Reply to Topic
Another Simple Favor (2025) This was a significant drop in quality and enjoyment from the first one. The story isn't as good and it lacks the sense of fun of the first one. Anna Kendrick and Blake Lively are fine, but both were better in the first. The cinematography, sets and costumes are pretty good. A couple amusing moments, but not enough for my liking.
Rate The Last Movie You Saw
Umpteenth Rewatch...The final film pairing of Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepbiu=n, which earned Tracy the acadmey's first posthumous nomination and earned Hepburn her second Oscar, is still a joy to watch. I never get tired of that fabulous scene where Hepburn fires her assistant, played by Virginia Christine (Mrs Olsen on the old Folgers commercials). I think William Rose's screenplay plays it a little too safe in thsi story of an interracial romance. In this film Joey Drayton (Katharne Houghton) brings home a handsome doctor with multiple degrees, honors, and lost a wife and child in an accident. Over the years I've wndered how differently this story would have played if Joey had brought home a drug dealer or a pimp. It's still a great movie and Tracy and Hepburn are always worth watching.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I find the collector (on the motorbike) such a creepy character, kinda like the grinning chauffeur in Burnt Offerings (1976)
__________________
Remember - everything has an ending except hope, and sausages - they have two.
Latest Review : Before the Rain (1994)
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Another Simple Favor (2025) This was a significant drop in quality and enjoyment from the first one. The story isn't as good and it lacks the sense of fun of the first one. Anna Kendrick and Blake Lively are fine, but both were better in the first. The cinematography, sets and costumes are pretty good. A couple amusing moments, but not enough for my liking.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.
HIGH PLAINS DRIFTER
(1973, Eastwood)
(1973, Eastwood)
"It's what people know about themselves inside that makes 'em afraid."
This review might include some SPOILERS
High Plains Drifter follows a stranger (Clint Eastwood) that is hired by the townsfolk of Lago to protect them from a trio of gunslingers, only to have him uncover deep-seated corruption within the same town. That is part of the reason why he is warned to be careful, that people might be afraid of him. But he knows more about who these people are than most (including the audience) and he knows that's why they are afraid.
I've been hearing good things about this Eastwood western for a while, so it was high on my watchlist. Most of what I heard about it was accurate as the film, Eastwood's second, is technically well made. The direction and cinematography are pretty good, and the story has a lot of effective dread and tension as we try to piece out the puzzle of what's going on, and why the Stranger is doing the things he do.
Grade:
Full review on my Movie Loot
__________________
Check out my podcast:
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
some decent laughs here
haven't had the gimmick of a movie make me not care about anything happening this much since i watched 1917.
__________________
slurps up! 🤙🤙
slurps up! 🤙🤙
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Loved High Plains Drifter. Sure, a lot of Eastwood westerns go the same but the mystery of what exactly he's doing in this movie had me hooked until the end which I thought was pretty riveting.
>haven't had the gimmick of a movie make me not care about anything happening this much since i watched 1917.
A bit cruel. 1917 was pretty awesome regardless of the single-shot gimmick.
>haven't had the gimmick of a movie make me not care about anything happening this much since i watched 1917.
A bit cruel. 1917 was pretty awesome regardless of the single-shot gimmick.
Shadows And Fog (1991)
I think this is a beautiful and lovely film and it delivers enough laughs in the trademark Woody Allen style.
My only critique is that it didn't need this stellar cast to make it work because they don't add anything special to the style or humour of the film, and as a result it looks too much like "special guest stars".
Julie Kavner gets to play the most interesting supporting part and of course Mia Farrow is always good to watch.
It doesn't have the oomph of, say, The Purple Rose Of Cairo, but on the other hand I had never seen a comedy homage to this type of classic filmmaking before so I guess that makes it unique enough.
I think this is a beautiful and lovely film and it delivers enough laughs in the trademark Woody Allen style.
My only critique is that it didn't need this stellar cast to make it work because they don't add anything special to the style or humour of the film, and as a result it looks too much like "special guest stars".
Julie Kavner gets to play the most interesting supporting part and of course Mia Farrow is always good to watch.
It doesn't have the oomph of, say, The Purple Rose Of Cairo, but on the other hand I had never seen a comedy homage to this type of classic filmmaking before so I guess that makes it unique enough.
A bit cruel. 1917 was pretty awesome regardless of the single-shot gimmick.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The Last Wave -
This Australian movie succeeds at capturing how it feels to enter a totally different reality. Richard Chamberlain's lawyer, David, convinces as a family man who has never had reasons to question his Christian upbringing or the advice to start a family until he suddenly has plenty of reasons. It all starts when he charitably helps some aboriginals, one of whom, Chris, (Gulpilil) is accused of murder. Kicking off with a series of unprecedented hail and thunderstorms that persist throughout, David's reaction to the phenomena, which becomes more and more influenced by his clients, recalls and is just as affecting as Michael Shannon's in the similar Take Shelter. Is it simply strange weather or is something apocalyptic happening? Weir's direction enhances this ambiguity not only with his masterful dream sequences, but also by making you question where the dream ends and reality begins. I would say more about which sequences I enjoyed the most, but they are best experienced firsthand. As for the big case, those who also became aware of this movie because it could be labeled as a crime drama may be disappointed because the case becomes less important as the movie goes on. Even so, that is kind of the point. The trial scene, for instance, did not make me sit upright in anticipation of justice being done or at least getting some answers. Instead, I found myself laughing because it seems like a half-hearted attempt to bring order to chaos.
Mystical, foreboding and above all, strange (in a good way), this is a highlight of the first half of Weir's career. Also, like Where the Green Ants Dream, it effectively questions the value of colonialism, Australian or otherwise. Despite its similarities to that movie and Take Shelter, though, it is very much its own entity. From an exclusive New England prep school to uncharted Central America, Weir was a master of spinning tales about strangers in a variety of strange lands. This one proves he could also pull it off in lands on another plane of existence.
This Australian movie succeeds at capturing how it feels to enter a totally different reality. Richard Chamberlain's lawyer, David, convinces as a family man who has never had reasons to question his Christian upbringing or the advice to start a family until he suddenly has plenty of reasons. It all starts when he charitably helps some aboriginals, one of whom, Chris, (Gulpilil) is accused of murder. Kicking off with a series of unprecedented hail and thunderstorms that persist throughout, David's reaction to the phenomena, which becomes more and more influenced by his clients, recalls and is just as affecting as Michael Shannon's in the similar Take Shelter. Is it simply strange weather or is something apocalyptic happening? Weir's direction enhances this ambiguity not only with his masterful dream sequences, but also by making you question where the dream ends and reality begins. I would say more about which sequences I enjoyed the most, but they are best experienced firsthand. As for the big case, those who also became aware of this movie because it could be labeled as a crime drama may be disappointed because the case becomes less important as the movie goes on. Even so, that is kind of the point. The trial scene, for instance, did not make me sit upright in anticipation of justice being done or at least getting some answers. Instead, I found myself laughing because it seems like a half-hearted attempt to bring order to chaos.
Mystical, foreboding and above all, strange (in a good way), this is a highlight of the first half of Weir's career. Also, like Where the Green Ants Dream, it effectively questions the value of colonialism, Australian or otherwise. Despite its similarities to that movie and Take Shelter, though, it is very much its own entity. From an exclusive New England prep school to uncharted Central America, Weir was a master of spinning tales about strangers in a variety of strange lands. This one proves he could also pull it off in lands on another plane of existence.
Last edited by Torgo; 2 hours ago at 03:47 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
>the fake oner gimmick always sucks
The "fake oner gimmick?" They're not trying to fake anything. Also, I fail to see why it's a "gimmick" or why it's so offensive when directors do all sorts of tricks with the camera. This feels like it's you were bringing baggage to the movie...if you hate this so much why would you even watch a movie with it? You're basically guaranteeing yourself a bad time.
[i]>but i can't think of a worse place to put it than in a war movie. strips away everything compelling about the genre.[i/]
I have no idea why the genre matters in the least. These are some somewhat arbitrary "rules of cinema" I've stumbled upon.
The "fake oner gimmick?" They're not trying to fake anything. Also, I fail to see why it's a "gimmick" or why it's so offensive when directors do all sorts of tricks with the camera. This feels like it's you were bringing baggage to the movie...if you hate this so much why would you even watch a movie with it? You're basically guaranteeing yourself a bad time.
[i]>but i can't think of a worse place to put it than in a war movie. strips away everything compelling about the genre.[i/]
I have no idea why the genre matters in the least. These are some somewhat arbitrary "rules of cinema" I've stumbled upon.
>the fake oner gimmick always sucks
The "fake oner gimmick?" They're not trying to fake anything. Also, I fail to see why it's a "gimmick" or why it's so offensive when directors do all sorts of tricks with the camera. This feels like it's you were bringing baggage to the movie...if you hate this so much why would you even watch a movie with it? You're basically guaranteeing yourself a bad time.
[i]>but i can't think of a worse place to put it than in a war movie. strips away everything compelling about the genre.[i/]
I have no idea why the genre matters in the least. These are some somewhat arbitrary "rules of cinema" I've stumbled upon.
The "fake oner gimmick?" They're not trying to fake anything. Also, I fail to see why it's a "gimmick" or why it's so offensive when directors do all sorts of tricks with the camera. This feels like it's you were bringing baggage to the movie...if you hate this so much why would you even watch a movie with it? You're basically guaranteeing yourself a bad time.
[i]>but i can't think of a worse place to put it than in a war movie. strips away everything compelling about the genre.[i/]
I have no idea why the genre matters in the least. These are some somewhat arbitrary "rules of cinema" I've stumbled upon.
X
Favorite Movies
X