Rate The Last Movie You Saw

Tools    





Man on Fire (2004)

Liked this. Some daft bits and some gritty bits but overall it settles into a good thriller. Thought it was one of Denzel Washington's strangest performances but he pulled it out of the mediocre kidnap film to a more interesting personal level.




I forgot the opening line.

By "Copyright 1951 by Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp." - Scan via Heritage Auctions., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/inde...curid=86859809

The Day The Earth Stood Still - (1951)

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

7/10


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

Stone - (1974)

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

7/10



Les Visiteurs I & II - (1993 & 1998)

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

5/10 & 4/10
__________________
Remember - everything has an ending except hope, and sausages - they have two.
We miss you Takoma

Latest Review : Le Circle Rouge (1970)



I forgot the opening line.
Aww. I'm pretty sure this is my favorite Fincher. Edging out Fight Club. Which I liked a decent bit more than the very good Se7en. Which I definitely liked more than Zodiac, Gone Girl, Panic Room, and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (which were not necessarily equal but in the same tier), all of which I liked a little bit more than The Social Network, which I definitely liked more than Alien3.
Yeah, the more I think about it, I think I liked The Game the most.
I've never been sure why The Game has never fully clicked with me as much as it did with nearly everyone else. Perhaps it's the lead, or the genre, or the implausibility of it's story - but I did really enjoy watching it yesterday, despite it not blowing me away (as I hoped it would.) I personally rank Fincher's films :

Se7en
The Social Network
Fight Club
Zodiac
The Game
Gone Girl
Alien³
Panic Room

I haven't seen The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo - but I love the Swedish original adaptation, so I'm pretty sure if I did I'd be rating it last anyway.

Man, this is an old favorite from my youth. Though I haven't seen it in about 35 years. Just been really hesitant to go back because movies like this felt so different in the 70s and early 80s when I saw them than they do now.
Yeah, I definitely had the feeling that A Man Called Horse would have played in a very different manner if I were watching it, in the 1980s say - I'd have liked it more. 20 years after it's production, Dances With Wolves dramatically improved that kind of story in a narrative, visual and auditory sense - and was paced much, much better. Now, living 30+ years since even Dances With Wolves, the problems A Man Called Horse has stand out in a really stark manner.



Women will be your undoing, Pépé
Here's a couple I watched a week or two back and finally wrote up




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


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

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

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

Anyways I am so loving Welles in this genre.







Day of the Outlaw (1959)


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

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






Thunder Road (1958)
++

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

There's a review on IMDb raving about this as an excellent Drive-In movie of the fifties. And it is true—a great Drive-In movie with action, a cigarette dangling Robert Mitchum hot rodding and kicking serious @ss.
My minor critique is the not so well done cinematography. It is on the sloppy side, with conflicting camera shots at the quieter moments of this lower-budget film.
Otherwise, I would easily rate it higher. Still, I DID enjoy watching this and would like to again.
__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes
~Mr Minio



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.

The Spiral Staircase (Peter Collinson, 1975)
5/10
Bubble Bath (György Kovásznai, 1980)
6.5/10
Alone Together (Katie Holmes, 2022)
+ 5/10
Where Eagles Dare (Brian G. Hutton, 1968)
+ 7.5/10

Non-stop WWII action adventure with Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood leading a mission in an ice-covered area to protect D-Day and wipe out as much German territory as possible.
Samaritan (Julius Avery, 2022)
6/10
The Reef: Stalked (Andrew Traucki, 2022)
5/10
OSS 117 Is Unleashed (André Hunebelle, 1963)
6/10
The Deep (Peter Yates, 1977)
+ 6.5/10

In Bermuda, diver Jacqueline Bisset looks at a pufferfish before she and her boyfriend Nick Nolte get involved in treasure hunting with the help of Robert Shaw and the aggravation of Louis Gossett Jr.
Sheroes (Aude Pépin, 2021)
6/10
Believe in Me (Stuart Hagmann, 1971)
5/10
The Tsugua Diaries (Maureen Fazendeiro & Miguel Gomes, 2021)
5.5/10
Nope (Jordan Peele, 2022)
6.5/10

Several intense, scary scenes intercut with some which go on too long. In other words, a typical Peele film with a typically strong Daniel Kaluuya performance which will add up to whatever you want it to.
A Worrisome Thing (Jacob Egbert & Amelia Yokel, 2022)
5/10
A Taste of Hunger (Christoffer Boe, 2021)
6/10
God's Waiting Room (Tyler Riggs, 2022)
5/10
LennoNYC (Michael Epstein, 2010)
7/10

Detailed examination of what happened post-Beatles centering on his recording output, his breakup with Yoko, his crazy time in LA, the Nixon government having it in for him, his getting back with Yoko and his assassination.
Me Time (John Hamburg, 2022)
5.5/10
Get Away If You Can (Dominique Braun & Terrence Martin, 2022)
5/10
Tailgate AKA Bumperkleef (Lodewijk Crijns, 2019)
6/10
The Making of a Legend: Gone with the Wind (David Hinton, 1988)
+ 7.5/10

The most-detailed look at the making, casting, publicity, behind-the-scenes stories, almost everything you'd want to know about the 1939 classic.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



Where Eagles Dare (Brian G. Hutton, 1968)
+ 7.5/10

Non-stop WWII action adventure with Richard Burton and Clint Eastwood leading a mission in an ice-covered area to protect D-Day and wipe out as much German territory as possible.

Aw yeah.



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



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

You have to read it as "Jean.....not!"
Is this the Borat way of pronouncing it?
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.



I mean, he was quite persistent but I didn't mind it given the entire fantastical theme. You'd be determined to get the girl, too, if you freakin' moved back in time for her. The dude played by Plummer was kinda stalkery/clingy, too, but it's obvious the girl preferred the time-traveling hunk.
My issue isn't that he's creepy in and of itself. As I said right after the phrase you quoted, I mostly felt the film didn't capitalize on that aspect enough. Also, I'm mainly referring to how, in spite of having very little information to go off of that he used to know Elise, he became obsessed with meeting her using time travel. After he does go back in time though, sure, his persistence is certainly understandable.
__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd



Victim of The Night
Yeah, I definitely had the feeling that A Man Called Horse would have played in a very different manner if I were watching it, in the 1980s say - I'd have liked it more. 20 years after it's production, Dances With Wolves dramatically improved that kind of story in a narrative, visual and auditory sense - and was paced much, much better. Now, living 30+ years since even Dances With Wolves, the problems A Man Called Horse has stand out in a really stark manner.
I think I saw it in '79. And a big part of the draw of the film for me was Richard Harris, of whom I've always been a big fan and who I prefer significantly to Kevin Costner (no offense to him but Harris has a helluva lot more gravitas). I actually saw both sequels to this film at one point or another as well.
Harris was also my kinda guy back in the day, a drunk who'd get in a scrap or a brawl at the drop of a hat.



Victim of The Night
Sorry, but that make little sense; like, there's nothing about a procedural that would make it striking if it ends up being better than it "needs to", because there's nothing inherently lesser about it or any other genre out there, whether it be Horror, Sci-Fi, or anything else, and suggesting otherwise just feels like genre-snobbery to me.
I didn't say that it was better than the genre requires I said "it's better than it needs to be" meaning it could have gotten away with a lot less and still been a good film that happens to be a procedural. It was a compliment to the film and no slight on the subgenre.



Artists and Models - I saw this one a couple of weeks ago, because I wanted to see Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis do their things. I thought this was a really fun movie to watch and I have several scenes of interest: Jerry Lewis's character Eugene singing about pretending and ending up getting a steak because of it, a bratty kid being left at the publishing company, most of Dean Martin's songs(he really mopped the floor with Jerry Lewis), the part where Bessie(Shirley Maclaine) is annoying Eugene with a song Rick(Dean Martin) lip synced to, the scene with the ball, and the ending where Rick, Eugene, and Bessie have to defeat spies, and Eugene ends up beating up police officers after getting kissed by Bessie. This was a very fun movie indeed.

LA Confidential - Another interesting movie. I liked the whole premise of detectives having to identify murderers of a massacre that just happened. I found it to be charming in sections and also exciting in ones too. I liked the twist about how the captain was the villain of this movie. This is one of these movies that is hard to follow at first, but the comes together to the point that it comes to make so many sense. The characters of this movie were also something this neo-noir can be proud of for. Deservess all the praise -

Stormy Weather - I saw this one, because I wanted to get a jazz mood on a summer day. I got to say that this one succeeds. This thing had a paper thin plot, but that only makes this one better since all of the music performaces of this was the highlight. My favorite part was when Lena Horne sings "There's No Two Ways About Love" with Fats Waller's "Ain't Misbehavin" and the "Diga Diga Doo" sequence(my favorite part) deserving special mentions. For me, this kind of felt like a sketch comedy show in movie form. It is short but sweet. Highly recommended





Into the Wild, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really powerful stuff.






The Wise Kids, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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




I get that it is icky territory though

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





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

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

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

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

85/100



I'd have to watch it again because it's possible I overlooked some details, but I didn't so much see Tim's behavior as predatory as sad. I didn't see his gifts as grooming but the only way he knew how to express these feelings he was uncertain what to do with. Was what he was doing inappropriate? Absolutely. But I'm unsure how much he wanted in return from his infatuation, and I think it was less sexual than simply wanting some kind of acknowledgement for his feelings. And I don't find it hard to believe the teen he was infatuated with didn't see him as a threat. He saw him through an empathetic lens of how this is what happens to you when you are forced to live a lie for all of your adult life.
I think that it's incredibly clear that Austin sees Tim as sort of a past-self alternate way that his life could have gone. Here is this young man who is doing it: he's out, he's leaving, and he has his whole life ahead of him. It's less of a sexual infatuation and more him wanting to experience that vicarious high.

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

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

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

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

He was just a deeply ****ed up guy, doing all the wrong things, but I think mostly unlikely to go past a certain line.
To even go as far as he did is too far. And even if a teenager is acting adult and seems like "they know what they're doing", you don't know what's happening in that person's mind. And there's a degree to which he's put Tim in a horrible position, because he either has to keep it a secret or deal with the guilt of costing Austin his career and probably also his marriage.

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

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



Could you elaborate on this?

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



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



I forgot the opening line.

Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3870009

Frailty - (2001)

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

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


By impawards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11147126

The Longest Yard - (1974)

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

8/10


By Sony Pictures Classics - Impawards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=13136797

Sleuth - (2007)

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

5/10


By Impawards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=18243552

Elegy - (2008)

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

6.5/10




Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3870009

Frailty - (2001)

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

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

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

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

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


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