Rate The Last Movie You Saw

[Jackie Daytona]

Alien Resurrection - (1997)



I will go to bat for this movie. I know it's not anywhere near as great as the first two Alien movies, but Resurrection is one of my favorite dumb entertaining sci-fi action flicks. Ron Perlman and Sigourney Weaver playing off each other is too much fun, the basketball scene has stuck with me for a long time. And the aliens can swim? Plus there's this shot:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF44YvDVP8Y

[Stirchley]

She filmed the whole movie while pregnant and in mourning? Dang, girl!

I may be misremembering, but I think she was filming a second movie while all this was going on.

[AgrippinaX]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.senscritique.com%2Fmedia%2F000018322155%2F1200%2Fl_enfant.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=5263bbef23dbb6935a987c51ab33c18ae90eed43fdb5bb5d5b2cdd4775edbca7&ipo=images

L'Enfant, 2005

Sonia (Déborah François) is a young woman who has just given birth to a baby boy, Jimmy. She comes home from the hospital to find that her pickpocket, hustling boyfriend Bruno (Jérémie Renier) has subletted her apartment and isn't exactly thrilled at the prospect of fatherhood. When Sonia lets Bruno take Jimmy for a short walk, he uses the opportunity to sell the baby through a black market connection. By the time he realizes the gravity of what he's done, it may be too late.

A lot of people are more than happy to give their opinions about who should or should not be allowed to have and raise children. While I of course have my own views, I think we can all agree that stupid, selfish people belong right down toward the bottom of the queue.

It's challenging, in many ways, to root for this couple. Even Sonia, who is the more sympathetic of the two, is hard to take at times. I mean, she and Bruno get into a rock fight while she's holding Jimmy in her arms. Later, with Jimmy in the back seat of the car, they get into an adorable wrestling match in the front seat as the car hurtles down the highway. We don't know the details of their relationship before the baby, but the fact that Bruno is a guy who makes his living stealing from others was obviously known to her.

And Bruno is . . . man. Bruno is a piece of work. He mainly collaborates with a 14 year old boy to steal purses and rob the elderly. He has on speed dial the kind of person who can sell a baby. Every action we see from Bruno is selfish, often explicitly hurting both strangers and those closest to him. When Sonia reacts in disbelief to the fact that he sold their baby, he shrugs and tells her "We'll just have another one." Bruno is probably in his mid-20s, but he's just old enough that you can't write off any of his behavior due to youth.

But this film isn't just about watching terrible people being terrible. Slowly, just by a matter of centimeters, something begins to change in Bruno. It wouldn't be entirely accurate to say that he really tries to "make things right". It's a bit different than that. But somehow you can tell that he's realizing something about the life he's living and the effect he has on others.

I really enjoyed the way that the film evokes realism. There is no score--the only music comes from the environment. The things that happen to the characters all feel "in bounds". And maybe most importantly, the kind of character arcs and growth that we see seem genuine in all their frustrating stutter-stops. The film is working right around the limits of empathy. I honestly didn't think that even Sonia seemed equipped to parent a child. But there's something to be said for people who make an effort, and the movie gives us a glimpse into what that might look like for even a person as despicable as Bruno.

4.5

First off, I love all your reviews. Always such an enjoyable read. Definitely need to watch this.

Just read in some summary as I looked for where to stream it that she’s 18 and he’s 20, so not ‘mid-twenties’, at least, but still, what the ****? The kind of film where the premise shocks me more than any torture porn.

[Stirchley]

90869

I liked this. Much better than expected. Haven’t read DHL for many years so don’t know how much it follows the book. Emma Corrin has a lovely voice & is so much more attractive here than pictures I’ve seen of her in The Crown. Only thing I didn’t like was where the heck is Mellors’s dog Flossie? Love how they wrote her out of the script. :rolleyes:

90870

Strange good movie. Unusual story. Florence Pugh very good.

[ScarletLion]

'Enys Men' (2023)

Directed by Mark Jenkin

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/f7Pwf94_XLY/maxresdefault.jpg

Mark Jenkin's first film 'Bait' was shot on 16mm and very surreal. This one is too but it has vivid colours, borrows themes from films like 'The Lighthouse' and 'Don't Look Know' and has a very unsettling tone, almost verging on a folk horror ghost story vibe.

As with 'Bait', 'Enys Men' has audio that is all processed after the film was shot. The atmosphere that it results in is extremely unique and gives off an other worldly, fever dream vibe. The story centres around a woman known only as 'the volunteer', who collects information about seven lonely flowers sitting on a cliff top on an island off the Cornish coast. We see this woman live in isolation doing the same routine every single day. She then has visions that may be from future or past. These visions get more violent and extreme and we are left to puzzle over the remnants.

The film is challenging, gives very few answers and has no logical conclusion. It is an art-house folk horror gem and for audiences that prefer linear films with beginnings and endings, this film probably won't cut the mustard. But Mark Jenkin is growing as a filmmaker and is an extremely interesting one at that.

4

[Gideon58]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMGE4YjBmZTAtNjlhMC00NzRkLThlYzktNjRmNjJiYTU5YWFkXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTQzNTA5MzYz._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.j pg


4

[Takoma11]

First off, I love all your reviews. Always such an enjoyable read. Definitely need to watch this.

Just read in some summary as I looked for where to stream it that she’s 18 and he’s 20, so not ‘mid-twenties’, at least, but still, what the ****? The kind of film where the premise shocks me more than any torture porn.

Huh, I never realized we knew how old they were (if it's mentioned in the film itself I must have missed it). I guess I assumed because of their appearances (especially his) and the fact that they had an apartment together that they were supposed to be a bit older.

[AgrippinaX]

Huh, I never realized we knew how old they were (if it's mentioned in the film itself I must have missed it). I guess I assumed because of their appearances (especially his) and the fact that they had an apartment together that they were supposed to be a bit older.

I just hope it wasn’t based on a true story. Blood-curdling stuff.

[Takoma11]

I just hope it wasn’t based on a true story. Blood-curdling stuff.

Honestly, the whole film was pretty upsetting. Even if you set aside the baby-selling part, it's just hard seeing two people who are so underresourced and who have poor decision making abilities slinging a baby around.

If it helps (MAJOR SPOILERS)the baby is not harmed and is actually reunited with the mother relatively quickly.

[SpelingError]

30th Hall of Fame (REWATCH)

Fat Girl (2001) - 3

I first watched this one about 2-3 years ago, and I felt it was batting on being a very good film up until the ending, which killed much of the film's power. I kept searching for a big thematic reason for why the film ended in such a shocking and provocative way, but the more I thought about it, the less it worked. In my opinion, having something far worse happen to Anaïs in the ending overshadows what happened to Elena throughout the film. And while overshadowing a crime with a far more heinous crime can work in the right context, I think what Elena went through in the film is far more common and relatable for girls her age than surviving an encounter with a serial murderer/rapist, like Anaïs goes through in the final act. I forget if I brought it up before, but while endings usually don't matter a whole lot to me, I think this is a case where the ending erases much of the film's strengths. Sadly, I was left kind of disappointed when I finished the film since it could've been a much better film if the final five minutes were cut. To give the film credit where it's due though, in spite of the ending, most of what comes before that is really well-done. Elena's and Fernando's relationship was handled really well (Fernando pressuring for her to have sex with him sticks out as being appropriately disturbing) and some of the scenic shots, particularly during the beach scenes, were lovely to look at. Still though, I'd probably call the film a failure, albeit a highly ambitious and daring one. Which makes it kind of interesting to a certain extent. It just could've been far more than that.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.austinchronicle.com%2Fbinary%2F0a99%2Fclue_SD1_758_426_81_s_c1.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=81f8d900f556fc4c0f168dda5d39d6afc2bb39dfe065c451904333abbf9d55ee&ipo=images

Clue, 1985

At a remote mansion in the countryside, a group of visitors known only by pseudonyms are welcomed to a dinner party by the mansion's butler, Wadsworth (Tim Curry). The guests include Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn), Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren), Professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Colonel Mustard (Martin Mull), and Mr. Green (Michael McKean). Their host, Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving), has been blackmailing all of the guests. But when Mr. Boddy turns up dead, the group must figure out who committed the murder, and how.

I'm sure it's an inauspicious start to a review to say that this was my third attempt at watching this film. Finally making it to the end credits, I can say that I enjoyed the movie overall but was repeatedly reminded about why it had failed to grip me the first two times.

On the positive side, this is a very silly movie that knows that it is a very silly movie. And when it nails that silliness in the right way, it makes for some pretty hilarious moments both big and small. Things like the group arriving to find a dead body--dead bodies pile up rather rapidly in this film--and just all silently backing out together. Or the way that Mr. Green, established as being gay, deadpans "No thanks" when the busty maid (Colleen Camp) asks for someone to accompany her in a search of the house.

This silliness owes almost all of its success to the all-in performances from the cast, particularly Curry who serves effectively as the MC for everything that takes place. But lots of credit also goes to the rest of the cast--and my favorite, Lesley Ann Warren--for bringing their characters to this sweet spot of being borderline cartoons. For the most part the film manages to be kind of wild without ever getting manic.

But however much I enjoyed the film, I didn't love it. The characters are entirely caricatures, and for me that's a little hard to stick with for 90+ minutes. It's also not really a mystery, as the story is a series of setpieces as opposed to something where we get actual relevant clues or information.

I'm happy that I was finally able to watch the film and get on board with its sensibilities. I can see why this is a favorite for some people. This is the kind of movie that, if it's on as you're flipping through the channels, you stop and watch.

4

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/41/Ghost_%281990_movie_poster%29.jpg
By IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6745250

Ghost - (1990)

We're into "old classic" territory here now, which makes me feel old in a way I've never felt old before - Ghost has always been a film I've liked but never loved - until now. This film is just terribly well made - everything is in perfect harmony. Score, direction, acting, effects, screenplay - nobody puts a single foot wrong, and as a result we get surprises and a very emotional story that suits each actor involved. I kind of got swept up in this unexpectedly, and during the last scene that part of my brain that is logical and always in control was asking me "are you crying?" Patrick Swayze was perfect for the movie, and it was enough (coupled with Dirty Dancing) to make him one of those 'always-remembered' stars. Whoopi Goldberg is terrific (and won an Oscar - along with Bruce Joel Rubin's screenplay.) Great balance of comedy and drama, and some of the greatest love scenes in cinematic history - I have to make room for Ghost amongst my favourite films now.

9/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/Wag_The_Dog_Poster.jpg
Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2610062

Wag the Dog - (1997)

Until recent times, Wag the Dog used to be very far-fetched and absurd - now nothing (I repeat nothing) would surprise me when it comes to American politics. This features a sex scandal that envelops a President just 11 days before an election with astonishing likeness to the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal - released one month before that scandal erupted. Just watch the footage at the beginning, and you'd swear they were re-enacting the famous Clinton-Lewinsky footage. It's the kind of film with a lot of funny stuff happening where I grin but never laugh, because it's Altman-like in it's long drawn-out takedown of modern Americana. A short war is invented to distract the public, and when that lie is shut down the next day new lies are invented by a film producer (played wonderfully by Dustin Hoffman) who comes to see what he's inventing as his masterpiece. Woody Harrelson comes in late to steal the spotlight and provide this film's few moments of absolute hilarity. I like Wag the Dog - it's clever, and I really should get around to reading Larry Beinhart's American Hero.

6/10

[beelzebubble]

I will go to bat for this movie. I know it's not anywhere near as great as the first two Alien movies, but Resurrection is one of my favorite dumb entertaining sci-fi action flicks. Ron Perlman and Sigourney Weaver playing off each other is too much fun, the basketball scene has stuck with me for a long time. And the aliens can swim? Plus there's this shot:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF44YvDVP8Y
I don't think I have seen this Aliens movie. I know I have seen Aliens, Alien and the one on the prison planet, plus Prometheus and the second Promethus whatever that was called. But I don't think I have seen this. Gotta check it out.

[skizzerflake]

I can't say it's a favorite, although Tom Hanks pulls out the stops creating another character - A Man Called Otto - Otto is aging, grumpy, judgmental and lives a compulsively neat life on a rowhouse block in Pittsburgh. His wife died a few years back and he seems to be sinking into grouchiness and unhappiness over a world he doesn't control.

A new family (Latino) moves into his block. I don't know just why they'd want to, but they kind of adopt Otto. The family and a stray cat, as well as eccentric neighbors, intrude on his grouchiness, giving Otto light moments and engagement in his last days as his heart gives out.

It's a nice story, Hanks is good as always, but it also has the feel of a movie that was pasted together from "moments" that worked in a somewhat improvised plot line. It worked better in the end than in the first hour. I'm mixed on it....a 7, but just barely.

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

[Fabulous]

Edge of Darkness (1943)

3

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/A87PGRaDVn6BCDyPHSgApWKX1A6.jpg

[Wooley]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.austinchronicle.com%2Fbinary%2F0a99%2Fclue_SD1_758_426_81_s_c1.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=81f8d900f556fc4c0f168dda5d39d6afc2bb39dfe065c451904333abbf9d55ee&ipo=images

Clue, 1985

At a remote mansion in the countryside, a group of visitors known only by pseudonyms are welcomed to a dinner party by the mansion's butler, Wadsworth (Tim Curry). The guests include Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn), Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren), Professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Colonel Mustard (Martin Mull), and Mr. Green (Michael McKean). Their host, Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving), has been blackmailing all of the guests. But when Mr. Boddy turns up dead, the group must figure out who committed the murder, and how.

I'm sure it's an inauspicious start to a review to say that this was my third attempt at watching this film. Finally making it to the end credits, I can say that I enjoyed the movie overall but was repeatedly reminded about why it had failed to grip me the first two times.

On the positive side, this is a very silly movie that knows that it is a very silly movie. And when it nails that silliness in the right way, it makes for some pretty hilarious moments both big and small. Things like the group arriving to find a dead body--dead bodies pile up rather rapidly in this film--and just all silently backing out together. Or the way that Mr. Green, established as being gay, deadpans "No thanks" when the busty maid (Colleen Camp) asks for someone to accompany her in a search of the house.

This silliness owes almost all of its success to the all-in performances from the cast, particularly Curry who serves effectively as the MC for everything that takes place. But lots of credit also goes to the rest of the cast--and my favorite, Lesley Ann Warren--for bringing their characters to this sweet spot of being borderline cartoons. For the most part the film manages to be kind of wild without ever getting manic.

But however much I enjoyed the film, I didn't love it. The characters are entirely caricatures, and for me that's a little hard to stick with for 90+ minutes. It's also not really a mystery, as the story is a series of setpieces as opposed to something where we get actual relevant clues or information.

I'm happy that I was finally able to watch the film and get on board with its sensibilities. I can see why this is a favorite for some people. This is the kind of movie that, if it's on as you're flipping through the channels, you stop and watch.

4
When this came out in '85, even though I was only 12 or 13 at the time, I thought it was literally the worst movie I had ever seen. I was furious. I guess my expectations were high because I loved the game (?) as a kid, I already loved Tim Curry from Rocky Horror, Annie, and Legend, and Lee Ving (Mr. Boddy) was the frontman of L.A. hardcore icons FEAR. And man, did I think this movie sucked.
Then it came to HBO and since I watched movies like 12 hours a day when I was young, I ended up watching it again and softened on it and during its HBO run I ended up getting on its wavelength a little better and finally really enjoyed it.
I too felt strongly about Lesley Anne Warren, who I actually had a tremendous crush on and think has just the right sarcasm and sardonic with to give that role some life.
I would say that, nowadays, it's a movie I would totally watch stoned any time but would be 50/50 on watching sober.

[Wooley]

I can't say it's a favorite, although Tom Hanks pulls out the stops creating another character - A Man Called Otto - Otto is aging, grumpy, judgmental and lives a compulsively neat life on a rowhouse block in Pittsburgh. His wife died a few years back and he seems to be sinking into grouchiness and unhappiness over a world he doesn't control.

A new family (Latino) moves into his block. I don't know just why they'd want to, but they kind of adopt Otto. The family and a stray cat, as well as eccentric neighbors, intrude on his grouchiness, giving Otto light moments and engagement in his last days as his heart gives out.

It's a nice story, Hanks is good as always, but it also has the feel of a movie that was pasted together from "moments" that worked in a somewhat improvised plot line. It worked better in the end than in the first hour. I'm mixed on it....a 7, but just barely.

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

I haven't seen this yet but it struck me as If We Made Gran Torino Geared Toward Tom Hanks fans.

[Thursday Next]

A Man Called Otto (2022)

A Man Called Otto is adapted from the book A Man Called Ove, and the film of the same name. It tells the story of a grouchy widower who gradually thaws as his life becomes more intertwined with his neighbours'.

I watched A Man Called Ove with some trepidation, thinking it would be terribly cheesy. And it was, but somehow I found myself moved and reluctantly charmed by this grumpy old man and his quirky collection of neighbours.

The main problem with A Man Called Otto is that it's basically the same film. There are a few little tweaks here and there, some for the better, which tighten up the story, some for the worse. But it's essentially the same. I'm not against remakes altogether, especially new interpretations of an original source novel, or when there's a drastic change in setting but I struggled to see the need for this remake. It's not a bad film, it's not badly shot, if a little dull, just kind of pointless.

It didn't affect me the same way, although the end was a little moving. The screening I was in was quite full with older people and a lot of them were sniffling by the end, so maybe the effect was just dulled by having seen it all before.

Tom Hanks is ok as Otto, if maybe a little bit too obviously Mr Nice to really have much of an edge as a grumpy old man. Mariana Trevino is good as his new neighbour, Marisol. Truman Hanks, who plays Otto in flashbacks, is not as good, and this version does not give the impression that the previous film had that Otto is neurodivergent, which makes the story lose something, I think.

It's more sentimental, which makes the black humour of Otto's failed suicide attempts more tonally jarring. We don't need so many shots of Tom Hanks' hand on an empty bedspread, or the endless emotional music.

Ultimately it's a bit like American chocolate - more sugary and less tasty.

3

[Takoma11]

I too felt strongly about Lesley Anne Warren, who I actually had a tremendous crush on and think has just the right sarcasm and sardonic with to give that role some life.

She is the most enjoyably cartoon-like, for me. The way that her dress gets lower and lower until you start to wonder how it isn't just falling off of her body. The way every gesture--like lighting a cigarette--is just a bit extra.

[skizzerflake]

I haven't seen this yet but it struck me as If We Made El Camino Geared Toward Tom Hanks fans.

It's nothing like El Camino, if you're thinking of the Breaking Bad spinoff. The main thrust of the plot is how this guy is falling off the rails into decline and grouchiness, somewhat out of place in an area that has changed, but somehow manages to be "adopted" by some kind or eccentric neighbors. The neighbors were much better to him than he was to them.

[skizzerflake]

A Man Called Otto (2022)

A Man Called Otto is adapted from the book A Man Called Ove, and the film of the same name. It tells the story of a grouchy widower who gradually thaws as his life becomes more intertwined with his neighbours'.

I watched A Man Called Ove with some trepidation, thinking it would be terribly cheesy. And it was, but somehow I found myself moved and reluctantly charmed by this grumpy old man and his quirky collection of neighbours.

The main problem with A Man Called Otto is that it's basically the same film. There are a few little tweaks here and there, some for the better, which tighten up the story, some for the worse. But it's essentially the same. I'm not against remakes altogether, especially new interpretations of an original source novel, or when there's a drastic change in setting but I struggled to see the need for this remake. It's not a bad film, it's not badly shot, if a little dull, just kind of pointless.

It didn't affect me the same way, although the end was a little moving. The screening I was in was quite full with older people and a lot of them were sniffling by the end, so maybe the effect was just dulled by having seen it all before.

Tom Hanks is ok as Otto, if maybe a little bit too obviously Mr Nice to really have much of an edge as a grumpy old man. Mariana Trevino is good as his new neighbour, Marisol. Truman Hanks, who plays Otto in flashbacks, is not as good, and this version does not give the impression that the previous film had that Otto is neurodivergent, which makes the story lose something, I think.

It's more sentimental, which makes the black humour of Otto's failed suicide attempts more tonally jarring. We don't need so many shots of Tom Hanks' hand on an empty bedspread, or the endless emotional music.

Ultimately it's a bit like American chocolate - more sugary and less tasty.

3

Yep. I agree, in addition to my feeling that someone in the writing department was half asleep. This was especially obvious early on when it seemed like the writers wrote some scenes that filmed like puzzle pieces and then the whole thing was pasted together without much continuity. The failed suicide attempts seemed like pasted-in elements meant to crank up the angst level.

[cricket]

Playground (2016)

3.5

https://wwwflickeringmythc3c8f7.zapwp.com/q:i/r:1/wp:1/w:371/u:https://cdn.flickeringmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Playground-2_preview-600x326.jpeg

I randomly came across this 80 minute Polish film and watched it because I saw it described as surprisingly shocking. It reminded me a little of Gus Van Sant's Elephant, in that the majority of the film is unremarkable at first glimpse. This film is based upon a real life horror story that happened in England. The first hour spotlights 3 kids on the last day of school, but I never knew exactly where it was going. There were strong hints of darkness among the normalcy, but once it got to the finale I just said, oh no. On Tubi.

[Deschain]

It's nothing like El Camino, if you're thinking of the Breaking Bad spinoff. The main thrust of the plot is how this guy is falling off the rails into decline and grouchiness, somewhat out of place in an area that has changed, but somehow manages to be "adopted" by some kind or eccentric neighbors. The neighbors were much better to him than he was to them.

I think they meant Gran Torino.

[Wooley]

It's nothing like El Camino, if you're thinking of the Breaking Bad spinoff. The main thrust of the plot is how this guy is falling off the rails into decline and grouchiness, somewhat out of place in an area that has changed, but somehow manages to be "adopted" by some kind or eccentric neighbors. The neighbors were much better to him than he was to them.

Sorry, Gran Torino, fixed.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.tmdb.org%2Ft%2Fp%2Fw780%2FoWtUJSIfN4umPrwiHwawhMuDZlL.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=4ef5f486a870b1875983ba53c9c9982d4afeb85db2ae8eada67e45991e2ed0c6&ipo=images

The Night of the Shooting Stars, 1982

In a small Italian village during WW2, the residents receive word that the German army is on the run and leaving a trail of destruction behind them as they retreat. Aware that their homes have been stacked with explosives, some of the villagers seek refuge in the local church, while others strike out in a group to find the American soldiers they hope will liberate them. Cecilia (Micol Guidelli), who is telling the story in a flashback, is a young girl who leaves with her family in hopes of salvation.

This movie, which mixes war-time drama with moments of overt magic/fantasy, is marked by a striking number of sequences in which innocence and playfulness are brutally contrasted with the bloody realities of war and civil division.

The movie doesn't pull any punches when it comes to the decisions that the villagers must make. Even in the opening act, the villagers realize that they cannot bring their dogs with them, as the animals would make too much noise. As the group leaves the village at night, dressed in black so as not to be seen by planes overhead, one couple hears their confused dog barking from where he has been locked in the church basement. In the scheme of things it might seem minor, but it's just one of many heartbreaks that will attend their journey.

The middle act is largely taken up with the conflicts and conversations as the group continues on its way to what they hope will be freedom. Along the way they are at times hunted by a young Fascist soldier called Bruno (Mario Spallino) and Bruno's father. Bruno is a beautiful, feminine young man (I thought he was played by a young woman), and he bumbles uncertainly through the threats that he shouts at the group. At the same time, he doesn't hesitate to engage in violence against the elderly and the helpless.

In the last act, things come to a head as the wandering group runs headlong into a group of fascists. It's in this final large setpiece that the juxtaposition between the beautiful and the innocent really comes to a head. It is hard not to see a kind of child-like element in the way that the fascists and the villagers pop up and down from a field of wheat. It's a neat visual trick that the film uses to great effect, as characters vanish into the crops, sometimes for someone else to emerge. At one point, two friends (one a fascist, the other a villager), find themselves in a kind of grappling dance, each telling the other to surrender. It seems innocent and, again, child-like. Until one of them fires a gun into the other. Even among friends and family, there is little mercy to be found in this final confrontation.

The last act of this film is a real stand-out. I have a client who was a young boy during WW2 in Italy, and he has spoken of me a few times about waiting for American soldiers to arrive, and of begging them for food because he was starving. This film feels very personal in many ways, and the fact that Paolo and Vittorio Taviani (who wrote and directed the film) were children at the time of WW2 makes a lot of sense. I loved the short little sequences we got where, knowing their homes were soon to be blown up, the villagers would indulge in a short memory of a moment in their homes.

One element that does come off a bit weird is the intersection of some male gaze nonsense with the use of the young girl child protagonist. Cecilia is our main point of view character (though at times it does wander over to other characters), but the dominant sense of the camera is very male. We watch a woman pulling up her dress to use the bathroom, we watch a woman pulling up her nightgown to look at herself in the mirror, we watch a woman (inexplicably) rubbing watermelon all over her chest. If the protagonist was a young man, this one-sided gaze might make more sense. As it stands, it's like the filmmakers couldn't actually center themselves in their female protagonist.

This is a solid drama, interspersed with moments of fantasy, that builds to a very strong final act.

4

[Gideon58]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYTU1YzEzN2ItMzc0MS00Y2VlLWEyZWQtNDUyNGZhOGE3YTkyXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjUzOTY1NTc@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.j pg


4

[Thief]

KUNG FU HUSTLE
(2004, Chow)

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


"Becoming a top fighter takes time, unless you're a natural-born kung-fu genius, and they're 1 in a million."



That is unless you live in Pig Sty Alley, where it seems kung fu geniuses come from where you least expect them. But even the resident kung fu geniuses can't stop the fury of the Axe Gang! Kung Fu Hustle follows the attempts of the humble residents to do so. Meanwhile, wannabe bad guy Sing (Stephen Chow) and his dumb friend Bone (Lam Chi-chung) try to find their true self in order to help the village.

Kung Fu Hustle is a bit of a bizarre mish-mash of genres that go from action and comedy to surreal and outlandish. It is in trying to acclimate myself to that absurdity that I found the film to be more fun. I really didn't know much about it, so it took me a while to adjust my bearings to the tone of it, but I laughed all the way through that while.

Grade: 3.5


Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2362141#post2362141)

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/Take_Shelter_poster.jpg
By The cover art can be obtained from the following website: IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32468543

Take Shelter - (2011)

I found Take Shelter to be extremely good, but as always a victim of unrealistic expectations for me, because it made the Best of the 2010s Countdown and I was very geared up to watch it. Michael Shannon, who often works best as a villain, has the whole movie thrust upon his skills as an actor and he does a tremendously good job of playing a man struck down with mental illness. Curtis (Shannon) knows very well his family history when it comes to schizophrenia, but the nightmares and hallucinations he's having feel so much like signs of an impending disaster he feels compelled to take measures to protect himself and his family, which opens a rift in the relationship he has with his wife (played by Jessica Chastain) - and it's this connection that provides the crux of the drama and psychological thriller elements. The atmosphere that's lent to the hallucinatory and dream aspects infects the film as a whole - to the point where we're also questioning the veracity of what's happening, and this uneasiness is what we walk away from the film with. If you're worried about climate change and other environmental challenges of the future - this film might just terrify you.

7/10

[Horrorfool]

Thinner (1996) :up:

[Takoma11]

[CENTER]KUNG FU HUSTLE
(2004, Chow)

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

I looooooooove Kung Fu Hustle. The sequence with the snakes makes me laugh so hard it hurts.

[Thief]

THE DEAD
(1987, Huston)

https://i.imgur.com/7tiTcUT.jpg


"In gatherings such as this, sadder thoughts will recur to our minds. Thoughts of the past, of youth, of changes, of absent friends that we miss here tonight. But our work is among the living, we must not brood our stoop to gloomy moralizing."



The Dead is John Huston's final film, with a script written by his son Tony, based on a short story from James Joyce. Being a fan of classic literature, Huston's daughter Anjelica, has said that "it was very important for my father to make that film." Anjelica herself stars as Gabriel's wife, Gretta. The director died a couple of months before release, which makes of it a rather haunting look at life and death.

You gotta admire a film that doesn't really show its cards until the last 10-15 minutes. Because, for most of its duration, the film dwells in the mundane conversations between the assorted characters that meet for this dinner party, without really showing us what the deal is. Still, it manages to keep you engaged and captivated by sheer dialogue and performances. Conroy, Huston, and Dan O'Herlihy stand out from a great ensemble cast.

Grade: 4


Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2362155#post2362155)

[skizzerflake]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/Take_Shelter_poster.jpg
By The cover art can be obtained from the following website: IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32468543

Take Shelter - (2011)

I found Take Shelter to be extremely good, but as always a victim of unrealistic expectations for me, because it made the Best of the 2010s Countdown and I was very geared up to watch it. Michael Shannon, who often works best as a villain, has the whole movie thrust upon his skills as an actor and he does a tremendously good job of playing a man struck down with mental illness. Curtis (Shannon) knows very well his family history when it comes to schizophrenia, but the nightmares and hallucinations he's having feel so much like signs of an impending disaster he feels compelled to take measures to protect himself and his family, which opens a rift in the relationship he has with his wife (played by Jessica Chastain) - and it's this connection that provides the crux of the drama and psychological thriller elements. The atmosphere that's lent to the hallucinatory and dream aspects infects the film as a whole - to the point where we're also questioning the veracity of what's happening, and this uneasiness is what we walk away from the film with. If you're worried about climate change and other environmental challenges of the future - this film might just terrify you.

7/10

I ought to watch that one again. I recall the conflict, possibly a product of Curtis' mind, being a strange mix of paranoia, delusion and realistic fear of climate change. Which one was actually happening was not clear. That's what made the movie unsettling.

👍

[skizzerflake]

Sorry, Gran Torino, fixed.

Ah....yeah. It definitely had that element.

[skizzerflake]

Tonight, it was M3GAN - A product of James Wan, it's also the umpteenth permutation on Mary Shelley's 1818 Frankenstein novel. Once again, someone disobeys several cardinal rules of invention, especially horror movie inventions -

*Never make something stronger than you;
*Never make something smarter than you;
*Never make a device that wants to survive.

GOK how many inventors in the history of movies never read these rules and how many iterations of monsters have come from that disobedience. Another bunch of them does it again.

This time a young girl, Cady, has been orphaned and goes to live with her aunt, who works for a company developing AI automatons. The aunt makes a companion for Cady. Now what could possibly go wrong with that? Yeah, a lot can go wrong with that resulting in a rising body count.

As you can guess, there will be running, chasing, screaming and all of those loud drum sounds that are used as sonic punctuations and jump scares. It's all fairly predictable, including the ending, which I won't reveal, but that you have probably already guessed. It's not bad, but it won't re-write the history of horror-sci-fi.

I can't help but think that an occupational qualification for anybody who invents stuff is to read that short, pithy, intelligent book by Mary Shelley who said all that needed to be said in 1818.

:popcorn::popcorn:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRb4U99OU80

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcriterion-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fcarousel-files%2F6dec83a62607cb431e04b885e53fdef9.jpeg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=d2fa08d32384fc927507e3f17f23eda299fcc11d28398f8ca4380a4d79434ef0&ipo=images

The Ascent, 1977

During WW2, two Russian partisans, Sotnikov (Boris Plotnikov) and Rybak (Vladimir Gostyukhin) go on an ill-fated mission to find food for their group. During a skirmish with some German officers, Sotnikov is wounded and the two must seek safety and shelter. But due to the complex political situation between the partisans, the German army, and the citizens in the countryside, every action they take threatens to have consequences they did not anticipate.

This is a harrowing film about morality and solidarity, and the difference between wanting to live and not wanting to die. At the center of the film is the contrast between Sotnikov, who has accepted the possibility of his death and wants only the comfort of companionship and knowing he did the right thing, and Rybak who is more willing to compromise his loyalties in the name of surviving.

The film makes the most of a bleak, snowy country landscape. In certain sequences it feels as if the characters have died already and are afloat in some kind of purgatory. While the film begins with more thrilling elements--like the encounter with the Germans and Sotnikov and Rybak's attempts to evade the Germans--it later settles into a deeper drama that examines what people are willing to do when presented with almost certain death.

As with many great films about the cost of war, The Ascent keeps the question of "everyday people" always on its radar. There is no such thing as neutrality for the citizens in this situation. When someone arrives in your home unexpectedly, you must either hide them or report them. And each of those acts involves taking a side. Later in the film, the two partisans arrive in the home of a single mother named Demchikha (Lyudmila Polyakova). In her despair and conflict over what to do about her new arrivals, we see a woman who is being pulled apart by both sides of the conflict.

Plotnikov and Gostyukhin make for a great pair as the leads. Plotnikov manages to convey a character who is at once haunted by what may happen to him and yet firm in his own sense of morality. Sotnikov seems to have accepted death in the first ten or fifteen minutes of the film, merely waiting for exactly when and how. Gostyukhin's Rybak is haunted in a different way. We see in him a much more animal desire to live, possibly at any cost. And yet Rybak does clearly have a great affection for his companion. In one sequence, a wounded Sotnikov leans too long against a tree and becomes frozen to it. Rybak must use his breath to warm the space between the man and the tree to free his friend. The two experience a degree of physical and emotional intimacy, making their divergent choices in the last act all the more impactful.

While the film certainly has a very distinct political context, its themes about morality and survival are the kind that can translate to someone who isn't very familiar with this particular historical situation. In fact, the movie frequently leans into being almost more of a religious piece (a character is literally called "Judas" at one point, in case certain parallels weren't clear enough).

I was very interested to read more about the woman who made this film, Larysa Shepitko, and very sorry to hear that she died at a young age in a car accident. Also, she was married to Elem Klimov, who made Come and See. What a talented pair!

4.5

[SpelingError]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcriterion-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fcarousel-files%2F6dec83a62607cb431e04b885e53fdef9.jpeg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=d2fa08d32384fc927507e3f17f23eda299fcc11d28398f8ca4380a4d79434ef0&ipo=images

The Ascent, 1977

During WW2, two Russian partisans, Sotnikov (Boris Plotnikov) and Rybak (Vladimir Gostyukhin) go on an ill-fated mission to find food for their group. During a skirmish with some German officers, Sotnikov is wounded and the two must seek safety and shelter. But due to the complex political situation between the partisans, the German army, and the citizens in the countryside, every action they take threatens to have consequences they did not anticipate.

This is a harrowing film about morality and solidarity, and the difference between wanting to live and not wanting to die. At the center of the film is the contrast between Sotnikov, who has accepted the possibility of his death and wants only the comfort of companionship and knowing he did the right thing, and Rybak who is more willing to compromise his loyalties in the name of surviving.

The film makes the most of a bleak, snowy country landscape. In certain sequences it feels as if the characters have died already and are afloat in some kind of purgatory. While the film begins with more thrilling elements--like the encounter with the Germans and Sotnikov and Rybak's attempts to evade the Germans--it later settles into a deeper drama that examines what people are willing to do when presented with almost certain death.

As with many great films about the cost of war, The Ascent keeps the question of "everyday people" always on its radar. There is no such thing as neutrality for the citizens in this situation. When someone arrives in your home unexpectedly, you must either hide them or report them. And each of those acts involves taking a side. Later in the film, the two partisans arrive in the home of a single mother named Demchikha (Lyudmila Polyakova). In her despair and conflict over what to do about her new arrivals, we see a woman who is being pulled apart by both sides of the conflict.

Plotnikov and Gostyukhin make for a great pair as the leads. Plotnikov manages to convey a character who is at once haunted by what may happen to him and yet firm in his own sense of morality. Sotnikov seems to have accepted death in the first ten or fifteen minutes of the film, merely waiting for exactly when and how. Gostyukhin's Rybak is haunted in a different way. We see in him a much more animal desire to live, possibly at any cost. And yet Rybak does clearly have a great affection for his companion. In one sequence, a wounded Sotnikov leans too long against a tree and becomes frozen to it. Rybak must use his breath to warm the space between the man and the tree to free his friend. The two experience a degree of physical and emotional intimacy, making their divergent choices in the last act all the more impactful.

While the film certainly has a very distinct political context, its themes about morality and survival are the kind that can translate to someone who isn't very familiar with this particular historical situation. In fact, the movie frequently leans into being almost more of a religious piece (a character is literally called "Judas" at one point, in case certain parallels weren't clear enough).

I was very interested to read more about the woman who made this film, Larysa Shepitko, and very sorry to hear that she died at a young age in a car accident. Also, she was married to Elem Klimov, who made Come and See. What a talented pair!

4.5

Definitely a top 10 war film for me.

[Takoma11]

Definitely a top 10 war film for me.

It's crazy to me to think that two of the best anti-war films I've seen were made by a married couple!

[Wooley]

https://i.imgur.com/Vx7jgdX.jpg?2

This is kind of an odd movie. Rian Johnson is almost trying to see what he can get away with in a mainstream movie here, playing with the structure of the film, and he kinda gets away with it in that that part of the film actually works just fine.
For the first hour of the movie, this seems like an intentionally sillier version of the first film. While fun enough, it borders on parody at every turn. Aside from the lighter, goofier tone, every character being a caricature of an archetype feels a bit much. And, while I like Craig’s acting overall in this very much (particularly the physical part), it also seems like a caricature or parody of the Benoit Blanc from the previous film. And it seemed really obvious where everything was going and it was just gonna be the usual matter of figuring out whodunnit, in classic Agatha Christie, which Johnson has cited as his main influence for these films (which he intends to make more of), where everyone has the motive and everyone has the opportunity, but who actually did it. Too simple. All of which had me scratching my head wondering what the impetus was to go this route.
And then halfway through the movie, we get a surprise, the murder we think will be the first murder is not who we expected at all, so how does this fit? It seems like we're in for a really long and convoluted explanation, which could falter utterly or maybe it'll work out.
And then the movie decides to go another layer down as it's revealed why it seems so silly and so simple. The idea that Blanc and another character are actually running a ruse on all the other characters to solve a murder we actually don't even know occurred yet is a completely unexpected twist (though it answers most of my head-scratching). The movie has been a caricature thus far because we've actually been watching two of the characters acting the whole time, putting on a show. We're actually trying to solve a murder we didn't know was committed that occurred off-screen before the film even starts. If you can pull it off, Rian, then good for you.
So, did it work for me? Eh, probably just enough to give it a pass.
The mystery does technically hold together and ties together a lot of things we are shown throughout the film and the film is mostly pretty fun with enjoyable if somewhat over the top performances all around. However, the resolution of the mystery still requires new information that takes place well outside of the boundaries of what we've seen prior to the explanation and that is always a pet-peeve for me in mysteries. And the ending is bizarre. Not nearly as satisfying as I might have liked.
A few notes:
The Mona Lisa gag was already used in The Freshman. That may be okay but I found it distracting.
I actually like Janelle Monae more than I thought I would. She did seem a little flat when she was “acting” but they actually explain why, then when she plays REAL Andy she becomes quite credible and she’s not bad as the sister either, honestly. At times she is playing a character who is playing a character and she hasn’t had that much practice yet and I think she’s doing alright.
I like the way they played Whiskey out. “Expeditious” may have been a bit much.
"It’s so dumb, it’s brilliant!"
"No, it’s just DUMB!"
One wonders how meta Rian was trying to be there.

In the end, I actually liked the structure of the film a good bit. The twin thing didn’t bother me because it’s not an ass-pull at all in this context as Rian makes the very, very wise decision to show it to the audience halfway through when he resets the mystery. Johnson is a craftsman and it shows everywhere, from the color palette to the blocking (the physical position of characters in different shots actually really matters and means something), to the call-backs in the script, but sometimes he just overdoes it.
Ultimately, I found this amusing enough that I was not sorry I watched it. Whether or not I would watch it again or just re-watch Evil Under The Sun instead, hard to say.

3

Post-script:
And I must say, having been born in, grown up in, and spent nearly all my life in The South, from Virginia through Louisiana and every Southern state in between (no True Southerner considers Texas to be part of The South, though I have also spent a good bit of time there), I have never heard an accent like Craig's Blanc outside of movies. There are times when he seems to lilt into Kentucky (which I feel he’s probably closest to overall). Obviously he's hamming it up early on in the film but his accent in both films... I dunno, maybe there are some rich people in Savannah I haven't met yet (as this is very similar to the hilarious accent Kevin Spacey employed in Midnight In The Garden Of Good And Evil). Both (and most of these movie Southern accents) seem like a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW5p2Wa3cOQ

And it amuses me no end that people will get up in arms over whether a Brooklyn accent sounds authentic or sounds like Jersey or Queens but it’s just fine to lump a fourth of the country into some ridiculous, borderline mocking, drawl. Typical.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fm.media-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FM%2FMV5BNzFkNTU0YWEtZmQxYy00ZjMxLWEzYmYtMjE2NmQ5YzllMTdjXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTA2MD Q4Mg%40%40._V1_FMjpg_UX720_.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=a77d54dd43e37017375b9f63b3dd432ae6f36bfdea43741a89cd6ecc2bc6d322&ipo=images

The Glass Wall, 1953

Peter (Vittorio Gassman) has escaped a concentration camp and smuggled himself aboard a ship bound for New York. But once he arrives in the city, he is discovered. Though he pleads that he qualifies for asylum because he aided the Allies during the war, he cannot give the exact name or address of the soldier, Tom (Jerry Paris), he assisted. Faced with deportation, Peter makes a run for it and begins a desperate search of the city for Tom, encountering the down-and-out Maggie (Gloria Grahame) who has problems of her own.

This was a very engaging thriller/drama, utilizing a plot with multiple moving parts and a range of sympathetic characters.

Peter is very easy to root for. In addition to his own personal dramatic circumstances, he is respectful of others and grateful for any kindnesses shown to him. But what keeps him from feeling like a Mary Sue is the streak of panic and desperation that propels him through the city streets, despite serious injuries he sustained in his initial escape from the boat. At times he does things that frighten others--such as when he forces Maggie to take him back to her apartment, despite her fears about his intentions--and it's clear that he would rather die in the attempt to prove his merits than go back to where he came from.

Maggie is also a sympathetic character. We first meet her when she's stealing a coat from a nightclub, then learn about the life she leads trying to scrape together enough money to pay her imposing landlord and the landlord's lecherous, threatening son. In one standout sequence, Maggie describes what it was like to work in a shoelace factory, and why she couldn't take it anymore. Peter struggles to reconcile this with his notions of America, where there is meaningful work for everyone. Later, we meet a woman named
Tanya (Robin Raymond), who is also sympathetic to Peter because her parents are immigrants. Likewise, Tom receives news of Peter's escape and feels compelled to help the man who saved his life during the war.

The New York in this film is a place both welcoming and threatening. Wherever Peter goes, there are people who are willing to help him, or at least to look the other way. At the same time, there are plenty of those who are predatory, willing to take advantage of the power they have over others. This is reflected in the way that the film is shot, with spaces that alternate between being claustrophobic and cozy.

It is true that the film depends on some coincidences that may seem a little far-fetched to some viewers. But none of these bothered me. This is an interesting movie that uses America's complicated relationship with immigrants and asylum seekers as the context for an engaging thriller/drama.

4

[Nausicaä]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/50/Flux_Gourmet.jpg/220px-Flux_Gourmet.jpg

2.5

SF = Zzzz

The Duke of Burgundy is one of my favourites but for some reason haven't been able to get into any of his other films including this. Think I will have to try Flux Gourmet again.



[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

[Thief]

SECONDS
(1966, Frankenheimer)

https://i.imgur.com/YEBN85e.jpg


"Isn't it easier to go forward when you know you can't go back?"



Seconds follows a middle-aged banker that feels unfulfilled in his life, only to be approached by a company that offers him the chance to start a new life with a new identity through plastic surgery. What if you had that chane? Will you take it? After becoming "Tony Wilson" (Rock Hudson), the man realizes that it's not that easy to move forward and cut your ties to your past life.

One of the strengths of the film is Frankenheimer's direction, which is claustrophobic and oppressive. Regardless of the persona that Wilson is under, you can feel that he's never entirely free to move back or forward. "They made the decisions for me all over again", he says as he gets to another threshold in his life.

Grade: 4


Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2362386#post2362386)

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/The_Act_of_Killing_%282012_film%29.jpg
By https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2375605/, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=37065217

The Act of Killing - (2012)

It's hard to write about The Act of Killing without feeling like the tone isn't somber enough, or that the point is being missed. Once you've seen it, it sits in your subconscious in the same way all the dark things you've learned about humanity has. We get so close to it in this documentary, because the killers we see here are not the least bit troubled inviting us in and showing us how they did what they did. Not because they're proud, though they might be, but because the allure of making and starring in movies was too irresistible for them. Just another slaughter for another regime. Can their long-lost morality be stirred? Did they ever have a sense of what they were doing? Seems that murder is a very personal thing that had a different effect on each of them - and during the re-enactments they make, one in particular stands out as a person who actually realises what he's done for the first time. I watched the director's cut, which loses focus a little in the middle, but nevertheless this is an extraordinary film that most people should see.

9/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8f/The_Last_Picture_Show_%28movie_poster%29.jpg
By https://www.movieposters.com/, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6835938

The Last Picture Show - (1971)

This film really took me back and reminded me of what life (and sex) was like during those 'just graduating high school' days - it was so relatable and as a coming of age drama The Last Picture Show is grounded but fun. There's a lot of emotional grist to this, with the close relationships typical to a small town playing a role in shaking up everyone whenever something with a lot of gravity happens. That might be a death, a break-up or someone leaving. Jeff Bridges went from television to being an Oscar-nominated actor in a major film, and never looked back. I really enjoyed watching him in Bad Company, which came out soon after this. The black and white cinematography, with it's soft dream-like glow, really works well for this. Glad to have finally seen it.

8/10

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic1.colliderimages.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2022%2F03%2FApollo.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=22a558ad3d2d7e05a4e8db62dfc2aa02c1be00ae6083e98f42c7b6ac2cb28c13&ipo=images

Apollo 10 1/2, 2022

In 1960s Houston, Texas, Stan (Milo Coy) is surrounded by images and conversations around the Space Race. With a father who works in NASA--albeit in an administrative position--Stan is captivated by the leadup to the Apollo launch. The film alternates between a memoir-like look at Stan's childhood and a dream subplot in which he is recruited by the government to fly a secret space mission to prepare for the Apollo 11.

I really enjoyed this film. The childhood sequences resound with a wonderful specificity, while the fantasy sequences capture the imagination of a child imagining space travel.

This film feels deeply personal, and of course it reflects a lot of the real history of its writer and director Richard Linklater. Stan is part of a large family, headed up by the no-nonsense, hippie-hating Mom (Lee Eddy) and an absurdly frugal Dad (Bill Wise). The family dynamics are incredibly well established. While a lot of the memories ring with evoking the specifics of his childhood--such as the family getting their first touch-tone phone or riding bicycles behind a truck spraying DDT--the nature of the interactions between the kids and with the adults will be familiar to anyone who grew up with siblings of their own, no matter what the decade of their own childhood.

I also found the movie very funny, including from the opening sequence of Stan being recruited by two men-in-black government agents. Telling Stan that they've admired his prowess on the kickball field AND his Presidential Fitness results, they confide in him that they accidentally built their space capsule way too small for an adult. When Stan asks how that could have happened, one of the agents snippily asks Stan if he always scores 100% on his math tests. Then there is the simple observational humor of life with a big family, like their wise older sister telling them all the secret information that the "squares" don't want them to know. I also loved a sequence where an enthusiastic Stan attempts to explain the plot of 2001: A Space Odyssey to an uninterested classmate at recess.

Finally, I enjoyed the way that the film approached the idea of space travel. There's one monologue where Stan describes the mix of emotions he felt as a child. With the Cold War raging, the future seemed both frightening and incredibly exciting. There was danger, but also the possibility of scientific discovery. This feeling extends to the sequences in space. Through Stan's imagined experience of training and then launching into space we can feel the thrill of it.

The only downside to the movie, in my opinion, is that sometimes the memories could skew a little overly broad. At times there are echoes of "hey, remember this thing?!" comedy, where nostalgia takes the place of an actual joke. But it's not so much that the movie doesn't have anything to say about these things, just that it seems to have so much it wants to mention and not enough time to do it.

This was a really cool film.

4

[Fabulous]

The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953)

3

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/8b6kPgWbPGCOGAT3lu7jltvzsNa.jpg

[Jackie Daytona]

SECONDS
(1966, Frankenheimer)

https://i.imgur.com/YEBN85e.jpg




Seconds follows a middle-aged banker that feels unfulfilled in his life, only to be approached by a company that offers him the chance to start a new life with a new identity through plastic surgery. What if you had that chane? Will you take it? After becoming "Tony Wilson" (Rock Hudson), the man realizes that it's not that easy to move forward and cut your ties to your past life.

One of the strengths of the film is Frankenheimer's direction, which is claustrophobic and oppressive. Regardless of the persona that Wilson is under, you can feel that he's never entirely free to move back or forward. "They made the decisions for me all over again", he says as he gets to another threshold in his life.

Grade: 4


Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2362386#post2362386)


Seconds is like a movie-length episode of The Twilight Zone. Extremely unsettling ending sequence.

[Horrorfool]

Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City (2021) :down:

[LChimp]

These are the ones I saw recently.


https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81Insz9s5PL.jpg

I think it tries too hard to be cool and all, but it is kinda entertaining. 06/10

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTM1NjUxMDI3OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjg1ODM3OA@@._V1_.jpg

I've seen a few scenes, but never the whole thing until now. 06/10.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.tmdb.org%2Ft%2Fp%2Foriginal%2FvZMgXag6i2SWpyphtQ9SKK9Qizt.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=ab5590be4fc1a4ed02a8da39663c65c5cde03485bf790e0c2cb058381feebdf0&ipo=images

Grease, 1978

Australian transplant Sandy (Olivia Newton-John) has a summer fling with a guy named Danny (John Travolta). But when the school year begins, and the two learn they attend the same high school, Sandy is shocked to find that Danny hangs out with a greaser crowd and feels the need to keep up a tough guy persona. As the school year goes on, complete with dance contests and drag races, it's unclear whether good girl Sandy and bad boy Danny can make it as a couple.

A few years ago, my local high school put on a production of Grease that I took my young students to see. At the time, I was like "Yikes!", because it wasn't the best. Now, years later, I owe those high schoolers an apology. They weren't the problem. Grease is the problem.

I will grant the film that at times its particular energy and the musical numbers intersect really well. "Beauty School Drop Out" is really funny. "You're the One That I Want" is really catchy. "Together Forever" is a fun, energetic closing number. It's also a film whose cast is clearly talented as performers. Newton-John and Travolta go all-in on their song and dance numbers. Stockard Channing, DiDi Conn, and Jeff Conaway are really solid and funny in their supporting roles.

I also enjoyed the set design and costumes, which really reflect the 70s looking back at the 50s. The colors pop, the dresses flow.

But while there are several strong elements to this film, the story is a bust. There are various plot lines---romantic dramas, Conn's character dropping out of school, a pregnancy scare, rivalry with another group of greasers---but I felt apathetic to just about all of it. A moment here or there makes an impact. Danny wanting to drop his tough guy act, only to chicken out and play the role despite knowing he's pushing Sandy away. Or Channing's barely concealed fear and vulnerability over an unexpected pregnancy. But for the most part I struggled to care about any of it, and the movie doesn't spend enough time on any of the subplots to really develop the conflicts or their impacts on the kids.

And the kids. The "kids". There's suspension of disbelief, and then there's people old enough to HAVE high school aged children playing teenagers. While this is obviously a really common practice in movies and TV, these actors and actresses really really look like they are in their 20s/30s. It kept jumping out at me through the whole runtime, despite the film's goofy tone and the fact that it's obviously not going for realism.

Fine, but not one I'd be eager to revisit.

3.5

[Yoda]

Saw The Menu last night. Really enjoyed it. I don't think it completely nails the delicate, absurd balance it's going for (and I think it could've gone to some more interesting places than the places it ultimately did).

Maybe the biggest issue is that there's just too much build up for us to be really shocked by most of what happens in the stretch run. When it can still surprise us, up to the film's middle point, it does so really well, but once you see what it's willing to do it doesn't have any extra reservoir of audacity.

Still a really fun, well-made film. 3.5, a good chunk of which is down to degree of difficulty.

EDIT: oh, and I agree with something I remember reading about how, since it covers some of the same satirical ground, seeing The Menu made them like Glass Onion less, and I have to agree.

[Gideon58]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNGI3MWYwYjItNzZhYi00ZWIzLTkyMzYtN2JmNjg3ODg1NTg4XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTMwMDA5ODU3._V1_.jpg


3.5

[Stirchley]

I can't say it's a favorite, although Tom Hanks pulls out the stops creating another character - A Man Called Otto - Otto is aging, grumpy, judgmental and lives a compulsively neat life on a rowhouse block in Pittsburgh. His wife died a few years back and he seems to be sinking into grouchiness and unhappiness over a world he doesn't control.

I feel that this movie has been done several times already.

THE DEAD

Good movie & one of James Joyce’s best short stories.

https://i.imgur.com/Vx7jgdX.jpg?2

And it amuses me no end that people will get up in arms over whether a Brooklyn accent sounds authentic or sounds like Jersey or Queens but it’s just fine to lump a fourth of the country into some ridiculous, borderline mocking, drawl. Typical.

I took Craig’s accent with a pinch of salt. I don’t think it was meant to sound authentic. Is he even meant to be a Southerner? Probably not - I don’t recall him ever saying where he was born.

I’m watching this movie now after a re-watch of the first movie. I like it so far.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8f/The_Last_Picture_Show_%28movie_poster%29.jpg
By https://www.movieposters.com/, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=6835938

The Last Picture Show - (1971)

This film really took me back and reminded me of what life (and sex) was like during those 'just graduating high school' days - it was so relatable and as a coming of age drama The Last Picture Show is grounded but fun.

Very interesting that you, an Australian, found this movie to be “so relatable” in terms of your own high school. Whereas me, as a Brit in prep school, I love the movie, but can’t relate to it at all. For one reason our school was all girls & all female teachers.

[Wooley]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.tmdb.org%2Ft%2Fp%2Foriginal%2FvZMgXag6i2SWpyphtQ9SKK9Qizt.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=ab5590be4fc1a4ed02a8da39663c65c5cde03485bf790e0c2cb058381feebdf0&ipo=images

Grease, 1978

Australian transplant Sandy (Olivia Newton-John) has a summer fling with a guy named Danny (John Travolta). But when the school year begins, and the two learn they attend the same high school, Sandy is shocked to find that Danny hangs out with a greaser crowd and feels the need to keep up a tough guy persona. As the school year goes on, complete with dance contests and drag races, it's unclear whether good girl Sandy and bad boy Danny can make it as a couple.

A few years ago, my local high school put on a production of Grease that I took my young students to see. At the time, I was like "Yikes!", because it wasn't the best. Now, years later, I owe those high schoolers an apology. They weren't the problem. Grease is the problem.

I will grant the film that at times its particular energy and the musical numbers intersect really well. "Beauty School Drop Out" is really funny. "You're the One That I Want" is really catchy. "Together Forever" is a fun, energetic closing number. It's also a film whose cast is clearly talented as performers. Newton-John and Travolta go all-in on their song and dance numbers. Stockard Channing, DiDi Conn, and Jeff Conaway are really solid and funny in their supporting roles.

I also enjoyed the set design and costumes, which really reflect the 70s looking back at the 50s. The colors pop, the dresses flow.

But while there are several strong elements to this film, the story is a bust. There are various plot lines---romantic dramas, Conn's character dropping out of school, a pregnancy scare, rivalry with another group of greasers---but I felt apathetic to just about all of it. A moment here or there makes an impact. Danny wanting to drop his tough guy act, only to chicken out and play the role despite knowing he's pushing Sandy away. Or Channing's barely concealed fear and vulnerability over an unexpected pregnancy. But for the most part I struggled to care about any of it, and the movie doesn't spend enough time on any of the subplots to really develop the conflicts or their impacts on the kids.

And the kids. The "kids". There's suspension of disbelief, and then there's people old enough to HAVE high school aged children playing teenagers. While this is obviously a really common practice in movies and TV, these actors and actresses really really look like they are in their 20s/30s. It kept jumping out at me through the whole runtime, despite the film's goofy tone and the fact that it's obviously not going for realism.

Fine, but not one I'd be eager to revisit.

3.5

Wow.
Would never have seen this reaction coming.
I was just thinking, oddly, this very morning that Grease is a movie that I would really watch at any time without the slightest hesitation. Anytime anybody wants to watch it, I'm game. And I got probably a dozen friends who would say the same. I love the nostalgia for 1961, I love everybody in it, especially Channing's Rizzo. I even find the the "lesser" T-birds to be endlessly amusing and I thought Eve Arden's principal was great fun along with Sid Freakin' Caesar as the Coach. I find the musical numbers, from "Summer Nights" to "Greased Lightning" to "Stranded At The Drive-in", "Born To Hand Jive", obviously "Beauty School Drop-out" (bringing in Frankie Avalon is a stroke of genius), hell, I even love the theme song, written by Andy Gibb (!) and performed by Frankie F*cking Valli (!!), just a big winner. It's a total buy-in for me and probably one of the best movie-musicals ever.
Frankly, your review is heresy.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimagizer.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F640x480q90%2F922%2FddMdPH.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=4beab1b6090f62d75f78e8a16048594c5e19289e2366a317cd3a2edae56fb28b&ipo=images

Indecent Desires, 1968

A man named Zeb (Michael Alaimo) finds a blonde doll in a public trash can one day. Taking the doll home, he realizes that it bears some resemblance to a neighbor he lusts after, Ann (Sharon Kent). Ann is seeing a man named Tom (Trom Little), though the two have their on and off moments. As Zeb becomes more obsessed and jealous regarding Ann, he uses the doll as a surrogate for his feelings and, through some undefined mechanic, what he does to the doll happens to Ann.

This is a softcore film from Doris Wishman that the IMDb classifies as a drama/fantasy, but in my opinion this is a horror film smashed together with sexploitation in a way that only makes the horrific parts hit harder.

Maybe the most fascinating thing about this movie is how clearly you can see the goofier, sexier and less terrifying version of this story. A man finds a doll. As he touches it, his object of desire feels the touch of his hands and, while at first alarmed or confused, soon comes to enjoy these mystery sensations. Insert a few cheesecake sequences of her rolling around in pleasure, then find some way for the man and woman to come together with no need for the doll.

But this is very much not that movie, and the ways that it deviates from that softer version of the story renders what happens on screen a lot darker. I'm not so ignorant as to think that there aren't people who would get off on the idea of causing a woman pain, or having control over a woman, and so on. But for a movie that starts out with very lighthearted soft-nudity sequences, it's a surprise to see it venture into that more upsetting territory.

The film gets to this place via both Ann and Zeb's sides of the story. From Ann's side, her reaction is actually kind of realistic. And that is to say that she's incredibly upset by experiencing these sudden sensations and thinks that she's going crazy or having some sort of a nervous breakdown. We repeatedly watch Ann cry over these episodes, and the stress and embarrassment drives a wedge between her and Tom. On Zeb's side of things, his treatment of the doll is pretty icky to watch. Even the "sexy" parts--the groping and undressing--are shot with close-ups and over-the-shoulder angles that give it a predatory vibe. And when Zeb gets angry at Ann (who, remember, doesn't know him or know he has a crush on her), he punishes the doll by burning or hitting it, resulting in real injuries to Ann.

I've found with Wishman that it's hard to nail down what exactly I think she's getting at with her films. She often creates situations and uses filming techniques that are exaggerated to the point that they feel like they might be poking a bit of fun at the kind of people who would watch such films. I'm probably not her target audience, but is there any other response than laughter when the action is interrupted so that we can watch a woman do a series of exercises in the nude? Honestly, this movie is so disturbing on some levels that I have to think there's some kind of nod toward objectification. I mean, come on:
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2F366weirdmovies.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F04%2Findecent_desires.jpg%3Fw%3D450%26ssl%3D1&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=da45a733bee7bd23844e2a89c29b97ccc448989a395de111ee79dcb53e2d720c&ipo=images

This being a Wishman film, naturally the dialogue has all been dubbed over with medium attention to accuracy. The performances are . . . fine. The camera circles and zooms unexpectedly.

I don't know. This movie kind of gave me viewer whiplash. It's a very disturbing premise with some very disturbing sequences, intermixed with cheesy nudie scenes. I'm not sure I'd recommend it, but I can definitely say that I wasn't bored!

3.5

[Stirchley]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimagizer.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F640x480q90%2F922%2FddMdPH.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=4beab1b6090f62d75f78e8a16048594c5e19289e2366a317cd3a2edae56fb28b&ipo=images

Indecent Desires

Yikes, he looks like the murderer of those students in Moscow, Idaho.

[Takoma11]

Wow.
Would never have seen this reaction coming.
.
.
.
Frankly, your review is heresy.

You thought I'd watch a movie where one guy asks another "Did she put up a fight?" and be . . . charmed?

There are lots of great pieces to this film, but they didn't really cohere for me. And while, yeah, it's just a big dumb musical, it's conclusions about how you should just change your personality for someone else aren't my thing.

Yikes, he looks like the murderer of those students in Moscow, Idaho.

Yeah, Zeb is not a great dude.

[Captain Terror]

I'm not a huge Grease fan, but the high point is clearly Hopelessly Devoted to You. *sigh*
:bawling:


EDIT: I somehow didn't get around to seeing it until sometime in the past 20 years. But thanks to a neighborhood girl who owned the LP, I had the soundtrack memorized as a kid.

[Wooley]

You thought I'd watch a movie where one guy asks another "Did she put up a fight?" and be . . . charmed?

There are lots of great pieces to this film, but they didn't really cohere for me. And while, yeah, it's just a big dumb musical, it's conclusions about how you should just change your personality for someone else aren't my thing.



That was mean. You picked out the most horrific moment in the film and threw it in my face? I thought we were friends.
Jesus, I hate that line.
But anyway, you're wrong, it's a wonderful movie.

[Takoma11]

But anyway, you're wrong, it's a wonderful movie.

You know what, I will meet you halfway.

It's the best movie I've ever seen where a 30-year-old high schooler learned the importance of getting a perm and taking up smoking so that a boy will like you. :)

[Fabulous]

Thunder Road (1958)

3

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/duWl0uqNW3WVG1QyyiPZXjB7FpQ.jpg

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.alternateending.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F04%2Ffortygunsbkgd.jpeg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=ab97437a6c72ccd8fdef9b619f65efc6aa99724b4e8dbfc0d8f2de8194b7c0c6&ipo=images

Forty Guns, 1957

Griff Bonell (Barry Sullivan) and his brothers Wes (Gene Barry) and Chico (Robert Dix) arrive in an Arizona town in order to serve a warrant. The man they are seeking is in the employ of a woman named Jessica Drummond (Barbara Stanwyck), who basically rules the town through a combination of wealth and a large army of hired guns. When the Bonell brothers end up staying in town, partly due to Wes falling in love with a local girl, conflict grows between them and Jessica's wild younger brother, Brockie (John Ericson).

This western was directed by Samuel Fuller, and boy does it shine with his inspired visuals and set-pieces that hit you like a punch.

This review could basically be a laundry list of amazing moments from the film. I will resist that temptation, but let's talk about a handful of them.

Fuller makes Jessica into a wonderful, imposing figure. Clad in all black, she is the kind of person who moves through the world with no doubt that everyone will just get out of her way. She leads her troupe of forty hired guns, and in the scenes where they ride after her, it's like someone trailing a deadly cape of armed men. Early in the film, we meet the town's current marshal, a man named Ned Logan (Dean Jagger) who is losing his eyesight. In several sequences, we see things from Logan's point of view, an out-of-focus blur. When Logan is challenged to a duel by Brockie, Fuller takes us back into Logan's eyes, and we have to contemplate the horror of trying to defend oneself in a gunfight without being able to see.

The third act is packed with amazing imagery, much of which would venture very deep into spoiler territory. There is a sequence at a wedding and then a final showdown that I thought were simply incredible.

I was admittedly so-so on the development of the romance between Griff and Jessica. I get a little tired of the plot where a woman has power, and the lesson is that she just needs a man's love to soften her into a "real" woman and then she's happy to give it all up for her man. (The film's theme song declares "But if someone could break her/And take her whip away,/Someone big, someone strong, someone tall,/You may find that the woman with a whip/Is only a woman after all."). There's a pretty awesome sequence in one part of the film that suggests they might avoid this trope (and from what I read about the movie, Fuller wanted an ending that avoided it), but alas. I at least appreciate that the film shows that their attraction to one another mostly comes out of mutual respect.

The performances here are all good. Sullivan brings a low key confidence and authority to Griff, which contrasts with the more enthusiastic personalities of his two brothers. Stanwyck is great as Jessica, a woman who has allowed her loyalty to her brother to keep her from keeping him under control. I also thought Ericson brought a great wild child energy to his performance as Brockie. We all know this person: guarded by wealth and power, no one has ever said no to him in his life. And because he has no fear of consequences, he'll get someone pregnant or shoot someone just because and not think twice about it. His raw, indulgent personality makes for a great contrast with the more controlled Griff.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slantmagazine.com%2Fimages%2Fmade%2Fassets%2Ffilm%2Ffortyguns_1130_430_90_s_c1.j pg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=551636ba110e41cdcd457a176bc9b786f1dea0886d6e234bfbe5334ef74d6c8f&ipo=images

I do wish that the film had had the guts to end things with that stone cold shot of Griff walking past the fallen Jessica, retreating away from the camera as Chico scoops her up off of the ground and never even looking back. Apparently in the original ending he kills her to get to Brockie, and I think that would have been a much more powerful way to bring the story to a close.

Recommended for sure based on the way that the film is shot, but it's also a pretty good story with great performances.

4

[crumbsroom]

I enjoy Grease, but it is the last movie in the world I would be surprised over someone disliking. Like, it's an aggressively dopey movie, with such a goofy tone that (if one isn't on its wavelength) it could quickly veer off into irritating territory.

[Takoma11]

I enjoy Grease, but it is the last movie in the world I would be surprised over someone disliking. Like, it's an aggressively dopey movie, with such a goofy tone that (if one isn't on its wavelength) it could quickly veer off into irritating territory.

Right. And on the flip side, despite being pretty lukewarm on it, I can totally see why some people LOVE it.

It's not so much "I don't get it!" as it is "Yeah, I get it. Not for me, thanks."

[Thief]

SHADOWS
(1959, Cassavetes)

https://i.imgur.com/umlg83N.png


"I thought being with you would be so important - would mean so much. That afterwards two people would be as close as it's possible to get. But, instead, we're just two strangers."



Set in New York City, Shadows follows the lives of three black siblings: struggling jazz musicians Ben and Hugh, and their light-skinned, younger sister Lelia, and their relationships with several other characters. The focus of the story falls mostly on Lelia (Lelia Goldoni), who starts a relationship with Tony (Anthony Ray). But things get complicated when he meets her brothers and finds out she's black.

Shadows is an interesting experiment. Filmed in 1957, released in 1958, and reworked in 1959, it went through a metamorphosis of sorts. The film was devised and promoted as a mostly improvisational work, which might've resulted in the poor reception it had on its first release. Cassavetes then went back to the drawing board to rework the film. This tinkering is probably the source of my main issue, which has to do with the rather loose narrative.

Grade: 3.5


Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2362718#post2362718)

[Wooley]

You know what, I will meet you halfway.

It's the best movie I've ever seen where a 30-year-old high schooler learned the importance of getting a perm and taking up smoking so that a boy will like you. :)

:p

[Wooley]

I enjoy Grease, but it is the last movie in the world I would be surprised over someone disliking. Like, it's an aggressively dopey movie, with such a goofy tone that (if one isn't on its wavelength) it could quickly veer off into irritating territory.

That's what makes it great. It's unapologetically upbeat and all in.

[GulfportDoc]

...
The Last Picture Show - (1971)

This film really took me back and reminded me of what life (and sex) was like during those 'just graduating high school' days - it was so relatable and as a coming of age drama The Last Picture Show is grounded but fun. There's a lot of emotional grist to this, with the close relationships typical to a small town playing a role in shaking up everyone whenever something with a lot of gravity happens. That might be a death, a break-up or someone leaving. Jeff Bridges went from television to being an Oscar-nominated actor in a major film, and never looked back. I really enjoyed watching him in Bad Company, which came out soon after this. The black and white cinematography, with it's soft dream-like glow, really works well for this. Glad to have finally seen it.

8/10
This is one of my favorite films. It still holds up today. I saw this film in London while the band I was in was on tour from the States. It made me so homesick that I wanted to get on a plane and go back home! And I'll be forever grateful to Orson Welles for telling Bogdanovich that he must shoot the film in black and white.

[Thief]

DRIVING MISS DAISY
(1989, Beresford)

https://i.imgur.com/s7sKUlU.jpg


Daisy: "Hoke?"
Hoke: "Yes'm."
Daisy: "You're my best friend."
Hoke: "No, go on Miss Daisy."
Daisy: "No, really, you are... You are."



Set in 1948, Driving Miss Daisy follows Daisy (Jessica Tandy), a widowed and retired schoolteacher that is forced by her son to take a chauffeur (Morgan Freeman) after a small car accident. Despite her initial reluctance and bigotry against Hoke, we see how their relationship grows and evolves through the course of 20 years.

My friend ApexPredator said it best when he told me that it worked "best as a character study of two people who are missing something and find a connection that leads to friendship ... As a civil rights film, it's less effective.", and I like how accurate that is. Thankfully, the film has Tandy and Freeman to make that connection feel like something somewhat believable and pleasant, despite the shortcomings of the script.

Grade: 2


Full review on my Movie Loot (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2362727#post2362727)

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_yKAxZm9Y_wg%2FTUWD1o2aeMI%2FAAAAAAAAHs4%2FucHN-_QBGHo%2Fs1600%2Fqueen-of-spades-28014_1.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=3fb62a321da12d0d2e59520dafc7112aca8dc33deea4bbbd7ebfd7ccd59c905d&ipo=images

The Queen of Spades, 1949

Herman (Anton Walbrook) is a military officer who is always hesitant to play cards for fear of losing his money. He reads in a book about an elderly countess (Edith Evans) who traded her soul for the ability to win at cards. Determined to learn her secret, Herman sets about seducing her ward, Lizaveta (Yvonne Mitchell), so that he can have access to the countess's home. One of Herman's comrades, Andrei (Ronald Howard), realizes he doesn't intend to actually be with Lizaveta and tries to stop what's happening. But Herman is determined to learn the secret at any cost.

It's been years since a friend first recommended this film, and I was delighted to see it pop up on one of my services. This is a visually rich twist on the old devil's bargain/monkey paw situation.

Herman makes for a fascinating anti-hero. He's the kind of man who believes that he is essentially owed greatness and wealth by the world and carries around a sort of exasperation at not having been handed the things he wants. He is so certain that it is right and correct for him to have the information he needs that he never stops to question the unethical, hurtful things he does to get it.

I also really enjoyed the character of the countess. Here you have a woman who has supposedly been enmeshed in a devil's bargain for decades. At times she seems lost in time and place, greeting people only to realize that she actually knew their grandfather or great aunt. She is also deeply paranoid, disliking it if anyone comes up behind her. But is she actually the woman from the legend, or is she merely an elderly woman with a normal fear of death and the unknown?

Outside of the story itself, the visuals in this film are great. I couldn't find a still of it, but there's a moment when Herman approaches Lizaveta and though she's looking in a mirror, it's his face that fills the glass. The movie utilizes angles and close-ups to put us into the point of view of the different characters. I especially liked a scene--imagined from the book about people who lost their souls--in which the forfeited souls are portrayed as tiny figures under bell jars. It's very reminiscent of a similar scene from Bride of Frankenstein.

The curse/bargain itself is kept vague, and I think that this was a great choice. It keeps the film from getting bogged down in a question of how the "rules" work. It also means that we do not know exactly the price that the countess has paid for her gift at cards. When Herman tells her that he would gladly assume the price of her gift, he does not even know what he is agreeing to.

The film is mostly taken up with Herman's scheming. His plans finally start to gel in the last act, and the movie ends with a very memorable finale. While the overall arc of the film might be predictable, it's all tied up (sort of . . . ) in a very satisfying way.

Good stuff!

4

[Takoma11]

That's what makes it great. It's unapologetically upbeat and all in.

Now this I agree with.

It's like, hey ladies, go ahead and have unprotected sex! Sure, you'll be worried for a week or two that you're pregnant. But then it will just turn out you aren't! YAY!

:p

[ApexPredator]

I'm not a huge Grease fan, but the high point is clearly Hopelessly Devoted to You. *sigh*
:bawling:


EDIT: I somehow didn't get around to seeing it until sometime in the past 20 years. But thanks to a neighborhood girl who owned the LP, I had the soundtrack memorized as a kid.

Facts.

Complaining about the age of the high school students and/or the "messages" of Grease is like complaining about the wires in Emmet Otter's Jugband Christmas. I can see them just like you can, but where you see a weakness, I see a homespun charm.

I guess Grease works for me in a similar way. Sure, there are flaws. But I'm willing to overlook them for the fun parts and nostalgia.

[gbgoodies]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimage.tmdb.org%2Ft%2Fp%2Foriginal%2FvZMgXag6i2SWpyphtQ9SKK9Qizt.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=ab5590be4fc1a4ed02a8da39663c65c5cde03485bf790e0c2cb058381feebdf0&ipo=images

Grease, 1978

Australian transplant Sandy (Olivia Newton-John) has a summer fling with a guy named Danny (John Travolta). But when the school year begins, and the two learn they attend the same high school, Sandy is shocked to find that Danny hangs out with a greaser crowd and feels the need to keep up a tough guy persona. As the school year goes on, complete with dance contests and drag races, it's unclear whether good girl Sandy and bad boy Danny can make it as a couple.

A few years ago, my local high school put on a production of Grease that I took my young students to see. At the time, I was like "Yikes!", because it wasn't the best. Now, years later, I owe those high schoolers an apology. They weren't the problem. Grease is the problem.

I will grant the film that at times its particular energy and the musical numbers intersect really well. "Beauty School Drop Out" is really funny. "You're the One That I Want" is really catchy. "Together Forever" is a fun, energetic closing number. It's also a film whose cast is clearly talented as performers. Newton-John and Travolta go all-in on their song and dance numbers. Stockard Channing, DiDi Conn, and Jeff Conaway are really solid and funny in their supporting roles.

I also enjoyed the set design and costumes, which really reflect the 70s looking back at the 50s. The colors pop, the dresses flow.

But while there are several strong elements to this film, the story is a bust. There are various plot lines---romantic dramas, Conn's character dropping out of school, a pregnancy scare, rivalry with another group of greasers---but I felt apathetic to just about all of it. A moment here or there makes an impact. Danny wanting to drop his tough guy act, only to chicken out and play the role despite knowing he's pushing Sandy away. Or Channing's barely concealed fear and vulnerability over an unexpected pregnancy. But for the most part I struggled to care about any of it, and the movie doesn't spend enough time on any of the subplots to really develop the conflicts or their impacts on the kids.

And the kids. The "kids". There's suspension of disbelief, and then there's people old enough to HAVE high school aged children playing teenagers. While this is obviously a really common practice in movies and TV, these actors and actresses really really look like they are in their 20s/30s. It kept jumping out at me through the whole runtime, despite the film's goofy tone and the fact that it's obviously not going for realism.

Fine, but not one I'd be eager to revisit.

3.5



It's a shame that you didn't like Grease more. I'll agree that it has some issues with the story, and especially the ages of the actors, but overall it's a lot of fun, it has some great songs, and it's a musical that I've seen many, many times. I think the good stuff far outweighs the minor issues.

[Horrorfool]

Cabin in the Woods (2011) :up:

Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (2022) :down:

[Horrorfool]

Men (2022) :down:

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2d/TriangleOfSadness2022Poster.jpg
By NEON - IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71522525

Triangle of Sadness - (2022)

Been looking forward to this film from Ruben Östlund and it really didn't let me down - there's been some great new films coming out these days and I'm happy about that - but this is something special. After Force Majeure and The Square I thought there might have been a let-down, but Triangle of Sadness is one of the best films I've ever seen about the rich - a perfect allegory for what's going on these days, and the insane attitudes of those who are wealthy. It has some truly knockout scenes, and some of the most inanely awful characters you're ever likely to come across. Around two-thirds take place on a yacht where the crew and servants have been instructed to say yes to absolutely anything the guests ask of them - which leads to all kind of lunacy. This film really deserved it's Palme d'Or, and is a film that illustrates our time in a really meaningful way. I don't like to give much away for those who are going to see the film - especially when it's this good. Highly recommended.

9/10

[Wooley]

Now this I agree with.

It's like, hey ladies, go ahead and have unprotected sex! Sure, you'll be worried for a week or two that you're pregnant. But then it will just turn out you aren't! YAY!

:p

You are a big meanie.

[Sedai]

Wooley

If you want your reviews tagged for the system, please drop a popcorn rating into the posts.

Thanks!

[Wooley]

Wooley

If you want your reviews tagged for the system, please drop a popcorn rating into the posts.

Thanks!

Shit, I forgot!

[Takoma11]

It's a shame that you didn't like Grease more. I'll agree that it has some issues with the story, and especially the ages of the actors, but overall it's a lot of fun, it has some great songs, and it's a musical that I've seen many, many times. I think the good stuff far outweighs the minor issues.

The ages of the actors things was a more minor complaint.

Really I felt like the story was thin and so were the characters. There were a lot of parts that I could tell were supposed to be a lot of fun (like the long montage of Danny doing the different PE events) that just didn't engage me.

It didn't work its magic on me, and so all those little nitpicks just started rearing their heads.

[beelzebubble]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_yKAxZm9Y_wg%2FTUWD1o2aeMI%2FAAAAAAAAHs4%2FucHN-_QBGHo%2Fs1600%2Fqueen-of-spades-28014_1.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=3fb62a321da12d0d2e59520dafc7112aca8dc33deea4bbbd7ebfd7ccd59c905d&ipo=images

The Queen of Spades, 1949

Herman (Anton Walbrook) is a military officer who is always hesitant to play cards for fear of losing his money. He reads in a book about an elderly countess (Edith Evans) who traded her soul for the ability to win at cards. Determined to learn her secret, Herman sets about seducing her ward, Lizaveta (Yvonne Mitchell), so that he can have access to the countess's home. One of Herman's comrades, Andrei (Ronald Howard), realizes he doesn't intend to actually be with Lizaveta and tries to stop what's happening. But Herman is determined to learn the secret at any cost.

This was beautifully filmed. A gorgeous black and white movie. I was really looking for something from the 40's that I hadn't seen and was good. Thanks for the recommendation, Takoma.

[beelzebubble]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fpics.imcdb.org%2F5982%2Fsnapshot1979mp4_snapshot_004352112.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=c8ab98ca52b304269ed87457531912130bbf48fa4eff32d3e8449aa0da109a40&ipo=images

Snapshot (aka The Day After Halloween), 1979

Angela (Sigrid Thornton) is a young woman who works as a hairdresser, and finds herself chafing under the constant criticism of her overbearing mother and supposedly perfect little sister. One day a client at Angela's saloon, Madeline (Chantal Contouri), poaches Angela away to come and do some modeling for a friend of hers, Linsey (Hugh Keays-Byrne). After reluctantly agreeing to do a topless shoot, Angela finds herself the object of a lot of attention, most of it unwelcome. And things get worse as her much-older boyfriend, Daryl (Vincent Gil) steps up his campaign of stalking and harassment.

I enjoyed this movie. It was exactly the kind of 70's cheese I was looking for. The ending was wild. I don't know if Madeline is saving Angela or she is just another dangerous person.

[Takoma11]

This was beautifully filmed. A gorgeous black and white movie. I was really looking for something from the 40's that I hadn't seen and was good. Thanks for the recommendation, Takoma.

Glad you liked it!

I enjoyed this movie. It was exactly the kind of 70's cheese I was looking for. The ending was wild. I don't know if Madeline is saving Angela or she is just another dangerous person.

Yeah, I'm not sure that the film entirely earns the ending.

After all Madeline worked so hard to get Angela into the modeling stuff and could have easily given her advice to get out of it and Angela would have totally listened. It doesn't totally jibe that she was the one tormenting her, or at least doing some of the crazy stuff.

But this might partly come from the final edit having cut out some of the stuff involving Madeline.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.timeout.com%2Fimages%2F101526957%2F750%2F422%2Fimage.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=610629c910d3ccbd0bdb1fc82d6f61253d7dfb0c10f54acc90b475e688abfc20&ipo=images

Alice, 1988

In this stop-motion/live-action adaptation of Alice in Wonderland, young Alice (Kristýna Kohoutová) follows a re-animated taxidermy rabbit into a strange world where all of the creatures are made up of found objects and an awful lot of small animal skulls.

Alice in Wonderland is already a pretty weird story that, at times, really leans into a kind of dream logic. This film seems to take that energy and perpetually say, "Right, but could it be a little more upsetting?".

Generally speaking I really enjoy the kind of stop motion employed by this film. I'm a big fan of Blood Tea and Red String and many of the shorts I've seen from Svankmajer. A conceit of many movies where the child protagonist has maybe imagined/dreamed the events is that the ideas are inspired by their bedroom/surroundings. This film takes that to an extreme by having the creatures appear as animated everyday objects like socks or playing cards.

One of the best things about any adaptation of this story is the ability to play around with scale. This film does that not only in resizing Alice in various ways, but also switching between her larger self being played by a real girl and her smaller self portrayed as an animated doll. This also leads to some very memorable (and disturbing! very disturbing!) visuals, such as Alice's real eyes peering out from the doll's face or the real Alice emerging from the belly of her doll-self.

There are lots of other fun and whimsical visuals, though each has its own share of nightmare fuel. This movie's version of the caterpillar has glass eyes, dentures for teeth, and when it's ready for bed it sews its own eyes shut. So, yeah, plenty to take in on the imagery front.

This is a film that you mainly enjoy as a sort of free-flowing sequence of events. The already-abstract narrative of Alice in Wonderland is further abstracted here, as the film really embraces the dream-logic element of the story. This means that the movie doesn't conform to the typical narrative rhythms and pacing, but that's also sort of the point.

A very enjoyable take on a classic story.

4

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/NMCWBc7K/awfultruth.jpg
Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=86862743

The Awful Truth - (1937)

After seeing quite a few old films with Cary Grant in them like Bringing up Baby and Arsenic and Old Lace last year, not to mention films by the likes of Leo McCarey (Make Way For Tomorrow) I have a whole line-up that I want to get through this year. The Awful Truth was pretty high up on the list, and it really is one of the good ones. The big surprise for me was Irene Dunne, who I don't think I've ever seen before, and seemed to match Cary Grant as well as have some kind of comedic connection with him that gave the pair great chemistry. She was quite funny - and of course Grant had just found himself as a comedian and romantic lead. These films open further doors, because Grant and Dunne also starred in My Favorite Wife and Penny Serenade together. I thought The Awful Truth was extremely funny, and McCarey seems to get the absolute most even out of actors who play peripheral characters - getting them to shine. Lucy and Jerry Warriner (Dunne and Grant) divorce because of their dishonesty with each other, but can't help but meddle in each other's love life because of the love they still have for each other. It's a simple plot that opens the door for a lot of fun, for the post-divorce romantic interests for each character have many flaws. Next up for me is Love Affair.

8/10

[edarsenal]

https://www.classicmoviefavorites.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/The-Cincinnati-Kid-03.jpg
https://i0.wp.com/crimsonkimono.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/026-ann-margret-theredlist.jpg
https://pnimg.net/w/articles/4/561/fc035072e7.jpg

The Cincinnati Kid (1965) 4+ Steve McQueen is the upcoming Stud Poker Challenger sitting down with the King, Edward G. Robinson in the ennobled rendition of the age-old tale of epic card playing while still displaying the flaws of its characters.

Set in New Orleans, I was pretty much hooked right from the get-go, the opening backroom dive card game with Dub Taylor dealing.
https://www.aveleyman.com/Gallery/2023/01/16913-3439-0.jpg
continuing from there with many secondary favorites along with the leads mentioned above Karl Malden (Shooter), the Kid's father figure and fellow card sharp; Joan Blondell with the moniker Lady Fingers; Rip Torn as a Southern gentleman who doesn't take too lightly being "gutted" by Edward G. Robinson's character. Tuesday Weld is the sweet girl waiting on the Kid to show her the devotion he has for cards. And finally, dear lord almighty, one of the MOST sizzlingly diabolically mischievous kittens purring in pleasure at the havoc they cause is Ann-Margret as Karl Malden's wife, Melba.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b6/f8/a7/b6f8a716099410600004859494f42376.gif

Her introduction includes this little tiff between hubby and wife:

[Shooter's wife Melba is altering a jigsaw puzzle piece with a nail file]
Shooter: Melba, why do you do that?
Melba: So it'll fit, stupid.
Shooter: No, I'm not talking about that. What I'm asking is, do you have to cheat at everything?
Melba: At everything?
Shooter: Yes. At... solitaire. I've yet to see you play one game of solitaire without cheating.
Melba: So what?
Shooter: Look, you're just cheating yourself, don't you understand? You'll be the loser, no one else but yourself!... You've ruined the puzzle; that doesn't go in there.
[She forces the altered piece into place]
Melba: Does now.

Tack on a very satisfying ending making for a mighty fine enjoyment.

[gbgoodies]

It's a shame that you didn't like Grease more. I'll agree that it has some issues with the story, and especially the ages of the actors, but overall it's a lot of fun, it has some great songs, and it's a musical that I've seen many, many times. I think the good stuff far outweighs the minor issues.

The ages of the actors things was a more minor complaint.

Really I felt like the story was thin and so were the characters. There were a lot of parts that I could tell were supposed to be a lot of fun (like the long montage of Danny doing the different PE events) that just didn't engage me.

It didn't work its magic on me, and so all those little nitpicks just started rearing their heads.


I loved the montage with Danny trying a bunch of different sports. The best part was watching the coach figure out what to do with Danny each time he tried fighting with his teammates. :lol:

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I think this is one of those movies that you just have to sit back and enjoy it without reading too much into it. It's just supposed to be fun, not a heavy drama where the little details matter.

[pahaK]

It's been ages since I've posted my recent watches, so here it goes. There are also surprisingly few of them.

90963

[Captain Terror]

Alice in Wonderland is already a pretty weird story that, at times, really leans into a kind of dream logic. This film seems to take that energy and perpetually say, "Right, but could it be a little more upsetting?"

Is it weird that this is one of my perennial comfort watches? Like when I deliberately want to peacefully doze off on the couch?

[Horrorfool]

Violent Night (2022) :down:

[crumbsroom]

Alice was my first Svankmajer and my favorite. I didn't even know a thing about it when I rented it some twenty five years ago (still my preferred way to go into a movie even if I've softened a bit... there was a time when I considered knowing a films genre or even it's running time as a spoiler). And while I don't remember a lot about any of the films particulars, the effect of the film has never left me. It immediately put Svankmajer in the league of cinematic geniuses, as far as I was concerned. One of my great blind watches of that time (of many many blind watches)

[Wooley]

https://i.postimg.cc/NMCWBc7K/awfultruth.jpg
Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=86862743

The Awful Truth - (1937)

After seeing quite a few old films with Cary Grant in them like Bringing up Baby and Arsenic and Old Lace last year, not to mention films by the likes of Leo McCarey (Make Way For Tomorrow) I have a whole line-up that I want to get through this year. The Awful Truth was pretty high up on the list, and it really is one of the good ones. The big surprise for me was Irene Dunne, who I don't think I've ever seen before, and seemed to match Cary Grant as well as have some kind of comedic connection with him that gave the pair great chemistry. She was quite funny - and of course Grant had just found himself as a comedian and romantic lead. These films open further doors, because Grant and Dunne also starred in My Favorite Wife and Penny Serenade together. I thought The Awful Truth was extremely funny, and McCarey seems to get the absolute most even out of actors who play peripheral characters - getting them to shine. Lucy and Jerry Warriner (Dunne and Grant) divorce because of their dishonesty with each other, but can't help but meddle in each other's love life because of the love they still have for each other. It's a simple plot that opens the door for a lot of fun, for the post-divorce romantic interests for each character have many flaws. Next up for me is Love Affair.

8/10
One of my favorite Romantic Comedies of all time, if not No.1, and probably my second-favorite Cary Grant film.
And yes, Irene Dunne is truly great.

[LChimp]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81lZklBqnjL._AC_SX425_.jpg

Rewatch. Yes, both of them, back to back. Huge Jackie Chan fan, but these movies haven't aged well. The fighting/action scenes are still awesome thou

[Stirchley]

Alice in Wonderland is already a pretty weird story that, at times, really leans into a kind of dream logic.

Alice in Wonderland is not a “weird story”. It’s one of the most beautiful books ever written for children & it just so happens that it’s the first book I ever read by myself as a child. I was totally enchanted by it as I still am today.

[Takoma11]

Alice in Wonderland is not a “weird story”. It’s one of the most beautiful books ever written for children & it just so happens that it’s the first book I ever read by myself as a child. I was totally enchanted by it as I still am today.

It is weird, I think. "Weird" is not a word that I use as a pejorative. It is wonderfully weird. There's a baby that turns into a pig and a hookah-smoking caterpillar that lectures a little girl on grammar usage.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I think this is one of those movies that you just have to sit back and enjoy it without reading too much into it. It's just supposed to be fun, not a heavy drama where the little details matter.

I was trying to sit back and enjoy it! It's why I put it on. But when a movie fails to grip me, those little details start to pop out.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegallery.gr%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F07%2F9-1024x555.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=a018264cf1e9b099ee3de1392268b3082df287e078df0a9c6d562f4b5f09082a&ipo=images

Heavy Metal, 1981

In a series of stories connected by the presence of a mysterious glowing green sphere that seems to bring out the worst in people, aliens and space explorers and sexually adequate robots work their way through a series of conflicts.

Ah, yes. One of those works of art that seems to testify as to both the creativity and utter lack of imagination of people working in the fantasy/sci-fi realm.

There's certainly plenty of talent on display here, including some really cool visuals and some winning voice performances. The absolute highlight is John Candy's "gee whiz!" performance as a bookish guy who is somehow transported across the galaxy and into the lumbering, muscular purple frame of an alien warrior who must rescue a statuesque Earth woman who is slated for human sacrifice.

But, to be blunt, it's hard to enjoy a movie like this when your eyes are rolling so much. There's a kind of self-awareness in some of the earlier segments that at least bring some humor to the rampant horniness, like the average Joe cab driver saying he must have "really turned on" the very obvious femme fatale who inexplicably decides to bed him. Or the "golly gee!" attitude of Candy's character.

But as the film goes on, the sameness of the adolescent jerk-off material starts to get really old. It's not that there's a lot of nudity so much as the fact that it's the same nudity over and over and over. Every story in this film has exactly one or two women, and they've all been traced from the same well-worn porn magazine. (Oh, they are also all white, because apparently in the future you can be purple but not Latino or Black). What starts out feeling indulgent and juvenile (but maybe in a fun way?) takes this turn into being pathetic. When the alien queen is revealed to be doing a human sacrifice in a cape and mask but also topless, I groaned. By the time the last segment began with a very familiar looking body putting on a g-string, I just felt embarrassed for the people making the film.

There is real talent involved in the different aspects of the film, but boy did it mostly feel wasted. By the second half, the word "boring" started rearing its head. This should have been a lot better.

2.5

[crumbsroom]

How is Alice in Wonderland not a weird story? It's one of the sturdiest and most important tent poles for the entire surrealistic movement?

[Gideon58]

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/v2wAAOSwgw9bMWD6/s-l500.jpg


4

[beelzebubble]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegallery.gr%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F07%2F9-1024x555.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=a018264cf1e9b099ee3de1392268b3082df287e078df0a9c6d562f4b5f09082a&ipo=images

Heavy Metal, 1981

In a series of stories connected by the presence of a mysterious glowing green sphere that seems to bring out the worst in people, aliens and space explorers and sexually adequate robots work their way through a series of conflicts.

Ah, yes. One of those works of art that seems to testify as to both the creativity and utter lack of imagination of people working in the fantasy/sci-fi realm.

There's certainly plenty of talent on display here, including some really cool visuals and some winning voice performances. The absolute highlight is John Candy's "gee whiz!" performance as a bookish guy who is somehow transported across the galaxy and into the lumbering, muscular purple frame of an alien warrior who must rescue a statuesque Earth woman who is slated for human sacrifice.

But, to be blunt, it's hard to enjoy a movie like this when your eyes are rolling so much. There's a kind of self-awareness in some of the earlier segments that at least bring some humor to the rampant horniness, like the average Joe cab driver saying he must have "really turned on" the very obvious femme fatale who inexplicably decides to bed him. Or the "golly gee!" attitude of Candy's character.

But as the film goes on, the sameness of the adolescent jerk-off material starts to get really old. It's not that there's a lot of nudity so much as the fact that it's the same nudity over and over and over. Every story in this film has exactly one or two women, and they've all been traced from the same well-worn porn magazine. (Oh, they are also all white, because apparently in the future you can be purple but not Latino or Black). What starts out feeling indulgent and juvenile (but maybe in a fun way?) takes this turn into being pathetic. When the alien queen is revealed to be doing a human sacrifice in a cape and mask but also topless, I groaned. By the time the last segment began with a very familiar looking body putting on a g-string, I just felt embarrassed for the people making the film.

There is real talent involved in the different aspects of the film, but boy did it mostly feel wasted. By the second half, the word "boring" started rearing its head. This should have been a lot better.

rating_2_5
It sounds like it is exactly what I thought it was. Glad I missed it back in the olden times.

[Takoma11]

It sounds like it is exactly what I thought it was. Glad I missed it back in the olden times.

I went in with a pretty generous mentality and it was NOT rewarded, LOL.

[GulfportDoc]

The Awful Truth - (1937)

After seeing quite a few old films with Cary Grant in them like Bringing up Baby and Arsenic and Old Lace last year, not to mention films by the likes of Leo McCarey (Make Way For Tomorrow) I have a whole line-up that I want to get through this year. The Awful Truth was pretty high up on the list, and it really is one of the good ones. The big surprise for me was Irene Dunne, who I don't think I've ever seen before, and seemed to match Cary Grant as well as have some kind of comedic connection with him that gave the pair great chemistry. She was quite funny - and of course Grant had just found himself as a comedian and romantic lead. These films open further doors, because Grant and Dunne also starred in My Favorite Wife and Penny Serenade together. I thought The Awful Truth was extremely funny, and McCarey seems to get the absolute most even out of actors who play peripheral characters - getting them to shine. Lucy and Jerry Warriner (Dunne and Grant) divorce because of their dishonesty with each other, but can't help but meddle in each other's love life because of the love they still have for each other. It's a simple plot that opens the door for a lot of fun, for the post-divorce romantic interests for each character have many flaws. Next up for me is Love Affair.

8/10
IMO Irene Dunne was one of the best comedic actresses of the 20th Century, even though she thought of herself as a serious dramatic actress. But she was so good at comedy that they kept putting her in those type roles. Good picture.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimagizer.imageshack.com%2Fv2%2F640x480q90%2F922%2FMwo391.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=ec2abe16ec036982d6c4f9e2b46a1807515c127e44561a090106653f28118d74&ipo=images

Bad Girls Go to Hell, 1965

Meg (Gigi Darlene) is home alone when she is sexually assaulted by her apartment building's janitor. When he comes after her again a short while later, she hits and kills him. Afraid that no one will believe she acted in self-defense, Meg flees the city and goes on the run. But at every turn she finds herself at the mercy of people who want to take advantage of her.

Doris Wishman really is her own little cinematic island, isn't she? And that island is full of people wearing full-body fishnets and an askew houseplant, isn't it?

In my writing about Indecent Desires, I said that it was hard for me to get a read on exactly what Wishman was thinking as she smashed together a pretty disturbing horror/fantasy plot with some very silly nudie-cutie content. Having watched this film, I only feel more confident in saying that there is a stronger sense of intent to be disturbing while offering up the requisite cheesecake sequences.

The premise at the beginning is a bit goofy, even for a Wishman film. Meg deciding that she needs to up and leave her husband because "no one would believe" that she was attacked by the janitor, but rather . . . seduced and murdered him? Doesn't wash. Still, once she hits the road, things go in a grungy, slightly-surreal direction and the film really picks up steam.

My favorite sequence was probably the first, in which Meg is picked up by a man named Al (Sam Stewart). While Meg---and probably every audience member watching--is wary of his intentions, he is shockingly not interested in her. And when she realizes this, she deliberately provokes his anger.

This is a real turning point in the film, because despite Meg's seemingly helpless situation, she's maybe not exactly the story of someone who is an innocent victim. The emphasis in the different sequences is not on the sex itself, but the scenarios around the sex. Repeated shots, like a certain angle on clothing being removed, cast this more as Meg's fantasy than the fantasy of someone objectifying her. As the film goes on, the scenarios become more "high-end" for lack of a better word, in the way that they are shot, the colors used, etc. (I also think the people playing her attackers got more attractive, but that might be a very subjective observation).

And this is very interesting in light of the final 10 minutes or so, where it is revealed that this was all a dream of Meg's.

But something that the film does that I really appreciated, despite it being kind of disturbing, is at the very end where (MAJOR SPOILERS)having woken from the dream, Meg goes out into the hallway where her dream assault actually starts to take place as she is cornered by the janitor. Unlike in the dream version where Meg softly resisted and only threatened to scream, in this real attack, she looks terrified. The film ends on her screaming in fear.

Women fantasizing about non-consensual sex is a highly fraught topic. What I appreciate in this film is the way that it delineates between fantasy and reality. A fantasy about non-consensual sex and actual non-consensual sex are two really, REALLY different things. One is entirely in control the of the person being attacked, while the other is entirely out of their control. I don't mind a sexploitation film exploring the idea of non-consensual fantasy, but I very much appreciate that this one takes the time to draw a firm underline under the "fantasy" part of the equation.

This is probably my favorite thing that I've seen from Wishman. While I definitely enjoyed Double Agent 73 in a laughing-at-it kind of way, this film was genuinely involving, with the thriller and sexploitation elements sitting much closer together thematically. Yes, this one has all of the usual things you expect in her films---like the same room being used multiple times as different locations, or the wild zooms---but here it almost universally elevates and fits the nightmarish vibes.

4

[Fabulous]

The Silent Partner (1978)

3

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/uU0N4WJjQlExGM7MBkla2qAGBrr.jpg

[Act III]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYTAwMTY5YjYtN2U1MC00ZGUxLWE2NzgtM2E1NDQ0Njk2ZWJhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTMxMTY0OTQ@._V1_.jpg

This movie started off with a yawn but progressively got better and better. I watched this on new years eve. A classic. Going to add it to my collection. 7.5/10

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/27/Love_Affair.jpg
By http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_poster/love_affair_1939.htm, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=23969647,

Love Affair - (1939)

Remade as An Affair to Remember in 1957, Irene Dunne and Charles Boyer manage to shade Deborah Kerr and Cary Grant and all-up I found this version to be the tighter and funnier when it mattered. I remember liking An Affair to Remember quite a bit, and I have to wonder now if having seen this will spoil the newer version for me. It probably will a bit, but I really like the story - and I wouldn't mind seeing either one again. Leo McCarey made both versions, which is quite unusual I think, since the two films are so alike. Anyway, seeing Irene Dunne again has me wishing I had more of her films lined up ready to go - I wasn't planning on getting into her to such a degree that I'd want to see more films she's in, so I expect I'll be adding quite a few to my watchlist. Dunne and Boyer are just fantastic together, their dialogue bounding along in perfect harmony. What a year for the Academy Awards in 1940, having The Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind, Love Affair, Stagecoach, Dark Victory, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Ninotchka and three other adapted literary classics up for Best Picture. On an average year, any one of them would win hands down. Next up, The Philadelphia Story.

8/10

[StuSmallz]

You thought I'd watch a movie where one guy asks another "Did she put up a fight?" and be . . . charmed?I'm sorry, but I've seen this criticism of that line before, and I will never understand it; not to make a big deal about it because I'm otherwise a fan of Grease or something (since it's been way too long since I've watched it, and I'm not a huge Musical fan anyway), but the previous line in that song was literally "Was it love at first sight?", and then he says "Did she put up a fight?", which to me, implies that he meant "Was she hard to woo?" (as opposed to it being "love at first sight"), and not "Did she put up a fight as you were trying to get physically intimate with her, therefore making it non-consensual, and sexual assault?". I'm not saying it's a complete, 100% impossibility that the latter was meant, but the context makes me confident that it was more likely the former, and to just assume that he had to have meant the latter there feels like kind of a bad faith leap of faith in the assumption it makes, to be honest.

[Wooley]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegallery.gr%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F07%2F9-1024x555.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=a018264cf1e9b099ee3de1392268b3082df287e078df0a9c6d562f4b5f09082a&ipo=images

Heavy Metal, 1981

In a series of stories connected by the presence of a mysterious glowing green sphere that seems to bring out the worst in people, aliens and space explorers and sexually adequate robots work their way through a series of conflicts.

Ah, yes. One of those works of art that seems to testify as to both the creativity and utter lack of imagination of people working in the fantasy/sci-fi realm.

There's certainly plenty of talent on display here, including some really cool visuals and some winning voice performances. The absolute highlight is John Candy's "gee whiz!" performance as a bookish guy who is somehow transported across the galaxy and into the lumbering, muscular purple frame of an alien warrior who must rescue a statuesque Earth woman who is slated for human sacrifice.

But, to be blunt, it's hard to enjoy a movie like this when your eyes are rolling so much. There's a kind of self-awareness in some of the earlier segments that at least bring some humor to the rampant horniness, like the average Joe cab driver saying he must have "really turned on" the very obvious femme fatale who inexplicably decides to bed him. Or the "golly gee!" attitude of Candy's character.

But as the film goes on, the sameness of the adolescent jerk-off material starts to get really old. It's not that there's a lot of nudity so much as the fact that it's the same nudity over and over and over. Every story in this film has exactly one or two women, and they've all been traced from the same well-worn porn magazine. (Oh, they are also all white, because apparently in the future you can be purple but not Latino or Black). What starts out feeling indulgent and juvenile (but maybe in a fun way?) takes this turn into being pathetic. When the alien queen is revealed to be doing a human sacrifice in a cape and mask but also topless, I groaned. By the time the last segment began with a very familiar looking body putting on a g-string, I just felt embarrassed for the people making the film.

There is real talent involved in the different aspects of the film, but boy did it mostly feel wasted. By the second half, the word "boring" started rearing its head. This should have been a lot better.

2.5

Can't say I'm surprised this was not for you. As we know, this is probably one of my 10-25 favorite movies of all-time. But I was born at the right time and with the right set of hormones to match it.
That said, boobs aside, I think it's visually wonderful, smart, funny, exciting, and nostalgic. Every segment offers something really special to me. It's funny that the one that is most often cited as the "best" segment is one of the two with no boobs at all, and I know at least a couple people here have agreed to that point. But I find them all endlessly amusing, particularly Lincoln Stern's flirtation with the courtroom and the robot/Jewish girl affair while the two dope-fiend pilots trip on their last bag of Plutonium Nyborg (good Nyborg, man). But really, the best part for me is the final segment when the hero of the entire film, Taarna the Taarakian comes. She has actually been one of my favorite movie heroes, male or female, since I was 12 years old and she's a big part of the reason I was only ever attracted to strong, intense women (or maybe it's the other way around).
Ultimately, obviously this is a movie we just have to diverge on and wave as we pass as this movie was built by young males of the 70s for young males of the 70s (with anyone else it happened to hit with welcome to board) and I happen to be one of those.

[Torgo]

Belfast - 3

There's a lot to like about this autobiographical movie by Kenneth Branagh, which recounts his childhood during the Troubles. I appreciate the unusual cinematography for how it appropriately makes almost every shot resemble a photo in a family album. Also, every main performance deserved to be nominated for an Oscar, my favorite being Jude Hill's Buddy, who obviously was not just selected for resembling a young Branagh. There's also the Van Morrison-heavy soundtrack and the scenes like the one after the opening credits that make it easy to understand why Buddy and his family wonder if they should remain in their hometown. Colin Morgan, who has come a long way from Merlin, is truly menacing as the self-appointed, Catholic-hating leader of the neighborhood, and the scary stuff thankfully doesn't shirk on the violence.

With no disrespect to Branagh's childhood, and despite what I like about his depiction of it, the end results amount to pretty boilerplate stuff. It wouldn't be far off to sum it up as "Academy-Award nominated coming of age movie." If you thus assume if there are scenes when Buddy tries to woo the prettiest girl in class, his grandparents dispense advice while playfully chiding each other, his parents argue about money and Buddy tries to process the local pastor's scary sermon, you'd be right. The movie has other issues, such as not totally committing to letting us view the Troubles through Buddy's eyes. Again, the quality of the production is top-notch, I appreciate its history lesson, and for the most part, I think it's worth watching. I just wish Branagh and company had taken more risks and dug a little deeper instead of prioritizing the likelihood of standing on award podiums.

[Takoma11]

I'm sorry, but I've seen this criticism of that line before, and I will never understand it; not to make a big deal about it because I'm otherwise a fan of Grease or something (since it's been way too long since I've watched it, and I'm not a huge Musical fan anyway), but the previous line in that song was literally "Was it love at first sight?", and then he says "Did she put up a fight?", which to me, implies that he meant "Was she hard to woo?" (as opposed to it being "love at first sight"), and not "Did she put up a fight as you were trying to get physically intimate with her, therefore making it non-consensual, and sexual assault?". I'm not saying it's a complete, 100% impossibility that the latter was meant, but the context makes me confident that it was more likely the former, and to just assume that he had to have meant the latter there feels like kind of a bad faith leap of faith in the assumption it makes, to be honest.

I think you are misreading the song. The whole point of the song is contrasting the way that the girls and boys talk about the summer relationship. The boys ask "Did you get very far?" the girls ask "Does he have a car?". The girls ask "Was it love at first sight?" and the boys ask "Did she put up a fight?". Danny does pelvic thrusts talking about what they did under the dock, she says "We stayed out past 10 o'clock."

Him asking if she put up a fight is definitely a sexual reference.

But really, the best part for me is the final segment when the hero of the entire film, Taarna the Taarakian comes. She has actually been one of my favorite movie heroes, male or female, since I was 12 years old and she's a big part of the reason I was only ever attracted to strong, intense women (or maybe it's the other way around).

I'd love to be on board with that final segment, but the degree to which she's fetishized totally takes me out of it. Especially the whole bondage sequence. She fails to be a character. She 80% a body being posed for a male audience and it's super disappointing. None of the female characters get personalities.

[Yoda]

I don't see Stu saying anywhere that it isn't a "sexual reference," just that "did she put up a fight" means sweet-talking and persuasion, as opposed to force/assault.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fbuzz.tt%2Fmedia%2Fposters%2F1812%2Fbackdrops_1_1500.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=395f74d629dc57759af52d2d8c4daacc9048759e33b2d6d3c8bf82791eb0d8b7&ipo=images

Molly's Game, 2017

Molly Bloom (Jessica Chastain) is an Olympic-caliber athlete who, after a freak accident in a qualifying competition, finds her hopes of Olympic glory dashed. After floundering briefly, Molly finds her way into running high-stakes poker games. Eventually, this puts her on the radar of the FBI, and Molly turns to high profile lawyer Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) to help her beat some serious charges.

There are a lots of ups and downs in this based-on-a-true-story film. The performances are the definite strength, while the path of the story meanders at times.

Chastain is an assured lead as a woman who fakes it until she makes it to great success. Bloom comes from an incredibly accomplished family--with two brothers who achieve Olympic greatness and Ivy League success--and Chastain does a good job of embodying the way that this gives her both a confidence and an inferiority complex at the same time. Elba is charming as her blunt lawyer who just happens to be raising an accomplished teenage daughter and may see some of his hopes and fears in Molly. Elba and Chastain have an easy chemistry, and their scenes together are the strongest in the film.

As someone who doesn't gamble myself and really only gets exposure to it in movies and other pop culture, I appreciated that the film did just enough to keep me in the loop on the action without too much story-halting exposition.

But the writing ultimately drags this one down, despite the best efforts of the actors and a story that is pretty interesting. The narrative starts to spin its wheels around 2/3 of the way end, and I found the last 40 minutes to be a bit of a slog, even with the suspense about how Molly's case was going to turn out. The dialogue is very written, and as the film crosses the 80 minute mark, you can start to hear the actors trying to give fresh pace and tone to lines that sound a lot like what they've been saying for the last hour plus.

There are some good supporting turns. My favorite was maybe Bill Camp, playing a seasoned poker player who gets in too deep at one of Molly's games. The sequence of him losing his sense of proportion as he plays, and Molly's conflict over whether or not to cut him off, is one of the best parts of the film. Michael Cera is delightfully smarmy as an actor known only as "Player X". Kevin Costner tries his best as Molly's hard-driving father/coach, but the writing of his character is bad. Like, really bad. A scene at the end where he and Molly talk things out on a bench near a skating rink is pretty dreadful (starting with he knew that she'd be at the skating rink at this one specific location in New York City because he's a therapist and he's just that good, ya'll!).

It's a shame that I found the third act so lackluster. The opening half hour really sucked me into the film and I found it snappy and fun. But it all just slides steadily downhill as it goes until I got to the point where I just wanted it to be done and yet there was still half an hour left.

Fun performances, but the actors are ultimately let down by underwhelming writing and odd decisions in structure.

3.5

[Takoma11]

I don't see Stu saying anywhere that it isn't a "sexual reference," just that "did she put up a fight" means sweet-talking and persuasion, as opposed to force/assault.

I mean . . . yeah. Do I read the song as him asking if Danny raped Sandy? No, and I don't think I said that that's how I read it.

Is the phrase "put up a fight" in regards to getting a girl to sleep with you still a gross and kind of rape-y way to talk about having sex with someone? Yes. (In the "sanitized" version I saw with my students, they changed that line to "Did you stay out all night?" with a wink, which manages to give the same implications without any rapey undertones! Imagine!)

Is that lyric the least of the problems I had with Grease? Also yes.

[Gideon58]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNjBhZjNkNDItODcxMS00ZGNmLTk3ODUtOGU1NWI3N2Q3YmM1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMDM2NDM2MQ@@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.j pg


4.5

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/y8YBZjCR/philstory.jpg
By MGM - http://poster.scancollections.com/view.php?id=443197, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=59843667

The Philadelphia Story - (1940)

Nice to see an adaptation of this play where we have age-appropriate actors for all the characters - I found Bing Crosby in High Society a little off-putting. Cary Grant though - I have no problem with that - I love Cary Grant now, after seeing a whole heap of his movies over the past year or two. I never knew that early Cary Grant would turn out to be a comedic persona, but as far as feature films are concerned he was a great comedian. Here, he shares the spotlight with other actors, mainly Katharine Hepburn (with whom he made many films) and a very young James Stewart. Fine performances throughout, and a great screenplay - I enjoyed this just as much as I'm enjoying other films from this era lately. They showcase upper-class hijinks without alienating the audience - a tricky thing to do. Next up : Heaven Can Wait.

8/10

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcriterion-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fcarousel-files%2F42cc6aa49a0d292af10507e13142c885.jpeg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=fc1da06def15a352b7d75435751d610931832c94d470c0b9f8393ac48f004288&ipo=images

Chains, 1949

Rosa (Yvonne Sanson) is married to Guglielmo (Amedeo Nazzari), and they have two young children. But Rosa's life gets badly shaken up when her former lover/fiance, Emilio (Aldo Nicodemi) arrives in town. Not only has Emilio been involved in criminal activity, his attempts to rekindle his relationship with Rosa starts as flirting and quickly escalates to threats and blackmail. With her family starting to suspect something is going on, Rosa is put under great strain.

This film is made up of two very different parts: the first of which is a bit more thriller-like, and the second that gets more heavily into drama. While the first half--or more accurately the first 2/3---is the part I found more compelling, it makes for a solid watch from beginning to end.

Sanson plays a character who is on the receiving end of threats, attitude, and snarky remarks from basically every man in her life. That includes not only her son and her former flame, but even her adolescent son, Tonino (Gianfranco Magalotti). In wanting to do the right thing, Rosa finds herself trapped between the demands of her family and the threats of her former lover. Emilio works to ingratiate himself into the local society, all the better to drop little loving and later poisonous words into Rosa's ear.

Probably the best aspect of the film is the implicit acknowledgement that Rosa is still very attracted to Emilio, at least sexually. There's an energy that hangs between them that's more than just the tension of Rosa not wanting her husband to learn her secret. But despite being attracted to Emilio, she doesn't want to give into that temptation. She doesn't want to leave her family. She doesn't want to betray her husband. And the extremes that Rosa goes to in order to avoid temptation--such as basically holing herself up in her home so she won't have to run into Emilio--only put her more on the spot with everyone else, especially her suspicious son.

To discuss the second part of the movie would necessitate giving away a rather large plot point. Let's just say that despite her best efforts, things blow up in a pretty intense way, and naturally Rosa is at the forefront of the fallout. Despite her protestations of innocence, no one believes her. It's definitely true that people are often punished for having been objects of desire or having "tempted" someone, even if that was never their intention. What happens to Rosa in the second part takes this dynamic to an extreme.

This film is definitely high melodrama. Depending on how you respond to characters looking beseechingly up into the camera as tears roll down their cheeks, your mileage may vary. For the most part I was on board. I did wish that the film had done a bit more to develop the relationship between Rosa and her husband or between Rosa and her children. I was also a bit mixed on the celebration of the suffering wife and mother. Because the film doesn't seem to argue that she shouldn't have been suffering, so much as it's arguing that she's a good wife and mother because she is so willing to suffer and not hold grudges about it.

The film is beautifully shot and a strong mix of suspense and drama.

4

[crumbsroom]

I feel that line Grease is definitely rapey. And it's pretty obvious by the bros I'd see on dance floors get particularly invigorated by that line when they were singing along to it that it has been taken this way by a lot of people.


But I also don't think the song is condoning the way the guys are talking. I think it is a parody of the kind of egging on men will do with eachother. And, unfortunately, it comes from a real and observable place. If you're in a room with enough guys, it's rarely surprising when some comments start circling around these kinds of innuendos.


But, even though I think it is sort of satirizing that shit, the fact that the overall message of the film is 'cave into the expectations of others' makes the film seem kinda pro peer pressure so....at best the message becomes mixed.

[Takoma11]

But I also don't think the song is condoning the way the guys are talking. I think it is a parody of the kind of egging on men will do with each other. And, unfortunately, it comes from a real and observable place. If you're in a room with enough guys, it's rarely surprising when some comments start circling around these kinds of innuendos.

Right. I hope you're not all imagining that I was in my living room, my monocle shattered on the floor, fanning myself as I tried to recover from the idea that a teenage boy might have said something kind of problematic while talking about sex with other teenage boys.

But, even though I think it is sort of satirizing that shit, the fact that the overall message of the film is 'cave into the expectations of others' makes the film seem kinda pro peer pressure so....at best the message becomes mixed.

Exactly. As I wrote before, I think that the storyline itself is kind of muddled and lackluster, which means you have to lean on the characters. But very little about how these characters go about romance is very fun or healthy to me. I want to root for them, but there's very little to hold on to in that regard. It's not realistic enough to go that way, nor is it fun enough to lean that way.

[Wyldesyde19]

Right. I hope you're not all imagining that I was in my living room, my monocle shattered on the floor, fanning myself as I tried to recover from the idea that a teenage boy might have said something kind of problematic while talking about sex with other teenage boys.


This is exactly how I imagined your reaction was. Only, replace monocle with heart palpitations. Said heart palpitations were brought on by Travolta’s pelvic thrusting. Which explains the need for fanning yourself.

[Takoma11]

This is exactly how I imagined your reaction was. Only, replace monocle with heart palpitations. Said heart palpitations were brought on by Travolta’s pelvic thrusting. Which explains the need for fanning yourself.

I think you've nailed the problem. I got so hot and bothered by that choreographed bleacher dance that I couldn't think straight. No wonder the story didn't make any sense to me!

[Wyldesyde19]

I think you've nailed the problem. I got so hot and bothered by that choreographed bleacher dance that I couldn't think straight. No wonder the story didn't make any sense to me!

Travolta’s pelvic thrusts have had that effect on many a young woman. You’re just the latest victim. Surely not the last, either.

#StopTravolta’spelvicthrusts

[StuSmallz]

I don't see Stu saying anywhere that it isn't a "sexual reference," just that "did she put up a fight" means sweet-talking and persuasion, as opposed to force/assault.Yup, and I'm sorry that I mis-interpreted Takoma's complaint about the line, but that was because I've heard other people interpret that line in that manner multiple times before to complain about it, so that's the first place my mind went to there as a result. That being said though, I also don't think it's an entirely fair characterization to act as though the male side of the song is the only one with any sexual undertones to it, considering that Sandy's the one who mentions the other's physical attractiveness, which is something that Danny doesn't do at any one point, so I feel it's important not to disregard details like that, otherwise we end up painting an innaccurate picture of those lyrics.

[John-Connor]

Travolta’s pelvic thrusts have had that effect on many a young woman. You’re just the latest victim. Surely not the last, either.

#StopTravolta’spelvicthrusts

https://media1.giphy.com/media/DXmHUqfA8YKqs/giphy.gif

[Fabulous]

Cooley High (1975)

2.5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/iChv2RTNJhouwCdk6ESlm4OC9l6.jpg

[LChimp]

https://trilhadomedo.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/x-a24-ti-west-horror-movie-poster-2.jpg

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[honeykid]

https://media1.giphy.com/media/DXmHUqfA8YKqs/giphy.gif

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ArcticSophisticatedHornbill-size_restricted.gif

Just for balance, y'know. ;)

[Torgo]

Here's the offending scene from Grease for those who haven't seen it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oml83cXx3ik

[Yoda]

I mean . . . yeah. Do I read the song as him asking if Danny raped Sandy? No, and I don't think I said that that's how I read it.
You did not, but you did tell Stu he was "misreading" it when all he said is that he didn't think it was about sexual assault, so I'm not sure how else to read that.

My "real" explanation is a whole meta theory about how general signaling gets confused with actual disagreement, but that's probably a bit much in this context, but people can PM me or whatever if they wanna get into headier stuff.

[Gideon58]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/Harold_and_Maude_%281971_film%29_poster.jpg


3

[Wooley]

I'd love to be on board with that final segment, but the degree to which she's fetishized totally takes me out of it. Especially the whole bondage sequence. She fails to be a character. She 80% a body being posed for a male audience and it's super disappointing. None of the female characters get personalities.

I get that, but again, I am exactly the audience for that whole thing.
Though I don't agree that she fails to be a character, to be honest. Like I say, she actually influenced me, because I was at the right age to see her absolute fearlessness and unwavering moral compass as utterly heroic and exemplary. While I will absolutely not deny that I found it sexy as hell too, I feel pretty certain that this was the first time in my life that I, a hetero/cis-normative boy, actually wanted to be a female character.

Also, I thought all of the female characters (except maybe Katherine, she seemed nice but didn't get enough screen-time to know much about her) had personalities from the femme fatale in the first, to the Evil Queen in the second (though admittedly she's not the best part of it, her competitor for the throne is with his yawning "You die, she dies, everybody dies..." attitude) who is almost exactly like a woman I used to date, to the hilarious stenographer that has the affair with John Candy's robot (I found her very funny), and finally to Taarna, who, like the young girl who becomes her successor, I imagine has just left an actual life to heed the call of duty... "To defend: this is the pact. But when life loses its meaning and is taken for naught... then the pact is to avenge." She comes to that temple from somewhere, a life she leaves behind to do the thing she was born for. Which she does, sacrificing herself in the end in a scene, with her and the bird-thingy, that always just fills me with all the feelings of heroism.

[Wooley]

https://i.postimg.cc/y8YBZjCR/philstory.jpg
By MGM - http://poster.scancollections.com/view.php?id=443197, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=59843667

The Philadelphia Story - (1940)

Nice to see an adaptation of this play where we have age-appropriate actors for all the characters - I found Bing Crosby in High Society a little off-putting. Cary Grant though - I have no problem with that - I love Cary Grant now, after seeing a whole heap of his movies over the past year or two. I never knew that early Cary Grant would turn out to be a comedic persona, but as far as feature films are concerned he was a great comedian. Here, he shares the spotlight with other actors, mainly Katharine Hepburn (with whom he made many films) and a very young James Stewart. Fine performances throughout, and a great screenplay - I enjoyed this just as much as I'm enjoying other films from this era lately. They showcase upper-class hijinks without alienating the audience - a tricky thing to do. Next up : Heaven Can Wait.

8/10

Yeah, this really is an all-time great Comedy.

[Takoma11]

Yup, and I'm sorry that I mis-interpreted Takoma's complaint about the line, but that was because I've heard other people interpret that line in that manner multiple times before to complain about it, so that's the first place my mind went to there as a result. That being said though, I also don't think it's an entirely fair characterization to act as though the male side of the song is the only one with any sexual undertones to it, considering that Sandy's the one who mentions the other's physical attractiveness, which is something that Danny doesn't do at any one point, so I feel it's important not to disregard details like that, otherwise we end up painting an innaccurate picture of those lyrics.

You did not, but you did tell Stu he was "misreading" it when all he said is that he didn't think it was about sexual assault, so I'm not sure how else to read that.

The problem as I see it is that there aren't strict lines between the things we're attempting to characterize here. Where does "wooing" end and coercion begin? Where does coercion start to trip into intimidation? Where does intimidation become threat? Obviously applying relentless verbal pressure to someone is not the same as physically holding them down, but they're not entirely unrelated dynamics.

Characterizing getting a woman to have sex with you as something you have to overcome inherently starts to skew into non-consensual territory. (Though again there is nuance because sometimes a person is hesitant or unexcited about something but is happy ultimately that someone talked them into it. In the specific context of this film, Sandy is obviously happy about how things went with Danny.).

I still fundamentally disagree with you, Stu, in your initial comment about seeing "Love at first sight" and "Did she put up a fight?" as contrasting ways of talking about the same thing. We can agree that "Did she put up a fight?" is asking "Did she resist having sex with you?", right? Considering innumerable women have had to literally fight off men, the phrasing gives me icky vibes, even if it's just meant to refer to verbal persuasion.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-uqqsC8KSjCE%2FT2zG2trx5pI%2FAAAAAAAAH0o%2FIy3jFSW8bO8%2Fs400%2Ffantasmadelconvento2.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=a242cf912385abacbf83b9df84fae91f46091c26756dc83cb307d45d1a50b375&ipo=images

El Fantasma del Convento, 1934

Couple Cristina (Marta Roel) and Eduardo (Carlos Villatoro) and their friend Alfonso (Enrique del Campo) get lost while on an outing. They are seemingly saved when a man appears out of the forest and offers to take them to a nearby monastery. Once there, however, the trio discovers that one of the cells belonged to a monk who discovered dark powers connected to desire. This aligns with current tensions in the group, as Cristina is clearly attracted to Alfonso and he is slowly becoming tempted by her overtures.

While this film does take a little while to find solid momentum, it is full of spooky atmosphere and wraps up with a last act replete with great visuals.

The first half of the film does a lot of work in building the monastery's creepy credentials. The characters walk down many a long hallway filled with cobwebs. We are frequently shown a monk's cell that has been seemingly sealed with a large cross. The three visitors follow the dark, solemn figures of the monks through the many hallways. These sequences also give us plenty of time to watch Cristina flirt with Alfonso over and over, establishing the threat of infidelity and betrayal.

It's in the last half hour, though, that the film gets really fun and interesting. Having learned that the monk who haunts the monastery once lusted after his friend's wife, a situation that ended poorly for all involved, Alfonso manages to find the cell holding the remains of the infamous monk. Finding a book in which the monk wrote down his reflections on what happened, Alfonso experiences a series of visions related to his feelings for Cristina. The visuals and special effects here are really effective and jolting. And while it might be a touch predictable, I liked the way that the legend of the monk intersected with Alfonso's current situation.

The main downside to the film is the characters themselves. I didn't really gel to any of them. Eduardo in particular feels like kind of a non-entity. This has the effect of slightly dulling the sense of urgency about what's happening between the three of them.

I also thought it was interesting that the final act centers so much on Alfonso. Surely Cristina---the person really aggressively pursuing the infidelity---is the one who should be learning a lesson from a blood-drenched monk memoir, right?! Something that was not entirely clear to me in the way that the dialogue plays out in the last act is the degree to which Cristina's behavior was driven by the haunting. It's certainly impacted by it---the film says as much overtly. But was the whole point to make Cristina behave this way so as to drive Alfonso to a crisis point where he'd be more receptive to the message from the dead monk? I almost prefer this reading, because otherwise Cristina is just a terrible person who is sort of being used as a prop for Alfonso's character growth. The idea that her behavior was more out of her control is actually more scary and more satisfying.

I have to call out a great line from the end of the film. It does go kind of into spoiler territory though. In the end we discover that (BIG SPOILERS)the monks have actually been long dead and exist only as skeletons in coffins. After learning this and trying to wrap their heads around it, Alfonso remarks, "I don't know if they came to life for a night, or if we died for a night." Woof. Love that line.

Part of the World Cinema Project and a lovely print is available (at least in the US) on YouTube. Definitely recommended! Doubly so if you enjoy spooky 1930s horror.

4

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/Heavencwaitposter.jpg
Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7313123

Heaven Can Wait - (1943)

Well, this was certainly a very nice film and I did enjoy it a lot - but of course I did miss the participation of either Cary Grant or Irene Dunne, who inject the films they're in with a sense of unbridled comedic sensibilities. I did laugh a lot though, and when I wasn't laughing I was touched, despite the fact that the main character in this is a bit of a philanderer (mind you, this aspect was dialed so far back because of the production code that you can hardly detect it.) I thought Heaven Can Wait was plenty funny and had a good story - it was also very well directed by Ernst Lubitsch. The early technicolor process gives it a beautiful look - one that only these films had, with vivid colours turning scenes into cinematic flower-beds. Don Ameche plays Henry Van Cleve, who believes he belongs in hell due to the aforementioned philandering - so must convince the devil. Unfortunately (?) he's lived a kind of decent, loving life of devotion to his family. The film's very funny moments elevate it - as does Charles Coburn in the pivotal role of 'Grandpa' Hugo Van Cleve. Next up, I've decided to go with To Be or Not to Be.

7/10

[crumbsroom]

In regards to the Grease debate, I understand giving something the benefit of the doubt, but I don't think there is really any doubt what the word 'fight' is implying. Just in the way the line is sung, like there is a leering wink in his eye, I think it is silly to think this is him wanting an answer to the question 'did she also fall in love at first sight'. Like, not even remotely.


And while I don't think the guy is straight up asking if he raped her, you have to keep in context that this movie was made in a time where date rape was not even an acknowledged thing. It was in many circles considered a part of teenage courtship, that both man and women participated in (the old 'her lips said no but her eyes said yes' deal) . So while in the parlance of the times, it isn't rape, I think when updated towards modern usage, he's kind of asking 'did you have to be forceful in having sex with her' (which today would be rape).


It's rapey.


Now do I think this sullies the feel good charm of the movie. Not really. It's definitely jarring, and I don't fault anyone if they got hung up on the implications of what it seems to be saying, but I think it is fairly clear Danny is not necessarily the type of guy who fights girls into bed. He's better than that. But his friends might not be so suave.

[Takoma11]

Now do I think this sullies the feel good charm of the movie. Not really. It's definitely jarring, and I don't fault anyone if they got hung up on the implications of what it seems to be saying, but I think it is fairly clear Danny is not necessarily the type of guy who fights girls into bed. He's better than that. But his friends might not be so suave.

Right. I don't think that the implication is that Danny (who we see rolling his eyes at his friends' leering questions at least two different times and who clearly won Sandy over with charm, not manipulation of any kind) is a rapist, or even that the character who says the line (who we later see fumbling in a sexual situation) is a rapist. But it kind of gives you the impression they wouldn't be opposed to it if it's something that someone in their friend group did, which is a yucky feeling.

The line didn't ruin the movie for me, or whatever (I didn't mention it in my initial review, for example). Mainly it made me roll my eyes. But it's an example of something in the film that kept me from embracing the characters and having good vibes with them. I wasn't offended by the film so much as perpetually kept at arm's length by various elements of the movie.

[crumbsroom]

Right. I don't think that the implication is that Danny (who we see rolling his eyes at his friends' leering questions at least two different times and who clearly won Sandy over with charm, not manipulation of any kind) is a rapist, or even that the character who says the line (who we later see fumbling in a sexual situation) is a rapist. But it kind of gives you the impression they wouldn't be opposed to it if it's something that someone in their friend group did, which is a yucky feeling.

The line didn't ruin the movie for me, or whatever (I didn't mention it in my initial review, for example). Mainly it made me roll my eyes. But it's an example of something in the film that kept me from embracing the characters and having good vibes with them. I wasn't offended by the film so much as perpetually kept at arm's length by various elements of the movie.


For me the whole movie lives and dies by Travolta's performance and, of course, the music.


I'm generally very mixed on Travolta as an actor. And by mixed, I mean I think he's terrible. But for a terrible actor he miraculously has about five performances that I'm in love with (Blow Out, Saturday Night Fever, Pulp Fiction, and possibly Face Off). Grease would be the fifth, and it is because of his doofus charm that it sings. It's like he made an entire performance out of my favourite moment in Fever ('he hit my hair') and he never fails to amuse me. Travolta in his baseball gear is a particular hoot, and I ****ing hate the word hoot, that's how much I love that moment.

My gf though hates the movie and it is informally banned in the house. So it now only lives in my memories.

[Takoma11]

Grease would be the fifth, and it is because of his doofus charm that it sings. It's like he made an entire performance out of my favourite moment in Fever ('he hit my hair') and he never fails to amuse me. Travolta in his baseball gear is a particular hoot, and I ****ing hate the word hoot, that's how much I love that moment.

My gf though hates the movie and it is informally banned in the house. So it now only lives in my memories.

LOL. "Doofus charm" is exactly right. And I think just the right mix of confidence and thinly masked insecurity.

[Fabulous]

The Glass Bottom Boat (1966)

2.5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/qrcA3VOSI85Tk1jY5nOnk8Pjx36.jpg

[Yoda]

Re: Grease. The last couple of responses have kinda put me in disagreement zugzwang (a term I think I'll definitely have occasion to use in the future), where to answer them properly I'd have to completely leave the context of movies, so some of this will be given shorter shrift than I'd like:

The problem as I see it is that there aren't strict lines between the things we're attempting to characterize here. Where does "wooing" end and coercion begin?
Necessary-but-unanswerable questions. The question, then, is whether we use the fact that two things are on a spectrum together to describe them the same way. If we're obligated to take a rhetorical slippery slope approach and disapprove of X because, if you multiplied it by 100, it would become Y.

Characterizing getting a woman to have sex with you as something you have to overcome inherently starts to skew into non-consensual territory.
I suppose this is true, but it seems like an untenable standard. For example, let's replace a few words: characterizing <a woman as lacking agency when being persuaded> inherently starts to skew into <infantilizing> territory. I'm pretty sure you could take literally any position and we could find something that it "starts to skew" into something that, if it went far enough, would be problematic.

(Though again there is nuance because sometimes a person is hesitant or unexcited about something but is happy ultimately that someone talked them into it. In the specific context of this film, Sandy is obviously happy about how things went with Danny.).
Right, and Stu is talking about it from the film's perspective. And "put up a fight" is an idiom, one that seems likely to have been sarcastic overstatement from its very inception, and which either way is probably used to describe non-force almost every time it's employed now.

I guess that's ultimately what it comes down to: some of you guys see some pretty sinister implications behind the idiom. I don't think that's how people normally use the term, and I think it would be weirdly out of place, but that's obviously not something I can prove or disprove.

I still fundamentally disagree with Stu's initial comment about seeing "Love at first sight" and "Did she put up a fight?" as contrasting ways of talking about the same thing. We can agree that "Did she put up a fight?" is asking "Did she resist having sex with you?", right? Considering innumerable women have had to literally fight off men, the phrasing gives me icky vibes, even if it's just meant to refer to verbal persuasion.
I am definitely not interested in trying to talk anyone out of feeling icky. But I think "icky" is a lot different than "rapey," and I think both are different than disagreeing with Stu's interpretation, which I see as pretty much unimpeachable.

[Yoda]

I think it is silly to think this is him wanting an answer to the question 'did she also fall in love at first sight'. Like, not even remotely.
I don't think Stu is quite saying that (but he can correct me). Here's the quote:

...the previous line in that song was literally "Was it love at first sight?", and then he says "Did she put up a fight?", which to me, implies that he meant "Was she hard to woo?" (as opposed to it being "love at first sight")
Sounds like he's saying the lines are meant to contrast, but not that it's an "answer." He says right there what he thinks it means: was she hard to woo?

Also, ya' know, they rhyme.

It wouldn't be the first time
someone bent
what they meant
For the sake of a rhyme.

[Tugg]

4 Bullet Train (2022)
https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/c7268c79-9436-4230-b75e-2814495b25f4/df6tvl4-7b648cd5-58aa-4293-b460-c2e4cff65cc8.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQz NzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6 W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2M3MjY4Yzc5LTk0MzYtNDIzMC1iNzVlLTI4MTQ0OTViMjVmNFwvZGY2dHZsNC03YjY0OGNkNS01OGFh LTQyOTMtYjQ2MC1jMmU0Y2ZmNjVjYzgucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.bb0SYxHV RGpvXBB-vMMiR3X0jYQjUFgX-eCYAxi1Fs4
3 All Quiet on the Western Front (2022)
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS8QRKkBGrcukuMavvYW86ppZWfKDnfK-AnsQ&usqp=CAU
3 Babylon (2022)
https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/9a78a458-477a-4feb-8164-cc77e9a95b84/dfkkk0o-2ac1de08-0ac3-4033-a82e-64b145a1c329.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQz NzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6 W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcLzlhNzhhNDU4LTQ3N2EtNGZlYi04MTY0LWNjNzdlOWE5NWI4NFwvZGZra2swby0yYWMxZGUwOC0wYWMz LTQwMzMtYTgyZS02NGIxNDVhMWMzMjkucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.JIukuA9k U80OocdXUJabgRdlJX5zqepHs0kBN-6IVFQ
3 The Menu (2022)
https://i0.wp.com/fugitives.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/The-Menu-Characters-Explained-2022-Horror-Comedy-Film.jpg

[Takoma11]

kinda put me in disagreement zugzwang

Okay, so at least watching Grease has led to me expanding my vocabulary.

Necessary-but-unanswerable questions. The question, then, is whether we use the fact that two things are on a spectrum together to describe them the same way.

I don't think I'm describing these two related (but different) things the same way. If I'd thought the line meant someone was actually being sexually assaulted, I'd definitely have mentioned that in my initial review and I wouldn't be using words like "icky" to describe my feelings about the lyric.

I suppose this is true, but it seems like an untenable standard. . . I'm pretty sure you could take literally any position and we could find something that it "starts to skew" into something that, if it went far enough, would be problematic.

Why is that untenable, though? I'm not talking about a standard other people need to have. I'm talking about my own reaction to something. Acknowledging that things exist on a sliding scale is a key element of being able to respond to them in proportion. And I don't think that my response to the lyric is disproportionate. (My response to the lyric = "This lyric is gross and makes me less inclined to like the character who said it").

Right, and Stu is talking about it from the film's perspective. And "put up a fight" is an idiom, one that seems likely to have been sarcastic overstatement from its very inception, and which either way is probably used to describe non-force almost every time it's employed now.

The question of whether or not to "put up a fight" when you find yourself being sexually assaulted is a real thing that real people have to deal with. I agree that the phrase is figurative in almost every context in which it's being used. But where it ceases to be figurative in the same way is in a context where someone might actually be fighting, like, I don't know, a person not wanting to have sex with someone who is willing to use force against them.

In The Shawshank Redemption, here is the dialogue that describes a character's sexual assault: "I wish I could tell you that [character] fought the good fight, and the Sisters let him be. I wish I could tell you that, but prison is no fairy-tale world." "Fighting the good fight" is also an idiom. It means trying your best to do the right thing or acting in a virtuous way. But in this context, the fight is literal.

I am definitely not interested in trying to talk anyone out of feeling icky. But I think "icky" is a lot different than "rapey," and I think both are different than disagreeing with Stu's interpretation, which I see as pretty much unimpeachable.

There are a dozen other ways to imply someone was resistant to an idea ("Did you have to sweet talk her?" "Did you have to beg and plead?") that don't evoke the use of physical force. I think that using the phrase "put up a fight" is, at best, a really unfortunate choice of words because for some people it is going to evoke associations of literal violence around sexual experiences.

This is actually part of why the actors being so much older than their characters adds to the problem. It's not some naive looking 16 year old kid saying that lyric. It's a 28 year old man.

And I do disagree with Stu's interpretation (though he's obviously free to read the lyrics however he chooses). I don't see "love at first sight" and "did she put up a fight" as two sides of the same coin, because I don't see prompt mutual attraction and having sex as automatic equals. To me (and this is just what these words mean in my head!) "love at first sight" = "were you guys into each other right away?" and "did she put up a fight?" = "Did she push back against having sex with you?"

[crumbsroom]

I don't think Stu is quite saying that (but he can correct me). Here's the quote:...the previous line in that song was literally "Was it love at first sight?", and then he says "Did she put up a fight?", which to me, implies that he meant "Was she hard to woo?" (as opposed to it being "love at first sight")Sounds like he's saying the lines are meant to contrast, but not that it's an "answer." He says right there what he thinks it means: was she hard to woo?

Also, ya' know, they rhyme.

It wouldn't be the first time
someone bent
what they meant
For the sake of a rhyme.


I think there is meant to be a contrast, but to me it is more between women mooning over love, and men oogling over sexual details.


Again, if it was just on paper, I can understand giving it a more gracious reading. But it is in the manner of how the guy sings it that makes its meaning fairly apparent. And I think it translates that way to a lot of very passive listeners as well since, as I mentioned in a previous post, this seems to be the line men remember to sing along to when drunk and on a dance floor. And in that context, it never has anything to do with their eagerness to know how hard she was to woo.


EDIT: I just started to watch the clip for the first time in years and the whole song begins with the T-Birds asking him to give them 'all the horny details'. RIght from the get go, they are establishing how these two conversations are very different: romance vs sex.


I can give no other reading to it.

[crumbsroom]

Not to mention the previous couplet is


"Did you get very far"
"Does he drive his own car"


We can graciously assume on paper this means they are talking about the distance you drive in his car but.....one of the t-birds mimes groping breasts as he says his line.


It's rapey.

[Yoda]

I think there is meant to be a contrast, but to me it is more between women mooning over love, and men oogling over sexual details.
I agree, I just don't think that's either-or. I think it's contrasting both things.

Again, if it was just on paper, I can understand giving it a more gracious reading. But it is in the manner of how the guy sings it that makes its meaning fairly apparent. And I think it translates that way to a lot of very passive listeners as well since, as I mentioned in a previous post, this seems to be the line men remember to sing along to when drunk and on a dance floor. And in that context, it never has anything to do with their eagerness to know how hard she was to woo.

EDIT: I just started to watch the clip for the first time in years and the whole song begins with the T-Birds asking him to give them 'all the horny details'. RIght from the get go, they are establishing how these two conversations are very different: romance vs sex.
I'm genuinely confused by some of these responses. In this one, and in a couple of others, too, it sounds like people are trying to convince me/us that it's merely sexual. But I don't think anyone's disputing that. It's the leap from "sexual" to "rapey."

Here's another example:

We can graciously assume on paper this means they are talking about the distance you drive in his car but.....one of the t-birds mimes groping breasts as he says his line.

It's rapey.
How do we go from "mimes groping breasts" (and why is it groping rather than grabbing, except that the former has a non-consensual connotation?) to "rapey," as if that's the only context in which someone might be grabbing someone else.

In short: why are the lyrics' sexual nature being used as ipso facto evidence that they're talking about some untoward form of coercion, rather than just being immature horn dogs? If you just wanna say that's how you read it, that's fine. As I said in this post (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2364301#post2364301), I can't prove or disprove the implications we do or don't read into it. But I don't see why people are trying to support those perceptions just by talking about it being sexual.

[Yoda]

Okay, so at least watching Grease has led to me expanding my vocabulary.
It's a great word, even if its mostly useful outside of its "real" meaning (chess). Also just really fun to say.

I don't think I'm describing these two related (but different) things the same way. If I'd thought the line meant someone was actually being sexually assaulted, I'd definitely have mentioned that in my initial review and I wouldn't be using words like "icky" to describe my feelings about the lyric.
I'm thinking specifically of the word "rapey." That's quite literally using the word (unless we think the appending of "y" fundamentally changes things) to describe the thing in the same terms as its most extreme form.

Rape is one of the worst acts a human can commit, particularly of those committed with any regularity. So that word basically means "one-of-the-worst-acts-you-can-commit-y."

Why is that untenable, though? I'm not talking about a standard other people need to have.
I'm not saying it's untenable because your reaction needs to generalize to everyone (though there is, of course, often an implication when discussing problematic things that they should be problematic to everyone/more people/whatever). I'm saying it's untenable because I'm presuming you don't want to infantilize women.

In the process of describing your objection to this line, you're noting that, even accounting for our differing interpretations, it "starts to skew" into non-consensual territory either way. And I'm saying that objecting to it also "starts to skew" towards things we both presumably also find unacceptable. Therefore, objecting to something on the basis that it "starts to skew" in a general direction is untenable as an explanation, because it is unavoidable.

There are a dozen other ways to imply someone was resistant to an idea ("Did you have to sweet talk her?" "Did you have to beg and plead?") that don't evoke the use of physical force.
Oh, easily. More than a dozen! Not sure how many there are that rhyme, though.

And it's also pretty likely they are, yes, implying that the man in this context wants to have sex more (or just sooner) than she does. If someone wants to lay into it because they don't like that generalization, have at it.

This is actually part of why the actors being so much older than their characters adds to the problem. It's not some naive looking 16 year old kid saying that lyric. It's a 28 year old man.
I can understand why that might have it land differently, though for purposes of evaluating the creator's choices and intent, I think we have to think of them as the age the characters are.

And I do disagree with Stu's interpretation (though he's obviously free to read the lyrics however he chooses). I don't see "love at first sight" and "did she put up a fight" as two sides of the same coin, because I don't see prompt mutual attraction and having sex as automatic equals. To me (and this is just what these words mean in my head!) "love at first sight" = "were you guys into each other right away?" and "did she put up a fight?" = "Did she push back against having sex with you?"
What's funny is that that's what it means to me, too. Though maybe phrases like "resist" or "push back" are eliding a lot, since the spectrum contained by those is pretty vast, too.

[Yoda]

Serious question, actually, and maybe this will cut through the Gordian knot:

Are people taking Stu's reference to "woo[ing]" like it refers to some quasi-Victorian courtship process? Because it's not an inherently asexual term or anything.

[crumbsroom]

I agree, I just don't think that's either-or. I think it's contrasting both things.


I'm genuinely confused by some of these responses. In this one, and in a couple of others, too, it sounds like people are trying to convince me/us that it's merely sexual. But I don't think anyone's disputing that. It's the leap from "sexual" to "rapey."

Here's another example:


How do we go from "mimes groping breasts" (and why is it groping rather than grabbing, except that the former has a non-consensual connotation?) to "rapey," as if that's the only context in which someone might be grabbing someone else.

In short: why are the lyrics' sexual nature being used as ipso facto evidence that they're talking about some untoward form of coercion, rather than just being immature horn dogs? If you just wanna say that's how you read it, that's fine. As I said in this post (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2364301#post2364301), I can't prove or disprove the implications we do or don't read into it. But I don't see why people are trying to support those perceptions just by talking about it being sexual.


That one line is rapey because of the context of the entire song. In isolation, sure, could be taken lots of ways. But when a lyric establishes its theme (the two competing narratives, one being framed exclusively by notions of romance, the other framed about men wanting details about sex) and then one of the lines is 'did she put up a fight', I'm drawing the shortest line as to what this means. If these characters are talking about sex, want to know all the horny details, are miming sexual acts, and then ask if she put up a fight, there are obvious implications there.



Now if we want to claim that fight was used just because it rhymed...okay...but we aren't giving a lot of credit to the lyric writers then. Lyrics in musicals are generally laboured over to get wording exactly right in order to establish character through song. Every word and its connotations are generally considered because you only have so many words to make your point. You just don't throw a rhyme in there because it rhymes, especially when it is a word like 'fight' which in any context of the word (especially a sexual context) evokes the idea of 'fighting off'. No one should be blamed if rape comes to their mind if this is the careless way they are throwing together their words. Hence 'rapey'.


And it needs to be restated that these kind of conversations about consent weren't terribly evolved in the 70's (and certainly not in the 50's when this is supposed to be taking place). Having a winky joke about having to fight a girl into having sex wasn't actually 'rapey' then. It would have just been considered an extra juicy detail about a back seat hookup. Nothing to fret over.



Also should be noted, I'm using the term 'rapey' as in evokes the idea of rape. The idea of getting consent through force. Not that it is specifically about rape. A distinction that is important.



Would you call it rapey when men yell out 'did she put up a fight on the dance floor'? No, I don't think those men are going home and raping anyone. But how often do you see men get excited singing along to lyrics from musicals. Them singing it is 'rapey' though. And its because those lyrics beg to be seen that way in the context of the whole song. And I'd argue those guys certainly see it that way.

[crumbsroom]

Serious question, actually, and maybe this will cut through the Gordian knot:

Are people taking Stu's reference to "woo[ing]" like it refers to some quasi-Victorian courtship process? Because it's not an inherently asexual term or anything.


No

[Takoma11]

In short: why are the lyrics' sexual nature being used as ipso facto evidence that they're talking about some untoward form of coercion, rather than just being immature horn dogs?

Because using the language of violence ("fight") in a sexual context, puts those two ideas next to each other and evokes sexual violence?

I certainly have said repeatedly (and so has Crumbsroom) that we don't read the line as Danny having done anything untoward to Sandy. We're not even saying that the character is actually necessarily asking Danny "Did you rape her?". But the line evokes the thought in some viewers. This isn't a case of anyone proving that the lyric means one thing or another. You can't. It's a case of the use of a phrase in a specific context creating an association for some viewers/listeners. Saying "I don't get why some people would connect this lyric to sexual assault" seems really disingenuous to me. (As a thought experiment, imagine talking to a friend about a date he went on where he had sex. Now imagine asking him "Did she put up a fight?". How would you feel saying those words? Gross? Because that's how I'd feel.)

Language can evoke things even when not being taken literally. If you were a white supervisor managing a team of mostly Black employees, would you ever use the phrase "crack the whip" to describe pushing the team to work harder? Hell no. Because while no one would take the phrase to mean you were literally beating your employees, it would evoke the kind of racial violence that has existed. And if you were writing a song about this hypothetical boss-employee relationship, would you want to find a different idiom to use? I'd imagine so!

[Takoma11]

I'm thinking specifically of the word "rapey." That's quite literally using the word (unless we think the appending of "y" fundamentally changes things) to describe the thing in the same terms as its most extreme form.

The use of the word "rapey" is to categorize something that evokes the idea of sexual assault or predatory behavior but is not actually rape. The whole point of the term is to make it clear that it is not the actual thing.

I'm not saying it's untenable because your reaction needs to generalize to everyone (though there is, of course, often an implication when discussing problematic things that they should be problematic to everyone/more people/whatever). I'm saying it's untenable because I'm presuming you don't want to infantilize women.

I don't think that finding the lyric "Did she put up a fight?" a bit gross is taking agency away from women.

[Takoma11]

Me several days ago: Welp, Grease was just kind of a so-so musical. Guess I won't think about it much anymore.

Me now: *googling to see if there's actually a "did she put up a fight?" controvery* *googling "Summer Nights" lyrics* *googling zugzwang*

[crumbsroom]

Me several days ago: Welp, Grease was just kind of a so-so musical. Guess I won't think about it much anymore.

Me now: *googling to see if there's actually a "did she put up a fight?" controvery* *googling "Summer Nights" lyrics* *googling zugzwang*


I googled pictures of John Travolta in baseball gear.


It's all about how he wears his hat.


https://i.postimg.cc/Njyv557j/grease.jpg

Oh, Danny, you so baaaad.

[Wooley]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-uqqsC8KSjCE%2FT2zG2trx5pI%2FAAAAAAAAH0o%2FIy3jFSW8bO8%2Fs400%2Ffantasmadelconvento2.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=a242cf912385abacbf83b9df84fae91f46091c26756dc83cb307d45d1a50b375&ipo=images

El Fantasma del Convento, 1934

Couple Cristina (Marta Roel) and Eduardo (Carlos Villatoro) and their friend Alfonso (Enrique del Campo) get lost while on an outing. They are seemingly saved when a man appears out of the forest and offers to take them to a nearby monastery. Once there, however, the trio discovers that one of the cells belonged to a monk who discovered dark powers connected to desire. This aligns with current tensions in the group, as Cristina is clearly attracted to Alfonso and he is slowly becoming tempted by her overtures.

While this film does take a little while to find solid momentum, it is full of spooky atmosphere and wraps up with a last act replete with great visuals.

The first half of the film does a lot of work in building the monastery's creepy credentials. The characters walk down many a long hallway filled with cobwebs. We are frequently shown a monk's cell that has been seemingly sealed with a large cross. The three visitors follow the dark, solemn figures of the monks through the many hallways. These sequences also give us plenty of time to watch Cristina flirt with Alfonso over and over, establishing the threat of infidelity and betrayal.

It's in the last half hour, though, that the film gets really fun and interesting. Having learned that the monk who haunts the monastery once lusted after his friend's wife, a situation that ended poorly for all involved, Alfonso manages to find the cell holding the remains of the infamous monk. Finding a book in which the monk wrote down his reflections on what happened, Alfonso experiences a series of visions related to his feelings for Cristina. The visuals and special effects here are really effective and jolting. And while it might be a touch predictable, I liked the way that the legend of the monk intersected with Alfonso's current situation.

The main downside to the film is the characters themselves. I didn't really gel to any of them. Eduardo in particular feels like kind of a non-entity. This has the effect of slightly dulling the sense of urgency about what's happening between the three of them.

I also thought it was interesting that the final act centers so much on Alfonso. Surely Cristina---the person really aggressively pursuing the infidelity---is the one who should be learning a lesson from a blood-drenched monk memoir, right?! Something that was not entirely clear to me in the way that the dialogue plays out in the last act is the degree to which Cristina's behavior was driven by the haunting. It's certainly impacted by it---the film says as much overtly. But was the whole point to make Cristina behave this way so as to drive Alfonso to a crisis point where he'd be more receptive to the message from the dead monk? I almost prefer this reading, because otherwise Cristina is just a terrible person who is sort of being used as a prop for Alfonso's character growth. The idea that her behavior was more out of her control is actually more scary and more satisfying.

I have to call out a great line from the end of the film. It does go kind of into spoiler territory though. In the end we discover that (BIG SPOILERS)the monks have actually been long dead and exist only as skeletons in coffins. After learning this and trying to wrap their heads around it, Alfonso remarks, "I don't know if they came to life for a night, or if we died for a night." Woof. Love that line.

Part of the World Cinema Project and a lovely print is available (at least in the US) on YouTube. Definitely recommended! Doubly so if you enjoy spooky 1930s horror.

4

I'm down for this.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-eSChIDiLM3o%2FTzN2cbRNxpI%2FAAAAAAAACXQ%2FGI7MXAuGfHQ%2Fs1600%2FThe%252BPrivate%252BLife%252Bof%252B Sherlock%252BHolmes%252B2.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=4b896c58a20226a03c458063fbdc921cda25a12a3e3f176bc72f874c1d27518b&ipo=images

The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, 1970

After Sherlock Holmes (Robert Stephens) manages to dodge out of a wealthy Russian's proposal that he father her child, his professed neutrality toward women is tested by the arrival of a woman named Gabrielle (Geneviève Page) who is searching for her missing husband. With the help of Watson (Colin Blakely) and the sometimes intervention of his brother Mycroft (Christopher Lee), Holmes works toward solving the mysterious disappearance.

There are some really interesting and different ideas in this adaptation of the Sherlock Holmes character. Unfortunately, the film seems to perpetually dwell in the gap between what it seems to want to do and what's actually on screen.

So many of the ideas bouncing around this film are a huge draw for me, as someone who really enjoyed the Holmes short stories as a child. The introduction frames the film as showing us some of the less successful cases that Holmes investigated, along with those that were of a much more personal nature.

I also enjoyed the friction at the beginning of the film, where Holmes complains about the impact that Watson's publication of their adventures has had on his life. While his complaints mainly address more superficial concerns--such as Watson exaggerating his height or the fact that he's now expected to stalk around in a certain outfit--it also gets you thinking about the tremendous pressure of being regarded as the world's greatest detective. This is on top of the way that Holmes' unique mind can be both invigorating and incredibly isolating.

The story at the center of the mystery feels like a loving parody of the kinds of strange circumstances that surround most of the classic Holmes stories. There's a woman with amnesia, okay. And also a mysterious castle. Alright. And some strange monks. Okaaaaaaay. And possibly the Loch Ness monster. Sorry, what? Anticipating the way that Holmes will cobble these odd elements into a coherent explanation builds some fun, frothy suspense.

But it's as the film tries to cohere its various elements that I felt let down a bit. Sure, it's satisfying to see how these wacky pieces fit into a logical puzzle. But the other half of the film is really about the relationship that Holmes is developing with Gabrielle. It's in that resolution, and its failure to really gel with the central mystery, that it goes a bit flat. I don't mind the idea that we are not given the inside scoop on how Holmes feels about Gabrielle. I think there's a chance that Holmes himself doesn't quite know. And yet whatever the delicious tension there should have been between them never really manifests.

I liked all of the performances, but there's something a bit muted about the whole affair. The dialogue is pretty great at times, but the film felt like it needed to either be lighter and crisper or darker and moodier. The movie starts with two different scenes in which it's suggested that Holmes might be gay, but the thread of this implication doesn't quite weave into the main narrative. Where it does appear, it feels underdeveloped if it was meant to be a source of friction.

Certainly an interesting variation on the Holmes character, but it never quite lives up to promises of its concept.

3.5

[Takoma11]

I'm down for this.

I should really put a PSA in the Horrorcram thread. I think a lot of folks would dig it.

[Wooley]

I should really put a PSA in the Horrorcram thread. I think a lot of folks would dig it.

I got that sense from your review. Seems right up many alleys in our crowd.

[Yoda]

If either/both of you are using the word "rapey" just to mean "made me think of rape," then plainly I am in no position to disagree. I certainly don't think you're lying, and "I didn't like it because it made me think of that" is a perfectly reasonable reaction. But that's not really the genesis of this conversation: I only said anything when Stu was told he was misreading the scene.

I do think there's a sort of an implication to calling something "rapey" in public, where most of what we're saying is presumed to be the basis for conversation, or carries an implied import a little beyond "this is just my personal feeling," but I admit that's murkier. Either way, as I said earlier, I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their reaction to it. But that includes Stu.

I'm happy to leave it that that rather than continue to respond point-by-point, with the standard offer to continue privately if anybody feels I didn't give something its due. Otherwise, either of you can take the last word, presuming it's not so provocative I feel an overwhelming urge to respond (as opposed to my normal urge to respond, which I'm afraid is incurable).

[Gideon58]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNDVhYjU1ZjUtNzI3Ni00Mzg5LWJhNGYtMjE3Y2FlZWY2Y2Y2XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTUzMTg2ODkz._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.j pg


2.5

[Takoma11]

If either/both of you are using the word "rapey" just to mean "made me think of rape," then plainly I am in no position to disagree. I certainly don't think you're lying, and "I didn't like it because it made me think of that" is a perfectly reasonable reaction.

The word is (as I have encountered it) used to refer to words/actions/ideas that are what you might call rape-adjacent or that seem to hint at or imply sexual aggression.

For example, if a song lyric included the words "I won't let you say no to me", that could be described as "rapey" because of the cultural context of not accepting "no" as an answer. Another way to think of it is "That sounds like something a sexual predator would say/do!".

The guy who came into my yard and casually observed "no one would hear you yell"? Rapey.

But that's not really the genesis of this conversation: I only said anything when Stu was told he was misreading the scene.

I mean, I do think he's misreading the scene. Like I said before, I don't think that what the girls are implying/asking about Danny is in the same realm as what the boys are implying/asking about Sandy. His criticism is that it's not fair that the boys' lyrics get called out but . . . at best they are being crude and gross.

[crumbsroom]

Of course we can't go so far to say who is right and who is wrong without talking directly to the songwriters, but I think there is an abundance of clear reasons why that line has to do specifically with sex. And if it is specifically about sex, then by definition it's pretty rapey.


As specifically for what Stu said, I also think he's sort of off base. His premise is based on ignoring what is clearly the point of the song, which is the glaringly contrasting ways men and women talk about these things. Every 'pure' line sung by the girls has an immediate contrast with the more leering intents of the male conversation. The song would be breaking it's apparent structure if that just happens to be the only line where both the men and the women are talking about the same thing.


And regardless of any of this, my main take away from Stu's claim is he thinks it is weird that anyone would get a nefarious vibe from that line. And I think that is what is essentially off base about his post since, even if that isn't ones immediate takeaway, I don't think it should be hard to at least see what the issue is. I'm still baffled how this isn't an open and shut case, with at least an agreement that if it wasn't meant to be taken the way me or Wooley or Takoma have taken it, it's because it's an obviously poor choice of words on the part of the songwriter. It at the very least begs the confusion.

[Act III]

The problem with the words in songs is most of the time they aren't anything like reading a book or watching a movie. The lines are often incomplete, filled with wordplay, outside the parameters of normal conversation. There's only one character and they're usually describing something or talking about someone else or expressing an idea, much of the time counter culture. You can't really rate the words of music on their literary content alone, as the way they are sung is often more important than what they say. Its a lost cause analyzing singers if you are a movie fan. Too much innuendo, allusions, insinuations, and imprecise suggestiveness. A movie scene leaves little to the imagination and has a solid base while words in music are a lot more elusive and malleable in their interpretations.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F-R9Qw6Erx7DU%2FWRsANk0jGWI%2FAAAAAAAAdDM%2Fv58HX26RxHAsdQQDiOHlwXkj_5JmLsoRQCEw%2Fs1600%2FIncubus%252 B%2525281965%252529%252BDVDRip%252B%252528SiRiUs%252BsHaRe%252529%252B1481.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=39f8694c5c1c326eedf1248046937f8c9c110bf670f67647afbfc18ceb00aa34&ipo=images

Incubus, 1966

Kia (Allyson Ames) is a subbus who, along with fellow demon Amael (Eloise Hardt) seduces and kills the vain men who come to her small seaside town where the water are purported to have healing and beautifying powers. But Kia is bored with "harvesting" already rotten souls and wants a challenge. Enter handsome soldier Marco (William Shatner) who has come to the town with his sister, Arndis (Ann Atmar) to take advantage of the healing waters. But when Kia and Marco develop a deep and mutual attraction, they'll find that they're both in danger.

It's been at least 15 years since I first read about this film, and since then I've seen it intermittently referenced, mainly as the butt of a joke. But this is a frothy little piece of horror melodrama with some spooky visuals and a compelling story that only builds in consequence as it progresses.

The choice to center this film on the experiences of its anti-hero, Kia, already makes for an interesting structure. Kia is warned by Amael that messing with decent people can lead to developing feelings for them, but Kia doesn't heed that warning. Her confusion at falling for Marco's stupid hunky purity is very engaging. This only increases when Marco, unaware of exactly who and what Kia is, takes her into a church. The conversation between Kia and Amael afterward---that taking her to a holy place was a violation and that she needs revenge--moves the story to another level of drama.

Ames is good as Kia, playing a mixture of pride, bafflement, regret, and attraction. Hardt makes for a nicely icy counterpart, essentially the demon on the shoulder of the slightly-less terrible demon. Is Amael advising Kia or tempting her? The blurring of the nature of their relationship is a lot of fun. In this mythology, there's a strange sense of the succubi having some autonomy and not necessarily being inherently evil. Shatner--whose presence is probably to blame for the lazy contempt tossed in the film's direction--is perfectly fine as Marco. He doesn't understand what he's in for until things get really bad.

After the church incident, Amael convinces Kia to summon an incubus (Milos Milos) to punish Marco. The performance Milos gives is . . . weird. It's weird. But it's the kind of weird that adds to the atmosphere of the film. A sequence where the incubus comes after Arndis is, as it reaches its peak, legitimately disturbing.

In fact, as the film swings into its last act, the weirdness and upset really gets turned up a notch. The movie gets a lot darker and more upsetting than you'd imagine from the slow, low-key beginning half where most of the horror comes in the form of black clad figures standing along the beach. Very specifically (and yet vaguely--no spoilers!), I think that the film really nails the last few minutes.

There are a few minor downsides. One special effect is not very convincing, and it means that a certain sequence treads on the edge of being silly instead of scary. But I was invested enough in the characters to shrug this off. The movie is also in Esperanto, which is only a bit of an issue because at times you can sense the cast trying to get themselves around the various pronunciations.

With a great premise, some fabulous visuals, and a solid ending, this is an easy recommendation for any horror fan.

4

[Takoma11]

This isn't necessarily relevant to the film itself, but dang did some bad stuff happen to several of the actors in it!

The man who played the incubus killed the woman he was having an affair with, then killed himself.

The actress who played the sister also died of suicide.

The actress who played Amael lost her daughter in a terrible murder.

Very sad.

[crumbsroom]

I feel I must have seen Incubus, but I have no recollection.


Sounds like my kind of movie though.

[Takoma11]

I feel I must have seen Incubus, but I have no recollection.


Sounds like my kind of movie though.

I highly encourage a revisit! I'm genuinely baffled as to why it isn't a more frequently discussed/recommended film in the horror conversations here and elsewhere.

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/G2Mb1DG0/To-Be-or-Not-to-Be-1942-film-poster.jpg
By &quot;©1942 by the United Artists Corporation&quot; - Scan via Heritage Auctions. Cropped from the original image., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=86868664

To Be or Not to Be - (1942)

Wow - way to obfuscate the fact this film is about Poland, World War II and the Nazis on your film poster - looks more like a wedding and romance. Anyway, some critics did come down on this at the time, but of course since so much time has passed we can now enjoy this film's sharp sense of humour, and my hat is off to Sig Ruman, playing German Col. Ehrhardt in an exaggeratedly silly way. He steals just about every scene he's in. I love Carole Lombard and managed not to think about the fact that this was the end for her - she'd be killed in a plane crash not long after filming, and the movie itself was released one month after her death. That's a lot of war and death to ignore for the sake of a comedy - but To Be or Not to Be is so well made that it's easy to slip into the narrative without having a moment to drift away and reflect on anything else. My favourite part? When every time Jack Benny, playing Hamlet, says "To be or not to be" Robert Stack takes it as his cue to meet up with Maria (Lombard) and leaves his front row seat, much to Benny's consternation. Next up on my journey through the Golden Age of comedy during the 1930s and 1940s is His Girl Friday.

7.5/10

[Fabulous]

Shall We Dance (1937)

2.5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/k9xilCWUwnBVz6rqmxQ90CDjtI9.jpg

[Thursday Next]

Empire of Light (2022)


A decent cast, some period accurate snacks and a collection of themes in search of a plot.


I went into this mistakenly thinking it was set in earlier (maybe because one of the characters wears a hat on the poster) but its instantly clear it's set in 1980. A collection of characters work at a seafront cinema. Olivia Colman's manager is lonely, recovering from a mental illness and having a meaningless affair with her boss. Then she meets and strikes up a relationship with a new colleague.


There's nothing new or meaningful here. Racism is bad, mental illness and loneliness are sad and cinema is good, in case you didn't already know. It really needed decent script rather than a collection of tropes (if I see one more movie where a woman submerges herself in a bath to signify her emotional turmoil...). Several moments made me cringe. There's one good line (seriously, one). The music (Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) is good. Mostly it just feels empty and a wasted opportunity.


2.5

[cricket]

No Child of Mine (1997)

4

https://www.rarefilmfinder.com/covers/big/5880.jpg

I found this title recently in my quest to watch the most disturbing films ever made. I can sit on the sofa eating a dish of linguine while watching A Serbian Film with no problem, but I had a lot of difficulty getting through this and thought about shutting it off multiple times. The crazy thing about that is it's a British made for TV film. There's no graphic content, but it's based on a true story about a young girl who is abused sexually, physically, emotionally, you name it. I had so much sadness and anger and I sure cried. On YouTube.

[Nausicaä]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/13/Bullet_Train_%28poster%29.jpeg/220px-Bullet_Train_%28poster%29.jpeg

3

SF = Zzz


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d7/RRR_Poster.jpg/220px-RRR_Poster.jpg

3

SF = Z

Would liked to have watched it in the original telugu language but netflix doesn't offer it, so watched the dubbed version as it seemed to match the lip movement more than the hindi language. Shame.


[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://i.postimg.cc/W3rw8smd/His-Girl-Friday-1940-poster-crop.jpg
By &quot;Copyrighted by Columbia Pictures Corp, New York, N.*Y. 1939&quot; - Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=92519789

His Girl Friday - (1940)

I'd already seen His Girl Friday a number of years ago, and really liked it - despite the version I was watching not being the best audio and visual quality. Was looking forward to watching my Criterion edition, and it really sparkles as probably the best adaptation of the play, "The Front Page" I've yet seen. I would have thought it a terrible idea to turn it into something of a romantic comedy, but Cary Grant really makes it work with his sly comedic manner. I tell you, my attention is focused on his face - he's an actor who can let the audience know what he's thinking, even when it's at odds with what he's saying. The actual satire of the original story seems a bonus on top of the screwball comedy we get. The fact that Ralph Bellamy kept working up until the 1990s will always tickle me as well. A few decades later Rosalind Russell would play Rose in Gypsy. All up His Girl Friday is a great movie that moves at an absolute bullet train pace and gives it's characters plenty of room to shine. If anyone has any recommendations of more comedies from this 1930s/1940s era with Cary Grant, Irene Dunne or the likes in them, please let me know. I really enjoy them.

8/10

[SpelingError]

30th Hall of Fame

Ida (2013) - 3

I didn't enjoy this film as much as I hoped to, but it's still pretty decent. I think a lot of my indifference towards it was that there wasn't enough to keep me on board with it. I've read some reviews which point out how Kulesza and Trzebuchowska show subtle changes as more insight about Ida's past is revealed, but while I don't doubt this is the case, acting usually doesn't matter a whole lot to me. I've said this in the past, but I'm generally not one who pays attention to acting, and it wasn't until the few minutes before Wanda's suicide where I began to feel something towards the acting. Of course, there are all kinds of tools a film can utilize other than acting to represent characters being shaped and changed, but aside from the final act, I didn't think there was a whole lot to this. So much time is spent on slowly revealing Ida's background and it wasn't until Ida and Wanda parted ways when their characters grew more interesting. Though yeah, the final act is pretty memorable, specifically due to Ida's arc. Even though I would've preferred it taking up more of the film, it's a compelling depiction of attempting to start a new life and being haunted by your past. The black and white cinematography is also lovely to look at since it contains multiple well-framed shots. In spite of enjoying the final act a good bit, however, I'd say this film was decent and I don't imagine it will stick with me. Interestingly enough, My Summer of Love, the other film I've seen from Pawlikowski, gave me a similar reaction of not being on board with it until the final act. I'm curious now if this will be a pattern for his films.

[Wooley]

https://i.postimg.cc/W3rw8smd/His-Girl-Friday-1940-poster-crop.jpg
By &quot;Copyrighted by Columbia Pictures Corp, New York, N.*Y. 1939&quot; - Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=92519789

His Girl Friday - (1940)

I'd already seen His Girl Friday a number of years ago, and really liked it - despite the version I was watching not being the best audio and visual quality. Was looking forward to watching my Criterion edition, and it really sparkles as probably the best adaptation of the play, "The Front Page" I've yet seen. I would have thought it a terrible idea to turn it into something of a romantic comedy, but Cary Grant really makes it work with his sly comedic manner. I tell you, my attention is focused on his face - he's an actor who can let the audience know what he's thinking, even when it's at odds with what he's saying. The actual satire of the original story seems a bonus on top of the screwball comedy we get. The fact that Ralph Bellamy kept working up until the 1990s will always tickle me as well. A few decades later Rosalind Russell would play Rose in Gypsy. All up His Girl Friday is a great movie that moves at an absolute bullet train pace and gives it's characters plenty of room to shine. If anyone has any recommendations of more comedies from this 1930s/1940s era with Cary Grant, Irene Dunne or the likes in them, please let me know. I really enjoy them.

8/10

Topper (1937) is pretty fun too.

[Wyldesyde19]

30th Hall of Fame

Ida (2013) - 3

I didn't enjoy this film as much as I hoped to, but it's still pretty decent. I think a lot of my indifference towards it was that there wasn't enough to keep me on board with it. I've read some reviews which point out how Kulesza and Trzebuchowska show subtle changes as more insight about Ida's past is revealed, but while I don't doubt this is the case, acting usually doesn't matter a whole lot to me. I've said this in the past, but I'm generally not one who pays attention to acting, and it wasn't until the few minutes before Wanda's suicide where I began to feel something towards the acting. Of course, there are all kinds of tools a film can utilize other than acting to represent characters being shaped and changed, but aside from the final act, I didn't think there was a whole lot to this. So much time is spent on slowly revealing Ida's background and it wasn't until Ida and Wanda parted ways when their characters grew more interesting. Though yeah, the final act is pretty memorable, specifically due to Ida's arc. Even though I would've preferred it taking up more of the film, it's a compelling depiction of attempting to start a new life and being haunted by your past. The black and white cinematography is also lovely to look at since it contains multiple well-framed shots. In spite of enjoying the final act a good bit, however, I'd say this film was decent and I don't imagine it will stick with me. Interestingly enough, My Summer of Love, the other film I've seen from Pawlikowski, gave me a similar reaction of not being on board with it until the final act. I'm curious now if this will be a pattern for his films.
Ida is great, but Cold War is far better.

[ScarletLion]

'The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner' (1962)

https://www.irishnews.com/picturesarchive/irishnews/irishnews/2018/06/25/160214881-2545b65d-e6e0-4f29-901a-642b2580aa75.jpg

"What's the frst thing you'd do if you won £75,000?"
-"Count it !"

Tony Richardson's 1962 film starring Tom Courtenay is part of a glut of British films from the 60's that had an 'angry young man' vibe. Courtenay plays Colin Smith, who is a petty thief completely disaffected from society. Colin hates money, as it has led to his family's miserable life. He doesn't want to follow in his father's footsteps who worked hard all his life and died before retirement.

We see Smith entering borstal for a crime he has committed, then Richardson uses flashbacks to tell his back story, his home life, his relationships and the events that led up to the crime he committed. The film borrows heavily from French new wave cinema and Italian neo realism, and it does so very well. There are marks of Truffaut, Goddard and de Sica all over it; with Colin's poverty stricken family being of particular focus.

Colin learns that he's quite good at long distance running, symbolistic of running away from his problems, and the finale is a brilliant scene where Colin has one final say on the system that he's found himself in. This film would have been a large inspiration for the likes of Ken Loach, and is possibly one of the very best British films of the 1960s.

4

[Fabulous]

Greased Lightning (1977)

2

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/oV00UL6BYPCushfjeLRsX6x8dWs.jpg

[cricket]

Let Me Fall (2018)

4.5-

https://screenanarchy.com/assets/2018/09/let%20me%20fall%20tiff%20sa.jpg

https://images.kinorium.com/movie/shot/1646150/w1500_3236941.jpg

I just found this Icelandic film after ScarletLion brought it up in the favorite hard drug movies thread. I think I still prefer Christiane F, but I would rate this a close 2nd, both well ahead of the more well known and popular Requiem for a Dream. This also doubles as a coming of age love story involving 2 teen girls, and it's a non linear storyline as we also see them around a decade later when 1 is clean and 1 is not, but they are both permanently damaged. Horror and sadness dominate hope, and even the little things like a father pleading with his daughter not to go put knots in my stomach. Very well made and acted and a must see for people interested in the subject. Almost 50 years between The Panic in Needle Park and this film and lives are still being destroyed and lost. Will it ever end? I watched it on Prime.


https://youtu.be/1b_CqeyKWYg

[ScarletLion]

Let Me Fall (2018)

4.5-

https://screenanarchy.com/assets/2018/09/let%20me%20fall%20tiff%20sa.jpg

https://images.kinorium.com/movie/shot/1646150/w1500_3236941.jpg

I just found this Icelandic film after ScarletLion brought it up in the favorite hard drug movies thread. I think I still prefer Christiane F, but I would rate this a close 2nd, both well ahead of the more well known and popular Requiem for a Dream. This also doubles as a coming of age love story involving 2 teen girls, and it's a non linear storyline as we also see them around a decade later when 1 is clean and 1 is not, but they are both permanently damaged. Horror and sadness dominate hope, and even the little things like a father pleading with his daughter not to go put knots in my stomach. Very well made and acted and a must see for people interested in the subject. Almost 50 years between The Panic in Needle Park and this film and lives are still being destroyed and lost. Will it ever end? I watched it on Prime.


https://youtu.be/1b_CqeyKWYg
Glad you enjoyed. I thought it was fantastic.

[cricket]

Glad you enjoyed. I thought it was fantastic.

My wife also watched it. She's a clinician and she thought it was very powerful and realistic.

[SpelingError]

Ida is great, but Cold War is far better.

I've heard of it, but I haven't really prioritized it. I'll have to keep an eye out for it.

[Torgo]

Death Duel - 4

You can read the full review (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2364908#post2364908) and many others in my Hong Kong thread (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=2284486#post2284486).

[Gideon58]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMDAzMGEwYWEtOGUyNi00Y2NjLWE1YjktZTMyM2ExYjUzYjk1XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjc1NTYyMjg@._V1_.jpg


4

[Stirchley]

91046

Re-watch of a movie I haven’t seen in forever. The movie is way too long. The best part is the romance between Charles & Rosy, which is lovely. Then the movie switches to the Irish Troubles which is not so interesting & is way too long also.

[Stirchley]

Rape is one of the worst acts a human can commit, particularly of those committed with any regularity. So that word basically means "one-of-the-worst-acts-you-can-commit-y."

Personally, I would change the word “human” to “man”. (I suppose a woman can rape, but I’m not familiar with this.)

Not sure if this is what you’re saying: are you saying that rape is worse when committed regularly? Rape is unconscionable whether done once or many times.

Not trying to start a “rape” argument here. Just airing my thoughts.

[Yoda]

Personally, I would change the word “human” to “man”. (I suppose a woman can rape, but I’m not familiar with this.)
I think the broader term is proper because the point in question was unrelated to the gender of the perpetrator, so using any more specificity than is necessary just invites misunderstandings or follow-ups. Like this:

Not sure if this is what you’re saying: are you saying that rape is worse when committed regularly? Rape is unconscionable whether done once or many times.
No, that is not what I'm saying. The word "regularity" is preemptively guarding against some pedantic reply that comes back with "oh yeah, what about X?" With X being genocide, or something. I was establishing how horrible it is without getting sucked into an argument wherein we start ranking horrible things.

Not trying to start a “rape” argument here. Just airing my thoughts.
The discussion had already wound down, but these are pretty sensitive questions and it'll look weird if I don't reply to them.

That said, if there are two interpretations of something and one is weird or absurd, and the other is relatively reasonable, I'd hope people would mostly just assume I meant the relatively reasonable thing. But if they need to be asked, I think PM or post comment is the best way to do so.

[Stirchley]

That said, if there are two interpretations of something and one is weird or absurd, and the other is relatively reasonable, I'd hope people would mostly just assume I meant the relatively reasonable thing. But if they need to be asked, I think PM or post comment is the best way to do so.

Not sure why I would hide my comments in a PM or post-comment & I didn’t know the topic had wound down.

Not gonna discuss this further.

[Sedai]

I'd like to get this thread heading back more towards posting the recent films we have seen, so let's not rekindle this flame that has already started to gutter over the past couple of days. Not sure where you could move the discussion instead, if a thread dedicated to the subject is warranted, or if that is just a thread that would get locked down anyway. I defer to Chris on this one, but let's get back to posting our recent films and mini reviews for same.

[Yoda]

Not sure why I would hide my comments in a PM or post-comment & I didn’t know the topic had wound down.

Not gonna discuss this further.
Okay. I initially wrote up a reply to the first bit, but Sedai's right, as he often is. If you (or anyone) wants to hear my reasoning/response, you/they can let me know.

I'm saying this because this is the nature of asking a pointed or sensitive thing in public: it creates an obligation to reply in public, or else risk looking like you're ignoring something important, which as a mod I obviously can't do.

[SuperMetro]

Here are some things I have seen this month:*
Hard Labor - Not really a movie, but some average episode of Play For Today that was directed by Mike Leigh. Sarcastic Remark: “Thanks Criterion Chanel” 2
Three Women - Wonderful work of “art” directed by Robert Altman. What I liked about it were the interactions between Pinky and Millie along with the other characters such as the heartless pool staff. Of course Shelley Duval plays my favorite character and part of the movie as I was into her tough personality throughout the entire 2 hours.

Thank you Criterion staff for adding this to the lineup, I needed it. 5

High Hopes - Pretty nice British film I saw because I wanted to see a work that was directed by Mike Leigh. I actually quite enjoyed it even if the people in it were not quite as delectable as the ones in the Nouve Vague. One of the film’s themes was about social classes which I really enjoyed as there was a funny scene where the rich neighbor was bullying the old lady for her behavior(ex. Needing the phone or referring to the “lavatory” as the “bathroom”). The film’s score is also quite bluesy. 3.5

4 Months 3 Weeks 2 Days - This is to me as Taste of Cherry is to Roger Ebert... This Palme winner is seen as a masterpiece by about everybody but I just saw it as another foreign film or “emperor without clothes” as Ebert would put it. This just did nothing for me. It certainly is passable as there are some good conversations. I needed something more exciting as a movie like this bores me. Alma & Elizabeth(Persona), Petra & Marlene(Petra von Kant), Celine & Julie, The Maries(Sedmikrasky), and several others make better female pair-ups in foreign films than the one(Gabito & Otilia) in this one.I guess this is more of a critic movie than one audiences do. 2.5
Current Palme Winner Rankings
1. Umbrellas of Cherbourg
2. La Dolce Vita
3. Pulp Fiction
4. Rosetta
5. This film

I will not miss it when it leaves Criterion at the end of the month but I certainly miss Pierrot le Fou which I have not seen yet.

The Mikado(1939) - It was alright. I found it to be stylistically pretty cool and I was a bit impressed with the color considering it being a 30s movie. I was humming the Tit-Willow song for a week after seeing it. 3

The Fabulous Baron Munchausen (1962) - Czech movies always give me this feeling that they are from another planet with this one included. I quite enjoyed the battles and voyages that the Baron, the Princess, and the Moonman went on. This movie was a good time indeed. I better watch the Terry Gilliam version now. 4

Jules and Jim - I start to feel that whatever happened to these two is whatever will happen to a friend and I when one of us gets married. The wife loses interest and the friend starts getting interested in her. The ending shocked me the same way Contempt did where two characters get killed in a car crash, except this time it is done out of malicious intent rather than it be an accident. I know Truffaut did 4 more films based off The 400 Blows, I wonder what a sequel to Jules and Jim would look like. Maybe Jules and Sabine or something beyond the lines. 4.5

A Woman is A Woman - Very stylistic and groovy sophomore effort by Jean-Luc Godard. This is the second film since The Young Girls of Rochefort where a reference to Jules and Jim is told. Matter of fact I think this film even referenced Lola which was another Jacques Demy film which he himself would reference in two other films(Umbrellas and Model Shop. This film is described as a musical comedy, but there were not any real songs in it. Also considering this a movie with a nightclub in it, this vibrant work is much better to me than the cold and despondent Exotica.4

Up next - Paris Belongs to Us, Band a Parte, Shoot the Piano Player, and possibly The Long Goodbye which I have been thinking about since October ‘21.

[cricket]

Dr. Lamb (1992)

2.5-

https://geekvibesnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Dr.-Lamb-Still.jpeg

I was happy to find a Cat III from my watchlist on YouTube uncut and with subtitles, but the movie was a little disappointing. It's about a true life killer and it's fairly well made, but overall it was pretty mediocre. Inconsistent tone and not brutal enough.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.slantmagazine.com%2Fassets%2Ffilm%2F29583%2Fbeautifulboy2018.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=7e2e5138b24309b11bc6f4791c883eb04fc022aca7853768efbba96abebe491a&ipo=images

Beautiful Boy, 2018

Nic (Timothée Chalamet) is a bright, creative teenager, and the son of a successful writer, David (Steve Carell). But Nic's promising path toward adulthood is seriously derailed when he develops a drug problem. Despite support from David, stepmother Karen (Maura Tierney), and biological mother, Vicki (Amy Ryan), Nic yo-yos between sobriety and heavy use, leaving his family to feel helpless and unmoored as the consequences of Nic's drug use become more and more serious.

While I wouldn't necessarily say that this film's portrayal of a family struggling with drug addiction is breaking any new territory, what it does it does very well.

There are two fronts on which I think this film does a very good job. The first is the portrayal and understanding that recovery from drug use is not a linear path. Someone can have support, and resources, and a desire to break free of drugs, and yet still find themselves sliding back into familiar, destructive patterns. Years ago I read a book that I thought was very interesting called The Night of the Gun, written by a journalist who had spent many years dealing with serious drug addiction. I saw a lot of echoes othat story in this film.

I also thought that the film did a nice job of balancing the perspectives of the two sides of the narrative. From Nic's side, he is dealing with some combination of anxiety and a lack of stimulation that may have existed before the drug use but is certainly exasperated by it. Every time he gives in again, he seems driven there by a desperation he can't control. And every small misstep puts him right back on a familiar slippery slope. David's point of view is also very sympathetic. It's easy to armchair coach the whole situation, realizing that Nic needs boundaries and maybe even to be cut off to a degree. But it's one thing to say that and another thing to contemplate what it's like for a father to tell his son he can't help him. If his son OD'd that night, that father's last memory would be denying his son help, yes, even if he 99% knew that the "help" was just a circular way of getting more money/drugs. Trying to help hurts and not trying to help hurts, and there's no way to escape the pain. The film frequently flashes back to Nic's childhood, and we can see how for David, it must perpetually seem impossible that the path of his bright young child has led to this place of 2am hospital visits, theft, and lies.

The film also portrays the way that Nic's drug problem intrudes into the lives of all of his family members. Sometimes it is direct, such as when Nic steals, pathetically, the $8 that was his little brother's "life savings". But it also manifests itself as a kind of uncertainty, insecurity, and tension for the whole family. If David is perpetually being called away, or put on edge by late night phone calls, he can't be a consistent presence for his children. In one scene, an upset Karen gets into her car to follow Nic, who has broken into the house with a girl. As Nic finally outruns her in his car, she simply stops in the middle of the road and cries. It's unclear what she would have done or said if she caught up to him. And maybe she doesn't know herself. But we see how this situation has pushed the whole family to a breaking point.

I thought that the performances were all pretty good. I liked Chalamet's portrayal of Nic as someone just brilliant enough that maybe he believes his own bluster about moving to New York for a fresh start. Carell's David is written in a bit more of a choppy way, with more distinct "modes." There's the part where he's angry and yelling, the part where he's calm and researching drug addiction, the parts where he's sad.

A film that is overall well done, but not really a standout for me in terms of movies portraying the challenges of drug addiction.

3.5

[Takoma11]

In trying to find a picture for Beautiful Boy I just searched "beautiful boy" and failed to put in the year of the film, and thus just got a bunch of pictures of beautiful boys, LOL.

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.timeout.com%2Fimages%2F101749359%2Fimage.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=bb0856f642238799c85fa829a89e005a83f8dca86d57ffd18bea12e83d0ffb76&ipo=images

Hiroshima Mon Amour, 1959

In the city of Hiroshima, a french actress (Emmanuelle Riva) has an affair with a Japanese man (Eiji Okada) while she is in Japan to film a movie. As they grapple with their attraction and the necessarily short-lived nature of their relationship, the actress opens up about a traumatic experience she had during the War.

Some films leave you with the feeling that nothing you can say or write about them will be anywhere adequate to the experience. And, at the same time, a sense that maybe you don't totally "get" the film. Such it is for me and Hiroshima Mon Amour.

What I feel most strongly able to articulate about what I took from the film is the complex role that past experiences play with present ones. The actress has been marked, powerfully, by her experiences during the war as a young woman who fell in love with an occupying German soldier. Feelings of love and passion open up those memories and experiences, and she does not get to choose whether or not the bad comes with the good. The more wonderful her experiences with her Japanese lover, the more painfully she must reckon with the loss of her German one.

The sequence in which the actress slowly unfolds the story of her young love is spectacular. You come to understand why she would be so drawn to and captivated by Hiroshima, a place of destruction and survival, and anger that cannot find a target. There is such a complexity of emotions bound up in her memories, specific moments and vague memories. You can understand why it would be tempting for her to unburden herself to a stranger, to a person who has also experienced loss and suffering that can have no real resolution.

The visuals are stunning, opening with a sequence of entangled bodies covered in ash. It might be seen as a precarious thing to compare a person's personal experience to the bombing of Hiroshima, but the film is so subjective and tangled in the actress's memories, that it doesn't feel like a tasteless comparison so much as a way to reflect her anguish. The movie's use of flashbacks and a moving camera also put you into that highly subjective space.

The film is definitely skewed very strongly toward the point of view of the actress. I would have wanted to know more about the experiences and feelings of the architect. That said, the film is convincing in showing the chemistry and emotion between the two of them to the point that you entirely believe why it would bring up such a well of emotion in her, and why he would persist in pursuing her despite her erratic state of mind.

A really lovely film that already begs a rewatch for deeper understanding.

4.5

[ZackSnyder]

Avatar the way of water in IMAX 3d 5/5, I can see why the sequel got nominated for so many respectable awards! It is full of spectacular escapism! It's so fun to watch, the visual effects are incredible, and nobody uses 3d like the legend James Cameron! it was so worth nearly two decades of waiting for the sequel!

[GulfportDoc]

His Girl Friday - (1940)

I'd already seen His Girl Friday a number of years ago, and really liked it - despite the version I was watching not being the best audio and visual quality. Was looking forward to watching my Criterion edition, and it really sparkles as probably the best adaptation of the play, "The Front Page" I've yet seen. I would have thought it a terrible idea to turn it into something of a romantic comedy, but Cary Grant really makes it work with his sly comedic manner. I tell you, my attention is focused on his face - he's an actor who can let the audience know what he's thinking, even when it's at odds with what he's saying. The actual satire of the original story seems a bonus on top of the screwball comedy we get. The fact that Ralph Bellamy kept working up until the 1990s will always tickle me as well. A few decades later Rosalind Russell would play Rose in Gypsy. All up His Girl Friday is a great movie that moves at an absolute bullet train pace and gives it's characters plenty of room to shine. If anyone has any recommendations of more comedies from this 1930s/1940s era with Cary Grant, Irene Dunne or the likes in them, please let me know. I really enjoy them.

8/10
I agree. Great film. The rapport between C. Grant and R. Russell is very appealing, as is their lighting fast dialogue-- which had been insisted upon by Howard Hawks.

You've probably seen The Front Page (1931), the original film based upon the Broadway play, but if you haven't, I think you'd like it. Aldolphe Menjou and Pat O'Brien played the main parts that Grant and Russell played later (Burns and Hilldy). And it was a good choice on Hawk's part to make Hildy a female in the re-make. "Page" is a very good picture, but I'd give the edge to "His Girl".

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fca-times.brightspotcdn.com%2Fdims4%2Fdefault%2F17fa1c0%2F2147483647%2Fstrip%2Ftrue%2Fcrop%2F1600x1067%2 B0%2B0%2Fresize%2F1200x800!%2Fquality%2F80%2F%3Furl%3Dhttps%3A%252F%252Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%252F02%252F5a%252F7a8b46bd462790360443c2be87b4%252Fcatherine-called-birdy-catherinecalledbirdy-2021-ut-210415-baiale-9883rc2-rgb.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=3e24061d8f30d6456a54b1835eebb32795c38d890fa683226d79b53bbb4540f6&ipo=images

Catherine Called Birdy, 2022

Birdy (Bella Ramsey) is the youngest daughter of Lord Rollo (Andrew Scott) and Lady Aislinn (Billie Piper). With the household in serious financial difficulties, Rollo begins to shop around for a wealthy husband for Birdy. Birdy does her best to put off her suitors with absurd antics, but she may finally meet a suitor who will not give up on his matrimonial intentions.

It's been ages since I've read Catherine, Called Birdy, a book whose cover evokes strong childhood memories even if the details of the story had faded a bit in my memory. While the pacing of the middle act leaves a little to be desired, overall I thought it was a fun, feisty film.

The best thing about the film is probably that it contains no overt villains and no overt saints. Catherine, who does not have to work and who has a nursemaid and who always has enough to eat, is certainly someone who is privileged in the 1200s setting of the film. Movies about wealthy characters, especially those who have it a lot better than the people living around them, can seem a bit tone deaf. I thought the film did a good job of acknowledging Birdy's advantages while also keeping you on her side in her resistance to marriage.

Ramsey is PERFECT in the lead role. Movie versions of adolescent characters, especially those from books, tend to skew way too pretty or way too precocious. Ramsey looks like a real kid, albeit a snarky, whirlwind. And that's what works so well in the movie. Birdy is a kid. The fact that she's had her period does nothing to change that she is very much still in a child's mindset. She still wants to be tucked in and told stories and get to spend the day poking at mud with a stick. It does a good job of driving home just how ridiculous it is that someone wants to marry her off to someone, much less a someone in his 50s.

The supporting cast is pretty fantastic, as well. Scott and Piper are great as Birdy's parents. They care about Birdy, but they also feel that they understand the real ways of the world and that they can no longer coddle her. Scott in particular pulls off something pretty slick in his performance--and credit is due to the writing also--by always keeping Rollo on the edge of discomfort with the transactional way that he is treating his youngest child. It keeps his character, a man who is shopping his daughter around and also administers painful punishments every time she drives a suitor away, from being some one-dimensional patriarchal monster.

But the supporting cast extends well beyond Birdy's parents. Lesley Sharp is great fun as Birdy's long-suffering nursemaid. Dean-Charles Chapman is very funny as Birdy's older himbo brother. Sophie Okonedo twice stands out as a widow who marries into Birdy's family and offers the girl sound words of advice. Isis Hainsworth and Michael Woolfitt are good fun as Birdy's friends Aelis and Perkin. Paul Kaye makes quite a splash as Bridy's most persistent, and most disgusting, suitor. Everyone plays their role perfectly and it's a rich ensemble who all play very well off of each other.

The film explores the way that Birdy's crash course into the world of adulthood leads her to increasing offense and rebellion. She moves from learning what a virgin is to outrage at learning that virgins are worth more. At every turn, her awakenings regarding her own biology, sex, and lust quickly veer into betrayals as they are all couched in her body as commodity. And the more the people around her act like it's okay, the worse it seems.

I also liked that the film acknowledged the feelings and lives of those around Birdy. Part of what Birdy comes to realize is that other people also have desires and hopes and dreams. Birdy is given to a very common perspective issues---especially for a teenager!--that she is the center of her story. It doesn't occur to her to think about what her siblings or her best friends want for their own lives. A big part of her character growth is seeing herself as a part of a community, even if the actions of that community might sometimes be incredibly unfair toward her.

The film does have some pacing issues in the middle. Once the dynamic is established--a suitor arrives, Birdy acts weird to drive him off--the film stalls just a little bit. Side plots about the people around her getting married/engaged are taken care of kind of hastily. But things definitely pick up in the last act, as Birdy must confront what it would mean to leave her family and strike off on her own. Fans of the book might not be enthusiastic about the way that the ending was changed, but I honestly didn't mind it. It's not as "realistic" as an ending, but who cares?

If I'd gotten to see this film as an adolescent/young teen, I would have loved it. It's just "adult" enough to feel like it isn't a little kids' film, but fun enough that it's not drab or too "real". The young characters actually feel and look like young people, it's genuinely funny in a great mix of banter and people stepping in poop. It's also got a really in-your-face soundtrack, which some people might not care for but I thought perfectly fit the vibe the film was going for.

4

[beelzebubble]

Empire of Light (2022)


A decent cast, some period accurate snacks and a collection of themes in search of a plot.


I went into this mistakenly thinking it was set in earlier (maybe because one of the characters wears a hat on the poster) but its instantly clear it's set in 1980. A collection of characters work at a seafront cinema. Olivia Colman's manager is lonely, recovering from a mental illness and having a meaningless affair with her boss. Then she meets and strikes up a relationship with a new colleague.


There's nothing new or meaningful here. Racism is bad, mental illness and loneliness are sad and cinema is good, in case you didn't already know. It really needed decent script rather than a collection of tropes (if I see one more movie where a woman submerges herself in a bath to signify her emotional turmoil...). Several moments made me cringe. There's one good line (seriously, one). The music (Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) is good. Mostly it just feels empty and a wasted opportunity.


rating_2_5
The trailer for this was so vague. I had no idea what it was supposed to be about or what era it took place in. Now I am glad I avoided it.

[Little Ash]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.timeout.com%2Fimages%2F101749359%2Fimage.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=bb0856f642238799c85fa829a89e005a83f8dca86d57ffd18bea12e83d0ffb76&ipo=images

Hiroshima Mon Amour, 1959

[...]
The film is definitely skewed very strongly toward the point of view of the actress. I would have wanted to know more about the experiences and feelings of the architect. That said, the film is convincing in showing the chemistry and emotion between the two of them to the point that you entirely believe why it would bring up such a well of emotion in her, and why he would persist in pursuing her despite her erratic state of mind.

A really lovely film that already begs a rewatch for deeper understanding.

4.5

For what it's worth, I encountered these lectures (or an earlier version/course of these lectures) probably close to a couple decades ago (back when you could get them through iTunes in your podcatcher of choice), and I'm pretty sure my now quarter-remembered recollection of them shapes how I view the characters behaviors in Hiroshima mon Amour.

https://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/Philosophy/-/Existentialism-in-Literature-and-Film/18193

Also greatly influenced how I viewed AI: Artificial Intelligence as well, but that's a story for another time.

[PHOENIX74]

I agree. Great film. The rapport between C. Grant and R. Russell is very appealing, as is their lighting fast dialogue-- which had been insisted upon by Howard Hawks.

You've probably seen The Front Page (1931), the original film based upon the Broadway play, but if you haven't, I think you'd like it. Aldolphe Menjou and Pat O'Brien played the main parts that Grant and Russell played later (Burns and Hilldy). And it was a good choice on Hawk's part to make Hildy a female in the re-make. "Page" is a very good picture, but I'd give the edge to "His Girl".

Yeah, I'd seen that adaption before I originally saw His Girl Friday, but the image and sound quality weren't the best. On the Criterion edition of Friday they actually include The Front Page in it's entirety as a special feature, and I'm hoping it's a lot clearer and more crisp - I'm looking forward to seeing it again.

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d0/Phoenix_%282014_film%29_POSTER.jpg
By The poster art can or could be obtained from the distributor., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=45249015

Phoenix - (2014)

Saw three weighty, first-class films yesterday, so it was hard to know which one to lead with. I gave the honor to Phoenix, a Fassbinder-like examination of identity in post-war Berlin, where in a strange twist of fate a woman pretends to be the exact person she is. Nelly Lenz (Nina Hoss) is a Jewish lady who has survived the camps - she was shot, and her face destroyed, but survived. After facial reconstruction she is taken to Berlin and helped by a woman (Lene Winter - played by Nina Kunzendorf) who intends to take her to Palestine. Nelly wants to find her husband however, despite the fact that he may have betrayed her to the Nazis. Nelly's husband, "Johnny" (Ronald Zehrfeld) doesn't recognize her, but has a feeling she's a perfect candidate to help him get his hands on Nelly's inheritance - all she has to do is pretend to be Nelly. Nelly yearns to reconnect with Johnny, despite the fact he's a cad, probably sold her out, and treats her harshly. She aches for his recognition, and for some kind of sign that he's divined her soul - and holds out hope that he isn't the person he so obviously is. It's a film that gives you pause so you can question what makes us who we are - what others perceive us to be? Our own idea of ourselves? Or is identity just an illusion? Something we think we know, but is ultimately unknowable? This was a very well constructed psychological drama by Christian Petzold - the first film of his I've seen.

8/10

https://i.postimg.cc/h4xN4BVC/kid-with-a-bike.jpg
By May be found at the following website: http://www.cinelibre.be/scripts/Films.VoirAffiche.cfm?ID=1271&IDAffiche=1&Layout=01, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=31520323

The Kid With a Bike - (2011)

I was very much interested in seeing more films from Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne after watching and reviewing La Promesse in a Hall of Fame, and The Kid With a Bike is the second feature of theirs I've landed on. It's a very grounded and heartfelt film, with Cyril (Thomas Doret) - a 12-year-old boy who has been abandoned by his father, but can't quite believe that his dad has done that to him. Not only that, but his father has sold the boy's precious bike - and this thoughtless and cruel rejection has predictable psychological consequences for the boy. One woman, Samantha (Cécile de France), takes to him, but has to not only manage his troubled behavior, but contend with neighbourhood drug dealers who try to befriend the love-starved Cyril and get him to participate in violent robberies. Some scenes, such as when Cyril pays a visit to his father who he really adores, but wants nothing to do with him, are especially poignant. Cyril's father is so young, you have to reckon on him being in his mid-teens when he had him - he has written Cyril out of his life story, and wants to start again. With this boy's misfortune, can any amount of love make up for the love he's lost?

7.5/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/The_Irishman_poster.jpg
By May be found at the following website: [1], Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61690934

The Irishman - (2019)

The Irishman hits some awe-inspiring peaks, but I have to wonder if it really needed to be 209 minutes long. Films like Seven Samurai and Lawrence of Arabia did need to be as long as they were, but if feels like The Irishman is a story that could have been told in two and a half hours and still had room for contemplation and the kind of wistful regret that registers every time we see De Niro's face towards the end. God bless Scorsese for bringing back Joe Pesci, who gives one of the best performances of his career - all the more impressive that he had nothing to prove and wasn't yearning for one last glorious Scorsese role. I really liked The Irishman a lot, though I'm sad to say that it was hard for me to see Pacino as Hoffa - but that alone didn't sour my experience. The film dragged at times, but delivered much all the same.

7.5/10

[StuSmallz]

The problem as I see it is that there aren't strict lines between the things we're attempting to characterize here. Where does "wooing" end and coercion begin? Where does coercion start to trip into intimidation? Where does intimidation become threat? Obviously applying relentless verbal pressure to someone is not the same as physically holding them down, but they're not entirely unrelated dynamics


Characterizing getting a woman to have sex with you as something you have to overcome inherently starts to skew into non-consensual territory. (Though again there is nuance because sometimes a person is hesitant or unexcited about something but is happy ultimately that someone talked them into it. In the specific context of this film, Sandy is obviously happy about how things went with Danny.).


I still fundamentally disagree with you, Stu, in your initial comment about seeing "Love at first sight" and "Did she put up a fight?" as contrasting ways of talking about the same thing. We can agree that "Did she put up a fight?" is asking "Did she resist having sex with you?", right?Not necessarily; I mean, going back and rewatching that scene again has actually made me more convinced that there's less anything concretely skeezy about that line, because I actually Mandela Effected myself into thinking the guy made a fist when he sang it (and possibly symbolized some sort of a physical struggle in the process), but he really just puts his hand over his heart Pledge Of Allegiance-style, as if to say "Was it hard to win her heart/love?". And in that case, it's such a vague sentiment that could mean any number of things, since as far as we know, he was just wondering if Sandy was difficult to impress while Danny was trying to woo her, and maybe he had to spend a lot of money on a fancy date before she'd give him a chance, or something like that?


Of course, there's no way of knowing for 100% sure what was meant by the line/moment without asking the songwriters/filmmakers, but until then, unless something more concretely problematic can reasonably be inferred on our own, why infer it? I mean, if you assume there's something creepy about a vague line, then of course it's going to, well, seem creepy, but why assume that without the additional context needed here? Because if you ask me, I think there are enough actual offensive things in older movies to criticize (including other things in Grease itself, like the message of conformity Crumb talked about) without assuming there had to be something creepy about such a vague line, to be honest.

[Fabulous]

Hackers (1995)

3

https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/original/4Z5o376Fiw6r10vxqZ4jg5P1Mq7.jpg

[sawduck]

The Fabelmans 7/10

The Station Agent 7.5/10

The Menu 8/10

Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio 8/10

[crumbsroom]

he really just puts his hand over his heart Pledge Of Allegiance-style, as if to say "Was it hard to win her heart/love?".


Yes, exactly the kind of question we should expect from a bunch of greaser toughs. Especially in a song where their responses always have sexual connotations attached to them.


You seem to think you would need the Pink Ladies to be asking Sandy directly "did you ****" before "did you put up a fight" can be interpreted as sexually orientated. But that is clearly not the point of the songs structure. The men are ironic counterpoints to the Pink Ladies' more swoony take on romance. To have that line be a direct response to their questions about love, with an answer that is also about love, would make literally zero sense in the context of what the running gag of the song is.


But no, we can't say for certain without talking to the songwriters. But this doesn't mean we can't look at character, context and intent to determine what is most likely the meaning. And you have to be reading the linguistics of this song in a complete bubble to at least not acknowledge the distinct possibility that this is how it should be taken.


And I'm more than fine having this response moved to another thread since it's not really the point of the thread

[Takoma11]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d0/Phoenix_%282014_film%29_POSTER.jpg
By The poster art can or could be obtained from the distributor., Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=45249015

Phoenix - (2014)

It's a film that gives you pause so you can question what makes us who we are - what others perceive us to be? Our own idea of ourselves? Or is identity just an illusion? Something we think we know, but is ultimately unknowable? This was a very well constructed psychological drama by Christian Petzold - the first film of his I've seen.

8/10

I love this film. It's an absolute 10/10 for me. And that ENDING!

And in that case, it's such a vague sentiment that could mean any number of things, since as far as we know, he was just wondering if Sandy was difficult to impress while Danny was trying to woo her, and maybe he had to spend a lot of money on a fancy date before she'd give him a chance, or something like that?

If you don't understand why someone, and specifically a female someone, would have a gut negative reaction to hearing someone ask if a woman "put up a fight" in the context of a sexual encounter, I simply don't know what to say anymore. I think that I have summed up all of my viewpoints in my previous posts.

[Takoma11]

For what it's worth, I encountered these lectures (or an earlier version/course of these lectures) probably close to a couple decades ago (back when you could get them through iTunes in your podcatcher of choice), and I'm pretty sure my now quarter-remembered recollection of them shapes how I view the characters behaviors in Hiroshima mon Amour.

https://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/Philosophy/-/Existentialism-in-Literature-and-Film/18193

Also greatly influenced how I viewed AI: Artificial Intelligence as well, but that's a story for another time.

Thank you for the link!

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fwww.tor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F07%2Favengers-endgame-deleted-scene-final-battle.png%3Ffit%3D1200%252C%2B9999%26crop%3D0%252C0%252C100%252C502px%26quality%3D100%26ssl%3D1&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=ad87032efbaa1e8ffdec39ebff2ecc2134258777ab7c53c63f7f48b31d1e4493&ipo=images

Avengers: Endgame, 2019

In the aftermath of the events of Infinity War, the surviving members are trying to cope with their losses. Shocked when Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) reappears from the Quantum Realm, the Avengers realize that they might have a chance to get their loved ones back after all.

Okay, fine. FINE! I've used the words "exhausted" and "fatigue" to describe my feelings about most of the Marvel movies I've seen in the last 5 years or so. After enjoying most of the movies, I hit a turning point where the excessive runtimes and just overall sameness of the films had worn down my enjoyment. But to give full credit where credit is due, I enjoyed this movie quite a bit and thought it was a fitting bookend to what had come before it.

I was not optimistic when I was initially eyeing up the 3 hour run time. But I think that why the film largely worked for me is that it divides its story and its cast in clever ways. The first half of the movie is overtly styled as a heist. The Avengers must jump back to different points in their own pasts to capture the infinity stones before Thanos can get his hands on them. This works well on two levels. On the first level, it's just fun to see the way that the characters interact with their earlier selves and the events from their past. The second reason it works well is because it divides up the team into smaller groups so that we have more time to spend with each of them. This format allows for more small moments of reflection and personal interaction, such as when Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) quest to a distant realm where they must parse out their feelings on destiny and duty and self-worth and redemption.

The film is also very short on the kind of bloated, "what is even happening?!" CGI-laden action that I've come to find borderline insufferable. Even the final showdown, which looked like it was headed that way, managed to pull itself more into small moments and personal stakes. The action is highly centered on character decisions, and most of those are centered on difficult choices.

My favorite subplot in the whole Marvel universe up to this point has been the fractured-then-repaired friendship between Bucky (Sebastian Stan) and Captain America (Chris Evans). But I thought that the overall theme of this film---loss in its many forms--was really well done. Every character, at some point in the film, is forced to look at the losses they have suffered. For some of them, like Hawkeye, those losses can in theory be reversed. For Captain America, the loss is the love he left in the past. For Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and later the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), the loss is one that is irreversible. For Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr), the loss is what he risks if he ventures back into battle. And I really felt like it just works. It is coherent in a way that I've not really felt in one of these films in a long time, and it's impressive because of the way that it encompasses such a sprawl of characters.

Generally speaking, I felt like the choices made in this film (a handful of eye-rolling "comic relief" moments notwithstanding) were god ones. Very little wasted time. And just the right amount of sentiment for its characters. I really liked the touch of the actors' signatures over the roles that they played.

4

[Wooley]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fwww.tor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F07%2Favengers-endgame-deleted-scene-final-battle.png%3Ffit%3D1200%252C%2B9999%26crop%3D0%252C0%252C100%252C502px%26quality%3D100%26ssl%3D1&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=ad87032efbaa1e8ffdec39ebff2ecc2134258777ab7c53c63f7f48b31d1e4493&ipo=images

Avengers: Endgame, 2019

In the aftermath of the events of Infinity War, the surviving members are trying to cope with their losses. Shocked when Ant-Man (Paul Rudd) reappears from the Quantum Realm, the Avengers realize that they might have a chance to get their loved ones back after all.

Okay, fine. FINE! I've used the words "exhausted" and "fatigue" to describe my feelings about most of the Marvel movies I've seen in the last 5 years or so. After enjoying most of the movies, I hit a turning point where the excessive runtimes and just overall sameness of the films had worn down my enjoyment. But to give full credit where credit is due, I enjoyed this movie quite a bit and thought it was a fitting bookend to what had come before it.

I was not optimistic when I was initially eyeing up the 3 hour run time. But I think that why the film largely worked for me is that it divides its story and its cast in clever ways. The first half of the movie is overtly styled as a heist. The Avengers must jump back to different points in their own pasts to capture the infinity stones before Thanos can get his hands on them. This works well on two levels. On the first level, it's just fun to see the way that the characters interact with their earlier selves and the events from their past. The second reason it works well is because it divides up the team into smaller groups so that we have more time to spend with each of them. This format allows for more small moments of reflection and personal interaction, such as when Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) quest to a distant realm where they must parse out their feelings on destiny and duty and self-worth and redemption.

The film is also very short on the kind of bloated, "what is even happening?!" CGI-laden action that I've come to find borderline insufferable. Even the final showdown, which looked like it was headed that way, managed to pull itself more into small moments and personal stakes. The action is highly centered on character decisions, and most of those are centered on difficult choices.

My favorite subplot in the whole Marvel universe up to this point has been the fractured-then-repaired friendship between Bucky (Sebastian Stan) and Captain America (Chris Evans). But I thought that the overall theme of this film---loss in its many forms--was really well done. Every character, at some point in the film, is forced to look at the losses they have suffered. For some of them, like Hawkeye, those losses can in theory be reversed. For Captain America, the loss is the love he left in the past. For Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and later the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), the loss is one that is irreversible. For Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr), the loss is what he risks if he ventures back into battle. And I really felt like it just works. It is coherent in a way that I've not really felt in one of these films in a long time, and it's impressive because of the way that it encompasses such a sprawl of characters.

Generally speaking, I felt like the choices made in this film (a handful of eye-rolling "comic relief" moments notwithstanding) were god ones. Very little wasted time. And just the right amount of sentiment for its characters. I really liked the touch of the actors' signatures over the roles that they played.

4

You have given me joy-joy feelings.

[Takoma11]

You have given me joy-joy feelings.

As I was writing this I was like, "Well, I know at least one person who will like this opinion."

[PHOENIX74]

https://i.postimg.cc/NfGC8Md5/2-DAYS1-NIGHT-Poster1.jpg
By May be found at the following website: [1], Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42736742

Two Days, One Night - (2014)

This is the third Jean-Pierre Dardenne and Luc Dardenne film I've seen, and my favourite out of all of them so far. Two Days, One Night speaks to most people who struggle in the modern world with few jobs and overburdening financial pressures - especially those the victim of unfair practices. In this Sandra Bya (Marion Cotillard) has been fired from her job after her boss told all of her workmates to vote over whether they want a 1000 euro bonus or else keep her on. Her husband and friend have convinced the boss to do the vote over on Monday, and so over the weekend Sandra must go from workmate to workmate pleading her case, desperate to keep a job she needs for the family to stay afloat. Meanwhile she's struggling with the aftermath of depression - which doesn't help when some workmates become aggressive with her. It's a battle with ebbs and flows - some are moved to tears and side with her, which bucks up her spirits, while some actually become physically violent. The atmosphere of financial desperation and utter hopelessness permeates this film, but it's not a depressing one - it's a rollercoaster of emotions and something that will have your absolute empathy.

Marion Cotillard is great in this (she was nominated for an Oscar), and the movie as a whole is a good example of the kind of everyday stuff the Dardenne brothers construct their films around, reminiscent of Italian neorealism. All of their movies are very grounded representations of real problems that real people might have - but in this an entire economic system is being held to account. Too many people are being unfairly squeezed into poverty needlessly, just so the rich can get even richer. Visually, it feels like we're walking around with Sandra on her wretched and distressing mission, without overt cinematic shots so it doesn't break the feeling of reality. An easy recommendation from me.

9/10

[Takoma11]

https://i.postimg.cc/NfGC8Md5/2-DAYS1-NIGHT-Poster1.jpg
By May be found at the following website: [1], Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=42736742

Two Days, One Night - (2014)

This is the third Jean-Pierre Dardenne and Luc Dardenne film I've seen, and my favourite out of all of them so far. Two Days, One Night speaks to most people who struggle in the modern world with few jobs and overburdening financial pressures - especially those the victim of unfair practices.
.
.
.
Marion Cotillard is great in this (she was nominated for an Oscar), and the movie as a whole is a good example of the kind of everyday stuff the Dardenne brothers construct their films around, reminiscent of Italian neorealism. All of their movies are very grounded representations of real problems that real people might have - but in this an entire economic system is being held to account. Too many people are being unfairly squeezed into poverty needlessly, just so the rich can get even richer. Visually, it feels like we're walking around with Sandra on her wretched and distressing mission, without overt cinematic shots so it doesn't break the feeling of reality. An easy recommendation from me.

9/10

The way that this film depicts how systems are put in place to pit people against each other while those at the top never have to scrabble at all is so painful. A friend of mine was just told she has to lay off three of the five people on her team, despite the fact that they are the most successful team at doing their role in the company. This led to others sharing their stories, including one person who was at a meeting where layoffs were announced. When someone asked if any of the executives were taking a paycut, one of them answered no because "it wouldn't have made any difference." Actually, if even one of them had taken a 5% paycut, it would have saved at least one person and maybe two from being let go.

I think that this movie puts that injustice out there, while also acknowledging that people like Sandra have no choice but to play the game because they do not have any leverage.

Have you seen L'Enfant? Just watched it a bit ago and thought it was very good.

[PHOENIX74]

The way that this film depicts how systems are put in place to pit people against each other while those at the top never have to scrabble at all is so painful. A friend of mine was just told she has to lay off three of the five people on her team, despite the fact that they are the most successful team at doing their role in the company. This led to others sharing their stories, including one person who was at a meeting where layoffs were announced. When someone asked if any of the executives were taking a paycut, one of them answered no because "it wouldn't have made any difference." Actually, if even one of them had taken a 5% paycut, it would have saved at least one person and maybe two from being let go.

I read a joke this morning that touches on that. "A CEO, a Tea Party member, and a union worker are sitting at a table. A plate of twelve cookies appears. The CEO grabs eleven of them, looks at the Tea Partier, and exclaims, pointing to the worker, "Watch out - he wants your cookie!"" It takes a special kind of greed to set your own people against each other. It's so frustrating, because it's all often a greed that's so needless. A lot of these people in lofty positions are already rich, and have far more than they need - but they'll inflict suffering on others just so they'll be that little bit more rich.

Have you seen L'Enfant? Just watched it a bit ago and thought it was very good.

I read your review of that and enjoyed it - as I was already interested in the directors I'm looking forward to seeing it very much.

[Wooley]

As I was writing this I was like, "Well, I know at least one person who will like this opinion."

Seriously, it's always been the character stuff and the world-building I liked about these movies. Very little of the action is any more interesting to me than any other action. But that's true in general for me these days.
Did you do Infinity War already, I can't remember.

[Wooley]

I read a joke this morning that touches on that. "A CEO, a Tea Party member, and a union worker are sitting at a table. A plate of twelve cookies appears. The CEO grabs eleven of them, looks at the Tea Partier, and exclaims, pointing to the worker, "Watch out - he wants your cookie!"" It takes a special kind of greed to set your own people against each other. It's so frustrating, because it's all often a greed that's so needless. A lot of these people in lofty positions are already rich, and have far more than they need - but they'll inflict suffering on others just so they'll be that little bit more rich.


That's actually also one of my favorite jokes, though I hadn't heard it with the Tea Partier. I originally heard it when Trump was first running and turning immigration into the big issue.
"A banker, a blue-collar worker, and an immigrant are sitting around a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The banker takes elven and gets up to leave, then leans over and whispers in the worker's ear, "Hey! I think that immigrant's tryin' to take your cookie."
It works with a bunch of different characters. Great joke.

[StuSmallz]

If you don't understand why someone, and specifically a female someone, would have a gut negative reaction to hearing someone ask if a woman "put up a fight" in the context of a sexual encounter, I simply don't know what to say anymore. I think that I have summed up all of my viewpoints in my previous posts.I understand it; I mean, that's why I've been talking to you about it like this, so I can get a better understanding of why you feel the way you do about it (and vice versa, hopefully). If you don't want to talk about this anymore, then I'll leave you alone about it after this, I just want to say that adults of all genders should be able to exchange their thoughts on gender-related issues, and any other sensitive subject in good faith, without say, dismissing one another's opinions because of the differences in identity they might have, or refusing to communicate about them at all (or anything else that might get in the way of that), because otherwise, men and women might as well just stop talking to each other about anything, as far as I'm concerned.

[ScarletLion]

'The Trial' (1962)
Directed by Orson Welles

http://www.tasteofcinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/The-Trial.jpg

Watched the new 4K Disc which is just stunning in terms of image quality and does Edmond Richard’s beautiful photography justice. Orson Welles filmed it in the former Yugoslavia with many shots including parallel lines of architecture and shadows. In later shots, clearly drawing from his love of German expressionism in terms of visuals, there are rooms filled with cracks and crates and spikes which seem to pay homage to the likes of Cabinet of Dr Caligari. However the audio wasn’t great, perhaps because Welles dubbed many of the international cast into English and the sync of the dialogue was out in most scenes.

The film is obviously the definition of ‘Kafkaesque’, as we enter a paranoid, disorienting nightmare faced by the main character Josef K (Anthony Perkins). Josef is accused of a crime by the police, who may or not be the police, but he’s not told what the crime is. He stumbles into various characters and into his own trial but gets more confused as the film goes on. Unfortunately I got more confused too. It’s difficult to follow at times and challenges the viewer with long scenes of profound dialogue, especially in the middle of the film.

The ending though is truly superb and must surely have inspired many films from ‘Being John Malkovich’ to ‘The Truman Show’ and everything in between. I will re-watch this film at some point to try and focus on the dialogue more than the beautiful photography, which may reveal more.

3.5

[Fabulous]

The Beast with Five Fingers (1946)

3

https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/original/sPBH6bM80wSUsPL3SCO14FXx23U.jpg

[Stirchley]

91096

Sweet French movie.

[Gideon58]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNDRiZjc0ZDMtMjhlYi00ZjAzLTg0MDQtZDI2NGEyYTBlN2M2XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTA2MDU0NjM5._V1_.jpg


2

[Stirchley]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNDRiZjc0ZDMtMjhlYi00ZjAzLTg0MDQtZDI2NGEyYTBlN2M2XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTA2MDU0NjM5._V1_.jpg


2

Thought this got good reviews. Maybe it didn’t.

[Takoma11]

Seriously, it's always been the character stuff and the world-building I liked about these movies. Very little of the action is any more interesting to me than any other action. But that's true in general for me these days.
Did you do Infinity War already, I can't remember.

This was one of the only Marvel films where the character work felt actually substantial to me. I did see Infinity War, but almost all of it disappeared from my mind.

I understand it; I mean, that's why I've been talking to you about it like this, so I can get a better understanding of why you feel the way you do about it (and vice versa, hopefully).

You started the conversation by saying that you feel the lyric has been unfairly maligned. I think it's pretty obvious why a lot of people would hear the phrase being used to refer to sexual activity and have a negative reaction. For many people, in fact, (and I'm going to use a word I know a lot of people hate, but it's accurate!) that kind of language is genuinely triggering.

At a basic level, it really doesn't matter what the songwriter intended when he wrote the lyric, nor does it matter what the actor meant to imply when he sang the lyric, nor does it even matter all that much what we can infer about the situation that happened in the film. The most forgiving reading of the whole thing is that a songwriter oops accidentally used a phrase that he didn't know would imply what it does imply to many people, many of whom have written in this very thread to say that they like/love Grease but do not like that lyric.

I will happily concede that the songwriter could have meant to imply nothing more malicious or coercive than the character having to buy Sandy some flowers to win her love. I will happily concede that the actor could have thought his character was just asking if Danny had to write Sandy a few love poems to win her affection. But even if I concede those things, they have zero impact on how I felt hearing that lyric. And acting as if I had to look really hard to find a way to be upset about the lyric or people are having to contort themselves to find sketchiness in it feels like fake naivete.

Thought this got good reviews. Maybe it didn’t.

Ostlund's films are very in your face. I think you either really click with them or you find them obnoxious. He has a great track record for me, personally, though, so I still plan to check out Triangle of Sadness.

[chawhee]

Uncut Gems (2019)
https://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/uncut-gems-trailer-final.jpg
3.5
Second watch so that I could show my significant other who has anxiety problems :laugh: She liked the movie a lot though, and I have taught her enough about sports betting over time where nothing really went over her head. Superb movie that has such a captivating pace.

[StuSmallz]

.You started the conversation by saying that you feel the lyric has been unfairly maligned. I think it's pretty obvious why a lot of people would hear the phrase being used to refer to sexual activity and have a negative reaction. For many people, in fact, (and I'm going to use a word I know a lot of people hate, but it's accurate!) that kind of language is genuinely triggering.


At a basic level, it really doesn't matter what the songwriter intended when he wrote the lyric, nor does it matter what the actor meant to imply when he sang the lyric, nor does it even matter all that much what we can infer about the situation that happened in the film. The most forgiving reading of the whole thing is that a songwriter oops accidentally used a phrase that he didn't know would imply what it does imply to many people, many of whom have written in this very thread to say that they like/love Grease but do not like that lyric.


I will happily concede that the songwriter could have meant to imply nothing more malicious or coercive than the character having to buy Sandy some flowers to win her love. I will happily concede that the actor could have thought his character was just asking if Danny had to write Sandy a few love poems to win her affection. But even if I concede those things, they have zero impact on how I felt hearing that lyric. And acting as if I had to look really hard to find a way to be upset about the lyric or people are having to contort themselves to find sketchiness in it feels like fake naivete.Okay, and I can accept all of that now, because we've been able to talk about it like adults in order to understand where the other one stands on this; that's all I'm really asking for at this point.

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2d/TriangleOfSadness2022Poster.jpg

Thought this got good reviews. Maybe it didn’t.

I guess it's not everyone's cup of tea, but it's been rated highly by a lot of people and I absolutely loved it. Garnered an unexpected Best Picture nomination at the Oscars (not that this always guarantees quality, but I'm hoping it pulls off an upset and wins.)

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcontent.internetvideoarchive.com%2Fcontent%2Fhdphotos%2F11057%2F011057%2F011057_128 0x720_570475_099.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=2357604ce314272abb63ac1b5b6617ac1a8528b57108d7c24dcbe4614f6dfeca&ipo=images

The Raid 2, 2014

Following shortly on the events from the first film, Rama (Iko Uwais) gets enmeshed in a plot to expose corrupt police officials, all the way to the top. Rama goes undercover and becomes involved with crime-lord heir apparent Uco (Arifin Putra). A gauntlet of violent crosses and double-crosses tests Rama's resolve as circumstances pit violent gangs against one another.

I am a definite appreciator of action films with choreography that shows off the performers' athleticism, and will happily watch a film that uses even the flimsiest of stories to string together such sequences. I was disappointed that I never really clicked with this film, despite a slew of gifted performers and enjoying its style very much.

I said that I can accept flimsy stories in an action movie, but the story here is pretty decent. I'll admit that I sometimes had trouble tracking the different loyalties and affiliations, but this is not a movie that feels like a video game with the protagonist simply pinballing from one villain to another. There are a range of relationships at play, which adds diversity to the characters involved in the fights. Usually we watch just one or two main characters battle everyone, but here we get a lot of different combinations of adversaries.

The movie also has some really great shots and camera movement. The camera takes great advantage of the different settings and spaces. There are fights that take place in big open spaces, and fights that take place in much more cramped quarters. There are neat choices in angles, use of reflections/staging, and pops of color here and there. The characters of Baseball Bat Man (Very Tri Yulisman) and Hammer Girl (Julie Estelle) feel like they've maybe come from a slightly more heightened reality, but they are stylish as all get out.

The action itself is also, obviously, very solid.

This is a case of me not having anything I can pinpoint as a negative. I never really gelled with the movie, and maybe having a little trouble with tracking the characters was part of that. The subtitles were kind of clunky and made the flow of listening to and reading the dialogue a bit more of a chore than is typical, and maybe that was part of the disconnect. There's nothing in the film itself I can point to and say, "This was just average". My reaction to the first film was generally positive, and I hoped I'd feel similar about this one. Instead I feel about a notch lower than how I felt about the first. Kind of a bummer.

3.5

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/02/The_Two_Popes_poster.png
By IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=61638940

The Two Popes - (2019)

As we swing into Oscar season, I was reminded of a film I wanted to see that was nominated a few times. The Two Popes had Jonathan Pryce nominated for Best Actor, Anthony Hopkins nominated for Best Supporting Actor and Anthony McCarten's screenplay was nominated. It really is one of those films you watch for the sake of it's two main actors, who really pull off a special two-man show as Cardinal Bergoglio (who becomes Pope by film's end) and Pope Benedict XVI. The Pope (Hopkins) calls Cardinal Bergoglio (Pryce) to his residence in the Vatican for purposes unknown, at the same time Bergoglio was going to ask permission to resign as Cardinal, feeling he's not doing much good in the role. The two high ranking men clash, with Benedict being very conservative while Bergoglio is progressive, but as the latter's stay draws out, the two start to get deeper into each other's way of thinking and start to become close. Then Benedict drops a bombshell - no Pope has resigned for over 700 years, but his intention to step down is firm, and contrary to where the two started out, he sees great possibility if Bergoglio is voted the next pontiff.

I always like films where two people seemingly ill-suited to get along become best friends - and here we have not only that, but more evidence that Anthony Hopkins is doing some of his finest work at the tail-end of his career. I'm glad he nabbed another Academy Award for his work in The Father, for he really deserves one to signify how good he is in this twilight period. Despite Pryce's excellent work in The Wife, and a great career, this remains to date his only nomination. I don't know if the two (one Argentinian, the other German) really watched the World Cup Final together in 2014 (it seems doubtful, but who knows), but that little touch adds a really fun end credit sequence to everything. The rest delves into matters you can well imagine - where the church is heading and the culpability of those higher up who stood by and did nothing while paedophile priests were being sent from parish to parish, molesting kids. The two talk about their own faith, especially Bergoglio, who has his own life story examined. Quite a good film.

7/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Blonde_2022_film_poster.jpg
By http://www.impawards.com/2022/blonde.html, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71404820

Blonde - (2022)

Okay, now for this monstrosity. Blonde really didn't work for me - it was two pieces of a puzzle that just didn't fit together. The first was the slimy, rape-driven and degrading humiliations a woman like Norma Jean had to go through to become Marilyn Monroe - which absolutely should be called out, and recorded as an era humanity should never regress back to. But the other piece of Blonde actually treats her like a heavy-breathing, one-dimensional sex-pot character instead of a human being. Did the real Marilyn Monroe really do everything in that seductive, low-toned, sex-pose way? Ana de Armas has been nominated for a Best Actress Oscar, but her Norma Jean/Marilyn feels like a caricature you'd find on a comedy sketch show. Were they saying that this person was always playing the "Marilyn Monroe" role? I don't know - I found so much of the film to be disagreeable. I liked the dream-like surrealistic take on everything - and that especially pays off when we get close to her death - but as a whole I found Blonde to be a big let-down. It was just a parade of horror that did nothing to explore the complexities of the woman herself - only that she had a terrifying childhood, and was constantly abused for her entire life. You can sum that up in a sentence like I did - if you want to make a movie it should probe a little deeper.

4/10

[Neesonfan]

Jurassic Park 9/10


The Lost World: Jurassic Park 6/10


Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs 9/10

[EndlessDream]

Knives of the Avenger is a viking action movie directed by Mario Bava. It stars Cameron Mitchell as Rurik, a once-cruel man who has changed his ways. He happens upon a woman and son hiding out in the countryside from a man named Hagen. Rurik protects them from an attack, but Hagen is not done and that family's father returns with a past grievance against Rurik as well.

I enjoyed this movie when I first saw it several years ago and I was pleased to find that I still do. It's a simple story, but told well and with good performances. What I really like about it is the physicality in the fight scenes. People crash through tables and walls, fall off towers and embankments, and roll down hills. The throwing knife being the main weapon is also pretty cool, as you don't see that too often.

Knives of the Avenger isn't Bava's best movie, but I think it's a fun watch.

[matt72582]

'The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner' (1962)

https://www.irishnews.com/picturesarchive/irishnews/irishnews/2018/06/25/160214881-2545b65d-e6e0-4f29-901a-642b2580aa75.jpg

"What's the frst thing you'd do if you won £75,000?"
-"Count it !"

Tony Richardson's 1962 film starring Tom Courtenay is part of a glut of British films from the 60's that had an 'angry young man' vibe. Courtenay plays Colin Smith, who is a petty thief completely disaffected from society. Colin hates money, as it has led to his family's miserable life. He doesn't want to follow in his father's footsteps who worked hard all his life and died before retirement.

We see Smith entering borstal for a crime he has committed, then Richardson uses flashbacks to tell his back story, his home life, his relationships and the events that led up to the crime he committed. The film borrows heavily from French new wave cinema and Italian neo realism, and it does so very well. There are marks of Truffaut, Goddard and de Sica all over it; with Colin's poverty stricken family being of particular focus.

Colin learns that he's quite good at long distance running, symbolistic of running away from his problems, and the finale is a brilliant scene where Colin has one final say on the system that he's found himself in. This film would have been a large inspiration for the likes of Ken Loach, and is possibly one of the very best British films of the 1960s.

rating_4



My favorite British movie. A professor of mine recommended me this (and "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?")

[ScarletLion]

My favorite British movie. A professor of mine recommended me this (and "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?")

I saw They shoot horses recently. Great film. Love that ending.

Next up for me in terms of British films is 'Saturday Night, Sunday Morning' which is also spoken about in the same breath as 'Loneliness of the long distance runner'. Gritty British new wave films about disenchanted young people.

[Corax]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNDRiZjc0ZDMtMjhlYi00ZjAzLTg0MDQtZDI2NGEyYTBlN2M2XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTA2MDU0NjM5._V1_.jpg


rating_2


Poster looks like a bad photoshop.

[Mr Minio]

Silver Linings Playbook (2012) - 1.5

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

That's not how mental illness works. You can't be healed by Jennifer Lawrence's butt.

[matt72582]

I saw They shoot horses recently. Great film. Love that ending.

Next up for me in terms of British films is 'Saturday Night, Sunday Morning' which is also spoken about in the same breath as 'Loneliness of the long distance runner'. Gritty British new wave films about disenchanted young people.


Oh great -- I'll search for the movie reviews on this thread (haven't been on much).


"Saturday Night, Sunday Morning" was pretty good. Always liked Finney.


In case anyone else is interested, it's available on YouTube for FREE (for now)
https://youtu.be/qsKQiVJkEvI

[Wooley]

Silver Linings Playbook (2012) - 1.5

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

That's not how mental illness works. You can't be healed by Jennifer Lawrence's butt.

I'm willing to give it a try.

[Gideon58]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BNmNiMGRkYmUtYjI4MC00ZDg4LTk3YjktNTczNzEzYmExMjAwXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTQ4MTk0NjYx._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.j pg


3.5

[Takoma11]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.senscritique.com%2Fmedia%2F000019350661%2F1200%2Fgolden_eighties.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=e237110f582071c63a7c057974d7b2f590bd3e47bd6882ebfc57525acc4bfd24&ipo=images

Golden Eighties, 1986

In a mall, hairdressers Lilli (Fanny Cottençon) and Mado (Lio) compete for the affections of the fickle Robert (Nicolas Tronc). Meanwhile, Robert's mother Jeanne (Delphine Seyrig) finds herself torn when her former lover, Eli (John Berry) turns up looking to reignite their relationship.

It's funny how a movie can seem very far away from a director's other effort, and yet still have certain elements that create a throughline. A mall-set romance musical is in theory pretty far afield from Jeanne Dielman, but the way that Akerman builds a sense of routine and then ensuing disruptions, as well as the way she moves her characters through the various settings has echoes of what I loved so much about Dielman.

There's a neat and interesting inversion that happens as this film progresses, to do with how the characters process the ideas of love and loss. The film opens with a woman kissing a man and telling him that she loves him . . . only to turn to another man and do the same. The young men and women in the mall seem to be willing to hop from person to person, their attachments abruptly shifting when someone new walks in the door. This contrasts sharply with the drama facing Jeanne, a Poland-born Jewish woman who first met Eli during World War 2 when he was stationed abroad as a soldier. Jeanne cannot be so frivolous with her heart, because she already has a husband and child.

But something fun happens as the film swings into its final act. As the drama around the hairdressers and Robert swirls and escalates in dramatic fashion, Jeanne quietly continues to contemplate her choices. Ironically, it is because of having lived a longer life and had more experiences that Jeanne is ultimately able to be the voice of wisdom and more dismissive of the drama in the end. In a strange way, Jeanne is much lighter at the end than the younger people, despite the conflict and personal trauma that is the background of her romantic quandary.

Something I really picked up on my second time watching Jeanne Dielman was the way that Akerman moved her characters in and out of the frame. While it's not as overt in this film, it's still very much an element of how the action is portrayed and I really enjoyed the effect of it.

I also enjoyed the sets and costumes, which are almost movie-musical synced, but not quite. I really liked a shot of all of the hairdressers drying their clients' hair with a range of different colored towels. There's just this edge of grounding everything in reality that adds a bit of interest to the musical numbers.

I had two complaints, one of which is not really the film's fault. First, I did have a bit of trouble clicking with the part of the story dealing with the young people. The movie definitely knows they are kind of goobers, and that's part of the whole way that they are contrasted with the more adult story of Jeanne's dilemma. But despite the self-awareness of their frivolity, it was hard to take them at certain points.

What's not at all the fault of the film is how the subtitles were handled for the musical numbers. Listen: we all know that words that rhyme in one language will not rhyme when translated! It's reality! I don't know why people who translate songs feel the need to butcher the language just so that the subtitles show a rhyme! WHY?! WHY?! Again, not the film's fault, but bad subtitle writing and it really hampers enjoying those songs.

Good stuff!

4

[Captain Steel]

On The Beach (1959)

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51TJ0ADHMML._AC_SY580_.jpg

After viewing this, I realize why it took me so long to get around to seeing it.
I say that because I pretty much watch any movie that has to do with WWIII, nuclear annihilation, the aftermath of nuclear war or apocalyptic disaster.

From glimpses of it during childhood, I thought most of the movie took place on the submarine (and its travels trying to gauge the leftover radiation as it ravaged the Earth) - but the sub was only a small part of the movie.

Nothing wrong with the acting, but despite the dire circumstances (which you'd anticipate would make people far more panicked or desperate) the whole thing plays like a daytime soap opera. It's just 3/4 pathos and longings by the last people on Earth who only have 5 months to live... and that's at the beginning of the movie.

Another odd item - most of the Earth (except Australia) has been devastated by nuclear war, yet we see shots of streets (such as in San Francisco) and not a single dead body - at all, at any part in the film, only mention of them by one sailor who decides he'd rather die of radiation poisoning in San Francisco. He mentions how he encountered dead bodies after he goes AWOL from the submarine.

Yet there are bunches of these city & powerplant shots (even at the end in Australia) and there are no corpses - it's as if bombs were used that left all infrastructure intact but only disintegrated bodies with a type of radiation that left no visible trace..

The big mystery of a strange radio signal from the U.S.'s west coast turns out to be a disappointment. (I'll pass on the spoiler).

There's a car race (for some reason) - I guess it conveys that when people know they're going to die they just start engaging in dangerous pastimes to give themselves a last thrill - this is after it's stated that there are petrol shortages in Australia - so you'd think survivalists might be hoarding gas to run generators for their underground bunkers... instead of having stock-car races.

I understand the story (based on the book) wasn't going for a post-apocalyptic adventure, but rather more of a philosophical, psychological & social study of people awaiting their doom... but all the longing (like with Ava Gardner) could have applied to any war movie where people have suffered loss. It was all just a bit too mushy for me.

I did like the subplot of Anthony Perkins trying to get suicide pills for his slowly-losing-it wife and infant daughter - and his wife's reaction to the idea when he explains it to her.

This movie is slow moving & somewhat boring - thus lacking in what people who like post-apocalyptic movies may be looking for.

2.5

[Fabulous]

The Way We Were (1973)

3

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/vlRM08PYR5ADZo1lGXuVhMVKMLz.jpg

[PHOENIX74]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/19/T%C3%A1r_poster.jpg
By Unknown - IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71615799

Tár - (2022)

Yeah, this was a good one. It has something of a laboriously slow start - but with running times these days, a film can well afford to do what this does in really letting us get to know the character. The character in question is Lydia Tár, world famous conductor and composer - a kind of intellectual giant who is just as pretentious and removed from us mere mortals as you'd imagine. It also doesn't take long to realise that Tár is a compulsive liar - in fact, almost pathological in that regard, and she uses her position to reward favours from those hopefuls who'd like to be part of the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra. The sexual nature of this system has led to one young lady obsessing with her, and committing suicide - whereupon all of the bad things about Tár's character are about to come home to roost in a big way. She has a family, and a huge career - she has everything to lose, but does she deserve what she has? The film touches on contemporary issues in a way that opens up in an interesting manner. Mozart...Bach...if these men were questionable characters, is it reasonable to shun their music if you're an eminent maestro? What difference is there to that, and the talented of today? How do you separate the music from the person who composed it, or conducted it? I struggled at first to stay with this, but it rewarded my attention with a masterful second half.

8.5/10

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/Elvis_2022_poster.jpg
By Warner Bros. Official poster IMP awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=70099316

Elvis - (2022)

Okay, this one. I've set myself the goal of watching all the Oscar nominated films this year - before the ceremony. This means I had to watch Elvis, despite me having a rocky relationship with Baz Luhrmann films. It has all the requisite dazzle you'd expect from one, and all the dumb, boring and predictable narrative choices you'd expect as well. I did like the way the story came from Colonel Tom Parker's viewpoint (played by Tom Hanks, despite him being somewhat ill-suited for the role.) Parker basically scammed Elvis Presley for his entire life, riding his piggy bank all the way to an early grave - but there's little else you'll learn during the near 3 hours you'll be sat watching this. It has some cringeworthy moments, and from the age of 18 onwards Elvis never seems to age his entire life - but this is a shiny, sparkly Vegas show of a movie - right up Luhrmann's alley. I don't think Austin Butler should win an Oscar for his performance (please no) - and no way should this win Best Picture (don't you dare Academy) - but as for the other 6 nominations - Makeup and Hairstyling, Sound, Cinematography, Costume Design, Editing and Production Design, I wouldn't complain.

6/10

So, I've seen 8 out of the 10 Best Picture nominees so far. Only The Fabelmans and Women Talking to go. It'll be the first time in a long time that I've seen all of the nominees before the ceremony - and I'm pretty happy and excited about that.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ad/Bardo_2022_film_poster.png
By https://media.vogue.mx/photos/630e35fb2070f675ea00f5b2/master/w_2025,h_3000,c_limit/bardon-poster-pelicula.jpg, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=71664732

Bardo, False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths - (2022)

So, this is the first Iñárritu film for 7 years - he hasn't directed one since The Revenant, and there hasn't been much hoopla about it. He would have at least expected a Best Foreign Film Oscar nomination, because it's an achingly personal and spectacular movie. It's very much similar to a Luis Buñuel‎ film, with surrealism taken to extremes at times. For example, when the movie starts the main character's wife has had a baby, but the baby requests the doctor to go back - so they shove the baby back in. It's a stream of consciousness kind of film, but the themes are well defined and obvious - Iñárritu is questioning what it means for him to be Mexican, especially since he's become so integrated into the United States now. Silverio (Daniel Giménez Cacho) is obviously modelled on him, and constantly has to face questions about his ethnicity and home in relation to the place he calls home now. It's a fun trip - and at times brilliant. A shame the brilliance doesn't cohere to the entire film - but I liked it one hell of a lot all the same. Too much fun, and such a visual feast - this really took me away last night.

8/10

Bardo, False Chronicle of a Handful of Truths was only nominated for Best Cinematography. (A deserved nomination). It means I've seen 4 out of the 5 films nominated in this category now. I only need to see Empire of Light now - the Roger Deakins entry. Darius Khondji, nominated for Bardo, has only ever been nominated one other time - for Evita (1996).


By the way. My last three Oscar nominated movies :

Tár - 2 hrs 38 min
Elvis - 2 hrs 39 min
Bardo - 2 hrs 39 min -- is there a reason for this?

[Mr Minio]

I'm willing to give it a try. I never expected anything less from you, you perv! :D

[John-Connor]

DECISION TO LEAVE 2022 ‘헤어질 결심’ Park Chan-wook
91146
2h 19m | Crime | Drama | Mystery | Romance |Thriller
Writer: Park Chan-wook, Chung Seo-kyung
Cast: Park Hae-il, Tang Wei, Lee Jung-hyun, Park Yong-woo

Solid Korean Thriller, technically outstanding, with some noticeable Vertigo influences.

3.5.

[Torgo]

Fire Will Come - 3

Moody, deliberate but not exactly accessible, this Spanish drama kicks off with a bulldozer plowing down trees until it stops in reverence at a much larger, more majestic one. It then diverts to Amador, a pyromaniac who, like the tree, is different than most of society, but like most people we can't easily explain, he is treated much differently. He is released from prison after setting a forest ablaze and returns to his hometown in Galicia, where everyone but his loving mother is suspicious. What follows is a sometimes thought-provoking and sometimes interminable march to what the title promises.

With forest fires becoming more frequent, it's not surprising that there are more movies about them, and it's a nice change of pace to see a non-action one. Filming - with impressive cinematography, I might add - in not only a heavily forested area, but also in a town that has seen better days makes the movie seem more documentary than drama, not to mention makes you wonder if such places are where people like Amador are bred. Speaking of documentaries, the climactic event - which I don't think is a spoiler to mention since it's in the title - actually happened, and the way director Laxe and company film it put me in the (underfunded and undersupplied) firemen’s shoes and proves that there's no substitute for the real thing.

There's plenty to complement about the look and feel of the production, but I wish I could say the same about the characters. Amador is supposed to be a mystery, but he's perhaps too mysterious. In Herzog and Bresson's movies about the lonely and misunderstood - two directors Laxe is obviously inspired by and not just because he uses a non-professional cast - they're able to do this while giving us something to work with, if you will. Despite scenes where Amador bonds with a veterinarian who's treating his mom's horse, so much of the time spent with him seems like filler. Despite Benedicta Sanchez's work as his sympathetic mother, I always felt like I was at a distance. For the ways the movie used forest fires to examine humanity's failings, I give it a mild recommendation. I just wish the rest of the movie hadn’t taken a backseat to the forest fire scenes.

[Stirchley]

The Way We Were (1973)

3

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/vlRM08PYR5ADZo1lGXuVhMVKMLz.jpg

Seen this a million times. Love it.

[Stirchley]

91159

I never watch animated movies, but made an exception for this one based on a true story. Excellent movie.

[Gideon58]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTQ5NjM3NDM0M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzY2OTcyMjE@._V1_.jpg



3.5

[Gideon58]

91159

I never watch animated movies, but made an exception for this one based on a true story. Excellent movie.
I loved this movie too.

[Allaby]

Lilya 4-ever (2002) A powerful, well made film with excellent performances. 4.5

[Takoma11]

Lilya 4-ever (2002) A powerful, well made film with excellent performances. 4.5

I love this film, and it radically changed the way I regard the portrayal of violence/sexual violence in movies.

[Stirchley]

Lilya 4-ever (2002) A powerful, well made film with excellent performances. 4.5

I think I saw this, but can’t remember a single thing.

[Fabulous]

The Rain People (1969)

2.5

https://www.themoviedb.org/t/p/original/yKIosfo1DcidsWsKvDAiRXlMx1v.jpg

[Gideon58]

Thought this got good reviews. Maybe it didn’t.

The IMDB rated it 7.5, but for the life of me, I can't figure out why.