Iro's One Movie a Day Thread

#116 - The Girl Who Played with Fire
Daniel Alfredson, 2009



Follows the two leads from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo as they become embroiled in another investigation, this time involving a couple who are murdered for investigating a human trafficking operation.

I liked Dragon Tattoo well enough due to its extremely dark whodunit nature, so I of course had high expectations for Played with Fire. Unfortunately, while this film managed to maintain the same atmosphere as its predecessor, it also made for a fundamentally lesser film. While its status as a sequel means there's not that much fumbling about with introducing characters, it doesn't help that the plot feels less compelling this time around. There's not much of a mystery - instead, much of the plot is devoted to proving that the titular girl, rogue hacker Lisbeth, was framed over the journalists' murders. This leads to a greater focus on the series' overarching mythology rather than the investigation at hand, which does mean there's some weak spots - in one instance, a henchman decides that the best way to kill off a couple of obviously unconscious loose ends is to trap them in a shed and burn it down in the hope that that will solve the problem. Even the later implication that said henchman is mentally challenged is badly handled and doesn't resolve the issue satisfactorily. There's also the fact that the whole reason Lisbeth is framed in the first place is that, despite being a seasoned criminal, she handles someone else's gun with her bare hand and that same gun is later used as a murder weapon to deliberately frame her. It seems like such a glaring oversight for an otherwise sharp-witted and resourceful character. Then there's the film's climatic moments where...



Otherwise, it's business as usual. Played with Fire has some trouble filling out its running time with new developments and ends with an abrupt anticlimax, but it's not a complete disappointment. It certainly wasn't bad enough to dissuade me from watching the third and final film, which I'll definitely get around to before too long - in any case, I hope it's better than this one.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Have you really watched 116 movies already? Wow that's a lot.

#117 - In the Heat of the Night
Norman Jewison, 1967



When a wealthy industrialist is killed in a small Mississippi town, the town's bigoted white sheriff is forced to team up with a black detective who is passing through town in order to solve the mystery.

While it's all too easy to dismiss the Best Picture winners that trade in schmaltzy drama designed to play to the Academy's heavily-telegraphed weaknesses, it's not like the more surprising Best Picture winners are automatically much better. These are the films that are more unconventional winners in that they tend to invoke specific genres and come across as just really, really good examples of said genres rather than just obvious attempts at winning acclaim. In the Heat of the Night is a murder mystery but the actual whodunit is a distant second to the intense atmospherics provided by the heavily prejudiced characters and setting. Though it's arguably dated in some respects (at one point Sydney Poitier's homicide expert examines the victim's corpse with his bare hands before asking another character where he can wash his hands, which seemed more than a little odd to a modern viewer like me), for the most part the '60s setting is an integral part of the narrative. Poitier plays a man who is clearly incensed by the dual inconvenience of the racist locals and the unsolved murder but keeps his irritation down to the subtlest of outbursts. Rod Steiger gets a fair bit of depth as Poitier's opposite number, a white sheriff who just wants to keep the peace while solving the crime as quickly as possible (and therefore sees Poitier's presence as an obstacle), but he still manages to retain some sympathy as he and Poitier warm up to each other (because what's a Best Picture winner without a couple of polar opposites learning to accept each other's differences?). The rest of the cast is serviceable (hey, look, it's Warren Oates, definitely an underrated character actor if ever there was one) but these two really do make the film something special.

While a narrative charged by race relations can be handled rather badly, in this film's context it makes sense and works wonders, which is just as well considering how thin the actual murder mystery ends up being. Some appropriately gritty cinematography courtesy of Haskell Wexler combines with Quincy Jones' funky yet slightly dangerous score to set a great mood across the course of the film. Though it may end rather abruptly, it's still a solid detective movie aided considerably by the chemistry between its leads.

I've seen The Usual Suspects a few times now (even with audio commentary) but yeah, it doesn't quite hold up. That's why my one-word assessment would be "solid" rather than "classic" - it's good, but not amazing. I'm seriously tempted to name Whiplash my favourite film of 2014 now (Boyhood had been the placeholder for the past few months and films like Birdman and Nightcrawler definitely challenged it, but not quite as much as Whiplash). I'll see how I vote in the MoFies.

Oh, indeed.

It's not hard to think of Nicholson getting upstaged because his character really does play like a bad caricature and all the deranged behaviour he displays feels like a desperate attempt to create a character that's more interesting than your typical generic crime boss. It's a shame considering how many other fascinating villains Scorsese has given us in the past.

Definitely agree on New York, New York, my relatively negative rating notwithstanding. That's also a fair claim to make about The Usual Suspects.

Damn straight. Excellent exercise in horror atmospherics that really made me wonder whether or not I'd walk out for finding it so tense.

#118 - Selma
Ava DuVernay, 2014



Based on the true story of Martin Luther King Jr.'s attempts to conduct a non-violent protest against an oppressive legal system in the town of Selma, Alabama.

Despite falling prey to a lot of the usual biopic tropes, Selma is by and large a very well-made movie. There is a relative lack of technical trickery, but that only works in the film's favour by emphasising the story and characters. David Oyelowo does an excellent job playing King, delivering almost every line as only a skilled orator could (there are justified exceptions, though, where his confidence is shaken by certain difficult revelations) and conveys significant depth as a man whose crusade for justice does take a significant toll on his emotions and his private life. Though the character of "protagonist's concerned wife" is also another trope I find really tiresome, Carmen Ejogo actually makes it work as Coretta Scott King, who gets at least one truly compelling scene when she confronts King about his extramarital activities. Other real-life figures from King's movement are played well - it's always good to see Wendell Pierce, and he fills out his role as Hosea Williams, while Andre Holland makes for good support as Andrew Young, who gets his own friction-filled sub-plot. For the sake of a more compelling narrative, then-President Lyndon Johnson becomes an obstructive antagonist and is played with both charm and menace by Tom Wilkinson, while Tim Roth's turn as Alabama governor George Wallace makes for a good Southern-fried portrayal of the sheer banality of bigotry. There are a few other notable cameos (producer Oprah Winfrey has a handful of scenes as one especially frustrated Selma resident, while Cuba Gooding Jr. and an uncredited Martin Sheen pop up as a lawyer and judge respectively), which almost distracts from the fact that the bulk of the cast is made up of lesser-known actors were it not for the fact that they are working with some prime material.

There are some minor complaints - it does seem a bit long at times and some parts of the script feel a bit too much like the film is directly addressing the audience (a good case in point being the introduction of a white minister who joins the cause and has one of his few scenes being arguing in favour of King's actions), plus there's the fact that the "where are they now?" sequence that often concludes ensemble-driven biopics is laid over the film's climatic monologue and thus divides a viewer's attention between text and audio, but otherwise Selma is a solid film that is strong enough to overcome its more familiar genre conventions. It's not the best film, but it definitely deserves to be seen by everyone regardless.

#119 - Lincoln
Steven Spielberg, 2012



Based on U.S. president Abraham Lincoln and his attempting to deal with both the ongoing Civil War and his attempt to pass legislation abolishing human slavery.

If I had to sum up Lincoln in one word, it would be "dry". How else do you describe two-and-a-half hours of serious political roundtable discussions and dramatic courtroom sequences punctuated by the occasional scene that demonstrates the horrors of war? As you can probably expect, the film is carried by the inimitable Daniel Day-Lewis as the titular president, who somehow manages the impressive feat of having a thin and reedy voice that is a couple of minor tweaks away from sounding like your stereotypical 19th-century prospector yet is still capable of dominating every single one of his scenes. It's a credit to Tommy Lee Jones' trademark display of deadpan verbosity that he almost manages to steal the show as pro-amendment congressman Thaddeus Stevens, while the always-dependable Sally Field once again makes the most of having to play another "concerned wife of famous guy" character (maybe watching this on the same day as Selma wasn't the bet idea). A cavalcade of recognisable and not-so-recognisable actors deliver some fairly stiff performances, though how much of that can be credited to the manners of the era varies from actor to actor. Joseph Gordon-Levitt appears as Robert Lincoln but doesn't get much to do beyond a sub-plot where he and his father argue over the former's involvement in the war effort.

On a technical level, I doubt I can fault the work of a master filmmaker like Spielberg too hard. John Williams does his John Williams thing to the point where his melodramatic orchestral work might as well be white noise, while celebrated cinematographer Janusz Kaminski does his best to make the fairly sterile drama on display look visually compelling (most notably through the use of long takes, which combines well with Day-Lewis' ability to rattle off lengthy monologues with considerable frequency). The art direction looks solid, at least. On some level, I do appreciate what Spielberg and co. were trying to do with Lincoln but at the end of the day it doesn't feel especially noteworthy, strong performances by Day-Lewis and Jones notwithstanding. Worth one watch, I suppose, but how much you actually enjoy watching it will definitely depend on how interesting you find old-school politics and Day-Lewis' somewhat intense engagement with said politics.

#120 - The Hunger
Tony Scott, 1983



A pair of centuries-old vampires living in New York run into trouble when one of them starts ageing rapidly and tries to cure himself by contacting a geneticist.

Underneath the incredibly stylised '80s goth aesthetic, The Hunger is a wildly inconsistent and barely enjoyable film. Never mind how much it's shot and edited like an especially corny music video from the early days of MTV (or how enjoyable that should be in theory), the pacing of the plot is pretty terrible. The first half of the film introduces us to the lead vampires (David Bowie and Catherine Deneuve) who are quickly established as the "love each other forever while remorselessly feeding on humans" type of vampire couple, but the film spends way too much time following Bowie's sudden physical degeneration - once it reached the point of no return then there was nothing to stop me asking why this couldn't have been shown in half the time, if not less. The second half of the film, which involves Susan Sarandon's scientist and her investigation into curing progeria leading her to be seduced and ultimately infected by Deneuve, actually has some degree of tension as to how it will conclude, but the conclusion the film does get is ultimately a bit ridiculous even for a film that already involves vampires murdering people with ankh necklaces and giving music lessons to the local bratty teenager. I guess I do have to concede that the makeup effects are alright, especially when it comes to making Bowie look old and decrepit, to say nothing of their use in the finale where



Otherwise, The Hunger is a woeful excuse for a film. Considerably greater films have been built on the unconventional groundwork laid out by this film (the opening sequences made me think I was in for an '80s version of Only Lovers Left Alive), but this film itself completely fails to stick its execution of an admittedly intriguing take on vampire mythology. Not even the introduction of a bisexual angle between its lead actresses is enough to make one forget how this film is a plodding and unsatisfactory excuse for a paranormal horror. Bauhaus definitely deserved to cameo in a better film than this.

#121 - Doctor Zhivago
David Lean, 1965



During the lead-up to and following the Russian Revolution, a doctor falls in love with a woman but various circumstances keep driving them apart and pulling them back together across the years.

Considering how highly I rate Lawrence of Arabia and The Bridge on the River Kwai, surely I'd rate this one in the same area, right? Unfortunately, while Doctor Zhivago does have the same capacity for strikingly epic imagery as the other Lean films I've seen, it doesn't quite have the same capacity for an amazing narrative. Sure, the three-hour length and the turmoil-ridden setting should provide some impressive drama, but the end result ultimately isn't compelling enough to quite justify the film's running time. Omar Sharif plays the titular physician and, being Omar Sharif, he is a charming enough protagonist. Julie Christie is his star-crossed lover, who does get hard done by some unpleasant characters (such as Rod Steiger's old friend of her mother's and Tom Courtenay's aspiring revolutionary) but has a hidden strength that keeps her going through the years. A strong cast keeps the film moving along between battle sequences and impoverished circumstances, but for much of the film's running time the storyline feels less interesting in its own right and more so because it provides some fascinating and well-photographed visuals. Maurice Jarre had worked wonders in composing scores for Lean in the past, but an epic is only as good as its constantly recurring main theme and the plucky main theme here gets a little annoying after a very short while. All things considered, I guess this is due for a re-watch at some point in the future just to confirm whether or not this is more than just three hours of pretty pictures and a tragic romance that ultimately isn't all that interesting. Time will definitely tell with this one.

#122 - Big Fan
Robert Siegel, 2009



An obsessive New York Giants fan finds his otherwise empty life thrown into turmoil when his attempt to meet his favourite player results in the player viciously assaulting him.

Before making his directorial debut with Big Fan, Robert Siegel wrote the screenplay for the Oscar-nominated sports drama The Wrestler, so it's easy to think of Big Fan as a sort of companion piece to Aronofsky's film. While The Wrestler focused on the private struggles of a washed-up pro wrestler whose dedication to the sport is his only relief from a crushingly mundane life, Big Fan switches the focus to the ultimate never-was, Patton Oswalt's pudgy thirty-something whose passion for his favourite sports team is literally the only thing he has going for him in his otherwise pathetic life. There's a laundry list of archetypal "loser" characteristics on display here - Oswalt lives with his mother, works a dead-end job, has a much more successful sibling, has only one friend who's as much of a loser as he is, etc. Despite that, the minor details are what makes Oswalt a well-developed character, such as the fact that his lengthy football-themed calls to his favourite sports radio show are shown to be meticulously scripted during his mind-numbing job yet he still passes them off as spontaneous to his sole friend (played with dopey charm by Kevin Corrigan). His dedication to the Giants ultimately results in him being the victim of an assault by the Giants' quarterback due to a major misunderstanding, which gives the film an interesting quandary that is in no way helped by Oswalt's slavish devotion to the team and the player.

Big Fan is a character study first and foremost, so the rest of the film - grainy verité photography and all - does suffer slightly and struggle to make it to 80 minutes. If you've seen The Wrestler or virtually any film that featured an emotionally damaged underdog as its protagonist, then you can probably call how the film's basic narrative will progress and ultimately conclude. What makes it really work is the details. Oswalt makes for a fascinating character with a plethora of flaws yet the bulk of the cast are still so relentlessly horrible that even when they have a legitimate criticism about his life choices (such as his sort-of-successful brother who intends to use Oswalt's assault injuries to start a lawsuit or his mother who frequently interrupts his sports show phone calls because they keep her up at night) it's still fairly ambiguous as to whether or not it's all that reasonable for them to be interfering in Oswalt's life (or lack thereof). It all builds to a seemingly predictable climax that does generate some tension and it's debatable as to whether or not the denouement is really a happy ending for Oswalt, but it's a decent enough conclusion to a fundamentally decent but not revolutionary depiction of that very well-worn "disaffected white male loner" trope.

#123 - Bicycle Thieves
Vittorio de Sica, 1948



In post-WWII Italy, an impoverished family man takes a job that requires him to ride a bicycle. When his bicycle is stolen, he struggles to find it again.

I can definitely see why Bicycle Thieves is a widely acclaimed classic. The basic premise is admittedly rather thin to the point where I spent the first fifteen minutes wondering when they were actually going to get to the bicycle being stolen. Keeping in mind how the streaming version I watched was about 83 minutes in length, that's quite a long time for the main plot to start. Once that happens, the plot becomes a series of vignettes where the protagonist and his young son wander all over Rome chasing up leads on the bicycle, some of which really don't go anywhere (the entire sequence where they follow an old man to a church feels a bit too drawn-out for its own good). The fact that so many of their leads don't go anywhere is arguably the point the film is trying to make, but it does make the film drag a little.

In keeping with the neo-realism angle there is very little music (not like what music plays is very remarkable) and the photography naturally grainy and documentarian in nature. The lack of professional actors obviously works in the film's favour. I also liked how, despite the fact that a small child tags along and naturally acts out due to the thankless chore of being dragged around the city, the film is almost completely devoid of mawkish sentimentality - even a scene where father and son have a bonding moment in an eatery is still undercut by desperation and classism, and it's more or less the only one of its kind in the film. It all builds to an ending that you can sort of see coming but are still sufficiently shocked by. Definitely essential viewing, though whether or not it's actually enjoyable or entertaining in any way, shape or form will most definitely vary.

#124 - Far from the Madding Crowd
John Schlesinger, 1967



In Victorian England, a young woman inherits her uncle's farm and must handle it while contending with the affections of three very different men.

Far from the Madding Crowd is a solid if not exactly spectacular period-piece romantic drama that doesn't quite justify its considerable running time. Julie Christie is good as always as the protagonist who must contend with multiple suitors and the troubles of running a farm, which is practically unheard of in the film's milieu. Her co-stars are decent enough as three very different romantic prospects - Terence Stamp stands out as the roguish officer who is a master of swordplay and little else, Peter Finch is the older and duller landowner whose proposal is as motivated by opportunism as by amour, while Alan Bates is the unlucky working-class lad who'll work the farm just to be around Christie. A variety of sub-plots serve to keep the film moving along, some of which make for some relatively graphic and troubling imagery even in 2015, though the photography is quite often a little too dark and frenzied for its own good. A decent enough drama, but I don't feel much like watching it twice.

#125 - The Omen
Richard Donner, 1976



An American diplomat and expecting father secretly adopts an orphan baby when his own child dies during birth, which causes problems when he slowly learns that his adopted son is not exactly human.

You've got to hand it to horror films that specialise in demonic activity. The Omen does generate a certain degree of dread throughout the whole picture thanks to its Satanic premise, but it's debatable as to how well it pulls the whole thing off. Having Oscar-winning legend Gregory Peck as the protagonist is an interesting choice that does lend the material a certain gravitas, but even he is stretched thin over the course of this film. The slow and cryptic revelation of Damien's nature is perhaps a little too slow and cryptic, especially considering how sharp and sudden the scenes of actual violence are in comparison. Some of them border on the absurd, such as one character standing still and screaming in horror as a pike falls off a roof and impales him or another getting his head sheared off by a plate of glass. It's definitely more good than bad, but a film like this should thrive on a constant sense of unease and this film doesn't quite provide that not because of any attempts at lightening the mood but because it drags out things like exposition and makes the tension inconsistent. Definitely worth watching, but I guess I expected a bit more (and I'll be damned if that ending doesn't feel like old hat even for 1976).

#126 - An American Werewolf in London
John Landis, 1981



Two Americans backpacking in England are attacked by a strange creature one night - one is killed, the other survives. However, the survivor soon discovers he is becoming a werewolf while the dead one becomes a zombie.

See, I really want to like An American Werewolf in London, but after a second viewing (think the first was almost a decade ago by this point, and while I liked it then, I still felt kind of underwhelmed even then) it's still a film that I like more in theory than in practice. That's not to say that it doesn't have its moments - Rick Baker's legendary makeup artistry still holds up over thirty years later, whether it's the notorious transformation sequence (which you'd think would have lost some of its effect due to how often I've seen the "Thriller" video, but no) plus the effects used to create zombies are still solid. There are certain choice moments spread throughout the film as well - that infamous dream-within-a-dream sequence still holds up, as does virtually every exchange between David the werewolf and Jack the zombie.

Unfortunately, a few good points aren't enough to make me forget just how wildly inconsistent this film can be. It's apparently supposed to mix horror with comedy (if nothing else, the concept of a werewolf's victims becoming undead and pestering the werewolf about breaking his curse is a clever one) but the jokes don't often work as well as they should. I also have trouble buying the romantic sub-plot that develops between a hospitalised David and his nurse - deliberate throwback to the shoddy writing of classic horror or not, it doesn't work for me. Also, I do have a bit of trouble getting into horror films where the protagonist is more or less doomed from the start - it kind of makes the stakes feel really low, and the comedic angle doesn't exactly make up for it. As for the horror side of things - not so much. There's one good shock (the aforementioned dream sequence) and the filming of one particular scene on the subway is handled well, otherwise...tonally, it's all over the place, and that just kills what little capacity for scares there is. I can tell there's enough skill at work to make me think it's a good film, but in this case being good just isn't good enough.

#127 - Misery
Rob Reiner, 1990



A famous novelist gets into a car crash in a remote area and is brought back to safety by a fan of his books, but things soon take a turn for the worse as she reveals a disturbed and obsessive nature.

Another one of those films where I've seen it in and bits and pieces (including the ending, unfortunately) and has also seeped into the cultural consciousness thanks to its more infamous scenes, but I still figured it was worth watching from start to finish. Misery isn't a masterpiece by any means, but it still works thanks to a great premise and some solid execution. James Caan is decent as the injured writer who tries everything possible to both survive and escape his constantly worsening situation, but Kathy Bates is naturally the best thing about this film as the deranged fan who covers a range of emotions that make her a bit more complex than your typical horror movie villain. She's humanised to such a degree that even when you know how horrible she is you still kind of feel a bit bad for her (but not enough to hope she gets a comeuppance). The film as a whole is a bit standard as far as '90s thrillers go (and it doesn't help how certain scenes do call to mind a certain other Stephen King story about someone being trapped in a snowbound residence with only a homicidal maniac for company) but it still holds up fairly well.

#128 - Kingsman: The Secret Service
Matthew Vaughn, 2014



A working-class youth is invited to join a top-secret organisation of spies just as a philanthropic billionaire is launching his own sinister plan.

In a lot of my recent reviews I've been criticising films over what I perceive to be tonal imbalances that are so off-kilter that they can scupper otherwise good films. Kingsman: The Secret Service is especially egregious in that regard with its mission statement being to try to recapture the over-the-top fun that defined classic spy movies under the guise of being an affectionate comic-based parody. Unfortunately, when your movie starts with a helicopter attacking a terrorist compound to the tune of Dire Straits' "Money for Nothing" and then segues into a heroic character's death within seconds, that doesn't even begin to describe how much Kingsman can't quite seem to make up its mind over how seriously it wants to take itself. That sort of inconsistency bleeds over into the film's events and renders even the film's most supposedly awesome moments questionable at best. Case in point - the scene where



When moments like that aren't making me feel more conflicted than engaged, the rest of the film is too familiar and pedestrian to be engaging. There's a massive training montage dedicated to showing how our protagonist (Taron Egerton) learns how to be a Kingsman, but not even the extreme nature of some of the tests is enough to make for truly effective viewing. Supposedly clever exchanges about the conventions of spy movies also don't make much of a difference considering how, with the occasional exception, this movie's much more interested in playing things predictably straight. There's not even an interesting variation on the whole "hero and villain share two drinks but one is poisoned" bit (you'd think The Princess Bride had thoroughly discredited that type of scene). The action is slick and decently choreographed, but it does eventually start to turn into a blur during the all-too-familiar climatic assault on the villain's home base. Colin Firth and Samuel L. Jackson get decent turns in as a dapper gentleman spy and mentor to Egerton's character, whereas Jackson does his best to deliver on a wacky subversion of a typical supervillain (pronounced lisp, colourful clothes and inability to stomach violence while simultaneously planning mass murder). Michael Caine collects a paycheck. The new blood does their best with what they've got even if it isn't much (especially Sophie Cookson as another Kingsman candidate, who does seem like her character's potential was a bit wasted).

For all the flashiness of the fight scenes (not going to lie, that scene where Firth single-handedly beats a gang of hooligans in a pub just gave me flashbacks to The World's End instead of amazing me in its own right), this still comes across as a fairly confused attempt at paying homage to the days where spy movies were fun bits of escapism as opposed to dour, grim affairs. It tries to stay edgy through its rough-edged protagonist, self-awareness, ludicrous displays of violence and so forth, but hey, it's not like any of that made Kick-Ass any good. At least this one's got a decent enough illusion of quality that I don't mind it so much...for now.

I actually really liked The Kingsman and that church scene in particular. It's Firth doing his Liam Neeson and being a badass. It's as if everyone played the opposite of our expectations. Sam Jackson hating violence and NOT being Sam Jackson was a delightful surprise. Mark Strong being a geek? Not expected.

This was a fun film.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Both Misery and An American Werewolf in London are too low.

But cool checking in, you sure watch a lot of movies!

__________________
/watching movies for mark f/
MovieMeditation's Cinema Reviews // Film Diary 2015 // Letterboxd Profile // MovieMeditation's Top 50 Horror

Surprised you don't like American Werewolf more, considering you love The Blues Brothers. There's 4 John Landis movies that are huge favorites of mine, and I find that they share the same type of attitude. My personal feeling is that An American Werewolf in London is a masterpiece.

I agree with you on In The Heat of the Night; it's a contender for my 60's list.

Not a fan of The Hunger or Dr. Zhivago.

I am a fan of The Omen and Misery.

I plan on watching Far From the Madding Crowd soon.

I "think" Iro is overthinking some of his reviews and ratings. All the faults he finds in American Werewolf are faults in this overthinking. What happened to just relaxing and enjoying a movie? Iro, if you honestly give Prizzi's Honor and The Depsrted , you need to start posting all those negative ratings and reviews you've got stashed. There must be plenty.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

But seriously, even though I was well aware that Kingsman was supposed to be a "fun" movie above all else, that doesn't put it above criticism. The whole reason I singled out the church scene in my review was to point out just how the movie's idea of what constituted fun got pretty badly twisted due to the ramifications of its plot. Like I said, it was well-made, sure, but it was ruined a bit by knowing that the only reason this scene was happening in the first place was because of a brainwashing device that turned one well-armed and well-trained superspy against a building full of unarmed civilians and dispatching them in such an uncontrollably violent manner that it shocked even him once he'd regained control of himself. So are we the audience meant to find this scene an amazing display of Firth's badassery or a horrifying demonstration of Jackson's plan? The answer is both, which is really not a good answer.

You might be right about Misery,

I am also a bit surprised at how, even now, I don't think that much of it. Also, consider the possibility that The Blues Brothers is a movie I've watched countless times since I was a kid and thus me liking it is practically Stockholm Syndrome by this point, whereas watching An American Werewolf in London twice in the space of ten years is a sign of how I wasn't all that impressed with it.

Let's see...having skimmed my review again, I can sum up the main faults I addressed as "not that funny, not that scary, romantic sub-plot of debatable quality". The first two can at least be ascribed to subjective tastes (and even then I note instances where I thought they worked), while the latter is something I apparently should just accept as part of the genre's conventions but just can't considering how much emphasis gets put on it for very little reason apart from enabling certain other narrative conveniences (such as letting David stay in a house instead of a hospital).

As for "just relaxing and enjoying a movie"...maybe what happens is that I start out with this intention but the film doesn't end up being all that enjoyable, so naturally I start to wonder why exactly I don't find it enjoyable and, well, that's how my reviews get written (after I'm done watching the movie, of course). It also doesn't help when the film in question has all kinds of accolades assigned to it so I'm of course more than ready to appreciate it but then I find it doesn't exactly live up to the hype.

If you want to see me post negative reviews, well, until I see more movies I don't like over the course of this year, then you're not going to see them get posted in this thread. Instead, you'll have to settle with going through my reviews (in that link I filtered it down to anything with a or less, so you know for sure I didn't like it). Then there's the Movie Tab/Rate the Last Movie You Saw threads, but digging through those is going to be very time-consuming for both of us so never mind about that.