Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[Takoma11]

That's enough reason for me to avoid something. There are only so many hours in my life.

As a person who likes having movies on while I do other things, it's a film that you could put on while vacuuming or doing the dishes. Not recommended as a "sit down and give full attention" film.

[Wooley]

As a person who likes having movies on while I do other things, it's a film that you could put on while vacuuming or doing the dishes. Not recommended as a "sit down and give full attention" film.

I hear ya. I don't do that though. If I'm watching a movie, I'm watching it, full attention, all the way through. And I don't think Venom deserves that.

[Takoma11]

I hear ya. I don't do that though. If I'm watching a movie, I'm watching it, full attention, all the way through. And I don't think Venom deserves that.

You are correct.

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a6/Boyhood_%282014%29.png
By Box Office Mojo, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=56708058

Boyhood - (2014)

To make a film about a boy growing up, and film it over 12 years so we actually see the same actor (and other characters) growing older is a very Richard Linklater thing to do. This film is the last entry in the excellent Penguin Random House's Movie Book - which means they obviously regard it as one of the most important films of the 2010s (I wonder if it'll show on the Countdown.) I think it's great, with Linklater stalwart Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette providing crucial support to Ellar Coltrane, who grows from a small boy into an adult before our eyes. Revolutionary stuff - even if the Up series of films had already done something similar, only in documentary-type fashion. It would all be for naught if it's down to earth, real life quality didn't show such emotional clarity, and the film moves at a rapid pace, so it's long runtime doesn't feel too drawn out.

8/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5b/Bulge_sheet_A.jpg
By moviegoods.com, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6628905

Battle of the Bulge - (1965)

Battle of the Bulge works and doesn't work depending on how you're viewing it. As accurate recreation, it's about as off the mark as you can get, inventing some things, using American M47 Pattons as German King Tiger tanks (which just looks odd to me) and condensing an event that involved a million soldiers into an adventure that seems to involve a few dozen. However, as pure war/adventure, with Robert Shaw, Henry Fonda, Charles Bronson and Telly Savalas chewing the scenery, it's enjoyable enough entertainment. The film is photographed beautifully, and when you see it on Blu-Ray it's a sight to behold. The soundtrack is awesome, as most of the scores to these 60s/70s war epics were. Ken Annakin had already directed The Longest Day - so he was a steady hand. Just don't watch this in place of a history lesson, it's an approximation - but an enjoyable one.

7/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2a/United_states_of_leland_ver1.jpg
By IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=20757183

The United States of Leland - (2003)

Depending on which way you look at it, The United States of Leland can be a pretentious, pondering and ham-fisted philosophical enquiry into depression and sadness, or a low-key, well-acted and down to earth drama that explores how fallible us human beings can be. I've seen it twice, and had two different reactions to it.

5/10

[LChimp]

https://www.magazine-hd.com/apps/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/elvis-poster.png

Movie time with the wife. We both liked it, didn't feel that long, despite being almost 3h long.

[Stirchley]

88549

Very silly (what a surprise), but I enjoyed it. The CGI dog was really excellent.

[Gideon58]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZDJjOTE0N2EtMmRlZS00NzU0LWE0ZWQtM2Q3MWMxNjcwZjBhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDk3NzU2MTQ@._V1_.jpg


4

[Gideon58]

I love Jenny Slate so much. I'm glad she's stayed so visible for so long, because she's the kind of quirky that people can be interested in for a little bit and then discard.

Also, it was so bizarre that they just (Venom SPOILERS) killed her character off-screen and gave ZERO closure about the family that she risked in betraying her boss.

Absolutely loved Wendy and Lucy

[Thief]

TERMINATOR 3
RISE OF THE MACHINES
(2003, Mostow)

https://i.imgur.com/Rd1VMJE.jpg


John Connor: "What, do you guys come off an assembly line or something?"
Terminator: "Exactly."



Set approximately 10 years after T2, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines follows John (Nick Stahl) as he lives off the grid now, unable to adapt to a normal life. When a new Terminator is sent back to target his "future" lieutenants, another obsolete T-101 is taken off the assembly line and sent again to protect John. Meanwhile, they realize that the Skynet project has been taken over by the military. But can they do something to stop it and save humanity again?

To me, it succeeds in showing us a flawed and reluctant hero in John Connor, a young man that was essentially "groomed" since he was a child to be this leader of the future. But when that is supposedly gone, he finds himself aimless and without purpose. A man that is burdened and haunted by a future that hasn't happened or might not even happen. I think Stahl did a great job of showing that. Even if the script doesn't fully dive into his psyche, you can see that insecurity, paranoia, and reluctance is there.

Grade: 4


Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2327388#post2327388)

[Stirchley]

Absolutely loved Wendy and Lucy

Me too.

[Rockatansky]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5b/Bulge_sheet_A.jpg
By moviegoods.com, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6628905

Battle of the Bulge - (1965)



The first hour is pretty dull from what I recall, but the next two are pretty entertaining. This genre is basically crack to me.

[Rockatansky]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfreporter.com%2Fresizer%2F_xd4ByLVB8jq2dzlnaWy8nN2o-w%3D%2F1200x0%2Ffilters%3Aquality(100)%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Farc-wordpress-client-uploads%2Fsfr%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F10%2F05114055%2Fvenom22.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Venom, 2018


On one hand, I don't disagree with anything you're saying here. But on the other hand, there's a level of dumbassed commitment in Hardy's performance that I found completely infectious. And it's a rare modern superhero movie that clocks in at a decent runtime and doesn't make you do twenty movies worth of homework to keep up. I had more fun with this than 90% of the genre, is what I'm saying.

[Gideon58]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNTBlZGY1OTAtN2RjMC00ZThiLWFiZmUtN2VkOGMxNmMyYjQwXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMDM2NDM2MQ@@._V1_.jpg

1st Rewatch...This tension-filled film version of August Wilson's play is anchored by the Oscar-nominated performances of Viola Davis and Chadwick Boseman in his final film role. Despite his tragic passing, Boseman was the darling of the 2020 award season for this performance until he was blindsided by Anthony Hopkins at the Oscars. The screenplay is a little talky and it never escapes its stage origins, but Davis and Boseman make it worth the watch. Do I think Hopkins stole the Oscar from Boseman? No.

3.5

[Little Ash]

Listen to Tak. It's dumb and boils down to it being a big waste of time. Another Marvel misfire. Never bothered with the sequel.


I've not paid a great deal of attention to the MCU (but it's hard to escape somewhat), but is Venom now officially in the MCU? I thought Sony still had the movie rights (obviously, would be a Spiderman situation legally).

[Little Ash]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi.nextmedia.com.au%2FNews%2FWDYPIH.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Why Don't You Play in Hell?, 2013


I was pretty disappointed with Prisoners of the Ghostland, fwiw.

[Gatsby]

https://i.imgur.com/NpIcIsZ.png

Nope (2022) - Jordan Peele

3.5

Credit where credit is due: Nope is one of the most ambitious movies I've seen in a while. But it also bites off more than it can chew. Peele's latest project is sci-fi, horror, comedy, and satire wrapped into one. He absolutely nails down some elements – the atmospheric second act is rife with tension and striking imagery – but struggles with others. The action-packed third act sags under its own weight, as does the subplot featuring a sitcom chimpanzee gone berserk. There also seemed to be an inkling of commentary on the erasure of Black filmmakers, which Peele, unfortunately, does not develop.

A couple of reviewers have suggested that Nope would work better on a smaller scale. I agree, but only to a certain extent – doing so would have improved the film's coherence at the cost of squandering Peele's vision. And it's the latter that differentiates Nope from its contemporaries. As the lights turned on and the credits emerged, I noticed a lot of people discussing the movie – more than usual, in hushed, excited tones. Jordan Peele might not have made a streamlined film, but he has undoubtedly made a thought-provoking one.

[Takoma11]

On one hand, I don't disagree with anything you're saying here. But on the other hand, there's a level of dumbassed commitment in Hardy's performance that I found completely infectious. And it's a rare modern superhero movie that clocks in at a decent runtime and doesn't make you do twenty movies worth of homework to keep up. I had more fun with this than 90% of the genre, is what I'm saying.

Right, but SO MUCH of the movie is given over to stuff that isn't Tom Hardy clambering around a lobster tank or deliriously chugging tater tots.

I did actually like that Eddie is kind of a moron. Maybe my favorite moment was when his editor at the news organization was like "So what is your source on these accusations?" and Eddie just stared at him like this was the first time he'd ever heard of a reporter basing a story on sources and not on a hunch.

I was pretty disappointed with Prisoners of the Ghostland, fwiw.

Same.

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/The_Social_Network_film_poster.png
By Daniel Clark Creative, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=59343407

The Social Network - (2010)

The Social Network portrays Mark Zuckerberg (played here, ever so well, by Jesse Eisenberg) as a horrible kid who just happens to be ever so smart - and when his girlfriend (who he treats awfully) leaves him events conspire to Zuckerberg inventing a program that connects university students together - Facebook, an invention which is eventually worth $25 billion. Unfortunately, the idea came from a couple of Harvard students he never credited, and he was helped financially by Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), who he eventually cuts off - which sets everything up for lawsuits, through which this story is told. This film is one of Fincher's best, and really taps in to our unethical, immoral and greed-driven society, of which the story of Zuckerberg is a perfect example. Catching up with it this time has left an even bigger impression on me, and I'd consider this one of the best the 2010s has to offer. Very enjoyable.

9/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/The_Breakfast_Club.jpg
By PosterRevolution, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4553820

The Breakfast Club - (1985)

You could be cynical I guess, when adults make films about kids rebelling against the same adults that are selling them this film, but The Breakfast Club was the movie of my generation - I was just about to embark on high school when it came out, and it touched a nerve within a lot of us. A 35-year-old John Hughes wrote the screenplay that just went to show he was at the peak of his powers already, and had a finger on the pulse of the youth of those days. While it veers a little towards comedy (especially with Anthony Michael Hall) this was basically a drama involving five kids during a day-long Saturday detention session where they begin to open up to each other and forge bonds after a combative beginning - revealing more of themselves, and therefore highlighting issues most kids go through. A great soundtrack was crucial to this film's success - along with at least one character a kid could relate to.

8/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/Sixteen_Candles.jpg
By POV - Impawards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19271817

Sixteen Candles - (1984)

Sixteen Candles can't quite maintain the momentum it has built up after an excellent and very funny start, with a very forgettable second and third act. Nevertheless, it was the directorial debut for John Hughes and introduced us to Molly Ringwald and gave Anthony Michael Hall's career another boost after appearing in Vacation - they both shine brightly. It also features a teenage John Cusack in only his second role - he was to hit big the next year in Better Off Dead..., which is another film I remember fondly, but haven't seen in decades. A fun watch - but it does have racial and sexual issues, which just compound the fact that it loses it's way after the half way point.

6/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/Kong_Skull_Island_poster.jpg
By http://www.impawards.com/2017/kong_skull_island_ver2.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51138666

Kong : Skull Island - (2017)

I think I noted this the last time I watched Skull Island and rated it here, but while the action and effects in this film are to be commended, the human characters lack depth, and don't give the film much dramatic impact - we simply never really grow to care for them. The film is fun though - monsters galore.

6/10

[WHITBISSELL!]

I've not paid a great deal of attention to the MCU (but it's hard to escape somewhat), but is Venom now officially in the MCU? I thought Sony still had the movie rights (obviously, would be a Spiderman situation legally).No he's not. And I thought of that as soon as I posted it. But hey, he's a Marvel character and that's close enough to anyone who's not a hardcore fan of Marvel/Disney.

[SpelingError]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/The_Social_Network_film_poster.png
By Daniel Clark Creative, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=59343407

The Social Network - (2010)

The Social Network portrays Mark Zuckerberg (played here, ever so well, by Jesse Eisenberg) as a horrible kid who just happens to be ever so smart - and when his girlfriend (who he treats awfully) leaves him events conspire to Zuckerberg inventing a program that connects university students together - Facebook, an invention which is eventually worth $25 billion. Unfortunately, the idea came from a couple of Harvard students he never credited, and he was helped financially by Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), who he eventually cuts off - which sets everything up for lawsuits, through which this story is told. This film is one of Fincher's best, and really taps in to our unethical, immoral and greed-driven society, of which the story of Zuckerberg is a perfect example. Catching up with it this time has left an even bigger impression on me, and I'd consider this one of the best the 2010s has to offer. Very enjoyable.

9/10
Huge fan of that one.

[StuSmallz]

Huge fan of that one.I wish I had been too, but there's something about Fincher's general emotional detachment as a filmmaker that makes him less well-suited for Dramas such as it, and better for the Thrillers that he's more famous for, I have to admit. When it comes to his more dramatic efforts, it feels like he's either being way too sentimental (Benjamin Button), or too sterile, like with TSN.

[LChimp]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZWFlMTMyZjctNTcyYi00ODM2LWE1NDYtZWMyODI0MTNkMDc0XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjMzNjY2NjQ@._V1_.jpg


Very poorly acted, bad CGI and very predictable. Nothing can be saved here.

[Hey Fredrick]

https://64.media.tumblr.com/71092c270cb854099df04fdc6b7082c9/daa5d2daafd456cf-46/s540x810/7c7ca894fa9d2c67a0847ca44b5ebac47a990b53.gifv



If I had the time to go and watch this again today, I'd give it some serious thought. As soon as Kenny Loggins "Dangerzone" came blasting out during the opening credits I said to myself "Oooh, a five star movie." It's not a five star movie but it was a ton of fun and everything I had heard about it was true - from great cinematography to nostalgia to just a simple, well done story. First time I went to a theater in years and it was a blast. Didn't hurt that I was the only person in the theater. Definitely worth plunking out a few bucks to see it on a big screen.

[SpelingError]

I wish I had been too, but there's something about Fincher's general emotional detachment as a filmmaker that makes him less well-suited for Dramas such as it, and better for the Thrillers that he's more famous for, I have to admit. When it comes to his more dramatic efforts, it feels like he's either being way too sentimental (Benjamin Button), or too sterile, like with TSN.

I didn't feel emotionally detached from the film at all, personally. Rather, I felt Zuckerberg to be a compelling character in the film and that he was developed and realized rather well.

[mrblond]

The Duke (2020)

Not bad retro style Brit-comedy. A lot of nicely done social details though there are some naive even silly lines in the second half.
Anyway, good production design and cinematography. Jim Broadbent and Helen Mirren are on high level as always.
3.5 7/10.

88573

[Wooley]

I've not paid a great deal of attention to the MCU (but it's hard to escape somewhat), but is Venom now officially in the MCU? I thought Sony still had the movie rights (obviously, would be a Spiderman situation legally).

Not really. He appeared in a post-credit scene in the last Spidey movie, hinting that he might be able to cross over due to the events of that film, but the scene ends with him missing the boat on that.

[Wooley]

https://i.imgur.com/NpIcIsZ.png

Nope (2022) - Jordan Peele

3.5

Credit where credit is due: Nope is one of the most ambitious movies I've seen in a while. But it also bites off more than it can chew. Peele's latest project is sci-fi, horror, comedy, and satire wrapped into one. He absolutely nails down some elements – the atmospheric second act is rife with tension and striking imagery – but struggles with others. The action-packed third act sags under its own weight, as does the subplot featuring a sitcom chimpanzee gone berserk. There also seemed to be an inkling of commentary on the erasure of Black filmmakers, which Peele, unfortunately, does not develop.

A couple of reviewers have suggested that Nope would work better on a smaller scale. I agree, but only to a certain extent – doing so would have improved the film's coherence at the cost of squandering Peele's vision. And it's the latter that differentiates Nope from its contemporaries. As the lights turned on and the credits emerged, I noticed a lot of people discussing the movie – more than usual, in hushed, excited tones. Jordan Peele might not have made a streamlined film, but he has undoubtedly made a thought-provoking one.

Funny, not only did I think he nailed it all, to the wall, I thought he made it seem effortless and I came away thinking that Peele is actually a better filmmaker than even his already very good material. I went back and saw it again.

[Wooley]

https://64.media.tumblr.com/71092c270cb854099df04fdc6b7082c9/daa5d2daafd456cf-46/s540x810/7c7ca894fa9d2c67a0847ca44b5ebac47a990b53.gifv



If I had the time to go and watch this again today, I'd give it some serious thought. As soon as Kenny Loggins "Dangerzone" came blasting out during the opening credits I said to myself "Oooh, a five star movie." It's not a five star movie but it was a ton of fun and everything I had heard about it was true - from great cinematography to nostalgia to just a simple, well done story. First time I went to a theater in years and it was a blast. Didn't hurt that I was the only person in the theater. Definitely worth plunking out a few bucks to see it on a big screen.
Is he flying a plane without a cockpit canopy?

[SpelingError]

Funny, not only did I think he nailed it all, to the wall, I thought he made it seem effortless and I came away thinking that Peele is actually a better filmmaker than even his already very good material. I went back and saw it again.

I should rewatch it as well. I have a feeling I'll like it more with a second viewing.

[Hey Fredrick]

Is he flying a plane without a cockpit canopy?



Tom Cruise doesn't need a canopy. He's a bit nutty ya know.

[kgaard]

Tom Cruise doesn't need a canopy. He's a bit nutty ya know.

He doesn't actually need the plane either, but we're not supposed to know that yet.

[StuSmallz]

I didn't feel emotionally detached from the film at all, personally. Rather, I felt Zuckerberg to be a compelling character in the film and that he was developed and realized rather well.I get that, but my problem with the movie wasn't a lack of development for his character, it was the detached emotional tone Fincher made the movie with, which I felt didn't fit such a Drama.

[SpelingError]

I get that, but my problem with the movie wasn't a lack of development for his character, it was the detached emotional tone Fincher made the movie with, which I felt didn't fit such a Drama.

I wasn't bothered by that, but that's fair.

[Renata]

Funny, not only did I think he nailed it all, to the wall, I thought he made it seem effortless and I came away thinking that Peele is actually a better filmmaker than even his already very good material. I went back and saw it again.

I agree ;)

[GulfportDoc]

88583
The Unsuspected (1947)

This gem of a noir was directed by the legendary Michael Curtiz (Casablanca, Mildred Pierce), and featured wonderful chiaroscuro cinematography by Woody Bredell (Phantom Lady, The Killers). Its stars ranged from the best to the least: Claude Rains, Constance Bennett, and Audrey Totter being the former, whereas newcomer Joan Caulfield and Michael North comprised the latter.

The story opens with a well staged murder, thought to be a suicide. The rest of the picture unwinds a complex and confounding plot featuring a popular radio mystery host and members of his family and associates, including a niece, a secretary, a wealthy ward, the host’s producer, a homicide detective, and a mysterious stranger who shows up claiming to be the husband of the ward thought to be lost at sea. It ultimately features several surprises.

The picture is vaguely reminiscent of Laura (1944), but here Claude Rains is the de facto director of the plot upon whom most every scene is related to. Rains is a phenomenal actor seemingly comfortable in every type of role. He made ten films with Curtiz. Constance Bennett (sister of Joan) as the producer who uncovered the identity of the “unsuspected”, shined in her last major supporting role. The incomparable Audrey Totter was at her snarling best femme fatale type character. Totter tended toward over acting, and although she was adept at any kind of part, an editor once said that she was too good at bad to play good. She had the keen ability to let the audience know exactly what she was thinking.

The picture was the first project from Curtiz’s production company, having stuck a deal with Warner Brothers to evenly share in the costs and profits. It is remarkable the actors that had been slated for this film, but who eventually were replaced by the existing cast: Orson Welles, Robert Alda, Humphrey Bogart, Dana Andrews, Cathy O’Donnell, Virginia Mayo, Eve Arden, and Donald Crisp. Curtiz had also wanted Joan Fontaine, but couldn’t afford her.

The film displays marvelous examples of noir black and white cinematography composed by Woody Bredell. His work earns him a seat alongside the great John Alton. Bredell’s photography is moody and captivating, and alone is worth the price of admission.

Doc’s rating: 7/10

[Gideon58]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BOWY4MmFiY2QtMzE1YS00NTg1LWIwOTQtYTI4ZGUzNWIxNTVmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyODk4OTc3MTY@._V1_.jpg



3.5

[beelzebubble]

I wish I had been too, but there's something about Fincher's general emotional detachment as a filmmaker that makes him less well-suited for Dramas such as it, and better for the Thrillers that he's more famous for, I have to admit. When it comes to his more dramatic efforts, it feels like he's either being way too sentimental (Benjamin Button), or too sterile, like with TSN.
i didn't have a problem with the tone in The Social Network but i did in the one about the Zodiac Killer. I am afraid I can't remember the exact name. Was it just The Zodiac?

[StuSmallz]

i didn't have a problem with the tone in The Social Network but i did in the one about the Zodiac Killer. I am afraid I can't remember the exact name. Was it just The Zodiac?It was just Zodiac, which I feel is Fincher's best movie.

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2e/Lorenzo%27s_Oil.jpg
By http://www.movieposter.com/poster/A70-4336/Lorenzo_s_Oil.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=43269828

Lorenzo's Oil - (1992)

I'd always thought I'd seen Lorenzo's Oil before, but watching it last night made me question that - it's a really good film, and I didn't remember seeing any of it before. The image I had in my head of the film was completely different to what I saw. ALD (Adrenoleukodystrophy) is a disease that used to be incurable - and without going into specifics, it used to eat away at the tissue surrounding the nerves in the brain. Parents Augusto (Nick Nolte) and Michaela (Susan Sarandon) Odone refuse to just accept that their young son, Lorenzo (Zack O'Malley Greenburg) is going to die, and start researching the disease and all of the medical issues that surround it. They eventually come up with an oil (similar to olive oil) that helps slow it down - but the disease still eats away at Lorenzo until the pair make a discovery that revolutionizes the treatment of ALD sufferers. It's a true story about two parents who basically cure a disease for their kid (I believe they received honorary medical degrees for what they did) - and it's really good - although Nick Nolte as Italian is a very weird fit. The scenes of Lorenzo suffering are confronting enough to raise the stakes, and we're never quite sure of where we stand with Michaela - whether she's delusional, or heroic - since most nurses beg her to let Lorenzo die as he seemingly has no hope, and is going through hell. This film surprised me.

7.5/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/00/Dirty_Dancing.jpg
Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7098461

Dirty Dancing - (1987)

Okay, this. Story-wise there's not much to Dirty Dancing - a chimp could have written it. It wouldn't be worth bothering with if it didn't have such a snazzy and enjoyable soundtrack - and some great songs that play over dance lesson montages, which is where the film excels and is enjoyable. Hearing those songs brings back all kinds of memories - including those of dances as a teenager that would always end with "(I've Had) The Time of My Life". It's strangely 80s-feeling for a film set in the early 60s, but always watchable.

6/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/91/Meaningoflife.jpg
Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=936443

Monty Python's The Meaning of Life - (1983)

I'm always comparing The Meaning of Life to Life of Brian and Holy Grail - where it comes off third-best, and suffers mostly from the other two films being brilliant. It's fine, and it's very funny and pointed at times - with religion often being in the line of sights, perhaps because of how the Pythons had been hounded during the 70s regarding the issue. It's also a return to sketch comedy for the troupe, and I thought their story-based films were more enjoyable. Nevertheless, this is still very good.

7/10

[Wooley]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/91/Meaningoflife.jpg
Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=936443

Monty Python's The Meaning of Life - (1983)

I'm always comparing The Meaning of Life to Life of Brian and Holy Grail - where it comes off third-best, and suffers mostly from the other two films being brilliant. It's fine, and it's very funny and pointed at times - with religion often being in the line of sights, perhaps because of how the Pythons had been hounded during the 70s regarding the issue. It's also a return to sketch comedy for the troupe, and I thought their story-based films were more enjoyable. Nevertheless, this is still very good.

7/10

I think, honestly, if I'm gonna get stoned and watch a Monty Python movie, it's probably The Meaning Of Life.
Make of that what you will.

[crumbsroom]

Watching Monty Python stoned is the worst.

[LChimp]

https://i0.wp.com/critical-room.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/The-Black-Phone-Alternate-Poster.jpg?resize=513%2C773&ssl=1

Doesn't really bring anything new to the genre, but it's well executed and it wraps itself pretty nicely in the end. Also, the young cast is amazing, especially the Shaw siblings (Mason Thames and Madelaine McGraw), love them!

[Wooley]

Watching Monty Python stoned is the worst.

Not in my world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGBZnfB46es

[Torgo]

Shiva Baby - 4

Have you ever been to a family gathering that was so uncomfortable, you wanted to crawl out of your own skin? Odds are it wasn't as awkward as the one college student Danielle (Rachel Sennott) attends in this movie, the titular shiva which is awkward on the onset since it's for a relative she barely knew. Danielle makes ends meet by working as a sugar baby, which she refers to as babysitting in conversations, and as a bisexual woman, her attempts to remain nonplussed to questions if she has a boyfriend become increasingly strained. Adding to this strain is the fact that she's not sure what she wants to do with her life, which doesn't sit well with a family of doctors, lawyers and business owners. To make matters worse, not only does one of her clients, Max (Danny Deferrari), show up, but his wife and young daughter are in tow.

If this plot description sounds like writer/director Emma Seligman wrote a checklist of every way in which a family gathering could be awkward and went from there, don't worry: contrived is not a word I would use to describe this movie. It always seems natural and as if it comes from a personal place. This is partly because Danielle comes across as human, at least more human than the objects of ridicule that the main characters in lesser movies like this one appear. My favorite way the movie does this is in Danielle's interactions with Maya (Molly Gordon), a former flame who is pretty much the only person with whom she can be honest with at the shiva, which, unfortunately, is not always to her benefit. I approve of how they convey their history strictly through (very good) acting instead of exposition. On that note, this is a star-making performance for Sennott, and it's nice to see that Hollywood took notice based on her appearance in Bodies, Bodies, Bodies. Danielle's interactions with her mother (Polly Draper) also made me clench my armrests in the best way for how Draper embodies a high expectations Jewish mother without venturing into parody. Also, the tension as to whether her "special relationship" with Max will come to light never wanes. Cinematographer Maria Rusche also deserves credit for how claustrophobic and inescapable she makes the creaky Brooklyn house where the shiva takes place. It may appear that with this much awkwardness, injecting comedy would be impossible, but Seligman somehow manages to do so at the right times and with just enough cringe (the good kind, that is). Few occasions in life seem more like what we imagine Hell is like more than family gatherings, especially when we think of ourselves as black sheep or when we have secrets we'd rather not reveal. As this movie's bittersweet conclusion proves, though, they're not the end of the world, and maybe, just maybe, we'll end up feeling better about ourselves when they're over.

[Wooley]

Shiva Baby - 4

Have you ever been to a family gathering that was so uncomfortable, you wanted to crawl out of your own skin? Odds are it wasn't as awkward as the one college student Danielle (Rachel Sennott) attends in this movie, the titular shiva which is awkward on the onset since it's for a relative she barely knew. Danielle makes ends meet by working as a sugar baby, which she refers to as babysitting in conversations, and as a bisexual woman, her attempts to remain nonplussed to questions if she has a boyfriend become increasingly strained. Adding to this strain is the fact that she's not sure what she wants to do with her life, which doesn't sit well with a family of doctors, lawyers and business owners. To make matters worse, not only does one of her clients, Max (Danny Deferrari), show up, but his wife and young daughter are in tow.

If this plot description sounds like writer/director Emma Seligman wrote a checklist of every way in which a family gathering could be awkward and went from there, don't worry: contrived is not a word I would use to describe this movie. It always seems natural and as if it comes from a personal place. This is partly because Danielle comes across as human, at least more human than the objects of ridicule that the main characters in lesser movies like this one appear. My favorite way the movie does this is in Danielle's interactions with Maya (Molly Gordon), a former flame who is pretty much the only person with whom she can be honest with at the shiva, which, unfortunately, is not always to her benefit. I approve of how they convey their history strictly through (very good) acting instead of exposition. On that note, this is a star-making performance for Sennott, and it's nice to see that Hollywood took notice based on her appearance in Bodies, Bodies, Bodies. Danielle's interactions with her mother (Polly Draper) also made me clench my armrests in the best way for how Draper embodies a high expectations Jewish mother without venturing into parody. Also, the tension as to whether her "special relationship" with Max will come to light never wanes. Cinematographer Maria Rusche also deserves credit for how claustrophobic and inescapable she makes the creaky Brooklyn house where the shiva takes place. It may appear that with this much awkwardness, injecting comedy would be impossible, but Seligman somehow manages to do so at the right times and with just enough cringe (the good kind, that is). Few occasions in life seem more like what we imagine Hell is like more than family gatherings, especially when we think of ourselves as black sheep or when we have secrets we'd rather not reveal. As this movie's bittersweet conclusion proves, though, they're not the end of the world, and maybe, just maybe, we'll end up feeling better about ourselves when they're over.

Nice review.
I have this in my queue but I hate cringe so I've been letting it sit.

[FromBeyond]

The Man From Earth: Holocene

Crap sequel that made me totally lose interest in the last quarter, couldn’t tell you how it ended

[EsmagaSapos]

https://i.postimg.cc/Gh31YxRY/91-LUacc0a-IL-AC-SL1500.jpg

★

Found the film on television.

A young girl uses a chat platform to hunt a pedophile. The fact he was actually one was always a supposition, although she goes through various means, including castration, to make him confess.

This is a distasteful film, lacks dept, I'm sad about myself for seeing it to the end. There are many taboos in our society, and you can make garbage like this, or be Lars von Trier and say what he said in Nymphomaniac, that was courage, that has value, because, it doesn't matter if it's true or false, what matters is making people think, and he did make me think in a way I've never though before.

[Torgo]

Nice review.
I have this in my queue but I hate cringe so I've been letting it sit.There is a lot of cringe, but I think it has a good bit of catharsis from it. I see that Takoma also watched it and reviewed it if you want to see her take.

[Wooley]

https://i.postimg.cc/Gh31YxRY/91-LUacc0a-IL-AC-SL1500.jpg

★

Found the film on television.

A young girl uses a chat platform to hunt a pedophile. The fact he was actually one was always a supposition, although she goes through various means, including castration, to make him confess.

This is a distasteful film, lacks dept, I'm sad about myself for seeing it to the end. There are many taboos in our society, and you can make garbage like this, or be Lars von Trier and say what he said in Nymphomaniac, that was courage, that has value, because, it doesn't matter if it's true or false, what matters is making people think, and he did make me think in a way I've never though before.

Huh.
I liked it.
I mean, I saw it like 20 years ago, but I liked it.

[Wooley]

There is a lot of cringe, but I think it has a good bit of catharsis from it. I see that Takoma also watched at reviewed it if you want to see her take.

How do you know that?

[Torgo]

How do you know that?If you click Movies on the header and search for this movie, it will open a page for it with a link to her review. Here (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/2232368-shiva-baby.html) it is.

[EsmagaSapos]

Huh.
I liked it.
I mean, I saw it like 20 years ago, but I liked it.
I hate this kind of films, it's turning the victims into the victimizers, just like I hated Inglourious Basterds. What's the use of turning the oppressed into the oppressors? Entertainment, why, what for? If they want to do it, go for it, but it's trash to me.

[Wooley]

If you click Movies on the header and search for this movie, it will open a page for it with a link to her review. Here (https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/2232368-shiva-baby.html) it is.

Mind blown.

[Wooley]

I hate this kind of films, it's turning the victims into the victimizers, just like I hated Inglourious Basterds. What's the use of turning the oppressed into the oppressors? Entertainment, why, what for? If they want to do it, go for it, but it's trash to me.

Ok.

[Torgo]

Mind blown.https://i.imgur.com/ewtxaZr.gif

[mark f]

I Love My Dad (James Morosini, 2022) 2.5 6/10
Black Wood (Chris Canfield, 2022) 2 5/10
Ghost Story of the Snow Woman (Tokuzô Tanaka, 1968) 2.5 6/10
Top Gun: Maverick (Joseph Kosinski, 2022) 3.5 7/10
https://j.gifs.com/mL3jqz.gif
On the first day of training an elite group of TOPGUN graduates, Maverick (Tom Cruise) and Rooster (Miles Teller), the son of the Maverick's dead best friend Goose, almost kill each other.
Mr. Malcolm's List (Emma Holly Jones, 2022) 2.5 6/10
Make Up (Claire Oakley, 2019) 2.5 5.5/10
Orbital: The Box (Jes Benstock & Luke Losey, 1998) 3 6.5/10
The Peacemakers (Svyatoslav Nikitin, 2021) 2.5 6/10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ehsRQmRFms
Unique sci-fi spoof where aliens Kevin Powe and Aaron Catano-Saez are sent to Earth to determine if we qualify as a planet to survive in the universe.
Lego Star Wars Summer Vacation (Ken Cunningham, 2022) 2.5 6/10
Bandidas (Joachim Rønning & Espen Sandberg, 2006) 2.5 6/10
Stone (Sandy Harbutt, 1974) 2.5 5.5/10
Valentino (Ken Russell, 1977) 2.5 6/10
https://64.media.tumblr.com/a31b8d2efd6447e50cef4aa0c8b6b4b8/57ecd08d9ad999f3-48/s540x810/030420f3d7c8d436155a850a2746fa5bad664b5f.gifv
Latin heartthrob Rudolph Valentino (Rudolf Nureyev) shows off his dancing prowess when he isn't making his millions of movie fans swoon from his films.
Killer McCoy (Roy Rowland, 1947) 2.5 5.5/10
The Apostle (Robert Duvall, 1997) 3 6.5/10
The Strip (László Kardos, 1951) 2.5 5.5/10
The Weasel's Tale (Juan José Campanella, 2019) 3 6.5/10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMCvA6IVJAc
Bizarre Argentinian murder mystery/paean to Sunset Blvd. involves faded movie star Graciela Borges, her crippled husband Luis Brandoni, her director Oscar Martínez and screenwriter Marcos Mundstock dealing with real estate crooks Clara Lago and Nicolás Francella.
My Little Sister (Stéphanie Chuat & Véronique Reymond, 2020) 2.5 5.5/10
Vampire on Bikini Beach (Mark Headley, 1988) 1.5 4/10
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Richard Thorpe, 1939) 2.5 6/10
The Thief Who Came to Dinner (Bud Yorkin, 1973) 3.5 7/10
https://prod-images.tcm.com/v5cache/TCM/Images/Dynamic/i372/thiefwhocametodinner_howcomeyouhaventcaughthim_FC_HD_2398_1_224x104_082420150145.jpg?w=400
Poor socialite Jacqueline Bisset helps "The Chess Burglar" (Ryan O'Neal) cover up his many jewel heists from the watchful eyes of insurance investigator Warren Oates.

[Gideon58]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMDUwNWNkZmEtNjQzMy00MDY4LWFiNWYtMGRlYmI3OGUyNzhlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjMwMjk0MTQ@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.j pg

3.5

[Thief]

U-TURN
(2016, Kumar)
-- recommended by Darren Lucas (https://moviesreview101.com/) --

https://i.imgur.com/92hOOvC.jpg


"Some questions should never be asked. You won't feel guilty for not having answers."



U-Turn follows Rachana (Shraddha Srinath), a young intern at an Indian newspaper that is investigating a series of incidents at an overpass. This involves motorists moving the concrete blocks that divide the road in order to make a quick U-turn and avoid traffic. Most that do so, don't move the blocks back to their place, which in turn causes accidents. However, when one of the culprits ends up dead, Rachana finds herself in the eye of local police, forcing her to look for answers.

This is a film I really hadn't heard of before, so thanks to my friend Darren for bringing it to my attention. It is always great to explore films from other countries and cultures, especially when they are well made. U-Turn might not be perfect, but it is a competent film that manages to establish a good sense of tension, dread, and mystery through most of its run. Director and writer Pawan Kumar knows how to keep us on edge, as characters try to figure out what's happening. He also knows how to throw a couple of good scares at us. There's one "jump scare" in particular that got to me, and literally made me jump on my seat.

Grade: 3


Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2327979#post2327979)

[Marco]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMDUwNWNkZmEtNjQzMy00MDY4LWFiNWYtMGRlYmI3OGUyNzhlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjMwMjk0MTQ@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.j pg

[Rating]3.5[/Ratitng]

I liked this especially the Ed Harris performance, rating about the same as yours Gideon.

[WHITBISSELL!]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMDUwNWNkZmEtNjQzMy00MDY4LWFiNWYtMGRlYmI3OGUyNzhlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjMwMjk0MTQ@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.j pg

3.5I wracked my brain and I may or may not have heard of this sometime in the distant past. Then I watched the trailer and all I could think about was how different they were back then. It doesn't seem to match the tone and subject matter of the movie. Which looks like it could be a sequel to The Deer Hunter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKEC7XDvMS4

[beelzebubble]

Watching Monty Python stoned is the worst.
Could you elaborate on this?

[Takoma11]

Shiva Baby - 4
Few occasions in life seem more like what we imagine Hell is like more than family gatherings, especially when we think of ourselves as black sheep or when we have secrets we'd rather not reveal. As this movie's bittersweet conclusion proves, though, they're not the end of the world, and maybe, just maybe, we'll end up feeling better about ourselves when they're over.

Yes, this movie is so good.

Nice review.
I have this in my queue but I hate cringe so I've been letting it sit.

I'd check it out sooner rather than later. Are there uncomfortable moments? Yes. But the film isn't after torturing the main character. She is so well realized and it's about her figuring her life out with, yes, some embarrassing moments along the way.

[beelzebubble]

Run.

Imagine if Gypsy Rose Blanchard is like Wile E. Coyote, a super genius and tries to escape her terrible mother on her own.
There is nothing about what the relationship is like or why the mother has Munchhousen by proxy. Just the tension of the escape. If that is all you need in a movie, then it is okay. But it was not what I was looking for. I give it 2.5 out of 5.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-XgtIPIioVGo%2FXtRqtnbk21I%2FAAAAAAAAAy4%2FhXIUTOgGEHce4Q41wiQzT3IOX_CdTJaeACLcBGAsYHQ%2Fs1600%2Fsold ier%252527s%252Brevenge%252B2.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

A Soldier's Revenge, 2020

Frank (Neal Bledsoe) is a Civil War veteran dealing with some serious mental health problems following the action he saw during the war. One day, two children (Savannah Judy and Luke Judy) show up at his door, begging him to help them find their missing mother, Heather (AnnaLynne McCord). It seems that Frank has some unfinished business with Heather's sleazy but vicious new boyfriend, Briggs (Rob Mayes).

Sometimes I watch movies and wonder how or why they ended up on my watchlist. If you can't tell, I'm wondering: how or why did this end up on my watchlist?

I generally enjoy Westerns as a genre, and it's a genre where I can be pretty forgiving. This film, though, has a lot working against it. Every positive here comes with a caveat. Brace yourself for a lot of howevers.

The actors put in a good effort, especially Bledsoe in the lead role. Val Kilmer pops up as Frank's father, a welcome presence. But effort doesn't always yield great results, and the performances all come off as stilted. Kilmer, probably due to his issues with his mouth, seems to have been dubbed. There's a hesitation to a lot of the acting that slows the pace of the film.

But the actors don't deserve the blame for the film's pace, not really. The writing would be rough for anyone, with clunkers like "What do you want, you awful man?!". Between the writing and the acting, it's slow going. There are also some hard to take American Indian characters, who are positively portrayed, but also very caricatured.

Overall, this feels like someone had an idea for a film but didn't quite have all the pieces necessary to make it happen. I'm not sure if stunt doubles weren't available, or stunt training was limited, or what, but there are several action sequences where the action has to be slowed because the actors are trying not to hurt each other. Don't get me wrong: I'm glad that the actors didn't want to hurt each other, but it's really obvious in scenes like a woman being pulled off of her horse, or Frank taking one of the children off of the horse. In both cases, the characters are meant to be angrily removing someone from a horse, but I've seen children taken out of carseats with less care.

If you really like Westerns, you might find this watchable. Otherwise, it's hard to recommend.

2.5

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3c/Killer_elite_movie_poster.jpg
Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5827299

The Killer Elite - (1975)

I have to give it this - Sam Peckinpah's The Killer Elite is an interesting movie. It gets a little too convoluted by it's end, with all the double-crossing - but at the beginning you have James Caan (playing Mike Locken) and Robert Duvall (playing George Hansen) who are best buddies, and so good at what they do that they work for contractors that the CIA often hires. One character betrays the other, and "retires" them by putting one bullet in their arm, and one in their knee. Later on the second-in-command of that company will turn on a client, and so Caan and Duvall will cross paths again. You get Burt Young fighting ninjas (no, really) and various assassination plots - but Killer Elite is the kind of movie that spends a lot of time going through the particulars, and making you feel you're getting a glimpse at the shadowy world of spooks and assassins. If it's plot had of been less muddled, this might have really been something - a friend of mine didn't like it, but I enjoyed a lot of what I saw.

7/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/59/The_Osterman_Weekend_movie.jpg
By The poster art can or could be obtained from 20th Century Fox., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1464933

The Osterman Weekend - (1983)

This was Sam Peckinpah's last film, and all I can say is if this is how Robert Ludlum's novel goes, then it's one wacky novel. This plays out like your average spy thriller until, late in the piece, it takes a sharp left turn and twists itself into a near nonsensical shape - one I'm still trying to make sense of. There's a great ensemble cast here - Rutger Hauer, John Hurt, Burt Lancaster, Dennis Hopper, Meg Foster and Craig T. Nelson to name a few - just, don't expect this movie to make perfect sense. If you don't mind your movies descending into pure anarchy and insanity, then this might be the movie for you.

5/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8d/Kaliforniaposter.jpg
By IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16601344

Kalifornia - (1993)

By 1993 Brad Pitt still had work to do to see him rise to the top - but movies like Kalifornia helped to showcase his talents. This is Pitt's movie and he outshines everyone else to such an extent that it kind of hurts the film. David Duchovny and Michelle Forbes are found a little lacking, but Juliette Lewis is okay. This is your average road trip thriller, and there aren't really any twists or turns - you find out pretty early what Pitt's Early Grayce is - a hillbilly psycho murderer, hitching a ride with Duchovny's writer Brian Kessler. This runs out of steam and gives us a pretty stock standard ending - but the film as a whole does a half-decent job on the way there.

6/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/69/Twin_town.jpg
By impawards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9717154

Twin Town - (1997)

I didn't like Twin Town, I'm sorry to say. I couldn't understand the Welsh accents, and the comedic aspects to it couldn't quite rise to a level of funny I can really appreciate. The titular twins, played by Llŷr Ifans and Rhys Ifans weren't especially likeable, and the black comedy got a little too black at times - especially with the decapitated poodle bit. The film wants me to laugh at hooliganism which involves the twins urinating on people, stealing cars, killing pets and much other such stuff - but it simply wasn't very funny.

3/10

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eyeforfilm.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fnewsite%2Fspanish_600.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

The Spanish Prisoner, 1997

Joe (Campbell Scott) works for a company where he has created a mysterious "process" that is anticipated to make the business a huge windfall. While on an island to pitch the process to investors, Joe meets a mysterious, seemingly wealthy man named Jimmy (Steve Martin). Once back home in New York, Joe and Jimmy cross paths again, and the latter offers Joe help in terms of claiming his fair share of the profits. But there are lots of interested parties after the process, and many things are not as they seem.

This is a David Mamet thriller, very much like the last film I watched of his, House of Games. I felt that this one was a bit less successful because it lacks a lead as interesting as the other film and the plotting doesn't quite pull off what it's attempting.

The cast itself is stacked, and they are all pretty good in their roles. In addition to Scott and Martin, Ricky Jay is on hand as a company lawyer, Rebecca Pidgeon plays the company secretary with a crush on Joe, Ben Gazzara plays Joe's boss, Felicity Huffman plays a FBI agent.

Where the film runs into a bit of trouble is in the intersection between its main character and its twisty-turny plot. This is a Mamet film, so of course we know that there will be crosses, and double crosses, and betrayals, and on and on. It's hardly a spoiler to say that certain people in this film are not who they claim to be. In this kind of film, it's not whether people will betray each other. The suspense comes from wanting to learn just how deep the con goes, whether there are other cons at play, and whether the main character will survive to the end credits or get eaten by the wolves.

In the best thrillers of this kind--and, heck, in my favorite films from Mamet--the main characters evolve as they become more enmeshed in the plotting around them. Joe, well, Joe is a bit hard to take at times. He is just SUCH a goober. It's always a bit dodgy trying to claim that a character in a film isn't acting like "they would in real life." I mean, who's to say? But a character's decisions should feel real and there are several moments where Joe's actions are so monumentally stupid that it's hard to stay on his side. In one scene he does so much to incriminate himself that it's like, Joe, my friend, are you ALSO part of the conspiracy against you?

Joe is hard to root for, and this mixes poorly with the construct of the con, because it's all way too obvious. The surface layer of the con is obvious, and that's not a problem. It's meant to be. But it wasn't hard at all to see many of the angles in advance. If Joe were a more engaging lead character, I wouldn't have minded being along for the ride as he unraveled all of the plots around him. But Joe's not that fun to hang out with, and so watching him be gullible over and over, and even after he realizes things are wrong was just frustrating.

I'm not sure how I feel about the final act, and specifically one certain series of events. It was very silly, and I'm not sure if that was a redeeming moment or a damning one.

Not bad, but a big step down from House of Games.

3

[Rockatansky]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3c/Killer_elite_movie_poster.jpg
Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5827299

The Killer Elite - (1975)

I have to give it this - Sam Peckinpah's The Killer Elite is an interesting movie. It gets a little too convoluted by it's end, with all the double-crossing - but at the beginning you have James Caan (playing Mike Locken) and Robert Duvall (playing George Hansen) who are best buddies, and so good at what they do that they work for contractors that the CIA often hires. One character betrays the other, and "retires" them by putting one bullet in their arm, and one in their knee. Later on the second-in-command of that company will turn on a client, and so Caan and Duvall will cross paths again. You get Burt Young fighting ninjas (no, really) and various assassination plots - but Killer Elite is the kind of movie that spends a lot of time going through the particulars, and making you feel you're getting a glimpse at the shadowy world of spooks and assassins. If it's plot had of been less muddled, this might have really been something - a friend of mine didn't like it, but I enjoyed a lot of what I saw.

7/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/59/The_Osterman_Weekend_movie.jpg
By The poster art can or could be obtained from 20th Century Fox., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1464933

The Osterman Weekend - (1983)

This was Sam Peckinpah's last film, and all I can say is if this is how Robert Ludlum's novel goes, then it's one wacky novel. This plays out like your average spy thriller until, late in the piece, it takes a sharp left turn and twists itself into a near nonsensical shape - one I'm still trying to make sense of. There's a great ensemble cast here - Rutger Hauer, John Hurt, Burt Lancaster, Dennis Hopper, Meg Foster and Craig T. Nelson to name a few - just, don't expect this movie to make perfect sense. If you don't mind your movies descending into pure anarchy and insanity, then this might be the movie for you.

5/10



I think I'd flip the ratings for myself. Anytime you feature ninjas in a movie, you have to treat them with a certain amount of respect, and with Rocky's brother-in-law machine-gunning them to death in The Killer Elite, it's clear that Peckinpah does not respect the ninja.


I'd agree that the plot of The Osterman Weekend probably does not hold up to close scrutiny, but I think the drug-addled incoherence of the movie adds to its effectiveness as a paranoid thriller.

[Wooley]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3c/Killer_elite_movie_poster.jpg
Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5827299

The Killer Elite - (1975)

I have to give it this - Sam Peckinpah's The Killer Elite is an interesting movie. It gets a little too convoluted by it's end, with all the double-crossing - but at the beginning you have James Caan (playing Mike Locken) and Robert Duvall (playing George Hansen) who are best buddies, and so good at what they do that they work for contractors that the CIA often hires. One character betrays the other, and "retires" them by putting one bullet in their arm, and one in their knee. Later on the second-in-command of that company will turn on a client, and so Caan and Duvall will cross paths again. You get Burt Young fighting ninjas (no, really) and various assassination plots - but Killer Elite is the kind of movie that spends a lot of time going through the particulars, and making you feel you're getting a glimpse at the shadowy world of spooks and assassins. If it's plot had of been less muddled, this might have really been something - a friend of mine didn't like it, but I enjoyed a lot of what I saw.

7/10



This is one I wanted really badly to like, what with James Caan and Robert DuVall and Sam Peckinpah and Ninjas?!
But I just felt it didn't come together and was almost silly at times. I wish I'd enjoyed it more.

[Wooley]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eyeforfilm.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fnewsite%2Fspanish_600.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

The Spanish Prisoner, 1997

Joe (Campbell Scott) works for a company where he has created a mysterious "process" that is anticipated to make the business a huge windfall. While on an island to pitch the process to investors, Joe meets a mysterious, seemingly wealthy man named Jimmy (Steve Martin). Once back home in New York, Joe and Jimmy cross paths again, and the latter offers Joe help in terms of claiming his fair share of the profits. But there are lots of interested parties after the process, and many things are not as they seem.

This is a David Mamet thriller, very much like the last film I watched of his, House of Games. I felt that this one was a bit less successful because it lacks a lead as interesting as the other film and the plotting doesn't quite pull off what it's attempting.

The cast itself is stacked, and they are all pretty good in their roles. In addition to Scott and Martin, Ricky Jay is on hand as a company lawyer, Rebecca Pidgeon plays the company secretary with a crush on Joe, Ben Gazzara plays Joe's boss, Felicity Huffman plays a FBI agent.

Where the film runs into a bit of trouble is in the intersection between its main character and its twisty-turny plot. This is a Mamet film, so of course we know that there will be crosses, and double crosses, and betrayals, and on and on. It's hardly a spoiler to say that certain people in this film are not who they claim to be. In this kind of film, it's not whether people will betray each other. The suspense comes from wanting to learn just how deep the con goes, whether there are other cons at play, and whether the main character will survive to the end credits or get eaten by the wolves.

In the best thrillers of this kind--and, heck, in my favorite films from Mamet--the main characters evolve as they become more enmeshed in the plotting around them. Joe, well, Joe is a bit hard to take at times. He is just SUCH a goober. It's always a bit dodgy trying to claim that a character in a film isn't acting like "they would in real life." I mean, who's to say? But a character's decisions should feel real and there are several moments where Joe's actions are so monumentally stupid that it's hard to stay on his side. In one scene he does so much to incriminate himself that it's like, Joe, my friend, are you ALSO part of the conspiracy against you?

Joe is hard to root for, and this mixes poorly with the construct of the con, because it's all way too obvious. The surface layer of the con is obvious, and that's not a problem. It's meant to be. But it wasn't hard at all to see many of the angles in advance. If Joe were a more engaging lead character, I wouldn't have minded being along for the ride as he unraveled all of the plots around him. But Joe's not that fun to hang out with, and so watching him be gullible over and over, and even after he realizes things are wrong was just frustrating.

I'm not sure how I feel about the final act, and specifically one certain series of events. It was very silly, and I'm not sure if that was a redeeming moment or a damning one.

Not bad, but a big step down from House of Games.

3

I liked this a little more than you. When I left the theater I would have given it four stars without hesitation. It's possible it may have slipped a bit for me now and maybe I was charmed by Martin not playing a goof, but I have four star memories.

[LChimp]

https://www.magazine-hd.com/apps/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/the-gret-man-poster.jpg

[Thursday Next]

The Invitation (2022)

I was so ready to like this. I will tolerate quite a lot of hokeyness for a fun vampire or zombie movie. But this was about an hour of build up, which mostly consisted of lame YA-romance movie dialogue and even lamer jump scares before it actually got around to being a vampire movie. Then it was moderately fun for about 15 minutes. But overall, just not fun enough. There are a few nods to Dracula, like setting it in Whitby (where not a single person has a Yorkshire accent) and giving a few characters Dracula names, and I think I caught a reference to The Hunger as well, but that was something they could have really run with but didn't quite.

One problem with this film is that it seemed to think it was Get Out, but it just wasn't anywhere near as clever. There was no attempt at subtlety, ambiguity or any kind of moral conflict. Everything about the story is obvious, and yet on several occasions it employs explanatory flashbacks to things we've already seen, just in case we can't put two and two together. It also couldn't settle on a point of view, which irked me.

Overall, disappointing. And my expectations were fairly low.

2.5

[Takoma11]

I liked this a little more than you. When I left the theater I would have given it four stars without hesitation. It's possible it may have slipped a bit for me now and maybe I was charmed by Martin not playing a goof, but I have four star memories.

I think it doesn't help that House of Games was fresh enough in my memory to make this film---with a very similar plot of the naive person getting suckered into an elaborate con---look pretty amateur by comparison.

I thought that it was way too painfully obvious that (MAJOR SPOILERS!)Pidgeon's character was in on the con. She was just constantly interjecting to say things like "Hey, I don't think he was ever on that boat!" or "Man, you just never really know who someone is!".

I didn't like how overt the writing was. "Oh Johnny look what you did! You got FINGERPRINTS all over your BOOK! I can't believe it. FINGERPRINTS! On your BOOK! Oh, and look, you just broke the cover. I'm not buying you a new BOOK, just because you got FINGERPRINTS all over this one!"

There were too many moments that didn't read as realistic. If you are waiting to board a plane, what does every single human being do? Yes, that's right: you look at your ticket to see when you'll be called and what seat you are in. Yet their entire plan hinged on this man neither looking at his own plane ticket nor looking inside the bag he was given.

The ending was also just too dumb. They say that their plan is to make it look like he killed himself . . . by shooting him on a ferry? In front of multiple witnesses? From several feet away? It was too hard to take it seriously.

And like I said in my original review, it was frustrating to have a main character who didn't grow or change at all.

I had no problem with any of the actors, but the story itself was just too dopey.

[Thief]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eyeforfilm.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fnewsite%2Fspanish_600.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

The Spanish Prisoner, 1997

Joe (Campbell Scott) works for a company where he has created a mysterious "process" that is anticipated to make the business a huge windfall. While on an island to pitch the process to investors, Joe meets a mysterious, seemingly wealthy man named Jimmy (Steve Martin). Once back home in New York, Joe and Jimmy cross paths again, and the latter offers Joe help in terms of claiming his fair share of the profits. But there are lots of interested parties after the process, and many things are not as they seem.

This is a David Mamet thriller, very much like the last film I watched of his, House of Games. I felt that this one was a bit less successful because it lacks a lead as interesting as the other film and the plotting doesn't quite pull off what it's attempting.

The cast itself is stacked, and they are all pretty good in their roles. In addition to Scott and Martin, Ricky Jay is on hand as a company lawyer, Rebecca Pidgeon plays the company secretary with a crush on Joe, Ben Gazzara plays Joe's boss, Felicity Huffman plays a FBI agent.

Where the film runs into a bit of trouble is in the intersection between its main character and its twisty-turny plot. This is a Mamet film, so of course we know that there will be crosses, and double crosses, and betrayals, and on and on. It's hardly a spoiler to say that certain people in this film are not who they claim to be. In this kind of film, it's not whether people will betray each other. The suspense comes from wanting to learn just how deep the con goes, whether there are other cons at play, and whether the main character will survive to the end credits or get eaten by the wolves.

In the best thrillers of this kind--and, heck, in my favorite films from Mamet--the main characters evolve as they become more enmeshed in the plotting around them. Joe, well, Joe is a bit hard to take at times. He is just SUCH a goober. It's always a bit dodgy trying to claim that a character in a film isn't acting like "they would in real life." I mean, who's to say? But a character's decisions should feel real and there are several moments where Joe's actions are so monumentally stupid that it's hard to stay on his side. In one scene he does so much to incriminate himself that it's like, Joe, my friend, are you ALSO part of the conspiracy against you?

Joe is hard to root for, and this mixes poorly with the construct of the con, because it's all way too obvious. The surface layer of the con is obvious, and that's not a problem. It's meant to be. But it wasn't hard at all to see many of the angles in advance. If Joe were a more engaging lead character, I wouldn't have minded being along for the ride as he unraveled all of the plots around him. But Joe's not that fun to hang out with, and so watching him be gullible over and over, and even after he realizes things are wrong was just frustrating.

I'm not sure how I feel about the final act, and specifically one certain series of events. It was very silly, and I'm not sure if that was a redeeming moment or a damning one.

Not bad, but a big step down from House of Games.

3

I haven't seen this film in probably 20+ years, but I do remember liking it quite a bit. Barely remember anything about it, though, so this is an empty post... take from that what you may :laugh: I should probably rewatch it.

[Gideon58]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNzI4YzkyMTYtYmQ1MC00NjYwLThkMDgtY2E1Njg1MTAzZWJhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMDM2NDM2MQ@@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.j pg


4.5

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.moma.org%2Fd%2Fassets%2FW1siZiIsIjIwMTcvMTAvMjUvNGFqdGo1dG8zcV9USEVfQklHX0NPTUJ PXzEuanBnIl0sWyJwIiwiY29udmVydCIsIi1yZXNpemUgMTAyNHgxMDI0XHUwMDNlIl1d%2FTHE-BIG-COMBO_1.jpg%3Fsha%3D29dc0fcea70dacb0&f=1&nofb=1

The Big Combo, 1955

Lieutenant Diamond (Cornel Wilde) is obsessed with taking down the sadistic gangster Mr. Brown (Richard Conte). Diamond has a girlfriend named Rita (Helene Stanton) but is fascinated with Brown's depressed girlfriend, Susan (Jean Wallace). As tensions between the cops and crooks rise, both sides become more desperate.

There's nothing better than going into a film with mid-level expectations and getting something much more complex and interesting than what you were anticipating. This stylish, expressive noir really wowed me.

It's always a good sign when I struggle to pick a single image to include at the top of a review. The Big Combo was full of so many great images, many of them skewing borderline abstract. I couldn't find a picture of it, but there's an early scene where Brown's two henchmen Mingo (Earl Holliman) and Fante (a shockingly young Lee Van Cleef) catch Susan who is trying to run away. As they corner her, the background behind her is strangely blank, as if she's dropped into some sort of colorless void. The film also makes use of some classic noir visual tropes, like the starkness of jail cell bars cutting across characters' faces. It gives the film a dangerous-yet-dreamy edge, and a sense that anything could happen int his space.

What really made this film different than a lot of 40s/50s crime films for me was the incredible amount of character development that it squeezes into its 90 minutes. Obviously there is the rivalry between Diamond and Brown. But there's also the simmering, spiteful relationship between Susan and Brown. From the very start of the film--which literally begins with Susan sprinting away from an event she was attending with Brown--it seems as if Susan is trying to get Brown to get rid of her, whatever that means. Susan attempts suicide early in the film, and every scene thereafter between her and Brown feels like she's trying to weaponize how dangerous he is, basically daring him to do something to her.

Further, there's the uncomfortable relationship between Brown and another underling, a man named McClure (Brian Donlevy). McClure used to be Brown's superior, and Brown never misses an opportunity to rub it in and point out that McClure didn't have the ruthlessness to take the top spot. McClure uses an electronic earpiece, something that is frequently used as a plot point, including a sequence in which the gang tortures Diamond without leaving him with any visible physical damage.

There's also a really interesting, charged dynamic between Mingo and Fante. I'm not saying that it's necessarily a queer energy, but there are a lot of exchanged glances and unspoken communication that gives their scenes together a vibe that goes beyond just being hired guns. Van Cleef is a great visual fit for his character, with his angular features giving Fante a feral look. The actors really elevate their characters and make it worth it spending time with them.

Finally, I appreciated the version of the noir detective that we get in this film. Diamond is determined, but also very human. He is dogged by his own sense of failure and frustration, and when his investigation begins to endanger those around him, the cracks really begin to show. In one scene, Diamond (probably correctly) berates himself for the irreversible damage he's done to someone else, and breaks down in tears. It was really neat seeing a character with all the trappings of the typical noir lead, but instead of being stoic and clipped, he actually has emotions! It makes the troubled romance between him and Susan really interesting, because they are both coming from a place of despair centered on the same antagonist.

From a historical point of view, it's fascinating to note that when Susan tries to kill herself, she's arrested! She is threatened with jail time for having attempted suicide, and it took me way too long to figure that out. (I was like "Did they arrest her for being at the club? Why is he talking about jail?").

Yeah, really good.

4.5

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/91/Room_with_a_View.jpg
By May be found at the following website: MoviePosterDB.com, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6756464

A Room With a View - (1985)

Well, this was best film I watched yesterday - Merchant Ivory film A Room With a View, based on E. M. Forster's novel, set in 1907 and with a cast that made it incredibly enjoyable. Daniel Day Lewis, Judi Dench, Denholm Elliott, Julian Sands, Helena Bonham Carter, Maggie Smith and Simon Callow. Love blossoms in Italy between Lucy Honeychurch (Bonham Carter) and George Emerson (Sands), but Lucy's chaperone throws a bucket of cold water over it (figuratively) and once home Lucy is engaged to the more classy but less manly Cecil Vyse (Day-Lewis) - that's the crux of things, but the various characters in the film are all extremely well fleshed out and influence events in an interesting and compelling way. It's captured wonderfully by the camera, and although this did win Oscars, it lost out on Best Picture to Platoon. I think all period films should be like A Room With a View, but James Ivory had to wait until 2018 to win himself an Oscar. He's still in the business in his 90s.

9/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/Mansfield_park.jpg
By May be found at the following website: IMPAwards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30991974

Mansfield Park - (1999)

This was good, but compared with other Jane Austen adaptations I've seen it seemed strangely deficient. Perhaps it had a smaller budget. I also read that there were considerable changes made from novel to screen - and there wasn't the bevy of distinguished and reliable actors playing all of the roles that I've come to expect. At the very least, it was an introduction to the story for me - and though it didn't impress me as much, I thought it okay and reasonable. One thing I don't like though, is when near-identical looking people are cast for many parts. Between the two sisters and Fanny Price (Frances O'Connor), I sometimes didn't know who was who, because those chosen for those parts looked so much like each other. That's a frustration of mine that crops up from time to time.

6/10

https://i.postimg.cc/j5ZGB8KS/Funny-Face-1957-poster.jpg
By "Copyright © 1957 by Paramount Pictures Corporation." - Scan via Heritage Auctions. Cropped from the original image., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=99299052

Funny Face - (1957)

Here we go again. Fred Astair was pushing 60 when Funny Face was made, and Audrey Hepburn was in her mid-20s - but it's perfectly okay when Astair grabs her and plants a huge kiss on her, because of course she doesn't mind - and he eventually forces himself on her enough to make her fall in love with him. Other than that, this was a nice musical - reminding me a lot of The Devil Wears Prada, with the head of a fashion magazine, Maggie Prescott (Kay Thompson, who is great in this) holding a lot of power. Astair's Dick Avery (Astair) is a photographer, and Audrey Hepburn's Jo Stockton is meant to be kind of unattractive at the start - but Hepburn can't pull unattractive off, no matter how they present her. There are great song and dance numbers in it - particularly with Prescott and Astaire - which is what it's all about.

7/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/Constantine_poster.jpg
By http://www.impawards.com/2005/constantine.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12727954

Constantine - (2005)

Based on DC Comics' Hellblazer series. When your 2005 CGI is very obviously computer graphics, and on top of that the demons aren't all that impressive or scary, you're pushing something pretty heavy uphill to get me to like your movie. On top of that, this follows a comic book movie formula which made me very much aware that I'd just watched a "movie" - uninspired in it's screenplay. If I was a real fan of Hellblazer, then perhaps I'd have spotted many clever references, and enjoyed this a lot more - but the only time I've come across it is when I saw the Constantine animated film. Peter Stormare as Satan was awesome, and there are the odd enjoyable moments - but overall I was unimpressed.

5/10

[Thief]

8 MILE
(2002, Hanson)
-- recommended by Latin Jukebox (https://open.spotify.com/show/4oPkMpkXn0OIMkcQDBpB0j?si=3ca1e47ca8e44e1e) --

https://i.imgur.com/Zpa9Sof.jpg


"♪ F**k y'all if you doubt me
I'm a piece of f**kin' white trash, I say it proudly ♫
♫ And f**k this battle, I don't want to win, I'm outtie
Here, tell these people something they don't know about me ♪"



8 Mile follows B-Rabbit (Eminem), a blue-collar worker in Detroit trying to make a name as a rapper. Having broken up with his girlfriend, he is forced to move back with his poor mom (Kim Basinger) and young sister at a trailer park north of 8 Mile Road while trying to maintain his musical aspirations. However, this clashes with his work at a car factory while also creating tension between warring groups in the local rap scene.

For an artist that is usually associated with violence and anger, it was interesting to see the restrain in his performance, as well as his willingness to portray the weaknesses in his character. Rabbit is insecure, frustrated, and stuck in a dead-end job, while also suffering numerous setbacks. He chokes in a rap battle, he's beat up, he's cheated on. But perhaps his strength lies in how he acknowledges his own weaknesses, which you can see in the verses I quoted above.

Grade: 3.5


Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2328247#post2328247)

[MovieBuffering]

8 MILE
(2002, Hanson)
-- recommended by Latin Jukebox (https://open.spotify.com/show/4oPkMpkXn0OIMkcQDBpB0j?si=3ca1e47ca8e44e1e) --

https://i.imgur.com/Zpa9Sof.jpg




8 Mile follows B-Rabbit (Eminem), a blue-collar worker in Detroit trying to make a name as a rapper. Having broken up with his girlfriend, he is forced to move back with his poor mom (Kim Basinger) and young sister at a trailer park north of 8 Mile Road while trying to maintain his musical aspirations. However, this clashes with his work at a car factory while also creating tension between warring groups in the local rap scene.

For an artist that is usually associated with violence and anger, it was interesting to see the restrain in his performance, as well as his willingness to portray the weaknesses in his character. Rabbit is insecure, frustrated, and stuck in a dead-end job, while also suffering numerous setbacks. He chokes in a rap battle, he's beat up, he's cheated on. But perhaps his strength lies in how he acknowledges his own weaknesses, which you can see in the verses I quoted above.

Grade: 3.5


Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2328247#post2328247)

Not sure if I've ever sat down and watched the whole movie through. I know all the beats and seen most of the scenes. Those rap battles are awesome especially the end one. Seems like Eminem could have had a decent acting career.

[Takoma11]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/Mansfield_park.jpg
By May be found at the following website: IMPAwards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=30991974

Mansfield Park - (1999)

This was good, but compared with other Jane Austen adaptations I've seen it seemed strangely deficient. Perhaps it had a smaller budget. I also read that there were considerable changes made from novel to screen - and there wasn't the bevy of distinguished and reliable actors playing all of the roles that I've come to expect. At the very least, it was an introduction to the story for me - and though it didn't impress me as much, I thought it okay and reasonable. One thing I don't like though, is when near-identical looking people are cast for many parts. Between the two sisters and Fanny Price (Frances O'Connor), I sometimes didn't know who was who, because those chosen for those parts looked so much like each other. That's a frustration of mine that crops up from time to time.

6/10

I've read the book and seen this film version, and I was honestly kind of underwhelmed with both. The book has a strange energy, and the film somehow manages to make it worse. Normally I like Austen's sense of humor and the way that she contrasts decent people who are flawed with people who are genuinely kind of bad people. Here it's all kind of muddled.

I did think that it was an interesting choice to have Tom come back and be depressed because of witnessing the abuses of the slave trade. But the film ultimately doesn't actually do anything with that thread of thought.

I think your score about matches what I would give it. Certainly on the lower tier of Austen adaptations just because it can't find a coherent tone. I did think that the actors were good.

[Thief]

Not sure if I've ever sat down and watched the whole movie through. I know all the beats and seen most of the scenes. Those rap battles are awesome especially the end one. Seems like Eminem could have had a decent acting career.

He's really good. Not sure if he has done anything beyond this.

[Wooley]

I think it doesn't help that House of Games was fresh enough in my memory to make this film---with a very similar plot of the naive person getting suckered into an elaborate con---look pretty amateur by comparison.

I thought that it was way too painfully obvious that (MAJOR SPOILERS!)Pidgeon's character was in on the con. She was just constantly interjecting to say things like "Hey, I don't think he was ever on that boat!" or "Man, you just never really know who someone is!".

I didn't like how overt the writing was. "Oh Johnny look what you did! You got FINGERPRINTS all over your BOOK! I can't believe it. FINGERPRINTS! On your BOOK! Oh, and look, you just broke the cover. I'm not buying you a new BOOK, just because you got FINGERPRINTS all over this one!"

There were too many moments that didn't read as realistic. If you are waiting to board a plane, what does every single human being do? Yes, that's right: you look at your ticket to see when you'll be called and what seat you are in. Yet their entire plan hinged on this man neither looking at his own plane ticket nor looking inside the bag he was given.

The ending was also just too dumb. They say that their plan is to make it look like he killed himself . . . by shooting him on a ferry? In front of multiple witnesses? From several feet away? It was too hard to take it seriously.

And like I said in my original review, it was frustrating to have a main character who didn't grow or change at all.

I had no problem with any of the actors, but the story itself was just too dopey.

I can understand that. While I knew that it was the next Mamet and all, it had been a few years since I had seen Games. In the context of the time, it was just hard to see this kind of thing and so you had to appreciate it. It played at the "art-house" theater here on its release and that + Mamet + Ricky Jay may have elevated it in my 24 year-old brain.

[Wooley]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/91/Room_with_a_View.jpg
By May be found at the following website: MoviePosterDB.com, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6756464

A Room With a View - (1985)

Well, this was best film I watched yesterday - Merchant Ivory film A Room With a View, based on E. M. Forster's novel, set in 1907 and with a cast that made it incredibly enjoyable. Daniel Day Lewis, Judi Dench, Denholm Elliott, Julian Sands, Helena Bonham Carter, Maggie Smith and Simon Callow. Love blossoms in Italy between Lucy Honeychurch (Bonham Carter) and George Emerson (Sands), but Lucy's chaperone throws a bucket of cold water over it (figuratively) and once home Lucy is engaged to the more classy but less manly Cecil Vyse (Day-Lewis) - that's the crux of things, but the various characters in the film are all extremely well fleshed out and influence events in an interesting and compelling way. It's captured wonderfully by the camera, and although this did win Oscars, it lost out on Best Picture to Platoon. I think all period films should be like A Room With a View, but James Ivory had to wait until 2018 to win himself an Oscar. He's still in the business in his 90s.

9/10



Yeah, I'm a 30+ year fan of this one, having missed it in the theater, even though it was the hot film in the art-house circuit in my town and many others for a few years, I saw it about 3-4 years after its initial release and was really taken with it, as was my best friend at the time.
Strong, strong film. And HBC... sigh.

[Takoma11]

I can understand that. While I knew that it was the next Mamet and all, it had been a few years since I had seen Games. In the context of the time, it was just hard to see this kind of thing and so you had to appreciate it. It played at the "art-house" theater here on its release and that + Mamet + Ricky Jay may have elevated it in my 24 year-old brain.

It wasn't bad, but definitely a lesser version of what Mamet can do.

It's also a case of a film where you notice a criticism you have and then the film repeats the thing that bothered you over and over and over.

[pahaK]

Chess of the Wind (1976)
3
An Iranian drama about a family slowly rotted away by greed. It looks and feels like an Italian period piece (even some Giallo influences) but is deeply rooted in its local culture. It's bleak and open to different interpretations, I guess. Not the best film ever, but it deserved its post-revolution revival.

--
The Devil's Men (1976)
2
It's odd how this can be so weak. It has a great cast, I like cult-themed horrors, and the Greek setting is beautiful. It even has an amazing end-credits song. It just doesn't make a lick of sense, and it fails to tap almost any of its potential.

--
Escape (2012)
2.5
A Norwegian adventure film set in the 14th century. It's a very simple story that doesn't try to hide its small scope. There are some silly cliches and poor writing decisions, though. Still, an OK film and extremely kvlt and grim.

--
Orphan (2009)
3.5
For some odd reason, I hadn't watched this before. It's, obviously, my kind of film. It's too long, and especially the first half has some severe pacing issues. It does improve quite a bit, though. Young Isabelle Fuhrman does perhaps the greatest evil child performance ever. She alone pushes the film to good in my books.

--
Orphan: First Kill (2022)
2.5
I guess this one was difficult to write. The first film spoils the prequel, so some twists were needed. It suffers from "Hannibal Lecter syndrome" by pushing Leena's capabilities even further and trying to make her feel almost like a hero or at least a victim. Fuhrman's age is also an issue - it's fine in the beginning, but when she's trying to pass as Esther it just doesn't work. Still, an OK film, but I'm not sure if it was needed.

[pahaK]

Nope (2022)
1
I liked Us, but Nope failed on every level. Peele seems more obsessed with race than Spike Lee's ever been and less nuanced. The whole canvas-like alien feels like an afterthought on a political pamphlet. I don't understand where the $58M went because the effects are moderate at best, and for the most part, it's three people talking. I don't get the praise at all.

[Marco]

The Virtuoso (2021)

Watched this in the thought it was a "modern noir". It's low budget crap and I'm baffled as to why Anthony Hopkins got involved. Although I don't mind a voiceover, this one is like the pre-pubescent fantasies of a really disturbed kid. There's no twist either (unless you are blind drunk watching it). Bad.

2

[Allaby]

I just finished watching Me Time on Netflix. Directed by John Hamburg, this comedy stars Kevin Hart as a devoted stay at home dad who reconnects with a wacky friend (Mark Wahlberg) for a wild weekend. Things spiral out of control and craziness ensues. I usually like Kevin Hart in most films, but I did not like him in this. Most of the characters in this comedy are unlikable, annoying, and unfunny. Me Time is predictable, pointlessly crass, and not very enjoyable or fun. There are a couple humorous moments, but a lot of garbage to sit through. Performances are not good. These actors have been better in other films and offer nothing new or interesting here. Me Time is a waste of the viewer's time. My rating is a 2.

[StuSmallz]

Nope (2022)
1
I liked Us, but Nope failed on every level. Peele seems more obsessed with race than Spike Lee's ever beenUh... what?

[Nausicaä]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3a/The_Invisible_Man_%282020_film%29_-_release_poster.jpg/220px-The_Invisible_Man_%282020_film%29_-_release_poster.jpg

Third viewing - 3.5

SF = Z



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/de/Samaritan2022Poster.jpg/220px-Samaritan2022Poster.jpg

2.5

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

[GulfportDoc]

The Big Combo, 1955

Lieutenant Diamond (Cornel Wilde) is obsessed with taking down the sadistic gangster Mr. Brown (Richard Conte). Diamond has a girlfriend named Rita (Helene Stanton) but is fascinated with Brown's depressed girlfriend, Susan (Jean Wallace). As tensions between the cops and crooks rise, both sides become more desperate.

There's nothing better than going into a film with mid-level expectations and getting something much more complex and interesting than what you were anticipating. This stylish, expressive noir really wowed me.

It's always a good sign when I struggle to pick a single image to include at the top of a review. The Big Combo was full of so many great images, many of them skewing borderline abstract. I couldn't find a picture of it, but there's an early scene where Brown's two henchmen Mingo (Earl Holliman) and Fante (a shockingly young Lee Van Cleef) catch Susan who is trying to run away. As they corner her, the background behind her is strangely blank, as if she's dropped into some sort of colorless void. The film also makes use of some classic noir visual tropes, like the starkness of jail cell bars cutting across characters' faces. It gives the film a dangerous-yet-dreamy edge, and a sense that anything could happen int his space.

What really made this film different than a lot of 40s/50s crime films for me was the incredible amount of character development that it squeezes into its 90 minutes. Obviously there is the rivalry between Diamond and Brown. But there's also the simmering, spiteful relationship between Susan and Brown. From the very start of the film--which literally begins with Susan sprinting away from an event she was attending with Brown--it seems as if Susan is trying to get Brown to get rid of her, whatever that means. Susan attempts suicide early in the film, and every scene thereafter between her and Brown feels like she's trying to weaponize how dangerous he is, basically daring him to do something to her.

Further, there's the uncomfortable relationship between Brown and another underling, a man named McClure (Brian Donlevy). McClure used to be Brown's superior, and Brown never misses an opportunity to rub it in and point out that McClure didn't have the ruthlessness to take the top spot. McClure uses an electronic earpiece, something that is frequently used as a plot point, including a sequence in which the gang tortures Diamond without leaving him with any visible physical damage.

There's also a really interesting, charged dynamic between Mingo and Fante. I'm not saying that it's necessarily a queer energy, but there are a lot of exchanged glances and unspoken communication that gives their scenes together a vibe that goes beyond just being hired guns. Van Cleef is a great visual fit for his character, with his angular features giving Fante a feral look. The actors really elevate their characters and make it worth it spending time with them.

Finally, I appreciated the version of the noir detective that we get in this film. Diamond is determined, but also very human. He is dogged by his own sense of failure and frustration, and when his investigation begins to endanger those around him, the cracks really begin to show. In one scene, Diamond (probably correctly) berates himself for the irreversible damage he's done to someone else, and breaks down in tears. It was really neat seeing a character with all the trappings of the typical noir lead, but instead of being stoic and clipped, he actually has emotions! It makes the troubled romance between him and Susan really interesting, because they are both coming from a place of despair centered on the same antagonist.

From a historical point of view, it's fascinating to note that when Susan tries to kill herself, she's arrested! She is threatened with jail time for having attempted suicide, and it took me way too long to figure that out. (I was like "Did they arrest her for being at the club? Why is he talking about jail?").

Yeah, really good.
rating_4_5
Good points, very nice review. Here is a little commentary on the film by me:


The Big Combo (1955)

Directed by Joseph H. Lewis (Gun Crazy), and with an impressive if eclectic cast featuring Cornel Wilde, Richard Conte, Brian Donlevy, Jean Wallace, Robert Middleton, LeeVan Cleef, Earl Holliman, and Helen Walker, this is a great example of later film noir. In fact it could be said that John Alton’s excellent dark cinematography makes this one of the chief examples of noir.

The final scene with Wallace and Wilde in silhouette at a foggy airport must rank up there with classic noir frames, it’s impression as lasting as the iconic poster of Max Von Sydow standing outside the house in The Exorcist.

The plot, although with a nice twist, is rather tortured, and insures its “B” status, although it represents the highest level of that group. The dialogue is quirky, almost erratic, which tends to cover up the banality of the narrative.

Wilde does journeyman work with a role that is not given the chance to develop. But the character

parts are the most alluring here. The ladies all sizzle off the screen. Helen Stanton as the stripper was a doll. Her career was too short. And this was Helen Walker's final film.

Earl Holliman shined as the inept henchman (the following year he was to appear in George Stevens' Giant), and of course Van Cleef was at his most intimidating. Brian Donlevy played against type in his role as an intimidated consigliare to Conte's "Mr. Brown".

The picture is definitely worth a watch, especially for its noir elements, and the excellent cast.

[ApexPredator]

He's really good. Not sure if he has done anything beyond this.

He had a cameo in Funny People. Might have been the funniest person in that film.

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22/The_Game_film_poster.jpg
By The poster art can or could be obtained from United States:PolyGram Filmed EntertainmentScandinavia:Buena Vista International., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9805680

The Game - (1997)

Suspending disbelief while watching The Game is sometimes an arduous task - but I do it, because buying into it's far-fetched premise delivers a pretty good thriller. Michael Douglas is once again playing a soulless Wall Street tycoon, Nicholas van Orton (worth around $600 million) who has a screwup brother, Conrad (Sean Penn) - on his birthday Conrad gives Nicholas a kind of voucher for a "game" which is super mysterious. We have no idea exactly what it is, but after Nicholas has filled out dozens of questionnaires and had psychiatric and medical check-ups it begins, and we find out there might be more to this than meets the eye - and it may not be a game after all. This deals a lot with the childhood the two brothers had - dealing with the scars left over when their father committed suicide. I like this a lot more than I did when it first came out - but I still don't rate it as one of Finchers' great films. It was very well received by the critics though.

7/10

https://i.postimg.cc/kGmxPN72/doa.jpg
By "Copyright 1950 – United Artists Corporation." Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=87185995

D.O.A. - (1950)

D.O.A. was a lot of fun, and I really enjoyed watching it. It's one of those film noirs that has a labyrinthine plot which makes you wish you had a pin-up board, twine, photographs and note cards just to follow who's done what and said what about and to who - if you get my drift. However, like the best of these films, you don't need to know every detail - what's most important is the information of the minute, and what's happening 'now'. Frank Bigelow (Edmond O'Brien) has been poisoned, and has only days to live - so he decides to spend that time solving his own murder. I would have left that to the police, and gone on some kind of pleasure spree, but that's just me. This was filmed by the great cinematographer Ernest Laszlo, and it shows - the direction (Rudolph Maté) and editing makes everything concise.

7.5/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/Man_called_horse_poster.jpg
By May be found at the following website: IMPAwards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=34524284

A Man Called Horse - (1970)

A cultured Englishman hunting in the American frontier of old gets captured by Sioux and kept as a slave. As time goes on he ingratiates himself with the tribe, and with the help of translation from a captured French/English/Sioux speaker and fellow captive, Batise, learns about them. When he kills two marauding rivals, he's accepted as more than an animal - but is not allowed to marry until he proves himself spiritually and physically and truly become Sioux - this involving the famous part where he's hung by the skin of his chest. I'd heard that people claimed Dances With Wolves rips this film off - but those two films don't share any similarity beyond both involving an English-speaking man becoming Sioux. I thought this was okay - but the story isn't evenly paced.

6/10

[SpelingError]

Well, Andy Warhol's Empire is a film, and I just watched it...all in one day. I now feel like Mr. Beast when he did those 10 hour challenges several years ago.

[Wooley]

Nope (2022)
1
I liked Us, but Nope failed on every level. Peele seems more obsessed with race than Spike Lee's ever been and less nuanced. The whole canvas-like alien feels like an afterthought on a political pamphlet. I don't understand where the $58M went because the effects are moderate at best, and for the most part, it's three people talking. I don't get the praise at all.

I gotta say this really surprises me.
I thought Nope was better than Us and maybe as good as Get Out.
But I also didn't think this one spent that much time focusing on race. You understand it in the beginning because their race matters to these characters but then it's basically never mentioned again. And I thought the effects were seamless. Easily better than the last 4-5 Marvel movies.
You're just really catching me off guard with this take, pretty much everybody I've talked to liked or loved it.

[Wooley]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22/The_Game_film_poster.jpg
By The poster art can or could be obtained from United States:PolyGram Filmed EntertainmentScandinavia:Buena Vista International., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9805680

The Game - (1997)

Suspending disbelief while watching The Game is sometimes an arduous task - but I do it, because buying into it's far-fetched premise delivers a pretty good thriller. Michael Douglas is once again playing a soulless Wall Street tycoon, Nicholas van Orton (worth around $600 million) who has a screwup brother, Conrad (Sean Penn) - on his birthday Conrad gives Nicholas a kind of voucher for a "game" which is super mysterious. We have no idea exactly what it is, but after Nicholas has filled out dozens of questionnaires and had psychiatric and medical check-ups it begins, and we find out there might be more to this than meets the eye - and it may not be a game after all. This deals a lot with the childhood the two brothers had - dealing with the scars left over when their father committed suicide. I like this a lot more than I did when it first came out - but I still don't rate it as one of Finchers' great films. It was very well received by the critics though.

7/10



Aww. I'm pretty sure this is my favorite Fincher. Edging out Fight Club. Which I liked a decent bit more than the very good Se7en. Which I definitely liked more than Zodiac, Gone Girl, Panic Room, and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (which were not necessarily equal but in the same tier), all of which I liked a little bit more than The Social Network, which I definitely liked more than Alien3.
Yeah, the more I think about it, I think I liked The Game the most.

[Wooley]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/Man_called_horse_poster.jpg
By May be found at the following website: IMPAwards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=34524284

A Man Called Horse - (1970)

A cultured Englishman hunting in the American frontier of old gets captured by Sioux and kept as a slave. As time goes on he ingratiates himself with the tribe, and with the help of translation from a captured French/English/Sioux speaker and fellow captive, Batise, learns about them. When he kills two marauding rivals, he's accepted as more than an animal - but is not allowed to marry until he proves himself spiritually and physically and truly become Sioux - this involving the famous part where he's hung by the skin of his chest. I'd heard that people claimed Dances With Wolves rips this film off - but those two films don't share any similarity beyond both involving an English-speaking man becoming Sioux. I thought this was okay - but the story isn't evenly paced.

6/10
Man, this is an old favorite from my youth. Though I haven't seen it in about 35 years. Just been really hesitant to go back because movies like this felt so different in the 70s and early 80s when I saw them than they do now.

[StuSmallz]

I gotta say this really surprises me.
I thought Nope was better than Us and maybe as good as Get Out.
But I also didn't think this one spent that much time focusing on race. You understand it in the beginning because their race matters to these characters but then it's basically never mentioned again.Seriously; I mean, I can remember the movie mentioning race literally once when they talked about the early film of the Black jockey riding a horse, and that was literally it. How else was the movie focused on race, besides just featuring people of color in it?Aww. I'm pretty sure this is my favorite Fincher. Edging out Fight Club. Which I liked a decent bit more than the very good Se7en. Which I definitely liked more than Zodiachttps://i.ibb.co/5rJcR6y/Adorable-Harmful-Greendarnerdragonfly-size-restricted.gif (https://imgbb.com/)

[cricket]

The Gray Man (2022)

3.5-

https://64.media.tumblr.com/00b2c02c6369aa6c77c96df34e8f68c4/ef00824da77174d6-c4/s640x960/bc7c0036f34cc949d0ba7377a3cba444a61b1ec9.gif

Solely as an action piece I give it high marks, and I think I liked it more than the John Wick movies. Sometimes the effects are a bit much and the hand fighting a bit quick, but unless the movie is trying to be realistic I'd say that goes with the territory. No focus on storytelling and that was just fine with me. The cast does their job and I like how it was set or filmed in many locales. I got what I came for.

[WHITBISSELL!]

Aww. I'm pretty sure this is my favorite Fincher. Edging out Fight Club. Which I liked a decent bit more than the very good Se7en. Which I definitely liked more than Zodiac, Gone Girl, Panic Room, and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (which were not necessarily equal but in the same tier), all of which I liked a little bit more than The Social Network, which I definitely liked more than Alien3.
Yeah, the more I think about it, I think I liked The Game the most.
1. Zodiac
2. Se7en
3. Alien3
4. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
5. Fight Club
6. The Game
7. Panic Room
8. Gone Girl

[Wooley]

https://i.ibb.co/5rJcR6y/Adorable-Harmful-Greendarnerdragonfly-size-restricted.gif (https://imgbb.com/)

Hey, we like what we like.
Like, I will never understand Zodiac love. It is a much-better-than-it-needs-to-be procedural, sure, but whatever it was that was supposed to make it so special was lost on me.
And I've liked most of Fincher's films, if I don't necessarily love them all, but The Game is my favorite. Most interesting of them to me. I mean, Se7en is excellent in its excessively dreary and nihilistic way and the same can be said for Fight Club, which I really did think was pretty inspired, but it's The Game for me. Suck it. :p

[Wooley]

1. Zodiac
2. Se7en
3. Alien3
4. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
5. Fight Club
6. The Game
7. Panic Room
8. Gone Girl

Yeah, here it is with the Zodiac love. I'm not ever going to get it.
I can really see any of the others (except Alien 3) being in that mix of favorites as well.
It's worth mentioning that I saw the original The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo first and I just thought it was a slightly to somewhat superior film in every way that they differ. The pacing, editing (especially the editing, Jesus, David!), and acting were all better (though I did like the actors in this one a good bit, just not as much as Rapace). But overall, it still felt like someone who has the same vision for every movie remaking someone else's already perfect movie.

[WHITBISSELL!]

I gotta say this really surprises me.
I thought Nope was better than Us and maybe as good as Get Out.
But I also didn't think this one spent that much time focusing on race. You understand it in the beginning because their race matters to these characters but then it's basically never mentioned again. And I thought the effects were seamless. Easily better than the last 4-5 Marvel movies.
You're just really catching me off guard with this take, pretty much everybody I've talked to liked or loved it.

https://pla.s6img.com/society6/img/HC0Im6Gpat6rttNkpmHwHdOq9E8/w_700/coffee-mugs/small/right/greybg/~artwork,fw_4603,fh_1998,fy_-204,iw_4599,ih_2409/s6-original-art-uploads/society6/uploads/misc/75ede9180cf94362ad5024ac36ab58db/~~/i-like-my-coffee-black-just-like-my-metal-mugs.jpg?wait=0&attempt=0


To summarize:

Coffee ✔️
Metal ✔️
Movies ❌

[Mr Minio]

Somewhere in Time (1980)

https://data.whicdn.com/images/315351108/original.gif

On my quest to look for melodrama / romantic drama films. Nobody recommended it to me. I found it myself. And I liked it. I think the story drags this film down a bit. It's a nice story, but that's it. However, the way the story was portrayed was really good. I don't think the exact same screenplay could've been adapted better. I liked all three lead performances, the cinematography, and the music. All of that makes Somewhere in Time such a nice yarn. I was sucked in right away. The film goes by so fast that it ends before you know it. If anything, I wasn't that big on the last 20-or-so minutes (and especially the ending) but whatever came before that had me hypnotized. Also, I really would love to keep watching for another hour or two. There are some question marks here but it's normal with high-concept romance films. I don't really mind it and think that since the emotions connected to love are so often illogical, one shouldn't expect a film on love's romantic and perennial side to be perfectly down-to-earth and logical. I thought the portrait picture part was almost Vertigo-esque and if it weren't for the music, it would be almost eerie how obsessed that guy was with the photo. But yeah, he and she both had subconscious precognition that this is all gonna happen, so they kind of made it happen. The girl had a perfect guy in her mind and projected that guy onto Richard. Oh well, it's love. And it's eternal. I wish I was moved by the film, but I wasn't at all. But it was cute, even if some parts of it were such an obvious attempt at melting the viewer's heart, like the child Arthur. I really don't know how to rate this film. It's good in general. And very good in terms of how much of an easy, enjoyable watch it is.

As a side note, this was directed by Jeannot Szwarc, and judging from that name I imagined a female director. But he's a dude. Oh well. I guess Jeannot is not the same name as Jeanette.

[WHITBISSELL!]

https://64.media.tumblr.com/905409605e7635774432d68792ae56d1/bcff8b5645498841-c0/s500x750/9dd2d9aa4998fd072e947f55d9daafbf7dd20ecc.gifv
https://64.media.tumblr.com/4f940491a676ddb4b7e50ad05c25577d/bcff8b5645498841-36/s500x750/2bb723c42868c5d47a3539eea6289374e2e82d42.gifv
https://64.media.tumblr.com/b4de930192d9155b226bae0e215e3e3b/bcff8b5645498841-39/s500x750/b4fde55f25e551adf052db4439f8d29b9a281d42.gifv


Jackass Forever - If you like the franchise you'll like this. That simple. It's 22 years removed from the premiere of the show on MTV and 20 since the first movie. The crew is back except for Ryan Dunn who died in a car crash 11 years ago. Bam Margera is MIA since he had a falling out with Johnny Knoxville and Jeff Tremaine. The guy's either strung out on drugs and booze or a misunderstood victim of circumstance according to whose version you're hearing.

They've added some younger jackasses since most of the original crew are middle aged now. But they're all still willing to do just about anything for the sake of a righteous stunt including being stung/bitten/assaulted/run over by all number of creatures great and small.

There's an actual lady jackass taking part apparently to give lie to the myth that women are inherently more mature than guys. There's celebrity appearances with Eric Andre, Machine Gun Kelly, Tyler the Creator, Rob Dyrdek, P.K. Subban, Tory Belleci and Tony Hawk. You'll laugh (and maybe give your gag reflex a workout). And you might end up feeling a little bit dirty for having done so.

80/100

[Captain Steel]

The Chapman Report (1962)

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d9/e4/a1/d9e4a12e38f5983e352424cb2a61a1a1.jpg

Women take part in an anonymous sexual survey based on the real-life Kinsey Report.

I don't usually engage in summations, but some teasers might be in order here - the story features four women:

Frigid widow Jane Fonda (looking absolutely spectacular in 1962!) falls for one of the interviewers (Efrem Zimbalist Jr.)
Housewife Shelly Winters, bored with her husband (Harold J. Stone) engages in an affair with a handsome local theater director.
Upper crust & cultured housewife Glynis Johns, although in an entirely happy marriage, is led astray by her purely physical attraction to a muscular beach boy (Ty Hardin).
And divorced Claire Bloom is a self-destructive nymphomaniac.


As a movie, overall, I wouldn't rate this too highly as it's a bit sappy & slow moving at points (despite the supposedly titillating subject matter).

But I'm a sucker for movies of this era with such a recognizable cast (even brief glimpses of a young Chad Everett & Chloris Leachman). So I kind of enjoyed it as a time-capsule of sorts, especially when it references things like how sex was viewed at the time (i.e. the start of the "sexual revolution")... and comparing it to today.

It's a drama mostly (some of it pretty tragic & depressing) but Glynis Johns' portions serve as the comic relief - the perfect bits of frivolity to break up an otherwise serious film. She's like a little star that twinkles!

Aside from a few cringe-worthy moments & lines (such as an off-screen gang rape where, the next day the victim inquires about her attackers, "How are the boys?"), my biggest complaint is with the cinematography - for some reason, most of the indoor scenes look too dark around the edges - which just made me wonder why it was like that.

3

[GulfportDoc]

The Gray Man (2022)

rating_3_5-

Solely as an action piece I give it high marks, and I think I liked it more than the John Wick movies. Sometimes the effects are a bit much and the hand fighting a bit quick, but unless the movie is trying to be realistic I'd say that goes with the territory. No focus on storytelling and that was just fine with me. The cast does their job and I like how it was set or filmed in many locales. I got what I came for.


I pretty much agree with your impression. Here's my commentary on the flick:

We watched The Gray Man awhile back, and I pretty much agree with your rating as an average. It's perplexing to me that this film had such eye popping action scenes, but was dragged down by such a trite story.

The action and fight scenes were as good as anything in a Bond or Bourne film. But the hackneyed idiotic story made it seem almost a satire. With a better story, this could have been a top action film.

To my surprise Billy Bob Thorton co-starred in the movie, which I hadn't known before we watched it. I'm a big BBT fan, but try as he might he couldn't overcome the worn out writing of his character.

Despite his buffoonish character, Chris Evans got to let it out a bit, whereas Ryan Gosling pretty much mumbled through his part.

If folks have Netflix you might give TGM a watch, but I couldn't have recommended that anyone buy movie tickets to see this one.

[SpelingError]

Somewhere in Time (1980)

https://data.whicdn.com/images/315351108/original.gif

On my quest to look for melodrama / romantic drama films. Nobody recommended it to me. I found it myself. And I liked it. I think the story drags this film down a bit. It's a nice story, but that's it. However, the way the story was portrayed was really good. I don't think the exact same screenplay could've been adapted better. I liked all three lead performances, the cinematography, and the music. All of that makes Somewhere in Time such a nice yarn. I was sucked in right away. The film goes by so fast that it ends before you know it. If anything, I wasn't that big on the last 20-or-so minutes (and especially the ending) but whatever came before that had me hypnotized. Also, I really would love to keep watching for another hour or two. There are some question marks here but it's normal with high-concept romance films. I don't really mind it and think that since the emotions connected to love are so often illogical, one shouldn't expect a film on love's romantic and perennial side to be perfectly down-to-earth and logical. I thought the portrait picture part was almost Vertigo-esque and if it weren't for the music, it would be almost eerie how obsessed that guy was with the photo. But yeah, he and she both had subconscious precognition that this is all gonna happen, so they kind of made it happen. The girl had a perfect guy in her mind and projected that guy onto Richard. Oh well, it's love. And it's eternal. I wish I was moved by the film, but I wasn't at all. But it was cute, even if some parts of it were such an obvious attempt at melting the viewer's heart, like the child Arthur. I really don't know how to rate this film. It's good in general. And very good in terms of how much of an easy, enjoyable watch it is.

As a side note, this was directed by Jeannot Szwarc, and judging from that name I imagined a female director. But he's a dude. Oh well. I guess Jeannot is not the same name as Jeanette.

I thought that one was decent. The guy in it was creepy and obsessive, which isn't necessarily a bad thing per se, but I felt the film never capitalized on that and it ultimately felt like the film was romanticizing his behavior. And yeah, the ending was bad.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F03%2F16%2Farts%2F16WISE_SPAN%2FWISE-jumbo.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

The Wise Kids, 2011

Tim (Tyler Ross), Laura (Allison Torem), and Brea (Molly Kunz) are teenagers in Charleston, and are all part of the same Baptist church community. Each of them is struggling with a small crisis as they prepare to head to college. Brea is beginning to doubt his faith; Tim has decided to come out as gay; and Laura feels like she is losing her two closest friends. We likewise see the struggles of other members of the community, like the obviously closeted music director Austin (Stephen Cone) and Austin's increasingly alienated wife, Elizabeth (Sadieh Rifai).

This one was a crumbsroom recommendation, and I really enjoyed it. Probably one of the better coming-of-age films I've seen in a while.

It's interesting to have watched this movie so soon after watching the documentary The Education of Shelby Knox, which likewise followed a young woman in a conservative religious community starting to question her own beliefs and the values of those around her.

In many ways, this film is incredibly gentle. There are very few big-big moments, but a ton of big-little moments. It's not interested in either victimizing or villainizing anyone, and it approaches all of its subjects with a degree of empathy.

Brea's story is maybe the simplest. From the beginning, we see that she is slowly starting to fall away from her faith. When Tim comes out as gay and Laura immediately tells him that it's a sin, you can see Brea's connection with Christianity further eroding. As a preacher's daughter, this puts her in an awkward position, and we watch as she begins to gently extract herself from the religious fabric of her life.

Tim's story is the one that you'd expect to produce the most fireworks, but it manages to capture the rocky road of a contemporary coming out. We learn from the beginning that Tim has decided to go to school in New York, and as the film goes on, we see why that is the best decision for him. No, he's never beaten up. His family doesn't disown him. He's not dramatically exiled from the church. But he does have to put up with being told that he's not getting into heaven. His own brother tells him that he's "sick". He becomes a mild fixation of Austin's. This is not a place where he can truly be himself and live openly. The film shows us Tim's father trying to support his son, but he can only bring himself to ask if Tim has met any new "buddies." When Tim talks about a boy named Carter, his dad says he's glad Tim has a new "friend." You hope it's the beginning of his father being more open and accepting, but it could also be that Tim will always have to live and speak in half-code at home.

Laura's journey is also very engaging. She holds firm to her faith. So firm that at times she even threatens to alienate other members of her church. She plans to attend a local Christian college with Brea, and Brea's loss of faith threatens to scuttle those plans. Laura is, like Tim and Brea, trying to live a life that feels good. But her adherence to her faith puts a gulf between her and her friends. Laura is a lot, but she is also sincere in a way that makes her sympathetic. Even though I found her a bit shrill at times, you can feel for someone whose friend support system is dissolving in front of her eyes.

The hardest to watch subplot is that of Austin and Elizabeth. Austin is gay, and they are both trapped in a marriage with someone they love, but also without any sexual satisfaction. Elizabeth is reduced to enjoying abortive make-out sessions and quick thrills from an anonymous, shirtless jogger. Austin would lose his job if he were to come out, and he must watch from the sidelines as anyone with the courage to be out gets to live the life he actually seems to want. This subplot was challenging for me mostly because of Austin's obvious attraction to Tim. Austin's desperation and loneliness has turned him into a predator, as he increasingly indulges in spending alone time with Tim.

This is the one place where I had mixed feelings about the film's attitude toward its characters. Austin engages in overt grooming behaviors with Tim, including buying him gifts, finding reasons to be alone with him, and touching him in a sexual manner. While Tim takes this all in stride, I couldn't go there as a viewer. The end of the film is meant to imply that Austin might find a more appropriate (ie ADULT) outlet for his sexual feelings, people who are inappropriate with children don't tend to have that be a single isolated incident. I did have to laugh when, at the end, Austin tells Tim "I think I might be gay" and all Tim can do is laugh. But I think it's more likely than not that Austin would continue seeing the children in his care as potential partners, and it seemed like the movie didn't even want to acknowledge this possibility. Or, frankly, acknowledge the completely inappropriate power imbalance between Austin and Tim. I get that the film was maybe wanting to not indulge in the "predatory gay man" stereotype, but I think that it goes too far in the other direction in portraying Austin's actions as quirky instead of damaging and a huge, huge red flag. Austin is played by the film's writer/director, Steven Cone, so maybe he was just too close to this particular character to see how he comes off.

Overall I thought that this was a sweet, nuanced coming-of-age film that boldly mostly gave its characters time and space to breathe and be.

4

[Rockatansky]

As a side note, this was directed by Jeannot Szwarc, and judging from that name I imagined a female director. But he's a dude. Oh well. I guess Jeannot is not the same name as Jeanette.

You have to read it as "Jean.....not!"

[Gideon58]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNzBlOWY0ZmEtZjdkYS00ZGU0LWEwN2YtYzBkNDM5ZDBjMmI1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTAwMzUyOTc@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.j pg



4

[Marco]

Man on Fire (2004)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Man_on_fireposter.jpg
Liked this. Some daft bits and some gritty bits but overall it settles into a good thriller. Thought it was one of Denzel Washington's strangest performances but he pulled it out of the mediocre kidnap film to a more interesting personal level.

3.5

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/8PdFLmq4/day-the-earth.jpg
By "Copyright 1951 by Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp." - Scan via Heritage Auctions., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=86859809

The Day The Earth Stood Still - (1951)

After two World Wars, the invention of the bomb and U.S. communist hysteria even the aliens were getting worried in this early Robert Wise-directed science fiction film, which has become a revered classic. It was far less about what's out there, than what's here on Earth - the film doesn't bother with creatures, and visitor Klaatu is humanoid, with a life-span not so different to us. Once here, Klaatu is shot, imprisoned, hunted and slandered by a species that should know better, and now are slated for destruction by the peaceful disciplined ones that live on other planets. When I watch the film today, I find it an interesting time capsule reflecting the angst the post World War II world felt about the direction we were heading in.

7/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/Stone1974Poster.jpg
By British Empire Films - https://collection.maas.museum/object/367530, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=63614417

Stone - (1974)

Stone is one of the films Quentin Tarantino raved about in Not Quite Hollywood - a low budget outlaw biker film with some great stunts (one was a record-breaking bike ride off an 80-foot cliff into the sea) and great shots. The editing is a bit choppy, but the visuals are great, and the music is pretty good. There's kind of an ad-hoc story, with a witnessed political assassination leading to members of a biker gang being killed one-by-one. In rides "Stone" - a motorbike-loving cop who tags along with the cop-hating 'Grave Diggers' motorbike gang - becoming one of them. It's something a bit different.

7/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/PosterVisituers.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/52/Les_Visiteurs_II%2C_french_poster.jpg

Les Visiteurs I & II - (1993 & 1998)

The French appear to have a sense of humour that differs from mine considerably - and it probably doesn't translate well anyway. If it weren't for the first 5 minutes of the first film, this would be ideal for kids - it mostly consists of two medieval knights (played by Christian Clavier and Jean Reno) accidently thrust into late 20th Century France - where they yell a lot, destroy things, and frantically run around. I think it would have played better if they'd been cowed by the future, and shocked/afraid. Instead, their constant yelling and destruction itself is meant to be funny - and it never ceases. The end of the second film sets things up for a third - which came...in 2016. I won't be catching that one.

5/10 & 4/10

[PHOENIX74]

Aww. I'm pretty sure this is my favorite Fincher. Edging out Fight Club. Which I liked a decent bit more than the very good Se7en. Which I definitely liked more than Zodiac, Gone Girl, Panic Room, and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (which were not necessarily equal but in the same tier), all of which I liked a little bit more than The Social Network, which I definitely liked more than Alien3.
Yeah, the more I think about it, I think I liked The Game the most.

I've never been sure why The Game has never fully clicked with me as much as it did with nearly everyone else. Perhaps it's the lead, or the genre, or the implausibility of it's story - but I did really enjoy watching it yesterday, despite it not blowing me away (as I hoped it would.) I personally rank Fincher's films :

Se7en
The Social Network
Fight Club
Zodiac
The Game
Gone Girl
Alien³
Panic Room
I haven't seen The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo - but I love the Swedish original adaptation, so I'm pretty sure if I did I'd be rating it last anyway.

Man, this is an old favorite from my youth. Though I haven't seen it in about 35 years. Just been really hesitant to go back because movies like this felt so different in the 70s and early 80s when I saw them than they do now.

Yeah, I definitely had the feeling that A Man Called Horse would have played in a very different manner if I were watching it, in the 1980s say - I'd have liked it more. 20 years after it's production, Dances With Wolves dramatically improved that kind of story in a narrative, visual and auditory sense - and was paced much, much better. Now, living 30+ years since even Dances With Wolves, the problems A Man Called Horse has stand out in a really stark manner.

[edarsenal]

Here's a couple I watched a week or two back and finally wrote up

https://static.yabiladi.com/files/articles/71756_720ff598c8dbf2f0871105f21a54f86a20181204171631_thumb_565.jpg
https://birdmenmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/othello-iago-gif-1.jpeg
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/09/24/arts/24HOBERMAN1/24HOBERMAN1-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale

Othello aka The Tragedy of Othello: The Moor of Venice (1951) 4.5+


Shall I put out the light
and then,
put out the light?

Ain't no Shakespeare like an Orson Welles Shakespeare cuz an Orson Welles Sha-- "the rest of the lyric."
Welles' penchant for excellent, palpable cinematography is once more confirmed and sealed. It almost seems like a speech in a Court Room, to save their valuable time, declare a ruling: it's f@ckin understood.

This is my third Shakespearian adaptation by Welles, Falstaff; Chimes at Midnight and Macbeth having blown me away cinematically.
While watching this, I was so enamored with Micheál MacLiammóir's machinations believing him the best I've seen, and realized, shit, I've only seen two. I looked at others, snatched up Ian McKellen playing Iago - I HAD to watch his soliloquy with a slumbering Roderigo because I utterly ADORE the man.

Anyways I am so loving Welles in this genre.



http://cinesavant.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/6066a.jpg
https://onceuponatimeinawestern.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/PROMO-Jack-Lambert-as-Tex-harassing-Helen-Crane-Tina-Louise-in-Day-of-the-Outlaw-1959.jpg
http://cinesavant.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/6066b.jpg

Day of the Outlaw (1959) 4

Vic, General Store Owner: I don't hold for killin'.
Blaise Starrett: You don't have to... as long as you got somebody to do it for you.

Bit of an old fart moment here.
Some short time after that brilliant deluge of amazing westerns to be discovered and revisited during the Western Countdown, I watched this. And utterly forgot it or to mark it off my List. I came across it and thought: f@ck, I NEED to see this.
It took me almost two-thirds into it, during the forced dancing with the outlaws, that it dawned on me that i had. But my silly ass couldn't remember the ending, so I enjoyed that.
I enjoyed the tense playout between the steadfast Robert Ryans, who had won his lands by dealing with previous outlaws, and Burl Ives. He amazes me in the Westerns I've recently seen him in. And this is another excellent performance by him. (yeah, yeah, if it's so great, why'd you forget? Um, I told you, old fart moment.)
Wearing a stolen Union Officers uniform, a bullet in his chest, a hefty amount of stolen money, and soldiers hot on his and his rag-tag group of dirty sh#ts and one naive kid. Played by the lesser-known second son of Ozzie & Harriet, David Nelson.
The only thing keeping the gang from venting their stress by sating their urges on the few women in this tiny town is Ives' ruling. Problem? He'll be dead from the bullet wound very soon.



https://prod-images.tcm.com/v5cache/TCM/Images/Dynamic/i448/thunderroad_ambush_FC_470x264_080320170531.jpg?w=400
http://www.imcdb.org/i131355.jpg
https://prod-images.tcm.com/v5cache/TCM/Images/Dynamic/i448/thunderroad_goodfoodgoodmeat_FC_470x264_080320170538.jpg?w=400

Thunder Road (1958) 3.5++

Robert Mitchum started a Studio. This is the first film in that Studio, with his son James playing a much younger brother, and rather well. Mitchum plays a moonshine runner in eastern Tennessee and Kentucky. Using the actual routes and buying the cars of moonshiners in North Carolina for the film.
Mitchum's Lucas Doolin knows he'll one day get caught or crash, and he's fine with it because what he does best, he does behind the wheel, and he isn't giving that up. Not for the feds looking to shut moonshining down, and sure as sh#t not for a muscling gangster looking to strong-arm his way into taking over every moonshiner in the area.

There's a review on IMDb raving about this as an excellent Drive-In movie of the fifties. And it is true—a great Drive-In movie with action, a cigarette dangling Robert Mitchum hot rodding and kicking serious @ss.
My minor critique is the not so well done cinematography. It is on the sloppy side, with conflicting camera shots at the quieter moments of this lower-budget film.
Otherwise, I would easily rate it higher. Still, I DID enjoy watching this and would like to again.

[mark f]

The Spiral Staircase (Peter Collinson, 1975) 2 5/10
Bubble Bath (György Kovásznai, 1980) 3 6.5/10
Alone Together (Katie Holmes, 2022) 2+ 5/10
Where Eagles Dare (Brian G. Hutton, 1968) 3.5+ 7.5/10
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ShimmeringFittingBorderterrier-size_restricted.gif
Non-stop WWII action adventure with Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood leading a mission in an ice-covered area to protect D-Day and wipe out as much German territory as possible.
Samaritan (Julius Avery, 2022) 2.5 6/10
The Reef: Stalked (Andrew Traucki, 2022) 2 5/10
OSS 117 Is Unleashed (André Hunebelle, 1963) 2.5 6/10
The Deep (Peter Yates, 1977) 3+ 6.5/10
https://64.media.tumblr.com/3f35db733fa0c32a173def1ef2adf2b4/tumblr_ovz244VDkI1rfd7lko1_500.gifv
In Bermuda, diver Jacqueline Bisset looks at a pufferfish before she and her boyfriend Nick Nolte get involved in treasure hunting with the help of Robert Shaw and the aggravation of Louis Gossett Jr.
Sheroes (Aude Pépin, 2021) 2.5 6/10
Believe in Me (Stuart Hagmann, 1971) 2 5/10
The Tsugua Diaries (Maureen Fazendeiro & Miguel Gomes, 2021) 2.5 5.5/10
Nope (Jordan Peele, 2022) 3 6.5/10
https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2022-02/13/21/asset/f6241cb7b255/anigif_sub-buzz-516-1644787685-3.gif
Several intense, scary scenes intercut with some which go on too long. In other words, a typical Peele film with a typically strong Daniel Kaluuya performance which will add up to whatever you want it to.
A Worrisome Thing (Jacob Egbert & Amelia Yokel, 2022) 2 5/10
A Taste of Hunger (Christoffer Boe, 2021) 2.5 6/10
God's Waiting Room (Tyler Riggs, 2022) 2 5/10
LennoNYC (Michael Epstein, 2010) 3.5 7/10
https://image.pbs.org/video-assets/pbs/american-masters/4113/images/Mezzanine_766.jpg?crop=384x215&?format=jpg
Detailed examination of what happened post-Beatles centering on his recording output, his breakup with Yoko, his crazy time in LA, the Nixon government having it in for him, his getting back with Yoko and his assassination.
Me Time (John Hamburg, 2022) 2.5 5.5/10
Get Away If You Can (Dominique Braun & Terrence Martin, 2022) 2 5/10
Tailgate AKA Bumperkleef (Lodewijk Crijns, 2019) 2.5 6/10
The Making of a Legend: Gone with the Wind (David Hinton, 1988) 3.5+ 7.5/10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQuAOLfuADg
The most-detailed look at the making, casting, publicity, behind-the-scenes stories, almost everything you'd want to know about the 1939 classic.

[WHITBISSELL!]

Where Eagles Dare (Brian G. Hutton, 1968) rating_3_5+ 7.5/10
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ShimmeringFittingBorderterrier-size_restricted.gif
Non-stop WWII action adventure with Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood leading a mission in an ice-covered area to protect D-Day and wipe out as much German territory as possible.



Aw yeah. :up::up::up: :yup:

[StuSmallz]

Hey, we like what we like.
Like, I will never understand Zodiac love. It is a much-better-than-it-needs-to-be procedural, sureSorry, but that make little sense; like, there's nothing about a procedural that would make it striking if it ends up being better than it "needs to", because there's nothing inherently lesser about it or any other genre out there, whether it be Horror, Sci-Fi, or anything else, and suggesting otherwise just feels like genre-snobbery to me.

[Mr Minio]

I thought that one was decent. The guy in it was creepy and obsessive I mean, he was quite persistent but I didn't mind it given the entire fantastical theme. You'd be determined to get the girl, too, if you freakin' moved back in time for her. The dude played by Plummer was kinda stalkery/clingy, too, but it's obvious the girl preferred the time-traveling hunk.

You have to read it as "Jean.....not!" Is this the Borat way of pronouncing it?

[pahaK]

You have to read it as "Jean.....not!"

https://c.tenor.com/dI5TdwXf_3MAAAAM/thumbs-up-okay.gif

[SpelingError]

I mean, he was quite persistent but I didn't mind it given the entire fantastical theme. You'd be determined to get the girl, too, if you freakin' moved back in time for her. The dude played by Plummer was kinda stalkery/clingy, too, but it's obvious the girl preferred the time-traveling hunk.

My issue isn't that he's creepy in and of itself. As I said right after the phrase you quoted, I mostly felt the film didn't capitalize on that aspect enough. Also, I'm mainly referring to how, in spite of having very little information to go off of that he used to know Elise, he became obsessed with meeting her using time travel. After he does go back in time though, sure, his persistence is certainly understandable.

[Wooley]

Yeah, I definitely had the feeling that A Man Called Horse would have played in a very different manner if I were watching it, in the 1980s say - I'd have liked it more. 20 years after it's production, Dances With Wolves dramatically improved that kind of story in a narrative, visual and auditory sense - and was paced much, much better. Now, living 30+ years since even Dances With Wolves, the problems A Man Called Horse has stand out in a really stark manner.

I think I saw it in '79. And a big part of the draw of the film for me was Richard Harris, of whom I've always been a big fan and who I prefer significantly to Kevin Costner (no offense to him but Harris has a helluva lot more gravitas). I actually saw both sequels to this film at one point or another as well.
Harris was also my kinda guy back in the day, a drunk who'd get in a scrap or a brawl at the drop of a hat.

[Wooley]

Sorry, but that make little sense; like, there's nothing about a procedural that would make it striking if it ends up being better than it "needs to", because there's nothing inherently lesser about it or any other genre out there, whether it be Horror, Sci-Fi, or anything else, and suggesting otherwise just feels like genre-snobbery to me.

I didn't say that it was better than the genre requires I said "it's better than it needs to be" meaning it could have gotten away with a lot less and still been a good film that happens to be a procedural. It was a compliment to the film and no slight on the subgenre.

[SuperMetro]

Artists and Models - I saw this one a couple of weeks ago, because I wanted to see Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis do their things. I thought this was a really fun movie to watch and I have several scenes of interest: Jerry Lewis's character Eugene singing about pretending and ending up getting a steak because of it, a bratty kid being left at the publishing company, most of Dean Martin's songs(he really mopped the floor with Jerry Lewis), the part where Bessie(Shirley Maclaine) is annoying Eugene with a song Rick(Dean Martin) lip synced to, the scene with the ball, and the ending where Rick, Eugene, and Bessie have to defeat spies, and Eugene ends up beating up police officers after getting kissed by Bessie. This was a very fun movie indeed. 4
LA Confidential - Another interesting movie. I liked the whole premise of detectives having to identify murderers of a massacre that just happened. I found it to be charming in sections and also exciting in ones too. I liked the twist about how the captain was the villain of this movie. This is one of these movies that is hard to follow at first, but the comes together to the point that it comes to make so many sense. The characters of this movie were also something this neo-noir can be proud of for. Deservess all the praise - 4.5
Stormy Weather - I saw this one, because I wanted to get a jazz mood on a summer day. I got to say that this one succeeds. This thing had a paper thin plot, but that only makes this one better since all of the music performaces of this was the highlight. My favorite part was when Lena Horne sings "There's No Two Ways About Love" with Fats Waller's "Ain't Misbehavin" and the "Diga Diga Doo" sequence(my favorite part) deserving special mentions. For me, this kind of felt like a sketch comedy show in movie form. It is short but sweet. Highly recommended 4

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvdbeaver.com%2Ffilm2%2FDVDReviews35%2Finto%2520the%2520wild%2520sean%2520penn%2 Finto%2520the%2520wild%2520PDVD_030.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Into the Wild, 2007

After graduating from college, Chris (Emile Hirsch) feels a profound sense of alienation from his family and the path he's expected to take in society. Donating his college fund to Oxfam, burning his social security card and cash, Chris sets off into the wild with the ultimate plan of making his way to Alaska. Along the way, Chris encounters a range of people. But for all his attempts to find peace within nature, Chris finds his off-the-grid existence more challenging that he anticipated.

THIS REVIEW CONTAINS ONE MAJOR SPOILER BECAUSE THIS FILM IS BASED ON A TRUE STORY. IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW THIS STORY ENDS, SKIP THIS REVIEW!

I imagine that if you weren't familiar with the basic outline of the story of Chris McCandless, this film might feel like a coming of age adventure. Going into the film knowing about the tragic end to this young person's life, it plays out like a slow motion car crash, a disaster that many people saw coming but were unable to prevent.

I think that it could be easy to see this story as a cautionary tale. A lesson about the old saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Certainly there's something difficult in watching a young man with five figures in the bank, a college degree, and a lot of societal advantages willingly throw away those privileges and put himself in the path of danger.

But the film firmly grounds you in an understanding of Chris's point of view, even if you don't agree with his conclusions. Chris feels a great sense of betrayal on learning that his parents have lied to him and his sister about the nature of their family. The path that he sees in front of him is frightening, and he tries to escape into nature.

Throughout the film, there are many people who see the danger of the path that Chris is on. He gets a job at a grain mill, where his boss (Vince Vaughn) warns him of the danger of trying to travel north in the approaching winter. He twice encounters a couple (Catherine Keener and Brian H. Dierker) who listen to his ideas about living without money with a patient wariness. They don't want to shut him down, but they realize the precariousness of such a life. In the end, he befriends a leather worker (Hal Holbrook) who, as they say goodbye, seems to know that Chris won't be coming back as promised.

The movie also does a great job of showing the double-edged sword of being out fully in nature. It is beautiful. It is deadly. With each adventure, there is a sense that Chris has gotten lucky. You begin to feel that he will only be lucky for so long. In a recurring visual, Chris tightens his belt, eventually punching new holes in the leather as his body wastes away.

A friend of mine from high school, two years after we graduated, disappeared in the wilderness. He went away for a weekend to go hunting or fishing and was never found. This film definitely hit me hard.

Hirsch gives a really stellar lead performance. He portrays Chris as a mix of sensitive, optimistic, naive, and curious. There is a degree of purity to his pursuit of happiness that keeps you with him, even as he makes one frustrating choice after another. I also really appreciated Jena Malone's voice over in the role of Chris's sister, Carine, as she struggles to understand her brother's journey.

Really powerful stuff.

4.5

[crumbsroom]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic01.nyt.com%2Fimages%2F2012%2F03%2F16%2Farts%2F16WISE_SPAN%2FWISE-jumbo.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

The Wise Kids, 2011

Tim (Tyler Ross), Laura (Allison Torem), and Brea (Molly Kunz) are teenagers in Charleston, and are all part of the same Baptist church community. Each of them is struggling with a small crisis as they prepare to head to college. Brea is beginning to doubt his faith; Tim has decided to come out as gay; and Laura feels like she is losing her two closest friends. We likewise see the struggles of other members of the community, like the obviously closeted music director Austin (Stephen Cone) and Austin's increasingly alienated wife, Elizabeth (Sadieh Rifai).

This one was a crumbsroom recommendation, and I really enjoyed it. Probably one of the better coming-of-age films I've seen in a while.

It's interesting to have watched this movie so soon after watching the documentary The Education of Shelby Knox, which likewise followed a young woman in a conservative religious community starting to question her own beliefs and the values of those around her.

In many ways, this film is incredibly gentle. There are very few big-big moments, but a ton of big-little moments. It's not interested in either victimizing or villainizing anyone, and it approaches all of its subjects with a degree of empathy.

Brea's story is maybe the simplest. From the beginning, we see that she is slowly starting to fall away from her faith. When Tim comes out as gay and Laura immediately tells him that it's a sin, you can see Brea's connection with Christianity further eroding. As a preacher's daughter, this puts her in an awkward position, and we watch as she begins to gently extract herself from the religious fabric of her life.

Tim's story is the one that you'd expect to produce the most fireworks, but it manages to capture the rocky road of a contemporary coming out. We learn from the beginning that Tim has decided to go to school in New York, and as the film goes on, we see why that is the best decision for him. No, he's never beaten up. His family doesn't disown him. He's not dramatically exiled from the church. But he does have to put up with being told that he's not getting into heaven. His own brother tells him that he's "sick". He becomes a mild fixation of Austin's. This is not a place where he can truly be himself and live openly. The film shows us Tim's father trying to support his son, but he can only bring himself to ask if Tim has met any new "buddies." When Tim talks about a boy named Carter, his dad says he's glad Tim has a new "friend." You hope it's the beginning of his father being more open and accepting, but it could also be that Tim will always have to live and speak in half-code at home.

Laura's journey is also very engaging. She holds firm to her faith. So firm that at times she even threatens to alienate other members of her church. She plans to attend a local Christian college with Brea, and Brea's loss of faith threatens to scuttle those plans. Laura is, like Tim and Brea, trying to live a life that feels good. But her adherence to her faith puts a gulf between her and her friends. Laura is a lot, but she is also sincere in a way that makes her sympathetic. Even though I found her a bit shrill at times, you can feel for someone whose friend support system is dissolving in front of her eyes.

The hardest to watch subplot is that of Austin and Elizabeth. Austin is gay, and they are both trapped in a marriage with someone they love, but also without any sexual satisfaction. Elizabeth is reduced to enjoying abortive make-out sessions and quick thrills from an anonymous, shirtless jogger. Austin would lose his job if he were to come out, and he must watch from the sidelines as anyone with the courage to be out gets to live the life he actually seems to want. This subplot was challenging for me mostly because of Austin's obvious attraction to Tim. Austin's desperation and loneliness has turned him into a predator, as he increasingly indulges in spending alone time with Tim.

This is the one place where I had mixed feelings about the film's attitude toward its characters. Austin engages in overt grooming behaviors with Tim, including buying him gifts, finding reasons to be alone with him, and touching him in a sexual manner. While Tim takes this all in stride, I couldn't go there as a viewer. The end of the film is meant to imply that Austin might find a more appropriate (ie ADULT) outlet for his sexual feelings, people who are inappropriate with children don't tend to have that be a single isolated incident. I did have to laugh when, at the end, Austin tells Tim "I think I might be gay" and all Tim can do is laugh. But I think it's more likely than not that Austin would continue seeing the children in his care as potential partners, and it seemed like the movie didn't even want to acknowledge this possibility. Or, frankly, acknowledge the completely inappropriate power imbalance between Austin and Tim. I get that the film was maybe wanting to not indulge in the "predatory gay man" stereotype, but I think that it goes too far in the other direction in portraying Austin's actions as quirky instead of damaging and a huge, huge red flag. Austin is played by the film's writer/director, Steven Cone, so maybe he was just too close to this particular character to see how he comes off.

Overall I thought that this was a sweet, nuanced coming-of-age film that boldly mostly gave its characters time and space to breathe and be.

4


I'd have to watch it again because it's possible I overlooked some details, but I didn't so much see Tim's behavior as predatory as sad. I didn't see his gifts as grooming but the only way he knew how to express these feelings he was uncertain what to do with. Was what he was doing inappropriate? Absolutely. But I'm unsure how much he wanted in return from his infatuation, and I think it was less sexual than simply wanting some kind of acknowledgement for his feelings. And I don't find it hard to believe the teen he was infatuated with didn't see him as a threat. He saw him through an empathetic lens of how this is what happens to you when you are forced to live a lie for all of your adult life.


Now if I had a son and I found out an adult supervisor was behaving this way with him, it would be a very different thing and I would likely confront him or contact the authorities. Because you have to be careful about these sorts of things. But watching the characters of Tim, and how I think he was suppose to be portrayed, I was able to not see the shadow of any threat looming over his behavior. He was just a deeply ****ed up guy, doing all the wrong things, but I think mostly unlikely to go past a certain line.




I get that it is icky territory though

I think it was probably also my least favorite part of the film though. Even though I still thought it was very good, regardless

[WHITBISSELL!]

https://film-grab.com/wp-content/uploads/photo-gallery/imported_from_media_libray/36.jpg?bwg=1547052977
https://film-grab.com/wp-content/uploads/photo-gallery/imported_from_media_libray/13.jpg?bwg=1547052977

I Live in Fear - 1955 Toho Studios production and directed by Akira Kurosawa. I forgot having watched Dersu Uzala so this is actually my 14th Kurosawa feature. This one again stars Toshiro Mifune as 70 year old foundry owner Kiichi Nakajima. It's one of the few films I can recall that actually address the aftermath of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the other film released by Toho around this time and also dealing with the same subject matter is an obscure little offering titled Godzilla).

Mr. Nakajima is terrified of the possibility of a nuclear war and the resulting fallout. To the point where he has purchased a large tract of land in Northern Japan and has contracted the building of an underground shelter. When further studies show that radioactive fallout will drift in from the North he alters his plans and starts looking for land in South America since Brazil is widely thought to be the safest place in a nuclear conflagration.

His family, led by his three eldest children, is in turn fearful that he'll squander the family fortune in what they feel is an irrational pursuit. They convince their mother to have him declared incompetent and go before a three-man family arbitration panel. One of the members is Domestic Court Counselor Dr. Harada, played by Kurosawa regular Takashi Shimura. He is the one panel member most affected by the plight of the Nakajima family.

I've often wondered on the long-term deleterious effects of being targeted by a doomsday machine. And even though Kurosawa outlines it in an unblinking and understated way it still doesn't lose much in terms of power. The nation as a whole sees beyond their borders and ascertains it for what it is. A threat to the entire planet. But like so many others they have no choice but to suffer their anxiety in moderation. And it is this dichotomy that drives the narrative. Is Mr. Nakajima unhinged or is he justifiably afraid? The denouement is a powerful one and doesn't ring false.

85/100

[Takoma11]

I'd have to watch it again because it's possible I overlooked some details, but I didn't so much see Tim's behavior as predatory as sad. I didn't see his gifts as grooming but the only way he knew how to express these feelings he was uncertain what to do with. Was what he was doing inappropriate? Absolutely. But I'm unsure how much he wanted in return from his infatuation, and I think it was less sexual than simply wanting some kind of acknowledgement for his feelings. And I don't find it hard to believe the teen he was infatuated with didn't see him as a threat. He saw him through an empathetic lens of how this is what happens to you when you are forced to live a lie for all of your adult life.

I think that it's incredibly clear that Austin sees Tim as sort of a past-self alternate way that his life could have gone. Here is this young man who is doing it: he's out, he's leaving, and he has his whole life ahead of him. It's less of a sexual infatuation and more him wanting to experience that vicarious high.

However, the way he acts and what he does involves textbook grooming behaviors, even if that's not his intention. Isolating someone, giving them gifts, touching them in an intimate way. I literally just had to take a course for work on identifying sexual abuse and Austin is ticking a ton of boxes.

It's when he puts his hand high up on Tim's thigh that I, out loud, went "No no no. Nope nope."

I understand that Tim in the movie is pretty sanguine about it, but I think that most 17 years olds experiencing a man in his 30s suddenly touching and kissing you would be, at the very least, confused.

I agree that both the film and Tim the character choose to be compassionate towards Austin's behavior. But, like I said, people who are willing to cross that line with a child (and if you are in your 30s, a 17 year old IS a child) don't tend to confine that behavior to a single incident.

He was just a deeply ****ed up guy, doing all the wrong things, but I think mostly unlikely to go past a certain line.

To even go as far as he did is too far. And even if a teenager is acting adult and seems like "they know what they're doing", you don't know what's happening in that person's mind. And there's a degree to which he's put Tim in a horrible position, because he either has to keep it a secret or deal with the guilt of costing Austin his career and probably also his marriage.

I get that the film wanted to illustrate the misery of having to hide who you are. And maybe to even imply that a certain amount of inappropriate behavior comes from people who are closeted acting out in any way they can. But the degree to which the groping and the kiss was treated as almost a non-incident just didn't sit right with me.

Overall I still really liked the film. But this one subplot didn't quite land, even with its attempt at giving a nuanced portrayal of a complicated situation.

[crumbsroom]

Could you elaborate on this?


The only thing worse than comedy that doesn't make you laugh, is comedy that normally makes you laugh but doesn't whenever your high. So much of Python's humor is based in language, and that is not what I'm looking for at those particular moments. And, with the exception of Gilliam's animation, they aren't movies that are much to look at either in that state. Basically, as much as I love them under normal circumstances, they are a death trap when I'm under the influence.



I much prefer watching things that just completely confuse me by mistake when I'm like that. I don't want anything that is weird on purpose. And that clip that Wooley posted is almost literally exactly what I never want to see when I'm high. Anything that feels like it caters to the pot crowd, particularly annoys me if I've smoked pot.

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/Frailty.jpg
Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3870009

Frailty - (2001)

Frailty is a great film that went and ruined itself in it's search for a twist ending - I hate that. For the most part, I enjoyed the hell out of this movie - up until the last 10 minutes it's an original and gripping thriller/horror film that just runs with it's central premise. Bill Paxton (who also directed, for the first time) plays a single father of two small kids. He wakes up in the middle of the night, drags his kids out of bed, and tells them that he's just been visited by God, who has ordered him to start killing "demons" - specific people he's guided to. Thus begins a reign of murder, which he forces his kids to partake in. The older one knows his Dad is crazy, and desperately works out schemes to end the madness. It makes for tension-filled viewing, and Paxton plays his part to perfection. The framing story, however, with Matthew McConaughey in it, is the film's weak point, and includes that twist which wrecks the entire film.

Without the twist : 8/10 - With the twist : 6/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/52/Longest_yard_1974.jpg
By impawards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11147126

The Longest Yard - (1974)

This film seems to split people into two camps, but I'm definitely in the "love it" camp - Burt Reynolds might be playing a particularly unlikeable character - but that's what makes this film so interesting. Here, we find ourselves siding with the various murderers and criminally inclined against the so-called better element, perhaps because the film is very anti-establishment and sees itself as a focus on class and the American system. It's also the journey Paul "Wrecking" Crewe (Reynolds) makes - starting as a man who always lets his side down, takes bribes to fix football matches, and is generally an untrustworthy cad - but by the end of the film he seems to have found his people. I don't know a lot about American football, but that didn't stop me liking Remember the Titans, and likewise, this football-based prison film has a lot going for it.

8/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/86/Sleuthpost2007.jpg
By Sony Pictures Classics - Impawards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=13136797

Sleuth - (2007)

It's been ages (ages) since I last saw the original 1972 Sleuth (which starred Michael Caine in the younger role) - therefore I thought that perhaps the twists that come would feel fresh to me here. I had only a vague memory of them. But in this version you can see them coming from miles away, and all we're left with is a version that's a little more open with gay eroticism and has more swearing in it. Jude Law certainly does interesting things with Michael Caine's old role - and is fun to watch - but overall this new version belongs on the trash heap, and everyone should stick to the original.

5/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Elegy_ver2.jpg
By Impawards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=18243552

Elegy - (2008)

Hands up who likes films with dirty old professors sleeping with their students. Nobody huh? Well, how about who wants to see an old Ben Kingsley having sex a lot? C'mon, there must be somebody. Anyway, Elegy deals mostly with mortality, fears of getting old, and questions about beauty. Overall, I really don't think it's a bad film, if you can get past some of it's more uncomfortable moments.

6.5/10

[Takoma11]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b8/Frailty.jpg
Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3870009

Frailty - (2001)

Frailty is a great film that went and ruined itself in it's search for a twist ending - I hate that. For the most part, I enjoyed the hell out of this movie - up until the last 10 minutes it's an original and gripping thriller/horror film that just runs with it's central premise. Bill Paxton (who also directed, for the first time) plays a single father of two small kids. He wakes up in the middle of the night, drags his kids out of bed, and tells them that he's just been visited by God, who has ordered him to start killing "demons" - specific people he's guided to. Thus begins a reign of murder, which he forces his kids to partake in. The older one knows his Dad is crazy, and desperately works out schemes to end the madness. It makes for tension-filled viewing, and Paxton plays his part to perfection. The framing story, however, with Matthew McConaughey in it, is the film's weak point, and includes that twist which wrecks the entire film.

Without the twist : 8/10 - With the twist : 6/10



Interesting.

I think that the film would be fine either way. Whether it turns out that it was real or that the dad was delusional and got one of the sons to go along with it, it's really messed up and upsetting.

I think that if you watch the film again, knowing that it is real and knowing that the father knows the truth about his own son, it plays even better. Paxton's character should kill Fenton, because he knows that Fenton is evil, but he can't bring himself to do it. Rewatching with this understanding and through that lens actually adds an incredible tension and tragedy to the film that you don't totally get the first time through.

It also gives an extra dimension to the relationship and interactions between the brothers.

I'm also a big fan of Paxton's direction. Especially that moment where the rain-streaked car window becomes a television full of static. I think Frailty deserves a solid spot as a contemporary horror classic.

[PHOENIX74]

Interesting.

I think that the film would be fine either way. Whether it turns out that it was real or that the dad was delusional and got one of the sons to go along with it, it's really messed up and upsetting.

I think that if you watch the film again, knowing that it is real and knowing that the father knows the truth about his own son, it plays even better. Paxton's character should kill Fenton, because he knows that Fenton is evil, but he can't bring himself to do it. Rewatching with this understanding and through that lens actually adds an incredible tension and tragedy to the film that you don't totally get the first time through.

It also gives an extra dimension to the relationship and interactions between the brothers.

I'm also a big fan of Paxton's direction. Especially that moment where the rain-streaked car window becomes a television full of static. I think Frailty deserves a solid spot as a contemporary horror classic.

The film is so well made, and the performances are so good, that it's worth holding onto. I was toying with a kind of 'half way' interpretation where...

...these guys have something psychic going on, but are only interpreting that as messages from God etc. So they're not really being ordered to kill demons, but are killing people their sixth senses are telling them are horrific human beings. That would negate Fenton being essentially evil, but would add the poignantly sad twist that his Dad has pushed him into insanity trying to force their gift out of him, and has turned him into one of the horrific people the other one feels compelled to kill.

Initially though, I was really enjoying what I thought was a film where Paxton's character had just completely lost his mind, and the two brothers were split in their loyalty.

[Takoma11]

The film is so well made, and the performances are so good, that it's worth holding onto. I was toying with a kind of 'half way' interpretation where...

...these guys have something psychic going on, but are only interpreting that as messages from God etc. So they're not really being ordered to kill demons, but are killing people their sixth senses are telling them are horrific human beings. That would negate Fenton being essentially evil, but would add the poignantly sad twist that his Dad has pushed him into insanity trying to force their gift out of him, and has turned him into one of the horrific people the other one feels compelled to kill.

Initially though, I was really enjoying what I thought was a film where Paxton's character had just completely lost his mind, and the two brothers were split in their loyalty.

It's a film that I've liked more and more on each viewing. (I think I've watched it 3 or 4 times). Once you have the full scope of the story and where it's headed, you'll just notice more details and scenes will have a different read.

Like, don't get me wrong, the first time you watch the film you get a lot of tension and charge from the ambiguity. But one of its strengths as a film and as a story is that it has just as much interest and tension even if you already know where it's all going, "twists" and all.

[Wooley]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/86/Sleuthpost2007.jpg
By Sony Pictures Classics - Impawards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=13136797

Sleuth - (2007)

It's been ages (ages) since I last saw the original 1972 Sleuth (which starred Michael Caine in the younger role) - therefore I thought that perhaps the twists that come would feel fresh to me here. I had only a vague memory of them. But in this version you can see them coming from miles away, and all we're left with is a version that's a little more open with gay eroticism and has more swearing in it. Jude Law certainly does interesting things with Michael Caine's old role - and is fun to watch - but overall this new version belongs on the trash heap, and everyone should stick to the original.

5/10



Without a doubt.

[AgrippinaX]

Nope (2022)
1
I liked Us, but Nope failed on every level. Peele seems more obsessed with race than Spike Lee's ever been and less nuanced. The whole canvas-like alien feels like an afterthought on a political pamphlet. I don't understand where the $58M went because the effects are moderate at best, and for the most part, it's three people talking. I don't get the praise at all.

I understand how it will always be a concern for him, but yes, he shoehorns it into everything (the opening section is odd, if I was running a business and someone I hired gave that kind of presentation, I’d think twice about hiring them again, credentials notwithstanding, because you’ve just politicised my set without my permission), and it’s a bit annoying. That’s obviously the vibe/signature look he’ll go for ad infinitum, which is his right, but yeah, I felt the same, though I found the film very entertaining once you forget it’s meant to be “horror”.

[StuSmallz]

I understand how it will always be a concern for him, but yes, he shoehorns it into everything (the opening section is odd, if I was running a business and someone I hired gave that kind of presentation, I’d think twice about hiring them again, credentials notwithstanding, because you’ve just politicised my set without my permission), and it’s a bit annoying.How is that single moment evidence of the movie being "obsessed" with race, though?

[AgrippinaX]

How is that single moment evidence of the movie being "obsessed" with race, though?

It isn’t, I completely agree that “obsessed” is a strong/unhelpful word here. I think it’s usually possible to discern intended meaning through such unhelpful terminology, though. As I say, I completely get that this will be Peele’s signature thing, which also makes it… not exactly insincere, but now that he knows it’s marketable, shoving race commentary into everything he makes to me feels a bit tasteless/disingenuous, but I’m very sure he’ll stick to it, and fair enough, good for him, because that’s a brand, too.

P.S. What with the broader diversity conversation, I’d be interested to see Peele attempt a film with a white cast, not an all-white cast but a few whites who don’t get slaughtered as per US and Get Out. Diversity considerations go both ways imo, but of course that would be totally against his brand, so he won’t do it. He openly acknowledges that he won’t cast “white dudes” and that elicits laughter/approval, whereas if a white director spoke out against diversity/casting non-white people…

And to me the argument that white leads are the default/ubiquitous/have been historically dominating the market is irrelevant. I’m not denying it, but for Peele to pointedly stick to one demographic and not be “““called out””” (triple quote marks intended) while white filmmakers are forced to grapple with diversity quotas… So much objectivity here.

And FYI, I really like Peele and find everything he does very original/fresh/watchable.

[LChimp]

https://i.ibb.co/XYc7MSR/top-gun-maverick-ver5-xlg-2.jpg

I had 0 expectations, but I was positively surprised. The action scenes are on another level, crazy stuff.

[AgrippinaX]

https://i.ibb.co/XYc7MSR/top-gun-maverick-ver5-xlg-2.jpg

I had 0 expectations, but I was positively surprised. The action scenes are on another level, crazy stuff.

I loved it.

[Thief]

PARENTHOOD
(1989, Howard)
-- recommended by Best Film Ever (https://bestfilmever.podbean.com/) --

https://i.imgur.com/fVsRA03.png


"There is no end zone. You never cross the goal line, spike the ball and do your touchdown dance. Never."



Parenthood mostly follows Gil Buckman (Steve Martin) as he struggles to keep it together against the woes of parenthood. But so is his whole family as we also follow his siblings: Helen (Dianne Wiest), Susan (Harley Jane Kozak), and Larry (Tom Hulce), and their respective partners and children, all of which are going through different issues and situations. When you see the poster for this film, you see a smiling Steve Martin holding two of his children by the legs, which gives a sense of this being a comedy of wacky shenanigans and crazy hijinks. That might be the reason why I wasn't that enthusiastic about it when my friend Ian, from Best Film Ever Podcast, recommended it to me. Not that I didn't want to see it, but I dismissed it thinking it would be "just a silly comedy". But the truth is that the film is so much more than that.

Directed by Ron Howard and written by Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel, the film is inspired by their family and parenting experiences, and those of producer Brian Grazer. This makes sense because the situations that we see in the film feel real. Although giving the appearance of a silly comedy, Parenthood walks a fine line between that and drama while handling very serious adult issues; divorce, economical worries, the false expectations we put on others, teenage sex, mental conditions, parental abandonment, regrets. It is all there, along with the tedious and mundane daily routine of being a parent AND a spouse. Howard expertly balances both the dramatic and the comedic without making it sway too much into either side.

Grade: 4.5


Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2328758#post2328758)

[Stirchley]

88646

Seen this before, but had no strong memory of it. Was it always so sexually graphic? I think I would have remembered that. Anyway, good movie.

88647

Classic. Such a good movie. Interesting how Kidman’s is the only name above the title. I thought Paul Bettany was excellent also.

[Wooley]

PARENTHOOD
(1989, Howard)
-- recommended by Best Film Ever (https://bestfilmever.podbean.com/) --

https://i.imgur.com/fVsRA03.png




Parenthood mostly follows Gil Buckman (Steve Martin) as he struggles to keep it together against the woes of parenthood. But so is his whole family as we also follow his siblings: Helen (Dianne Wiest), Susan (Harley Jane Kozak), and Larry (Tom Hulce), and their respective partners and children, all of which are going through different issues and situations. When you see the poster for this film, you see a smiling Steve Martin holding two of his children by the legs, which gives a sense of this being a comedy of wacky shenanigans and crazy hijinks. That might be the reason why I wasn't that enthusiastic about it when my friend Ian, from Best Film Ever Podcast, recommended it to me. Not that I didn't want to see it, but I dismissed it thinking it would be "just a silly comedy". But the truth is that the film is so much more than that.

Directed by Ron Howard and written by Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel, the film is inspired by their family and parenting experiences, and those of producer Brian Grazer. This makes sense because the situations that we see in the film feel real. Although giving the appearance of a silly comedy, Parenthood walks a fine line between that and drama while handling very serious adult issues; divorce, economical worries, the false expectations we put on others, teenage sex, mental conditions, parental abandonment, regrets. It is all there, along with the tedious and mundane daily routine of being a parent AND a spouse. Howard expertly balances both the dramatic and the comedic without making it sway too much into either side.

Grade: 4.5


Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2328758#post2328758)

They'll let any butt-reamin' *sshole be a father.

[Gideon58]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNTU4YWU5YTgtODhmOC00NzU2LTkwYzQtMmJhZjRhNWQwMTJkXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjIzOTA2NDk@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.j pg



2

[WHITBISSELL!]

https://c.tenor.com/TNxn_6uVf0kAAAAd/james-bond-007.gif
https://64.media.tumblr.com/25d0134d3f243fa094344ea1cb41cf11/095e36209aff075b-be/s540x810/851de6be495bbc5e4cb23f706dd2e5414b86ae95.gifv
https://64.media.tumblr.com/25ef1a879b306fcbab537c491a2eca28/297ed171d885980b-68/s540x810/1c99eb7b251dda9628cc2fb66f173f9009e7b5de.gifv

No Time to Die - As sendoffs go I thought this wasn't the disappointment that some had made it out to be. Their are some familiar drumbeats associated with swan songs such as characters dying and the revelation of previously unknown progeny. But it's handled well for the most part. The script does seem to hurry through the dispatching of a couple of previously featured players like

Jeffrey Wright's Felix Leiter and Christoph Waltz's Blofeld.
The latter comes off particularly perfunctory. More like checking a box than dealing with someone who played such a large role in Bond's life. But I suppose these things are to be expected. The narrative is moving on and moving in a specific direction that no longer has use for these people. So why not use them to advance the plot?

The only other issue might be Rami Malek's main baddie Lyutsifer Safin. I thought he was a perfectly serviceable antagonist, his problem was that he wasn't onscreen for all that long. Aside from the prologue (in which he was masked) he didn't appear until well into the movie. Aside from that the rest of the movie acquits itself quite well. The cinematography, exotic locales, big action set pieces, the weapons and gadgetry are all worthy of being in a Bond film.

And the Bond girls are utilized appropriately for the first time in recent memory. Ana de Armas as Paloma and Lashana Lynch as Bond's 007 successor Nomi blend neatly into the story. There's not a damn thing wrong with showing them to be skillful badasses. I just don't get the people who are troubled by this and choose to cast it as some kind of bow to political correctness.

Anyway, as far as saying goodbye to Daniel Craig's iteration of the venerable spy, this was a perfectly fine sendoff.

85/100

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.postimg.cc%2FfyVCWM0G%2FScreenshot-3.png&f=1&nofb=1

The Last Son, 2021

Isaac LeMay (Sam Worthington) is paying for his past in the form of a curse that says he will be killed by one of his sons. Having fathered many children by many different women, LeMay is now on a quest to track down and kill them all before they can harm him. The first real resistance comes in the form of Cal (Colson Baker), one of a pair of twins born to sex worker Anna (Heather Graham). Cal is an outlaw, and both Cal and LeMay are being hunted by officer Solomon (Thomas Jane).

There is a huge gap in this film between the premise and the execution, which is a shame because the plot description had me completely hooked.

Worthington does no more and no less than required as LeMay, a dangerous and deadly man who leaves many innocent bodies in his wake. The film presupposes LeMay's incredible reputation, as almost no one will stand up to him. But in LeMay's character we get absolutely no character development. Maybe it's true to life that a man who would kill his own children out of a sense of self-preservation would just be a walking ice cube, but it doesn't make for very dynamic viewing.

Cal, his intended target, is just as oblique. Cal is a real psychopath, casually murdering innocent people as he conducts an extended campaign of bank robbery and general bad guy stuff. (Please everyone join me in a deep sigh, as Cal's weapon of choice is an automatic gun, and the character is played by Machine Gun Kelly, like why?). I think that the film is trying to build to a moment where two fundamentally evil forces of nature clash, but I was so uninvested in the characters that it was hard to care. I was well over an hour into the film before realizing it was Machine Gun Kelly in the lead role, and I'd been going, "Why do I feel like this guy is kind of a bozo?". (To be fair, I thought Kelly was good in his role in Beyond the Lights, but he was also playing an obnoxious and abusive rapper, so . . . )

Graham is fine in her role as Cal's mother and LeMay's former lover. But she's given very little to work with. Instead the film uses her more as a prop, exploiting both LeMay and Cal's mistreatment of her as easy provocation. LeMay mutilates her hand. Cal pulls her shirt off and begins to force sex on her. It's shocking, but with such calculation that it ends up being more annoying than striking.

The scenery is really gorgeous, and I liked the different geographical backgrounds to the various sequences. I also liked the look of the costumes, so props to the costume designers.

The premise of this film is so dark and interesting, I thought that it would be a slam dunk. But the total lack of character development and the lack of stakes really took the punch out of what should have been a really neat story. It also does some crappy "mythical native people" stuff, between the woman who curses LeMay and a random native character who attacks LeMay seemingly to show how unkillable the man is.

Disappointing, and probably only for Western fans with the willingness to go in with low expectations.

2.5

[Rockatansky]

It's not a good movie, but Machine Gun Kelly is not terrible in The Dirt, the Motley Crue biopic. But that's really only worth watching for the Ozzy scene and the zombified portrayal of Mick Mars.

[Takoma11]

It's not a good movie, but Machine Gun Kelly is not terrible in The Dirt, the Motley Crue biopic. But that's really only worth watching for the Ozzy scene and the zombified portrayal of Mick Mars.

I think it's a hard pass for me, LOL.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.rogerebert.com%2Fuploads%2Freview%2Fprimary_image%2Freviews%2Fbloodline-movie-review-2019%2Fhero_bloodline-movie-review-2019.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Bloodline, 2018

Evan Cole (Seann William Scott) is a high school counselor who is also a new father. Life with a new baby is hard on Evan and his wife, Lauren (Mariela Garriga), and Evan's stress relief is a bit unconventional: he tracks down, tortures, and murders all of the bad dads (and the occasional uncle) causing harm to his student clients. Evan's mother, Marie (Dale Dickey) moves in with the couple to help with child care, but her charged past with Evan further raises tensions in the house.

Ehhhhhhhhhhh . . . .

Okay, much like the last film I watched, this seemed like the kind of premise that would be a win even with a merely decent execution. But some bold decisions in the last act make for a real mixed bag.

Seann William Scott has always had a vaguely likable, but also sort of blank energy for me, and in this film that works out pretty well. You believe that he's nice enough that students trust him, but that blankness also conveys nicely that there's a certain soullessness underneath his genial exterior.

Dale Dickey is the film's real strength, the film taking its time in revealing her past and just how much she knows or doesn't know about Evan's activities. Garriga is also good as a woman who is being ground down by the intense demands and isolation of new motherhood, while also being baffled by her husband's late night absences from their home.

The killings themselves are violent, but also a bit samey. One murder stands out from the rest, the killing of a mean-spirited nurse who shames Lauren for having difficulty getting the hang of breastfeeding, but it mainly stands out for the wrong reasons. I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear that the male victims are all middle aged men wearing dirty clothing, while the only female victim is young and traditionally attractive, killed fully nude in the shower. *eye roll*

The jiggle-jiggle killing of the nurse is just one aspect of how the film doesn't quite manage to escape some worn out horror tropes. Evan is your classic "benevolent psychopath" in the mold of Dexter. This killing impulse is constantly being grounded in flashbacks Evan has to a violent confrontation involving Evan and his parents, but it all feels a bit trite. The film decides to take certain characters in an unexpected direction. While this does result in one satisfying shock, it also results in one totally unbelievable one. This latter shock not only doesn't feel right, even in the universe of this movie, it also undercuts most of the groundwork that the film spent a lot minutes building.

I actually really enjoyed about the first third of this film, especially the portrayal of the tension that builds as Lauren spirals into post-partum depression and Evan's own paternal anxiety manifests in brutal murders. But the longer it went, the more it started to lose me. By the end, I was just irritated.

Another waste of a good premise!

3

[WHITBISSELL!]

The mention of Machine Gun Kelly reminded me that I had just seen him in something as well. It's a small role but does feature what is sure to be the high point of his career.

https://c.tenor.com/dhb752rTiHYAAAAd/backhanded-machine-gun-kelly.gif

[moviebufflover22]

I last saw Titanic ( 1997 )

[moviebufflover22]

God damn kate Winslet is still young and hot

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Blue_Velvet_%281986%29.png
By The poster art can or could be obtained from De Laurentiis Entertainment Group., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=56859916

Blue Velvet - (1986)

This David Lynch classic strikes an interesting balance, with his more bizarre and surreal tendencies running along under the surface of this more grounded and real-world story. After an interesting shot of lawn beetles, and vehicles gliding by with people waving at us, we'd think we're in for another weird journey, but Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle MacLachlan) turns up - a regular young guy in a world where darkness and insanity rage behind locked doors - but a saner, more ordered world prevails in daylight. He enters the dark world when he finds a severed ear one day, and is drawn in by Dorothy Vallens (Isabella Rossellini) - and erotic seductress who has found herself the victim of the seething Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper), one crazy, crazy mix of pathological criminality and depravity. Once noticed, Jeffrey has to fight hard not to get sucked into their world, especially since he's becoming attached to a picture of normal, steady and wholesome beauty - Sandy Williams (Laura Dern). Here the Lynchian world and the average everyday world coexist, and it makes for a fascinating film which I never get tired of checking out.

9/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/12/Predators_54632_glg.jpg
By http://www.reelzchannel.com/gallery/23165/predator-movie-posters?pid=54632, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=27646581

Predators - (2010)

This is a nice attempt to try and get a franchise that never really flourished beyond it's origin, back off the ground. When Predator 2 came out in 1990, this is what we should have got. I remember seeing Predator 2 and Total Recall on the same day in 1990, and raving on and on about Total Recall while dismissing Predator 2, much to the disappointment of my friend, who'd liked the latter. It was a good idea (bring the action from the jungle to a city) that wasn't thought through well enough - and it managed to discard pretty much everything that was good in the original. Looks like it took the people that own the intellectual property another 20 years to figure it out, and we've got something approximating a real Predator film, but in this Adrien Brody is woefully miscast, and none of the other characters bring much to the party. There's some decent action, and the Predators still make great villains.

6/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/WillyWonkaMoviePoster.jpg
By Filmaffinity, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2329553

Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory - (1971)

This kids film is gorgeous, and one I don't mind watching - even with no kids around. The production designers and props people were just let loose with their imagination running wild, and we got a great deal from it. Just add Gene Wilder to that and there's nothing that could spoil it - but nothing would have anyway, because the kids themselves in this movie are so well cast. The awful ones have a ball with the roles they're given, and so do we. I grew up with Willy Wonka, and still love it. An added half-point for the wonderful Tim Brooke-Taylor scene.

9.5/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e1/National_Lampoon%27s_Van_Wilder_Poster.png
By The poster art can or could be obtained from National Lampoon Inc and Artisan Entertainment., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=18007448

Van Wilder - (2002)

I liked Van Wilder, and think it was a great vehicle for a young Ryan Reynolds to establish himself. It has that sense of 'goodness' while still espousing the party animal lifestyle. It also has some very funny moments, which a lot of comedies suffer from a lack of. Not everything hits, but enough does to make it worthwhile entertainment.

6.5/10

[LChimp]

https://br.web.img3.acsta.net/pictures/22/07/18/11/00/5585620.jpg

Not the worst super-hero movie I've seen, but it's up there. Boring action scenes, boring and cliche story, plot twist you can see a mile away and doesn't really change anything.... a complete and total disaster. Avoid at all costs.

[D54pod]

Darkman 1990

https://sportshub.cbsistatic.com/i/2022/04/19/8a05d6a4-4b39-472d-bb66-6ea99f07c54b/liam-neeson-speaks-on-darkman-legacy-sequel-return.jpg

I recently rewatched Darkman and there is just so much to like about this movie. In comparison to today's superhero overdose, Darkman just sticks to the basics and tells an incredible emotional and captivating story which is real. No over the top CGI, no storylines forced in by studio producers, not really any characters used just as a device, no cut scenes of blatant Easter Eggs and no political agenda in sight. Comedy is used appropriately and not to undercut the tone of particular scenes and characters.

I really really miss these kind of movies in today's superhero landscape. I do like the MCU and how they bought these comic book characters to screen, but after watching Darkman (after about 15 years or so) the MCU are doing so much wrong. I loved you could just watch this movie and not have to worry about what is means to the overarching story or where this story and character fit into the larger universe. It also did such a great job of focusing purely on one character and the journey through the pain he has to go through.

I love this movie, it's one of those movies which will always stick in my memory. It's a real testament to great film making and knowing what works.

[Captain Terror]

Jacques Tati was one of my major blind spots so I started watching his films this weekend. They're all varying degrees of great, but HOLY COW WHAT THE HELL IS PLAYTIME??? How does a person even make this movie? Staggering stuff. It's less a comedy and more like a Godfrey Reggio film, but I also laughed often. It's a film in which very little actually happens, and yet I feel like I only caught about 10% of what was on the screen at any given time. I'm flabbergasted.

Not something I could recommend to just anybody but boy did it press all of my buttons.

5

I still have two more films to watch but I can't imagine either of them topping this.

[Archisorcerus]

The Ruins (2008)

https://i.imgur.com/0OHtyQh.jpg

An OK movie. The actors really tried too hard to be convincing. However, the presumably "horrific" aspect of the film was rather comedic for me; it has many disturbing as well as ridiculous scenes.

6/10

El buque maldito (1974)

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

I really loved this film. The pace was easy to go along with, as a viewer. The ambient sounds and the music added a lot to the atmosphere. The skeletal monsters were impressive. But come on, those wooden sarcophagi should have floated; it was ludicrous that they sank like iron chests.

7/10

[matt72582]

Day For Night - 5/10
This movie has been up my sleeve for years. I've tried to see it before, wasn't into it -- movie within a movie. I had it automatically recorded from TCM, but this time I finished the movie, but there wasn't anything I liked about it. I wasn't attracted to either girlfriend/leading lady (as actresses, too), and think the better and more attractive (by far) were Nathalie Baye and Nike Arrighi, who had minor roles.



I think I'm "done" with Truffaut. Seems like his best movies were his first two. JPL hit it with "400 Blows", and liked him in the Kaurismaki hit-man movie, but I think I've seen enough.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/La_Nuit_oscar.jpg

[Gideon58]

https://d1wj8oqehjepyy.cloudfront.net/i/boxart/w340/35/10/032429351036.jpg


1st Rewatch...I found this prickly and often stomach churning cinematic experience even more riveting the second time. Ben Affleck made an impressive feature length film debut as a director with this story based on a novel by Dennis Lehane (Mystic River). This is the story of a pair of romantically involved private detectives (Casey Affleck, Michelle Monaghan) who get involved in the case of a missing a little girl named Amanda. The primary thing that makes this movie so troublesome is that Amanda's mother, Helene (Amy Ryan) is a hopeless junkie who doesn't seem to give a damn about what happened to her daughter. I was surprised how much I had forgotten about this movie the first time around, including the surprising amount of loss of life in the story and the extremely troubling ending that had my jaw dropped and unsure of whether or not I approved. Casey is as solid here as he was in his Oscar winning performance in Manchester By the Sea and Morgan Freeman and Ed Harris make every moment they have onscreen count too. 4

[matt72582]

Jacques Tati was one of my major blind spots so I started watching his films this weekend. They're all varying degrees of great, but HOLY COW WHAT THE HELL IS PLAYTIME??? How does a person even make this movie? Staggering stuff. It's less a comedy and more like a Godfrey Reggio film, but I also laughed often. It's a film in which very little actually happens, and yet I feel like I only caught about 10% of what was on the screen at any given time. I'm flabbergasted.

Not something I could recommend to just anybody but boy did it press all of my buttons.

rating_5

I still have two more films to watch but I can't imagine either of them topping this.


That's what I was thinking a handful of years ago. I think I bailed after 15 minutes. This will be another one of those "up my sleeve" movies when there's nothing else left to desire and if my options are very limited.

[Captain Terror]

That's what I was thinking a handful of years ago. I think I bailed after 15 minutes. This will be another one of those "up my sleeve" movies when there's nothing else left to desire and if my options are very limited.

umm...I loved it though. Was that not clear?
It's like my new favorite movie.

[Takoma11]

Predators - (2010)

This is a nice attempt to try and get a franchise that never really flourished beyond it's origin, back off the ground. When Predator 2 came out in 1990, this is what we should have got. I remember seeing Predator 2 and Total Recall on the same day in 1990, and raving on and on about Total Recall while dismissing Predator 2, much to the disappointment of my friend, who'd liked the latter. It was a good idea (bring the action from the jungle to a city) that wasn't thought through well enough - and it managed to discard pretty much everything that was good in the original. Looks like it took the people that own the intellectual property another 20 years to figure it out, and we've got something approximating a real Predator film, but in this Adrien Brody is woefully miscast, and none of the other characters bring much to the party. There's some decent action, and the Predators still make great villains.

6/10



I love Predators, and I watch it more than the original at this point.

I really enjoy the whole cast, even Brody doing his Batman voice. I like the flip of taking the action to a different place. I quite enjoy Alice Braga.

And I really dig the weird interlude with Laurence Fishburne as the slightly-loony survivalist. "But the men, ooh la la."

It's such a great Friday midnight movie.

[WHITBISSELL!]

I love Predators, and I watch it more than the original at this point.

I really enjoy the whole cast, even Brody doing his Batman voice. I like the flip of taking the action to a different place. I quite enjoy Alice Braga.

And I really dig the weird interlude with Laurence Fishburne as the slightly-loony survivalist. "But the men, ooh la la."
It's such a great Friday midnight movie.
Yes to all this. It should have gotten a lot more respect for at least doing right by the franchise.

[matt72582]

umm...I loved it though. Was that not clear?
It's like my new favorite movie.
" As an unmuddied lake, friend. As clear as an azure sky of deepest summer. You can rely on me, friend. "

[crumbsroom]

Jacques Tati was one of my major blind spots so I started watching his films this weekend. They're all varying degrees of great, but HOLY COW WHAT THE HELL IS PLAYTIME??? How does a person even make this movie? Staggering stuff. It's less a comedy and more like a Godfrey Reggio film, but I also laughed often. It's a film in which very little actually happens, and yet I feel like I only caught about 10% of what was on the screen at any given time. I'm flabbergasted.

Not something I could recommend to just anybody but boy did it press all of my buttons.

5

I still have two more films to watch but I can't imagine either of them topping this.


That is the only appropriate reaction to Playtime.


Playtime is one of those handful of films, along with 2001 and Passion of Joan of Arc, where to not at least appreciate their singular cinematic vision is to be in a complete different universe from me.


You should never pay any heed to a person if they complain that it 'wasnt funny' or 'nothing happens'. Those people don't deserve it.

[Little Ash]

Jacques Tati was one of my major blind spots so I started watching his films this weekend. They're all varying degrees of great, but HOLY COW WHAT THE HELL IS PLAYTIME??? How does a person even make this movie? Staggering stuff. It's less a comedy and more like a Godfrey Reggio film, but I also laughed often. It's a film in which very little actually happens, and yet I feel like I only caught about 10% of what was on the screen at any given time. I'm flabbergasted.

Not something I could recommend to just anybody but boy did it press all of my buttons.

5

I still have two more films to watch but I can't imagine either of them topping this.


I recall in one of the extras or something as it's introduced as, "a movie that was designed and should be seen in 70mm."


It's a little weird, and oddly nice, to see the obnoxious American businessman in a French film portrayed with affection (or at least as I remember it).

[Wooley]

El buque maldito (1974)

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

I really loved this film. The pace was easy to go along with, as a viewer. The ambient sounds and the music added a lot to the atmosphere. The skeletal monsters were impressive. But come on, those wooden sarcophagi should have floated; it was ludicrous that they sank like iron chests.

7/10

I enjoyed this as well. But I just like The Blind Dead.

My writeup from a last year:
https://i.imgur.com/EtjtHRP.jpg?1

Ahh, the Blind Dead. Gotta love 'em.
This is only my second full film (I've seen parts of Night Of The Seagulls as well) in the Blind Dead series and I know I've gone and skipped over Return Of The Blind Dead but, honestly, having seen Tombs, I didn't think it would make much difference. And I was right.
If you've seen any Blind Dead movies you know what they are. 30-40 minutes of people talking and traveling to put themselves in the exact place where the Blind Dead are. Then the Blind Dead wake up and stalk the people really, really slowly - and totally ****ing blind - and ultimately pretty much just overwhelm their victims with sheer numbers. While it may not seem to viewers like it would be that hard to escape these extremely slow-moving, totally ****ing blind, shrouded skeletons, apparently, there is no escape from the Blind Dead.
In this case it all starts when two models, who have been "set adrift" in a boat as a publicity stunt by a "sports magnate", encounter the titular Ghost Galleon, which is literally a hundreds year-old galleon with rotting wood and tattered sails lumbering out of the fog. Instead of getting the **** out of there or staying on their little boat, they decide, one at a time mind you, that they need to board this floating nightmare and explore.
I just want y'all to think about this for a minute. Would any of you, if suddenly overtaken by rotting ancient ship looming out of a mysterious fog, board it? Not even crumbsroom would.
But they do.
This led to both this model and this Wooley making this face:

https://i.imgur.com/V8d4EP7.png

However, the movie rides, somehow, on the same thing other Blind Dead movies ride on. The Blind Dead are pretty awesome. There's just something so wonderfully macabre about these blind shrouded skeletons busting out of their coffins and then just relentlessly pursuing people who are too stupid to just stay quiet (since the Blind Dead are, ya know, blind) or run full-out in another direction. I just enjoy watching The Blind Dead. I do.
I think what I should do is just get some kind of editing software and take all four Blind Dead movies and just edit together the parts where the Blind Dead shamble around and just watch that once a year or have it on in the background all through October.

Anyway, that's another one down, I gotta say, yes, I am probably going to watch the rest of them, including 2020's Curse Of The Blind Dead, because why not?

[cricket]

https://d1wj8oqehjepyy.cloudfront.net/i/boxart/w340/35/10/032429351036.jpg


1st Rewatch...I found this prickly and often stomach churning cinematic experience even more riveting the second time. Ben Affleck made an impressive feature length film debut as a director with this story based on a novel by Dennis Lehane (Mystic River). This is the story of a pair of romantically involved private detectives (Casey Affleck, Michelle Monaghan) who get involved in the case of a missing a little girl named Amanda. The primary thing that makes this movie so troublesome is that Amanda's mother, Helene (Amy Ryan) is a hopeless junkie who doesn't seem to give a damn about what happened to her daughter. I was surprised how much I had forgotten about this movie the first time around, including the surprising amount of loss of life in the story and the extremely troubling ending that had my jaw dropped and unsure of whether or not I approved. Casey is as solid here as he was in his Oscar winning performance in Manchester By the Sea and Morgan Freeman and Ed Harris make every moment they have onscreen count too. 4

I need to see this again because I don't even remember it.

[Gideon58]

There was a lot I forgot from the first time I watched it.

[GulfportDoc]

...
I think I'm "done" with Truffaut. Seems like his best movies were his first two. JPL hit it with "400 Blows", and liked him in the Kaurismaki hit-man movie, but I think I've seen enough.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/20/La_Nuit_oscar.jpg
I loved his Shoot the Piano Player (1960). In fact it's my favorite of his films. The offbeat humor was innovative and unique at the time, and the story was very alluring and touching.

[Captain Terror]

That is the only appropriate reaction to Playtime.


Playtime is one of those handful of films, along with 2001 and Passion of Joan of Arc, where to not at least appreciate their singular cinematic vision is to be in a complete different universe from me.


You should never pay any heed to a person if they complain that it 'wasnt funny' or 'nothing happens'. Those people don't deserve it.

Yeah, I have to concede that this film is just totally in line with my vibe and sense of humor, so I can imagine that this isn't going to hit everyone the same. I personally know many friends/relatives who should never go near this movie. I loved Mon Oncle too but this is next level.

What I most appreciate about it is that it manages to feel like a GIANT movie despite the fact that nothing "big" ever happens. We've talked before about how action scenes are the death of comedies, and this is a film that could have easily ended with someone climbing the Eiffel Tower Harold Lloyd-style or something. So I loved that it never went there. There are times when the most interesting thing happening on screen is a fluttering luggage tag. The fact that a movie this BIG is made up of so many tiny pieces is just mind-boggling to me. The only way I can sleep at night is to convince myself that a lot of what he caught was just lucky accidents. Because if every corner of the screen was choreographed, I just can't wrap my head around that. (Especially the restaurant scene. Is there a more densely-packed hour of film?) One of the best examples I've ever encountered of a filmmaker creating an entire world all their own.

Fitting that we were just having a conversation about films not needing beginnings middles and endings, because this is Exhibit A for sure.

And as for not being funny? Please. The utter impotence of an angry person slamming a
"silent" door is the height of comedy as far as I'm concerned.

[Captain Terror]

I recall in one of the extras or something as it's introduced as, "a movie that was designed and should be seen in 70mm."

Yeah, this occurred to me as I watched it. A few years ago I saw Rear Window at a local theater. It wasn't in 70mm, but it's also a film that's largely made up of small tableaux, so watching it on a large screen meant that so many small details became clear that I'd never noticed when watching it on TV. I imagine Playtime would be even more rewarding in this context.

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/Hachi_poster.jpg
By May be found at the following website: http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_product_static.asp?master_movie_id=51438&sku=491743, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=24823450

Hachi: A Dog's Tale - (2009)

Hachi left me an absolute mess last night - I wasn't ready for what it had in store for me. It's based on a true story, which doesn't make things any easier, for I might have had at least "it was just a movie" to cling to. The film depended on a likeable performance from Richard Gere, who is his endearing best, and a great collection of Akita dogs, who appeared to perform quite naturally. I wasn't expecting much from it, and I wouldn't have made much of it if it hadn't of ripped my soul out and left me with emotional scars that will last a lifetime.

6.5/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/00/Bugsy_malone_movie_poster.jpg
Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5819316

Bugsy Malone - (1976)

I'm not quite sure what to make of Bugsy Malone - but I really enjoyed the musical numbers in it, so it wasn't a complete waste of time or anything. I don't think there was much need for a gangster movie with kids playing all the parts, and where a character's exit is brought about by cream pies instead of violence. Still, there was something a little charming about it - and I've always loved Paul Williams' music, so I found myself surprised by how tolerable it was.

7/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e4/Harvie_Krumpet_poster.jpg
By http://www.movieposterdb.com/movie/0382734/Harvie-Krumpet.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32779065

Harvie Krumpet - (2003)

I found myself with a Harvie Krumpet DVD, so it was the perfect thing to fit in when I didn't have time for a full-length feature. I also watched the other Adam Elliot short films Uncle, Cousin, Brother and Human Behavioural Case Studies. They all champion outsiders who have certain peculiarities to them, and exist far, far away from the mainstream. These clay stop-motion animated films of his take 5 years to make from conception to completion, so that Oscar was well earned - and the story itself is very poignant.

8/10

[PHOENIX74]

I love Predators, and I watch it more than the original at this point.

I really enjoy the whole cast, even Brody doing his Batman voice. I like the flip of taking the action to a different place. I quite enjoy Alice Braga.

And I really dig the weird interlude with Laurence Fishburne as the slightly-loony survivalist. "But the men, ooh la la."

It's such a great Friday midnight movie.

I probably underscored Predators considering how much I enjoyed it, but I never got really comfortable with Adrien Brody being the epitome of bad. He's too nice, and Batman voice isn't going to convince me otherwise. Big softie. I haven't seen Prey yet, so Predators is the best of any of the sequels/spin offs I've seen of the franchise. That's an awfully low bar that's been set by the others though.

[Takoma11]

Hachi: A Dog's Tale - (2009)

Hachi left me an absolute mess last night - I wasn't ready for what it had in store for me. It's based on a true story, which doesn't make things any easier, for I might have had at least "it was just a movie" to cling to. The film depended on a likeable performance from Richard Gere, who is his endearing best, and a great collection of Akita dogs, who appeared to perform quite naturally. I wasn't expecting much from it, and I wouldn't have made much of it if it hadn't of ripped my soul out and left me with emotional scars that will last a lifetime.

I have the novel version of this story in my classroom, and last week I was organizing my classroom library and then for absolutely no reason whatsoever!!!!!!! I decided to pick up the book and read the last fifth and then, you know, just have a good cry while hoping none of my co-workers would walk by or into my room. As I stood there I was like "Why did I do that to myself?!?!?!"

I probably underscored Predators considering how much I enjoyed it, but I never got really comfortable with Adrien Brody being the epitome of bad. He's too nice, and Batman voice isn't going to convince me otherwise. Big softie. I haven't seen Prey yet, so Predators is the best of any of the sequels/spin offs I've seen of the franchise. That's an awfully low bar that's been set by the others though.

Naturally I really like the original. I did not think highly of Predator 2. I have avoided any of the other sequel/spinoff things.

One thing I like about Predators is how it hammers home that the cunning and/or cautious characters tend to survive better than the big tough guys.

I also fundamentally like the concept of the alien game preserve and the ambiguous ending which hits the right notes of being a little optimistic and a little bit of a downer.

It's a movie whose faults I can see (including its hit-or-miss attempts at humor), but I like the action scenes, I mostly like the characters/performances, and I find it endlessly rewatchable.

[gbgoodies]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/be/Hachi_poster.jpg
By May be found at the following website: http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_product_static.asp?master_movie_id=51438&sku=491743, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=24823450

Hachi: A Dog's Tale - (2009)

Hachi left me an absolute mess last night - I wasn't ready for what it had in store for me. It's based on a true story, which doesn't make things any easier, for I might have had at least "it was just a movie" to cling to. The film depended on a likeable performance from Richard Gere, who is his endearing best, and a great collection of Akita dogs, who appeared to perform quite naturally. I wasn't expecting much from it, and I wouldn't have made much of it if it hadn't of ripped my soul out and left me with emotional scars that will last a lifetime.

6.5/10


I felt the same way about Hachi. I loved the movie so much that I bought it on DVD, but it hit me so hard the first time I saw it that I've never been able to rewatch it. :bawling:

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjordanandeddie.files.wordpress.com%2F2016%2F07%2Fpost.jpg%3Fw%3D768%26h%3D415&f=1&nofb=1

Bronson, 2008

In this eccentric biographical film, Michael Peterson--later to be known as Charles Bronson (Tom Hardy)--is sentenced to several years in jail for a post office robbery. But while inside Bronson's strange and often violent antics results in more and more severe punishments and sentences.

This is a film that's sort of danced on the edge of my radar for years. About 20 minutes into the movie I was like "Okay, who made this thing?". Nicholas Winding Refn, LOL. Of course. Never has an answer to a question made more sense.

There are three equally compelling elements to this film that made it compulsively watchable, and what really works is the way that those elements bounce off of each other.

The first element is the all-in performance by Tom Hardy. It perpetually threatens to be the kind of showboating that can feel both superficial and exhausting, but in the context of the bizarre world that Refn has put around him, it matches the film perfectly. It's also the kind of extremely physical role that some actors seem particularly drawn to, and it manages to exist as both an embodiment of a character and the kind of performance that makes you aware of it as performance.

The second element is the style of the film. The framing device is a highly stylized one-man show, with Bronson narrating the events of his own life to an anonymous theater crowd. Like Hardy's performance, it somehow manages to exist in that dual space of being a story and being artificial enough that you're aware of the structure of it. I could see this being off-putting to some viewers, but I felt that it worked. The physical spaces of the film are both mundane and surreal, whether Bronson is at a strip club, in a prison, or in a mental institution.

The final element is what I saw as the central theme of the film, which is the complex question of what you do with a person like Bronson. Endlessly creative, and yet also sporadically violent, what is the right answer to where he belongs? As the film shows us, the best solution anyone can come up with is shuttling him from prison to mental hospital and then back to prison. He's beaten, confined, drugged, restrained, and yet these are all just punitive or palliative measures. You can feel the wrongness of it, and yet you have to wonder what the alternative is. The film seems overall sympathetic to Bronson, almost suggesting that if the right creative outlet were found, it would reduce his violent outbursts. I mean, maybe. Bronson's violence doesn't seem to stem from a desire to cause pain, but more from the explosive need to express his frustrations. At the same time, his victims are just as likely to be people who have not directly or intentionally antagonized him.

Nothing to fault here, even if the film does seem to dodge the question of what to do with a man like Bronson.

4

[Wooley]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/00/Bugsy_malone_movie_poster.jpg
Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5819316

Bugsy Malone - (1976)

I'm not quite sure what to make of Bugsy Malone - but I really enjoyed the musical numbers in it, so it wasn't a complete waste of time or anything. I don't think there was much need for a gangster movie with kids playing all the parts, and where a character's exit is brought about by cream pies instead of violence. Still, there was something a little charming about it - and I've always loved Paul Williams' music, so I found myself surprised by how tolerable it was.

7/10


A classic!

[Wooley]

Also, you have all made it an absolute certainty that I will never watch Hachi: A Dog's Tale.

[gbgoodies]

Also, you have all made it an absolute certainty that I will never watch Hachi: A Dog's Tale.


That's a shame because it's a wonderful movie. If you ever feel like having a good cry, I highly recommend watching it, (at least once).

[Stirchley]

I felt the same way about Hachi. I loved the movie so much that I bought it on DVD, but it hit me so hard the first time I saw it that I've never been able to rewatch it. :bawling:

I own it too & I just love it. Cried many times.

[Wooley]

That's a shame because it's a wonderful movie. If you ever feel like having a good cry, I highly recommend watching it, (at least once).

I cry all the time, unfortunately.

[Stirchley]

88675

Phew, hard work getting through this &, no, I did not cry once about this dog. Ending is very predictable.

Horrid scenes where Tatum pretends he’s blind & the dog is his support animal. I thought these scenes were in the worst possible taste.

[Thief]

PAPERMAN
(2012, Kahrs)
-- recommended by Defining Disney (https://definingdisneypodcast.com/) --

https://i.imgur.com/JEov8Vu.jpg


"When I saw you I fell in love, and you smiled because you knew."



The above quote, often misattributed to Shakespeare, comes from an Italian opera called Falstaff, written by Arrigo Boito and partly inspired by a Shakespeare play. It alludes to the spontaneity of "love at first sight", and how its strength and impact is acknowledge by both persons. It is something magnetic!

Set in 1940s New York City, Paperman follows two characters experiencing just that as George (John Kahrs) and Meg (Kari Wahlgren) share that first-time connection at a chance meeting at a train station. The catalyst for this encounter is a loose piece of paper that keeps flying out of their hands, and ends up with Meg's lipstick mark on it, leaving George entranced and smitten by it.

Grade: 3.5


Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2329275#post2329275)

[Thief]

Re: Hachi,

I'll be the grumpy sourpuss to say that I don't get it. I mean, the film is not bad, but for something that's on the IMDb Top 250, I was expecting a bit more. Not that the IMDb list is a paragon of quality, but still... this is short film material. There wasn't enough there for a feature film. If it would've been the same core story, in 10-20 minutes, it could've been a banger of a short. As it is, it feels overblown and far too stretched.

[Takoma11]

Also, you have all made it an absolute certainty that I will never watch Hachi: A Dog's Tale.

One time I read Love That Dog to my class (it's a poem novel for elementary kids, so you can read it aloud in like 15 minutes) and then we all had a good long cry, LOL.

[Wooley]

One time I read Love That Dog to my class (it's a poem novel for elementary kids, so you can read it aloud in like 15 minutes) and then we all had a good long cry, LOL.

Yeah, I just don't have it in me anymore. With everything I've had in life, I cry in just about every damn movie at some point or another nowadays. (I did make it through Pulp Fiction the other day without crying though. But then practically sobbed my way through the last 15 minutes of Crouching Tiger.) So I really kinda just can't get into movies with a lot of heartbreak anymore without getting a bucket. And why do I wanna do that to myself?

[Takoma11]

And why do I wanna do that to myself?

I'll still watch sad things, but I'm increasingly resentful of films that I feel use cheap manipulation to get that impact.

[mark f]

The Runner (Michelle Danner, 2021) 2 5/10
The Immaculate Room (Mukunda Michael Dewil, 2022) 2.5 5.5/10
Bullet Proof (James Clayton, 2022) 2 5/10
This Magnificent Cake! (Emma De Swaef & Marc James Roels, 2018) 3 6.5/10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEN_uwQG-Wk
Bizarre stop motion animation anthology set in late 19th-century colonial Africa where the characters don't seem connected but the theme does.
Sharp Stick (Lena Dunham, 2022) 2 5/10
John Lennon Live in New York City (Carol Dysinger & Steve Gebhardt, 1986) 2.5 6+/10
They're Outside (Sam Casserly & Airell Anthony Hayles, 2020) 2 5/10
DC League of Super-Pets (Jared Stern & Sam J. Levine, 2022) 3- 6.5/10
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/HighOrneryGalago-max-1mb.gif
Krypto the Super-Dog (Dwayne Johnson) and Superman (John Krasinski) and all the other superheroes [and their dogs] are endangered by Lex Luthor (Marc Maron) and his megalomaniacal guinea pig (Kate McKinnon).
Tales of Robin Hood (James Tinling, 1951) 2.5 5.5/10
The Coming (Joy Jones, 2018) 1 3+/10
Cliff Walkers (Zhang Yimou, 2021) 2.5 6/10
Mr. Lucky (H.C. Potter, 1943) 3.5 7/10
http://www.classicfilmfreak.com/wp-content/uploads2/2012/03/mr.-lucky-1943-2.jpg
Gambler Cary Grant [who's posing as another man to get out of the draft] and wealthy socialite Larraine Day plan to put on a benefit for war relief for different reasons, but things get complicated.
Egomania: Island Without Hope (Christoph Schlingensief, 1986) 2 5/10
Men of the North (Hal Roach, 1930) 2.5 5.5/10
Porthole AKA Wedding Swingers (Mark A. Altman, 2018) 2 5/10 R.I.P. Charlbi Dean
Iris (Albert Maysles, 2014) 3 6.5/10 Iris Apfel is still with us at 101
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIG2AoiHszY
Fashionista and dealmaker Iris Apfel is busier and more popular than ever in her 90s. She also has one of the greatest collections of art and fashion outside of a museum.
When I Consume You (Perry Blackshear, 2021) 2 5/10
Only Two Can Play (Sidney Gilliat, 1962) 3 6.5/10
Outside Noise (Ted Fendt, 2021) 2 5/10
I Came By (Babak Anvari, 2022) 2.5 6/10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwHGegiFykU
Graffiti artist George MacKay, his best friend Percelle Ascott and his put upon mom Kelly Macdonald are put through the wringer [and worse] when he breaks into the home of judge Hugh Bonneville.

[SpelingError]

(I did make it through Pulp Fiction the other day without crying though.

What did you find heartbreaking in Pulp Fiction? I don't recall anything being heartbreaking in that film.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.amcnetworks.com%2Fbbcamerica.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F04%2Fswissarmyman.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Swiss Army Man, 2016

Hank (Paul Dano) is alone and shipwrecked when he comes across the seemingly lifeless body of a man he names Manny (Daniel Radcliffe). But as Hank interacts with Manny, the corpse suddenly not only seems to gain some sentience, but also displays an astonishing range of abilities that help Hank to survive in the wilderness. The two of them journey on toward home, driven in part by Manny's fixation on a woman (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) whose photograph is on the homescreen of a cellphone Hank carries.

I've been meaning to check this film out for a while now, and enjoying Everything Everywhere All At Once certainly bumped it up my watchlist.

Overall I really liked this movie and found it incredibly relatable.

I think that sometimes in a film I enjoy, it's hard to separate the performances from the writing. You wonder, if someone else was delivering the line "Oh, really?" would I be laughing this much? In this case, I think that both are strong. Daniel Scheinert and Dan Kwan (who also directed) have put together a script that confidently marches to its own drum, matching "crass" humor overtly with musings about depression and self-worth and regrets and what people think they deserve out of life. But what's kind of brilliant is how the movie pushes physical "grossness" (farts and vomit and spit) to the forefront as a way to get to a discussion about the "gross" things that people feel on the inside. It's a device more often seen with characters who are aliens or clones or whatever, but the basic premise of someone teaching another how to live and be human and then learning about themselves in the process feels really fresh here.

The quirky script and world that is built works so well because Dano and Radcliffe jump wholeheartedly into it. It's a heck of a physical performances by Radcliffe, whose evolving state is portrayed in wonderful increments. I find Daniel Radcliffe to be an incredibly endearing personality, maybe a result of having watched him grow up into a seemingly really nice and interesting person? In any event, Manny is a very enjoyable character, and Radcliffe's delivery of his lines--often a mix of curiosity, bafflement, and surprise--gets laughs out of lines like "It is?" or "Oh, sorry!".

Dano is a great counterbalance. Radcliffe's naive candor brings out an honesty in Dano's Hank. Hank is full of self-loathing, something that is revealed as he tries to bring Manny back to the world of the living. As Hank goes to increasingly extreme lengths to remind Manny of life as a living person---including building elaborate sets and costumes to stage reenactments and rehearsals of normal everyday life--he is surfacing and working through his own mental and emotional health issues. Dano's performance of a man slowly allowing himself vulnerability and hope is really lovely. Radcliffe gets the showier part, for sure, but Dano gives the film a deep spirit.

My only complaint has to do with the final 15 minutes or so. I'll be vague and then put more specifics in spoiler tags. I thought that the film shifted its focus in a way that was unfortunate.

I didn't mind, per se, the idea of returning home to be greeted by people who do not understand them. But the scolding, grossed out characters and the repeated shots of them being disgusted started to feel overly redundant. It feels like the movie is scolding anyone who would let the film's scatalogical humor get in the way of their empathy and it's like, hey movie, I'm with you! I felt as if it distracted from the central relationship and also dragged on for way too long.

I thought that it was funny and moving, and I feel silly for having waited so long to check it out.

4.5

[Gideon58]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BODFjMzIyM2UtZGE5Mi00ODM3LTlhODQtODI3NmU0ZDRiM2RiXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTQxNzMzNDI@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.j pg


3.5

[Wooley]

What did you find heartbreaking in Pulp Fiction? I don't recall anything being heartbreaking in that film.

No I said I did make it through.

[Rockatansky]

What did you find heartbreaking in Pulp Fiction? I don't recall anything being heartbreaking in that film.
QT's acting brought tears to his eyes.

[Thief]

JOHNNY GUITAR
(1954, Ray)
-- recommended by ApexPredator --

https://i.imgur.com/X1B14RM.jpg


"A man can lie, steal... and even kill. But as long as he hangs on to his pride, he's still a man. All a woman has to do is slip - once. And she's a tramp! Must be a great comfort to you to be a man."



Johnny Guitar follows Vienna (Joan Crawford), a tough saloon owner determined to make a stand against a posse that wants to ride her out of town. She is paired with a former gunslinger and ex-lover, Johnny Guitar (Sterling Hayden), who has returned after years away from her.

The thing is that Vienna's cards are stacked against her, just for being a woman, which is what she's lashing at in the above rant; a world in where she's hold to different standards than men, and where her possibilities to strive and succeed are suffocated and thrown aside. Men have the comfort of few worries, while women have double, and that's ever present here.

We can argue that the reach of that manly control can even extend to the story itself. It is called Johnny Guitar, but to me, this is Vienna's story all the way and Crawford's determined to make it work. She's just excellent in the lead role with a commanding presence and a demeanor that just demands attention. Johnny Guitar is, in a way, peripheral to her, but hey, I guess its a cooler title.

Grade: 3.5


Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2329347#post2329347)

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-BsbHY7sGRC4%2FV5lmU24WjHI%2FAAAAAAAAoi8%2Fg2OgQq6sC9AJUU9yatRwz8-8c8A5sJNkQCEw%2Fs400%2FEyes-of-Fire-Z11.png&f=1&nofb=1

Eyes of Fire, 1983

A preacher named Smythe (Dennis Lipscomb) in a small community takes up with a married woman, Eloise (Rebecca Stanley) whose husband, Marion (Guy Boyd), is away hunting. The locals end up banishing Smythe, Eloise, Smythe's odd adopted daughter Leah (Karlene Crockett), and a small handful of followers into the wilderness. The motley crew--eventually tracked down and joined by Marion--ends up in a strange valley that seems to be haunted by the spirits of past residents and a strange witch creature living in the forest.

This movie is a mish-mash of interesting ideas and images, but it doesn't quite add up to more than the sum of its parts.

Lipscomb is convincingly awful as the arrogant preacher who puts his followers in danger because he is so over-confident in his own abilities. In one of my favorite moments, Leah and Marion successfully turn back an attack on the group while Smythe shakes and prays. When the attackers are repelled, Smythe looks up in celebration. Later, he confidently asserts that he repelled one attack and he can repel another, with zero credit given to Leah or Marion. He's the kind of guy who believe 90% of his own nonsense. But when that 10% of doubt starts peeking through, things get ugly.

Crockett, with her shock of red hair, is enjoyable as Leah. Traumatized by witnessing her mother's execution at a young age, Leah speaks in tongues and has telekinetic powers. But when things begin to kick off, Leah actually discovers that she's in her element. She roams the forest, keeps watch over the vulnerable children, and endures Smythe's obnoxious posturing.

What I liked most about this film was the weirdness of the concepts and the visuals. The trapped spirits of the past inhabitants of the valley appear in multiple ways. Sometimes they emerge from the soil. Other times they simply appear out of nowhere, only to suddenly vanish. As the forest witch claims souls, those people appear as faces in the trees of the forest. It's a simple but pretty cool visual. There are also flashes from Leah's point of view, showing how she sees the people and events in the valley.

Despite liking certain elements of the film, there is kind of a "and then more stuff happens" feeling to the story. The strongest story element was the relationship of trust that develops between Marion and Leah. Both of them know that things are amiss, and Leah slips Marion clues about how to fight the evil spirits. (Thank goodness the relationship veers into a kind of friend/ally territory and never turns romantic---despite her feeling and appearing young in many ways, the film really liked showing Leah undressed.) The best section is the middle, as the party is trapped in the valley and striving to understand the strange events around them.

Good, but I wish it had been both a little weirder and a little more coherent.

3.5

[gbgoodies]

Yeah, I just don't have it in me anymore. With everything I've had in life, I cry in just about every damn movie at some point or another nowadays. (I did make it through Pulp Fiction the other day without crying though. But then practically sobbed my way through the last 15 minutes of Crouching Tiger.) So I really kinda just can't get into movies with a lot of heartbreak anymore without getting a bucket. And why do I wanna do that to myself?


I cry while watching a lot of movies too, (and TV shows, and listening to some songs). I can't count how many times Hubby has walked in the room to find me crying, and the first thing he does is look at the TV screen to see if I'm okay. :lol:

[SpelingError]

No I said I did make it through.

The way you described the film in the post I was quoting, however, made it seem like you either cried while watching the film in the past, or that you found something in it heartbreaking, albeit not enough to make you cry. Granted, Jules' monologue at the end puts me in a certain mood when I watch it, but I wouldn't describe it (or anything in the film, really) as heartbreaking.

[SpelingError]

QT's acting brought tears to his eyes.

Well, I can't argue with that.

[gbgoodies]

Mr. Lucky (H.C. Potter, 1943) 3.5 7/10
http://www.classicfilmfreak.com/wp-content/uploads2/2012/03/mr.-lucky-1943-2.jpg
Gambler Cary Grant [who's posing as another man to get out of the draft] and wealthy socialite Larraine Day plan to put on a benefit for war relief for different reasons, but things get complicated.



I recently started binge-watching the TV series "Mr. Lucky", and it's very good. John Vivyan has a lot of similarities to Cary Grant, so it's easy to see why he was cast to replace Grant's character from the movie. And I love Ross Martin as his friend and partner Andamo.

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/Get_shorty.jpg
By http://www.impawards.com/1995/get_shorty.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7557441

Get Shorty - (1995)

I think that Get Shorty thinks it's a little cleverer than it is, but it's not an unpleasant prospect, watching a film-obsessed mob guy slide on over to Hollywood and get into the movie business while tying up a few dangerous loose ends. Especially if his name is Chili. I got a kick out of all the movie references, and Gene Hackman's b-movie producer Harry Zimm. James Gandolfini had another good opportunity here, before hitting it big with The Sopranos. I enjoyed watching it, although I believe Robert Altman did a better job with a film that had the same feel - which I'm assuming influenced filmmakers like Barry Sonnenfeld here. We ended up with a few films which referenced the industry that made them, often in a satirical way. This one was solid, and smooth.

7/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Independence_Day_Resurgence_poster.jpg
By http://chriscrespo.com/review-independence-day-resurgence/, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46943337

Independence Day Resurgence - (2016)

This sequel has the same strengths as the original, and exactly the same weaknesses. If you're not ready for some of the same, you're not gonna like it. I remember going to see Independence Day in 1996 well - the trailers had made it look incredible, but I was very turned off by all the logical inconsistencies and lack of scientific authenticity, compounded by all the chest-beating and inane macho posturing. On the way home, my partner and I were cornered by a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses who had no idea what ID4 was, or was about. Explaining it to them was perhaps 5 of the most uncomfortable minutes of my life. Anyway, this was dumb - but as I wasn't expecting much this time, and I enjoyed it slightly for being nothing more than an inane science fiction film. If someone spent this amount of money making a science fiction film which is clever, inspiring, thoughtful and intelligent that would be great.

5/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d2/RansomPoster.jpg
By The poster art can or could be obtained from Touchstone Pictures., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3509756

Ransom - (1996)

Generally, a formulaic thriller won't get a high score from me just because it is what it is - but Ransom is definitely at the upper tier of formulaic thrillers - if not at the tippy top. Directed by Ron Howard, it knows exactly how to wring the most it can from every stage of it's development and pair of climaxes. You can't watch it and not be impressed. I don't go in for too many action thrillers as they're all a little too much of a retread each and every time, but Ransom can at least fool you into thinking you're watching something different because of it's cool competence, and it reaches for the best in what it has to do.

6.5/10

[Rockatansky]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Independence_Day_Resurgence_poster.jpg
By http://chriscrespo.com/review-independence-day-resurgence/, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46943337

Independence Day Resurgence - (2016)
I found my enjoyment went up and down depending on which characters were on screen. When it’s the group with Jeff Goldblum and Charlotte Gainsbourg, the movie’s actually pretty good. When it’s the group with the Hemsworth brother, it’s pretty dicey. When it’s Judd Hirsch and the bus full of children (who barge into an otherwise decent climax), watch out!

[Captain Steel]

Gone With the Wind (1939)

https://www.aresearchguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/gone_with_wind_croppedjpg.jpg


Finally watched it in its entirety (TCM: On Demand) - since it's a 4 hour film, took me about 3 sittings.

People probably think I'll talk about the modern controversy surrounding the slavery issues - but I don't know why such a big deal was made about the depiction from a movie made in 1939 when the issues of slavery are such a minor part of the movie (and yeah, I realize the film romanticizing slavery is the issue some have with it, but I just saw it as a historical depiction focusing on one household rather than addressing the overall issue).

The Civil War itself is just a backdrop for part of the film - it is central to everything that happens, yet it's really just a setting. I always thought this was a movie about the Civil War, but you won't learn much about it (it's causes, origins, major points or players) from the film.

Instead I'll focus on the one thing I never knew about this film and that is how it's about such unlikable & unscrupulous characters.

I can't even say it was romantic, as no one featured seems to truly love anyone else - even if they end up married. (Even the female background characters only seem to seek a husband to avoid ending up old maids.)

Towards the middle, as Scarlett is suffering the ravages of war, I thought it was going to turn into a coming-of-age or redemption story (ala Schindler's List) where hard times take away her ego-centrism & materialism while letting her see that life is about something far deeper than money, but the experience just seemed to make her more ruthless in her bad qualities.

I will admit to shedding some tears toward the end as so much tragedy piles up and only the most innocent characters die.

If there were some lesson or message to this film beyond a character study of shallow people for whom even war can't bring about inner spirituality, then I didn't see it.

I admire it's technical achievements for its time, but overall I found it a bit too soap-opera-y for me (not to mention a bit too long).

4

[Mr Minio]

I cry in just about every damn movie at some point or another nowadays That's what I thought, too. But apparently, it's just the kind of film. Some things can move me, but I will never cry if a given film doesn't have any of them. Plus the portrayal of these things needs to be quite specific, too. Sooo... I cried on 188 films but I've seen over 15.000. So this really puts things into perspective.

[Citizen Rules]

Gone With the Wind (1939)

Towards the middle, as Scarlett is suffering the ravages of war, I thought it was going to turn into a coming-of-age or redemption story (ala Schindler's List) where hard times take away her ego-centrism & materialism while letting her see that life is about something far deeper than money, but the experience just seemed to make her more ruthless in her bad qualities.

I will admit to shedding some tears toward the end as so much tragedy piles up and only the most innocent characters die.

rating_4I've seen Gone With the Wind several times and love it just because it is so soapy...I love a good melodrama with dynamic & colorful characters and GWTW has oodles of them. I had a different reaction to Vivian Leigh's 'Scarlett'...I found her self importance and underhanded ruthlessness to be fascinating and I liked her character's determination. I don't know of any actress at the time who was more lovely to look at than Miss Leigh and I'm a big fan of hers. I should watch this again.

[Tugg]

I admire it's technical achievements for its time, but overall I found it a bit too soap-opera-y for me (not to mention a bit too long).

4
So you liked it, judging by your rating?

[Citizen Rules]

So you liked it, judging by your rating?That's probably just how much popcorn he ate during those 4 hours:p

[Chypmunk]

1 bucket per hour - must be on a diet :D

[Gideon58]

Gone With the Wind (1939)

https://www.aresearchguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/gone_with_wind_croppedjpg.jpg




4

Really interesting reading your thoughts on this classic. And though I haven't watched it in awhile, I agree with most of you what you've said with the possible exception of no one in this movie really loving anyone. I think Rhett really loved Scarlett, but her obsession with Ashley kept her from loving him and eventually drove him away. JMO.

[pahaK]

88691

Samaritan is an extremely cliched and predictable superhero film. I wonder if the original concept already was this childish and bland.

Don't Deliver Us from Evil is a weird French drama with some horror elements. Two young girls from a convent school vow to serve Satan, sin, and do evil. There's not much plot, but an (in)decent atmosphere and good chemistry between the two leads. It reminds me of Poison for the Fairies and is loosely based on the same event as Peter Jackson's Heavenly Creatures.

Rob Zombie's Halloween is a pointless remake. The intro takes almost half of the film, and I don't think it improves the original in any way (I'm not even a huge fan of Carpenter's original).

Saladin is an Egyptian medieval epic. It's a somewhat entertaining take on the subject, but don't expect objectivity or historical accuracy. The Arab-speaking Europeans look funny, and the whole movie reeks of Pan-Arabism.

1974: The Possession of Altair is a Mexican found-footage horror. It's slightly above average in its genre. I love how it looks (it's presumably shot on real 8 mm film), and it has a creepy atmosphere. I wasn't a fan of the reveal.

Egomania: Island Without Hope is a German, eh, arthouse movie, I guess. I don't know if it tries to say something (not too unusual when it comes to "art"), but it's an interesting experience. It's flirting with horror themes and some nice visuals.

[Gideon58]

What did you find heartbreaking in Pulp Fiction? I don't recall anything being heartbreaking in that film.


Curious about this as well...as much as I love Pulp Fiction, I can't think of anything in that movie that made me cry.

[Captain Steel]

So you liked it, judging by your rating?

It held my interest and my rating is an "overall" one that encompasses cinematography, story, pacing, acting, special effects, mood, music, etc. I also liked the aspect of surprise (for me)... after a lifetime of hype about it, I come to find out it's a movie about scoundrels who have far more animosity for each other than they do feelings of romance. ;)

[Captain Steel]

I've seen Gone With the Wind several times and love it just because it is so soapy...I love a good melodrama with dynamic & colorful characters and GWTW has oodles of them. I had a different reaction to Vivian Leigh's 'Scarlett'...I found her self importance and underhanded ruthlessness to be fascinating and I liked her character's determination. I don't know of any actress at the time who was more lovely to look at than Miss Leigh and I'm a big fan of hers. I should watch this again.

Strangely, the protagonists & the antagonists seemed like the same people.

The only real "good guys" portrayed are secondary, background characters, and very few at that.

I could never tell if I wanted to root for Scarlett & Rhett... or root against them.

In many ways, they deserved each other as they were both egocentric scoundrels. But I see Rhett as the far more honest scoundrel - he made no bones about what kind of person he was - he even displayed a slight bit of honor when he went to join an army he had previously disparaged, when he admitted his fondness for an aging prostitute, showed his devotion to his daughter, and when he admitted he desired the respect of Mammy because he realized she was a pure & honest spirit and her respect could only be earned.

Scarlett was similar, but in her case she was full of deceit and manipulation, never really caring for anyone but herself. She used sex as a lure, even her obsession with Ashley was something I interpreted as an infatuation - she wanted Ashley mostly because he was denied to her - thus she saw him as a pursuit more than a true love.

Still, I could see this story appealing to feminists - despite what a low-character person Scarlett is, she was a take-charge woman and a force to be reckoned with (which Rhett admits several times) - and she was more than capable of getting anything she wanted

Was there ever an attempt at a sequel (either in book or movie form)? I wonder if she got together with Ashley now that he was a widower and she was free from Rhett... or if Rhett came back?

[Wooley]

QT's acting brought tears to his eyes.

I actually thought it was the best he ever did. I liked Jimmie and I haven't really liked any of his other cameos (that I'm aware of) with the one in Django being just disastrous and one of the big reasons I disparage the film in general.

[Wooley]

The way you described the film in the post I was quoting, however, made it seem like you either cried while watching the film in the past, or that you found something in it heartbreaking, albeit not enough to make you cry. Granted, Jules' monologue at the end puts me in a certain mood when I watch it, but I wouldn't describe it (or anything in the film, really) as heartbreaking.

Gotcha, no I was more joking that for me even a film like PF requires self-control, but that's not actually true.

[Wooley]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/Get_shorty.jpg
By http://www.impawards.com/1995/get_shorty.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7557441

Get Shorty - (1995)

I think that Get Shorty thinks it's a little cleverer than it is, but it's not an unpleasant prospect, watching a film-obsessed mob guy slide on over to Hollywood and get into the movie business while tying up a few dangerous loose ends. Especially if his name is Chili. I got a kick out of all the movie references, and Gene Hackman's b-movie producer Harry Zimm. James Gandolfini had another good opportunity here, before hitting it big with The Sopranos. I enjoyed watching it, although I believe Robert Altman did a better job with a film that had the same feel - which I'm assuming influenced filmmakers like Barry Sonnenfeld here. We ended up with a few films which referenced the industry that made them, often in a satirical way. This one was solid, and smooth.

7/10



Watched this one a lot back in the day.
It was obvious that it was not as good as it could have been but it had enough going for it, especially considering it was trying to balance the material with a much lighter tone that something even like Pulp Fiction.
It's also worth mentioning that when I saw the film, the two actors that really jumped out at me from this, perhaps because I was already pretty crazy about Russo and Hackman's effortlessness is expected by '95, were Gandolfini and Lindo. I said to someone the first time we watched it, "I dunno who this "Bear" actor is but hopefully the industry takes notice. He does a lot with a little." And I've always been surprised that Delroy Lindo wasn't a bigger star, maybe not as a leading man but as a character actor at least.

[Wooley]

Ransom - (1996)

Generally, a formulaic thriller won't get a high score from me just because it is what it is - but Ransom is definitely at the upper tier of formulaic thrillers - if not at the tippy top. Directed by Ron Howard, it knows exactly how to wring the most it can from every stage of it's development and pair of climaxes. You can't watch it and not be impressed. I don't go in for too many action thrillers as they're all a little too much of a retread each and every time, but Ransom can at least fool you into thinking you're watching something different because of it's cool competence, and it reaches for the best in what it has to do.

6.5/10

I agree, I thought this movie was about as good as it could be for the movie it was trying to be, which I think it was. And I think your score reflects that.

[Citizen Rules]

Strangely, the protagonists & the antagonists seemed like the same people.

The only real "good guys" portrayed are secondary, background characters, and very few at that.

I could never tell if I wanted to root for Scarlett & Rhett... or root against them.

In many ways, they deserved each other as they were both egocentric scoundrels. But I see Rhett as the far more honest scoundrel - he made no bones about what kind of person he was - he even displayed a slight bit of honor when he went to join an army he had previously disparaged, when he admitted his fondness for an aging prostitute, showed his devotion to his daughter, and when he admitted he desired the respect of Mammy because he realized she was a pure & honest spirit and her respect could only be earned.

Scarlett was similar, but in her case she was full of deceit and manipulation, never really caring for anyone but herself. She used sex as a lure, even her obsession with Ashley was something I interpreted as an infatuation - she wanted Ashley mostly because he was denied to her - thus she saw him as a pursuit more than a true love.

Still, I could see this story appealing to feminists - despite what a low-character person Scarlett is, she was a take-charge woman and a force to be reckoned with (which Rhett admits several times) - and she was more than capable of getting anything she wanted

Was there ever an attempt at a sequel (either in book or movie form)? I wonder if she got together with Ashley now that he was a widower and she was free from Rhett... or if Rhett came back?That's all well said and so was your review. I concur! I especially thought it astute your viewing GWTW's treatment of the Civil War and slavery as mere backdrops to the personal stories of Rhett and Scarlett.

I think for an early Hollywood film it's refreshing that it doesn't have clear protagonists & the antagonists and that's what I like about...It's a character study that's pure to the core personalities of Rhett and Scarlett, like you said they don't 'learn their lessons and grow' they are just who they are. Just image if Steven Spielberg would've been transported back in time and directed that film...I cringe at the thought!

But I do find Scarlett a dish, a feisty one for sure...but then again I always preferred Ginger over Mary Ann.

[WHITBISSELL!]

https://media1.giphy.com/media/ATzjwbYIKAkCpzGS7P/giphy.gif?cid=790b7611f90c6e162eb1cee39af0c550f8badb048b158ad2&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g
https://64.media.tumblr.com/1ea7a15f1bc72e0c9b7495ee0190280d/b10202bdaf6191c0-84/s500x750/da17eeeb02d1a327cf9c56c0c382b6fffb824b5c.gifv
https://c.tenor.com/nOyaCic5jLIAAAAC/licorice-pizza-paul-thomas-anderson.gif

Licorice Pizza - Turns out I've seen just about every one of Paul Thomas Anderson's films with the exception of his first, Hard Eight. And TBH I'm not sure you can count The Master because even though I did watch it I don't think I devoted the attention that sort of dense and detailed narrative requires. So a rewatch is definitely in order. I do feel that PTA is one of those "event" directors like some people consider Tarantino where every movie is a must see even though I did end up watching them all without any specific motivation. It just happened to happen and his unique vision and storytelling abilities led me to his projects. Jim Jarmusch is another director you can say that about.

The other reason I mentioned Tarantino is that this movie might be compared to Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Not in terms of story of course. But in the milieu both men tried to recreate onscreen. That of late 60's/early 70's Los Angeles. And I'd have to say that I liked this recreation more than Tarantino's. It wasn't as calculated. That might have more to do with the storyline though. Which is weird because there's no ironclad plot to speak of. There's a setup of course. Fifteen year old former child star Gary Valentine (Cooper Hoffman) meets and immediately becomes infatuated with twenty-something Alana Kane (Alana Haim). Gary's a born hustler and extremely likable and Alana is sort of lost and drifting through life. She finds herself strangely drawn to the guileless yet somehow street-smart Gary. The rest of the movie is episodic, a series of vignettes. But it works, mostly because of the charm of it's two stars.

It's hard to believe that it's the feature debut for both of them. The ease they show onscreen might have to do with how comfortable they were with Anderson. He had known Cooper Hoffman most of his life because of his long standing association with his father Philip Seymour Hoffman. And he had directed numerous music videos for Alana Haim and her sister's band, Haim. They also appear as her sisters in the movie. Her real life mother and father play her parents as well. So the set had to have had a familial vibe of sorts. There are also cameos from Sean Penn, Bradley Cooper, Tom Waits and Benny Safdie.

I liked this one just like I enjoy all of PTA's films. This one had more of a heartfelt, nostalgic vibe. LA really seems to work for him.

85/100

[WHITBISSELL!]

Was there ever an attempt at a sequel (either in book or movie form)? I wonder if she got together with Ashley now that he was a widower and she was free from Rhett... or if Rhett came back?There was a second book written if memory serves. I Googled it and there's apparently a virtual buttload of books devoted to the characters. I don't know which ones are officially sanctioned.

But one featured MMA fighting and another had a cameo by The Harlem Globetrotters.

I totally made that up.

[Gideon58]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTQxNzA1NjMyNV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNzkxODI5._V1_.jpg


4

[GulfportDoc]

88697
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

There was so much high praise for Top Gun: Maverick from the media, internet and word of mouth that it would have been difficult for a person’s eventual viewing of the picture to measure up to that volume of universal acclaim.

To be sure, the film’s chief accomplishment was it’s phenomenal aerial footage of high speed jets, both in practice runs, mission, and battle scenes. The production took great pains to physically condition the actors and to train them in filming technique in order to make the action look authentic. And it paid off. Not since Howard Hughes’ Hell’s Angels (1930) have audiences of their particular era been treated to such spectacular aerial realism and excellence. Those displays by themselves are worth the price of admission.

In fact the story of the film was reminiscent of the type of patriotic and melodramatic movies common from the 1930s to the 1950s, complete with a rousing and patriotic film score. Unfortunately at least the first 45 minutes of TGM didn’t update the style of the older films. The settings and dialogue were hackneyed and trite, causing me to question at that point if the movie was going to get better. It did. When it stuck to the preparations and development of the mission, it held one’s interest and even fascination. However the personal stories of Maverick and his former girlfriend, although necessary to the plot, were corny and not altogether believable. Naturally the writing of the Top Gun sequel was somewhat constrained by the original story, surely the writers could have fashioned a better script in that regard.

A major exception was the scene with Maverick and his former fellow flyboy, Iceman --now an Admiral-- who had all along kept Maverick employed with the Navy despite Maverick’s rebellious activities. It was lovely to see Val Kilmer return as Iceman. Despite his well publicized problems with throat cancer, he looked and acted as good as ever. When he did speak his voice reportedly was digitally enhanced. The awareness of Iceman’s terminal illness, and the genuine affection between the two, provided one of the most touching scenes in the film.

One mystery in the picture that perplexed me was the absence of the name of the country that was operating the “unsanctioned” uranium enrichment plant that the Top Gun crew was tasked with destroying. So during the entire film we have an enemy who was never identified. Perhaps the producers reckoned that we wouldn’t notice. But the notion of the urgency in eliminating a thing rather than an enemy took away much of the feeling of conflict.

The picture was not at all overly long at 2 hours and 10 minutes. Once we get into the meat of the action it is a movie well worth seeing. It will be a shoo-in for several technical awards.

Doc’s rating: story- 5/10; action and technical- 10/10

[Gideon58]

88697
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)


Doc’s rating: story- 5/10; action and technical- 10/10

Your assessment of this movie is pretty much on the money...I, too, thought the scene between Maverick and Ice was the best scene in the movie. I totally lost it.

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5a/Notes_on_a_Scandal.jpg
Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8849686

Notes on a Scandal - (2006)

Two superb actresses here, in Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett, who reminded me why I love movies so much. They play off of each other in Notes on a Scandal, which hits a kind of peak melodrama in it's searing and unforgettable storyline. Judi Dench is Barbara Covett, a history teacher at a British high school nearing retirement. She's bitter and has an acid tongue, but inside she's just desperately lonely - to an extent that includes a proclivity to stalk people. Cate Blanchett is Sheba Hart, a young teacher, new to the school, who is stuck in a marriage to an older man with two kids. Sheba strikes up a friendship with Barbara, and confides in her when she's caught having an affair with a 15-year-old student. From there, events spiral and we get one hell of a dramatic display. I was busy, and could only fit one film in yesterday, but it was one I thought was quite good.

8/10


It's also worth mentioning that when I saw the film, the two actors that really jumped out at me from this, perhaps because I was already pretty crazy about Russo and Hackman's effortlessness is expected by '95, were Gandolfini and Lindo. I said to someone the first time we watched it, "I dunno who this "Bear" actor is but hopefully the industry takes notice. He does a lot with a little." And I've always been surprised that Delroy Lindo wasn't a bigger star, maybe not as a leading man but as a character actor at least.

I heartily agree with that. Gandolfini really stood out in Get Shorty. He'd made the most of his small role in True Romance as well. By way of coincidence, I saw Delroy Lindo play big parts very ably in Get Shorty and Ransom the same day. The mid 90s were really his time, but I guess he was overshadowed by the Travoltas and Gibsons that he was appearing opposite in these big movies, and couldn't turn it into a more prominent career.

[xSookieStackhouse]

rating_2_5
loved tilda swinton and Idris Elba on marvel cinematic universe but this movie was okay but boring
https://www.ramascreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Three-Thousand-Years-of-Longing-1-e1653018951125.jpeg

[Daniel M]

88697
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

There was so much high praise for Top Gun: Maverick from the media, internet and word of mouth that it would have been difficult for a person’s eventual viewing of the picture to measure up to that volume of universal acclaim.

To be sure, the film’s chief accomplishment was it’s phenomenal aerial footage of high speed jets, both in practice runs, mission, and battle scenes. The production took great pains to physically condition the actors and to train them in filming technique in order to make the action look authentic. And it paid off. Not since Howard Hughes’ Hell’s Angels (1930) have audiences of their particular era been treated to such spectacular aerial realism and excellence. Those displays by themselves are worth the price of admission.

In fact the story of the film was reminiscent of the type of patriotic and melodramatic movies common from the 1930s to the 1950s, complete with a rousing and patriotic film score. Unfortunately at least the first 45 minutes of TGM didn’t update the style of the older films. The settings and dialogue were hackneyed and trite, causing me to question at that point if the movie was going to get better. It did. When it stuck to the preparations and development of the mission, it held one’s interest and even fascination. However the personal stories of Maverick and his former girlfriend, although necessary to the plot, were corny and not altogether believable. Naturally the writing of the Top Gun sequel was somewhat constrained by the original story, surely the writers could have fashioned a better script in that regard.

A major exception was the scene with Maverick and his former fellow flyboy, Iceman --now an Admiral-- who had all along kept Maverick employed with the Navy despite Maverick’s rebellious activities. It was lovely to see Val Kilmer return as Iceman. Despite his well publicized problems with throat cancer, he looked and acted as good as ever. When he did speak his voice reportedly was digitally enhanced. The awareness of Iceman’s terminal illness, and the genuine affection between the two, provided one of the most touching scenes in the film.

One mystery in the picture that perplexed me was the absence of the name of the country that was operating the “unsanctioned” uranium enrichment plant that the Top Gun crew was tasked with destroying. So during the entire film we have an enemy who was never identified. Perhaps the producers reckoned that we wouldn’t notice. But the notion of the urgency in eliminating a thing rather than an enemy took away much of the feeling of conflict.

The picture was not at all overly long at 2 hours and 10 minutes. Once we get into the meat of the action it is a movie well worth seeing. It will be a shoo-in for several technical awards.

Doc’s rating: story- 5/10; action and technical- 10/10

Nice read this and hits all the main points although the story didn't really bother me that much and I enjoyed the cheesiness and melodrama. In the original, I think the hostile MiGs are similar in that they're an enemy without a name. Perhaps a little surprising back in the eighties but nowadays I'm not surprised that they left it deliberately vague as to not piss off any countries for both marketing and political reasons.

It wasn't until recently that I watched both films and I had a blast with both. They're utterly ridiculous in many ways but I think they're both really well-made movies, especially Maverick. Same with the new Mission Impossible films for me which manage to be both blockbuster fun but well directed pieces of work.

[Guaporense]

https://amc-theatres-res.cloudinary.com/v1579119773/amc-cdn/production/2/movies/47000/47041/Poster/p_800x1200_The_Great_Wall_En_041317.jpg

This was not a good movie, whle I was expecting something corny but this movie was so cliche in its exection that I couldn't stay entertained. The best part of the movie were fight scenes but the CGI still looked pretty fake.

I watched several other movies by Zhang Yimou and they were all much better than this one.

[Allaby]

Ivy + Bean (2022). The first in a series of 3 films based on children's books. As expected, this was silly and cute. I love both little girls in it and their relationship was sweet and charming. It's short, fast and fun. All 3 Ivy+Bean films are now on Netflix. 3.5

[D54pod]

Nope

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/lbLPVvgq16BD3IA6sIH3riu9ouO.jpg

Jordan Peele's 'Nope; comes in with some big expectations due to Peele's previous work. 'Get Out' shifted the paradigm for horror movies, taking a genre which has historically been associated with a temporary experience of thrill and adrenaline, to being social commentaries on society and raising some deeper questions about ourselves in the process of watching his stories unfold.

Nope is no exception, and in fact it can be argued that it attempts to combine story, metaphor and meaning in a more ambitious way than his previous outings. Taking the central theme of 'spectacle', Peele beautifully illustrates its dangers and how we as a society are so obsessed with the spotlight to our own detriment (and even int he worst cases, eventual demise). Choosing a more science fiction approach this time around, Peele does a great job of story telling, and often subvert's out expectations time and time again in the process. Aside from the film's deeper meaning, some of the other highlights come in the form of the cinematography and performances from the central characters (mostly notably, OJ, Emerald and Angel). Peele has managed to create some complex characters which are highly relatable, and the chemistry between the actors is something which will be a lasting memory for me.

However, I do feel that the film does sacrifice plot and narrative in its relentless effort to hammer in the metaphor of the central theme - 'Spectacle'. While I did enjoy each story (OJ and the Animal Alien and Gordie and Jupe), I had a hard time understanding the relationship they had with each other from a narrative point of view. It often felt like two stories could have been played out better without the interference of the other. Other than that I did have some questions around OJ's motivations to tame / kill this animal, the legitimacy of the final impossible shot, the nature and behaviour the animal, and how / if OJ survived (or was this open for interpretation?). The ending of the film also was a slight let down with the death of the animal not being all that grand. This however could also be tied into the overall message of 'Spectacle' as the finale is often not worth the what we expect it to be.

Overall, I think Nope is a very good movie which will probably get better with a few re-watches to fully appreciate what Peele was trying to tell us with Nope.

3/5

[Stirchley]

Gone With the Wind (1939)

https://www.aresearchguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/gone_with_wind_croppedjpg.jpg


Finally watched it in its entirety (TCM: On Demand) - since it's a 4 hour film, took me about 3 sittings.

People probably think I'll talk about the modern controversy surrounding the slavery issues - but I don't know why such a big deal was made about the depiction from a movie made in 1939 when the issues of slavery are such a minor part of the movie (and yeah, I realize the film romanticizing slavery is the issue some have with it, but I just saw it as a historical depiction focusing on one household rather than addressing the overall issue).

The Civil War itself is just a backdrop for part of the film - it is central to everything that happens, yet it's really just a setting. I always thought this was a movie about the Civil War, but you won't learn much about it (it's causes, origins, major points or players) from the film.

Instead I'll focus on the one thing I never knew about this film and that is how it's about such unlikable & unscrupulous characters.

I can't even say it was romantic, as no one featured seems to truly love anyone else - even if they end up married. (Even the female background characters only seem to seek a husband to avoid ending up old maids.)

Towards the middle, as Scarlett is suffering the ravages of war, I thought it was going to turn into a coming-of-age or redemption story (ala Schindler's List) where hard times take away her ego-centrism & materialism while letting her see that life is about something far deeper than money, but the experience just seemed to make her more ruthless in her bad qualities.

I will admit to shedding some tears toward the end as so much tragedy piles up and only the most innocent characters die.

If there were some lesson or message to this film beyond a character study of shallow people for whom even war can't bring about inner spirituality, then I didn't see it.

I admire it's technical achievements for its time, but overall I found it a bit too soap-opera-y for me (not to mention a bit too long).

4

I love this movie. Seen it many times. To reduce it to its simplest factor, what I love the most is the journey of a woman. Scarlett to me is a role model. Surrounded by weak people she’s the bravest of the lot. She does what has to be done & doesn’t dwell on the past. As she famously says: “After all, tomorrow is another day.”

[Stirchley]

88704

Thought this was gonna be dreadful, but I made it through. Engaging unique storyline from John Cheever (who has the tiniest cameo in the movie). Glad I watched it.

[Tugg]

Top Gun: Maverick (2022) 4
https://static-koimoi.akamaized.net/wp-content/new-galleries/2022/06/box-office-top-gun-maverick-has-a-fair-second-week-still-has-a-shot-at-30-crores-lifetime-in-india-001.jpg
The Heist of the Century (2020) 3.5
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EWsaXnoXgAAIGFh?format=jpg&name=360x360
Fall (2022) 3
https://wwwflickeringmythc3c8f7.zapwp.com/q:i/r:0/wp:1/w:600/u:https://cdn.flickeringmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Photo-1-FALL-Lionsgate-600x338.jpg
One Way (2022) 3
https://imgix.bustle.com/uploads/image/2022/8/4/3eba84f3-d45e-419b-af01-622bfe0e66bd-screen-shot-2022-08-04-at-50131-pm.png?w=653&fit=crop&crop=faces&auto=format%2Ccompress
Wire Room (2022) 2
https://sheinacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Exclusive-Kevin-Dillon-Discusses-Upcoming-Action-Thriller-Wire-Room-Calls-Bruce-696x365.jpg

[WHITBISSELL!]

https://64.media.tumblr.com/0055fd796236c72231b4315958aceef2/9b540df88f966673-43/s540x810/b0635489751a01398da4cd3c85e8ce5ff4d5f17f.gifv

https://media4.giphy.com/media/BBdjOdlevYFKE/giphy.gif


Being There - Read the Jerzy Kosiński book ages ago but never quite got around to watching this for some reason. Peter Sellars plays the simple-minded Chance. He's lived with an unnamed "old man" since he was taken in as a child. His only other companion is the man's maid Louise.

Chance works in the man's garden and has never been allowed outside the walled confines of the man's home and grounds. His only interaction with the outside world comes in the form of incessant TV watching. One day the old man turns up dead and Chance is forced to vacate the only home he's ever known.

Out in the real world he is accidentally injured by a chauffered limousine and the occupant, Eve Rand (Shirley MacLaine) decides to take him home to her mammoth estate. She's the younger wife of business tycoon and power broker Benjamin Rand (Melvyn Douglas). He's on his last legs and suffering from aplastic anemia.

Because of continuous misperceptions the Rand's come to think that Chance is a fellow well-to-do Washingtonian named Chauncey Gardiner. What starts as a simple misunderstanding soon snowballs into Chance/Chauncey being hailed as a major financial and world player. His rudimentary remarks on gardening are misconstrued as metaphor and taken as weighty proclamations.

Sellars does a marvelous job as Chance and was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar. Melvyn Douglas won one for Best Supporting Actor. The rest of the cast is excellent as well with MacLaine, Richard Dysart and Jack Warden turning in solid performances.

Director Hal Ashby had been on quite a roll since his feature debut The Landlord in 1970. This was his seventh and arguably his last great film. I personally liked 8 Million Ways to Die but he definitely peaked with Being There.

90/100

[Nausicaä]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ee/TheLostCityPoster.jpg/220px-TheLostCityPoster.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

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/Sleeping_With_The_Enemy.jpg
By POV - Impawards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=45669596

Sleeping With the Enemy - (1991)

This was a surprise from the corridors of time - a thriller that to my eyes now is surprisingly lacking, but one that was incredibly popular back in the day. I think my mother used to love it - or at least someone in my family did, and seeing it myself because of that, I didn't think it was too bad. Cut to yesterday, and I found myself watching something that could easily pass for a midday movie on TV, with your typical movie of the week plot involving a psychotic husband hunting down his wife after she escapes his clutches. Usually, after he finally finds her, you'd get a climax that involves quite a bit of excitement - but Sleeping With the Enemy ends in mere moments and is over. A lot of people have all kinds of complaints regarding Sleeping With the Enemy - but I really don't feel like adding to the chorus. It's not offensively bad as much as just very plain, simple, standard and lacking in innovation or ideas.

5/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/What_lies_beneath_%28poster%29.jpg
Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16205549

What Lies Beneath - (2000)

Now, somebody here will have liked What Lies Beneath, considering how varied opinions are about it - so I'm about to get into trouble with somebody here, I just don't know who yet. I saw What Lies Beneath as a bad movie. It's most interesting element was it's references to past Hitchcock films, from Rear Window to Psycho - it does this in a very direct way sometimes, or at others it samples a little from it's score. But what got me was how the tone of the film was all over the place, as if it really didn't know what it wanted to be - so decided to be a bit of everything. There are many dead ends for plot strands, which build up and then go nowhere. The editing and continuity are always out of whack, and the ending seemed like everyone involved in making the film decided to get high and see what happened. What a crazy ride. Perhaps if I watched it again, it would make more sense - and moments by themselves were sometimes quite good. But as a whole, this just came off to me as a mess.

4/10

[Deschain]

Funny I’ve been eyeing Sleeping with the Enemy because people talked about it a lot back in the day but the bad reviews haven’t prevented me from pulling the trigger.

I saw What Lies Beneath in the theaters and barely remember it. I found it kinda slow but it has its fans.

[James D. Gardiner]

https://i.imgur.com/CXl8ZrT.jpg

Trunk to Cairo (1965)

Amusing friday night fare for me with this Israeli-West German '60s spy film, with American agent Audie Murphy employed to infiltrate and disrupt German scientist George Sanders' secret Egyptian rocket program. Exotic music and locations, espionage, guns, gals, cars, planes, submarines, terrorist baddies, a local guy wearing a fez hat and sunnies, Murphy dressed as an Arab woman riding a horse on a beach pursued by motorcycle cops. You know, that sort of film.

6/10

[Nausicaä]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1e/Everything_Everywhere_All_at_Once.jpg/220px-Everything_Everywhere_All_at_Once.jpg

3.5

SF = Zzz


[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

[Miss Vicky]

https://www.angelfire.com/music6/walteregan/2010s/favourite.gif

The Favourite (Yorgos Lanthimos, 2018)

They might as well have called this movie Catty Bitches in Queen Anne's Court. I generally try to avoid movies with such a predominantly female cast but The Favourite looked like it was going to be a good bit of fun and it did not disappoint. I really liked the dark humor and, as a bit of a sucker for costume dramas, I really loved the sets and the clothes. I have to say that I wasn't expecting this to be a love triangle and was a little surprised by the sexual elements, but it wasn't at all graphic and worked well with the story it was telling. All three lead performances were very strong and, while it did drag in a few places and I didn't quite love it, I do think this is a movie I will want revisit. I may even try to get a second viewing in before it's time to vote for the 2010's list, though there is quite stiff competition and it probably won't make the cut for me.

3.5

[cricket]

I Came By (2022)

3.5

https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/3/2022/06/ICBUnit01280RC-1df8248.jpg?resize=620,413?quality=90&resize=620,414

Netflix thriller that currently has just a 5.9 IMDb rating. I wonder if not a lot of people have seen it yet because there are many worse movies with a much better rating. PG-13 worthy content yet it kept me uneasy and at the edge of my seat. I enjoyed all of the performances and would definitely recommend.

[SuperMetro]

On the Waterfront - This one took me two sittings to finish due to late times. I liked Marlon Brando here and the rest of the acting performances were strong as well. I kind of think that it is a typical rebellion movie, but then I notice that this film was the root for a ton of scenes that appear in movies today such as the truck horn scene, the famous taxi scene, and also the idea of corrupt officials killing other people so that their reputation could stay put. The ending where Johnny Friendly loses his trust and is betrayed kind of makes me think of something that would happen in a cartoon quite a bit. It felt nice to see the beaten up Terrence Malloy walk towards the door at the end thanks to encouragement from the priest and Edie. Some pieces of media I think of with this movie were Fahrenheit 451 due to someone getting their eyes open by kind people around them and like LA Confidential because of corrupt officials killing rebels to prevent anyone from exposing him. This is a good movie. Again it feels a little typical for me but maybe this is a "seinfeld is unfunny" moment. Maybe it could-a be a contender for my favorite movie, but I need to spend more time with it first. 4
Claire's Knee - Took 3 sittings to watch! I watched this movie because I wanted something to remember this summer by. The movie reminds me of Cleo from 5 to 7 for several reasons: Both look super appealing to look at, both have a woman in the title(altough in Claire's Knee, it is mostly about Jerome), both are really charming, have simple plots with some complex stuff in there(Claires Knee is about Jerome making a story throughout the month he spends with the teenagers), and well their French. This was quite fun as I enjoyed Jerome's desire for Claire and her step-sister Laura with some character building involved in it too. This is also like a Bunuel movie quite a bit due to Claire's Knee being about a knee fetish. I liked the part where Jerome tells Claire a story about how her boyfriend kissed another woman and caused her to cry, giving him the advantage to touch her knee(his goal throughout part of the movie). During the experience, I played some music as this show does not have any music at all with the exception of the dance scene. It baffles me as to why these french movies lack scores most of the time at least from what I saw. Guess I better watch the other five moral tales by Eric Reimer. 4

What to watch next: Singin in the Rain, Cabaret, The Double Life of Veronique possibly, La Dolce Vita, Casablanca, probably Seven Samurai.

[Wooley]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/Sleeping_With_The_Enemy.jpg
By POV - Impawards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=45669596

Sleeping With the Enemy - (1991)

It's not offensively bad as much as just very plain, simple, standard and lacking in innovation or ideas.

5/10



That's pretty much exactly how I'd put it.

[Wooley]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/What_lies_beneath_%28poster%29.jpg
Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16205549

What Lies Beneath - (2000)

Now, somebody here will have liked What Lies Beneath, considering how varied opinions are about it - so I'm about to get into trouble with somebody here, I just don't know who yet. I saw What Lies Beneath as a bad movie. It's most interesting element was it's references to past Hitchcock films, from Rear Window to Psycho - it does this in a very direct way sometimes, or at others it samples a little from it's score. But what got me was how the tone of the film was all over the place, as if it really didn't know what it wanted to be - so decided to be a bit of everything. There are many dead ends for plot strands, which build up and then go nowhere. The editing and continuity are always out of whack, and the ending seemed like everyone involved in making the film decided to get high and see what happened. What a crazy ride. Perhaps if I watched it again, it would make more sense - and moments by themselves were sometimes quite good. But as a whole, this just came off to me as a mess.

4/10

We are just of one mind today. That is also exactly how I would describe WLB. I kinda wanted my time back when it was over. But that's always my gripe when I feel like a movie simply didn't earn two hours of my life.

[mark f]

Malni-Towards the Ocean, Towards the Shore (Sky Hopinka, 2020) 2.5 5.5/10
Into the Deep (Kate Cox, 2022) 1.5+ 4.5/10
The Magic Garden of Stanley Sweetheart (Leonard Horn, 1970) 2.5 5.5/10
Heaven Can Wait (Ernst Lubitsch, 1943) 4 8/10
http://24.media.tumblr.com/317159ced0e15ea296e507e4ef265873/tumblr_mq67moWMVT1rjk93go1_500.gif
Awesome film about the life of wastrel Don Ameche, his eccentric family, the love of his life (Gene Tierney) and whether the Devil (Laird Cregar) should admit him to hell.
Thing from the Factory by the Field (Joel Potrykus, 2022) 2.5 6/10
Classical Period (Ted Fendt, 2018) 2 5/10
Losin' It (Curtis Hanson, 1982) 2.5 6/10
He Who Must Die (Jules Dassin, 1957) 3.5 7/10
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RFfyM1FmrzE/hqdefault.jpg
In 1920s Turkish-occupied Greece, a village puts on its yearly Passion Play, but this year the casting lines up more with the characters they play and eventually leads to rebellion and violence.
Jikirag (Alexander J. Baxter, Leigah Keewatin & Jessica Moutray, 2022) 2 5/10
Fanny: The Right to Rock (Bobbi Jo Hart, 2021) 3+ 6.5/10
Honk for Jesus. Save Your Soul. (Adamma Ebo, 2022) 2 5/10
7 Days (Roshan Sethi, 2021) 3- 6.5/10
https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/7-Days.jpg
At the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, Indian-Americans Geraldine Viswanathan and Karan Soni must shelter in place after their parent-organized, pre-arranged first date doesn't go too smoothly.
Resurrection (Andrew Semans, 2022) 2.5 6/10
Dildo Heaven (Doris Wishman, 2002) 1.5+ 4.5/10
The Legends Ike & Tina Turner - Live in '71 (No Director Listed, 1971) 3- 6.5/10
Fall (Scott Mann, 2022) 2.5 6/10
https://i0.wp.com/moviesandmania.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Fall-movie-film-survival-thriller-radio-tower-2022-Grace-Fulton-Virginia-Gardner.jpg?resize=440%2C247&ssl=1
After a tragic climbing accident, Grace Caroline Currey [top] has retired from life until her best friend (Virginia Gardner) convinces her to move on with an idiotic climb of a 2,000 ft. radio tower.
Thor: God of Thunder (Noah Luke, 2022) 1.5+ 4.5/10
Resurrection (Andrew Semans, 2022) 2.5 6/10
Poser (Ori Segev & Noah Dixon, 2021) 2.5 5.5/10
Funny Pages (Owen Kline, 2022) 3- 6.5/10
https://i0.wp.com/keeping-it-reel.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/funnypagesfailure.jpeg?ssl=1
Not for everyone, a crazy take on high school senior Daniel Zolghadri who's obsessed with comic books and gets involved with several crazy characters who mostly border on the insane, the weirdest being color assists drawer Matthew Maher.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcriterion-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fcarousel-files%2F81481468fed394928d94994357d9b716.jpeg&f=1&nofb=1

Detour, 1945

Al (Tom Neal) is a piano player whose girlfriend has left him to go build a career in California. Al decides to make his way west to meet her and try to get her to marry him. Low on funds, he is forced to hitchhike and is picked up by a bookie named Haskell (Edmund MacDonald). When Haskell accidentally dies, Al fears being accused of murder and ends up hiding the body and stealing Haskell's identity. Crossing paths with a woman named Vera (Ann Savage) who quickly susses out his secret and the pair of them end up as reluctant partners in the deception.

I thought that I'd seen this film before, and even have it rated on IMDb. I'm not sure what movie I watched that I thought was Detour, but this was a great film that packed a lot of punch into a brisk 68 minute runtime.

The real punch of this film is in the way that every bit of fortune that shines on Al comes with a terrible price. There's always the other shoe hovering, waiting to drop. Al just happens to look enough like Haskell that he's able to use the other man's driver's license and clothing. But this creates a paper trail and a series of witnesses. Every time Al manages, usually through luck, to get out of one scrape, he finds himself heading straight into another.

There is a great friction between Al and Vera, something that in most films would collapse into a love-hate romance, but the film admirably never goes there. Instead, it lets the characters tear at each other even as they work together. Al still wants to hold to the idea that he is a good person and that he wants to do as little harm as possible. Vera has seen a much nastier roll of the dice. In addition to revealing that Haskell tried to assault her--how she recognizes the car--she is sick, probably dying. She has nothing to lose, and she's willing to drag Al along for the ride as she tries to get what's hers before clocking out.

The whole film moves in a short, steep downward spiral. Depending on how you feel about the characters, you can either read the end as tragic or a relief.

4

[SpelingError]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcriterion-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fcarousel-files%2F81481468fed394928d94994357d9b716.jpeg&f=1&nofb=1

Detour, 1945

Al (Tom Neal) is a piano player whose girlfriend has left him to go build a career in California. Al decides to make his way west to meet her and try to get her to marry him. Low on funds, he is forced to hitchhike and is picked up by a bookie named Haskell (Edmund MacDonald). When Haskell accidentally dies, Al fears being accused of murder and ends up hiding the body and stealing Haskell's identity. Crossing paths with a woman named Vera (Ann Savage) who quickly susses out his secret and the pair of them end up as reluctant partners in the deception.

I thought that I'd seen this film before, and even have it rated on IMDb. I'm not sure what movie I watched that I thought was Detour, but this was a great film that packed a lot of punch into a brisk 68 minute runtime.

The real punch of this film is in the way that every bit of fortune that shines on Al comes with a terrible price. There's always the other shoe hovering, waiting to drop. Al just happens to look enough like Haskell that he's able to use the other man's driver's license and clothing. But this creates a paper trail and a series of witnesses. Every time Al manages, usually through luck, to get out of one scrape, he finds himself heading straight into another.

There is a great friction between Al and Vera, something that in most films would collapse into a love-hate romance, but the film admirably never goes there. Instead, it lets the characters tear at each other even as they work together. Al still wants to hold to the idea that he is a good person and that he wants to do as little harm as possible. Vera has seen a much nastier roll of the dice. In addition to revealing that Haskell tried to assault her--how she recognizes the car--she is sick, probably dying. She has nothing to lose, and she's willing to drag Al along for the ride as she tries to get what's hers before clocking out.

The whole film moves in a short, steep downward spiral. Depending on how you feel about the characters, you can either read the end as tragic or a relief.

4

That's a great one. Very suspenseful.

[Mr Minio]

Nope (2022)

https://i.imgur.com/DShDLfj.png

I expected a mediocre film but it was pretty nice. I even cheered for the siblings. The show must go on, and so on, the Asian dude talks straight to the viewer. And we, viewers, love the spectacle. But there are stronger spectacles. There's exploitation cinema. There's the snuff film. But hey, people are crazy to have the image. Now that's an obsession. Add to that a spin on the UFO craze, and a giant monster movie twist and you got yourselves a pretty neat flick. The monkey was pretty cute, too. Oh well, it all revolves around staring at something we're not supposed to stare at. Something repulsive, literally out of this world, horrifying. But we just can't help but take a peep. And not just that. We want to save it so that we can watch it again later. And we want to show it to others. That's some moral sheet right here. I dunno how well the metaphor works but I don't care because I just like to see a flying saucer chasing and sucking in people. Good movie. I need to watch the other two Peele flicks now.

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2d/One_Hour_Photo_movie.jpg
By The poster art can or could be obtained from Fox Searchlight Pictures., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1061448

One Hour Photo - (2002)

I've always enjoyed One Hour Photo, but watching it yesterday, I found myself wanting a little more from it's anticlimactic ending - overall, most of the film's enjoyment comes from watching Robin Williams and his tour de force performance as "Sy - the photo guy". I went through the 1980s becoming more and more antagonized by Williams and his manic, oppressive and overbearing style, which carried over from his standup into his acting. It got so I pretty much hated Robin Williams. There were always exceptions - such as his shy and reserved doctor in Awakenings and eccentric and damaged vagabond in The Fisher King. But come the 2000s, after numerous terrible films, he took a leap, playing a serial killer in Insomnia, and the deranged Sy in One Hour Photo - and boy, he was good in those roles. I saw a whole different side of Williams - the reserved, inner man who impressed me with intelligence and acting ability. Mark Romanek captures a lot in this film, but we never take our eyes from Williams the whole time, and his lonely, deluded, desperate character with a quiet rage building up from a lifetime of torment.

7/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/45/Speed_movie_poster.jpg
By http://www.impawards.com/1994/speed.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1398334

Speed - (1994)

Action films belong to editors, who should nearly have their name placed above the directors - as such films are their babies. Editor John Wright was nominated for an Oscar for Speed, but somehow lost out to Academy favourite Arthur Schmidt and that darn Forrest Gump. I'm pretty sure John Wright should have won. Anyway, I caught up with this famous action film yesterday, with it's brilliant set-piece on a bus which will explode if it slows to below 50 miles-per-hour. This film had the added advantage of Dennis Hopper, who chewed the scenery marvelously, channeling his Frank Booth from the decade before. Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock fit their respective niches perfectly, and with a great score everything comes together. It's nothing more than an action movie - but everyone did right by it, and I don't know anyone who didn't love Speed in the 90s. It may have dated a little, but it will always remain a classic of the genre.

7.5/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f3/Speed_two_cruise_control.jpg
By impawards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9949333

Speed 2: Cruise Control - (1997)

One day I'll have to write a full review for Speed 2: Cruise Control. Obviously, the entire formula that made Speed related in any way to speed was lost in this, and the action elements were forced and confusing. It's set on a lumbering cruise ship. Keanu Reeves read the script and opted out, being replaced by a wooden Jason Patric. Speed felt a little excessive at 116 minutes, but Speed 2 doubled down, and went for 126 minutes. Yet for all of that, if you sit down and dispassionately examine Speed 2 like I did last night, you'll see what this was meant to be - and you'll notice that the spectacular excess is kind of interesting, and at times damned impressive. It has all the hallmarks of a revised Die Hard screenplay, and also borrows from films such as The Poseidon Adventure and Titanic. The final, record-breaking stunt - where the ship collides with an island harbour - is jaw-droppingly stunning. There's too much wrong with this film to just sum it up neatly, but as far as failures go Speed 2 is a cinematic mess that aimed to be history's greatest blockbuster and ended up being a forgotten flop. My partner accidentally hired it on video one night, and we endured it, but looking at it last night was really interesting.

4/10

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gannett-cdn.com%2Fmedia%2FUSATODAY%2FUSATODAY%2F2014%2F01%2F30%2F1391114173000-AP-FILM-REVIEW-TIMS-VERMEER-61440196.JPG&f=1&nofb=1

Tim's Vermeer, 2013

This documentary follows inventor Tim Jenison, who is intrigued by the process of the painter Vermeer. Specifically, Jenison is fascinated by the fact that Vermeer's paintings are so life-like, and yet there are no preliminary sketches to be found underneath the paintings. Wanting to figure out what kind of technology Vermmer may have used, Tim interviews experts and constructs an enormous camera obscura in a quest to paint his own Vermeer.

There's something really invigorating about watching someone work through a problem solving process. Even more so when the person doing the problem solving is incredibly dedicated to the task at hand.

Tim is an engaging protagonist. Okay, did I have a few jealous moments thinking "Gee, it must be nice to have the time and money to spend half a year making custom lenses and building a set to paint!"? Yes. But Tim has come by his money and time honestly enough, and there are certainly worse things that someone could spend their resources doing. His is creative and detail oriented, and watching him go through the process is pretty captivating.

There are two aspects to the film that I found most engaging. The first is just the quest that Tim is on. He is not in any way a trained painter, but through the camera obscura he is able to darken and lighten colors until they match the image that is being copied. This is slow, meticulous work. Using the technology to paint a vase ends up taking two men eight hours. For Tim to reproduce Vermeer's The Music Lesson? It stretches in hours and then days and then weeks, becoming almost an extreme sport.

The other aspect is a theme that is stated and then restated throughout the film, and really driven home by Penn Jillette at the end. (The film is directed by Teller, while Jillette contributes via hosting). And that theme is the strange and unnecessary desire to separate art and technology. During a discussion with two art history experts, they talk about the fact that many art historians don't like the idea that Vermeer might have used something like the camera obscura, because it would have been "cheating". But what does that even mean? As Jillette notes, coming to understand how Vermeer accomplished his art merely turns him from being unfathomably skilled into someone fathomable. Is he any less genius for figuring out how to almost photograph the scenes before him?

And this question of technology's role in art is a really cool one. As one of the men points out, all artists use tools. So where is the line of "cheating"? And if you can't define it, does that mean that the only "real art" is someone walking up to a canvas and putting the paint on with no tools aside from the brush? As technology becomes more and more adept at making decisions and completing the technical side of things, the question of what is means to be an artist seems more relevant now.

The film does feel like it's a bit stretched to be feature length. Most of the anecdotes that fill the time are fine---including Tim and his crew giving themselves carbon monoxide poisoning by running an outdoor heater in their warehouse--but there is a sense of someone trying to fill the time.

Worth a watch, especially if you're interested in art or the intersection of art and technology.

4

[Rockatansky]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gannett-cdn.com%2Fmedia%2FUSATODAY%2FUSATODAY%2F2014%2F01%2F30%2F1391114173000-AP-FILM-REVIEW-TIMS-VERMEER-61440196.JPG&f=1&nofb=1

Tim's Vermeer, 2013

I love this movie. I’m not somebody with an art background (beyond an art course in high school), so the ability to break down the actual work and problem solving involved in art is something that I find incredibly satisfying to my own thought process and also something that I don’t think many other movies offer insight into. At least not with as much humour as this. I was laughing out loud during parts of this.

[Takoma11]

I love this movie. I’m not somebody with an art background (beyond an art course in high school), so the ability to break down the actual work and problem solving involved in art is something that I find incredibly satisfying to my own thought process and also something that I don’t think many other movies offer insight into. At least not with as much humour as this. I was laughing out loud during parts of this.

When he decided he had to paint all the little dots to show the weave on the blanket.

And then spent five days just drawing little blanket dots, LOL.

[Nausicaä]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/The_Batman_%28film%29_poster.jpg

4

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