Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

I try to review every movie I watch starting from the day I registered on this site. Some reviews might be long, others might be nothing more than the rating. As a new member of this forum I'll explain few things about me and how I will review films in general.

I'm a Finnish man in my 40's so English isn't my first language. I often express myself in very direct and honest way which at times is, unfortunately, mistaken as hostility. When it comes to arts and taste in general I don't believe in any sort of objective values so 1) disagreeing with me is perfectly fine and 2) I don't have any issues bashing a revered classic.

I'm aware that I have a tendency to give rather low ratings on average. I've consciously tried to push myself towards using the full spectrum but I don't always succeed. This means that or better should always be considered as recommended and even might be worth watching. means I didn't finish the movie. All ratings are based solely on subjective enjoyment.

--

For each movie I'll mark if I've seen it before or if it's a new film for me.

N (or n) = seen for the first time
r = rewatch but last time seen is very long time ago so almost new
R = rewatch
RR = rewatch of a film I've seen multiple times

I try to put recommendations at the end of the review for films that are either similar or deal with similar themes and ideas. If you liked the reviewed film or its topic seems interesting you might wish to check the recommendations as well. Note that recommended movies aren't necessarily great but still interesting on some level. If there aren't recommendations I may add them at later date.

--

Bad (<=1.5) | Average (2-3) | Good (3.5+)

April 2018 (13):
Wildling (2018) | The aftermath (1982) | The Reflecting Skin (1990) | The Shining (1980) | Alice, Sweet Alice (1976) | The Hills Have Eyes (1977) | Nightmare City (1980) | Jeremiah Johnson (1972) | Celia (1989) | Ulzana's Raid (1972) | Hellraiser (1987) | Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988) | Faust (1926)

May 2018 (30):
Den of Thieves(2018) | Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) | Black Panther (2018) | Ravenous (1999) | Vampyr (1932) | The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) | The Last House on the Left (1972) | The Seventh Seal (1957) | Jailbreak (2017) | Blacker Than the Night (1975) | The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane (1976) | Harbinger Down (2015) | Cemetery Man (1994) | Action Jackson (1988) | Wait Until Dark (1967) | Exorcism (1975) | Don't Torture a Duckling (1972) | They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (1969) | Deep Red (1975) | Kill and Kill Again (1981) | Black Narcissus (1947) | Moonrise Kingdom (2012) | Death Wish (2018) | Black Water (2018) | A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014) | The Day of the Beast (1995) | 3:10 to Yuma (2007) | Future World (2018) | Frances Ha (2012) | Tomb Raider (2018)

June 2018 (31):
Mary Shelley (2017) | Pacific Rim: Uprising (2018) | Ouija (2014) | Cop Car (2015) | Commando (1985) | Tordenskjold & Kold (2016) | Gravity (2013) | Call Me by Your Name (2017) | Terminator II (1989) | Zombi 3 (1988) | Waterloo Bridge (1931) | Age of Gold (1930) | Three Monkeys (2008) | I Am a Ghost (2012) | Who Saw Her Die? (1972) | Rampage (2018) | The Psychic (1977) | Naked (1993) | Ginger Snaps (2000) | Mr. Freedom (1968) | Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006) | Ready Player One (2018) | Maniac (1934) | Network (1976) | Torso (1973) | Witchfinder General (1968) | How to Talk to Girls at Parties (2017) | Child Bride (1938) | Bride of Frankenstein (1935) | Phenomena (1985) | Gunga Din (1939) | Calibre (2018)

July 2018 (42):
Execution Squad (1972) | The Scarlet Empress (1934) | A Quiet Place (2018) | Shogun's Ninja (1980) | Suspiria (1977) | Pépé le Moko (1937) | Darc (2018) | Battle Royale (2000) | Bachelor Mother (1939) | Watership Down (1978) | The Dead Pit (1989) | Poison for the Fairies (1984) | Midnight Cowboy (1969) | Pitch Black (2000) | Dawn of the Dead (1978) | The Goddess (1934) | Day of the Dead (1985) | Leptirica (1973) | The New York Ripper (1982) | The Childhood of Maxim Gorky (1938) | Castle Freak (1995) | Even the Wind Is Afraid (1968) | The Chronicles of Riddick (2004) | Razorback (1984) | Cronos (1993) | The Entity (1982) | The Exorcist (1973) | Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977) | Make Way For Tomorrow (1937) | Valerie and Her Week of Wonders (1970) | Near Dark (1987) | The Hired Hand (1971) | The Company of Wolves (1984) | Viy (1967) | Sveto Mesto (1990) | The Omen (1976) | Viy (2014) | Pieces (1982) | Avalon (2001) | The Thin Man (1934) | Mad Love (1935) | Avengers: Infinity War (2018)

August 2018 (37):
Maniac (1980) | I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932) | Angel Heart (1987) | Prince of Darkness (1987) | It Happened One Night (1934) | School of Rock (2003) | In the Mouth of Madness (1994) | The Fog (1980) | Deadpool 2 (2018) | Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931) | Paper Moon (1973) | The Long Day Closes (1992) | Virtue (1932) | The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964) | Blacula (1972) | Frightmare (1974) | In a Glass Cage (1986) | Red Dust (1932) | The Exorcist III (1990) | Of Mice and Men (1939) | Savage Dog (2017) | Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005) | Thumper (2017) | Resurrection (2015) | Necrofobia (2014) | Satan's Slaves (2017) | Upgrade (2018) | Demons of the Mind (1972) | Geostorm (2017) | Hereditary (2018) | Blood Rage (1987) | The Roaring Twenties (1939) | The Slayer (1982) | Humanity and Paper Balloons (1937) | Predator (1987) | Rosemary's Baby (1968) | Horror Express (1972) |

September 2018 (28):
The Amityville Horror (1979) | The Alchemist (1983) | The Child (1977) | Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) | Night of the Creeps (1986) | The Burning (1981) | Mara (2018) | Jack Frost (1997) | Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) | The Beastmaster (1982) | Amityville II: The Possession (1982) | Sennentuntschi (2010) | The Wailing (2016) | Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978) | Mandy (2018) | Let the Right One In (2008) | The Aviator (2004) | Marked for Death (1990) | The Dragon Lives Again (1977) | Bleach (2018) | Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) | The Bad Seed (2018) | Incendies (2010) | Cherry 2000 (1987) | The Innocents (1961) | Cross of Iron (1977) | The Editor (2014) | Sector 7 (2011) |

October 2018 (25):
Hold the Dark (2018) | Darkland (2017) | The Changeling (1980) | Black '47 (2018) | Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) | Demonia (1990) | Amélie (2001) | Malevolent (2018) | November (2017) | Léon (1994) | Errementari (2017) | Trench 11 (2017) | The Beast Must Die (1974) | Apostle (2018) | Flatliners (2017) | Excalibur (1981) | Christine (1983) | Lean on Pete (2017) | The Night Comes for Us (2018) | Pixote (1981) | Mile 22 (2018) | Galveston (2018) | The Hawks and the Sparrows (1966) | The Meg (2018) | Hunter's Blood (1986) |

November 2018 (16):
The Equalizer 2 (2018) | The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017) | Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986) | Rush (2013) | The Kiss of the Vampire (1963) | The Leopard (1963) | Outlaw King (2018) | American Ninja (1985) | Spaced Invaders (1990) | Peppermint (2018) | The Nun (2018) | Pulse (2001) | The Predator (2018) | Ghost Stories (2018) | Dark Water (2002) | Venom (2018) |

December 2018 (23):
The Eye (2002) | A Tale of Two Sisters (2003) | The Devil's Backbone (2001) | Ghostwatch (1992) | The Libertine (2004) | Grave Encounters (2011) | Jigoku (1960) | The Evil Within (2017) | The Descent (2005) | Hour of the Wolf (1968) | The Descent: Part 2 (2009) | Day for Night (1973) | Ringu (1998) | Macabre (2009) | The Ring (2002) | Baskin (2015) | Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed (2004) | The Tunnel (2011) | Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning (2004) | Death Line (1972) | The Dark (2018) | Terrified (2017) | May the Devil Take You (2018)

Trying to make the OP more concise. It looks kinda ugly now but will try to improve.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Wildling (2018) n

A coming of age drama with horror elements and rather typical mystification of puberty. Has some resemblance to Ginger Snaps but is considerably worse in practically every aspect. Liv Tyler, as usual, feels completely out of place in her role as a sheriff. Not exactly bad film but definitely not good either.

Saw it last night. Very underwhelming.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

The Aftermath (1982) n

As a kid I loved post-apocalypse (and barbarian and ninja) movies but for some reason I never ended up renting this one. Film is kind of a mixed bag. Effects are good for the budget (especially the ruined cityscape), it's refreshing that the bad guys for once look rather normal (instead of wearing the usual padded uniforms or S/M catalog apparel) and it's generally quite ruthless film. On the other hand script, dialogue, acting and directing are very amateurish.

There are better post-apocalypse movies out there (like The New Barbarians / Warriors of the Wasteland) and I wouldn't recommend this to anyone except another aficionado of the genre. Attitude and decent ideas aren't enough to redeem the complete lack of cinematographic proficiency.

:laugh:

I can't imagine what film franchise you mean ;).

I was stunned a year or so ago when I discovered that The Waltons did an episode involving poltergeist activity, and it was on again a few nights back. The haunting was very much identified with the "coming of age" of the youngest child and there was something of that mystification but it was a good episode nonetheless, with a real sense of unease throughout.

The Reflecting Skin (1990) r

https://player.bfi.org.uk/sites/defa...?itok=doQLcBBt

The Reflecting Skin is a dark story about a young boy, Seth, in rural USA during the 50's. It's bleak and cruel journey through childhood that has very little joy to offer. Even the long awaited return of his brother from the army turns sour as he fall in love with an English widow, who Seth believes to be a vampire, living nearby.

Cinematography is absolutely beautiful with rich and colorful shots often with high contrast mix of light and dark colors. Fields, dusty roads and crumbling farms offer fitting setting for the tragic story. Also, unlike many films focusing on the visuals, The Reflecting Skin does not prolong its shots for no reason but retains fluent pacing with its story.

Script is mostly fine. There are things that don't seem logical but most likely they weren't meant to be. Seth's view of the world is distorted and that same warped world is offered to viewer as well. Acting is the weakest part of the film. Viggo Mortensen was really wooden as Seth's brother. Lindsay Duncan as the English Widow was probably the best actor. Jeremy Cooper as Seth was OK but the scenes with other children seemed really forced at times.

I loved the visuals and ruthlessness of the story. Ending is great and definitely different from the norm. Mediocre acting and some small issues with the script lower the rating but good movie none the less. It reminded me somewhat of Poison for the Fairies which isn't visually as stunning but has better acting and slightly better script.



Recommended movies: Poison for the Fairies (1984), Pan's Labyrinth (2006), I Kill Giants (2017)

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

The Shining (1980) r

This didn't impress me when I was a kid and it wasn't that much better now. Soundtrack has good moments, some of the visual are fine, Nicholson is good after going bonkers, Duvall is good as an extremely annoying wife and setting is kind of cool.

Jack's decent into madness is too fast and feels like the writer just wanted to get into the "good" stuff. Danny is practically just a plot device with no real function as a character and none of his visions seem to have any meaning at all - he's just there for the few visuals and calling the cook.

In my opinion The Shining is way overrated. I don't say it's exactly bad but just mediocre.

Alice, Sweet Alice (1976) n

http://blueprintreview.co.uk/wp-cont...mmunion100.jpg

Alice is a 12-year-old girl who appears to envy her little sister for the attention she gets from their mother. When younger sister is murdered just before her first communion Alice quickly rises to the top of the suspect list.

Alice, Sweet Alice has interesting premise and doesn't demote its young main character to just another prop piece but makes her an equal actor among the adults. It's not very deep in handling its themes of sibling rivalry, sexuality or revenge but has enough content to keep viewer occupied and entertained.

Acting is mostly good and especially Paula Sheppard as Alice is great (it's also amazing how young she looks - I was really surprised that according to IMDb she was 19). Cinematography and soundtrack are nothing special but do get the job done. Worst thing by far is the way Alice's parents are written - just days after the death of their 10-year-old daughter neither of them seems to be showing any emotion about it.

Pretty good American film that's basically non-Italian giallo.



Recommended movies: The Bad Seed (1956), The Night Child (1975), The Child (1977)

The Hills Have Eyes (1977) r

I've never been a fan of Wes Craven who in my books only has two above average films: A Nightmare on Elm Street and The Serpent and the Rainbow (haven't seen The Last House on the Left but it's on my watch list). Still wanted to refresh my memory of this one in case I actually manage to make my own top horror film list (no, this won't be in it).

As usual main characters are both stupid and annoying. Same is true for the villains as well. Special mention goes to Beast, a dog who saves the day like a poor man's Lassie. Oh, and Michael Berryman is always at least decent as a bad guy.

Script is a mess with cannibals appearing where they're needed, dog having more brains than any of the heroes and no one following any sort of logical plan. Soundtrack is your standard 70's groove which doesn't fit the film at all. Visually the film is just barely adequate. Acting for the most part is quite poor.

Nightmare City (1980) n

Atomic zombies with weapons sounds kind of hilarious idea but unfortunately the movie itself is really bad. It's just a pile of zombie cliches put together with no characters, no sensible plot and no atmosphere. Only thing that kept me watching was the soundtrack which is way too good for this cinematic turd (I admit, I liked the **** too and there was plenty of them).

Zombies in this movie were fast and very hard to kill... except when confronting the main character they either froze completely or got stunned by tiniest of hits. Military and police are completely jokes. Also the movie has one of the worst endings I can think of.



Recommended movies: Everyone know the big zombie classics so I'm not going to list them. There are couple of less known ones I'd like to mention though: Let Sleeping Corpses Lie (1974) and The Girl with All the Gifts (2016).

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) n

I had quite high expectations for this and seeing that Milius was one of the writers surely raised them even more. Sadly the film didn't deliver. I didn't like how the movie didn't seem to know what it was trying to be: a survival story in the wilderness, lighthearted family western with comedic side characters, serious portrayal of the natives, misanthropic rant where all men mean trouble or heroic fantasy of legendary mountain man. End result was a mess.

https://media.giphy.com/media/gVoBC0SuaHStq/giphy.gif

Redford was pretty good as Johnson. Utah (I think) looked awesome but cinematography wasn't anything special, not bad by any means but just normal. I didn't like the songs that were clearly written for the film and hated the 2+ minutes musical foreplay for the film - why would anyone think that was a good idea?

Best part of the film was from Jeremiah marrying Swan to finding the settler caravan; pretty much the only long section of the film it remained stylistically consistent. Action sequences during the final part of the film were terrible.

-

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Celia (1989) n

I tactically injected the Baker's Dozen thread with a theme I've often found interesting and today it was time to reap the first fruit of the harvest :)

Celia is a story about a nine-year-old girl who has difficulties in separating reality from fantasy. This escalates with the passing of her grandmother and finally reaches its climax after the death of her pet rabbit. Sadly Celia, like pretty much every other character in the film, has very little depth and I felt like an outsider seeing some random scenes of her life without really learning anything about her except her love for granny and rabbit.

I was also slightly put off by the films obvious bias for communism: Tanners were by far the most pleasant and righteous people in the movie while others seemed to be more nasty and immoral the more they were against communism. Communism in the movie was all about peace and happiness while opponents used every opportunity to exploit, hurt and oppress. We even had the evil capitalist burning books.

Rebecca Smart was good as Celia and I really wish the script had offered her more. All the other children also did fine job. For adults Celia's father, Alice Tanner and the police uncle were pretty good. Also the teacher seemed rather authentic. Cinematography and soundtrack were very restrained but it did fit the film well.

So interesting premise, some good acting and few well written scenes tarred by poorly written characters and too obvious political statement. I really wanted to like this more.

+

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Ulzana's Raid (1972) n

Even though this is my second for this week I'm not a huge fan of traditional westerns. Found this from one of the movie logs in here and decided to give it a try.

Ulzana's Raid is very traditional, not only as a western but also as an action / adventure movie in general. All its characters are familiar (or cliched if you like) and they develop in very foreseeable ways. Despite of this they still feel real enough and never stand out as totally one dimensional. Story offers no surprises either but again it flows nicely.

I'm not an expert when it comes to Apache or any other Indians but what little I (think that I) know seems to indicate that their presentation in the film is at least somewhat realistic. There's no glorification of natives but they're not made to be savage monsters either as all of their atrocities are given a logical explanation. It doesn't take any firm moral stances and I like it.

Visually Ulzana's Raid looks good thanks to bright Technicolor but it doesn't have any really fancy stuff, just awesome scenery and well planned shots. Music is kind of lame but not too irritating. Acting is good all the way. Action is mostly the standard old school western shootouts that aren't that great but seem to come with the genre. It's violence is slightly more graphic than usual but still most of the deaths are bloodless.

Well made but not very innovative western.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Hellraiser (1987) R

I don't really get what's going on with this one: as a kid it was OK, several years ago I liked it a lot but now it felt nearly bad. Concept is great but it seems almost like Barker tried to fit his rather unique visions into standard horror mold. Frank & Julia relationship and Doug Bradley's Pinhead are best things in this movie while almost everything related to Kirsty is the worst.

OK acting (especially Andrew Robinson as Larry / Frank), good effects, at times creepy atmosphere but ultimately not daring enough for its themes.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988) R

More entertaining than Hellraiser: lots of good scenes, doctor was huge improvement to Frank and Kirsty & Tiffany were decent (and pretty) heroes. Good effects and some positively nasty gore. Atmosphere was generally better than in prequel too. Unfortunately the script is total mess but still rather goodish horror film.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Faust (1926) n

I rarely watch silent films but this has been on my watch list for quite a while (another one I still need to see is Häxan). I watched a good quality copy from YouTube with English subs. It took me couple of days to finish as I watched it when I had nothing else to do.

http://replygif.net/i/1505.gif

Early parts of the film are really great but after Faust signs the pact and gets back his youth it starts to drag a lot. Most of the adventures of young Faust and Mephisto are too light and comical (thanks to extremely silly Mephisto and almost as naive Faust). Towards the end movie gets better again even though I personally don't like the ending (obviously that's how it should end but the logic / dogma behind is not something I can agree with).

Settings look absolutely great and visually especially the early parts are magnificent. Special effects must have been a sight to behold when this was new and most of them still look good albeit not very realistic. Acting is, well typical silent film acting - far too exaggerated to my tastes except Camilla Horn as Gretchen who is really good.

Too long and too humorous middle part lowers the rating. I wish it had kept the more serious and dark tone all the time.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Den of Thieves (2018) n

Not my style of movie + nothing new, nothing interesting and no interesting characters. At least today I hated it and gave up after 50 minutes or so.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) R

After linking the soundtrack yesterday I listened to it myself and just wanted to watch this one again.

http://sensesofcinema.com/assets/upl...ging-Rock2.jpg

Picnic at Hanging Rock is very slow and quite dreamlike mystery about girls going missing during school trip in Australia in 1900. I like how it doesn't give answers but emphasizes on the mystery itself and instead of solution it's about dealing with the unexplained event.

Characters aren't particularly deep but they feel real: naive and sheltered schoolgirls whose view of the world is built around poetry, sewing and etiquette.Politeness and decency are more important than truth (reminds me of the modern political correctness). Young Michael is as detached from the reality as the girls and whole English upper class is pictured as quite ridiculous.

Whole cast is good. Settings both around the school and at Hanging Rock are beautiful. Cinematography is fine, nothing too fancy but enough to take good advantage of great settings. Soundtrack is hauntingly beautiful. The only issue is that in a sense there's very little happening in the whole movie - in fitting mood this is not an issue but for sure this isn't a movie you can enjoy every day of the year.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Black Panther (2018) n

Let's start with the essential. Black Panther is nothing more than just another cliched and empty superhero movie. It follows the same mold as all the other MCU films do. Its characters are bland and boring, its jokes are weak and unsurprising, its action very mediocre when compared to other Marvel movies. I'd say it belongs to bottom third of MCU.

Despite of all this critics loved it and it was considered deep, revolutionary superhero film. It's message was praised and SJWs across the globe did wet their pants for its black empowerment. And no, I don't mind at all that the film has practically full black cast. It's about secluded African nation so that's how it should be (on the other hand I'm pissed off how MCU's Asgard has tons of black and Asian people).

In Finland the most ridiculous newspaper review I've seen praised Wakanda as "afrofuturistic utopia" and an example of how far black society could go without exploitation. Seriously? Multiculturalists praise its mono-cultural patriarchal militaristic autocracy only because it's run by black people. How stupid or hypocritical can some people be?

Weak script and characters, somewhat interesting and surprisingly logical setting, dull action and facepalm worthy preaching result in below average Marvel superhero film. Most entertaining thing about it was the raving reviews and what thinking what those critics are actually praising.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

I will watch Ulzana's Raid (1972) shortly, I love westerns and for some reason I missed that one. Thank you for the heads up.

Hope you like it at least as much as I did.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Ravenous (1999) r

I Saw Ravenous when it was new and had it ranked as good but not great film.

Concept of Ravenous is great - gaining the strength of consumed men taken literally. Unfortunately the script itself is terrible and direction / cinematography isn't that much better. Result is a clumsy mix of comedy and horror with one trait caricature characters and many scenes that lack any sort of logic or even continuity.

Actors are capable and save what they can. Effects are also rather good and so are the settings. With the films premise and great cast this should have been really good but now it's mostly wasted potential.

-

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Vampyr (1932) n

Technically rather clumsy vampire movie with some interesting visuals and decent atmosphere. It's apparent that this was initially planned as a silent film as it has all of their flaws and doesn't really use any advantages of sound film. Acting all the way is mediocre at best and the dubbing (all the sounds actually) is horrendous.

I'm pretty sure this film has one of the most useless protagonists ever. All Gray does is wander around aimlessly looking lost and the few times he does something it looks more like a child attempting to help an adult (like near the end when he helps the servant to open the vampire's grave). Because of him the whole script becomes senseless - there's absolutely no reason for him to get involved in anything. And why does the lord of the manor give Gray the book when his servant was perfectly capable of dealing with the vampire on his own?

The washed out look was nice but at times the end result was really poor quality picture. Lots of visually impressive scenes had nothing to do with the plot. Story moved awkwardly and with no logic at all (old lord clearly knew what was going on but instead of dealing with the problem with his servant he gives the key to solve things to complete stranger who, in the end, has almost no role in fixing anything).

I tend to side with the contemporary critics and say the movie wasn't good. Potential was there and the director had the visual side in hand but writing is just way too bad. Still there was some charm to it so despite all of this ranting I'm going to give it...

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) n

Another old one. This time we have a silent film that succeeds in its storytelling and while as a silent film it is, in my opinion, inherently flawed it manages to tell a coherent and naturally flowing story. Script is generally good and there's even some attempt for character development that's usually the greatest weakness of silent films (for obvious reasons, in my opinion).

The thing The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is famous for is its sets which are mostly painted on paper (or canvas?). They look really good and give whole movie a dreamlike and twisted look (camera work is kind of too crisp though, something more fuzzy like in Vampyr above could have been very effective here). Acting is mostly quite composed for silent film with the exception of Caligari himself.

This is definitely among the better silent films I've seen. While its innovative (and cheap!) sets are its most memorable achievement it is also a good movie.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

The Last House on the Left (1972) n

Remember when I said that I wasn't Wes Craven fan? His debut isn't going to change that but it did manage to surprise me though...

The Last House on the Left is about as amateurish as possible. Script is stupid and the whole chain of events feels extremely forced, characters (especially Weasel and the cops) are absurdly comical, dialogue is totally out of place, there's no cinematography to speak of, there's no tension or atmosphere (unless you count second-hand embarrassment) and so on. Perhaps only good thing in the whole movie was the song The Road Leads to Nowhere.

The Last House on the Left just has got to be the worst movie with any kind of status as a classic. This was outrageously bad even for a Wes Craven movie.

The Seventh Seal (1957) r

While searching witch killing scenes for baker's dozen I stumbled upon this Bergman's classic (I didn't even remember it had a scene where witch is put to pyre) and felt the urge to rewatch it.

https://paintthepainting.files.wordp.../picture-9.png

For me The Seventh Seal is a movie about the conflict between a need to believe in something and reason that says there's nothing to believe in. How people waste their lives searching for something that would give their lives a meaning. Max von Sydow's knight has practically lost his faith during the ten years he spent on a crusade but refuses to admit it.

Writing and dialogue are superb. Even though I've been an atheist all my life I find psychological side of religion interesting and I think this movie is spot on. There's no real plot besides the existential question but everyone has their part to play in it. Acting is little too theatrical except for von Sydow and Bibi Anderson who are great.

Cinematography is solid all the way but the film isn't about fancy visuals. Black and white imagery is beautiful. Soundtrack is merely OK but it works. There really isn't anything badly wrong in this. I think I need to watch more Bergman.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Jailbreak (2017) n

Jailbreak is kinda like a Cambodian version of The Raid that takes place in a prison instead of a tenement house. I never understood the hype around The Raid and Jailbreak fares even worse.

Script is ridiculously bad (prison guards are lost in their own prison, characters' ability to understand Khmer or English changes from scene to scene, etc.) and most decisions made make no sense. Acting is mostly wooden but there are no real characters at all so it's not that big of a deal. I also hated the Cambodian(?) hip hop music.

What is deal breaking though is the bad quality of action scenes - most of the time there's no feeling of real impact, number of opponents is inversely proportional to how much punishment they can take, all "duels" follow the same mold (first the hero is getting severely beaten, then he suddenly makes couple of poses and proceeds to beat the bad guy with ease) and most of the actors don't seem believable during the fights (especially the gang leader lady).

Boring and silly martial arts action with mediocre to bad fights. Not worth the time.



Recommended movies: Chocolate, Ong-bak and Re: Born.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Blacker Than the Night (1975) n

Very slow ghost movie from Mexico. It caught my interest because of the director who's also responsible for magnificent Poison for the Fairies and pretty good IMDb rating didn't hurt either.

A young woman inherits a big, old house from her aunt and moves there with three female friends. All of these women are really annoying and superficial brats. With the house also came a cat that the heiress is supposed to take care of but her friends seem to be cat haters and aunt's beloved feline ends up dead. What follows is John Wick of ghost stories.

Films is really slow - yeah, I already mentioned it but it's slow enough to mention twice. Most of the film is about showing how annoying these women are and how annoying their boyfriends and ex-husbands are (actually everyone is annoying except maybe the servant). I suppose the director just hated the upper class (class battle as a theme is present in Poison for the Fairies as well).

Horror elements are rather average. Acting is OK. Script is decent but but movie could easily have been 15-20 minutes shorter without losing anything. Technically there is nothing fancy, just standard professional cinematography and soundtrack (some ghostly voices are pretty good).

Not bad but disappointing ghost story.

oh you made me cry. just 2/5 (:

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

otherwise vy nice thread:)

The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane (1976) R

A rewatch of one of my recent favorites. I first saw this about two years ago so rather recent find for me.

https://i1.wp.com/thepeoplesmovies.c...?fit=640%2C340

A story of a young girl, Rynn, who wants to be in charge of her own life in a world that doesn't give much credit to kids. Her apparently bohemian poet father has died recently but together they made arrangements for Rynn to be able to live on her own for at least the next three years. But things get little more complicated.

In order to protect her way of life she's already killed her mother who left Rynn with her father years ago and stumbled back to her life after he died. Intrusive landlady and her adult son who's into young girls cause things to get little out of hand.

The film is about individualism and the limits of protecting one's personal space and freedom. It ponders these questions through a 13-year-old girl who in many ways behaves more adultlike than surrounding adults but is refused the respect of a proper individual because of her age.

Writing is generally superb. Film is mostly shot in Rynn's house where different people visit her with few outside shots so cinematography is little limited but supports the mood very well. Characters are great and despite everything Rynn is very likable. Acting is very solid all the way: Jodie Foster was already such a great actress at 13 and Martin Sheen does brilliant job as a sleazy man who just wants to get into Jodie's pants.

Rewatch solidified this as one of my favorites. I don't care if Jodie Foster disagrees but in my opinion this is the best movie she's been in.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Harbinger Down (2015) n

Ripping off Carpenter's The Thing shouldn't be such a bad thing but this one fails on every account: garbage script, cliched and annoying characters, bad acting (even Henriksen looked bored) and really ****ty CGI. Wasted about 40 minutes on this before I understood what stop button is there for.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Cemetery Man (1994) r

I didn't really like this one but it does fail with a style. Cemetery Man (what a stupid English title, I much prefer Dellamorte Dellamore) is a mix of comedy and horror with some arthouse thrown in as well. At times it works, at times it doesn't.

In a small town cemetery the dead come back and the caretaker needs to put them back to rest, this time for good. He falls in love with a widow, his dimwitted assistant falls in love with mayor's daughter (and wants to marry her rotting head), people die and everything is so damn weird. If there is a coherent plot behind everything, I did miss it.

Visually the film is also a hit and a miss. Soavi, a protegee of Dario Argento, is technically solid but he's often trying too much with his fancy visuals and many shots feel forced. Settings are great though but the result is a messy combination of Argento, Fulci and Gilliam. Acting is mostly alright. Most of the characters are exaggeratedly weird so there's another bow to Gilliam / Monty Python. Soundtrack was probably quite bland as I don't remember anything about it.

Ambitious film that boldly fails on many levels. There are some good laughs, some great shots, nice twisted atmosphere and, most importantly, some uniqueness. Barely OK movie but I respect Soavi for trying.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Action Jackson (1988) r

I have a soft spot for 80s action movies but sadly so many of them are just bad. Action Jackson isn't an exception.

Carl Weathers plays a super cop who's been stripped of his rank and gun due to, err, police brutality. There's a silly plot involving a coup in union, almost ninja-like assassins, psychopathic car brand owner, ****, tons of profanity, muscled men, clumsy fights, some blood and too many forced one liners - you know, the usual stuff of the 80s.

I think that I'm in minority but I'd like if even action films had good scripts and real characters. Action Jackson doesn't have either. Acting is wooden, action is bad and some of the cliches are just too much (like how the villain explains his plans to Jackson before leaving him to be killed by his henchmen).

On the plus side bad guys are killed, some of the jokes are funny and we get to see **** of both Sharon Stone and Vanity. Very, very far from the best (or even good) 80s actions.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Wait Until Dark (1967) n

Watched this for the HoF16.

First of all this was based on a play and it really showed. I don't usually like when plays are just filmed without bothering to adapt them properly for different media. I can see how this could work on stage but for the screen it would have needed more extensive rewriting.

Story didn't seem to make much sense. First of all the amount of heroin in the doll is way too small for the massive operation to reclaim it. Second why does Roat even involve the duo? He's already killed one person and could easily force what ever information he needs from Susy but instead brings in two more people he doesn't trust.

Hepburn is great as Susy. Her portrayal of blindness feels rather convincing. The evil trio is a bit too theatrical to my tastes. Husband is fine but Oscar nomination for supporting actor seems exaggeration. Gloria was OK (but whoever chose her glasses deserves a beating - no wonder she was picked up at school with those).

I liked the beginning and how the airport scene flowed without dialogue. After that the film became just filmed theater. It bothered my how at times Susy couldn't sense three men in the apartment and a moment later she notices how two visitors were wearing the same shoes (there were few other similar issues). That horroresque leap at the end didn't fit the tone of the film, otherwise the ending was rather good.

Not my type of film but could perhaps enjoy it on stage.

Exorcism (1975) r

Just another Spanish B-horror starring Paul Naschy. All I remembered from my first viewing was that I didn't like it much but considering it's been over 30 years that doesn't mean much.

Exorcism is like a clumsy combination of giallo and The Exorcist (it almost feels like they had a giallo script but they decided to make The Exorcist rip-off while shooting). Story makes very little sense and characters leap to conclusions without thought or hesitation. In real euro trash spirit there plenty of female nudity too.

Naschy is his usual self and acting in general is surprisingly good (unfortunately the dialogue isn't). Cinematography is decent and clearly inspired by Italian giallo. There aren't much effects before the very end so no bloody murders or gore in general. Huge plus for the eyes of possessed Leila which look really nice.

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

Technically well done and acted Spanish horror that suffers from really stupid script.



Recommended movies: The Werewolf and the Yeti is my favorite Naschy but I haven't seen many.

Don't Torture a Duckling (1972) n

I loved Fulci's Gates of Hell trilogy so it's about time to see something else by him.

https://nerdist.com/wp-content/uploa...ed-615x346.jpg

Weirdly named Don't Torture a Duckling is a giallo where children are being murdered in a backwards village in southern Italy. It doesn't portray an idyllic rural image but paints the world in darker tones where people are killed because of superstition, where sex both obsesses and terrifies and where even children are often cruel and driven by base desires. It isn't very upbeat film.

Unlike Fulci's zombie films Don't Torture a Duckling does have a coherent story. It's little predictable but otherwise well written. Script isn't modern Hollywood clockwork but things flow forward on their own natural and sluggish pace. Cinematography is vintage Fulci and there are multiple great scenes. Especially the "witch's" death scene is brilliant. Soundtrack is good but not great (song during/after the credits is really nice though).

Weakest part of the film is acting which is highlighted by terrible dubbing (and I even watched with Italian audio). Other than that the pacing is little off and the film drags at times.

Visually great giallo with solid but predictable plot and, at best, mediocre acting. Despite mostly praising the film the score isn't higher due to fact that I was checking the timer few times.



EDIT: Raised the rating from 3.5 to 4 popcorn.

They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (1969) n

Another one for the HoF16. I have a vague recollection that I've heard the film's name before but knew nothing about it.

This is a difficult film for me to review. I liked its nihilism and its portrayal of humanity. I loved the ending and how it linked the introduction to the rest of the movie. But on the other hand, at least for me, the film hasn't aged well - dance marathon is reality television for the people of great depression and I've had my share of both reality television (that share was very small) and satires about it. Yes, the show is partially scripted and its purpose is to give the audience something to feel, something to hide the emptiness and suffering in their own lives. It's obvious and I don't feel like hearing it for the hundredth time. And yeah, at 1969 Pollack was most likely comparing the marathon itself to life but at 2018 it doesn't really make a big difference before the end.

I was often bored when watching this. I understand why some things were done (like keeping all characters shallow, showing long and tedious shots of the derby, etc.) but I don't like it when the message is emphasized at the expense of the film as a whole. Life sucks and then you die but the film could still be more entertaining.

Acting was adequate, there was zero depth on the characters and actors were just playing shells visible for the rest of the world. Soundtrack was what you'd expect a 1930s dance marathon to sound like. Cinematography was clinical, almost dull (derbies looked silly and the ending was pretty much the only beautifully shot scene in the whole film - on purpose, I suspect).

Boring buildup in a setting that doesn't interest me in the slightest that leads to very nice ending (the end itself is worth one popcorn for me).

Deep Red (1975) n

Lets continue with classic giallo, this time by Argento.

https://i.imgur.com/zBj00ou.jpg

Compared to my previous giallo, Don't Torture a Duckling, Deep Red is much lighter and contains many comedic scenes (mainly between the two protagonists). It's story isn't as tight either and the ending left me with "that's it?" feeling. Once the murderer is revealed it makes earlier scenes feel unfitting.

As usual with Argento cinematography is top notch: lots of great compositions, extreme close ups, colors and weird camera movements. At times its almost too over the top for a movie like this but most of the time it's awesome. Soundtrack is also guaranteed Goblin quality, it's so refreshingly different when compared to American slashers.

Acting was pretty good this time. Two leads had decent chemistry and dealt fine with the excessive time script allowed for their romance and bickering. Rest of the cast was quite solid too. And Nicoletta Elmi is, again, mischievously adorable in her small role (so sad she decided to give up acting and become a doctor instead).

I think the film could have been shortened quite a bit. Over two hours felt a bit excessive for the story and there certainly were some filler scenes. There was some gore but this isn't particularly bloody giallo.

Visually great but too long and unconvincingly written giallo with solid acting and terrific soundtrack.



So hard to give these numbers. Don't Torture a Duckling was clearly better but I still felt that 3 was too low for this. So I ended up raising Duckling to 4 so I could give this 3.5.

It's been years since I've seen Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane and I'd like to see it again. I don't know though since I love Last House on the Left and hated Deep Red:p

Kill and Kill Again (1981) r

That feeling when a childhood favorite turns out to be complete trash.

So, we have these random martial artists who are hired by the government to rescue a scientist who has managed to turn potatoes into super fuel. Unfortunately the process also produces mind control drug that his captor is using in his plan to take over the world. Road to dethroning Marduk (who has hilariously bad fake beard) leads our heroes, to where else but, New Babylon.

http://www.activecontext.net/wp-cont...lAndKill02.jpg

Script is, or tries its best at, following all the cliches: bondesque opening credits and starting scene, almost half of the film is spent gathering the group, lots of random fights, villain telling his plans and being generally stupid and awkward romance. It's almost like something a kid could write after seeing few action movies.

Despite of the fact that some actors are decorated martial artists the fight scenes are often terrible. Considering the obviously low budget couple of things actually do look nice: opening credits and the scene where main character blocks a bullet. Everything else is, either by purpose or accident, silly and clumsy.

Nine-year-old me would have given this five popcorn without hesitation but present day me just lost a dear childhood memory.

Black Narcissus (1947) n

Spotted this from the Beautiful Films thread though I'm quite certain this has been on my (imaginary) watch list at some earlier point too but I just forgot to watch it.

http://www.cultjer.com/img/ug_photo/...0222134511.jpg

Storywise Black Narcissus offers very little new for modern viewers and its problems with US censorship made me shake my head in disbelief. It's a story about nuns in a remote and foreing place, far from the guiding hand of the church, and how the divine calling and human nature conflict with each other. For someone like me it's ultimately a story about the fallacy of faith.

By far the best thing in the film is its gorgeous sets and painted backgrounds. It's amazing that all the scenes in the Himalayas were shot in studio. On the negative side cinematography as a whole is uninspired and they manage to waste most of the visual potential of the settings. There are only few scenes where everything works. It's also unfortunate that the film was made during the time of 1.375:1 aspect ratio which doesn't support it at all.

Acting is mostly very theatrical and melodramatic. This gets emphasized by British actors doing most of the major native roles like Kanchi and Ayah. Only exceptions to silly acting are Deborah Kerr, who does good job as young sister superior, and Kathleen Byron as mentally unstable sister Ruth.

Naive characters in fabulous settings doing lame melodrama. Much wasted potential in both visual and story deparments. The concept is good but, being as old as it is, the execution is far too timid.



Recommended movies: The Devils (1971) that does the whole sexually repressed nuns thing much better.

Moonrise Kingdom (2012) n

I'm pretty sure this was the first Wes Anderson movie I saw but I think I'll need to give a chance to his other works too, even though I'm not a huge fan of animated films.

http://www.dvdtown.dk/wp-content/upl...se-kingdom.jpg

On the surface Moonrise Kingdom is a children's movie taking its aesthetics, structure and, to some extent, characters from that genre but some of its themes and slightly darker approach separate it form the genre. It mixes the mundane and ordinary with fantastic and naive, just like it mixes silly children's movie with proper drama. It's a mix that works.

Visually Moonrise Kingdom is quite beautiful but occasionally it overdoes its simple aesthetics. Story is very formulaic but the film is mostly about the presentation. Characters, especially adults, are very shallow and, like in children's movies in general, they impersonate a single trait rather than being fully developed persons. Only exceptions to this are the two main characters who are a bit more detailed but not exactly deep either (I did like them so "not deep" isn't exactly a negative thing here).

Acting is fitting but most of the characters don't offer much for the actors. Murray and McDormand as a Bishop couple do perhaps the best perfomances. Leading kids are fine but both of them are written to be very stoic and emotionless which they handle very well.

Child characters allow many topics to be handled differently (it feels more natural to exaggerate and simplify things with children, to be more purely something) and I'm usually a fan of that. While there were flaws in the film I did like it quite a bit.

Death Wish (2018) n

I love vigilante films but hate Eli Roth so I had pretty mixed expectations.

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.n...1EDB483DC0F43/

I haven't read the book so I can't say if the original 1974 film is more true to it than this but the two films have very little in common: name of the protagonist is the same, his family's fate is very similar, there's an eye opening trip to Texas and then there's the attitude. Everything else is changed and most of it for worse.

Roth is still bad director (sure, there are worse out there but they're not making movies with $30M budgets or have some cult status like Roth has - he's barely adequate technically but lacks any kind of talent or vision). Script has couple of nice details (the way Kersey hurts his hand and him actually looking up how to properly destroy HDD - makes me wonder though why didn't he do the same with phones but instead just smashed the screens) but as a whole it's too much a standard vengeange story.

Acting is mostly mediocre: Willis is just his usual self (mostly in a bad way), D'Onofrio is great actor but his screen time is quite limited and everyone else is just decent. I think part of the blame goes to Roth too, as the whole happy family stuff at the start felt really faked and he never bothered to focus on characters beyond that.

Action is fine, it's not the usual Hollywood high octane action but more realistic and dirty. Kersey was really stupid and lucky in the beginning but again, he wasn't supposed to have any previous experience. In a sense there was still too much action, it would have worked better if majority of kills had been simple executions.

The attitude was perfect. Criminals in general understand only violence. If government can't protect its people and uphold justice, it's up to people themselves to do it. Film's clear approval of Kersey's actions earns it an extra popcorn.

Black Water (2018) n

Van Damme and Lundgren together, is it 1992 again?

http://cdn2.darkhorizons.com/wp-cont...ed-696x464.jpg

Honestly, I wasn't expecting much and was prepared to start my review with "why am I watching this crap" instead of the year thing I ended up using. Black Water is very cliched agent film about bad guys selling the secrets of their nation for money. Script is, by far, its worst part as it's very predictable and contains some stupidity by the people who should know what they're doing.

Action is mostly good (the shootout at the beginning is probably the worst action sequence but things get better when we move to submarine). Only big complaint about action is lack of finishing shots which, of course, leads to "exciting" situations (though that's essentially a script issue). I also like how Van Damme usually does some grappling too (triangle choke and arm bars seem to be his specialty). Lundgren has only a small role but considering how stiff he looks now, it's maybe a good thing.

What separates this from majority of B-movies is the directing and cinematography. This is directorial debut of Pasha Patriki but he's been cinematographer in almost a hundred productions (most of them shorts) and it really shows. He really makes the best out of the lazy script and low budget. I wish he gets a shot at something bigger.

Poorly written and cliched agent action that is, partially, saved by nice action, nostalgia and surprisingly good directing. Far more enjoyable than I expected.

A Million Ways to Die in the West (2014) n

I saw a review of this where SJW had hurt his feelings. For me it was a recommendation.

http://www.fadedindustry.com/wp-cont...O-DIE-WEST.jpg

I think this was my first Seth MacFarlane film so didn't know what to expect (outside the "atrocities" mentioned in that review). First, I do like stupid tasteless jokes and find toilet humor amusing but just putting piss, sperm or feces on screen isn't enough - there needs to be good, clever writing. If almost two hour comedy has about half a dozen chuckle worthy moments in it, it's kind of a failure.

MacFarlane should clearly focus more on writing (and/or directing). There's two reasons for this; first the script could have used a lot of polishing and second he's terrible actor. He's not really funny and he's completely unable to convey any sort of emotions. Other actors do good enough work.

On positive side it's not exactly politically correct but I expected more. I don't watch lot of comedies and this didn't encourage me to change that.

The Day of the Beast (1995) n

Encouraged or not I did watch a second comedy (or at least partially comedic film) in a row. Can't remember when that last happened.

http://www.regrettablesincerity.com/.../daybeast4.jpg

This Spanish film has interesting concept and very alluring IMDb rating (7.5). I don't really get why people seem to like it so much though. For me it's like a poor man's Gilliam or Jeunet with less elaborated visuals and script that fails to make enough sense on some key points.

There is a priest who has solved the encrypted message in The Revelation and tries to stop the impending apocalypse. He teams up with a seller from metal records store and television psychic / occultist. His ultimate goal is to sign a pact with the Devil and, as a trusted Satan worshiper, learn the location where Antichrist is born and kill him (yes, the plan makes no sense to me either).

Technically the film is fine except visually it never really seems to reach the level it wants. I'm not sure if it's because of the budget, lack of skill or perhaps both (Jeunet had quite a bit more money at his disposal) but it does hurt the film. Acting is quite good though nothing really stands out. Script is kinda weak (feels like someone went too fast from concept to finished script) and especially the ending makes absolutely no sense.

I'm also irritated when films use sub-cultures and get things wrong (it's actually pretty common flaw). Here the whole underground metal scene is ridiculous. There is a scene of a gig of, allegedly, local satanic death metal band where pretty much everything is wrong: music is some jumpy nu metal, we have people dancing in their Deicide shirts, there are half naked women dancing on some platforms like it's rap or goth rock concert, etc.

Good story mangled by a bad script, decent visuals and directing, terrible presentation of metal scene and some good scenes. I was expecting more but still it's about mediocre.

3:10 to Yuma (2007) R

Rewatch for HoF16. I had mostly positive memory of this but it seems I got it mixed with some other film.

https://images.ctfassets.net/7h71s48...view-image.jpg

There's an outlaw leader played by Crowe who gets caught and is being taken to nearby town by some folks including a one legged rancher played by Bale. Rancher's had some bad luck and needs the $200 promised for the job. Outlaw's gang is also after them with the intent of freeing their leader.

To very large degree this whole films exists solely to have Crowe and Bale talking to each other. Crowe's character is charismatic, intelligent and sophisticated thief and murderer while Bale's rancher is a simple man who seems to have only two goals in his life - to keep his family afloat and to earn his son's respect. Interaction between the two could have been good but there are few glaring issues.

There's no proper reasoning for taking Crowe to that train to Yuma. It's not a good thing if the very concept of the film feels forced. This is amplified throughout the journey when his escorts start to die but no one seems to care. Only thing that matters is the pretentious dialogue between the two stars.

Crowe's character, Ben Wade, is also too capable in everything for this kind of movie. He's like a western Hannibal Lecter with some real feelings hidden inside - he's smarter, better shooter, more artistic, more everything than anyone else in the film. Yet for some reason he instantly befriends Bale's rancher and risks everything just to make Bale look good in the eyes of his son. The end just doesn't feel natural at all.

Techically the film is very nice. Acting is top notch as well. Everything looks good, sounds good and even the pacing is fine. The only thing that doesn't work is the script and especially the characters whose motives don't make any sense. A film that relies so heavily on dialogue needs characters that feel real and on that regard Ben Wade is, in my opinion, a total failure and drags the movie down with him.

Russell Crowe can't save badly written character that sinks otherwise promising film.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Future World (2018) n

Absolutely terrible flashback from 80s. Not only does it loan all the cliches from older post apocalypse movies it manages to be worse than practically any of the oldies (not that they have set the bar particularly high). There simply isn't anything good to mention but it makes me wonder how they managed to get Lucy Liu and Milla Jovovich into this mockery of cinema.

Watched little over 30 minutes and quickly skimmed to the end. Please, avoid.

Frances Ha (2012) n

Another for HoF16. Based on reviews here I was expecting this to be good even though the subject isn't really my cup of tea.

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/b37...greta-16_9.jpg

Oh boy, this one is really difficult to rate. On one hand I can acknowledge the overall skill and quality in every aspect of it but, due to reasons I'll get into later, I wasn't as entertained as I had hoped. I'm really happy that I saw it though.

At it's core Frances Ha is very simple and familiar story about young adults trying to find their place in the world. Most, if not all, of its characters are balancing somewhere between childhood fantasies and realities of adulthood. What separates it from other similar films is its clever and different script: it's jumpy and fragmented, without much to hold on - just like its characters it's trying to find its own place and meaning. I really liked the script and its controlled chaos.

Technically the film is also very solid. I think black-and-white cinematography was beautiful and fitted the film really well giving it kind of a timeless feel. Acting was really good too.

So why didn't I enjoy it? I found practically every character in the movie extremely annoying and couldn't care less what happens to them. Don't get me wrong, I think the characters were brilliantly written and they felt real - it's just me and my dislike of people like them (people in general, I suppose). Fortunately the film's fragmented style meant short scenes because I'm quite sure I would have gotten a headache from prolonged dinner discussions.

Technically brilliant but characters that really piss me off prevent any sort of attachment to the story. If I wouldn't rate films purely on entertainment value I could see myself giving this full points but as I do...

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Tomb Raider (2018) n

Not going to write a long one about this turd. New Tomb Raider is boring mix of random, uninspired action and embarrassingly stupid character moments. In theory the subject is interesting (sexy female Indy clone) but the execution is terrible. Only good thing in the film is Alicia Vikander who is really hot.

Mary Shelley (2017) n

A biography of Mary Shelley known for her Frankenstein novel.

http://www.filmfund.lu/var/www/stora...ox_gallery.jpg

In typical biography manner Mary Shelley takes quite a lot of liberties and, being about a female author, these liberties do serve an agenda. The film emphasizes modern female empowerment way too much and sadly falls for the same issues the modern propagators do (i.e. despite of Mary's own actions and decision all fault is bestowed on Percy).

Writing is little tedious and the film succumbs to some oversimplifications and annoyingly cliched flashbacks. Acting for the most part is good (and Elle Fanning is very cute) but especially Percy's voice-overs sound like high school poetry reading. Visually the movie is alright but it could have used its settings better.

Boring, feminist interpretation of Mary Shelley's life that has far too little going on to keep me interested. I guess there's a little bonus for the subject though.

Pacific Rim: Uprising (2018) n

Somewhat boring effect spectacle that looks really nice.

http://static1.squarespace.com/stati...g?format=1000w

Unfortunately films like this usually spend so much money on effects that they no longer can afford a decent script. Pacific Rim: Uprising is no exception and both its plot and characters are shallow and cliche ridden. Even the action is pointless and dull for the complete lack of suspense.

The action does look very nice though. Even with the script as bad as this it's kind of hard not to get at least a little excited about the town wrecking CGI robots and monsters. It's stupid and has no logic but at times you can, almost, forget it. Sadly there's nothing more in the film.

P.S. Cailee Spaeny looks really cute.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

He gets a lot of hate. I don't particularly like the guy but have enjoyed some of his films. Not a bad actor IMO. A girlfriend of mine adores his stuff but I can't say I'm ready to rush out for opening nights.

I haven't seen this one yet but enjoyed reading your review 📖👏

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Spent five days visiting my mom and at the mercy of local TV.

Ouija (2014) n

Terribly boring horror and the whole Ouija board thing has always felt silly to me. Went back to books after 30 minutes or so.



Cop Car (2015) n

Had some major doubts about the concept before seeing the film and afterwards those same doubts remain. In the end I was wishing the boys would crash the cop car into truck or something. Bad film but still considerably better than Ouija.



Commando (1985) R

Not among my favorites in 80s action but still pretty enjoyable. Commando is kinda bad enough to be at least OK: acting is terrible, lots of stupid one liners, plot is just an excuse for the slaughter, action is hilariously awkward and so on. By far the most entertaining film I watched during my visit.

+

Tordenskjold & Kold (2016) n

Danish film about naval war hero in early 18th century. It felt like a poor man's Guy Ritchie film without budget, action or good jokes. Hard rock soundtrack in the18th century setting is really hard to pull off and (even) I don't laugh just for protagonist yelling about the king being gay. I was done in about 40 minutes so...



Gravity (2013) n

Despite some factual errors Gravity is an attempt at serious hard sci-fi. Unfortunately it follows a generic catastrophe (or monster sci-fi but without a monster) story formula and doesn't have enough going on to pull it from the ranks of mediocrity. Bullock and Clooney do pretty nice work but their characters just aren't that interesting. Visually the film is great but otherwise disappointing.

Call Me by Your Name (2017) n

One more for the HoF16. I didn't expect to like this very much and it matched those expectations.

So Call Me by Your Name is a film about a summer romance. It's so rooted in the everyday, ordinary life that there's no feeling of escapism at all and for me that almost always means boring movie experience. I think the romance itself is well written and characters feel believably awkward (unlike in majority of Hollywood romances) but there's nothing exciting (for me at least) in this slice of life.

From technical point of view I think the film was way too long. It should have ended with Elio sitting at the train station (1:53 and something) but there's a long pedagogical wrap up that adds nothing. Also prior to that the film was already dragging and could have used some heavy editing; there's no need to stretch a light summer romance to epic proportions. The romance being homosexual doesn't automatically make the film deeper.

Acting was great. It really felt like watching actual people instead of rehearsed actors. I don't think the acting style would work on that many films but here it was perfect match. I didn't feel much chemistry between Elio and Oliver though (it may be because they're both men but I don't think so, or just an unwanted side effect of the way they're acting). Cinematography and direction were good too. Soundtrack was OK (except for that terrible song during the end credits).

There was one little thing that annoyed me too. It's not exactly this film's fault (maybe I'm wrong and it's my fault to even assume so) but I doubt the film would be so praised if it wasn't about a gay romance; if Elio had been a 17-year-old girl whose parents were supporting her romance with their 30+ year-old summer guest. I don't personally mind the age difference either way but I assume more people would if Elio had been a girl.

A down-to-earth romance that takes way too much time to tell its simple and light story.

Terminator II (1989) n

This sci-fi classic by James Cam... No, wait, this is the another Terminator II or Shocking Dark as it's known in the US.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F5w6_wMttF...ckingdark3.jpg

This is among the worst rip-offs I've ever seen. Worst as in terrible film but also as in copying scenes and dialogue directly from the films whose reputation it abuses. A bit surprisingly Terminator isn't the film copied the most but Aliens (it's retarded combination of both movies),

Only reason I finished the film was my familiarity with "source material" (Aliens was my teen favorite and I've seen it dozens of times) and curiosity on how badly they could ruin the stolen stuff. Technically the film is awful, acting is ridiculously bad and script is bunch of non-sense mixed with blatant plagiarism.

Worst case example of Italian sequel legislation. Please, don't watch.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Zombi 3 (1988) n

Half Fulci, half Mattei and Fragasso, all bad.

Another zombie film by Fulci even though he's apparently responsible only for little over half of the film as a stroke forced him to withdraw from production. The film is nothing like his earlier Gates of Hell trilogy or even Zombi 2 that both had great cinematography and haunting, dreamlike atmosphere; Zombi 3 is nothing more than lazy and clumsy Romero rip-off.

Script is incredible bad, acting is terrible, there's not much splatter and action is hilarious (like why did the cleanup guys melee with the protagonists instead of just shooting them). Even soundtrack is mostly bad. Only positives in the film are some unintentional comedy and few nice foggy shots.

By far the worst Fulci I've seen this far.

-

Waterloo Bridge (1931) n

For HoF16 again. A theatrical melodrama set in WW1 era London.

I had to watch this in two pieces because the audio made it quite difficult to comprehend dialogue (as a matter fact this was mostly an issue with Kitty so the problem was much smaller during the latter part of the film). Otherwise the Youtube copy was rather decent.

I found the main characters hard to like or even take seriously. Roy was stupefyingly naive and Myra was stereotypical "I don't deserve to be happy because..." pessimist. It just felt awkward how things evolved between the two especially when pretty much everyone else but Roy knew what was going on.

I was bored quite a bit by the endless proposal rejection cycle that didn't seem to have anything to say nor did it really deepen the characters either. Roy's stepfather was annoying one joke pony with his bad hearing. Kittty (as much as I understood what she was saying) was like an evil fairy whispering her filth to Myra who, despite of actually being rather decent person, probably believed herself to be like Kitty (at least that's how I interpreted her unwillingness to get married).

I don't know how I felt about the end. Usually I'm in favor of dark and tragic twists but here it seemed a little forced. It might be because the execution of the scene was bad but I don't think it did fit the film that well.

Visually I thought the film was too theatrical; most of the city and indoors sets were built and framed just like in a stage (there were exceptions but too few to my liking). Acting was also theatrical and neither of leads seemed very natural.

A dull melodrama about the hopeless love of two disturbingly pathetic characters.

Age of Gold (1930) n

Was looking for controversial films from 1930s for the porential HoF and maybe even for the countdown and found this one by Buñuel.

https://eclecfreak.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/v.gif

It's quite hard to write anything specific about the film because I don't really understand what I saw. I assume it's against religion and the aristocratic (mis)use of power blessed by the church in similar vein as de Sade's works (yeah, I got clear de Sade vibes way before the end and its direct reference). Youtube copy missed subtitles from couple of scenes but I don't think that even with them I could say there's a clear plot here, it just flows onward like a twisted dream.

Cinematography is mostly quite nice for a 1930 film and there are lots of good looking outdoors scenes (especially in the beginning). Soundtrack is also surprisingly inventive for the age. Acting is probably good (without real characters it's always a little hard to tell).

Age of Gold was entertaining experience even without finding much sense in it. It was brutal and dark film with somewhat surprising twists. It was little like following a dream while being awake. From today's standards the outrage it created seems silly but I'm sure there are lots of people even today who would get butthurt by its mockery of religion.

Three Monkeys (2008) n

Another film for HoF16. A Turkish family drama about guilt, greed, jealousy and, as their effect, stupidity.

http://tr.web.img3.acsta.net/r_1280_...3/18936607.jpg

Eyüp takes blame for his employer's accidental run over of a random pedestrian in exchange for some money. During the sentence his wife starts an affair with the employer. From there lots of things start to go wrong.

Again the characters aren't particularly likable but they're somewhat interesting. Story is written well and what seemed like a decent trade for the family turns believably into disaster because both the family and employer make terrible decisions.

Visually the film is OK. At times it feels a little too drained of color but I suppose it's on purpose. The "haunting" of the family's younger, apparently drowned, son is a nice touch. Acting is very good by practically everyone. Script is solid.

The film dragged slightly at times but not much. Maybe it's a culture thing but I felt that people were bit too ready to take the blame for other people's crimes. I'm not sure if I liked the ending either; it felt a little too easy solution to all the problems especially considering that it replicates the initial cause of the issues. I would have preferred more tragic ending.

Solid drama about breaking family and consequences of bad choices.

I Am a Ghost (2012) n

A very low-budget combination of Groundhog Day and The Others.

https://galas3.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-c...01-770x433.jpg

The film is about a ghost of a young woman, Emily, and a medium, Sylvia, who's hired to rid the house of spirits. Early parts of the film are about constant repetitions of Emily's memories that she keeps reliving without knowing she's a ghost. Repeated scenes are rather short so we get to see (way too) many repetitions.

Latter half is much better as Emily (with some guidance from Sylvia's voice) tries to piece her memories together and find a way to move on. We still see the same memories but this time Emily is watching them from the outside and there's a feeling that the story is getting somewhere. In the end there's little horror as well and the open ending works pretty well.

I Am a Ghost is amateurish in many ways but it does have some charms too. Cinematography is mostly fine but little too claustrophobic. Dialogue is bit unclear at times so subs definitely came in handy. Acting isn't bad by any means but Ishida doesn't have enough talent or charisma to fully carry the film through (she's basically alone for the most of the film so it's not an easy task). Anyways, the production surely used well its $10k budget.

Interesting idea, somewhat flawed execution but enough hooks and personality to end up as an okay ghost story.

Ended up watching another film today.

Who Saw Her Die? (1972) n

A giallo where murderer stalks redheaded little girls. This means that Nicoletta Elmi has to die again :(

http://www.bmania.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/who.jpg

Franco, a sculptor living in Venice, has his young daughter visiting (I suppose, his marital situation is rather confusing) him. After very endearing father-daughter relationship building period the girl is murdered. Because Franco is James Bond, or at least George Lazenby, he starts to investigate the crime when local police seems to be quite incompetent.

The film works pretty well up to Elmi's death but the actual investigation part is really messy. It's poorly written and (in sadly typical giallo style) drops both the reason behind the murders and the actual murderer out of nowhere. Also the killings happening during the investigation are shot poorly (like no one cares to even try to defend themselves).

Acting felt little wooden (my copy was dubbed in English which probably didn't help either) but not enough to actually annoy. Visually the film was above average but not comparable to Fulci's or Argento's giallos. Venice as a setting was beatiful. Morricone's soundtrack was brilliant.

Elmi and Morricone keep this giallo barely floating but can't fix the messy script.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Rampage (2018) n

Very boring monster circus that has nothing to offer. Who even thought that Rampage could turn into decent movie? Plot is bad, action is dull and the most clever joke is a gorilla giving the finger. Please, avoid.

-

The Psychic (1977) N

Another giallo (or something) by Lucio Fulci.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...20PDVD_014.jpg

A clairvoyant named Virginia sees visions of a woman being killed and walled up. She ends up finding a corpse from the wall inside a house owned by her husband. With her parapsychologist friend she tries to solve the murder but everything isn't how she initially believed.

Unlike other Fulcis I've seen this one has very solid script and is mostly story driven film. The story is accompanied by beautiful visuals and very nice score - with its deep reds it reminds me a lot of Argento. My copy was dubbed again but acting felt pretty decent too.

The biggest complaint is that the story isn't (in my opinion) very interesting. I'm not usually too fond of psychics and premonitions and prophecies which usually feel like cheap plot devices. The Psychic handles this far better than usual and is rather nice example of self-fulfilling prophecy. Also Fulci apparently liked the fall at the end of his Don't Torture a Duckling far more than I did and decided to replicate it at the start of this one.

Not too interesting story is elevated by good script and great cinematography.

First of all, tell me how do you write such long reviews. I guess you are a writer? Anyway, This movie seems interesting, even the movie cover of the film is attractive and I liked the storyline.

They're not all that good/long, to be honest :p And I'm not a writer (an aspiring one maybe but apparently too lazy to put enough effort to actually finish anything).

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Then you are A figure among cyphers. because I cannot even write reviews on any movie or maybe I am also too lazy to think and write reviews hehe

Naked (1993) N

HoF16 candidate again. Ever wanted to spend two hours watching an obnoxious smartass yapping his mouth? Me neither but now I had to.

http://www.bfi.org.uk/sites/bfi.org....?itok=Ns2t_-2D

So Johnny is a homeless bum and a wannabe intellectual who can't keep his mouth shut for a minute. His deep discussions with few unlucky encounters are like modern internet discussions - he drops walls of text from his mouth and doesn't give damn about what the other person is saying. He's a stupid movie cliche of an intellectual where being smart equals an ability to cite past philosophers instead of being able to think.

For some reason every woman he meets will instantly want to have sex with him despite of the fact that he's a smelly bum who mostly just insults these women and hurts them while having sex. Then there's this richer guy with his rape fantasies who has almost nothing to do with the rest of the story (I guess Mike Leigh was worried people wouldn't take him seriously if his film wouldn't break two hour mark so he decided to have two pricks instead of just one).

On the positive side acting is good, especially David Thewlis as Johnny is brilliant (I hated the guy but he was absolutely believable). Cinematography is pretty nice as well. Technical quality just doesn't save it from being horribly boring.

If it weren't for the HoF I wouldn't have finished this.

Ginger Snaps (2000) r

A much needed rewatch for my potential top horror list. Another attempt to link puberty and its changes on (female) body with more profound transformation into a monster.

https://i.imgur.com/UejsCz0.jpg

Ginger and Brigitte are high school juniors (Brigitte is one year younger but she's skipped a class at some point). They're also (so-called) freaks and misanthropists of sort who mostly just hang together and have an obsession for morbid (they take pictures of their faked deaths and have a pact of dying together).

While out one night Ginger gets bitten by a werewolf that's been killing local dogs like no tomorrow. So in addition to having her first period (at 16) she also starts to grow some extra body hair, pointed teeth and a tail to boot. While Ginger succumbs deeper into bestiality Brigitte tries to find her a cure with some assistance by a young local drug dealer. Story ends with quite a bit of blood and sadness.

The basic story is nothing special but it works mostly because of very well written characters and kinda clever ways to transfer the old werewolf tropes into modern time. Katharine Isabelle and Emily Perkins are perfect in their portrayal of the sisters. It reminds me a little of Let the Right One In as both of them are primarily concerned of the characters while all the horror elements are secondary and only there to support the character based story.

Cinematography is fine but nothing really special. The monster effects haven't aged too well and I personally don't like how the werewolf looks (though I suppose Ginger's transformation is not finished). I'm also not exactly sure if I like the comedic elements (especially sisters' parents are really goofy).

A good character driven horror film and a good candidate for the best puberty mystification horror ever made.

Mr. Freedom (1968) N

HoF16 candidate again. A satire about USA, its (foreign) politics, capitalism and all other evil things of the West.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8194/8...c168af4d_b.jpg

Mr. Freedom is like a simple sketch that goes on and on overstaying its welcome by a large margin. It has a handful of witty or funny ideas but not nearly enough to carry its 95 minutes. I suppose the message and ideological preaching was more important to William Klein than making a good film.

In the film we have Mr. Freedom, an American superhero and an agent of Freedom Inc. whose job is to spread freedom across the globe and defend the American interests. In France there's been a rise of Anti-Freedom activity and Mr. Freedom is sent to deal with it. Along with the French opposition Soviets and Chinese cause problems to Mr. Freedom.

In theory the concept could have resulted in a good movie but in practice it didn't. Everything from writing to acting to directing is just so terribly sloppy. On the ideological level the film is also pretty confusing. Sure, Vietnam War was a fiasco but Klein's portrayal of USA as a fascist nation that'll bomb everyone who disagrees with them doesn't really grow on me, especially as he's simultaneously bowing far to the left. At least I got the impression that he only doesn't hate Freedom but also freedom.

A failed satire that's more interested in preaching than being funny and entertaining.

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006) R

Last HoF16 film besides my own nomination which I'll rewatch later. A filming of a book where the main character is almost completely defined by his olfactory experiencing of the world. Definitely not an easy subject for a film.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-GnNWPEcPMC...36_600_301.jpg

Jean-Baptiste Grenouille is a man with the most acute nose in the whole world. His world is defined by scents instead of images or sounds. After encountering (and killing) a young woman who's scent entices him he wants to learn to preserve such precious scents and ends up as an apprentice perfumer in Paris.

After realizing that the master Baldini is unable to teach what he needs to know he goes to city of Grasse, a perfumers' Mecca of sorts. There he learns to preserve the human scent and ends up killing multiple girls in the process. Finally he captures the most exquisite scent from a wealthy merchant's daughter but is also captured himself. What follows is a weird demonstration of the power of the scents he's collected and mixed into a magical perfume.

I find the subject little silly but it certainly is quite unique. The film manages to portray JBG's olfactory world surprisingly well; it's not as deeply explored as it was in the book but at the same it doesn't get as much in the way of the story either. Ben Whishaw does excellent job as the main villain even though I could have lived with little few closed eyes by him. Visually the film about smell works nicely.

After reading the book just prior to this rewatch there are few things that did bother me in this otherwise excellent filming. By far the greatest issue is the humanization of JBG who in the book is totally alienated from the rest of humanity. With this comes the simplification of his motives as well as him being at least a little sympathetic in the film.

I don't know why the whole Grasse part of the story is completely re-written. There's much that doesn't make sense in the movie's interpretation. Also lots of satire about the church, nobility and people in general has been omitted but that's mostly a time issue, I believe (though I really missed the fluidum letale).

Technically the movie is solid. Script is mostly fine with some exceptions mentioned above and the fact that it feels little rushed at times. Supporting cast is good. Even the narrator works while I usually dislike them. The ending doesn't work as well as it works in the book because of the changes made to JBG.

A bold attempt to film an "unfilmable" book. It has its flaws but so has the book. In the end I give this exactly the same rating as I gave the book.

+

Ready Player One (2018) N

2 hours and 20 minutes to be informed that spending all your time playing online isn't healthy? That has to be the longest and most expensive public service announcement ever made.

http://cinemaadhoc.info/wp-content/u...RPO-FP-006.jpg

A geek combined social media and World of Warcraft (sorry, that's an insult to WoW) and world was never the same again. The geek dies and an Easter egg is announced with the promise of riches (and full control of this virtual world) for anyone who finds it. I wonder whether this mega corporation finds it, or this young, naive and poor kid?

There's been a lot of complaints how the film is an insult to the book. I personally didn't like the book either and never finished it but based on what I read it's easy to understand these people. I'm not doing any deep comparisons though as I didn't finish the book but they're certainly very different.

As a film Ready Player One is terrible. It looks awful both in virtual (why would a virtual world in 2045 have graphics as poor as 2001 Final Fantasy movie) and real world. Amazing how bad action can be considering the budget. There are no real characters, plot is paper thin and the educational ending is cringe worthy. The world is completely senseless.

Ready player one? No, but I'm ready to give this one popcorn (there's an extra half for using Twisted Sister's We're Not Gonna Take It).

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Rampage and Ready Player One the same rating? I suppose haha I think Ready Player One might have been one of my favorites this year. Appreciate the list so far though!

Maniac (1934) N

An exploitation/horror film from 30s that has its moments but in general the story and its presentation just aren't good enough. I also wonder if Stuart Gordon or Brian Yuzna have seen this because there are so many resemblances to Re-Animator.

http://366weirdmovies.com/wp-content.../09/maniac.jpg

A former vaudeville impersonator is assisting a mad scientist. After killing his employer he begins to impersonate the doctor and is driven into deep paranoia where everyone is out to get him.

There are few nice scenes (like the, according to wiki, famous cat scene) and the contemporary psychological info bits are pretty nice idea. Acting for the most part is rather horrendous and Bill Woods overdoes the craziness in almost every scene. There is very little to say about cinematography or anything technical, it just isn't a quality production.

It's not terrible but still quite bad. I'm happy it was so short though and I suppose the rating would have been lower it the film would have crossed the one hour mark.

Network (1976) N

A mentally unstable news anchor is turned into a raging prophet by television network and at first draws massive ratings but ends up preaching far less popular truths.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WI4w2x-y9_...00/network.jpg

When Howard Beale, once popular but soon unemployed news anchor, threatens to commit suicide during a live broadcast he sets in motion a set of events that raises the small failing network's ratings to unprecedented heights. Along with the mad prophet the shape of television is renewed by young head of the programming department, Diana Christensen, whose world is completely defined by ratings and the corporation, CCA, that has recently taken over the network.

In addition to Beale's ravings the network also turns domestic terrorism into entertainment when Diana makes deal with left wing radicals to produce weekly authentic material from their strikes. Things start to go wrong when Beale's sermons turn against the money. CCA boss intervenes and reveals him the new truth or economic gospel. This new message doesn't resonate well with the viewers and in order to save the ratings Diana and other network bosses end up ordering an assassination for him, obviously during a live broadcast.

Network is a well made satire about the media, money, ideologies and general desire for premade truths and unwillingness to actually form own opinions. Script is solid even though at times it tends to explain just a little too much and partially because of that loses steam on few occasions. Acting is superb and at least both leads deserved their Oscars.

The film's message has endured really well and is still very topical (probably even more than it was back in 1976). I also like how the film doesn't exactly take sides (all ideologies are for sale) and just preaches against general human gullibility and lack of individualism.

Good satire driven by great actors that has few too many dull moments to be great.

Torso (1973) N

What to do when you don't really have a plot or content and the film is still 20 minutes short? You make your leading ladies get naked, of course, and shoot them dancing, sunbathing and getting involved in various sexual activities with random men or each other. Problem solved.

http://bocadoinferno.com.br/wp-conte...rso-1973-4.jpg

Some university students are murdered in Perugia. One girl is pestered by an unwanted lover and escapes to her uncle's villa with her friends. The killer follows and there are quite a few murders more and lots of bare breasts. There's really no plot besides random murders and nudity.

I was expecting a giallo but Torso is (at least in my opinion) pure slasher which I don't like that much. There is no solving the mystery at all, just murders that get closer and closer to our protagonist. Killer is revealed when she meets him face to face. Storywise the film is really empty.

Visually it's above average when it comes to slashers and Italy is beautiful as usual. I wonder if Italy still looks like that today, in 1970s films it looks like living in a museum (totally meant as a praise). Acting was decent. Ladies were pretty. By far the biggest flaw was a lack of real plot.

After watching okay to good giallos lately I was disappointed when Torso was revealed to be just a poor slasher.

Witchfinder General (1968) r

Hunting witches can be arduous job but it helps if you're getting well paid, enjoy the power it gives you and have an assistant who enjoys torturing other people (especially women).

https://i0.wp.com/www.horrormoviemav...size=565%2C318

Matthew Hopkins, a 17th century lawyer turned witch hunter, prowls the Civil War era eastern England with his sadistic assistant. Together they torture confessions from accused witches and oversee the executions. Among their victims is a priest suspected of being a papist who's also a guardian of Sara, a young woman and a promised wife of a parliamentarian soldier Richard Marshall. Richard swears vengeance and final confrontation follows.

Vincent Price is great as witchfinder Hopkins. I just love the way he speaks on this. Obviously he's way too old to be Hopkins but with the film's low level of historical accuracy it doesn't matter. Otherwise acting is mediocre. Cinematography is mostly good and some shots looks excellent (like the opening scene of the gallows). Violence is a bit more graphical than usually in British films of the time.

For me the biggest issue was the script. There's no real flow in the story but only a fragmented collection of scenes with little cohesion. Too much time is wasted on traveling scenes. Characters don't have time to grow and the whole situation in England is omitted except for a short introductory narration and few small glimpses of Cromwell's army (why even put Cromwell on screen without any mention of the politics).

Apparently Nicolas Winding Refn has bought the remake rights for the movie. That would definitely be a remake I'd approve as the story has much potential. But now the actual 1968 film is only okayish movie with really nice performance by Price and pretty effective ending.

How to Talk to Girls at Parties (2017) N

I wonder if Elle Fanning likes the Liquid Sky because this is a second film she's been in that kinda reminds me of it.

https://compote.slate.com/images/e2e...&offset=221x79

There's this trio of punks in late 1970s London who just happen to get involved with the visiting aliens who are gathering experiences across the universe. One of them, Enn, falls in love with an alien Zan who's inhabiting a fabulous body of Elle Fanning. What follows is a very 80s like film about the rebellious youth culture that ends up making the world (or universe in this case) a better place.

Movie certainly has its moments (most are related to Zan's lack of knowledge about the human ways and also the not-so-hygienic kissing scene is hilarious) but being a film about 70s punk scene it's far too timid. It's also very predictable but I guess that comes with the genre (still hated the very end and its "mandatory" LGBT angle that was foreseeable from light years away).

Acting is very solid and practically every character seems to have been cast perfectly. Visually the film is nice but the more cosmic scenes were lacking something (like nudity which was kinda implied). Script was good but, like mentioned earlier, I would have preferred it to be a lot more daring. Music had a pretty big role in the film and it worked (seems like both Fannings can sing).

An easy to watch film with a nostalgic feel, great acting and adorable Elle Fanning. If it had been more daring and hadn't always chosen the easy solutions it could have been much better. Still OK.

+

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Child Bride (1938) N

My own nomination for 1930s HoF. A controversial movie about the child marriages in the Ozarks that's often (and not completely without reason) labeled as an exploitation film.

http://www.badmovies.org/othermovies...hildbride6.jpg

Story revolves around the progressive teacher who's campaigning against child marriages, a group of local men who see no reason to change the local customs and young Jennie and her family. Jennie's father is already in bad terms with the leader of the group, Jake, and things escalate when he saves the teacher from tarring and feathering.

Jennie's father is no perfect though. When drunk he at times beats his wife. On such an occasion Jake kills him and frames the wife. In exchange for his silence he demands Jennie to become his wife. To prevent her hanging Jennie's mother agrees and Jennie marries Jake (for a very short time).

Film's notoriety came mostly from nudity by Shirley Mills who was 12 at the time. Being done in 1938 it was post-code but as an independent production and claiming to be educational it managed to bypass the restrictions. The nudity is rather mild but camera does like her butt during the swimming scene so exploitation reputation is somewhat deserved but in my opinion the scene was justified by the story.

Technically the film is a mixed bag. Some scenes (like the whole stormy night when Jennie's father is killed) look genuinely good and cinematography in general is decent. Script has its moments but especially the dialogue is pretty bad at times. Acting is generally quite bad but Jake and (for the most part) Jennie do okay. Jennie's friend Freddie is especially terribly acted.

I was positively surprised by the quality of this film. It's not great by any means but perfectly passable. It's notoriety as borderline child pornography is vastly exaggerated and to me it seems that most people are offended just in case.

-

Frankenstein (1931) r

In preparation for the sequel in 1930s HoF I decided to refresh the first film too.



Not bothering with the plot this time as everyone should know it already. It's a nice story but the filming feels quite superficial (I haven't read the book though). It focuses too much on Frankenstein wedding and other non-essential stuff leaving the monster too much in the background.

Early parts are good up to monster's escape. The middle drags quite badly and otherwise decent finale is somewhat diminished by too claustrophobic sets (a dozen villagers running around like headless chickens in minuscule cliffs is surely funny). Ending at the windmill is nice (especially the long shot of the burning windmill).

Karloff is good as monster and Kerr is charismatic and funny as the old Baron (and also very similar to his role in Waterloo Bridge). Otherwise acting isn't too good; no one is outright bad but everyone seems to lack enthusiasm. Besides the ending the stormy night around Frankenstein's lab is visually appealing as well as the carrying of the dead girl through the village. Other than those cinematography isn't anything special.

It was pretty much what I expected, a decent early horror that is vastly overrated. Will need to see if I end putting a minus at the end of rating or not.

I like the film, but I will agree with King's criticism of it. Jack Nicholson doesn't look like a man who descends into madness, he looks mad straight from the start.

Bride of Frankenstein (1935) r

For 1930s HoF. In hindsight I shouldn't have watched Frankenstein before this because then the terrible continuity errors wouldn't have bugged so much.



So the monster survived the fire, there's a new doctor in town who creates mini-people from nothing and wants Frankenstein's help to create a full-sized mate for the monster. Frankenstein is reluctant but Pretorius has the monster kidnap his wife to force his hand. In the end there's no happily ever after for the monster but at least Frankenstein is redeemed in its eyes.

This being a direct sequel for the Frankenstein the start is quite confusing. So the old baron is suddenly dead, burgomaster has transformed into Frederick Kerr wannabe and the staff of Frankenstein household has vanished and been replaced by Minnie. And this all has happened during the first film's end sequence. Couldn't they even try?

Another issue is the overuse of (bad) comedy. First had some comedic scenes but it tried to be a suspense film. The sequel doesn't know what it wants to be (just like its writers didn't bother to check what happened in the first). It's a shame because some of the more serious parts are actually pretty good and the whole idea of the bride isn't bad (as proved by the series Penny Dreadful).

Visually Bride is much better and more consistent than the first film. Lightning and shadows are used to much better effect. Directing is also tighter. Acting is pretty bad at times (especially in the intro and early discussions with Dr. Frankenstein and Elizabeth), Karloff is decent as a monster but little uneven.

Overall this is little weaker than the first even though the good parts are actually better than anything in it. Too much comedy, continuity issues with the first film and few details that just didn't fit (like those mini-people) keep the popcorn at rather low levels.

Phenomena (1985) N

This paranormal giallo is most likely the worst Argento I've seen this far.



14-year-old Jennifer comes to Swiss boarding school. There's, of course, a murderer on the loose nearby and conveniently the victims happen to be young girls. Jennifer's roommate is killed, she meets a doctor of insectology (yes, I know that's not a real word), gets involved in the investigation and with some help from the doctor she gets too close. Fortunately she's in good terms with all the insects and they help her when needed.

Phenomena suffers from multiple flaws. The story is totally bonkers and kind of hard to take seriously. Soundtrack is all over the place (Iron Maiden and Motörhead are good but they don't really fit). People do very stupid decisions (if you're running away from a murderer / hiding it might not be a good idea to scream your lungs out). And the monkey nurse :rolleyes:

Jennifer Connelly looks pretty but her acting leaves a lot to be desired. On the other hand no one else is too convincing either so lots of blame should probably go to Argento. Even the visuals are pretty lame with few exceptions (mostly the night scenes with wind and trees). There are few nice gore effects though and the pool full of body parts and maggots looks positively disgusting.

Boring and little stupid giallo that proves that even Argento can fail. There's enough positives to keep it barely within OK score though.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Gunga Din (1939) N

For 1930s HoF. Three Stooges fighting Thuggees in British India with some help from faithful noble savage.



At least I now know where the plot for Temple of Doom came from. In essence it's the same movie where Indy @ Co. is replaced by three army officers and one water bearer. Murderous cult is rearing its ugly head but the mighty Englishmen are there to save the day.

The film focuses way too much on the three leads twisting their faces and attempting to look so damn funny. All the comedic elements felt completely forced and I don't think I snickered even once. The story itself could have worked with less (or at least better) humor and more investment to the actual plot.

The big fight at the end looks good considering the age of the film. Otherwise it's quite uninspired in every way. Kinda like modern Hollywood spectacle but form the 1930s (wait... it is exactly that). It looks and feels like professional work but it lacks something that would bring it to life.

Old adventure / action films also suffer from really bad fight scenes. I guess it's unfair to compare them to modern fully choreographed fights but those old fisticuffs make me shake my head (especially when heroes are superhuman manhandling bad guys like an adult fighting a bunch of children). But action is a big part of these films so I can't just ignore it.

I found Gunga Din pretty boring and would much rather watch Mola Ram and Indy butt heads.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Calibre (2018) N

I don't know why I hate majority of Netflix movies but I do. I watched this about 40 minutes and I was so bored. With nothing even remotely interesting in sight I did the only sensible option and stopped the film.

Was very disappointed in Phenomena while Ginger Snaps was a great surprise.

Execution Squad (1972) N

A bleak look into crime, punishment and society as a whole.



Police work is frustrating in 1970s Rome with press, public and politicians pestering them about inefficiency as well as brutality and arbitrariness. Majority of criminals walk free or serve short sentences as the new liberal ideologies put blame on society and make individuals irresponsible for their actions. Sounds like modern day West to me.

Commissario Bertone is furious about the situation but when criminals starts popping up dead he begins to suspect that there is a group with police connections taking the law in their own hands. Unlike most films about the subject Execution Squad doesn't really take sides; through Bertone it abhors the situation in Italy but the squad isn't presented as a solution, there's no solution in the film at all. It's very dark and kind of unpleasant movie.

Part of it's themes are clearly inherited from WW2 era politics as the cleanup squad is at its core a fascist organization with far-reaching political agenda. Because of that it's not, in my opinion, a vigilante movie per se but more like a conspiracy film. Also because of this the squad often appears more like a moral police than traditional vigilante (like killing prostitutes and homosexuals).

Somehow I was never really drawn into the film and there were outright boring moments. Also Bertone was very conflicting character, almost to the point of hypocrisy. Characters in general were quite flat. Visually the film was OK and it showed the dirtier, grittier side of Rome pretty well. Soundtrack (especially the film's theme) was brilliant.

A vigilante themed conspiracy film that has lots of stuff going for it but ultimately lacks something to draw the viewer into its world.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

The Scarlet Empress (1934) N

Watched for 1930s HoF. Historically very inaccurate depiction of Catherine the Great's rise to power.



The Scarlet Empress is moderately entertaining film with beautiful sets, decent acting and surprisingly light approach to the subject. Its narration is quite fast paced only slowed down by occasional shoots of highly stylized and bizarre (and, I assume, very unrealistic) Russian architecture and one extremely prolonged wedding scene. Its strength is definitely the aesthetics while the story does have some gaping holes.

From the movie's point of view the whole coup comes from nowhere (well, there's one title card telling us that she charmed the army). I found it very awkward how the film doesn't bother to give any reasons why Catherine is loved and how she could turn others against Peter so easily. The whole transition from silly girl to proper monarch is almost completely ignored. For me that's the single biggest flaw of the movie.

Historically the film is completely absurd. Marlene Dietrich is way too old for Catherine, Sam Jaffe is even more too old for Peter (I think they were 16 and 17 at the wedding). They had met years before the marriage, Empress liked Catherine, etc. It's so flawed that even at my rudimentary knowledge of the subject it started to bother quite a bit. I think historical films should be little more accurate (or honestly be alternate history or complete fantasy).

Mostly entertaining pseudo-historical film that relies on style over substance in its purely fictional depiction of factual events.

A Quiet Place (2018) N

A gimmicky horror film that doesn't have much to offer beyond the gimmick itself.



Monsters have come and brought the apocalypse. Scarce survivors hide in their homes and try to avoid making any noise because the blind monsters are attracted to sound. Concept sounds interesting but I'd assume it would work better in smaller scale (i.e. skip the global event and make it just one monster in some isolated rural area). Now the idea of fallen civilization due to rather stupid animals with extremely predictable behavior isn't at all convincing (especially after the film's ending).

The silence gimmick does amplify one regular horror film issue - without dialogue the characters are left extremely thin and distant. Only the daughter has some depth. Acting was OK but there really wasn't much to act besides being scared. I hated the pregnancy as a plot device. Monster's abilities changed from scene to scene (as they too often do in horror).

Overall it felt that the writers had been blinded (deafened) by the gimmick and ignored lots of holes and inconsistencies to focus on that (how does the blind monster move around obstacles, where do the people get their electricity, why weren't the monsters lured to an isolated location and bombed into oblivion during the first week, etc.). It's not bad but nothing special either.

Too much noise for nothing, an empty barrel of a film :D Not sure if I'm being too generous with popcorn.



Recommended book: Bird Box by Josh Malerman does the sensory gimmick in little more innovative style - what ever is lurking out there is so terrifying that seeing it will drive people mad. So instead of depriving the monster from sensory input people must survive in the post apocalyptic world without their sight.

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Shogun's Ninja (1980) r

A silly action film with many kinds of ninjas, clan feuds and childhood romances. Story is a kind of a mess which isn't helped by random (and pretty poorly done) action scenes that keep popping out nowhere. There was enough unintentional humor to keep me watching and there were even few decent scenes across the film. I wouldn't recommend this unless you're dying to see spider ninjas climbing trees or protagonists doing some trapeze training.

Suspiria (1977) R

Argento's classic that excels in aesthetics but has some serious issues with the story.



Suzy goes to German ballet school and ends up battling the witch coven that is running the school. There's no explanation why the witches are running the school or why the school has high prestige despite the mortality rate of its students - as a matter fact Suspiria explains very little and very little in it makes any sense. Argento would probably call me ignorant but I think Suspiria would benefit from more coherent story.

Visually Suspiria is perhaps Argento's best film (even though watching multiple gialli lately has reduced the awe it inspires). Especially the use of red, green and blue lights to create completely unnatural atmosphere is done beautifully. Great visuals are complimented by one of the best soundtracks ever made (though it seems that the Italian audio on blu-ray has the music mixed way too low, I tried the English audio afterwards and instantly regretted watching the film in Italian as the music was much louder).

Acting is mostly fine and most of the characters are so weird anyways that's it hard to say if the acting is off. Harper was good (and pretty) as Suzy. There's not much gore and most of what we have isn't that well made (first murder is great but others not so much). Settings are gorgeous and support Argento's visuals perfectly.

With (much) better writing this could be one of the best films ever. Now the general stupidity of the story takes away one popcorn despite some of the most beautiful cinematography ever made. On another day I could be more carried away by the audiovisual experience but today the rating is...

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Pépé le Moko (1937) N

For 1930s HoF. A French gangster Pépé is hiding in Casbah of Algiers and dreams of freedom and Paris.

https://78.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m...y49jo1_640.jpg

The cat and mouse game between Pépé and Algerian inspector Slimane is something I don't usually like. I just keep thinking how much easier, safer and cheaper it would have been if Slimane (or French police) had had Pépé assassinated instead of the long plotting to get him out of Casbah. Also the relationship between the two makes one question Pépé's intelligence.

I liked the concept of Pépé being a prisoner in Casbah and his growing yearning to be back in Paris. I didn't see much hope for him and the film's ending was very fitting. There weren't characters I could sympathize with and especially the women in the film were truly revolting persons (particularly Inés).

Storywise there wasn't much. Pépé (and his mates) wandered around Casbah, Pépé treated women like trash and the women loved Pépé for it. Even the plot to get Pépé out of Casbah just materialized as he fell in love with vain escort from Paris. I suppose it's some sort of realism but it's just not very interesting to me.

Acting was pretty good for 1930s film and sets were nice as well (I'm not sure if any of the actual scenes were shot on location, IMDb says panoramic views were shot in Casbah). Cinematography was alright with few good scenes. All in all it's a film that isn't exactly my type but I can still see the potential appeal. Personally I didn't like it that much but it barely misses the bad label.

I have never been impressed by Liv Tyler in anything.

That's pretty much what I was trying to imply too :D

Re: Movie Diary 2018 by pahaK
 

Darc (2018) N

I wanted to watch a stupid brainless action film for a change. Darc delivered on stupid and brainless but it was also boring and totally amateurish. Because of Nasso I hoped something like early Seagals but seems that he can't direct at all. Had to give up after 30 minutes.

Battle Royale (2000) R

A film that's solely responsible for a hugely popular video game genre must have made an impression to someone.



Battle Royale is a dystopian film about near future where the old values and orderly society built upon them are slowly crumbling. At the heart of this moral erosion is the school system that has lost its authority and the kids who no longer believe there is a good life waiting for them after the school. As a disciplinary measure BR Act is passed and each year a randomly selected 9th grade class is brought to an island to kill each other until only one remains.

I tried to think the logic behind the BR Act but didn't fully get it. Random choice of the class and having no other effect than killing bunch of seemingly random teenagers makes it hard to imagine any positive effects. This was a minor nuisance to me but I tried to accept the BR Act as postulate for the depicted scenario.

I mostly liked how the kids behaved in their situation. They were often naive and most of them had difficulties in accepting the situation (maybe partly because for some reason they seemed almost oblivious of the BR Act which to me seemed to be a flaw in the script). The ones who had easier time to adjust seemed to have enough character depth to justify that. Other than the few issues mentioned the script was pretty solid.

Action was well done and bloody. The kids never felt too proficient with the weapons and some sudden outbursts of violence felt positively paranoid and unwarranted (like the lighthouse scene). Most of the actors were OK and Kitano was his usual brilliant self (the final call from home is priceless). I'm also assuming that Kitano painted the wonderful picture that's partially shown above.

Despite some small story issues and perhaps little too much length I still liked this quite a bit. Back when this was new I rated it 8/10 on IMDb and see no reason to alter that score.

Bachelor Mother (1939) N

For the 1930s HoF. A comedy that's so timid and placid that there's nothing left to laugh.

http://rarefilm.net/wp-content/uploa...her-1939-2.jpg

In my opinion practically every comedy that's built around a baby has failed. Bachelor Mother is no exception in this regard. From modern viewer's perspective the film could be used as a textbook definition for predictable - the ending is obvious after Merlin junior returns the baby to Polly. Remaining hour or so is just waiting for the script to catch up with the viewer.

I like my comedies somehow daring and witty. Unfortunately I found neither from Bachelor Mother. It's almost like a comedy without a single joke. Sets are fine, acting is fine, directing is fine but there's no soul at all. Just utterly empty and harmless 82 minutes that doesn't pique my interest in any way. There's just nothing else I can say.

-

Watership Down (1978) N

A beautiful and little sad children's film that doesn't shy away from harsher side of life.



A young rabbit has apocalyptic visions and as a result small group decides to leave their warren to search for new home. On their journey they face many kinds of beasts but greatest threat comes form their own kin. Obviously they succeed by their wits and little help from a seagull (I think) they befriend.

I liked the visual style of film. Perhaps the only complaint artwise was the difficulty to tell few of the rabbits from each other. Other than that the style changed seamlessly from cute to darker, distorted imagery. It was definitely scarier and more bloody than your average children's animation but I think that's a good thing (there's no need to over-protect kids).

Story itself is very standard and offers no surprises. Heavy use of mythology and rabbit religion makes otherwise formulaic script stand little apart. Same is true for characters; majority of them are industry standard but Fiver with his prophetic visions is nice addition. It's also little surprising to see that procreation is major motivation for part of the plot.

I rarely watch animated films but I think Watership Down was worth my time.