative but I did enjoy it a good deal more. Just be prepared for a fairly standard horror/sci fi narrative to be told in the slowest, most garishly stylish way possible.

I felt incredibly let-down by Beyond the Black Rainbow, and I wasn't necessarily expecting anything amazing. I just felt like the pacing was off and the story didn't go anywhere satisfying. I loved Mandy, but it didn't inspire me to revisit Black Rainbow. If anything, it made the thought of a rewatch feel incredibly arduous.


I really didn't mind the pace at all. I felt that it added to that eerie, "gets-under-your-skin" vibe that's cemented by the visuals and the score. For me, it was a sensory experience first and foremost. I dug it immensely, whereas Mandy (which I liked) more or less vanished from my mind.

[Wooley]

i don't remember seeing him in anything else. Looks like he was in his 40s at the time and he's famous for being in Westerns. Would that be like casting '60s-'70s era James Garner as the ninja?

He's also in our recently discussed Force 10 From Navarone and, of course, the glorious The Visitor.

[Wooley]

Serpentine!!



Fair enough. I enjoy procedurals/mysteries, and I thought that it did a good job of balancing the episode-by-episode mysteries and also the longer character/plot arcs. It did some fun stuff with the source material, both adhering to it and departing from it in a way that made certain elements unpredictable in a nice way.

If it's generally not your thing, cool. It's just that with many network shows I always feel it takes a few episodes to get its sea legs.



The film is anti-Elaine not in the sense that she fails in her mission, but in the sense that she is so obviously wrong-headed and selfish. She has crafted a desire and a world-view that are in opposition to each other, and she pursues her goals with little or no regard as to how her actions will harm (or kill!) others, male or female. She is narcissistic and demented. She is at best an anti-hero and at worst an outright villain. The only thing that complicates things (in a pleasant way, I think) is that the society that she is opposing--that of patriarchy--is also deeply messed up and demented in its own way.



I'm not saying that misogynistic films are allowed to slide and feminist films are critiqued. I'm saying that the criticism that the character didn't grow or that we didn't get to know them well enough is being applied to The Love Witch, but I have never seen it applied to a film where a male anti-hero/villain is the one running around wreaking havoc.

I also feel like the two critiques I most frequently hear of the film are oddly in opposition to each other. I'm not sure how a movie can be "just about style" and at the same time too serious about its themes.

Having seen the film, I totally get why it's polarizing. The pacing is weird (I liked it, but Rock obviously though it just dragged). There is a specific effect that comes from the stilted deliveries and on-the-nose dialogue that I mostly enjoyed, but I can see how it would be off-putting. I don't mind those criticisms. It's the "it only cares about style" or "Not enough nudity" type criticisms that bug me.

Serpentine, Shel! ;)

[Wooley]

Oh man, every line he says is comedy gold. Truly an all-time comedy performance.

It's true. I think his part of the movie is one of the funniest performances I can think of. And I actually like Arkin's straight-man, Shel, a lot. He's so reasonable.

[Wooley]

https://www.sidewalkfest.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/werewolves-within-.jpeg



(WOKE) Werewolves Within(2021)


Basically just watch Clue, it's like most films today with lazy writing but I will give credit the black lead has a personality. The problem with the film is that many of the side characters are just lame and the third act is sadly uninspired. But the film has some strong characters and the pacing is pretty good. I would recommend watching the Wolf of Snow Hollow which covers the same subject matter but is better shot, acted and made.

2.5
I really liked Wolf Of Snow Hollow.
And believe me, I am the Werewolf Police.

[Takoma11]

I mean, I have thought pretty much word to word that about American Psycho, especially with friends in investment banking circles - and so do they, at the time it was a running joke… same with The Wolf of Wall Street - they’re often psychopaths, but at least they’ve got a yacht/Lambo to shipwreck/crash. Don’t see anything odd about this response at all.

So to me that’s a perfectly possible reaction. The stuff about ‘poor comprehension’ is…. Loaded. I’ve always found it amusing how some creators think they can predict the response to their ideas/characters a 100 per cent. Same goes for critics. You and I were discussing Holmes just a few days ago, who continues to be perceived very differently than the author intended. I don’t see why an investment banking intern wouldn’t be jealous of Patrick’s apartment or an aspiring influencer appreciative of Elaine’s looks and lifestyle. If you set aside the witchcraft, many women live pretty much exactly like she does, engaging in constraint manipulation - and many men too. It can even be a job. I wouldn’t even be so sure that they’re all so terribly unhappy.

But, again, Elaine is unhappy. And a murderer.

Of course it is possible to envy aspects of the life of a villainous character. One of the delights of an anti-hero lead is that they get to do things that would be out of bounds to most "decent" people. Yes, Elaine's clothing and makeup and body are on point. But I think that taking that portrayal as an endorsement is a different kettle of fish. Same with American Psycho.

Obviously a viewer can interpret a film any way they see fit. I suppose someone could watch American Psycho and be like "Wow, what a great endorsement of that lifestyle!". But I think that doing so means ignoring a lot of really blatant signals (like, you know, the murders) that these people are not meant as role models. If anything, films like this serve as an examination of the consequences (albeit exaggerated consequences) of such lifestyles.

I just go back again and again to the fact that Elaine isn't happy. A viewer has the right to see her life as enviable, and to think that the film's portrayal of her lifestyle is an embrace of "traditionally feminine roles". But she isn't living a satisfying life, and she's hurting a ton of people along the way.

[AgrippinaX]

But, again, Elaine is unhappy. And a murderer.

Of course it is possible to envy aspects of the life of a villainous character. One of the delights of an anti-hero lead is that they get to do things that would be out of bounds to most "decent" people. Yes, Elaine's clothing and makeup and body are on point. But I think that taking that portrayal as an endorsement is a different kettle of fish. Same with American Psycho.

Obviously a viewer can interpret a film any way they see fit. I suppose someone could watch American Psycho and be like "Wow, what a great endorsement of that lifestyle!". But I think that doing so means ignoring a lot of really blatant signals (like, you know, the murders) that these people are not meant as role models. If anything, films like this serve as an examination of the consequences (albeit exaggerated consequences) of such lifestyles.

I just go back again and again to the fact that Elaine isn't happy. A viewer has the right to see her life as enviable, and to think that the film's portrayal of her lifestyle is an embrace of "traditionally feminine roles". But she isn't living a satisfying life, and she's hurting a ton of people along the way.

Sure, they’re both unhappy. But I suppose then I, in turn, go back to the idea that happiness is relative, if at all possible, and that ‘good’ guys don’t tend to end up that happy in postmodern films, either, so how did we even get to this stage of the discussion? A character being happy ‘in the end’ doesn’t make the film an endorsement of their lifestyle (see, I don’t know, Hannibal (I would argue they fall off the cliff rather happily), nor does the character being miserable/tragically dying in the end mean the film has been trying to bring them down/show them to be ‘bad’ (see Million Dollar Baby).

Anyway, my original point is, as per The Hunt, that even if this is not The Love Witch’s intention, it’s quite possible that a certain type of woman in the influencer generation take her as a role model. What the film definitely is not, in my view, is remotely feminist. Unless we argue that you’re meant to root for Trish, which I just don’t find convincing.

[Rockatansky]

It's true. I think his part of the movie is one of the funniest performances I can think of. And I actually like Arkin's straight-man, Shel, a lot. He's so reasonable.

I think one of the reasons they play so well off each other is that Falk acts as such a warm, reassuring presence throughout the movie. It of context, what he says would be perfectly reasonable. If you'd just hear him out, everything will make sense.


If course, Arkin reacts as he does because in context... holy jeez.