View Full Version : Rate The Last Movie You Saw
Takoma11
09-07-21, 04:55 PM
Well, you definitely liked it a lot more than me.
For all the good, I just thought the negative, particularly the final act as you mention, which felt lost and shoehorned and dissonant and probably a few other not-so-great adjectives to me, was heavy enough to bring it down to a movie that I will probably never want to invest that much time in again. Like, if it was an hour shorter - which maybe it should have been - I might go back and re-watch parts for all the good they had but, well honestly, as a film overall the narrative did not work for me. Not the overall narrative and not several individual parts of the narrative. Despite all the things I liked about it, the cinematography, the pacing, the acting, the design... the narrative was just a slog for me.
I guess, to riff off of what you said, despite assembling an impressive filmmaking team, if they were gonna have the nerve to make a sequel to Blade Runner... they should have had a better script.
I thought that the way that it portrayed both a crisis of self and a crisis of purpose was pretty compelling. But at nearly three hours long, if you aren't vibing with it, I can see not liking it that much. I thought that the visuals and the performances made up for most of the deficits in the writing.
And maybe most importantly, I liked that it didn't ruin anything about the original. The way that they extended the stories of all the original characters felt correct to me.
xSookieStackhouse
09-07-21, 07:05 PM
I was a pretty big fan of this.
the movie or the actors?
I thought that the way that it portrayed both a crisis of self and a crisis of purpose was pretty compelling. But at nearly three hours long, if you aren't vibing with it, I can see not liking it that much. I thought that the visuals and the performances made up for most of the deficits in the writing.
And maybe most importantly, I liked that it didn't ruin anything about the original. The way that they extended the stories of all the original characters felt correct to me.
This is where we would sort of differ. Not too too much, but enough.
I agree with your first paragraph except that the script was problematic enough to drag the movie down for me to a B at best, probably a B-, and now it's a B- that's nearly three hours long and I just don't have the attention span for that.
But I thought whatever was happening with the script and Harrison Ford and Jared Leto and then the big surprise (which wasn't) in that final act was just a huge stumble and enough of one to drag the movie down to that B-. And also, honestly, to mess with the legacy of the first film, not too much, but just a touch.
Before the movie was even over I wondered about Leto's character, did he even really need to be in this movie or was it just that the crisis of self/purpose the film was riding on wasn't enough for the studio or somebody and they had to inject a full-on mustache-twirler late in the game to give a huge exposition dump about a story that didn't make that much sense and wasn't the story of our main character, and then there had to be an action scene with crazy killer replicate lady and the car and the water or whatever the hell that whole mess was, really just straining any good faith I felt the movie had and that I was giving to the movie. I really think that whatever Leto dumped in that one scene was probably not necessary at best and was like an anvil to a man treading water at worst. Because, let's be honest, the beautiful movie was seriously treading water by the 2h 15m mark.
I would certainly agree with a defender of the film that it had to go somewhere (because it really wasn't going anywhere), I just wonder if it really needed to go to a ham-fisted tie-in to the original as explained by The Worst Joker.
the movie or the actors?
Both, though I've been a little slower on Renner because I never saw that breakout movie of his. In fact, I would say that this is the film that made me take him seriously.
But Olsen, I really believe she is special and the strange climate of film in the late 2010s - early 2020s has left people like her in a tricky spot. There were times watching WandaVision where I thought she was at the apex of her craft among young actors, someone who could someday be as good as a Cate Blanchett as I once felt Blanchett could someday be as good as Streep (of course, Tilda Swinton's in there somewhere but I actually thought Swinton was Streep-chasing almost the moment she stepped onto the screen). Anyway, Olsen was great in this film and really showed me who I was watching when Marvel didn't give her much to do.
But it was really just my kinda movie too.
Except when I'm watching Marvel.
Takoma11
09-07-21, 10:10 PM
But I thought whatever was happening with the script and Harrison Ford and Jared Leto and then the big surprise (which wasn't) in that final act was just a huge stumble and enough of one to drag the movie down to that B-. And also, honestly, to mess with the legacy of the first film, not too much, but just a touch.
If you're talking about the fact that (MAJOR SPOILERS!!!!!!)K was not actually the replicant child then I have to admit that I not only was taken in, I was genuinely shocked when we learned the truth. And even if you see that coming, I think that it's still really powerful to see someone find a sense of purpose and a reason to feel special, only to have that taken away and choose a different path
Before the movie was even over I wondered about Leto's character, did he even really need to be in this movie or was it just that the crisis of self/purpose the film was riding on wasn't enough for the studio or somebody and they had to inject a full-on mustache-twirler late in the game to give a huge exposition dump about a story that didn't make that much sense and wasn't the story of our main character
I don't think that his character was necessary (though it is worth saying that he's actually not in it that much). It could have found a much more straight-forward way to imply that the potential for reproduction would inevitably be exploited by the "owners" of the replicants.
and then there had to be an action scene with crazy killer replicate lady and the car and the water or whatever the hell that whole mess was, really just straining any good faith I felt the movie had and that I was giving to the movie.
I didn't mind that final action scene (I'm kind of a sucker for action sequences that take place in the waves because the ocean is terrifying).
I wish that the film had done a lot more to develop the character of Luv. I think that she begins as an interesting character, but then as the film goes on she just devolves into the stereotypical "cold killer"/right-hand-man to the big bad guy.
I guess my frustrating/slightly-irritating answer is that I was aware of the flaws, but I was enchanted enough by the feel of the film and invested enough in the main characters' arcs that they didn't knock things off the tracks for me.
Ya know, I don't think I thought that a movie could still shock me. Especially not a movie from 1991. Shows what I know.
(I'll have more to say on this shocker in a thread I'm about to start, probably tomorrow.)
Rockatansky
09-07-21, 10:34 PM
Ya know, I don't think I thought that a movie could still shock me. Especially not a movie from 1991. Shows what I know.
(I'll have more to say on this shocker in a thread I'm about to start, probably tomorrow.)
Is this the movie?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/85/Shockerposter.jpg/220px-Shockerposter.jpg
Takoma11
09-07-21, 11:18 PM
Ya know, I don't think I thought that a movie could still shock me. Especially not a movie from 1991. Shows what I know.
(I'll have more to say on this shocker in a thread I'm about to start, probably tomorrow.)
I'm looking at what I've seen from 1991.
I'm hoping you're talking about Double Life of Veronique.
I'm afraid you're talking about Rock-a-Doodle.
(In all seriousness, my other dark horse gamble for the film is The Rapture.)
Takoma11
09-07-21, 11:34 PM
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Ffilms%2F2017%2F03%2F06%2Fin_which_we_serve-01_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqqVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.jpg%3Fimwidth%3D450&f=1&nofb=1
In Which We Serve, 1942
This film follows the experiences of a group of naval officers aboard a ship in World War 2. Captained by a man named Kinross (Noel Coward), the ship experiences a horrific attack. As the men float helplessly in the ocean, awaiting rescue, the story of their lives before the war and their experiences on the boat are told in a series of sequences that jump backward and forward in time.
It's generally been my experience that my notions about when certain narrative conventions or innovations came around are almost always off by like 25-75 years. You know, you walk around thinking that a certain kind of subjective camera use is relatively new, only to see that technique in some film from the 30s.
Which is all to say that I really enjoyed the structure of this film, and I think that the structure specifically is what adds some poignancy to this film as well as some much needed tension. The film is pretty unapologetically propaganda intended to celebrate the bravery and sacrifice of the men who served in the navy. But the way that the stories are layered and revealed serves the very necessary role of building emotion outside of pure patriotism.
The film was approved of by the military, and thus they were willing to consult and even provide actual sailors to play roles. The sequences on the ship have both a cinematic epic aspect to them as well as a certain degree of realism. The portrayal, of course, is uniformly positive, with faceless German opponents serving as the only unlikable or antagonistic characters.
I did feel a bit torn about the propaganda aspect when it came to the deaths of some of the sailors. Men dying with smiles on their faces, knowing their families will be proud. There's something a bit too neat and clean about it. Earlier sequences when the surviving sailors are in the water, suffering attacks from German planes, have more of an edge and convey more of the sense of needless death and waste. But it's hard to make an anti-war film and celebrate the participants at the same time, and the film errs on the side of celebrating the sailors.
Coward is a strong lead as the unflappable captain, but the supporting cast also does a good job. There are many sequences showing life at home for the families of the sailors, and these parts are also well acted.
This was an interesting film, and I'd most recommend it based on the look at life aboard a warship and for its interesting structure.
3.5
Solaris (2002) - 4
Even though I enjoyed Soderbergh's adaptation of Stanislaw Lem's novel much less than Tarkovsky's, I still consider it to be a great movie.
And I agree with you.
https://64.media.tumblr.com/62554178bc37102439420ceb7e378bcd/tumblr_inline_nlqi0gP7HL1r4j8j1.gif
https://www.artofthetitle.com/assets/sm/upload/xv/kk/d2/w7/dmfm.gif?k=960559afcf
Dial M for Murder - This isn't tip top shelf Hitchcock but it's right up there and still very watchable. The featured blonde this time is Grace Kelly and she plays Margot Wendice, a rich socialite type married to ex-pro tennis player Tony (Ray Milland). He's quit touring and found a 9 to 5 job in London in hopes of saving his troubled marriage. Margot has had a past affair with crime fiction writer Mark Halliday (Robert Cummings) and one of their love letters has been stolen amd used to blackmail Margot. The letter plays a pivotal role in the customary Hitchcock intrigue with the usual duplicitous behavior and murderous intent on display. The small cast is exemplary with Kelly as the victimized and vulnerable Margot and Milland as another Hitchcock staple, the dissolute sociopath hiding behind a veneer of refinement. Plus there's also cagey Scotland Yard Detective Chief Inspector Hubbard (John Williams) as the cat (I'm assuming) in the cat and mouse equation.
It's all very sordid and sophisticated and compelling.
rating_4
I'm a very big fan of this film, I think I watched it 3 times in 18 months in 2019-2020.
Is this the movie?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/85/Shockerposter.jpg/220px-Shockerposter.jpg
You made me chuckle pretty good.
I'm looking at what I've seen from 1991.
I'm hoping you're talking about Double Life of Veronique.
I'm afraid you're talking about Rock-a-Doodle.
(In all seriousness, my other dark horse gamble for the film is The Rapture.)
It could not be La Double Vie de Veronique because that film already stole my heart 15 years ago.
And because you're aiming way, WAY too high.
No, nobody's gonna get this one because frankly you'd have had to see this through to the end for the are-you-****ing-kidding-me? shocker and I doubt anyone here has, at least in the last decade or two.
I'll get to it soon, it's the third movie in my new thread.
Little Ash
09-08-21, 12:03 AM
It could not be La Double Vie de Veronique because that film already stole my heart 15 years ago.
And because you're aiming way, WAY too high.
No, nobody's gonna get this one because frankly you'd have had to see this through to the end for the are-you-****ing-kidding-me? shocker and I doubt anyone here has, at least in the last decade or two.
I'll get to it soon, it's the third movie in my new thread.
So not Riki-Oh, which definitely had an ending. But it also definitely got talked about in the last 15 years.
Looking at letterboxd for movies from 1991, I'm seeing something called The Sect, whose summary sounds like it could have an... ending. I'm going to put my guess in for that.
It's pretty obvious that it's...
https://i.postimg.cc/0jHVy9F8/q-G2gu-C34-L6-Wb5l-Geyb-HEfaa-Es40.gif
That or 964 Pinocchio. Look it up.
WHITBISSELL!
09-08-21, 12:07 AM
My guess would have been Sleepaway Camp but that was '83.
It's pretty obvious that it's...
That or 964 Pinocchio. Look it up.
I'm scarred just by reading the synopsis.
I'm scarred just by reading the synopsis.Sorry. Everyone has to find out about 964 Pinocchio sooner or later.
PHOENIX74
09-08-21, 01:54 AM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Howards_end_poster.jpg
By https://www.filmaffinity.com/us/film814609.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3741923
Howards End - (1992)
I approached this Merchant Ivory production with trepidation, for I'm not a really huge fan of period dramas - and the first half of the film did feel slow to me, so I thought "here we go, another one that goes nowhere," but things really picked up in the second half and I was quite pleased by the end. I really have to get to The Remains of the Day now, and rewatch Call Me By Your Name. This also completes the field of Best Picture Oscar nominations in 1993 for me. They included Unforgiven (winner), A Few Good Men, Scent of a Woman, The Crying Game and this. I've no problem with Unforgiven winning out of that lot. I never liked Scent of a Woman much - even after giving it another go last year. It's been ages since I've seen The Crying Game and A Few Good Men.
Howards End ended up winning three Oscars, including one for Emma Thompson's performance. It's about the class structures in England, and how they were changing when author E. M. Forster's novel was published in 1910. Venessa Redgrave and Anthony Hopkins are excellent in it - and the filmmakers went nuts in providing lots of detail in it's design. But it's the story that really stands out - and the adapted screenplay, which also won an Oscar. I thought it was possible I might end up loving it, but I think really liking it is as far as it will go. The second half of the film provided enough eventful drama to make it enjoyable viewing.
8/10
The Johnsons (1992)
3
A Dutch horror about an evil god of a small South-American tribe, and the apocalyptic prophecy surrounding the legend. It has a very American feel to it (in a positive way, for a change), and it's enforced by almost unnoticeable English dubbing on the version I watched. For the most part, it remains quite serious and foreboding, but at least one character stands out as a too obvious comic relief. Lots of potential, and the execution isn't too shabby, either.
xSookieStackhouse
09-08-21, 03:57 AM
Both, though I've been a little slower on Renner because I never saw that breakout movie of his. In fact, I would say that this is the film that made me take him seriously.
But Olsen, I really believe she is special and the strange climate of film in the late 2010s - early 2020s has left people like her in a tricky spot. There were times watching WandaVision where I thought she was at the apex of her craft among young actors, someone who could someday be as good as a Cate Blanchett as I once felt Blanchett could someday be as good as Streep (of course, Tilda Swinton's in there somewhere but I actually thought Swinton was Streep-chasing almost the moment she stepped onto the screen). Anyway, Olsen was great in this film and really showed me who I was watching when Marvel didn't give her much to do.
But it was really just my kinda movie too.
Except when I'm watching Marvel.
oh really he did a great job on this movie tho even his other movies aswell, loved him on MCU as clint barton aka hawkeye. u should rewatched it again. true but im glad she got nominated an emmy cause she deserves an emmy she did amazing job in her films and tv series also. loved her on wandavision espcially wandavision one of my favorites got nominated an emmy aswell 23 emmys i heard. yes soo true hopefully she like cate blanchett i loved some of cates movies. i was hoping her to win an oscar someday.ahh streep shes an amazing funny actress. oh yea loved her on the beach and doctor strange . yes she was great in this film hopefully she wins an emmy. hopefully she will have her own scaRLET witch solo movie soon.
Fabulous
09-08-21, 03:58 AM
Honey Boy (2019)
3.5
https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/5n2jz145P1CRdPfA296MmEZF1sQ.jpg
xSookieStackhouse
09-08-21, 06:32 AM
1.0 horrible. they should leave shes all that from the 90s alone
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYzM3NmYyMTItZWY5My00MTQzLWFmMzEtOTc2ZjRkMDJkYWM3XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTkxNjUyNQ@@._V1_.jpg
Next of Kin (1982)
2.5
https://factmag-images.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Next-of-Kin3.png
An Aussie thriller somewhere between a British Gothic and Italian Giallo. It has some tremendously good-looking and effective scenes, but the story feels haphazardly thrown together and, honestly, somewhat boring. One of those films where parts are much greater than the sum. I wish I had liked it more.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Howards_end_poster.jpg
By https://www.filmaffinity.com/us/film814609.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3741923
Howards End - (1992)
I approached this Merchant Ivory production with trepidation, for I'm not a really huge fan of period dramas - and the first half of the film did feel slow to me, so I thought "here we go, another one that goes nowhere," but things really picked up in the second half and I was quite pleased by the end. I really have to get to The Remains of the Day now, and rewatch Call Me By Your Name. This also completes the field of Best Picture Oscar nominations in 1993 for me. They included Unforgiven (winner), A Few Good Men, Scent of a Woman, The Crying Game and this. I've no problem with Unforgiven winning out of that lot. I never liked Scent of a Woman much - even after giving it another go last year. It's been ages since I've seen The Crying Game and A Few Good Men.
Howards End ended up winning three Oscars, including one for Emma Thompson's performance. It's about the class structures in England, and how they were changing when author E. M. Forster's novel was published in 1910. Venessa Redgrave and Anthony Hopkins are excellent in it - and the filmmakers went nuts in providing lots of detail in it's design. But it's the story that really stands out - and the adapted screenplay, which also won an Oscar. I thought it was possible I might end up loving it, but I think really liking it is as far as it will go. The second half of the film provided enough eventful drama to make it enjoyable viewing.
8/10
Really, really liked this film.
Fast & Furious 9 (2021) 3
https://www.filmyt.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/fast-furious-9-2021-660x330.jpg
Jungle Cruise (2021) 3.5
https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/c7268c79-9436-4230-b75e-2814495b25f4/dds7a7d-65f0dd8d-7b56-43c9-a07b-56152060d6f0.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQz NzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6 W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2M3MjY4Yzc5LTk0MzYtNDIzMC1iNzVlLTI4MTQ0OTViMjVmNFwvZGRzN2E3ZC02NWYwZGQ4ZC03YjU2 LTQzYzktYTA3Yi01NjE1MjA2MGQ2ZjAucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.UkhYC8qr T9fQ31M-WL790oNrS9RMJVSihM1oz930BIk
The Suicide Squad (2021) 3
https://i0.wp.com/michaelbrooks.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/The-Suicide-Squad-Characters-Who-Survive.jpg?resize=760%2C400&ssl=1
Stillwater (2021)2
https://www.customaniacs.org/forum/CM_show_preview.php?attachmentid=1057743
Escape Room (2019) 3.5
https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/2c54b004-9dbd-44b7-8031-08fadd6517c1/dd6ajil-9d3bc3e4-e6a9-4ea9-91e1-b2d2ea127713.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQz NzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6 W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzJjNTRiMDA0LTlkYmQtNDRiNy04MDMxLTA4ZmFkZDY1MTdjMVwvZGQ2YWppbC05ZDNiYzNlNC1lNmE5 LTRlYTktOTFlMS1iMmQyZWExMjc3MTMucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.d63C8GYA u-nlo7DQxewqgkSqKBreDWCFKKuCqKpXhnU
Escape Room: Tournament of Champions (2021) 3.5
https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/c7268c79-9436-4230-b75e-2814495b25f4/denfo25-6cd7031c-7d8c-4f0e-8a2a-7cce0b7e8b5b.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQz NzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6 W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2M3MjY4Yzc5LTk0MzYtNDIzMC1iNzVlLTI4MTQ0OTViMjVmNFwvZGVuZm8yNS02Y2Q3MDMxYy03ZDhj LTRmMGUtOGEyYS03Y2NlMGI3ZThiNWIucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.frU2xM75 9Nf0fP0UcfeYSjQj8RyqvhynLDrFCFq5t_A
Ladyhawke - 3
If '80s cinema is - or should be - known for anything, it's how many quality sword and sorcery movies it has, with this movie being no exception. Love and romance figures into the plot of many of them, most notably Krull and The Princess Bride, and it's also essential to this one. Its central conceit involves a couple who, thanks to a curse, are always together yet always apart at the same time, with Navarre (Rutger Hauer) having to live as a wolf by night and partner Isabeau (Michelle Pfeiffer) living as the titular bird by day. While questing to break this curse, they are aided by an unlikely new member to their party: Mouse (Matthew Broderick in one of his first roles), a hapless pickpocket and recent prison breaker.
This is one of the best looking '80 fantasy movies, which is not hard to do when legendary cinematographer Vittorio Storaro is composing the shots and the Italian countryside is at your disposal. There are scenes that I wanted to go on a little bit longer - the ones in the woods in particular - just so I could take in the scenery. Action is also this movie's strong suit, with each fight scene making the excitement last until there's no more to be had. This is especially true of the cathedral grand finale, which not only succeeds thanks the visuals and editing, but also because of over the top yet adorable sound flourishes like making the sword clangs echo. As for the performances, while Hauer, Broderick, Leo McKern’s devoted ally and John Wood’s annoyingly confident villain are as good as you would expect, Pfeiffer is the movie's secret weapon. Unlike Navarre, Isabeau is in animal form more than she is in human form, but she makes her human scenes count. I of course wanted to see the curse lifted for Navarre and Isabeau's sake, but I admit to being more invested in the chance to see Pfeiffer again!
While I have more good to say about the movie than bad, I wouldn't rank it near the top of '80s fantasy, but it's far from the worst. Despite its romance and clever premise, it is not nearly as quotable or timeless as its subgenre's classics and lacks qualities that make it one, whether it’s the commentary on adolescence in Labyrinth or the uniquely sly self-awareness in The Princess Bride. Plus, there's the cheesy soundtrack, which I can't imagine even the most extreme ‘80s aficionado being nostalgic about. There is, of course, still enough about this movie for me to recommend it. Just expect something light, fun and that would be a good way to spend an afternoon than something that will also leave a deep impression.
Ladyhawke - 3
If '80s cinema is - or should be - known for anything, it's how many quality sword and sorcery movies it has, with this movie being no exception. Love and romance figures into the plot of many of them, most notably Krull and The Princess Bride, and it's also essential to this one. Its central conceit involves a couple who, thanks to a curse, are always together yet always apart at the same time, with Navarre (Rutger Hauer) having to live as a wolf by night and partner Isabeau (Michelle Pfeiffer) living as the titular bird by day. While questing to break this curse, they are aided by an unlikely new member to their party: Mouse (Matthew Broderick in one of his first roles), a hapless pickpocket and recent prison breaker.
This is one of the best looking '80 fantasy movies, which is not hard to do when legendary cinematographer Vittorio Storaro is composing the shots and the Italian countryside is at your disposal. There are scenes that I wanted to go on a little bit longer - the ones in the woods in particular - just so I could take in the scenery. Action is also this movie's strong suit, with each fight scene making the excitement last until there's no more to be had. This is especially true of the cathedral grand finale, which not only succeeds thanks the visuals and editing, but also because of over the top yet adorable sound flourishes like making the sword clangs echo. As for the performances, while Hauer, Broderick, Leo McKern’s devoted ally and John Wood’s annoyingly confident villain are as good as you would expect, Pfeiffer is the movie's secret weapon. Unlike Navarre, Isabeau is in bird form more than she is in human form, but she makes her human scenes count. I of course wanted to see the curse lifted for Navarre and Isabeau's sake, but I admit to being more invested in the chance to see Pfeiffer again!
While I have more good to say about the movie than bad, I wouldn't rank it near the top of '80s fantasy, but it's far from the worst. Despite its romance and clever premise, it is not nearly as quotable or timeless as its subgenre's classics and lacks qualities that make it one, whether it’s the commentary on adolescence in Labyrinth or the uniquely sly self-awareness in The Princess Bride. Plus, there's the cheesy soundtrack, which I can't imagine even the most extreme ‘80s aficionado being nostalgic about. There is, of course, still enough about this movie for me to recommend it. Just expect something light, fun and that would be a good way to spend an afternoon than something that will also leave a deep impression.
I think I'm inclined to agree with you on all counts. Which is to say that I started to take exception with the notion that it didn't belong at the top but the more I thought about it, the more I thought, wellll... and then you mentioned the soundtrack and I'm like, "Oh yeah, I forgot, that dated the hell out of it."
But when I went back and watched this a few years ago (having first seen it once or twice int theater and then maybe another dozen times on HBO when I was a kid), I have to say I thought it held up a lot better than I expected. Not as juvenile as I was expecting. It's a shame Rutger Hauer wasn't a bigger star on my side of the pond, he was a really compelling actor. And I think you're right, Pfeiffer, and the way the director and cinematographer handle her, creates a haunting yet luminescent presence.
All in all, I thought it was a well put-together fantasy. Which is one of my favorite genres.
Stirchley
09-08-21, 01:42 PM
81083
A movie about an alcoholic man is not my fave scenario, but I did get through this. Two hours, but felt longer. Both leads very good.
81085
Good movie. Unusual storyline that I haven’t seen before. Lead actress is excellent: I believe she could do any rôle
I think I'm inclined to agree with you on all counts. Which is to say that I started to take exception with the notion that it didn't belong at the top but the more I thought about it, the more I thought, wellll... and then you mentioned the soundtrack and I'm like, "Oh yeah, I forgot, that dated the hell out of it."
But when I went back and watched this a few years ago (having first seen it once or twice int theater and then maybe another dozen times on HBO when I was a kid), I have to say I thought it held up a lot better than I expected. Not as juvenile as I was expecting. It's a shame Rutger Hauer wasn't a bigger star on my side of the pond, he was a really compelling actor. And I think you're right, Pfeiffer, and the way the director and cinematographer handle her, creates a haunting yet luminescent presence.
All in all, I thought it was a well put-together fantasy. Which is one of my favorite genres.Speaking of misremembering movies, I thought Tangerine Dream did the soundtrack, which was one of my motivations for seeing it, but I guess they only did Legend. I can see what composer Andrew Powell was going for since the music could be described as fanciful, light and romantic, which fits the movie's tone, but it sounds more like video poker music. At least he redeemed himself with his work with the Alan Parsons Project, huh? I'm attempting to do a sci-fi/fantasy September, so reviews of more such movies are on their way.
Oh, and I'm gonna need the title of that shocking '91 flick. :D
Gideon58
09-08-21, 02:06 PM
https://flxt.tmsimg.com/assets/p25574_p_v10_am.jpg
1st Re-watch...If the truth be told, this is a film I never thought I would have the stomach to re-watch, but I did. Darren Aronofsky's cinematic nightmare is the most seamless combination of frightening realism and over the top hallucinations I have ever seen in a single film that, despite its sledgehammer approach to the subject, drives home the danger of addiction unlike any film I have ever seen. What happens to Ellen Burstyn's Sara Goldfarb stretches credibility to the nth degree, but it makes for a powerful message that had me turning my head away from the screen at times. Incredibly, Burstyn's performance earned the film its only Oscar nomination and she should have won. Personally I think Aronofsky's endlessly stylish, imaginative, and in your face direction, Jay Rabinowitz' film editing, and Clint Mansell's music deserved nominations as well. It's one of cinema's most difficult watches, but if you're up for it...4
matt72582
09-08-21, 02:16 PM
The JFK Assassination: The Jim Garrison Tapes - 10/10
Lucky for you, the entire thing is on YouTube, right on the channel of John Barbour
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ocfr2VdcpU
SpelingError
09-08-21, 02:58 PM
https://flxt.tmsimg.com/assets/p25574_p_v10_am.jpg
1st Re-watch...If the truth be told, this is a film I never thought I would have the stomach to re-watch, but I did. Darren Aronofsky's cinematic nightmare is the most seamless combination of frightening realism and over the top hallucinations I have ever seen in a single film that, despite its sledgehammer approach to the subject, drives home the danger of addiction unlike any film I have ever seen. What happens to Ellen Burstyn's Sara Goldfarb stretches credibility to the nth degree, but it makes for a powerful message that had me turning my head away from the screen at times. Incredibly, Burstyn's performance earned the film its only Oscar nomination and she should have won. Personally I think Aronofsky's endlessly stylish, imaginative, and in your face direction, Jay Rabinowitz' film editing, and Clint Mansell's music deserved nominations as well. It's one of cinema's most difficult watches, but if you're up for it...4
Great film.
Speaking of misremembering movies, I thought Tangerine Dream did the soundtrack, which was one of my motivations for seeing it, but I guess they only did Legend. I can see what composer Andrew Powell was going for since the music could be described as fanciful, light and romantic, which fits the movie's tone, but it sounds more like video poker music. At least he redeemed himself with his work with the Alan Parsons Project, huh? I'm attempting to do a sci-fi/fantasy September, so reviews of more such movies are on their way.
Oh, and I'm gonna need the title of that shocking '91 flick. :D
That's funny. I can understand why you thought that. For what it's worth, and I'm sure you already know this, but their (TD) score for Thief is amazing.
I'd really like to see a list of what you're thinking for September sci-fi/fantasy is my (close) second-favorite genre and I'd love to discuss.
That's funny. I can understand why you thought that. For what it's worth, and I'm sure you already know this, but their (TD) score for Thief is amazing.
I'd really like to see a list of what you're thinking for September sci-fi/fantasy is my (close) second-favorite genre and I'd love to discuss.Same goes for their Near Dark soundtrack.
I'm sort of flying by the seat of my pants here since I may have seen all of the good ones and I'm not sure if I want to rewatch ones I've already seen, but I'll let you know ones that I have in mind.
WHITBISSELL!
09-08-21, 04:29 PM
https://pic.yts.pm/yt/20180208/74013/screenshot2.png
https://www.framerated.co.uk/frwpcontent/uploads/2017/12/pulp02.jpg
Pulp - I'm of the opinion that there's a lot to like here. #1 for me is that, even though it may have rung a faint bell, I had never actually heard of it so it qualifies as one of those hidden treasures. #2 is that it was director Mike Hodges' followup to his gritty British gangster film Get Carter and he brought along Michael Caine to star in this as well. #3 is the rest of the cast. Along with Caine you've got Mickey Rooney playing both with and against type as a washed up Hollywood star with unclear connections to organized crime. There's also veteran character actor Lionel Stander and erstwhile femme fatale Lizabeth Scott who came out of a 15 year retirement to do this. Al Lettieri, best known for playing hoods and tough guys is also along for the ride, playing a transvestite hitman. Reason #4 is the actual plot. Even though it does sort of lose it's way a bit, it's still filled with enough flourishes, peripheral farce and touches of originality that it will keep your interest from flagging. #5 is the setting and locales. Filmed on location on the island of Malta, its's unique enough to add another layer of the fanciful to the proceedings.
Caine plays the scruffy Mickey King, a writer of cheap paperback pulp novels who is hired by the agent of reclusive ex-movie star Preston Gilbert (Rooney) to ghost write his autobiography. Gilbert is rumored to have had numerous dealings with assorted gangsters and, since he intends to name names in his book, that in turn precipitates the hiring of a contract killer. This all plays out under the sunbaked Maltese landscape and I don't know why but it reminded me of the film Catch 22. Hodges' also likes to fill the screen with little asides and background silliness and that put me in mind of Richard Lester's fondness for juxtaposing horseplay in relation to the primary action.
This is part noir, part farce and peopled with a whole lot of eccentric personalities indulging in questionable and quixotic behavior in a sunlit, exotic locale. Which is enough for me.
rating_4
GulfportDoc
09-08-21, 08:23 PM
https://www.artofthetitle.com/assets/sm/upload/xv/kk/d2/w7/dmfm.gif?k=960559afcf
Dial M for Murder - This isn't tip top shelf Hitchcock but it's right up there and still very watchable. The featured blonde this time is Grace Kelly and she plays Margot Wendice, a rich socialite type married to ex-pro tennis player Tony (Ray Milland). He's quit touring and found a 9 to 5 job in London in hopes of saving his troubled marriage. Margot has had a past affair with crime fiction writer Mark Halliday (Robert Cummings) and one of their love letters has been stolen amd used to blackmail Margot. The letter plays a pivotal role in the customary Hitchcock intrigue with the usual duplicitous behavior and murderous intent on display. The small cast is exemplary with Kelly as the victimized and vulnerable Margot and Milland as another Hitchcock staple, the dissolute sociopath hiding behind a veneer of refinement. Plus there's also cagey Scotland Yard Detective Chief Inspector Hubbard (John Williams) as the cat (I'm assuming) in the cat and mouse equation.
It's all very sordid and sophisticated and compelling.
rating_4
I agree with your commentary. It's a well put together mystery/thriller, which gets very confusing about plot surrounding the latch key. Here are some remarks I made when we had a discussion about the picture in April, '17:
I watched this great little film last night again, not having seen it in years. I was struck by how stiff the dialogue and acting were, which tends to be the case in British style stage thrillers. Granted, the plot mechanics were complex and confusing, but some of the dialogue was reeled off, almost as if it was being read-- like at a rehearsal run-through. The exchanges were too perfect-- not natural. I felt the same way watching Rope. Milland and Williams were the standout actors, with Kelly and Cummings being the weaker of the four.
I read that Hitchcock had wanted to do this film as a breather, after previously more involved films, on location and otherwise. In "Dial M", he never had to leave the studio. He reportedly spent much of the off screen time introducing the concept of "Rear Window" to Grace Kelly, who he wanted for the upcoming production.
There are some wonderful Hitchcockian devices showcased in this one. He loved to explain to the audience what was about to happen in order to let them in on it, then gradually let it unfold, all the while building up the suspense and tension. The shot of Swann lurking behind Kelly, poised with the scarf ready to kill her, is a classic. Also Hitch's use of the slow closeup to focus the viewer's attention to an object or plot device.
As discussed previously, the lock on the door was an automatic one. The door always locked when closed (unless the lever was engaged). The round dial was to manually open the lock from the inside. Swann used the key left under the star carpet to get in. After he'd committed the murder he was supposed to put the key back where he'd retrieved it. After her death Tony would have taken the key and placed it back in his wife's purse.
As it was, Tony removed a key from the corpse and placed back in his wife's purse. But it was Swann's house key. What confused me was that later, the detective realized that the key in Margot's purse was Swann's house key, so he reasoned that Swann had put the key back under the stair carpet after he initially unlocked the door. But I don't believe that was shown. And if Swann hadn't put the key back, why was it not found on his body post mortem? So evidently Swann DID replace the key after unlocking.
Margot never knew about the key under the stair carpet. When she returned from the police station, and, finding that the key didn't work, she walked around and entered through the french doors.
But these inconsistencies and unexplained plot points are not uncommon in Hitchcock's films. Recall in Vertigo where Jimmy Stewart is left dangling high up over an alley, with no apparent way to be saved. How was he saved? And later after Novak had entered the McKittrick Hotel and we saw her at the upstairs window, Stewart came in looking for her but was told she hadn't been seen by the counter lady, and her car was not there. How did that happen? Where did Novak go? Evidently Hitchcock believed that the audience would not notice these errors because they would be so caught up in the plot. And I think he was probably right... ;)
GulfportDoc
09-08-21, 08:32 PM
The JFK Assassination: The Jim Garrison Tapes - 10/10
Lucky for you, the entire thing is on YouTube, right on the channel of John Barbour
An excellent documentary! Garrison was the only one to ever bring anyone at all to trial surrounding the assassination of JFK. And he was absolutely right as far as he went. But of course there was far more to it than that. Just about every legal entity: Fed, State and local had a hand in sabotaging Garrison's investigation. Garrison had tremendous courage, and he was a hero.
Takoma11
09-08-21, 08:51 PM
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.bigcommerce.com%2Fn-d57o0b%2Fptxvsha%2Fproducts%2F782%2Fimages%2F5651%2FThe_Tall_Stranger_photo__13070.1491764270.1280.1 280.jpg%3Fc%3D2&f=1&nofb=1
The Tall Stranger, 1957
Returning home after the Civil War, a Union soldier named Bannon (Joel McCrea) gets caught up in a dispute between a group of Confederate settlers, and his hard-headed half brother (Barry Kelley), who wants to drive the settlers from his land. Complicating matters, Bannon develops feelings for a single mother named Ellen (Virginia Mayo) who is part of the settlement group.
Despite some strengths and some sequences that I enjoyed, I overall just didn't feel this one.
On the positive side, McCrea is plenty solid as the world-weary soldier who has had enough of just about everyone's nonsense. Mayo also holds her own as a woman with a past that seems to follow her wherever she goes. Mayo has her own "don't give a hoot" vibe, and it's kind of interesting to see how their two personalities play off of each other.
There's also a fine overall message, in the sense that both the settlers and Bannon's half brother are so set in their way and their biases that they cannot help but walk themselves into confrontations. In fact, willingness to believe the worse about both sides allows truly bad actors to take advantage of the situation.
But while I did like some aspects, there were quite a few things that brought it down a bit. The print that I watched---and this is no fault of the film itself--just did not look good. Maybe there was solid direction or interesting editing in there, but the slightly muddy print wasn't doing the film any favors.
Yet even if I set aside the look of the film--which, again, is not the film's fault--there were still some issues with pacing. The settlers are all pretty one-note. And the men who seek to manipulate the settlers are also caricatures. Would you be surprised to learn that the villains are Mexicans? And murderers? And also that one of them tries to rape Ellen (so that Bannon can save her, of course)? In a film that is partly about the harm of bias and assumption, the laziness of the rapist Mexican (who is played, interestingly enough, by a Syrian actor) stands out like a sore thumb.
All in all not a bad film, but certainly one that suffers from a lack of smooth pacing and too much time spent with under-developed characters.
3
I just finished watching Overcomer (2019). Directed by Alex Kendrick, the film stars Kendrick as a high school basketball coach who coaches a teen in long distance running. I enjoyed this a lot. It's a feel good and inspiring story. Aryn Wright-Thompson is very likeable and charming in her film debut as the teen runner. My rating is an 4
RoundtableRebel
09-08-21, 11:59 PM
Psycho 2 (C+)
Tad bit overrated.
PHOENIX74
09-09-21, 12:01 AM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5b/Chairmanposter1969.jpg
By Movieposter.com, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12268747
The Chairman - (1969)
The Chairman is one of those films where you can sense frantic attempts in the editing room to try and save it. Gregory Peck is the James Bond of professors - Dr. John Hathaway - and he's sent into Communist China to try and extract the formula for an enzyme that allows crops to survive harsh environments. He's given an implant, into his head, that allows the intelligence people who sent him to hear everything that happens - and unknown to him it also has an explosive charge in it which can be detonated any time. It's all great on paper, but sluggish on film, and Conrad Yama's Mao Zedong looks and sounds a little ridiculous - but the 'walking bomb' subplot is interesting. Directed by The Guns of Navarone's J. Lee Thompson - his fourth and final outing with Gregory Peck.
A very kind 5/10
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/Dune_1984_Poster.jpg
By The poster art can or could be obtained from Universal Pictures., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47673027
Dune - (1984)
I watched the 180 minute version that was re-edited for television and which includes a narrated prologue which outlines the plot of nearly the entire film. Regardless, I was somewhat surprised by just how easy it was to follow the story - David Lynch's Dune is known for being nearly unintelligible, but that may be due to Dino De Laurentiis and his goons' frantic editing in an attempt to make this film more commercially palatable. This longer version was dismissed by Lynch so it bears the unfortunate Alan Smithee moniker - one that makes most of us recoil in horror.
I was also surprised by just how good this film looks - for the most part. I was put off a little by the use of hazmat suits as costumes for some of militaristic henchmen, and by the continual reuse of the same worm footage. Other than that there are some great sets, makeup and costumes. The impressive cast was also a big positive - especially the likes of Patrick Stewart, Max von Sydow, Brad Dourif and even Sting who understandably has little screen time. There are too many other actors of note in this to list - and they all seem invested in the movie.
I can't comment as to how it departs from it's source as I've never read Frank Herbert's Dune - but I never worry too much about a film doing that, as it must always stand on it's own two feet in the end. In that respect I thought Dune was a very respectable science-fiction film that doesn't deserve all of the flack it's got over the years - but if I saw the original theatrical cut I might understand more fully why people reacted to it the way they did.
7/10
Fabulous
09-09-21, 02:00 AM
Blue Jasmine (2013)
3.5
https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/q7sl4qm8WlogrZ3cJxzuN8WejM1.jpg
StuSmallz
09-09-21, 03:48 AM
I thought that the way that it portrayed both a crisis of self and a crisis of purpose was pretty compelling. But at nearly three hours long, if you aren't vibing with it, I can see not liking it that much. I thought that the visuals and the performances made up for most of the deficits in the writing.
And maybe most importantly, I liked that it didn't ruin anything about the original. The way that they extended the stories of all the original characters felt correct to me.In all seriousness though, despite my earlier nit-pick at K's fate, and some lingering issues I still have with its occasionally alienating tone, Niander's characterization, or its length/pacing (cutting about 15 minutes off would've done a lot to tighten it up, IMO), I do basically agree with you on the overall quality of 2049; (https://letterboxd.com/stusmallz/film/blade-runner-2049/1/) I mean, it's an amazing sensory experience on just a pure audio/visual level, even when rewatched on a ten-inch tablet screen, and I cared a lot more about its characters than I did Deckard/Rachel in the original, but most importantly, like Arrival, it's a big, genuinely ambitious work of Science-Fiction, bursting at its seams with fascinating visuals and ideas (like that digital "three-way", anyone?), and it did a strong job of both honoring the legacy of the original film, while also finding ways to expand upon with its own experience, instead of just repeating everything Scott did (which is why I was surprised when Corax recently criticized it for failing to "cut its own trail" (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2236416#post2236416); geez, if he feels that way, I'd hate to see how he'd react to The Force Awakens...).
:D
matt72582
09-09-21, 07:28 AM
An excellent documentary! Garrison was the only one to ever bring anyone at all to trial surrounding the assassination of JFK. And he was absolutely right as far as he went. But of course there was far more to it than that. Just about every legal entity: Fed, State and local had a hand in sabotaging Garrison's investigation. Garrison had tremendous courage, and he was a hero.
Yeah, this was great, and he was great. I saw this about 20 years ago, but wanted to revisit it just to see if I missed anything. It's from John Barbour's personal YouTube channel. Some good stuff on there. I just got his book, and he tells a story of how Mort Sahl went nuts on him at home when he thought he would be the only one contributing liner notes to Barbour's "It's Tough To Be White", only to find it would be next to Dick Gregory. "The Black Mort Sahl? There's only one Mort Sahl -- ME!".. They're both still alive, but haven't talked in 65 years. Good book so far, "Your Mother Is Not A Virgin"
Ultraviolence
09-09-21, 02:36 PM
https://fanart.tv/fanart/movies/10718/movieposter/torque-531f428640ac9.jpg
2.5
A film to watch with some beers — It's Power Rangers with bikes, but at least this film is more original than Saban's copycat.
SpelingError
09-09-21, 03:18 PM
26th Hall of Fame (REWATCH)
All the President's Men (1976) - 4.5
I'm not the biggest fan of biopics. While they may be elevated by some strong acting or some decent camerawork, they often have little else on their minds other than championing whoever is at the heart of their stories or offering a straightforward retelling of whatever noteworthy thing the subject did. While my impression of them is generally "I'd rather just research the person in the film rather than watch a movie about them", this film is an exception to this criticism as it's as much about the process of how the Watergate scandal was uncovered as it is about the scandal itself. Regardless of where you stand politically, this film is a must-see.
This films wraps you up in its story so well with a series of revelations about various people's involvements to the scandal and significant pieces of information coming to light that it keeps you on board with the investigation from beginning to end, even though the outcome of it is already known. As a cherry to all this, certain characters and events (Deep Throat, most of the witnesses being afraid to speak up, members of the CREEP potentially being in danger) add an extra layer of spice to the film and help to ensure that you won't grow bored while watching it. This film also feels relevant today given the various discussions and trials on impeachments/cover-ups/scandals which have permeated the news in the U.S. in the last few years or so.
Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman did a good job in this film and played their parts of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, two Washington Post reporters with different levels of experience, pretty well. Woodward didn't have as much experience at his job as Bernstein did and often showed a reluctance to push the various witnesses they ran into for interviews when they were reluctant to talk, while Bernstein was more demanding with the people he interviewed and didn't accept no for an answer. As the scandal kept growing more and more widespread throughout their investigation and as the importance of solving it eventually dawned on Woodward though, he eventually assisted Bernstein in these endeavors. While Redford and Hoffman are good though, Jason Robards gives the best performance in the film. Even though I've only seen him in four or five films, he's blown me away in every single one of them, as he did in this film. With maybe the exception of Once Upon a Time in the West, I've only seen him in supporting roles, but he plays his part in this film quite phenomenally and proves magnetic whenever he's onscreen. His character has more experience than both Woodward and Bernstein and has to be really careful that the two of them have enough evidence before publishing it. After all, a slip up could potentially bring a bad name to their paper.
Overall, I liked this film about as much as I did the last time I watched it and I'm glad it was nominated for this thread.
THE DOUBLE LIFE OF VÉRONIQUE
(1991, Kieślowski)
A film from the 1990s
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/resizer/Uh3wrxImERWvddU68DuadDyp_9Y=/1200x0/filters:quality(80)/arc-anglerfish-tgam-prod-tgam.s3.amazonaws.com/public/XAIEHBHXLVBWVDU564PHN7CWNE.JPG
"Not long ago, I had a strange sensation. I felt that I was alone. All of a sudden. Yet nothing had changed."
The Double Life of Véronique follows two identical women: Weronika and Véronique (both played by Irène Jacob) who have a mysterious connection, despite living separate lives in different cities. They've never met each other or known about the other's existence, and yet, there is something that binds them.
The interesting thing is that Kiéslowski is not very interested in the the why, but rather in how that connection affects them. As the film moves through the life of both women, we see a wide array of "connective tissue" that goes from their love of music to little things like a transparent ball that both of them play with. At one point, Véronique even dreams of a "tall, slender church", which we see is close to Weronika's home.
The thing is that the slightest hint of this connection gives both characters feelings of joy when it's felt, and loneliness when it's broken. For Weronika, seeing that "other person" in the distance instills her with a sense of belonging. For Véronique, who hasn't seen Weronika, although the connection is not clear and her feelings are more confused, it is still a source of anxiety and question.
Grade: 4
Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2237402#post2237402) and the PR HOF4 (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2237403#post2237403)
Gideon58
09-09-21, 04:24 PM
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMzk4NjMyYzItM2YzOC00MTc2LWE1ODMtMzgzY2RmNmNlZTgzXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTM5NzI0NDY@._V1_.jpg
3.5
WHITBISSELL!
09-09-21, 04:32 PM
https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/960x0/https%3A%2F%2Fspecials-images.forbesimg.com%2Fimageserve%2F600da85a81b53f6185e8e045%2FGodzilla-Vs--Kong%2F0x0.jpg%3FcropX1%3D187%26cropX2%3D2211%26cropY1%3D0%26cropY2%3D1139
https://www.icegif.com/wp-content/uploads/godzilla-vs-kong-icegif.gif
Godzilla vs. Kong - I didn't hate this but I'm also relieved I didn't waste my time watching it in a theater. Maybe the fights between the two would have been a little more impressive on a big screen but in the end I thought it borrowed from numerous other franchises and really brought nothing new to anyone's movie watching experience.
The destruction was straight out of Pacific Rim (which I did see on a big screen) and the expedition to hollow earth echoed the interdimensional portal from that as well. Oh yeah, and did anyone else get Stormbreaker vibes from Kong's axe?
There were also way too many characters which, I suppose, is understandable when you're trying to stitch together two franchises into a cohesive whole. But then when you frontload your story with so many character arcs you really need to keep the exposition and development to a minimum. Which thankfully they did. Otherwise you end up with an even more bloated three or so hour snoozefest. Or you could have simply written out several players and saved yourself the trouble. Why the rich guy's daughter? Why Millie Bobbie Brown's character? Or Julian Dennison's or Brian Tyree Henry's? I get that they had to introduce the wild card somehow but there had to have been a way to work it in a little more organically.
Anyway, it wasn't a complete waste of time. The first confrontation doesn't occur until a half hour or so in but when it finally comes it's not bad. And the final showdown delivers for the most part. Which begs the question. Exactly how many glass and steel high rises does Hong Kong have anyway? And was there some sort of mandatory law on having to use neon when they were building those things? All in all I think it would be a perfectly reasonable option to skip this. Unless you're a fan of the whole Titan/monsterverse thing.
rating_3
Takoma11
09-09-21, 05:14 PM
In all seriousness though, despite my earlier nit-pick at K's fate, and some lingering issues I still have with its occasionally alienating tone, Niander's characterization, or its length/pacing (cutting about 15 minutes off would've done a lot to tighten it up, IMO), I do basically agree with you on the overall quality of 2049; (https://letterboxd.com/stusmallz/film/blade-runner-2049/1/) I mean, it's an amazing sensory experience on just a pure audio/visual level, even when rewatched on a ten-inch tablet screen, and I cared a lot more about its characters than I did Deckard/Rachel in the original, but most importantly, like Arrival, it's a big, genuinely ambitious work of Science-Fiction, bursting at its seams with fascinating visuals and ideas (like that digital "three-way", anyone?), and it did a strong job of both honoring the legacy of the original film, while also finding ways to expand upon with its own experience
Yes. While there were some stumbles, I appreciated that it didn't simply try to retread the original and instead picked its own path.
This is executed already in Movie Tab II. Also, you spelled final wrong.
R.I.P.
Thursday Next
09-09-21, 05:57 PM
The Skin I Live In
I had very mixed feelings about this. It was like the best and worst aspects of Almodovar in one film.
Visually, there was so much to admire; I liked the way it seemed to be set in its own weird little world with quirky details that didn't quite pin it down to a time, the use of cameras and masks, the colour palette and the general look of it all, the throwbacks to other films like Eyes Without a Face.
I was expecting a twisted sort of storyline, but I was not expecting quite so much graphic rape. I also think some of the aspects of sexual violence, gender and mental health were dealt with in a blunt and insensitive way that made me uncomfortable (and not just the sort of horror-film uncomfortable the film wants you to feel).
I know this thread is for rating films but I'm not sure I can right away.
Takoma11
09-09-21, 06:05 PM
The Skin I Live In
I had very mixed feelings about this. It was like the best and worst aspects of Almodovar in one film.
Visually, there was so much to admire; I liked the way it seemed to be set in its own weird little world with quirky details that didn't quite pin it down to a time, the use of cameras and masks, the colour palette and the general look of it all, the throwbacks to other films like Eyes Without a Face.
I was expecting a twisted sort of storyline, but I was not expecting quite so much graphic rape. I also think some of the aspects of sexual violence, gender and mental health were dealt with in a blunt and insensitive way that made me uncomfortable (and not just the sort of horror-film uncomfortable the film wants you to feel).
I know this thread is for rating films but I'm not sure I can right away.
So something that I think is a part of this is the nature of how the film was adapted from the novel (a very short book called Mygale).
SPOILERS FOR THE FILM AND THE BOOK!
So in the book, the main character is much more of a rapist and also kind of a sadist. In the film, his sexual assaults are really toned down and he doesn't seem as evil.
The sexual assaults (which are also in the book, though with slightly different context) are meant to be super ironic when you finally realize that the woman being assaulted is the same man who we see raping a disabled teen.
I think that toning down the main character's evil nature while still keeping his "punishment" in full swing creates a much more upsetting story. I mean, it's all upsetting, but this way is more so.
The film also goes a different direction with the character of the doctor, making him the villain of the piece. In the novel, he realizes that it was the main character's friend who was more evil, and decides to let him go.
In any event, I agree that it's a disturbing film. I think that there are some lingering elements from the novel (which was written in the 80s) that show a more dated attitude toward the things you list. I enjoyed it, but it is a hard watch.
Guaporense
09-09-21, 06:46 PM
Jodorowski's Dune (2014)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0cJNR8HEw0
One of the best documentaries I ever watched.
GulfportDoc
09-09-21, 08:22 PM
26th Hall of Fame (REWATCH)
All the President's Men (1976) - rating_4_5
I'm not the biggest fan of biopics. While they may be elevated by some strong acting or some decent camerawork, they often have little else on their minds other than championing whoever is at the heart of their stories or offering a straightforward retelling of whatever noteworthy thing the subject did. While my impression of them is generally "I'd rather just research the person in the film rather than watch a movie about them", this film is an exception to this criticism as it's as much about the process of how the Watergate scandal was uncovered as it is about the scandal itself. Regardless of where you stand politically, this film is a must-see.
This films wraps you up in its story so well with a series of revelations about various people's involvements to the scandal and significant pieces of information coming to light that it keeps you on board with the investigation from beginning to end, even though the outcome of it is already known. As a cherry to all this, certain characters and events (Deep Throat, most of the witnesses being afraid to speak up, members of the CREEP potentially being in danger) add an extra layer of spice to the film and help to ensure that you won't grow bored while watching it. This film also feels relevant today given the various discussions and trials on impeachments/cover-ups/scandals which have permeated the news in the U.S. in the last few years or so.
Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman did a good job in this film and played their parts of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, two Washington Post reporters with different levels of experience, pretty well. Woodward didn't have as much experience at his job as Bernstein did and often showed a reluctance to push the various witnesses they ran into for interviews when they were reluctant to talk, while Bernstein was more demanding with the people he interviewed and didn't accept no for an answer. As the scandal kept growing more and more widespread throughout their investigation and as the importance of solving it eventually dawned on Woodward though, he eventually assisted Bernstein in these endeavors. While Redford and Hoffman are good though, Jason Robards gives the best performance in the film. Even though I've only seen him in four or five films, he's blown me away in every single one of them, as he did in this film. With maybe the exception of Once Upon a Time in the West, I've only seen him in supporting roles, but he plays his part in this film quite phenomenally and proves magnetic whenever he's onscreen. His character has more experience than both Woodward and Bernstein and has to be really careful that the two of them have enough evidence before publishing it. After all, a slip up could potentially bring a bad name to their paper.
Overall, I liked this film about as much as I did the last time I watched it and I'm glad it was nominated for this thread.
Very nice review. This was a great picture, not because it benefited by fudging a little on the facts, but because it had high energy and genuine suspense. And, as you say, the acting was first rate.
It was a picture that was everything The Post tried to be, but failed badly. Post had lots of talent but tried to force a second rate story into something that it wasn't.
SpelingError
09-09-21, 08:24 PM
Very nice review. This was a great picture, not because it benefited by fudging a little on the facts, but because it had high energy and genuine suspense. And, as you say, the acting was first rate.
It was a picture that was everything The Post tried to be, but failed badly. Post had lots of talent but tried to force a second rate story into something that it wasn't.
Yeah, I've heard that The Post isn't that good, so I've been hesitant to check it out.
Takoma11
09-09-21, 08:50 PM
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.rogerebert.com%2Fuploads%2Freview%2Fprimary_image%2Freviews%2Fphiladelphia-1994%2Fhero_Philadelphia-image-2.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
Philadelphia, 1993
Hotshot lawyer Andrew (Tom Hanks) works for one of the most prestigious law firms in the state. But when Andrew, who has AIDS, begins to suffer more obviously from his illness, he is suddenly and unexpectedly fired from the firm. Andrew seeks out the assistance of injury lawyer Joe (Denzel Washington) to help him mount a case against the law firm. Joe must confront his own homophobia as the two men collaborate on the case.
In his opening to the jury, Joe tells them that this will not be like the movies: there will be no last minute reveals, no shocking and damning testimony from the witness stand. That this will be a case about facts and about the truth.
While this didn't actually hold true for the whole film--I would say that there were two moments that counted as shocking courtroom happenings--the film does resist a big "a-ha" moment. Like a lot of discrimination in the workplace, what happened to Andrew wasn't something that left a paper trail. There are no internal memos saying "We need to fire the gay guy." There are no deep conspiracies. This is a story about the way that people with power have the ability to simply push away and sideline those who are different or who make them uncomfortable.
Hanks and Washington are both very solid in their roles. Washington's character is interesting, as much of his homophobia comes from ignorance. In an early scene, he claims not to know any gay people, and is then shocked when his wife lists off half a dozen of their friends and family. Washington begins as someone who is merely interested in the legal aspect of the case, but as he gets to know Andrew, he understands the human cost of what has happened. Hanks walks a nice line between a man who is very solid in his understanding of his own abilities and what has happened to him, and a man whose body is slowly failing.
Probably one of the best aspects of the movie is the portrayal of the firm's partners. While they don't get a ton of screen time, they are more than one-dimensional. Yes, they are homophobic, and yes, they let their discomfort with Andrew drive them to fire a man without cause. But as the film goes on, we begin to see the cracks in their position. They respect Andrew as a lawyer, and even like him (to a degree) as a person. Again: it's not about a "gotcha" moment. It's about telling the truth about why they made their decision.
As with any social issue film from a while back, it's fascinating to think how far things have come. In this case, I mean both in terms of the treatment and prevention of HIV and the general cultural acceptance of gay people. Yeah, there are still homophobes braying about "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve", but the idea of an educated person being afraid to touch a gay person seems incredibly foreign. (The film does a nice job of framing the anxieties of the time, specifically that HIV could possibly be transmitted by touch, even though Joe's doctor correctly lays out that that's not the case).
Overall a satisfying courtroom drama that delivers both in and out of the court sequences.
4
I recently rewatched this and was surprised by how well it held up.
Takoma11
09-09-21, 09:32 PM
I recently rewatched this and was surprised by how well it held up.
I think it's because ultimately it's a story about empathy and about how following one's values can actually lead to a change in point of view.
It's also not afraid of a bit of nuance. Like when the woman testifies that she has felt discrimination at the firm. When she's asked to then explain how she came to be promoted as such a "discriminatory" firm, she simply says that she can't, and that it's not as simple as that.
I think that this actually touches on why discrimination in some forms can be tricky. It's not a unilateral front of always oppressing people who are "other". And because in some cases it is driven by fear and discomfort, it can be unpredictable.
I think it's because ultimately it's a story about empathy and about how following one's values can actually lead to a change in point of view.
It's also not afraid of a bit of nuance. Like when the woman testifies that she has felt discrimination at the firm. When she's asked to then explain how she came to be promoted as such a "discriminatory" firm, she simply says that she can't, and that it's not as simple as that.
I think that this actually touches on why discrimination in some forms can be tricky. It's not a unilateral front of always oppressing people who are "other". And because in some cases it is driven by fear and discomfort, it can be unpredictable.
Yeah, and also because most of those situations are still real; not only to gay people, but to pretty much every minority. The stigma of AIDS might (?) have receded, but not the stigma of racism, homophobia, or xenophobia.
John W Constantine
09-09-21, 10:01 PM
Freddy's Revenge - 1985
3
Could have used a little more subtext.
WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?
(1966, Nichols)
A film with a punctuation symbol in its title
https://i.imgur.com/CfmJjGy.png
Martha: "Truth and illusion, George. You don't know the difference."
George: "No, but we must carry on as though we did."
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? follows middle-aged marriage couple George (Richard Burton) and Martha (Elizabeth Taylor), as they invite a young couple at their home after a party. The evening, though, unravels from a constant parade of insults and bickering into a game of bitter fights and tragic revelations. It's important to mention that Burton and Taylor were actually married at the moment, although they would divorce 8 years later... and remarry one year after, and divorce again one year after.
For the first hour or so, I was really enjoying the fast-paced bickering and how quippy the dialogue was. I was laughing, just like their guests were laughing. But as the night progressed, you can see the conversations shift from the regular back and forth of married couples to a more pointed, deliberate, and calculated game of hurt, so to speak. The last hour was a painful and tragic sequence of hurtful decisions and machinations that you wonder if their marriage, or any marriage, could recover.
Both Burton and Taylor were simply excellent on their roles. I think I was more impressed with Burton, but Taylor was great, and she really nailed that key final monologue where the illusion is dropped, and the truth comes out. Also, George Segal and Sandy Dennis were pretty good as the young couple. It's no wonder that all four were nominated for Oscars.
Grade: 4.5
Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2237487#post2237487) and the PR HOF4 (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2237488#post2237488).
WHITBISSELL!
09-09-21, 11:40 PM
WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?
(1966, Nichols)
A film with a punctuation symbol in its title
https://i.imgur.com/CfmJjGy.png
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? follows middle-aged marriage couple George (Richard Burton) and Martha (Elizabeth Taylor), as they invite a young couple at their home after a party. The evening, though, unravels from a constant parade of insults and bickering into a game of bitter fights and tragic revelations. It's important to mention that Burton and Taylor were actually married at the moment, although they would divorce 8 years later... and remarry one year after, and divorce again one year after.
For the first hour or so, I was really enjoying the fast-paced bickering and how quippy the dialogue was. I was laughing, just like their guests were laughing. But as the night progressed, you can see the conversations shift from the regular back and forth of married couples to a more pointed, deliberate, and calculated game of hurt, so to speak. The last hour was a painful and tragic sequence of hurtful decisions and machinations that you wonder if their marriage, or any marriage, could recover.
Both Burton and Taylor were simply excellent on their roles. I think I was more impressed with Burton, but Taylor was great, and she really nailed that key final monologue where the illusion is dropped, and the truth comes out. Also, George Segal and Sandy Dennis were pretty good as the young couple. It's no wonder that all four were nominated for Oscars.
Grade: 4.5
Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2237487#post2237487) and the PR HOF4 (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2237488#post2237488).I remember when I first watched this being completely blown away by the raw intensity of it. It was almost like I was listening in on something I shouldn't have been hearing. Maybe it was because I was a relatively young man but it made me strangely uncomfortable. Great performances all around though.
PHOENIX74
09-10-21, 12:21 AM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Elvis_The_Movie_1979_poster.jpg
By The poster art copyright is believed to belong to the distributor of the film, ABC, or the graphic artist(s). - http://www.theofficialjohncarpenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/john-carpenter-elvis-poster.jpg, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=52531323
Elvis - (1979)
Here's a really fun piece of trivia - in the 1963 Elvis Presley film It Happened at the World's Fair, an 11 year-old Kurt Russell had a small role as a kid who Elvis gets to kick him in the shins so he can visit a pretty nurse. Years later, Kurt Russell would portray Elvis Presley in the John Carpenter television film Elvis, which kicked off a pretty neat partnership between director and actor :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFYymPHBnNo
A very young Kurt Russell kicking Elvis - and returning to mess up his romantic plan
As far as the 3 hour film goes, it's pretty standard biopic stuff. It goes from the childhood of Elvis up to his 1970 comeback concert tour, ending on a more triumphant note than it would have if it included his death. Russell acquits himself quite well, and despite it's length the film never drags. The most interesting character apart from the King himself is his mother - played by Shelley Winters. Apparently the two were incredibly close. The DVD version I watched had been remastered and cleaned up, so it looked quite good, and had a 'making of' featurette amongst other things. The film was released cinematically all over the world after it had appeared on T.V. in the U.S.
6/10
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1b/Basic_movie.jpg
By The poster art can or could be obtained from Columbia Pictures., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1394540
Basic - (2003)
I was researching something else when I came across scriptwriter James Vanderbilt and his frustrations over changes made to his scripts by producers at the start of his career. One of those films was Basic - a film on my watchlist directed by John McTiernan. It instantly went to the head of the queue, especially with it's decent IMDb score. It's essentially an updated remake of Rashomon, with events being replayed over and over as the suspects in a mysterious crime change their stories and give differing testimony.
It all starts with a team of Army Rangers going on an exercise led by Sergeant Nathan West (Samuel L. Jackson) - an exercise where only two people return, one of them wounded. All of the others are presumed dead. Ex-Ranger and now DEA agent Tom Hardy (John Travolta) is brought in when the two returned Rangers refuse to talk to M.P. Julia Osborne (Connie Nielsen.) There begins a slow unravelling of the events that took place.
This is a film that is particularly hard to follow as stories change, motivations get screwed around with and even character's names change. Who did what to whom, why they did it, how they did it and who was involved gets more and more complicated - then the whole story gets turned on it's head as twist after twist is revealed. A lot of it doesn't matter in the final analysis - only the final version of the truth we end up with - and that's where the film really lost me. The final twist just doesn't make sense to me in regards to the rest of the film. James Vanderbilt talks a bit about the changes made to his script in a very good-natured way on the DVD extras, but you can see that some of the things that don't make sense were enforced on the film by producers with certain stipulations which ruined it.
There was a half-decent film in there somewhere, something like A Few Good Men (and as I mentioned, Rashomon,) and I'm sure another viewing would clear up some of the confusion - but I'd still be left with that final twist and how it doesn't seem to make much sense in regard to the rest of the film.
5/10
Freddy's Revenge - 1985
3
Could have used a little more subtext.
:rotfl:
I remember when I first watched this being completely blown away by the raw intensity of it. It was almost like I was listening in on something I shouldn't have been hearing. Maybe it was because I was a relatively young man but it made me strangely uncomfortable. Great performances all around though.
Definitely. For lack of a better term, it felt like a train wreck in terms of how ****ed up could these two be, and yet I can't look away... only to realize the tragedy afterwards. It was really, really good.
On the other hand, during the first 30-40 minutes, I couldn't help but think that this had to be an inspiration for Married with Children :laugh:
WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?
(1966, Nichols)
A film with a punctuation symbol in its title
https://i.imgur.com/CfmJjGy.png
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? follows middle-aged marriage couple George (Richard Burton) and Martha (Elizabeth Taylor), as they invite a young couple at their home after a party. The evening, though, unravels from a constant parade of insults and bickering into a game of bitter fights and tragic revelations. It's important to mention that Burton and Taylor were actually married at the moment, although they would divorce 8 years later... and remarry one year after, and divorce again one year after.
For the first hour or so, I was really enjoying the fast-paced bickering and how quippy the dialogue was. I was laughing, just like their guests were laughing. But as the night progressed, you can see the conversations shift from the regular back and forth of married couples to a more pointed, deliberate, and calculated game of hurt, so to speak. The last hour was a painful and tragic sequence of hurtful decisions and machinations that you wonder if their marriage, or any marriage, could recover.
Both Burton and Taylor were simply excellent on their roles. I think I was more impressed with Burton, but Taylor was great, and she really nailed that key final monologue where the illusion is dropped, and the truth comes out. Also, George Segal and Sandy Dennis were pretty good as the young couple. It's no wonder that all four were nominated for Oscars.
Grade: 4.5
Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2237487#post2237487) and the PR HOF4 (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2237488#post2237488).
I've actually kinda privately avoided this film for years because I'm one of those people that really hates watching train wrecks.
PHOENIX74
09-10-21, 01:19 AM
Jodorowski's Dune (2014)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0cJNR8HEw0
One of the best documentaries I ever watched.
I remember seeing this a couple of years ago with friends - a great documentary for film lovers. I recommend it to everyone.
Fabulous
09-10-21, 02:32 AM
The Brothers Bloom (2008)
3
https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/heynjquDV0REveOItjMGFRaW9sV.jpg
xSookieStackhouse
09-10-21, 07:26 AM
3.5
https://horrornews.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Requiem-For-A-Dream-poster-1.jpg
I've actually kinda privately avoided this film for years because I'm one of those people that really hates watching train wrecks.
Well, if you're into great performances, dialogue, and writing, I'd say you need to give it a shot. To be fair, it isn't a "hopeless mess of despair", but I don't want to spoil anything.
As a matter of fact, I would love to ask anyone that has seen it... SPOILERS NOW FOR VIRGINIA WOOLF
Do you think Martha and George are better at the end than they were at the start? I mean, taking away all the hurt, the bickering, and the insults, my mind thinks that the climatic moment was necessary to move on. And even though that "breach" in their intimacy from both parts will surely leave a dent, to put it mildly, their final interaction hints at the possibility of them... maybe making it? What does everyone think?
The Philadelphia Experiment - 3
A movie that could be described as Back to the Future before Back to the Future - it even has a joke about Ronald Reagan being the president - The Philadelphia Experiment is not the classic that that movie is, but it has enough going for it to make it worth checking out. It is based on a myth about World War II battleship U.S.S. Eldridge, which may or may not have been equipped with experimental radar-deflecting technology. Once activated, crewmen David Herdeg (Michael Paré) and Jim Parker (Bobby Di Cicco) find themselves in 1984. With the help of unwilling accomplice Allison (Nancy Allen), they look for a way to return, all the while dealing with the future shock of everything from television to pop-top cans of Coke.
Much of what makes this movie work and worth watching is Paré's performance. He is very convincing as a man who is out of place, looking for answers and unwilling to become a pawn of scientists and the government, all of whom pursue Jim, Allison, and himself pretty much as soon as he arrives in the future. His bemused reactions to modern conveniences also made me laugh while his more grieved ones, like seeing pictures of himself on a wall in his father's mechanic business, became my own. The special effects are not half bad either, especially the all-consuming vortex in the sky which is an unfortunate byproduct of the Eldridge's failed experiment. The high-contrast lighting that accompanies the time shifts, on the other hand, has not aged well, but it at least gets its purpose across.
What prevents this movie from being a classic time travel story? In spite of its real-life inspirations and relatively unique vehicle, it's a pretty standard entry in this subgenre. It also doesn't help that much of the science, ramifications of going to the future, etc. are sidelined in favor of David and Allison's romance. Despite not totally coming across like a Stockholm Syndrome case as well as Paré and Allen's chemistry and strong acting, I felt that it marginalized a lot of the technical mumbo jumbo, which to me is the "good stuff" that is a perk to movies like this one. Also, while I've praised the effects and some of the acting - Steven Tobolowsky also impresses in an early role as a scientist - it often resembles a TV movie from its era and the general performance is of average quality at best. I still enjoyed it and it scratched my itch for good sci-fi, but if you somehow haven't seen that other time travel movie that came out the following year yet, watch it first.
GulfportDoc
09-10-21, 10:39 AM
Yeah, I've heard that The Post isn't that good, so I've been hesitant to check it out.
It's definitely a watchable film. To my taste the favorites were Bob Odenkirk's and Matthew Rhys' work. Here's a review I made from a few years ago:
The Post (2017)
This is a film which tries to be an important picture, but it suffers from several miscalculations. The first assumption was that if a heavyweight group of movie people are put together into a movie project, then the result would be terrific. The second miscalculation was that dredging up an anachronistic federal scandal, despite what we've witnessed in recent times of several equally shameful governmental scandals (exposed by Snowden, Assange), would be of interest to a younger generation.
Some of the biggest and most bankable names in cinema were on exhibit: Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep, John Williams, 20th Century Fox, Universal Pictures, along with a first rate supporting cast of players and craft people.
But the result was workmanlike, almost tired: a very watchable film, but one that seemed to be overly impressed with its subject matter. And therein lies part of the problem. The story focused on The Washington Post's publisher, Katharine Graham, and to a lesser extent on its executive editor, Ben Bradlee. But yet Graham had only a minor part in the actual historical events. It was simply that it was she who had to make the final decision on whether or not The Washington Post would follow the New York Times' lead and publish more of the "Pentagon Papers".
But the real story was Daniel Ellsberg's theft of the volumes of damning evidence regarding the government's lies to the public about the Vietman war, and the exposure of its cold-blooded sacrifice of many thousands of our soldiers to a cause which the government knew it could not possibly win, but yet was too pig-headed to get out. The real story was the lying and cover-up by government, not Katharine Graham.
The secondary story was that Ellsberg then handed over this trove of damning evidence to the New York Times, who subsequently published it serially until a Federal court injunction caused them to cease. Later The Washington Post obtained a copy and ran with it, and was quickly followed in suit by other major newspapers. The film leaves the impression that it was The Washington Post who was forging ahead to expose the evil governmental corruption, but yet they were only following up to the rear of the New York Times.
However it's a reasonable bet that Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks would not commit to a project that would not heavily feature them. So in order to fill that accommodation the final script was presumably written with that in mind. Heroes were made of the wrong people. Therefore the story seemed hollow. How much time could be devoted to Graham fretting over, "Should I" or "Should I not" publish these documents? The answer: way too much.
The acting was first rate, and featured fine performances from the supporting cast, most notably Bob Odenkirk's and Matthew Rhys'.
The producers were eager to follow up with the success of All the President's Men. But with no mystery and intrigue the result was a film with minimal suspense and urgency. It not only did not present anything new, but it reduced a fascinating event in our history into a rather uneven and out of focus misrepresentation.
Spielberg's direction was competent, but boilerplate, almost as if he hadn't given the project his full attention. The opening and closing scenes seemed tacked on, as if to insure the film's relevancy. The opening Vietnam battlefield scenes were presumably intended to both show the horrors of war and also to introduce Ellsberg (Matthew Rhys), as he feverishly rattled away on his portable typewriter in the war zone. The incongruous closing scene showed a view of the Watergate burglary looking from across the street at the 6th floor as the janitor discovered the crime in progress. The footage, which just as easily might have been taken from YouTube, was evidently intended to leave the movie goer with the impression that, although Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson were the major forces in the government's horrific decision to squander thousands of American lives, it was Nixon who was really bad, even though it was Nixon who finally got the U.S. out of Vietnam.
Doc's rating: 6/10, mostly for the acting and craft work
Yeah, I've heard that The Post isn't that good, so I've been hesitant to check it out.
I might be in a slight minority, but it's my lowest ranking Spielberg. I thought it was a bore.
Stirchley
09-10-21, 02:01 PM
I thought The Post was fine.
81157
Hard movie to follow. Flashbacks, forward-flashes, it’s all over the place. Cage very good as twin brothers. Not bad. I did finish it, but 2 hours seemed like 3 hours.
The Cat o’ Nine Tails (1971)
2.5
Surprisingly ordinary thriller by Argento. The killer's motive is apparent from the start, but I didn't see any proper build-up to who it eventually was. Not terrible, not great.
--
Malignant (2021)
2.5
It seems more and more clear that The Conjuring was an accident. This isn't a bad film per se, but it's a soulless and bland mash-up of a gazillion influences ground into a tasteless Hollywood paste. Totally watchable, totally forgettable.
Karen (Coke Daniels, 2021) 2 5/10
Genus Pan (Lav Diaz, 2020) 2.5 6/10
She Ball (Nick Cannon, 2020) 2 5/10
The Professional (Georges Lautner, 1981) 2.5+ 6/10
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMzE2ZmZhNTEtODA5MS00NTQxLTk3ZDktMmVkNzY2NzM4NzRiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDMwNDYzMDc@._V1_SX539_CR0,0,539 ,305_AL_.jpg
French spy Jean-Paul Belmondo takes glee in getting revenge on those who had him imprisoned and tortured in Africa.
The Creeper (Jean Yarbrough, 1948) 2.5 5.5/10
Introspectum Motel (Marcel Dorian, 2021) 1.5 4+/10
The Rocket (Kim Mordaunt, 2013) 2.5 6/10
Respect (Liesl Tommy, 2021) 3- 6.5/10
https://64.media.tumblr.com/e2c00404414b99290f4b79813e8f0123/c264591482fc16d3-ea/s500x750/9cfe7e3bc1dd70e784e8fe859ab20abd3955a7bc.gifv
Superficial yet entertaining account of Aretha Franklin's recording career paralleling her civil rights awareness.
Escape Room: Tournament of Champions (Adam Robitel, 2021) 2.5 6/10
He's All That (Mark Waters, 2021) 2+ 5/10
Lay That Rifle Down (Charles Lamont, 1955) 2.5 5.5/10
Malignant (James Wan, 2021) 2.5 6/10
https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2021-08/31/16/asset/44502977a43d/anigif_sub-buzz-410-1630428662-17.gif
I guess you could call that thing wasting everybody a shadow, but you'd be missing the point.
The Voyeurs (Michael Mohan, 2021) 2.5 5.5/10
Demonia (Lucio Fulci, 1990) 2 5/10
Heading for Heaven (Lewis D. Collins, 1947) 2.5 5.5/10
Gilda Live (Mike Nichols & Lorne Michaels, 1980) 3 6.5/10
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/17/28/ff/1728ff7c2f4d210bbdf87fdaf2a8b11d.gif
Filmization of Gilda's Live on Broadway concert is heartfelt and funny, with a good assist from Father Guido Sarducci (Don Novello).
JJ+E (Alexis Almström, 2021) 2.5 5.5/10
Double Trouble (Norman Taurog, 1967) 2 5/10
Crow Hollow (Michael McCarthy, 1952) 2.5 6/10
Terra Nova (Aleksandr Melnik, 2008) 3- 6.5/10
https://www.prisonmovies.net/wp-content/uploads/terra-nova-0.jpg
Spectacular locations and ultraviolence highlight this story of survival set in the near future. R.I.P. the director
Gideon58
09-10-21, 04:42 PM
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/52/8d/71/528d712aba31ffcc413b1530935b9f8c.jpg
4
Takoma11
09-10-21, 07:08 PM
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F--DfMPhQZ7LE%2FV59vkE31m6I%2FAAAAAAAAQbY%2FH-enZyNMoHkUjXbyLHI0HLYZ4rjLpAMRwCEw%2Fs1600%2FWest%252BSide%252BStory%252B6.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
West Side Story, 1961
In a New York City neighborhood, tensions run high between two rival gangs. The Jets, led by Riff (Russ Tamblyn) repeatedly squabble and rumble with the Sharks, led by Bernardo (George Chakiris). Standing outside it all, yet unavoidably bound to the conflict, are Riff's brother Tony (Richard Beymer) and Bernardo's sister, Maria (Natalie Wood), who fall swiftly in love. But the gang violence threatens to destroy the happiness of the young lovers.
Another film I've been meaning to see forever, that I've only ever known through short snippets and GIFs, and turned out to be a very pleasant surprise.
Musicals can be pretty hit or miss with me. Setting aside whether or not the music itself is good enough to listen to, characters suddenly bursting into song can come across more silly than genuine. Musicals are a genre that tend to push up against the borders of my suspension of disbelief.
In any event, West Side Story circumvents any of those pitfalls through the simple mechanism of being TOTALLY EXTRA. Dancerly, balletic movements punctuate almost all of the scenes. Yes, there are the moments that you're definitely in the middle of a number, but are you every truly out of a number in this movie? I don't think so. At any moment someone might punctuate a strong statement with a kick or a twirl.
And that might sound like I'm poking fun at the film, but it's quite the opposite. The movie happily blurs the line between the allegorical world of dance and the "real" world of the film, which makes the transitions between scenes and sequences far less jarring. It results in a far more immersive experience. It also makes it feel far less absurd that a hardened street gang would twirl around like they're running a few minutes late for a turn in Swan Lake. These street kids will sing and dance their emotional traumas, their fatalistic outlook on life, and their semi-serious attempts to stab each other.
Maria and Tony didn't super grip me as a couple, but that doesn't really matter. It is enough to see the way that the oppressive hate from both sides sabotages something as simple as a teenage crush.
What I think the film conveys best is the way that the hatred between the two groups comes both from bias and from a sense of being unsettled. These are all very angry young people, and they have nowhere to point their anger but at each other. It's interesting to see that neither side will cooperate with the police. But with an inability to do anything about authority figures, they turn on each other.
Which isn't to say that I found them entirely sympathetic. The Jets (with whom we spend the most time) are a veritable study in wounded, impotent masculinity. They bluster about fighting with rocks, knives, and guns, and yet are entirely unprepared for the consequences of such violence. In the scene that feels the most "real", the Jets harass and sexually assault Maria's best friend, Anita (Rita Moreno), seemingly only stopped from committing rape by the timely intervention of an older man. One of the Jets then protests that they didn't choose the way the world works. Right, but um . . . . you do get to choose whether or not you rape someone. I did wonder in that moment how self-aware the film was with that exchange. To me, it indicated young people who, in the face of a degree of helplessness, have assumed a victim mentality that they can't control anything, even their own actions.
From a technical point of view, the choreography and the way that it blends with the camera techniques are pretty aces. At one point I genuinely thought something was very wrong with my TV before realizing it was just a very colorful transition. There are "standalone" dancing sequences in open spaces, and also sequences that take place in more complicated sets. I thought it all looked great. Even the songs that didn't do too much for me still felt very watchable because the dancing and camera looked so good.
To my eye, the only real misstep was the makeup on the actors playing the Puerto Rican characters. Like, wow. After watching, I confirmed what I hadn't understood while watching, which is that Rita Moreno (who is Puerto Rican!) was wearing a bunch of darkening makeup. I guess she had to wear it to match the skin tone that they put on the other (white) actors. Anyway, kind of yikes. It just doesn't look good---it very obviously looks like people wearing a ton of thick makeup.
Despite this, though, a really good watch overall. Deservedly iconic.
4
GulfportDoc
09-10-21, 08:17 PM
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? follows middle-aged marriage couple George (Richard Burton) and Martha (Elizabeth Taylor), as they invite a young couple at their home after a party. The evening, though, unravels from a constant parade of insults and bickering into a game of bitter fights and tragic revelations. It's important to mention that Burton and Taylor were actually married at the moment, although they would divorce 8 years later... and remarry one year after, and divorce again one year after.
For the first hour or so, I was really enjoying the fast-paced bickering and how quippy the dialogue was. I was laughing, just like their guests were laughing. But as the night progressed, you can see the conversations shift from the regular back and forth of married couples to a more pointed, deliberate, and calculated game of hurt, so to speak. The last hour was a painful and tragic sequence of hurtful decisions and machinations that you wonder if their marriage, or any marriage, could recover.
Both Burton and Taylor were simply excellent on their roles. I think I was more impressed with Burton, but Taylor was great, and she really nailed that key final monologue where the illusion is dropped, and the truth comes out. Also, George Segal and Sandy Dennis were pretty good as the young couple. It's no wonder that all four were nominated for Oscars.
Grade: rating_4_5
When "Woolf" came out, Liz and Dick were at the peak of their popularity, both singly and as a couple. The public could simply not get enough of them.
I agree with your commentary. The movie's 2nd half became very nasty, but still it ended up pretty nicely. Burton was a great actor, and Liz wasn't too shabby either. Segal and Dennis were first rate, but they had the thankless task of being pretty much set decoration in this picture.
Gideon58
09-10-21, 09:31 PM
[QUOTE=Thief;2237489][CENTER]WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?
(1966, Nichols)
It's no wonder that all four were nominated for Oscars.
Grade: 4.5
All four were nominated and Taylor and Dennis won
PHOENIX74
09-10-21, 11:39 PM
https://i.postimg.cc/rpRsF26P/hoffa.jpg
By IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=22441129
Hoffa - (1992)
I've spent nearly 30 years being half-interested in seeing Hoffa - it had a lousy reception when it was released, but hey, there are other films that have had a similar reception which I've been surprised by. Why not Hoffa? Well, I finally did it. It falls into the same trap The Doors did as a biopic - it says nothing about the person it's supposed to be about. We learn nothing personally about the man himself. But taken by themselves, the scenes involving events in Jimmy Hoffa's life are often interesting enough to watch thanks to Jack Nicholson and some great work behind the camera (not to mention the budget to really take us back in time.) I know nothing more about Hoffa than I did before I watched this - and think that Danny DeVito and David Mamet got lost somewhere along the way.
5/10
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/Shock_movie_poster.jpg
Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3416901
Shock - (1946)
Dr. Richard Cross has just bludgeoned his wife to death with a candlestick (pretty unusual behaviour from a doctor) - but his actions have been witnessed by another tenant in the hotel he's staying at. When she collapses in shock, Dr. Cross is called on to help her. There begins his efforts to control and drug her lest his murder be discovered - all the while his lover tries to persuade him to kill her. Thanks to a great performance from Vincent Price this 70 minute thriller was quite enjoyable - I even blurted something out aloud towards the ending - something I rarely do when watching a film alone.
6/10
https://i.postimg.cc/y6GVxrjq/Of-Human-Bondage-Poster.jpg
Of Human Bondage - (1934)
What a strange and wonderful story this was - much helped by a very eccentric performance by Bette Davis and a touching one from Leslie Howard. His character, Philip Carey, is a struggling artist who decides his mediocracy in that arena means he should discontinue it and study to become a doctor. While studying, he meets strange waitress Mildred - and falls hopelessly in love with her. Mildred is a cold, somewhat psychologically troubled young lady who delights in torturing poor Philip, who was born with a club foot. When Mildred goes off to marry someone else, a devastated Philip finds someone else. One day Mildred comes back to him, causing more turmoil in his life. The whole cycle repeats itself (in an awful way - Mildred runs off with his best friend) and eventually a sick Mildred (unmarried with a baby onboard) returns again. The amount of turmoil she creates for Philip is nearly unbearable, but his passion is only ever ignited by her.
Bette Davis really can't nail a cockney accent, but by grand fortune this only serves to heighten the psychopathic strangeness of Mildred - a women completely unmolested with a soul. The trauma she causes the one man who truly loves her, and in turn the women who truly love Philip, gives this love story a realistic edge that does great credit to it's source novel. I liked it far more than I thought I would.
7/10
skizzerflake
09-10-21, 11:58 PM
Tonight, it's a new one, Paul Schrader's The Card Counter. I'm mixed on this one. On the one hand, it's well crafted, acting is excellent and tension is constant. On the other hand, it's slow, full of a sort of toxic masculinity that mainly makes for glaring stares, especially in the context of a movie about poker where half of the movie is people staring at each other, tying to not reveal any emotion. Outside the game, they are still concealing their emotions, which threaten to boil over at any moment.
Oscar Issac is "Will Tell", a pro gambler, a guy who wins a lot but not so much as to arouse the attention of authorities in his gambling universe. He's a damaged guy, an ex military torturer with a lot of blood and pain on his hands. In his travels, he finds two other lost souls, Circ, who's father served with Will and killed himself and La Linda (Tiffany Haddish), who recruits guys like Will for higher stakes games that are controlled by shady figures who take part of the winnings. Circ (Tye Sheridan) is on a personal mission to kill a military contractor (Willem Dafoe) who led his father down the torturer road that led to his suicide.
You can probably guess that that between high stakes gambling and PTSD and a lethal grudge, there's not much humor in any of this. I'm relieved to say that nothing about the world of pro gambling or being a military torturer has any appeal to me at all, so I found myself not identifying with anybody in the movie. It's done very well, however, and if you like this sort of thing, it might work for you.
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zia6QXtrEJI
Nausicaä
09-11-21, 12:31 AM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e5/Kate_%28film%29.jpg/220px-Kate_%28film%29.jpg
3.5
SF = 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
When "Woolf" came out, Liz and Dick were at the peak of their popularity, both singly and as a couple. The public could simply not get enough of them.
I agree with your commentary. The movie's 2nd half became very nasty, but still it ended up pretty nicely. Burton was a great actor, and Liz wasn't too shabby either. Segal and Dennis were first rate, but they had the thankless task of being pretty much set decoration in this picture.
Re: Segal and Dennis, I agree. As good as they were, they were set up against two monster performances.
As for the 2nd half, I loved how just like Nick and Honey, we the audience, are lured into the middle of this bickering couple via laughs and jokes, only to end up not sure where to hide, where to look as things get nastier. It was a great switch.
All four were nominated and Taylor and Dennis won
I haven't seen A Man for All Seasons, so I can't speak to the quality of Scofield's performance. But if it's better than Burton, I'll be damned.
Fabulous
09-11-21, 02:30 AM
Brazil (1985)
3.5
https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/pbartrp1JZ6KWtfUOtzO7EmcIfn.jpg
EsmagaSapos
09-11-21, 07:21 AM
I thought The Post was fine.
81157
Hard movie to follow. Flashbacks, forward-flashes, it’s all over the place. Cage very good as twin brothers. Not bad. I did finish it, but 2 hours seemed like 3 hours.
I got the same impression, not about following the film, but about being a long one, I thought the same about Synecdoche, New York, and the latest I'm Thinking of Ending Things, maybe that's the intended. I liked them all, this one specially, uh, I was thinking what about Adaptation. did I like. I started compiling quotations that built certain characters in my mind, and Kaufman seems to be a guy of quotations, we can see that in his latest film, in his interviews, and when I'm trying to say what I liked about this film this comes to mind:
Chris Cooper as John Laroche:
"I'm probably the smartest person I know."
Meryl Streep as Susan Orlean:
"I suppose I do have one unembarrassed passion. I want to know what it feels like to care about something passionately."
Nicolas Cage as Charlie Kaufman:
"That was her business, not mine. You are what you love, not what loves you. That's what I decided a long time ago."
I don't know if that's the case with everybody else, but this film built characters by certain sentences they said, some were just ingeniously funny, others were very reveling.
chawhee
09-11-21, 08:34 AM
Tonight, it's a new one, Paul Schrader's The Card Counter. I'm mixed on this one. On the one hand, it's well crafted, acting is excellent and tension is constant. On the other hand, it's slow, full of a sort of toxic masculinity that mainly makes for glaring stares, especially in the context of a movie about poker where half of the movie is people staring at each other, tying to not reveal any emotion. Outside the game, they are still concealing their emotions, which threaten to boil over at any moment.
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zia6QXtrEJI
I typically love movies about gambling, but your review seems to confirm what I originally thought about the trailer. The subject matter outside of gambling is the heavier/meatier part of the movie, no? Reviews seem pretty mixed across the internet so far.
Martyrs Lane (2021)
3
A traditional ghost story that doesn't offer surprises or crazy twists but trudges confidently on a well-tread path. It's sadder than scary, but many of the best hauntings are rooted in sorrow. A good example of how the film doesn't need to be original to be just fine.
Gideon58
09-11-21, 02:05 PM
I haven't seen A Man for All Seasons, so I can't speak to the d quality of Scofield's performance. But if it's better than Burton, I'll be damned.
I think Burton was robbed too...sometimes I think he's better than Taylor...sometimes.
Gideon58
09-11-21, 02:13 PM
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61yghioIkML._SL1000_.jpg
3
skizzerflake
09-11-21, 03:15 PM
I typically love movies about gambling, but your review seems to confirm what I originally thought about the trailer. The subject matter outside of gambling is the heavier/meatier part of the movie, no? Reviews seem pretty mixed across the internet so far.
The gambling part is fairly procedural and dry. The other part of the plot, the characters' various traumas, is the "weight" of the plot and somewhat reminds me of the feel (though not the plot) of The Deer Hunter or movies about holocaust survivors, in the sense that I know, in a factual sort of way, that these terrible things happen to people, but I'm not sure how to make entertainment out of it.
Jinnistan
09-11-21, 04:00 PM
Nicolas Cage as Charlie Kaufman:
"That was her business, not mine. You are what you love, not what loves you. That's what I decided a long time ago."
That was actually Donald Kaufman, the brother.
I'll tell you what I like about this film, which is likely to make my top 25 for the 00s. It's a true story, mostly. The Orchid Thief was a real non-fiction book from 1998. Susan Orlean (Streep) and John LaRouche (Cooper) are real people, the author and subject of said book. Charlie Kaufman was hired to adapt this non-fiction book before he had success with Being John Malkovich. He decided instead of adapting the book (which he couldn't do) to put himself into the adaptation trying to adapt the book, and inventing a non-existent twin brother (Donald) to act as his Hollywood id, giving him advice on commercial formula which has nothing to do with the book whatsoever. Robert McKee, the script whisperer, is also a real person (who looks remarkably like Brian Cox irl), who provides unhelpful rote formula structure which also doesn't help.
So in the end Kaufman fabricates a preposterous plot twist that epitomizes the laziest of Hollywood contrivances that he has been trying to avoid, turns the entire film into the kind of film that he hates, sacrifices his fake brother/alter ego Donald at the altar of the kind of film Donald was pushing him to write the entire movie, and then has Donald reveal the soul of the entire movie, both in the scene quoted above, and in his final death rattle.
It's the exact kind of surreal meta-ness that people who hate Charlie Kaufman can't stand, and exactly what I adore about his films and approach to narrative subversions. Donalds are a dime a dozen in this business.
Wyldesyde19
09-11-21, 04:59 PM
Adaptation will probably make my top 25 ballot as well.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F--DfMPhQZ7LE%2FV59vkE31m6I%2FAAAAAAAAQbY%2FH-enZyNMoHkUjXbyLHI0HLYZ4rjLpAMRwCEw%2Fs1600%2FWest%252BSide%252BStory%252B6.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
West Side Story, 1961
In a New York City neighborhood, tensions run high between two rival gangs. The Jets, led by Riff (Russ Tamblyn) repeatedly squabble and rumble with the Sharks, led by Bernardo (George Chakiris). Standing outside it all, yet unavoidably bound to the conflict, are Riff's brother Tony (Richard Beymer) and Bernardo's sister, Maria (Natalie Wood), who fall swiftly in love. But the gang violence threatens to destroy the happiness of the young lovers.
Another film I've been meaning to see forever, that I've only ever known through short snippets and GIFs, and turned out to be a very pleasant surprise.
Musicals can be pretty hit or miss with me. Setting aside whether or not the music itself is good enough to listen to, characters suddenly bursting into song can come across more silly than genuine. Musicals are a genre that tend to push up against the borders of my suspension of disbelief.
In any event, West Side Story circumvents any of those pitfalls through the simple mechanism of being TOTALLY EXTRA. Dancerly, balletic movements punctuate almost all of the scenes. Yes, there are the moments that you're definitely in the middle of a number, but are you every truly out of a number in this movie? I don't think so. At any moment someone might punctuate a strong statement with a kick or a twirl.
And that might sound like I'm poking fun at the film, but it's quite the opposite. The movie happily blurs the line between the allegorical world of dance and the "real" world of the film, which makes the transitions between scenes and sequences far less jarring. It results in a far more immersive experience. It also makes it feel far less absurd that a hardened street gang would twirl around like they're running a few minutes late for a turn in Swan Lake. These street kids will sing and dance their emotional traumas, their fatalistic outlook on life, and their semi-serious attempts to stab each other.
Maria and Tony didn't super grip me as a couple, but that doesn't really matter. It is enough to see the way that the oppressive hate from both sides sabotages something as simple as a teenage crush.
What I think the film conveys best is the way that the hatred between the two groups comes both from bias and from a sense of being unsettled. These are all very angry young people, and they have nowhere to point their anger but at each other. It's interesting to see that neither side will cooperate with the police. But with an inability to do anything about authority figures, they turn on each other.
Which isn't to say that I found them entirely sympathetic. The Jets (with whom we spend the most time) are a veritable study in wounded, impotent masculinity. They bluster about fighting with rocks, knives, and guns, and yet are entirely unprepared for the consequences of such violence. In the scene that feels the most "real", the Jets harass and sexually assault Maria's best friend, Anita (Rita Moreno), seemingly only stopped from committing rape by the timely intervention of an older man. One of the Jets then protests that they didn't choose the way the world works. Right, but um . . . . you do get to choose whether or not you rape someone. I did wonder in that moment how self-aware the film was with that exchange. To me, it indicated young people who, in the face of a degree of helplessness, have assumed a victim mentality that they can't control anything, even their own actions.
From a technical point of view, the choreography and the way that it blends with the camera techniques are pretty aces. At one point I genuinely thought something was very wrong with my TV before realizing it was just a very colorful transition. There are "standalone" dancing sequences in open spaces, and also sequences that take place in more complicated sets. I thought it all looked great. Even the songs that didn't do too much for me still felt very watchable because the dancing and camera looked so good.
To my eye, the only real misstep was the makeup on the actors playing the Puerto Rican characters. Like, wow. After watching, I confirmed what I hadn't understood while watching, which is that Rita Moreno (who is Puerto Rican!) was wearing a bunch of darkening makeup. I guess she had to wear it to match the skin tone that they put on the other (white) actors. Anyway, kind of yikes. It just doesn't look good---it very obviously looks like people wearing a ton of thick makeup.
Despite this, though, a really good watch overall. Deservedly iconic.
4
Great writeup of one of the few movies I consider to be a full 10/10 (even though I don't actually rate movies on any kind of scale).
There is so much that I could say about this film, and you've said a lot of it, but I really honestly find the movie rather daring for a musical of its era, especially compared to Wise's next one, The Sound Of Music, which is, to me, pretty much what I don't want in a musical.
By contrast this one is not only edgy and topical, but also fully embraces Jazz (both the music and dance forms) and has some of the most exciting dance sequences I've ever seen.
And it's a great looking film.
Takoma11
09-11-21, 08:30 PM
Great writeup of one of the few movies I consider to be a full 10/10 (even though I don't actually rate movies on any kind of scale).
There is so much that I could say about this film, and you've said a lot of it, but I really honestly find the movie rather daring for a musical of its era, especially compared to Wise's next one, The Sound Of Music, which is, to me, pretty much what I don't want in a musical.
By contrast this one is not only edgy and topical, but also fully embraces Jazz (both the music and dance forms) and has some of the most exciting dance sequences I've ever seen.
And it's a great looking film.
Yeah, I think that in something that looks like a cheery, almost Disney film, to have someone talk about their parents being abusive addicts, or to have such a (relatively) realistic sequence of sexual assault is unexpected. And, honestly, so were the deaths in the film. I think that the bright colors and the choreography acts as this interesting buffer, which allows the film to put some more daring ideas and content into the film. Like, did that dude just do a pirouette and then say his mom is a junkie?
Fabulous
09-11-21, 10:53 PM
Swingers (1996)
3
https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/yUTuHb75UKnKiUTpDn1kzUl7cd3.jpg
James D. Gardiner
09-11-21, 11:35 PM
https://i.imgur.com/A1Sq8fx.jpg
In the Wake of the Bounty (1933)
Australian film detailing the events of the famous 'Mutiny on the Bounty' incident, made two years prior to the much more widely known MGM release. The film is notable for featuring the first screen performance of Errol Flynn, who appears as Fletcher Christian. Those familiar with the basic plot of the story will find no surprises in the mutiny or its lead up, which is quickly breezed through with what has been described as rather mediocre acting, though interesting nevertheless.
The film really picks up however at around the mid-way point when it shifts to a semi-documentary format. It details the lives of the mutineers and their families on the Pitcairn Islands, from the time of the incident up until when the film was made. This offers a fascinating insight into a rarely told part of the story, showing real footage of the islanders and how they lived. Evidently the film makers found a lot of cooperation from the people in helping to examine what has always been a controversial subject. Definitely not the greatest movie, but enjoyable given its unique perspective.
6/10
MovieBuffering
09-12-21, 01:50 AM
Kramer vs Kramer (1979)
For some reason I always thought this movie was about a big court case for a lawyer or something. Didn't know it was about a custody battle. Threw me off a bit. It was well executed, acted and directed. Like many movies from this time period I appreciate the hell out of them super glad I watched them but ok with never revisiting them. Plus Streep just turns me off because I think she is a very good actress but imo overrated plus her politics are unbearable which doesn't help. I went into that on the Streep forum.
The kid in the movie would swing from bad, to annoy to good to very good from one scene to another for me ha. Hoffman was great and Streep was adequate enough. It was sort of refreshing to see pity for the father during a custody battle. Fathers get the shaft during custody/divorce hearings alot. The court scenes were a bit over the top but definitely the most engaging part of the movie. I can see where a movie like Iran's A Seperation took inspiration from this flick. Anyways I see why the movie is considered a classic but it dragged for me a bit.
Personally I'd give it a weak 3.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/61/9c/e1/619ce1bee67258b27c266f1b19cb5751.jpg
Takoma11
09-12-21, 11:22 AM
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theculturetrip.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F02%2Fopen_hearts_4.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
Open Hearts, 2002
In a tragic accident, a young man named Joachim (Nikolaj Lie Kaas) accidentally steps in front of a car being driven by Marie (Paprika Steen). Joachim ends up paralyzed from the neck down, and his depression and bitterness over his injury drives a wedge between himself and Cecille (Sonja Richter), his girlfriend. By coincidence, Marie's husband Niels (Mads Mikkelsen) works in the hospital, and soon he and Cecille strike up a co-dependent and then sexual relationship.
This film (part of the Dogme series, though it does seem to break a few of the rules) is the kind of film that seems more interested in observing than in necessarily making a statement about the choices and actions of its characters.
Something that the film does very well is show the way that a certain subgroup of emotions--guilt, anger, grief, regret--often don't have a "home" and thus end up being pushed onto the people around the person feeling the emotion.
In the case of Jaochim, he directs his anger outward at Cecille and at the incredibly patient nurse, Hanne (Birthe Neumann) who cares for him in the hospital. Joachim's abuse drives Cecille away, while Hanne's smirking reaction to his vulgar insults is what ends up finally breaking through his malaise a bit.
But what happens between Marie, Niels, and Cecille is more complicated. Marie is understandably torn apart by what happened, despite it not really being her fault. It is this guilt that leads Marie to encourage Niels in supporting Cecille, only realizing too late the nature of their relationship. Cecillem, reeling from her boyfriend's hateful language toward her, is looking for comfort. Niels, for his part, doesn't seem to fight the pull of the affair all too hard. In fact, when finally confronted with his actions, he seems immensely relieved to be able to point the finger at Marie for "forcing" him into spending time with Cecille.
It was interesting to see the contrast between the characters of Cecille and Niels and what it means for them to be engaged in the affair and what it means for them to think about "walking away." For Niels, he has a wife but he also has three children. When Niels is absent, the weight of running the household falls entirely on Marie. His character is very self-centered in his approach, blaming his family and especially his wife, for the fact that he feels "trapped." Cecille's situation is different, because she is looking more for a supplement, not a replacement. the contrast between how they feel about their relationship is shown neatly in a moment when they are interrupted during sex by a phone call from the hospital. Cecille leaves with no hesitation, but the look on Niels' face shows that he hadn't quite accepted his role as second-most important.
I have a friend whose husband several years ago suffered a traumatic brain injury, something that has permanently altered their relationship. He cannot work, and they no longer have a romantic life. They also have a young child. She has essentially become a caretaker for her child and her husband (and also their main source of income). From this lens, something that I felt didn't entirely feel honest was the scene at the end where Joachim basically gives Cecille his blessing for her to move on from him. It just didn't feel realistic. I know many people who have had boyfriends/girlfriends or spouses who have suffered from long-term or chronic situations, and none of them have resulted in one giving the other permission to go off on their own. It felt like a plot move intended to push Cecille's character to ask what she really wants, but it didn't feel authentic to me.
The performances here were very strong, and I appreciated that the film approached all of its characters with nuance and empathy. It is a complicated, messy situation, and the film doesn't try to offer any pat answers or lessons.
4
The Dark Crystal - 4
I've wanted to watch this movie again since I finished the very good Netflix series The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance and this thread gave me as good an excuse as any to do so. Coming across like an epic even though it's only a little over 90 minutes long, it takes place in a broken world - as evidenced by the titular broken jewel - and focuses on two races who could not be any more different. There's the Mystics, who as their name implies are always looking to the skies for answers, and the Skeksis - one of the most gruesome and unappealing villains in all of fiction, if you ask me - who are only concerned with their ill-gotten power. Our hero, though, is Jen, the apparent last member of the Gelfling race who is prophesized to restore the crystal and thus balance.
This may say more about me than the movies I watch, but so many of them these days have me reaching for my cell phone. This one, on the other hand, made me put it down. Not only is every frame a visual feast, but they also reward the observant eye whether it's the cleverly designed flora and fauna in the woods or the crowd of Podlings in the wings of the palace. Also, the painted vistas and puppetry hold up despite their age and have a physicality and personal touch that even the most sophisticated modern CGI could not replicate. The movie is labeled as dark fantasy, which I think fits given the subject matter and how revolting the villains are - especially during the dinner scene - but it still manages to be adorable and funny and at just the right times. Fizzgig and the Podlings - the non-turned ones, that is - have a lot to do with this, as does the irascible Aughra, who comes across like a mix of Tom Bombadil from The Lord of the Rings and Dorothy from Golden Girls. Credit also goes to Trevor Jones' score, especially for how it adds so much atmosphere and wonder with its simple motif.
Like the best fantasy, there is much more to take in while watching this movie beyond its imagination, lore, and old-fashioned underdog story. I can relate to its desire for those in power, who lately seem to fall into the movie's dominant camps, to understand one another, come together and that in doing so would make our world one worth living in and preserving. If there's a fault in the movie worth calling out, it's that it could be more tonally consistent, especially when it comes to the scary scenes. While I've praised the comic relief, it reminded me of the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie - which the Hensons also worked on, coincidentally - in that the violence does not always mesh with the scenes that are meant to appeal to children. Granted, I first watched this movie as an adult, but scenes like the one where the Skeksis drain the poor Podling's essence are pure nightmare fuel. Despite this flaw, I still rank this as one of the best fantasy movies I've seen and consider it an achievement in puppetry on par with the original Yoda. It's just too bad that with the Netflix series' cancellation, we may never get to visit this world again.
Fabulous
09-12-21, 01:09 PM
Almost Famous (2000)
4
https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/9vB4Lh7Y6aAjpNEX1QLtJKwCOLB.jpg
Takoma11
09-12-21, 02:02 PM
The Dark Crystal - 4.
I highly, HIGHLY recommend this documentary on the making of the film. I've watched it almost as much as the film itself. It really shows you just how much it was a labor of love.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1OLv8juIH4&t=69s
Takoma11
09-12-21, 02:18 PM
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fm.media-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FM%2FMV5BMTQ2MDEwMTI2MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODAzMDA3Mg%40%40._V1_CR0%2C60%2C640%2C 360_AL_UX477_CR0%2C0%2C477%2C268_AL_.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
Beeswax, 2009
Jeannie (Tilly Hatcher) and Lauren (Maggie Hatcher) are twin sisters, each suffering their own mini crisis. Jeannie is in a worsening dispute with her friend Amanda (Anne Dodge), with whom she co-owns a boutique. Lauren is essentially unemployed and unsure what to do with her life.
Here is the challenge with a film like this: you know when someone uses the phrase "Millenials" as an insult? Yeah, the people in this film are the kind of people they are imagining. In short, they are awful, and spending time with them is a chore.
On the other hand, the film and the actors in it very keenly and very accurately lampoon exactly the kind of wishy-washy narcissism that keeps so many young adults (and adults!) in a state of mediocrity. Jeannie spends the whole film avoiding just having a conversation with Amanda to really hash things out. Instead she spends a ton of time complaining to her friends and family, and having an unproductive meeting with a lawyer.
What the film also shows is the way that the characters have placed themselves in an echo chamber. There is no kind truth-telling here. Worst in this regard is maybe Jeannie's boyfriend, Merrill (Alex Karpovsky). Merrill clearly thinks of himself as being supportive, and yet in the most symbolic scene between them, he first forgets Jeannie in the car (she is a wheelchair user) and she must flag down a stranger to help her get out. Once inside where they are to have a meeting with a possible investor for the boutique, Merrill says he "wants to let Jeannie do the talking here" . . . and then proceeds to not only do all the talking, but in the process say things like "And of course the store will never be a big success."
I couldn't help but draw comparisons between this film and something like Frances Ha, but I think that Frances Ha works a bit better because we see some character growth. I will say that I think that the lack of character growth in Beeswax was intentional---it's showing us how these behaviors mean that the characters are repeatedly putting themselves into the quicksand. But it does generate a bit of narrative frustration.
As a character study, I think that this film is solid. But I imagine most viewers will struggle as I did, watching self-centered people make bad choices and sling passive-aggressive insults for 90 minutes.
3.5
Kramer vs Kramer (1979)
...Plus Streep just turns me off because I think she is a very good actress but imo overrated plus her politics are unbearable which doesn't help. I went into that on the Streep forum.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/61/9c/e1/619ce1bee67258b27c266f1b19cb5751.jpg
Hm. I gotta go find this Streep thread. Just to add to her being overrated, I consider her the greatest living actor, bar none.
I don't know anything about her politics.
The Dark Crystal - 4
I've wanted to watch this movie again since I finished the very good Netflix series The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance and this thread gave me as good an excuse as any to do so. Coming across like an epic even though it's only a little over 90 minutes long, it takes place in a broken world - as evidenced by the titular broken jewel - and focuses on two races who could not be any more different. There's the Mystics, who as their name implies are always looking to the skies for answers, and the Skeksis - one of the most gruesome and unappealing villains in all of fiction, if you ask me - who are only concerned with their ill-gotten power. Our hero, though, is Jen, the apparent last member of the Gelfling race who is prophesized to restore the crystal and thus balance.
This may say more about me than the movies I watch, but so many of them these days have me reaching for my cell phone. This one, on the other hand, made me put it down. Not only is every frame a visual feast, but they also reward the observant eye whether it's the cleverly designed flora and fauna in the woods or the crowd of Podlings in the wings of the palace. Also, the painted vistas and puppetry hold up despite their age and have a physicality and personal touch that even the most sophisticated modern CGI could not replicate. The movie is labeled as dark fantasy, which I think fits given the subject matter and how revolting the villains are - especially during the dinner scene - but it still manages to be adorable and funny and at just the right times. Fizzgig and the Podlings - the non-turned ones, that is - have a lot to do with this, as does the irascible Aughra, who comes across like a mix of Tom Bombadil from The Lord of the Rings and Dorothy from Golden Girls. Credit also goes to Trevor Jones' score, especially for how it adds so much atmosphere and wonder with its simple motif.
Like the best fantasy, there is much more to take in while watching this movie beyond its imagination, lore, and old-fashioned underdog story. I can relate to its desire for those in power, who lately seem to fall into the movie's dominant camps, to understand one another, come together and that in doing so would make our world one worth living in and preserving. If there's a fault in the movie worth calling out, it's that it could be more tonally consistent, especially when it comes to the scary scenes. While I've praised the comic relief, it reminded me of the first Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie - which the Hensons also worked on, coincidentally - in that the violence does not always mesh with the scenes that are meant to appeal to children. Granted, I first watched this movie as an adult, but scenes like the one where the Skeksis drain the poor Podling's essence are pure nightmare fuel. Despite this flaw, I still rank this as one of the best fantasy movies I've seen and consider it an achievement in puppetry on par with the original Yoda. It's just too bad that with the Netflix series' cancellation, we may never get to visit this world again.
Always loved this movie. Watched it relentlessly in my youth, sometimes every day for a week, then revisited it when I was in my mid-30s and loved it, and then once more in my early 40s.
The cancellation of the series was kinda heartbreaking to me as I really don't like very many shows, almost none really, and I loved that one. Much better than the gawd-awful Game Of Thrones.
I highly, HIGHLY recommend this documentary on the making of the film. I've watched it almost as much as the film itself. It really shows you just how much it was a labor of love.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1OLv8juIH4&t=69sThanks! I'll check it out. As luck would have it, a local arts center had a Dark Crystal series exhibit and interview with its creators recently, but I couldn't go. Here's a short virtual tour if you're interested:
https://youtu.be/cUQVcb9xp5c
Fabulous
09-12-21, 05:14 PM
Monster (2003)
3.5
https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/nUJk4UjWS9YvBJUepCWziQ1QYSf.jpg
SpelingError
09-12-21, 08:42 PM
26th Hall of Fame
And Then There Were None (2015) - 3.5
While I normally don't watch mini-series and television shows, I was still happy to check this one out. Though I had a couple issues with it, I found it to be an effective and tense thriller. The cinematography was a big highlight and enhanced the claustrophobia of the show. The shots of the coastline which seemed to go on forever, the barren landscapes on the island, and the occasional shots of the island being battered by thunderstorms helped to build tension. Speaking of which, I appreciated how different kinds of tension occurred amongst the characters on the island. Of course, there was the surface level tension of the characters growing distrustful of each other, but I also appreciated how, in some ways, they strangely seemed comfortable with each other. The bacchanal in episode three was effective at showing how much the events on the island had warped the characters. They had their differences and were still distrustful of each other, but they were all running out of hope of being rescued, so why not make the most of what may be their final days alive? As strong as this show is, I wasn't that big on the flashbacks. They worked well in the first episode, but not so much in the latter parts of the show. They often slowed the show down and killed the tension a handful of times when the show would cut away from the main action to them. To make matters worse, most of the flashbacks shown in the latter parts of the show (mainly the ones involving Claythorne) either repeated what we already knew about her or provided unnecessary details to her backstory. I also thought that the final reveal, while not bad per se, felt a bit lacking given all the buildup. In spite of these flaws, however, I enjoyed my time with the show and I'm glad it was nominated.
THE SQUID AND THE WHALE
(2005, Baumbach)
https://images.amcnetworks.com/ifccenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/the_squid_and_the_whale_1280.jpg
"Mom and me versus you and Dad."
The Squid and the Whale follows Bernard and Joan (Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney), a couple of "intellectuals" whose paths have diverted lately: Bernard's career is in decline as he focus more on his work as a professor, while Joan is on the rise as he's about to publish her first book. When they decide to separate, the decision affects their two sons: Walt and Frank (Jesse Eisenberg and Owen Kline), in very different ways.
The above line is actually the first line in the film; said at the start of a seemingly inoffensive game of tennis between the family. But still, it captures the essence of what is the core of the film, that of rivalry and competition, as well as kids taking sides with the parents, which is what eventually happens. Who will "win"?
Grade: 4
Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2238214#post2238214)
Takoma11
09-12-21, 11:23 PM
26th Hall of Fame
And Then There Were None (2015) - 3.5
Have you seen the 1945 version of the story? It's actually one of my favorite movies. It's a lot lighter than the source material, thanks to some changes made to the story to make it happier.
I enjoyed the miniseries, though I felt at times that it had some issues with pacing.
StuSmallz
09-13-21, 12:25 AM
Yes. While there were some stumbles, I appreciated that it didn't simply try to retread the original and instead picked its own path.Yup; I've actually grown to like it better than the original, come to think of it (then again, I was never a huge fan of Blade Runner '82 in the first place). By the way, did you ever check out the "Blackout" short film they produced to promote 2049?:
https://youtu.be/rrZk9sSgRyQ
It's pretty good, and gives us some nice additional context on the story they were creating, but I wasn't sure if you'd be open-minded enough to check it out, considering that it was directed by Shinichirō "Cowboy Bebop" Watanabe...
https://i.ibb.co/pvQRwvt/theyareontome.gif (https://imgbb.com/)Great writeup of one of the few movies I consider to be a full 10/10 (even though I don't actually rate movies on any kind of scale).
There is so much that I could say about this film, and you've said a lot of it, but I really honestly find the movie rather daring for a musical of its era, especially compared to Wise's next one, The Sound Of Music, which is, to me, pretty much what I don't want in a musical.I haven't seen West Side Story yet (though I want to), but just out of curiousity, why don't you care for Sound Of Music?
PHOENIX74
09-13-21, 01:16 AM
https://i.postimg.cc/FsTth9TQ/gypsy.jpg
By Incorporates artwork by Bill Gold. - http://www.moviegoods.com/Assets/product_images/1020/144061.1020.A.jpg, Public Domain, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25294178
Gypsy - (1962)
I would have enjoyed this musical a little more if it didn't run for a spirit-crushing 143 minutes. It's most positive note is a great performance by Rosalind Russell - in a role that was originally going to go to Judy Garland. She's terrific, and Natalie Wood looks terrific, but gives a performance that's a little one-note. Numbers like Everything's Coming Up Roses lift my spirits - but moments like those are too rare in this film, and in the end watching Russell's performance was the only thing I had to hold on to.
5/10
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d3/Five_easy_pieces.jpg
By www.impawards.com, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6705383
Five Easy Pieces - (1970)
It's been so long since I've seen this that I don't count it as a rewatch. Jack Nicholson's Oscar-nominated performance is full of energy and pathos, and serves the film's excellent script perfectly. I was meaning to really exalt Karen Black - because her performance is just as good, and gets lost behind the larger-than-life persona of Jack, but then I go and read that she was also nominated for an Oscar so she did get some recognition. Still - the next time you think about Five Easy Pieces, tell yourself it's that great Karen Black movie so she gets her due at least once. Jack Nicholson would stay loyal to director Bob Rafelson, appearing in some of his more middling efforts.
9/10
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/32/EasyRider.jpg
Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15892345
Easy Rider - (1969)
I got the same feeling watching Easy Rider that I did the first time - which is that it's a great movie, and iconic, but not the all-out masterpiece some people think it is. There's a hell of a lot of shots of Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper riding their choppers through the U.S. landscape to 1960s music - which is great at first but then starts to grate at me. The gravity and the greatness of the scenes that unfold when they make their stops varies - the diner scene which Jack Nicholson nails was one of my Uncle's favourite scenes in any movie. The ad-libbed scene where various Southern law-enforcement and truck drivers spout vicious hatred is also great. Some of Fonda and Hopper's stoned scenes are just that - Fonda and Hopper mumbling nonsense while stoned. I love around half of this film - but it falls way short of where others place it in the pantheon of great films. I understand why it's thought of so highly - a cultural landmark that stood for a lot of what the disaffected in the United States felt - that they were free, but at the same time were not allowed to be free in the true sense of the word. You either fit the mould or end up as roadkill.
Dennis Hopper's first cut of the film ran for 3 hours - I'm glad everyone talked him out of going with that version.
7/10
MovieBuffering
09-13-21, 04:01 AM
Thelma and Louise - 1991
Didn't realize Ridley Scott directed this. Didn't know Shooter McGavin was in this lol or Harvey Kietel. Feels like this movie is just screaming to get remade today in this climate. Girl power. I actually did like a good chunk of this movie, it will probably get remade by a woman directer within the next 5 years I bet and be a complete man hating fest of a movie. I think having Ridley direct it gave it a lighter touch. The only scene that was a bit heavy on the "we think men are scum" was the truck driver one at the end, could have done without that. Otherwise it gets it point across in an entertaining story.
Genna Davis and Susan Sarandon were really good in their roles and you could see Brad Pitt's star shine in his limited role. Everyone else left a lot to be desired ha. Lot of hammy acting. Also I don't know if it was because I watched it on Youtube but the editing and transition wasn't great to me. I don't know it was entertaining with two very good leads. I wouldn't be in a hurry to watch it again. I'd bet 100 bucks this thing gets remade in at least 5 years time.
2.5
https://www.iceposter.com/thumbs/MOV_bcd18f01_b.jpg
xSookieStackhouse
09-13-21, 04:55 AM
3.5
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTA1NDQ3NTcyOTNeQTJeQWpwZ15BbWU3MDA0MzA4MzE@._V1_.jpg
Ultraviolence
09-13-21, 08:39 AM
https://fanart.tv/fanart/movies/25602/moviebanner/ninja-53f636f2ea5de.jpg
A Good B action movie that know what it is!
3
https://fanart.tv/fanart/movies/9659/moviebanner/mad-max-52228d871ef06.jpg
Weird start! Everytime I watch I love all the cars and Max scenes more, and hate the biker gang scenes more.
2.5
https://fanart.tv/fanart/movies/436969/moviebanner/the-suicide-squad-60d73786cae1f.jpg
I heard that Stallone was part of it, during the movie I realized he was a damn CGI Shark. I stayed for the rest, but I honestly don't know how I got the stomach. One of the worst movies I've seen and the worst I've seen in 2021.
0.5
Hey Fredrick
09-13-21, 09:04 AM
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.rogerebert.com%2Fuploads%2Fmovie%2Fmovie_poster%2Fcolor-out-of-space-2020%2Flarge_color-space-poster.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
Kind of an Invasion of the Body Snatchers meets The Thing, meets The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verril, meets Society and a few more. A meteor lands in the yard of an Alpaca farmer and his family and things start getting a little weird. Took a while to get going but once it did it was a ton of fun. Cage is appropriately campy and his delivery in spots had me rolling. This is a good looking movie with some gooey fx. Could have been cut down to a shorter run time but I still liked it. rating_4
SpelingError
09-13-21, 11:40 AM
Have you seen the 1945 version of the story? It's actually one of my favorite movies. It's a lot lighter than the source material, thanks to some changes made to the story to make it happier.
I enjoyed the miniseries, though I felt at times that it had some issues with pacing.
I haven't seen the 1945 film, but this film definitely piqued my interest in it. I'll be sure to check it out.
Also, were your issues with the pacing in the 2015 mini series due to the flashbacks as well? I felt like some narrative tension was lost by switching to them in the latter half or so of the mini-series.
Stirchley
09-13-21, 01:36 PM
Thelma and Louise - 1991
The movie is a masterpiece & definitely doesn’t need a remake. It’s as relevant today for women as it was then.
Stirchley
09-13-21, 01:41 PM
81235
Odd that I’ve never seen this movie. Two female leads are excellent. Got a bit nutty towards the end, but entertaining. What the heck ever happened to Bridget Fonda?
81236
Can’t believe I watched & enjoyed a 3 hours plus Turkish movie. Very enjoyable movie from a director with whom I am unfamiliar.
81237
Docudrama. Laura Dern excellent as she always is. Creepy scenes ugh of a grown man trying to penetrate a 13 year old virgin, but necessary for the film.
Gideon58
09-13-21, 02:33 PM
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYTcyYWVlZmYtOGI1ZS00N2FmLWIyOTgtNjRiNTA4YjNjZGFhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjQ2MDAwMDM@._V1_.jpg
1.5
https://i.ibb.co/pvQRwvt/theyareontome.gif (https://imgbb.com/)I haven't seen West Side Story yet (though I want to), but just out of curiousity, why don't you care for Sound Of Music?
Can't exactly tell you, it's just not for me. Maybe it's too wholesome, maybe the music just doesn't inspire me at all, I dunno, it's just a turnoff for me, kinda like the musical for people who wish life would go back to being the way it used to be. Or something like that.
Guaporense
09-13-21, 05:49 PM
Demonic (2021)
https://youtu.be/vc4p_Mpabv0
Cute horror movie. It is not as bad as the IMDB rating says it is, also its directed by Blomkamp, the genius director of District 9.
Takoma11
09-13-21, 05:50 PM
I haven't seen the 1945 film, but this film definitely piqued my interest in it. I'll be sure to check it out.
Also, were your issues with the pacing in the 2015 mini series due to the flashbacks as well? I felt like some narrative tension was lost by switching to them in the latter half or so of the mini-series.
It's been a while since I watched it (because I watched it when it first came out and not since). I can't say if it was the flashbacks. Honestly, it might also be partly because I've seen the '45 version so many times that I'm used to the story being told in ~95 minutes.
I did like the backstory of the main woman and the scenes with the kids and felt that they were admirably twisty and disturbing.
GulfportDoc
09-13-21, 08:19 PM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d3/Five_easy_pieces.jpg
Five Easy Pieces - (1970)
It's been so long since I've seen this that I don't count it as a rewatch. Jack Nicholson's Oscar-nominated performance is full of energy and pathos, and serves the film's excellent script perfectly. I was meaning to really exalt Karen Black - because her performance is just as good, and gets lost behind the larger-than-life persona of Jack, but then I go and read that she was also nominated for an Oscar so she did get some recognition. Still - the next time you think about Five Easy Pieces, tell yourself it's that great Karen Black movie so she gets her due at least once. Jack Nicholson would stay loyal to director Bob Rafelson, appearing in some of his more middling efforts. 9/10
Great film. Nicholson was marching toward superstardom. And I agree about Karen Black. I had a big crush on her in those days. Also liked her in Family Plot, although it was an atypical Hitchcock. She had a much wider range than people gave her credit for.
SpelingError
09-13-21, 09:11 PM
It's been a while since I watched it (because I watched it when it first came out and not since). I can't say if it was the flashbacks. Honestly, it might also be partly because I've seen the '45 version so many times that I'm used to the story being told in ~95 minutes.
I did like the backstory of the main woman and the scenes with the kids and felt that they were admirably twisty and disturbing.
I imagine that a 95 minute version of the story would be more lean, so I can understand that criticism.
I liked the idea behind the flashbacks. I just wished they were better incorporated into the show in a way which didn't involve them breaking the tension of it. Also, while I enjoyed some aspects of the main woman's flashbacks, I felt like some of them repeated what we already knew about her and could've been cut from the show.
Raven73
09-13-21, 09:25 PM
Neighbors
6.5/10.
Not my usual kind of movie, but having frat-boys balanced by fairly-responsible parents made it watchable for me. Some very good laughs, including some creative uses for dildos and whoopy cushions.
https://nerdgeistdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/neighbors-2014-movie-banner-poster1.jpg
Gideon58
09-13-21, 10:00 PM
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BN2NkN2QwNmEtZDQ4Zi00NGQ5LWJiY2UtMzY3MGMyNTE1NDZhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTI4MjkwNjA@._V1_.jpg
3.5
Takoma11
09-13-21, 10:03 PM
I imagine that a 95 minute version of the story would be more lean, so I can understand that criticism.
I liked the idea behind the flashbacks. I just wished they were better incorporated into the show in a way which didn't involve them breaking the tension of it. Also, while I enjoyed some aspects of the main woman's flashbacks, I felt like some of them repeated what we already knew about her and could've been cut from the show.
Yes, I think that the problem is that the flashbacks tell us more about her character and maybe why she is on the island. But the flashbacks don't give you much information about what is going to happen or who is behind it all so, as you say, it breaks the tension and also doesn't add any tension.
I just watched The Voyeurs (2021) on Prime. Directed by Michael Mohan, The Voyeurs is an erotic thriller about a young couple (Sydney Sweeney and Justice Smith) who start to spy on their sexy neighbors (Ben Hardy and Natasha Liu Bordizzo). The obsession' grows and things spiral out of control. This is the kind of movie that I honestly thought they didn't make anymore, but I'm glad I was wrong. The Voyeurs is a sexy, fun, and twisty delight. My rating is a 3.5.
Gideon58
09-13-21, 10:18 PM
Great film. Nicholson was marching toward superstardom. And I agree about Karen Black. I had a big crush on her in those days. Also liked her in Family Plot, although it was an atypical Hitchcock. She had a much wider range than people gave her credit for.
Black was nominated for this too...the only nomination of her career
Takoma11
09-13-21, 10:27 PM
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjojud265nia2bj9sy4ah9b61-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F11%2FSunrise-1.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, 1927
In this silent film, a man (George O'Brien) is seduced by a woman (Margaret Livingston) visiting his town on vacation. When the woman convinces him to do away with his wife (Janet Gaynor), he agrees. But when it comes time to do the deed, the man cannot go through with it. Following his wife to the city, the two reconnect over the course of the day. But tragedy may still be in the cards for the couple.
Another one of those movies that almost everyone considers a great film, and I find myself perfectly inclined to agree.
This is a film that repeatedly excels at efficiently getting to the heart of an emotion. Whether it's a pulse-pounding sequence of the man rowing his wife out to the middle of a lake while their frantic dog howls inconsolably, or a quietly sweet moment where the couple watches as a young man and young woman get married in a church, this movie has great emotional frequency. And there's a tremendous range of emotion as well, ranging from drama and tragedy to borderline slapstick comedy as a man repeatedly "fixes" the falling shoulder straps of a young woman in a dance hall.
There's also just a really gorgeous look to the film, and while I'm not sure "impressionistic" is the right word, I loved the way that the style of the film seemed to follow the emotions of the main characters. In one sequence, they stare into each others' eyes and the street behind them dissolves into beautiful flowered woods . . . . until they come back to reality and the cacophony of honking cars as they have walked into the middle of the road to kiss.
I suppose the only real sticking point for me is the fact that, you know, this guy planned to murder his wife. The story has a borderline folk-tale sensibility, so this wasn't a horrible element. But still . . . almost-murder. And she forgives him VERY quickly. By the end, the woman from the city who seduced the husband is the only one really regarded as a villain, but to me this feels incredibly dated. He's the one who made vows. He's the one who was actually going to kill someone. Pushing all of the guilt onto the "seductress" feels a bit too easy, and seems to relieve the husband of his guilt in the name of a happy ending.
A really charming film, and yet another movie on the list of movies I should have checked out years ago.
4.5
Extinct (David Silverman & Raymond S. Persi, 2021) 2.5 6/10
Prey (Thomas Sieben, 2021) 2+ 5/10
Fv¢king with Nobody (Hannaleena Hauru, 2020) 2.5 5.5/10
Kate (Cedric Nicolas-Troyan, 2021) 2.5 6/10
https://c.tenor.com/pQCgvWP_s8EAAAAC/im-here-kate.gif
Hitwoman Mary Elizabeth Winstead is poisoned and has 24 hours to get her revenge.
Twenty Something (Aphton Corbin, 2021) 3- 6.5/10
Twenty Plus Two (Joseph M. Newman, 1961) 2.5 5.5/10
Hay Foot (Fred Guiol, 1942) 2+ 5/10
Don't Breathe 2 (Rodo Sayagues, 2021) 2.5 5.5/10
https://images6.fanpop.com/image/photos/41600000/Don-t-Breathe-stephen-lang-41680319-500-204.gif
Blind Stephen Lang is being rampaged against so it's his turn again.
Blood on Her Name (Matthew Pope, 2019) 2.5 5.5/10
Unpregnant (Rachel Lee Goldenberg, 2020) 3- 6.5/10
We Need to Do Something (Sean King O'Grady, 2021) 2+ 5/10
Cinderella (Kay Cannon, 2021) 2.5 6/10
https://i.postimg.cc/XqLNWmnc/ellaclothes1b2.gif
Whatever problems there may be, this a decent, feel-good musical.
Wild Indian (Lyle Mitchell Corbine Jr, 2021) 2.5 6/10
Boardinghouse (John Wintergate, 1982) 1.5 4/10 Extended
Out of the Blue (Leigh Jason, 1947) 2.5 6/10
Back to Burgundy (Cédric Klapisch, 2017) 3- 6.5/10
https://variety.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/back-to-burgundy.jpg?w=681&h=383&crop=1
When their father dies, three siblings inherit his vineyard and have to figure out what to do with it.
Blind Chance (Krzysztof Kieslowski, 1981) 2.5 6/10
Far Cry (Uwe Boll, 2008) 2 5/10
Dirty God (Sacha Polak, 2019) 2.5 6/10
His Master's Voice (György Pálfi, 2018) 3- 6.5/10
https://d1nslcd7m2225b.cloudfront.net/Pictures/480xany/1/2/6/1292126_hismastersvoice_158364.jpg
I probably overrated it, but this convoluted sci-fi/family mystery has style to burn.
CringeFest
09-13-21, 11:07 PM
Natural Born Killers (1993)
9/10
A very interesting movie, i have never soon a movie make killing people look so attractive. The cinematography was also very interesting and made me dizzy.
PHOENIX74
09-14-21, 03:01 AM
https://i.postimg.cc/PJj2g3cx/immoraltales.jpg
By May be found at the following website: http://www.listal.com/viewimage/1210412h, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32268774
Immoral Tales - (1973) - France
Oh Walerian Borowczyk, every time I watch one of your films I swear it will be the last lest I go mad. I'll explain why I watched Immoral Tales for the first time last night. It begins around 1994, when I read an article in Shock Express about Polish film director Walerian Borowczyk, and it was good enough for me to keep and read numerous more times over the years. Borowczyk was controversial, and the author, Colin Davis, was determined to give him his due. On the strength of the article, I decided that I would indeed search out and watch some of his work. It would be a few years - I hadn't even heard of the internet and Borowczyk films weren't exactly the kind of thing you'd pick up at the local K-Mart wedged between Batman Returns and JFK.
I don't remember if I'd ordered it online once the internet really became a thing, or actually found it in a DVD store that sold more arthouse kind of films. I think the latter. But I got The Beast, and despite having read about it more than once it still shocked and surprised me. Not so much the 'eroticism' of the film - I was expecting that - but his own personal style, which is unique to say the least. Borowczyk's films range from bizarre animation to unfathomable art to pornography, and I couldn't get a grasp on what I'd just been through. He's the kind of director where you're repulsed, and then much later on you realise his movie is living on inside of your head - and some distant subconscious part of you is nudging the other part and declaring him a genius. "More like a madman," the conscious part will protest. It goes on and on. In the meantime, a good cinephile buddy of mine had latched on to Borowczyk - discovering him by himself. I'd kept him to myself.
So in due course we watched a documentary about the man (I wish I could remember it's title) - and as is often the case it stirred our curiosity. We ended up getting and watching Blood of Dr Jekyll (Docteur Jekyll et les femmes) which was released in 1981 - having a riotous time of it, because the movie (like all Borowczyk movies) was so damned weird. I don't know where we landed as to appraising it that night - but enough time has passed for my subconscious mind to declare it a masterpiece.
So, last night I watched Immoral Tales - a film I'd been reading about for over 20 years. I think many critics labelled the man sick in the head after releasing it. I can't even begin to sort out a rating. My first reaction is to give it 3/10. I really don't know yet, so I give it a :
Borowczyk/10
StuSmallz
09-14-21, 03:59 AM
Can't exactly tell you, it's just not for me. Maybe it's too wholesome, maybe the music just doesn't inspire me at all, I dunno, it's just a turnoff for me, kinda like the musical for people who wish life would go back to being the way it used to be. Or something like that.Yeah, I felt similarly about it; it felt like Wise was afraid to upset audiences by setting a Musical in a Nazi-encroached Austria, so he decided to overcompensate for that by making it really sugary and light on conflict, which is a shame, because the most engaging scene by far was the one where Mary and the Captain get into the confrontation about her "loose" care of the kids... but then the film immediately reversed that the next scene when he heard his children singing for the first time, and it's like a switch just got automatically flipped in his character, from "uptight" to "warm". I remember thinking "No, don't do that; you were finally getting interesting, movie!". Also, it was definitely a victim of Hollywood's "longer is better" mentality at the time, since there was absolutely no need for it to be almost three hours, since they could've easily told that story in no more than two (probably less than that, even); maybe if they hadn't sung almost every single song twice, they could've.
:D
ScarletLion
09-14-21, 05:25 AM
'New Order' (2020) - Directed by Michel Franco
https://i.imgur.com/ufYbVi4.gif
Cautionary tale, but a very realistic one based around an uprising and insurrection of people power warring against the upper class elite of Mexico. Violent, brutal, slightly disturbing but a good watch.
7.8/10
4
.....................................
'The Great Silence' (1968) - Directed by Sergio Corbucci
https://i.imgur.com/2F9l9IC.gif
Classic Western in the snow. Kinski as a menacing bounty hunter fighting off those that seek revenge against him. One of my favourite Westerns, it's right up there with 'High Plains Drifter' and 'Once Upon a Time in the West'. Surprising but brilliant ending.
4
xSookieStackhouse
09-14-21, 05:43 AM
4.5
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BN2IyYzI4YmQtNzBmMi00Mjg3LWI4NTMtNmZjNjk3YjIwZmJhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTkxNjUyNQ@@._V1_.jpg
3.5
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYTc0NWIwOTYtNzEwYi00YmUyLTlmYWYtYjJiZjRjN2RjMjAxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTEyMjM2NDc2._V1_.jpg
Fabulous
09-14-21, 05:59 AM
The Glass Castle (2017)
3
https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/lBDOPBbmI0mKqBAakiLZ0BdgzET.jpg
Rear Window (1954)
2.5
I'll probably anger lots of folk in here by saying this wasn't anything special. It's an old-school romantic comedy with a half-baked murder story as a dressing. Some of the dialogue is funny, but everything feels so fake. It's a moderately easy watch, but I wouldn't recognize it as the masterpiece it's claimed to be.
--
Why Don’t You Play in Hell? (2013)
3.5
https://64.media.tumblr.com/8f19f2baf198a1480f66d872545c0f7b/tumblr_n3c0xl3H8B1qai71go7_r1_500.gifv
"The cocaine's kicking in!"
I think this was my second Sion Sono (the other is Suicide Club which I love), and I seriously need to catch up with his work some more. It's a little too long, honestly, but it builds a magnificently insane world. It's definitely one of the best films about making movies.
SpelingError
09-14-21, 12:01 PM
'The Great Silence' (1968) - Directed by Sergio Corbucci
https://i.imgur.com/2F9l9IC.gif
Classic Western in the snow. Kinski as a menacing bounty hunter fighting off those that seek revenge against him. One of my favourite Westerns, it's right up there with 'High Plains Drifter' and 'Once Upon a Time in the West'. Surprising but brilliant ending.
4
I'm a big fan of that one. Here's what I wrote on it last year:
https://www.imdb.com/review/rw5991087/?ref_=ur_urv
Takoma11
09-14-21, 08:48 PM
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.rogerebert.com%2Fuploads%2Freview%2Fprimary_image%2Freviews%2Fgreat-movie-night-moves-1975%2Fhomepage_EB20060326REVIEWS08603260301AR.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
Night Moves, 1975
Private investigator, Harry Moseby (Gene Hackman) is hired by a woman named Arlene (Janet Ward) to find and retrieve her wayward step-daughter, Delly (Melanie Griffith). Harry has little trouble tracking Delly down. But things prove to be more complicated than a simple runaway situation, and Harry must contend with feelings of unease about what's really happening in Delly's family.
I'm a fan of both classic detective films and neo-noir type films. I can definitely see why this is considered a great example of a neo-noir. In fact, a line of Harry's right at the end ("I didn't solve anything. It just . . . sort of fell in on me") really sums up the fatalism of the genre.
As the magician detective at the heart of the story, Hackman hits just the right note as a man who is smart enough to figure things out, and smart enough to survive, but who is also clearly walking the line of a kind of despair. A major subplot of the film involves the fact that Harry's wife is being unfaithful to him, with the nature of his work as the main thing that comes between them.
Something that I thought the film handled very well was the character of Delly. She is the very model of the "teenage seductress"---brash, flirtatious, assertive. More than one adult in the film is more than happy to take advantage of her exercise in rebellion. But she is, ultimately, a child. In fact, the progression of Delly's character through the story provides a wonderful counterweight to Harry's seen-it-all weariness. Neither she nor Harry fully appreciates the scope of what they've fallen into.
The plot is also a great example of neo-noir storytelling, where events and characters might be connected, but then again might not. It's the kind of film that both satisfies the detective film desire to see something solved and closure gained, but at the same time posits that so much of what happens is wasteful, needless, and arbitrary. The last act particularly nails this dynamic.
A very solid neo-noir.
4
PHOENIX74
09-14-21, 11:58 PM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/TwoWomenPoster.jpg
By IMDb, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=20131066
Two Women (La ciociara) - (1960) - Italy
Sophia Loren won an Oscar for her portrayal of Cesira in this - a woman trying to find a safe place for her and her 12 year-old daughter to stay as the Second World War starts to ravage Italy. Directed by Bicycle Thieves' Vittorio De Sica. I thought it was okay - maybe I'd think better of it if my version wasn't dubbed in English and the transfer a little cleaner.
Based on the Marocchinate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate), which was all kinds of awful.
6/10
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Ocean%27s_Eleven_2001_Poster.jpg
By C@rtelesmix, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9045976
Ocean's Eleven - (2001)
I love a good heist film - where characters are up against nearly impossible odds stealing riches beyond anyone's imagining. When it all pans out - you get to see just how clever their plan is. (Usually things go wrong from the outset - to our horror.) This film earned $450.7 million at the box office, and they should make a film about a group of people that steal that. Today/tonight I'm hoping to squeeze in Ocean's Twelve and Ocean's Thirteen.
7/10
Fabulous
09-15-21, 02:24 AM
Escape from Pretoria (2020)
3
https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/8JT7cbAvZoiXCoRPB90sBPpkpcQ.jpg
Black was nominated for this too...the only nomination of her career
I always liked her. Though maybe she was a little hammy.
TheUsualSuspect
09-15-21, 08:42 AM
Malignant is a prank movie wrapped up in a James Wan shine. If it was intentional then it was brilliant, if he was sincere then it was insane. I have no idea.
3.5
xSookieStackhouse
09-15-21, 08:43 AM
Ocean's Eleven - (2001)
I love a good heist film - where characters are up against nearly impossible odds stealing riches beyond anyone's imagining. When it all pans out - you get to see just how clever their plan is. (Usually things go wrong from the outset - to our horror.) This film earned $450.7 million at the box office, and they should make a film about a group of people that steal that. Today/tonight I'm hoping to squeeze in Ocean's Twelve and Ocean's Thirteen.
7/10
make sure to watch other 2
https://i.postimg.cc/PJj2g3cx/immoraltales.jpg
By May be found at the following website: http://www.listal.com/viewimage/1210412h, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32268774
Immoral Tales - (1973) - France
Oh Walerian Borowczyk, every time I watch one of your films I swear it will be the last lest I go mad. I'll explain why I watched Immoral Tales for the first time last night. It begins around 1994, when I read an article in Shock Express about Polish film director Walerian Borowczyk, and it was good enough for me to keep and read numerous more times over the years. Borowczyk was controversial, and the author, Colin Davis, was determined to give him his due. On the strength of the article, I decided that I would indeed search out and watch some of his work. It would be a few years - I hadn't even heard of the internet and Borowczyk films weren't exactly the kind of thing you'd pick up at the local K-Mart wedged between Batman Returns and JFK.
I don't remember if I'd ordered it online once the internet really became a thing, or actually found it in a DVD store that sold more arthouse kind of films. I think the latter. But I got The Beast, and despite having read about it more than once it still shocked and surprised me. Not so much the 'eroticism' of the film - I was expecting that - but his own personal style, which is unique to say the least. Borowczyk's films range from bizarre animation to unfathomable art to pornography, and I couldn't get a grasp on what I'd just been through. He's the kind of director where you're repulsed, and then much later on you realise his movie is living on inside of your head - and some distant subconscious part of you is nudging the other part and declaring him a genius. "More like a madman," the conscious part will protest. It goes on and on. In the meantime, a good cinephile buddy of mine had latched on to Borowczyk - discovering him by himself. I'd kept him to myself.
So in due course we watched a documentary about the man (I wish I could remember it's title) - and as is often the case it stirred our curiosity. We ended up getting and watching Blood of Dr Jekyll (Docteur Jekyll et les femmes) which was released in 1981 - having a riotous time of it, because the movie (like all Borowczyk movies) was so damned weird. I don't know where we landed as to appraising it that night - but enough time has passed for my subconscious mind to declare it a masterpiece.
So, last night I watched Immoral Tales - a film I'd been reading about for over 20 years. I think many critics labelled the man sick in the head after releasing it. I can't even begin to sort out a rating. My first reaction is to give it 3/10. I really don't know yet, so I give it a :
Borowczyk/10
You have snared my attention with this. I feel I must now find a way to watch at least one of this person's films.
Yeah, I felt similarly about it; it felt like Wise was afraid to upset audiences by setting a Musical in a Nazi-encroached Austria, so he decided to overcompensate for that by making it really sugary and light on conflict, which is a shame, because the most engaging scene by far was the one where Mary and the Captain get into the confrontation about her "loose" care of the kids... but then the film immediately reversed that the next scene when he heard his children singing for the first time, and it's like a switch just got automatically flipped in his character, from "uptight" to "warm". I remember thinking "No, don't do that; you were finally getting interesting, movie!". Also, it was definitely a victim of Hollywood's "longer is better" mentality at the time, since there was absolutely no need for it to be almost three hours, since they could've easily told that story in no more than two (probably less than that, even); maybe if they hadn't sung almost every single song twice, they could've.
:D
I think you summed up my feelings better than I did.
Also, I'd forgotten how freaking long it is. West Side Story's 2h 32m fly by for me while Sound's 2h 52m feel like a true test of my cinematic endurance.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.rogerebert.com%2Fuploads%2Freview%2Fprimary_image%2Freviews%2Fgreat-movie-night-moves-1975%2Fhomepage_EB20060326REVIEWS08603260301AR.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
Night Moves, 1975
As the magician detective at the heart of the story...
A very solid neo-noir.
4
Ha!
Also, one thing I loved about this movie is the chess game and how it plays into the theme of the film. Harry keeps playing the same game of chess over and over again, one in which the player on the black side missed the opportunity to win the game and ended up losing. Harry's response to this is to keep playing the same game over and over even though the outcome is always a loss because the opportunity to win was somehow overlooked.
When the film ends and Harry is wounded and possibly dying on a boat that can only go in circles, we see the theme of the chess-game finally realized in the film.
Satan's Slave (1976)
2.5
I accidentally started to rewatch this (I didn't remember, there was a movie with this title other than the Indonesian one). After the first scene, I knew I had seen this, and a little later, I remembered clearly. It's still a sleazy cult film with lots of nudity and violence that's more akin to Italian horror than the British. It's still nothing too great, but I upped my rating from two years back by half a star.
Rockatansky
09-15-21, 12:55 PM
You have snared my attention with this. I feel I must now find a way to watch at least one of this person's films.
Arrow Video released a bunch of his films on Blu-ray a few years ago. I think there might have even been a box set.
Sweet Alabama (2017)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Sweet_Virginia_%28film%29.png
Neat little noir in small town America, John Bernthal is engaging as the injured former rodeo rider now hotel owner and caught up in dark forces.
3.5
Stirchley
09-15-21, 01:43 PM
81287
Re-watch though I couldn’t remember a single scene.
Elizabeth Olsen totally carried this movie. Could not believe in Sarah Paulson & Hugh Dancy as a married couple. Dancy struggled with his rôle as though unsure who he was playing.
Fun to see Julia Garner in a small rôle.
Not a bad movie by any means.
Little Ash
09-15-21, 01:48 PM
You have snared my attention with this. I feel I must now find a way to watch at least one of this person's films.
In addition to the Arrow blu-ray, I think I've seen their stuff on iTunes. When I looked a few years ago. The Beast wasn't on iTunes (not surprising), but the Dr Jekyll and Miss Hyde one was (a little surprising).
Gideon58
09-15-21, 02:36 PM
https://anygoodfilms.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/jungle-cruise-poster.jpg
3.5
Rockatansky
09-15-21, 02:51 PM
In addition to the Arrow blu-ray, I think I've seen their stuff on iTunes. When I looked a few years ago. The Beast wasn't on iTunes (not surprising), but the Dr Jekyll and Miss Hyde one was (a little surprising).
Looks like Love Rites is on Tubi as well. Maybe not the best starting point (Jekyll probably is easier to get into thanks to the horror elements), but I enjoyed it.
THE FALLING
(2014, Morley)
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTc2OTcxMTYyOF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjc5MzAwNTE@._V1_.jpg
"It's real to all of us. Something's seriously wrong. Why is everyone ignoring us?"
The Falling follows two friends, Abbie and Lydia (Florence Pugh and Maisie Williams), at a strict English girls' school. The two have developed what others see as an unhealthy relationship. When tragedy hits the two friends, Lydia and some of her friends start suffering from frequent fainting episodes that seem to confuse and agitate other members of the school, as well as the strict faculty.
The thing is that the story is all over the place. There's the "unhealthy" relationship between Abbie and Lydia, then the mysterious fainting episodes, and its effect among the classmates and the school overall. There's also some family issues at Lydia's house that are just brushed over during the first half, only to take full prominence in the second half. Finally, there is an incestuous relationship that I fail to see why it was necessary, but there it is.
Still, it's a surprise that the end result still ends up being relatively competent. Morley's script might be an issue, but her direction and the cinematography from Agnes Godard are pretty great. Also, all of the performances, but especially Pugh and Williams, are great. I still don't think the film had to jump through all the hoops it did to get where it ended at, but it might be worth a watch for fans of Pugh or Williams.
Grade: 2.5
Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2238802#post2238802)
WHITBISSELL!
09-15-21, 04:08 PM
You have snared my attention with this. I feel I must now find a way to watch at least one of this person's films.Same here.
Takoma11
09-15-21, 04:57 PM
Ha!
Also, one thing I loved about this movie is the chess game and how it plays into the theme of the film. Harry keeps playing the same game of chess over and over again, one in which the player on the black side missed the opportunity to win the game and ended up losing. Harry's response to this is to keep playing the same game over and over even though the outcome is always a loss because the opportunity to win was somehow overlooked.
When the film ends and Harry is wounded and possibly dying on a boat that can only go in circles, we see the theme of the chess-game finally realized in the film.
I think that the chess sequence not only sets up an important notion for the characters, but almost how the audience will react. Paula says that the chess player must have been upset afterward. Harry replies that he is upset about it, and he wasn't even alive when it happened. I think that mirrors the way that we watch this film and see several points where it's like "No! Don't do THAT!".
Takoma11
09-15-21, 05:00 PM
Elizabeth Olsen totally carried this movie. Could not believe in Sarah Paulson & Hugh Dancy as a married couple. Dancy struggled with his rôle as though unsure who he was playing.
Something that I think explains a bit of the issue with Dancy's character is that, if I remember correctly, they couldn't decide if he was going to be a creep and actually sleep with her, or if he was an okay guy who wasn't a predator, and they ended up filming a lot of sequences that could work either way. I believe there was actually a scene written (and possibly filmed) where he does have sex with her, but then they changed their minds. I think that the character feels very much pulled in those different directions. Is he yet another abuser who is going to take advantage of this young woman for sexual purposes? Is he just a dude who is frustrated with his wacky sister-in-law?
Stirchley
09-15-21, 05:30 PM
Something that I think explains a bit of the issue with Dancy's character is that, if I remember correctly, they couldn't decide if he was going to be a creep and actually sleep with her, or if he was an okay guy who wasn't a predator, and they ended up filming a lot of sequences that could work either way. I believe there was actually a scene written (and possibly filmed) where he does have sex with her, but then they changed their minds. I think that the character feels very much pulled in those different directions. Is he yet another abuser who is going to take advantage of this young woman for sexual purposes? Is he just a dude who is frustrated with his wacky sister-in-law?
That does clear things up. Thanks so much.
They both took a boat ride & he was ogling her the entire time as he tried to teach her how to drive a boat. I was surprised that she made it back to shore without having to fend off his advances. Poor Hugh, no wonder he seemed unsure of his rôle.
CringeFest
09-15-21, 06:04 PM
1/10 Enemy of the State (1998)
This has everything i hate about the ocean movies and ****ty conspiracy theories. Too many points of disconnect in the plot develpment (ie., hard to understand what's really going on), and over-reliance on cinematography. The newer manchurian candidate is a lot better in terms of political espionage.
WHITBISSELL!
09-15-21, 07:26 PM
https://64.media.tumblr.com/ab0e1ba6f4dd5a547a6cd179ccd26e9f/d678750fcac7b532-c8/s640x960/55ca2971ae87a8db6f4c85a8aa67974d4c0bf7c9.jpg
https://64.media.tumblr.com/6ad8df2b5515d3612ae7e9e9d5624729/8c2fa71a3eb142f3-3c/s500x750/cfb083883f4a89ba0ec87afdc9f3fb14be5ed495.gifv
Cult of the Cobra - Modest 1955 horror from Universal International. Six Air Force buddies decide to go the tourist route for their final days in an unspecified Asian country at the end of WWII and meet up with a snake charmer who offers to sneak them into a secret cult ceremony for 100 dollars. The "Lamians" are supposed to worship a woman who can turn herself into a cobra and vice versa. When they're inevitably found out due to the staggering dumbassery of one of the group, the cult's high priest puts a curse upon them. They will be hunted down and killed one by one by the vengeful snake goddess. Flash forward an unspecified amount of time and the remaining members are all living in NYC. A mysterious and exotic (by 50's standards) woman moves in across the hall from two of them and shortly after the bodies start piling up.
50's sci-fi staple Faith Domergue plays Lisa, the femme fatale and the objects of her attentions are played by a gallery of actors who went on to star in their own TV shows. Richard Long (The Big Valley), Marshall Thompson (Daktari), Jack Kelly (Maverick), David Jansen (The Fugitive) and William Reynolds (The F.B.I.) play the living-on-borrowed-time members of the group. It's not a classic by any means but it is a good enough horror entry and worthy of a watch on a cold rainy day. I'd put it in the same class as something like The Mole People or The Wasp Woman. Comfort food.
rating_3
Takoma11
09-15-21, 07:49 PM
That does clear things up. Thanks so much.
They both took a boat ride & he was ogling her the entire time as he tried to teach her how to drive a boat. I was surprised that she made it back to shore without having to fend off his advances. Poor Hugh, no wonder he seemed unsure of his rôle.
The boat sequence in particular was a moment where I was like "Wait, what is going on with this guy?!"
At first I thought that the point was that she was having trouble perceiving his behavior toward her because she'd been so warped by the cult. But then there was a scene with him (maybe watching her out a window or something) where she's not aware of it and I was like, okay, maybe the mixed messages aren't intentional!
Takoma11
09-15-21, 08:52 PM
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fmedia.wbur.org%2Fwordpress%2F1%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F07%2Fmccabe_and_m rs_miller_banner.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
McCabe & Mrs. Miller, 1971
In a small, barely developed mining town, a man named McCabe (Warren Beatty) rolls into town and through sheer force of magnetism, determination, and deadly reputation, begins to organize the town into something significant. Before long, brothel madame Mrs. Miller (Julie Christie) arrives and persuades McCabe to front her the cost of opening a high-quality brothel in which they will share the profits. But the town's success attracts a few interested buyers, and they may not be willing to take no for an answer.
I guess the theme of this week's movie watching is 70s film subverting genre expectations. First with Night Moves taking on the detective/noir genre, and now with McCabe and Mrs. Miller upending the Western.
I can see why this film is held in such high regard. From a filmmaking point of view, I have no complaints. I think that what makes it so easy to admire is the fact that it doesn't seem to care all that much what you think about the main characters. It is content to show you their lives and their choices and let you draw your own conclusions. While there are secondary characters who fall more easily into the "good person/bad person" extremes, the two leads are admirably complex.
The film does a great job of conveying how dangerous--and arbitrarily cruel--the semi-tamed west could be. Everyone, in their own way, lives on the edge. It makes intuitive sense the way that the character jockey for control or at times choose to escape as with Mrs. Miller and her opium addiction. The details of the setting--especially seeing the characters' breath--really captures the harsh environment in which they find themselves. It all creates an effect where any moment of silence or calm or gentleness seems like some sort of miracle.
I thought that Beatty and Christie did a great job in their roles, and that the supporting cast were also strong. Everyone in the film brings a sort of grim acceptance to their scenes.
I thought that the soundtrack choices were interesting. At times I wondered if they weren't too modern, but I also have to admit that thematically and tonally they really fit the film and its events.
There's a certain fatalism to the film that did make me antsy at times. I think that it's intentional, so this isn't a flaw, per se. But that restlessness made it hard to stick with the film at points.
Overall an excellent piece of the Western canon. Chalk up another "deservedly classic".
4.5
Nausicaä
09-15-21, 09:02 PM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e9/Black_Widow_%282021_film%29_poster.jpg/220px-Black_Widow_%282021_film%29_poster.jpg
3.5
SF = 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
StuSmallz
09-15-21, 09:47 PM
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fmedia.wbur.org%2Fwordpress%2F1%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F07%2Fmccabe_and_m rs_miller_banner.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
McCabe & Mrs. Miller, 1971
I thought that the soundtrack choices were interesting. At times I wondered if they weren't too modern, but I also have to admit that thematically and tonally they really fit the film and its events.I thought the Cohen tunes worked perfectly for it, personally, and really added a lot to the overall haunting vibe of the movie:
https://youtu.be/gt-r3QcegnU
<3
Takoma11
09-15-21, 09:55 PM
I thought the Cohen tunes worked perfectly for it, personally, and really added a lot to the overall haunting vibe of the movie
Yeah, they grew on me as the film went on. I can't remember specifics, but there was some phrase or word that was kind of joltingly anachronistic in one of the early songs. But like I wrote, the mood of them is a really good fit.
CringeFest
09-16-21, 02:47 AM
The Stairs (2021)
3/10
Just lol. It's funny how for me, all of the halloween movies i've seen are better than this, and i've seen all of them except for rob zombie's second one, the 2021 "killing", and the producer edition of the curse of michael myers. At least the stairs is funny and kind of entertaining, but i can't keep going.
Fabulous
09-16-21, 03:01 AM
The Attorney (2013)
3
https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/AqUBl0HZibEpfvyMfJXOT4CkyfY.jpg
PHOENIX74
09-16-21, 04:27 AM
make sure to watch other 2
And indeed I did...
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7d/Ocean%27s_Twelve_poster.jpg
By Warner Bros. Pictures, the publisher, www.bojconstruction.com, or the graphic artist - Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=66283445
Ocean's Twelve - (2004)
Woah! Slow down! Slow down! First of all, kudos for getting Soderbergh and the entire ensemble back for a sequel. Every actor comes back - and I don't know how they managed that (money, I guess.) Then they just throw no-name actors like Catherine Zeta-Jones, Bruce Willis, Robbie Coltrane, Eddie Izzard, Albert Finney and Vincent Cassel into the mix. No biggie. This though, felt like three Ocean's movies squeezed into one, picking up the pace to a frantic level that some people might have trouble keeping up with. Several plot elements sometimes blast by in one short scene and the kitchen sink hits you. I think this could have been better if the focus was on just one big heist instead of oodles of heists and plot twists - but you can't help but be awed by the behemoth that is Ocean's Twelve, and it's fun watching Julia Roberts playing a character who's pretending to be Julia Roberts (the film's best scene by far.) It's not as good as the first, or the third - but if you take it as what it is it passes.
6/10
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/Oceans13Poster1.jpg
Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11622050
Ocean's Thirteen - (2007)
I needn't have been worried as I was - second sequels are nearly always the pits, but this one gets back on the right track and produces something akin to the first film - which is so much more satisfying. The whole ensemble is back again (minus Julia Roberts) - and that must be some kind of record for most cast members returning for two sequels. This time Danny and his gang are out for revenge, as the tyrannical Willy Bank (Al Pacino), who has screwed Reuben Tishkoff (Elliott Gould) needs to be brought down a peg or two. Of course the revenge is gargantuan as the gang hit the opening of Bank's new Hotel and Casino in every single way you could possibly hit it. Pacino and Barkin make for all-too-believable-these-days villains - allowing for one of my favourite things in sequels - the former bad guy turning into one of the good guys (Carl Weathers in Rocky III is a good example.) It's over-the-top fun, as usual, but straightforward and focused. I think everyone took on board the criticism that Ocean's Twelve got and produced something that's fun for us as well as the filmmakers.
7/10
rambond
09-16-21, 05:55 AM
10 to midnight (1983) 7/10
Eye for an eye (1981) 6/10 i expected more from this but it seems that code of silence is a much better film on all fronts
this_is_the_ girl
09-16-21, 07:33 AM
https://pics.filmaffinity.com/The_Hit-998717084-large.jpg
The Hit (1984, Stephen Frears)
4
Very good British hit-man road-trip thriller. Awesome acting from a great cast (John Hurt, Terence Stamp, Tim Roth), understated and subtly suspenseful atmosphere, a few memorable scenes (the hand biting scene in the car - wow). A film of raw charm and charisma.
this_is_the_ girl
09-16-21, 07:45 AM
Rear Window (1954)
2.5
I'll probably anger lots of folk in here by saying this wasn't anything special. It's an old-school romantic comedy with a half-baked murder story as a dressing. Some of the dialogue is funny, but everything feels so fake. It's a moderately easy watch, but I wouldn't recognize it as the masterpiece it's claimed to be.
You're not alone on this - not a huge fan either. Good film no doubt, but too light-hearted for me, and I just didn't get what the big deal was with the suspense - it just didn't work for me.
There are other Hitchcock films that I find way superior, like Vertigo , North by Northwest, etc.
Candyman (2021)
1
A 90-minute pamphlet saying all cops are bastards and all whites are evil. There were moments it barely resembled a horror film, but it always felt secondary to the political message. What a waste of time.
Walking out (2017)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Walking_Out.jpg
Survival drama where a father and son try to firstly bond (they only see each other once a year) then get off a mountain in Montana after an accident. All the while there are flashbacks as to how the father was with his grandfather and became an avid outdoorsman.
Interesting and well acted.....outstandingly shot.
3.5
KeyserCorleone
09-16-21, 03:46 PM
I knew I'd really like Malignant. The action was a little out of place, but forgivable for me since I get bothered by too much tradition. Besides, every scene was exceptionally directed, and with constant perfect lighting effects.
rating_4_5
KeyserCorleone
09-16-21, 03:49 PM
You're not alone on this - not a huge fan either. Good film no doubt, but too light-hearted for me, and I just didn't get what the big deal was with the suspense - it just didn't work for me.
There are other Hitchcock films that I find way superior, like Vertigo , North by Northwest, etc.
It's funny that you both think this considering that I just put it in my top 100. However, Hitchcock's not very typical of a movie maker and tries to balance art with message a lot. I'd say the dislike of any one of his films, especially something as unique as Rear Window, is understandable if not always agreeable.
Gideon58
09-16-21, 04:08 PM
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/5139G7FKNKL.jpg
3.5
WHITBISSELL!
09-16-21, 05:44 PM
https://www.mondo-digital.com/crimsoncult.jpg
https://jonman492000.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/altar12.gif?w=720&h=&zoom=2
Curse of the Crimson Altar (The Crimson Cult) - 1968 British horror from Tigon films and very loosely based on the short story, "The Dreams in the Witch House" by HP Lovecraft. Tigon was trying to compete with Hammer and Amicus productions in the field of low budget horror and were also responsible for films like Witchfinder General and The Blood on Satan's Claw among others.
Christopher Lee and Boris Karloff are first billed but they're on screen only part of the time. The actual star is Mark Eden and he plays antiques dealer Robert Manning who, when the film opens, is searching for his missing brother Peter. He has received a letter from Peter that indicates he was visiting the isolated Craxted Lodge in their ancestral town of Greymarsh. When Manning journeys there he finds a bacchanal of sorts going on that he eventually discovers has to do with the anniversary of a witch burning that took place 300 years ago. Lavinia Morley was found guilty of witchcraft and burned at the stake at the prompting of Robert's ancestor. Before dying Lavinia cursed the people of the town and in particular the descendants of her accusers.
It's a talky but somewhat effective supernatural thriller and, while not in the same league as most of Hammer's offerings, still might keep your interest chiefly because of the two old warhorses Karloff and Lee. Painfully thin and plagued by arthritis Karloff was near the end of his career and life and this turned out to be his final movie released during his lifetime. And yet he still manages to imbue his Professor John Marsh with a quiet sort of dignity and his frailty doesn't show in his line readings. Lee was said to have hated this film but like Karloff his professionalism wins out and his role as Lavinia's ancestor is satisfying enough. Seminal horror actress Barbara Steele also manages well in her scenes as Lavinia and another horror mainstay, Michael Gough, acquits himself well in the small role of Lee's attendant Elder.
Maybe not a must-see horror film but if you're any kind of aficionado you'll for sure want to check this off your list.
rating_3
GulfportDoc
09-16-21, 08:08 PM
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/5139G7FKNKL.jpg
rating_3_5
Oh man! I LOVED this movie. Believe it or not, I saw it when it was released in '53 or '54 when I was 9-10 years old...:cool: Even at that age I related to Johnny (Brando) as a rebel. Set me on a lifetime of non-conformity.
It's also the first time I recall seeing Lee Marvin (as "Chino"), who also knocked me out. I followed him for the rest of his great career.
As you know the film was based on an incident in Hollister, Calf. on July 4th, 1947, when a motorcycle association rally took over the town for the weekend, and raised hell.
Takoma11
09-16-21, 08:58 PM
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.OwWVlKbmKSBHSD2NleGcfQHaEK%26pid%3DApi&f=1
Split Second, 1992
Set in a future with cities flooded from climate change, detective Harley Stone (Rutger Hauer) is hot on the trail of a serial killer that murdered his partner. Linked psychically somehow to the killer, Stone is frustratingly just one step behind the brutal killings. Paired up with a new partner, (Alastair Duncan), Stone continues his hunt for the killer while dealing with the feelings he has for his partner's wife (Kim Cattrall), with whom he was having an affair.
I mean, like, what even was this movie?
It is hard to explain how I felt watching this film. It seemed like everyone making it was, I don't know, high and exhausted and in a rush? There's this weird, frantic pace to everything. Scenes seem to race to be scary and tell jokes and also pew pew pew all at once.
This is the kind of film that sort of ebbs and flows in its impression. On one hand, there is something almost unique about it because it's just so strange. A handful of memorable images, and some strange chemistry between the leads add a degree of unpredictability that makes the film oddly watchable.
But also, you know, meh. The film has that "inexplicably smokey" look of a lot of 90s films. The entire mystery behind the killer feels cobbled together and half-baked. Women in this universe exist only as sex objects or murder victims or both. The unlikely friendship between Stone and his more straight-laced partner is probably the strongest element of the film, but even that doesn't feel entirely right.
Watchable almost more for its flaws than for its strengths.
3
Gideon58
09-16-21, 09:16 PM
Oh man! I LOVED this movie. Believe it or not, I saw it when it was released in '53 or '54 when I was 9-10 years old...:cool: Even at that age I related to Johnny (Brando) as a rebel. Set me on a lifetime of non-conformity.
It's also the first time I recall seeing Lee Marvin (as "Chino"), who also knocked me out. I followed him for the rest of his great career.
As you know the film was based on an incident in Hollister, Calf. on July 4th, 1947, when a motorcycle association rally took over the town for the weekend, and raised hell.
Actually, I didn't know that, but this movie was great...I also agree with you that Lee Marvin was fantastic.
Gideon58
09-16-21, 09:39 PM
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZmI0YTY4YTYtODk4MS00ZWE3LWJjYzUtODAwOWM5YWY4MWUwXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMDM2NDM2MQ@@._V1_.jpg
2.5
Takoma11
09-16-21, 11:20 PM
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fm.media-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FM%2FMV5BNzY5N2ZhMTEtODFmZi00NWE2LTlmNzQtNGY0ZmVlM2M2NzQzXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyOTc5MD I5NjE%40._V1_FMjpg_UX966_.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
Heart of Glass, 1976
In a small town, the owner of a glass factory has died, unexpectedly taking the secret of the town's famed Ruby Glass with him. Unable to conceive of a future without their successful Ruby Glass formula, the owners of the glass factory and the town's residents fall into a sort of living stupor. A local shepherd (Josef Bierbichler) watches events unfold, making ominous-but-accurate predictions about the future.
After I watched this movie I immediately went to read Ebert's review of it (it is one of his Great Movies). Sometimes when I like a movie but can't quite articulate why, I just enjoy reading someone else saying smart, interesting things about it.
Ebert's thoughts on the film actually hew really close to mine: this is a film to be felt more than understood. The great strength of it is in the way that it evokes a very specific mood---some kind of strange intersection between the infinite and the mundane. There are several sequences in which music plays over beautiful scenes of nature. There are also scenes in which a woman dances to no music on a table in a bar. Together, the different scenes make you aware of the long stretch of time and of the small, mundane moments.
The characters in the movie (aside from the shepherd and one of the glass factory owners who is obsessed with finding the missing formula) are incredibly muted and their line delivery is intentionally very flat. Even the characters who stand out a bit speak as if in a haze---or, as I felt watching the film, like people who have already accepted that they are being swept out to sea even as they go through the motions of paddling against the current.
In a handful of conversations about Herzog, it's been asserted that his documentary work outstrips his narrative work. Until this film I would have agreed, but this might be in contention as a favorite film of his. It builds mood and meaning and a unique, dream-like reality.
4.5
ThatDarnMKS
09-17-21, 12:31 AM
HEART OF GLASS is a movie I loved but in keeping with it's dream-like quality, the details have faded beyond the general surreal impression and hypnotized performances.
Wyldesyde19
09-17-21, 01:58 AM
Heart of Glass, along with Stroszek and The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser, are fantastic films that get overshadowed by Aguirre and Fitzcarraldo. I might even rank a few of them ahead of Fitzcarraldo.
Fabulous
09-17-21, 02:14 AM
The Courier (2020)
3.5
https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/3bmuReXae3LHIM1dfGx6olXUipJ.jpg
PHOENIX74
09-17-21, 02:49 AM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Ryans_daughter.jpg
By soloclasicosmodernos, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7089806
Ryan's Daughter - (1970)
I was only going to watch the first half of this 198 minute film last night, but once I got going I couldn't stop and had to watch the whole thing. This was blasted upon initial release because it didn't reach the epic heights of Lean's Lawrence of Arabia and Bridge on the River Kwai, but what got lost was the fact that it's still an extremely good film. Sarah Miles makes us feel both pity and hatred for her titular character - and John Mills won an Oscar for playing the village idiot Michael. Robert Mitchum plays completely against type. I wasn't even phased by it's length - I just found it enjoyable and compelling. The critics probably cost us a David Lean film or two - he went on a 14 year hiatus, wounded by not living up to his own high standards. Great cinematography too - as you'd expect.
8/10
CringeFest
09-17-21, 03:11 AM
I, Robot
7/10
Over all very entertaining and pretty even though the script writing isnt that great. It also does clearly demonstrate the problem with robotic society...only if we had listened, haha...I also didn't think will Smith's characteristically PG humor was so bad.
In addition to the Arrow blu-ray, I think I've seen their stuff on iTunes. When I looked a few years ago. The Beast wasn't on iTunes (not surprising), but the Dr Jekyll and Miss Hyde one was (a little surprising).
Awesome, I use iTunes a lot and now that you mention it I think I did see Jekyll/Ms. Hyde on there.
1/10 Enemy of the State (1998)
This has everything i hate about the ocean movies and ****ty conspiracy theories. Too many points of disconnect in the plot develpment (ie., hard to understand what's really going on), and over-reliance on cinematography. The newer manchurian candidate is a lot better in terms of political espionage.
Yeah, I saw this in the theater and thought it outright sucked and was a real low-point for Gene Hackman. Not that he didn't do his job, he always did, but just for him to even dignify that film with his presence.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fmedia.wbur.org%2Fwordpress%2F1%2Ffiles%2F2017%2F07%2Fmccabe_and_m rs_miller_banner.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
McCabe & Mrs. Miller, 1971
In a small, barely developed mining town, a man named McCabe (Warren Beatty) rolls into town and through sheer force of magnetism, determination, and deadly reputation, begins to organize the town into something significant. Before long, brothel madame Mrs. Miller (Julie Christie) arrives and persuades McCabe to front her the cost of opening a high-quality brothel in which they will share the profits. But the town's success attracts a few interested buyers, and they may not be willing to take no for an answer.
I guess the theme of this week's movie watching is 70s film subverting genre expectations. First with Night Moves taking on the detective/noir genre, and now with McCabe and Mrs. Miller upending the Western.
I can see why this film is held in such high regard. From a filmmaking point of view, I have no complaints. I think that what makes it so easy to admire is the fact that it doesn't seem to care all that much what you think about the main characters. It is content to show you their lives and their choices and let you draw your own conclusions. While there are secondary characters who fall more easily into the "good person/bad person" extremes, the two leads are admirably complex.
The film does a great job of conveying how dangerous--and arbitrarily cruel--the semi-tamed west could be. Everyone, in their own way, lives on the edge. It makes intuitive sense the way that the character jockey for control or at times choose to escape as with Mrs. Miller and her opium addiction. The details of the setting--especially seeing the characters' breath--really captures the harsh environment in which they find themselves. It all creates an effect where any moment of silence or calm or gentleness seems like some sort of miracle.
I thought that Beatty and Christie did a great job in their roles, and that the supporting cast were also strong. Everyone in the film brings a sort of grim acceptance to their scenes.
I thought that the soundtrack choices were interesting. At times I wondered if they weren't too modern, but I also have to admit that thematically and tonally they really fit the film and its events.
There's a certain fatalism to the film that did make me antsy at times. I think that it's intentional, so this isn't a flaw, per se. But that restlessness made it hard to stick with the film at points.
Overall an excellent piece of the Western canon. Chalk up another "deservedly classic".
4.5
Man, you're just hitting my 70s sweet-spots this week.
I had the same reaction when I watched this, man, it's been 10 years now, I think, but "deservedly classic" was exactly my takeaway. Altman may have been a difficult bastard but he could make a movie that stands out.
10 to midnight (1983) 7/10
Eye for an eye (1981) 6/10 i expected more from this but it seems that code of silence is a much better film on all fronts
I like both of these films for what they are but I think your ratings are probably right on the money.
https://www.mondo-digital.com/crimsoncult.jpg
https://jonman492000.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/altar12.gif?w=720&h=&zoom=2
Curse of the Crimson Altar (The Crimson Cult) - 1968 British horror from Tigon films and very loosely based on the short story, "The Dreams in the Witch House" by HP Lovecraft. Tigon was trying to compete with Hammer and Amicus productions in the field of low budget horror and were also responsible for films like Witchfinder General and The Blood on Satan's Claw among others.
Christopher Lee and Boris Karloff are first billed but they're on screen only part of the time. The actual star is Mark Eden and he plays antiques dealer Robert Manning who, when the film opens, is searching for his missing brother Peter. He has received a letter from Peter that indicates he was visiting the isolated Craxted Lodge in their ancestral town of Greymarsh. When Manning journeys there he finds a bacchanal of sorts going on that he eventually discovers has to do with the anniversary of a witch burning that took place 300 years ago. Lavinia Morley was found guilty of witchcraft and burned at the stake at the prompting of Robert's ancestor. Before dying Lavinia cursed the people of the town and in particular the descendants of her accusers.
It's a talky but somewhat effective supernatural thriller and, while not in the same league as most of Hammer's offerings, still might keep your interest chiefly because of the two old warhorses Karloff and Lee. Painfully thin and plagued by arthritis Karloff was near the end of his career and life and this turned out to be his final movie released during his lifetime. And yet he still manages to imbue his Professor John Marsh with a quiet sort of dignity and his frailty doesn't show in his line readings. Lee was said to have hated this film but like Karloff his professionalism wins out and his role as Lavinia's ancestor is satisfying enough. Seminal horror actress Barbara Steele also manages well in her scenes as Lavinia and another horror mainstay, Michael Gough, acquits himself well in the small role of Lee's attendant Elder.
Maybe not a must-see horror film but if you're any kind of aficionado you'll for sure want to check this off your list.
rating_3
Ooooh... "The Dreams In The Witch House" is one of my all-time favorite Horror stories, I will definitely add this for October (if it's available to me, of course).
CringeFest
09-17-21, 08:52 AM
Yeah, I saw this in the theater and thought it outright sucked and was a real low-point for Gene Hackman. Not that he didn't do his job, he always did, but just for him to even dignify that film with his presence.
i was flirting with this idea that enemy of the state is the worst movie ever made, because they clearly used a lot of talent and resources in service of movie that frankley doesn't make much sense. I've crapped on the ocean movies a good bit but they're definetely a lot better than enemy of the state. Basically, i enjoyed the first two scenes. They were well acted by everyone involved (for example, those mobsters were pretty scary), but then I'm like "well wait, what do the mobsters have to do with any of this?" pretty shortly after.
EDIT: It also seems like a lot of people involved in this production don't know anything about the state, which is quite aggravating. Even though the mobster scene is good, if the mobsters were as evil and creepy as they were made out to be in that scene, then they wouldn't be blatantly threatening A LAWYER. Plus, there's that scene:
Will Smith: Do you have a warrant?
Genius Haxxer Kid: oh, he's good!
I guess we should give the mobster ashole a benefit of the doubt: he never has heard of recording devices until he saw that videotape...which so describes real mobsters from that time period!
https://media1.giphy.com/media/I2m7l4yZqRdgk/giphy.webp?cid=ecf05e47kltopm71jm0f2an8r2mv9xpat3lc26v5y5it8wx9&rid=giphy.webp&ct=g
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fm.media-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FM%2FMV5BNzY5N2ZhMTEtODFmZi00NWE2LTlmNzQtNGY0ZmVlM2M2NzQzXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyOTc5MD I5NjE%40._V1_FMjpg_UX966_.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
Heart of Glass, 1976
In a small town, the owner of a glass factory has died, unexpectedly taking the secret of the town's famed Ruby Glass with him. Unable to conceive of a future without their successful Ruby Glass formula, the owners of the glass factory and the town's residents fall into a sort of living stupor. A local shepherd (Josef Bierbichler) watches events unfold, making ominous-but-accurate predictions about the future.
After I watched this movie I immediately went to read Ebert's review of it (it is one of his Great Movies). Sometimes when I like a movie but can't quite articulate why, I just enjoy reading someone else saying smart, interesting things about it.
Ebert's thoughts on the film actually hew really close to mine: this is a film to be felt more than understood. The great strength of it is in the way that it evokes a very specific mood---some kind of strange intersection between the infinite and the mundane. There are several sequences in which music plays over beautiful scenes of nature. There are also scenes in which a woman dances to no music on a table in a bar. Together, the different scenes make you aware of the long stretch of time and of the small, mundane moments.
The characters in the movie (aside from the shepherd and one of the glass factory owners who is obsessed with finding the missing formula) are incredibly muted and their line delivery is intentionally very flat. Even the characters who stand out a bit speak as if in a haze---or, as I felt watching the film, like people who have already accepted that they are being swept out to sea even as they go through the motions of paddling against the current.
In a handful of conversations about Herzog, it's been asserted that his documentary work outstrips his narrative work. Until this film I would have agreed, but this might be in contention as a favorite film of his. It builds mood and meaning and a unique, dream-like reality.
4.5
You have me really intrigued with this.
Probably need to save it for November, when all of my Fantasy/Sci-Fi/Thriller/Horror silliness is out of my system and I can watch something great, but I'm definitely interested.
Your bolded statement certainly resonates with me and is why I have always loved reading movie reviews even when I was a kid and why I actually have the physical volumes of Ebert's Great Movies on my shelf. Movies like Last Year At Marienbad really benefit from hearing someone else talk about them as well.
rambond
09-17-21, 12:43 PM
The Lair of The White Worm 1987
This was one weird film tbh, a cult classic, shame about the cheesy ending in an otherwise really good horror comedyq
WHITBISSELL!
09-17-21, 12:57 PM
Ooooh... "The Dreams In The Witch House" is one of my all-time favorite Horror stories, I will definitely add this for October (if it's available to me, of course).I should have added a "buyer beware" for Lovecraft fans because you might end up disappointed. The term "loosely based" is part of the film's synopsis but I added the "very" because I couldn't figure out what they meant. There is no Walter Gilman and it's not set in Arkham. There is mention of an accused witch but it's not Keziah Mason. And there certainly isn't any Brown Jenkin. The only thing the film and short story had in common was an attic room but that certainly isn't enough to hang a "loosely based" label on. There might potentially be a good film adaptation to be made but this isn't it. Instead it's like I said, a "somewhat effective" but "not a must-see" horror film. Sorry for getting your hopes up.
https://st1.latestly.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/resize-31-1-380x214.jpg
Malignant (2021)
A lot of people like this movie, it was given away for free with HBO MAX and I thought about saving it for my Halloween challenge. But man was this crap, I think James Wan went out and tried to make The Room but as a horror film. The film is 2 hours long yet somehow it manages to miss 40-60% of the needed exposition. You have scenes that make no sense to frankly a laughable level, the tone of the film is off-putting to say the least. This is a deliberately terrible film...
rating_1
I should have added a "buyer beware" for Lovecraft fans because you might end up disappointed. The term "loosely based" is part of the film's synopsis but I added the "very" because I couldn't figure out what they meant. There is no Walter Gilman and it's not set in Arkham. There is mention of an accused witch but it's not Keziah Mason. And there certainly isn't any Brown Jenkin. The only thing the film and short story had in common was an attic room but that certainly isn't enough to hang a "loosely based" label on. There might potentially be a good film adaptation to be made but this isn't it. Instead it's like I said, a "somewhat effective" but "not a must-see" horror film. Sorry for getting your hopes up.
I feel like "buyer beware" is implied for all "Lovecraft adaptations". The things he described and his concepts are understandably challenging to convey on the screen and rare is the Lovecraft adaptation that gets things right (Call Of Cthulhu, obviously, The Resurrected, From Beyond, Dagon, and, even though it's not an actual Lovecraft adaptation per se, In The Mouth Of Madness gets the spirit right; I also enjoyed The Unnamable, for an very low-budget attempt).
I kinda feel like if you capture the main gist of Lovecraft's concept of Horror then I'm pretty happy. Beggars can't be choosers.
And I imagine creating a credible Brown Jenkin in 1968 would've been a challenge.
Michael Gough-starring 60s British Horror That Nods Subtly In The Direction Of Lovecraft is plenty good enough for me.
https://st1.latestly.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/resize-31-1-380x214.jpg
Malignant (2021)
A lot of people like this movie, it was given away for free with HBO MAX and I thought about saving it for my Halloween challenge. But man was this crap, I think James Wan went out and tried to make The Room but as a horror film. The film is 2 hours long yet somehow it manages to miss 40-60% of the needed exposition. You have scenes that make no sense to frankly a laughable level, the tone of the film is off-putting to say the least. This is a deliberately terrible film...
rating_1
Man, people are so all over the map with this movie, I guess I'm just gonna have to watch it for myself.
matt72582
09-17-21, 01:42 PM
The Professor's Beloved Equation - 6/10
Someone recommended me this, and she seemed to have good taste, but it's a shame I wasted the energy to see this and be underwhelmed. It's been about a month or two since I last saw a movie, and this isn't going to help "get back in the saddle again"
The last half-hour is probably the best. The numbers didn't appeal to me, and there wasn't much happening.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/The_Professor%27s_Beloved_Equation_%28poster%29.jpg
Man, people are so all over the map with this movie, I guess I'm just gonna have to watch it for myself.
It's very similar to the late bad Dario Argento films...but it could also be considered Scary Movie 6.
It's very similar to the late bad Dario Argento films...but it could also be considered Scary Movie 6.
Oh crap.
I thought Mother Of Tears was literally one of the worst films I've ever seen.
ThatDarnMKS
09-17-21, 03:34 PM
Oh crap.
I thought Mother Of Tears was literally one of the worst films I've ever seen.
It's the type of movie you wish Argento was currently making. Not what he's actually making.
Gideon58
09-17-21, 04:27 PM
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71EOlzc5m+L._SY550_.jpg
2.5
Mr Minio
09-17-21, 05:16 PM
The Professor's Beloved Equation - 6/10 You picked the right director but the wrong movie.
Takoma11
09-17-21, 05:20 PM
You have me really intrigued with this.
Probably need to save it for November, when all of my Fantasy/Sci-Fi/Thriller/Horror silliness is out of my system and I can watch something great, but I'm definitely interested.
Your bolded statement certainly resonates with me and is why I have always loved reading movie reviews even when I was a kid and why I actually have the physical volumes of Ebert's Great Movies on my shelf. Movies like Last Year At Marienbad really benefit from hearing someone else talk about them as well.
I think that it's a unique film, which is not to say that I think everyone would love it or think it's great. But it's got a lot going for it, including one of the best anti-erotic sequences I've ever seen.
Jinnistan
09-17-21, 06:22 PM
I thought the Cohen tunes worked perfectly for it, personally, and really added a lot to the overall haunting vibe of the movie:
Too bad Altman didn't wait a couple of months to hear the new Leonard Cohen record because this would have been an excellent addition to the soundtrack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f0ADuVJhYQ
Nausicaä
09-17-21, 06:56 PM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/Nightbooks_film_poster.jpg
3
SF = 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
Pioneer (Erik Skjoldbjærg, 2013) 2.5 6/10
Roly Poly (Andrzej Wajda, 1968) 3 6.5/10
Don't Go Near the Water (Charles Walters, 1957) 2.5 6/10
Prisoners of the Ghostland (Sion Sono, 2021) 2+ 5/10
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYjAxY2Q2ZjktOTExMy00MjQ1LThiNjQtZGEzOTNlN2JiNzYzXkEyXkFqcGdeQVRoaXJkUGFydHlJbmdlc3Rpb25Xb3JrZmxv dw@@._V1_QL75_UX500_CR0,0,500,281_.jpg
Semi-futuristic spaghetti western/eastern with horror overtones has a few highlights but not enough.
House of Hummingbird (Bora Kim, 2018) 2.5 6/10
Dance of the Damned (Katt Shea, 1989) 2+ 5/10
Three Sailors and a Girl (Roy Del Ruth, 1953) 2.5 5.5/10
Bait (Mark Jenkin, 2019) 2.5 6/10
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BY2Y3Y2I3MzctY2M5My00NTRmLWJkYmQtMDc5ZDExMzZhYWRiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXRyYW5zY29kZS13b3JrZmxvdw@@._V1_QL7 5_UX500_CR0,49,500,281_.jpg
Lo-fi, stylish "thriller" is probably a unique film, and a lot of people in it are angry.
Our Defeats (Jean-Gabriel Périot, 2019) 2.5 6/10
Nightbooks (David Yarovesky, 2021) 2.5 6/10
Daughter of Rosie O'Grady (David Butler, 1950) 2.5 6/10
Candyman (Nia DaCosta, 2021) 2.5 6/10
https://media1.giphy.com/media/l3yZsiH9QR1Cm77dZP/200.gif
Belated sequel has plenty to say in an elegant manner but not enough scares.
Her Socialist Smile (John Gianvito, 2020) 3- 6.5/10
My Son (Christian Carion, 2021) 2.5 6/10
Maska (Quay Bros., 2010) 3 6.5/10
Old (M. Night Shyamalan, 2021) 2.5 6/10
https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2021-02/8/18/asset/3e58085e0819/anigif_sub-buzz-6151-1612809790-19.gif?resize=625:256
No duh!
Together (Stephen Daldry & Justin Martin, 2021) 2.5 6/10
Stripped to Kill 2: Live Girls (Katt Shea, 1989) 2 5/10
The Father Who Moves Mountains (Daniel Sandu, 2021) 3 6.5/10
Cry Macho (Clint Eastwood, 2021) 2.5 6/10
https://resizer.glanacion.com/resizer/BSR656ooeeQtVO-Brm93eR4SUSg=/768x0/filters:quality(80)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/lanacionar/7FJN46IY5ZEVTKSES3HYX7MUQE.jpg
Ancient ranch hand Clint Eastwood goes down to Mexico City to retrieve the wild, insecure son (Eduardo Minett) of his rancher friend.
Takoma11
09-17-21, 08:49 PM
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmoviescounter.se%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F02%2FDuck-Soup-1933-Movie-Free-Download-720p-BluRay-2.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
Duck Soup, 1933
In the fictional European country of Freedonia, the newly appointed leader Rufus Firefly (Groucho Marx) is supported financially by the wealthy Gloria Teasdale (Margaret Dumont). Meanwhile, the leader of another country conspires to begin a war with Freedonia, hiring Chicolini (Chico Marx) and Pinky (Harpo Marx) to steal valuable war plans.
This is a classic comedic film that serves mainly as a vehicle for snappy dialogue bits and slapstick set-pieces.
I was glad that this film ran the length it did--about 70 minutes--because I have only a moderate tolerance for what I will now describe as shenanigans. Which is to say that even when I find what's on screen fun and amusing, I still struggle when it's a series of bits strung together only loosely by a thin narrative.
But what's on screen here is really funny and engaging for the most part. The slapstick bits are accomplished with great physical control (especially a running bit whereby Pinky produces a pair of scissors to clandestinely trim the tails off of hats, helmets, and even a cigar). The word play---basically stand up bits put into dialogue--is also strong.
The only downside for me was the lack of development of the secondary characters. I mean, in one sense most of the characters aren't really developed in the traditional meaning of the word. But characters such as Teasdale seem overly flat in their role as straight man. Because so much of the dialogue is just set up -> response -> punchline, the character just reacts minimally before walking right into the next set up. It would have been nice to see a little more personality from her and some of the other supporting characters.
A fun little flick, certainly worth seeing.
4
Gideon58
09-17-21, 09:29 PM
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYmE0OTE5NWItMGYyZi00MzUxLWFjN2QtYzBkZGRjZGVmMGFmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjg2NjQwMDQ@._V1_.jpg
1st Rewatch...The general consensus on this film is that Renee Zellweger's performance is great but the film is crap, but I totally disagree. Enjoyed it a lot more than I did the first time. Don't get me wrong, Zellweger is brilliant and totally deserved the Oscar she won...the actress really loses herself in this role and really makes us feel Judy's pain and insecurity. But there's a lot more going on this movie and a lot of credit has to go to director Rupert Goold, who shows his loving respect for the subject in every frame of this movie. It's pretty gutsy to make a film about the world's greatest entertainer during the biggest down period of her life, but he allows us just enough of a peek into her life at MGM to understand why she has become what she has become. The film also captures Judy's through line for her entire life...the love of her children. There are some powerful scenes sparkled throughout here...watch her argument with Sid Luft (Rufus Sewell) near the beginning of the film...the incestuous undertone of young Judy's scenes with Louis B Mayer, the scenes where Judy gets heckled and booed off the stage, or the conflicted feelings of London assistant Rossalyn and what she has to do to get Judy onstage, bursting her personal images of Judy into smithereens. Or watch Mickey Deem's reaction to Judy's suggestion that they marry. I also applaud the decision to let Zellweger do her own singing...Judy's voice was a one of a kind instrument that can't be duplicated anyway and I think Zellweger's singing just enhanced the power of the performance. 4
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmoviescounter.se%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F02%2FDuck-Soup-1933-Movie-Free-Download-720p-BluRay-2.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
Duck Soup, 1933
In the fictional European country of Freedonia, the newly appointed leader Rufus Firefly (Groucho Marx) is supported financially by the wealthy Gloria Teasdale (Margaret Dumont). Meanwhile, the leader of another country conspires to begin a war with Freedonia, hiring Chicolini (Chico Marx) and Pinky (Harpo Marx) to steal valuable war plans.
This is a classic comedic film that serves mainly as a vehicle for snappy dialogue bits and slapstick set-pieces.
I was glad that this film ran the length it did--about 70 minutes--because I have only a moderate tolerance for what I will now describe as shenanigans. Which is to say that even when I find what's on screen fun and amusing, I still struggle when it's a series of bits strung together only loosely by a thin narrative.
But what's on screen here is really funny and engaging for the most part. The slapstick bits are accomplished with great physical control (especially a running bit whereby Pinky produces a pair of scissors to clandestinely trim the tails off of hats, helmets, and even a cigar). The word play---basically stand up bits put into dialogue--is also strong.
The only downside for me was the lack of development of the secondary characters. I mean, in one sense most of the characters aren't really developed in the traditional meaning of the word. But characters such as Teasdale seem overly flat in their role as straight man. Because so much of the dialogue is just set up -> response -> punchline, the character just reacts minimally before walking right into the next set up. It would have been nice to see a little more personality from her and some of the other supporting characters.
A fun little flick, certainly worth seeing.
4
I agree with this a 100%
Takoma11
09-17-21, 10:14 PM
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYmE0OTE5NWItMGYyZi00MzUxLWFjN2QtYzBkZGRjZGVmMGFmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjg2NjQwMDQ@._V1_.jpg
1st Rewatch...The general consensus on this film is that Renee Zellweger's performance is great but the film is crap, but I totally disagree.
I rated it similarly. A solid film that makes its point, driven by a great central performance.
SpelingError
09-17-21, 10:43 PM
26th Hall of Fame
Angel-A (2005) - 3
Tonally wise, I found this film really strange. I'm not sure how much I liked it (my rating may increase or decrease in the future), but I do have some respect for it. Initially, I thought this would be a straightforward story of Angel-A improving Andre and helping him fix his various flaws. Instead though, he made virtually no improvements throughout the first hour and made a couple improvements throughout the final half hour. At the end, while he was in a better place than he was at the start of the film, he still needed Angel-A by his side to prevent him from making the same mistakes all over again. If it wasn't for Andre recognizing that he was only half-developed at the end, one could criticize the film for not properly developing his character, but since the point of the ending is that she didn't fully improve him, the film doesn't need to provide closure to his character flaws. While I find that to be a clever premise, I think I respect this film more than I like it. I admired that the film twisted my initial expectations around, but what I got as an alternative left me rather cold and removed from the characters. Andre's ineptitude kept me at arm's length from him for most of the first hour, so it took me a while to feel an emotional connection to him. Also, the occasional bad advice Angel-A offered (e.g., telling him he should've insulted one of the thugs he owed money to) and how she did virtually all the work when dealing with some of his problems instead of instructing him on how to handle them kept me from getting into her character. And again, I get that Andre wasn't fully improved at the end, so I'm hesitant to call these qualities flaws. I'm just not sure I connected much with them. Angel-A seems like a highly flawed film which resolves its flaws at the end in a rather odd way. Granted though, I'm a bit undecided about how I feel about this film and somebody could probably convince me that it's better or worse than what I think. For now though, this is where I'll stand.
Takoma11
09-17-21, 10:51 PM
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-cAfT8U9gnyM%2FWbkEq3zdoqI%2FAAAAAAAAXtM%2FOca7if2jXKsdATlMlpzDZv6XAOzhCD3kACEwYBhgL%2Fs1600%2FSandri ne-Bonnaire-Isabelle-Huppert-La-Ceremonie-Claude-Chabrol-1995%252B%2525285%252529.JPG&f=1&nofb=1
La Ceremonie, 1995
A reserved, slightly odd woman named Sophie (Sandrine Bonnaire) gets a job working for a wealthy family in their isolated home in the country. Sophie soon strikes up a friendship with the town's postal clerk, Jeanne (Isabelle Huppert). As the two bond over their pasts, Jeanne begins to sew seeds of discord with Sophie, turning her against her employers.
Dang.
So, to being with, I will keep this review very spoiler free (or will spoiler text even mild spoilers), and if you haven't seen this movie I (1) recommend that you immediately check it out and (2) avoid reading ANYTHING about it before watching.
Okay, I thought that this was pretty great.
I haven't yet read any critical reviews of this yet (aside from Ebert's review that I checked out after watching), but I think that there's a lot of interesting stuff to unpack here.
What I liked most about this film was the way that it plays on two different, oppositional emotions that you might have watching a film that centers on someone working as a domestic servant. On one hand, it does a great job of showing the way that people who hire servants can extend a sense of ownership over that person. Sophie tends to follow her instructions to the letter: nothing more, nothing less. The family is put off when Sophie creates a tremendous amount of food for a party, but leaves when she is done. Further, I think that the film does a good job of showing a common misconception that can develop around domestic workers. Domestic workers make your bed and fold your clothes and cook you dinner because it is their job, not because they love you. It is a natural fallacy, in a way, to assume that someone who is doing caretaking things, you know, cares for you. But that relationship is transactional, not affectionate.
On the other side of things, the film plays on the fears about what it means to let someone into your home. While in this case the situation is a wealthy family with a maid, I think that this is a fear that people from almost any socio-economic status can experience. What if the people that you trust (doctors, teachers, repair people, etc) do not have your best interest at heart? I think that it is natural to worry that someone on whom you rely or whom you let into your life or space might be a sociopath or have their own agenda. I really liked the push pull of sympathies between Sophie and the family.
Finally (and here come some moderate spoilers) the film does a great job of showing the way that there can be a kind of destructive chemistry between two people. Sophie and Jeanne, on their own, would probably mostly do petty little things. But when they begin to bounce off of each other, it turns into an echo chamber that amplifies their resentments and leads them to actions out of the scope of what they would probably do on their own.
This film was incredibly tense, right up until the last moments---even those that play underneath the credits as they roll.
I suppose that one minor critique that I had was that I didn't 100% buy some smaller character actions in the final act. And while this isn't a critique of the film per se, some of the characters are really maddening (as in, I got really angry at them), so if you struggle with disliking character, you might struggle a bit with some parts of this film).
Tense and well-acted and excellent.
4.5
Rockatansky
09-17-21, 10:59 PM
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-cAfT8U9gnyM%2FWbkEq3zdoqI%2FAAAAAAAAXtM%2FOca7if2jXKsdATlMlpzDZv6XAOzhCD3kACEwYBhgL%2Fs1600%2FSandri ne-Bonnaire-Isabelle-Huppert-La-Ceremonie-Claude-Chabrol-1995%252B%2525285%252529.JPG&f=1&nofb=1
La Ceremonie, 1995
I need to give this a go at some point for Huppert, but Chabrol has left me pretty cold so far. I think Merci Pour Le Chocolat (also with Huppert) is the only one I didn't shrug through.
Nausicaä
09-17-21, 11:50 PM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e4/Spiral_Official_Poster.jpg
2
SF = 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
PHOENIX74
09-18-21, 12:00 AM
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Batman_Begins_Poster.jpg
By May be found at the following website: IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6498038
Batman Begins - (2005) - rewatch
I've always felt that Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises were really good, but not great. They just happen to sandwich one of my favourite films - The Dark Knight. The first in the trilogy is the one I'm the least familiar with - and as such I felt it deserved a rewatch. I discovered that if you're watching a 140 minute film with a climactic finale, it helps to watch the final 30 minutes fresh - fatigue may set in after two hours, and with all the fast cutting the attention needed to take in every moment in has diminished. I'm not a massive fan of comic book characters, but enjoy those old Christopher Reeve Superman films along with Tim Burton's Batman films. X-Men : First Class and Logan are another two that I like a lot despite not being a huge fan of the genre.
7.5/10
Takoma11
09-18-21, 12:22 AM
I need to give this a go at some point for Huppert, but Chabrol has left me pretty cold so far. I think Merci Pour Le Chocolat (also with Huppert) is the only one I didn't shrug through.
I would think you would like this one. I thought it was a lot stronger than Merci Pour Le Chocolat.
crumbsroom
09-18-21, 12:26 AM
Ceremonie is the Chabrol even those hesitant to what Chabrol does can appreciate.
Even Rock.
WHITBISSELL!
09-18-21, 03:06 AM
https://lasttimeisawdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/dark-passage-1947.jpg?w=600&h=450&zoom=2
https://media1.giphy.com/media/dYKMkcgLOu1lBDC0lT/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e478cv8xdwnr3rku3bbr17kudmw1h8efkw4ubncy80f&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g
Dark Passage - Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall made four movies together. I thought it was more but this turned out to be the only one I hadn't seen and it's an odd one. Sort of an outlier from the other three, To Have and Have Not, The Big Sleep and Key Largo. Those were more traditional Hollywood films with a clear path along an established trajectory. Charter fishing boat captain tries to avoid WWII entanglements, LA gumshoe is hired to help out an errant rich girl, WWII veteran runs afoul of gangsters in Florida. But this seems more like three or four movies wrapped into one.
It starts with a prison breakout. Vincent Parry (Bogart, or at least his voice) was sent up for murdering his wife. He didn't of course. Through a series of progressively extravagant coincidences he's picked up by a disturbingly inquisitive motorist. When Parry is finally forced to deal with the yahoo, Irene Jansen (Bacall) just happens to be driving by. And she also happens to be a groupie of sorts. Her father was also sent up for murdering her stepmother and died in prison so she's been following Parry's trial and conviction with great interest. She takes him home and while out buying him new clothes her acquaintance Madge Rapf (Agnes Moorehead) shows up knocking at her door. But wait. She just happens to have been the prosecutions chief witness against Parry at his trial. While you're busy trying to digest all these flukey developments you also have to deal with Bogart's absence from the movie. He doesn't actually show his face until halfway through the film. There's a plastic surgery angle and the first hour is filmed entirely POV. You hear Bogey's distinctive voice but that's about it. He also swathed in bandages for a goodly chunk of time.
The one consistent motif is just how intrusive random strangers are in this movie. Cab drivers, hotel clerks, plainclothes detectives. It seems like just about everyone has it in for our put upon protagonist. He doesn't help matters either by going fidgety at the worst possible moments. If the filmmaker's objective was to twist the last bit of apprehension out of any given scene they succeeded.
The performances are good. Bogart and Bacall had a marvelous chemistry together and even though this wasn't them at their pinnacle it still works. Agnes Moorehead also does a superlative job with her conniving and obnoxious character. There are also moments of genuine humor sprinkled throughout. Like I said, it's an odd one but in the end it's worth watching if only to complete the Bogey/Bacall grand slam.
rating_4
Fabulous
09-18-21, 03:45 AM
Dark Waters (2019)
4
https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/jKWVHOdEUDt0HW8eeFBWQ0CR3Ns.jpg
ScannerDarkly
09-18-21, 04:55 AM
6/10 Thought this was pretty good until the ending
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BN2YwYjFkNzctZWIyNS00NWRjLWJiY2EtNzVmZTE0MjJkM2U2XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjUwMzI2NzU@._V1_.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/af/Batman_Begins_Poster.jpg
By May be found at the following website: IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6498038
Batman Begins - (2005) - rewatch
I've always felt that Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises were really good, but not great. They just happen to sandwich one of my favourite films - The Dark Knight. The first in the trilogy is the one I'm the least familiar with - and as such I felt it deserved a rewatch.
I actually like Begins the most, by a pretty significant margin actually, because TDK just totally falls apart in the third act for me and TDKR is just silly (but unintentionally so).
xSookieStackhouse
09-18-21, 07:38 AM
5 rewatch
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYjVjYjhlNTQtN2UxOC00Njk5LWFjNDctODNjZTI1ZGM0ZDZkXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTQxNzMzNDI@._V1_.jpg
matt72582
09-18-21, 09:20 AM
You picked the right director but the wrong movie.
What are his best movies?
Speaking of directors, I hope you saw the right Chris Marker movie - "La Joli Mai"
GulfportDoc
09-18-21, 11:46 AM
81324
Defending Jacob (2020)
The miniseries was based upon a novel by William Landay rather than on a true story. A boy is found murdered, and gradually the suspicion arises that it was committed by the featured family’s son.
It’s a well done production in all facets but length. Absent another story line or two, 8 episodes were a tad too generous. An hour or so less would likely have tucked in the pacing and improved the tension.
The chief appeal in the project is its bouquet of fine acting from a strong cast: Chris Evans, Michelle Dockery, Cherry Jones, J.K. Simmons, and Jaeden Martell. In fact I had come across the series while looking for films which starred Michelle Dockery (Downton Abbey), and she was not disappointing here, using a perfect American accent in playing the suspect’s mother. She was light years away from Lady Mary Crawley.
But the major surprise to me was the superb acting and nuance from Chris Evans. Having only seen him as Captain America and in Knives Out, I’d never considered him as a heavyweight actor. Here he impresses as the suspect’s father, the only minor deficit was in some of the dialogue writing.
Cherry Jones was perfectly cast as the boy’s defense attorney. I never could fully buy her as President Allison Taylor in the 24 series. But she was made for this part, and sends it home memorably. The ubiquitous J.K. Simmons plays the boy’s grandfather who is in prison for life due to murder. He’s convincing here, although IMO he's best when there’s a little humor in his part.
Lastly, the boy is played very nicely by Jaeden Martell. He did a competent job, although the character did not require much range-- mostly detachment. Still, the story could not have flourished without him.
First rate photography and direction. A good watch, but a smidge too drawn out.
Doc’s rating: 7/10
Takoma11
09-18-21, 12:21 PM
The ending's great.
The ending is really great, but there are lots of great plot advancements and twists along the way. There's actually a part that occurs about 40 or so minutes in that I thought was the most surprising and shocking.
SpelingError
09-18-21, 12:24 PM
5 rewatch
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYjVjYjhlNTQtN2UxOC00Njk5LWFjNDctODNjZTI1ZGM0ZDZkXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTQxNzMzNDI@._V1_.jpg
Great film.
Takoma11
09-18-21, 12:37 PM
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Ff%2Ffa%2FBird_of_Paradise_(1932)_1.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
Bird of Paradise, 1932
A ship is caught in a storm and finds itself swept toward the Virgin Islands, where they interact with the indigenous people while repairing their ship. One of the sailors, Johnny (Joel McCrea) becomes smitten with a local princess, Luana (Dolores Del Rio). But it is considered taboo for her to be with anyone who isn't island royalty.
This is a pre-code adventure romp with all the high and low points of such a film.
On the plus side, McCrea and Del Rio are pretty charming and for the most part their playful romance is fun to watch. There's plenty of old-timey stock footage of sharks and underwater shots. And the very classic forbidden romance story is compelling enough.
The downsides to the film largely have to do with some of the painfully dated aspects of the story. Luana often behaves more like a child than an adult and it can be a bit cringey. There are also some moments that, from a modern perspective, make it hard to root for Johnny. At one point he chases Luana down a beach (that part is fine and she is laughing). But then he tackles her and pins her down, and she struggles to get away, looking fearful. But don't worry---he forces a kiss on her and she likes it! *barf*. There's also a horrible part where Johnny hunts and kills a sea turtle. Just . . . no. Bad look, Johnny. The portrayal of the indigenous tribe is, unsurprisingly, not the most enlightened. I had to laugh at the irony of Johnny telling Luana that she should come live in America, where people don't have any "silly superstitions."
Storywise, I wish that the film had been clearer in terms of the idea of Luana angering the gods. Luana believes in her god, Pele, and Johnny doesn't. (I mean, he does condescendingly tell her that there's "only one real god"). But many events in the film do seem to support the idea that the curse is real. The film seems to want to have its cake and eat it too: mock the tribe for their beliefs AND have some action sequences that suggest the curse is real.
An entertaining, if dated, film.
3
Runners (1983)
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51Q773JY5KL.jpg
Interesting Poliakoff story about a father (James Fox, with a pretty good "northern" accent I must say), who after 2 years cannot accept the disappearance of his older daughter...he is still trying all channels. He eventually goes to London on a supposed wild goose chase. Well directed in an eighties manner and the hustle and bustle of London compared to his pretty sedate life is well portrayed. I was impressed by this.
4
rambond
09-18-21, 01:08 PM
81324
Defending Jacob (2020)
The miniseries was based upon a novel by William Landay rather than on a true story. A boy is found murdered, and gradually the suspicion arises that it was committed by the featured family’s son.
It’s a well done production in all facets but length. Absent another story line or two, 8 episodes were a tad too generous. An hour or so less would likely have tucked in the pacing and improved the tension.
The chief appeal in the project is its bouquet of fine acting from a strong cast: Chris Evans, Michelle Dockery, Cherry Jones, J.K. Simmons, and Jaeden Martell. In fact I had come across the series while looking for films which starred Michelle Dockery (Downton Abbey), and she was not disappointing here, using a perfect American accent in playing the suspect’s mother. She was light years away from Lady Mary Crawley.
But the major surprise to me was the superb acting and nuance from Chris Evans. Having only seen him as Captain America and in Knives Out, I’d never considered him as a heavyweight actor. Here he impresses as the suspect’s father, the only minor deficit was in some of the dialogue writing.
Cherry Jones was perfectly cast as the boy’s defense attorney. I never could fully buy her as President Allison Taylor in the 24 series. But she was made for this part, and sends it home memorably. The ubiquitous J.K. Simmons plays the boy’s grandfather who is in prison for life due to murder. He’s convincing here, although IMO he's best when there’s a little humor in his part.
Lastly, the boy is played very nicely by Jaeden Martell. He did a competent job, although the character did not require much range-- mostly detachment. Still, the story could not have flourished without him.
First rate photography and direction. A good watch, but a smidge too drawn out.
Doc’s rating: 7/10
This is a series not a movie , just saying...
Takoma11
09-18-21, 03:48 PM
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjojud265nia2bj9sy4ah9b61-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F11%2FTourneur_StrangerOnHorseback_01-1-1600x900-c-default.jpg&f=1&nofb=1\
Stranger on Horseback, 1955
Judge Rick Thorne (Joel McCrea) arrives in a small town in Colorado that is essentially owned by a wealthy cattle family called the Bannermans. Thorne has arrived to bring Tom Bannerman (Kevin McCarthy) to trial for a killing that took place. But with the key witnesses (including the dead man's wife (Jaclynne Greene)) intimidated into silence and the town under the family's thumb, can Thorne bring the man to justice? Complicating matters is the romantic tension between Thorne and Amy Lee (Miroslava), Tom's cousin.
This was a short, sweet, and to-the-point Western. What I liked most about it was the way that it subverted a few predictable directions that it could have gone.
As the unflappable Judge Thorne, McCrea does a solid job. He manages to convey both a man who is studied and a proponent of the law, but at the same time a man who is comfortable riding into danger and using deadly force if needed. McCarthy also carries a surprising amount of the weight of the story, because he does a great job of embodying the sociopathic rich kid who doesn't fear consequences because daddy's got everyone--even the sheriff--in his pocket. Tom is so smarmy that you really, really want to see him get what's coming to him.
When it comes to the romance with Amy Lee, the film is a bit less successful. At first, I was really intrigued by her character. We are introduced to Amy Lee as she aims a revolver at Tom and shoots a cigar out of his hand and then shoots a jug nearby, something their patriarch compares to "two bear cubs playing around." But the movie ultimately seems to struggle about what to do with her. (Sidenote: Amy Lee being a crack shot BEGS to be important at the end. It isn't. Boo.). The story wants her to be a conspirator, but at the same time, it wants her to be naive as to the actions of her cousin and family. It just doesn't work. Everyone in town knows that Tom dragged a Mexican man to death behind a horse just for spilling a pot of coffee. But somehow that's news to Amy Lee, despite the fact that she is present (and participating!) at every big family conversation. But if Amy Lee is seen as too complicit, it makes her relationship with Thorne much more complicated, and the film clearly isn't interested in much more than the two of them making eyes at each other. (Okay, she does make one important decision in the last act, but it feels off-kilter because of what came before).
I enjoyed this Western---adapted from a Louis L'amour novel--and especially enjoyed the last 25 minutes.
3.5
CharlesAoup
09-18-21, 04:15 PM
Dementia, 1955 (A-)
An opaque film about a woman with what seems to be a guilty mind taking a stroll around town. On the way, she meets mysterious men that she either knows or doesn't, that is revealed gradually. What the relationship is and who they are is a bit more obscure. Are they abusive? Are they 50s gentlemen? Who can tell.
It's a silent film, so it has constant music. If you find that grating, you might not enjoy it too much. Though it is under one hour, so you at least have that. It's generally very good and the main character. There is a music show scene near the end that, in a movie this long, still feels like padding with how long it goes on before resuming to the main intrigue.
I recommend it.
GRIZZLY MAN
(2005, Herzog)
https://www.intofilm.org/intofilm-production/scaledcropped/1096x548https%3A/s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/images.cdn.filmclub.org/film__2827-grizzly-man--hi_res-3a7c146c.jpg/film__2827-grizzly-man--hi_res-3a7c146c.jpg
"Thank you so much for letting me do this. Thank you so much for these animals, for giving me a life... I had no life... Now I have a life."
Brave, tough, committed, hero, sentimental, naïve, crazy, angry, unhinged, a dear friend... those are some of the words that some have used to describe Timothy Treadwell. A self-proclaimed environmentalist and bear enthusiast, he dedicated 13 summers of his adult life to live in isolation in the Alaskan wilderness among brown bears, while advocating for their protection. That is until he was killed by one in 2003.
Grizzly Man follows the life of Treadwell, primarily during those years. An aspiring documentary filmmaker himself, he recorded hours of footage of himself interacting with the bears, which filmmaker Werner Herzog used to assemble this film. In addition, Herzog interviews Treadwell's friends and family, as well as experts, as he chronicles the events that might've lead to his death.
In Grizzly Man, he dedicates most of the first half of the film to follow Treadwell's idealized and sentimental vision of these bears and nature overall. But as the film enters its second half, he starts digging up a bit more into Treadwell's psyche, showing a bit more of his volatility and anger. Herzog also doesn't shy away from challenging Treadwell's beliefs of "harmony in nature", instead of "chaos, hostility and murder".
Grade: 4
Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2239453#post2239453)
xSookieStackhouse
09-18-21, 05:53 PM
Great film.
it is , didnt like other 2
SpelingError
09-18-21, 06:04 PM
it is , didnt like other 2
I thought the new Candyman was pretty good, albeit not as good as the original.
SpelingError
09-18-21, 06:17 PM
Apaches (1977) - 4.5
I have a weird interest in public information films and advertisements. As long as you're not endangering other people, I don't care if people do drugs, get drunk, etc. and I recognize it as your own personal choice. However, I enjoy the horrific, disturbing, gory, surreal, and darkly humorous ways these forms of art can deliver their messages. So far though, I've yet to see a PIF better than this one.
A lot of PIFs can be preachy with their messages, but this film avoids that and delivers its messages in subtle ways. For example, instead of a preachy line of dialogue that condemns the parents for failing to properly take care of their kids, this point is conveyed indirectly. The parents are shown mostly in the background of their kids playing, paying no attention to them and going about their work as normal. The implication is that the parents aren't watching their kids closely enough and are partly responsible for their deaths. Even the closing credits which list various kids who were killed in farm accidents avoids being preachy as, since it's juxtaposed with the parents nonchalantly eating dinner and seemingly paying no attention to how several kids have died on the farm in such a short time span, it implies that nothing has been fixed and these accidents will continue to happen if the parents don't change their ways.
I think that director John Mackenzie finds the right balance between depicting the disturbing elements of the death scenes without wallowing in excessive violence. For example, a young girl is run over by a tractor in the opening, but instead of showing her body being run over, we see a cut away right as she falls under the wheel, a shot of the tractor wheels moving up and down as they drive over her, and a small trickle of blood left over after her death. While some blood is shown in at least one more death scene later on, the violence in it isn't excessive either and feels more disturbing than violent. Mackenzie also utilizes quick cuts and frenetic cinematography for the build up to some of the death scenes to increase the intensity of them, making them all the more effective. The most disturbing death in this film though was Sharon's, by far. After she accidentally ingests a toxic substance on the farm (weed killer, I think), she returns home and begins screaming in pain and calling for her parents in the middle of the night as the substance burns her from the inside. It's a truly horrifying scene and, even though it's shown offscreen, her blood-curdling and horrifying screams say all that is needed.
The film also feels dreamlike for a handful of reasons. For instance, in between the vignettes of the kids dying lies a couple scenes which occur after their deaths at different points in time. A few of those scenes, like their nametags or books being removed from their school or their clothes being removed from their dressers, convey part of the aftermath of their deaths. Another recurring scene shows a group of parents getting ready to eat dinner. They set the table, shine their shoes, and lay out clothes to wear for it. The lack of context to what they're doing causes one to speculate on what the purpose of the dinner will be and what it means for the surviving kids. Danny's narration also contributes to the film's dreamlike feel. He assumes the character of a Native American chief and gives insight both to what the kids are doing when they play and the "party" the parents are preparing for. Since Danny dies prior to the dinner, his narration takes on a ghostly feel, one which is heightened upon rewatching the film. These touches of surrealism add a lot to the film.
The best extension of the surrealism though concerns the behavior of the kids. In spite of how their reckless behavior causes them to die one by one throughout the film, they continue to play with each other as if nothing has happened. Though this may seem really confusing at first glance, the title of the film provides the reason for their behavior. The Apache are a group of Native American tribes in the Southwestern United States that have been around for several hundred years. Historically, if some of them were killed in a raid or a fight, they wouldn't give up - they would fight in more raids. This extends to the behavior of the kids. They pretended to fight each other and other people throughout the film and, even if one of them was killed, they'd continue play-fighting as Apaches another day.
Overall, Apaches is a great short film. Even if public information films aren't in your normal wheelhouse, you should still check it out as it contains a lot to enjoy.
WHITBISSELL!
09-18-21, 06:29 PM
https://www2.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org.uk/files/styles/full/public/image/night-of-the-demon-1957-002-man-with-hat-holds-paper-note-00m-qkr.jpg?itok=AbgXGLlo
http://www.cineoutsider.com/reviews/pix/n/ni/nightofthedemon_07.jpg
Night of the Demon (Curse of the Demon) - You can't go wrong with Jacques Tourneur. He directed 31 movies (plus four in his native France) and I've watched 7 of them (They All Come Out, Cat People, I Walked with a Zombie, The Leopard Man, Out of the Past, Curse of the Demon and The Comedy of Terrors), all of them decent and some of them classics. Curse of the Demon would qualify as both.
Dana Andrews plays American psychologist John Holden and he's on his way to the UK to attend a conference but also to investigate a satanic cult run by Dr. Julian Karswell (Niall MacGinnis). Professor Henry Harrington (Maurice Denham), a colleague of Holden, has died under mysterious circumstances which the local authorities have ruled an accident. At the funeral Holden meets the man's niece Joanna (Peggy Cummins) who later gives him her uncle's diary which outlines Harrington's growing fear of Karswell. He believed himself to have been cursed which the skeptical Holden immediately dismisses as superstitious nonsense. But a series of unexplainable events work to subvert Holden's resolve on debunking Karswell's cult.
Tourneur was a master at building and maintaining tension, ratcheting up the urgency and conveying menace and inherent danger solely through the use of sound effects and lighting. His offhand use of shadows in a scene spoke volumes and this movie is no exception. There is a major plot point that I won't give away, but it was a huge bone of contention between producer Hal E. Chester and Tourneur and screenwriter Charles Bennett. It would have certainly turned this into a much more abstract treatise on the power of belief versus discipline. But that would have made for an entirely different film. I personally think there was room for compromise. As it stands though this is a throughly enjoyable supernatural thriller that's fit to stand with some of the heavyweight horror classics.
rating_4_5
Fabulous
09-18-21, 06:30 PM
Hidden Figures (2016)
3
https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/kJJ50CR1ktLIHyBHuAXeili85rZ.jpg
xSookieStackhouse
09-18-21, 07:28 PM
I thought the new Candyman was pretty good, albeit not as good as the original.
no i mean the classic candyman 2 and candyman 3 . i loved the new one
GulfportDoc
09-18-21, 08:23 PM
Duck Soup, 1933
In the fictional European country of Freedonia, the newly appointed leader Rufus Firefly (Groucho Marx) is supported financially by the wealthy Gloria Teasdale (Margaret Dumont). Meanwhile, the leader of another country conspires to begin a war with Freedonia, hiring Chicolini (Chico Marx) and Pinky (Harpo Marx) to steal valuable war plans.
...
A fun little flick, certainly worth seeing.
rating_4
I agree. What I always thought interesting was that Herman J. Mankiewicz was the production supervisor on this great film, and he had also produced W.C. Field's Million Dollar Legs (1932)-- both set in fictional countries, and both hilarious. The two films happen to be my personal favorites from both artists respectively.
Gideon58
09-18-21, 09:15 PM
https://www.bellanaija.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/230208924_855687582033791_3136645029383302576_n.jpg
2.5
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.