34th Hall of Fame

Tools    





I forgot the opening line.
If I'm worried about possible spoilers or don't want to know much about the movie being discussed I simply wait until I've watched it before reading all of the reviews that have been posted. I kind of take it as a given that the more reviews I read the more chance stuff will be given away - and I love coming into films as blind as possible.
__________________
Remember - everything has an ending except hope, and sausages - they have two.






Leila’s Brothers, 2022

Leila (Taraneh Alidoosti) is the only daughter in a family controlled by her father, Esmail (Saeed Poursamimi). Due to sanctions on Iran, the economy is in turmoil, and despite being well into middle age, Leila and her brothers are all out of work or living on the fringe. Leila organizes her brothers in a plan to purchase a unit in a new commercial complex. But when Esmail sees a chance to be named patriarch of the extended family, he reveals that he has a stash of valuable gold coins. Seeing a chance to own a business, Leila and her brothers must try to get their father to use the coins for them.

This is a bruising, frustrating look at the limitations imposed by both patriarchy and international relations.

You get the impression that this family would be a bit of a mess even if the economy around them weren’t a total shambles. Father Esmail is obsessed with the prestige that comes with being the patriarch of the family. Leila simmers with resentment for her father’s past actions and her thankless role as family maid. And her brothers, from the naive Alireza (Navid Mohammadzadeh) to the reckless Farhad (Mohammad Ali Mohammadi), can’t seem to follow through with a plan of action.

There are two layers to this movie. On the surface, it’s sort of a family drama comedy. Esmail’s scheming and obsession with being named patriarch. The brothers getting sucked into a scam in which they must knowingly con someone else down the line in order to make a profit. At one point, the brothers try to sell Esmail on the location of their future business----currently a block of public toilets----and their sales pitch is continually interrupted by the distinct sounds of the business being conducted in those toilets.

But this family does not have the luxury of riding the rollercoaster of wacky familial hijinks, because the patriarchal system to which they belong is nakedly corrupt, and the larger economy in which they are trying to survive is increasingly, impossibly dire.

On the patriarchal front, what gets exposed the longer the film goes on is just how hollow the role of patriarch is. Rather than an impactful leadership role, the duty of patriarch seems to be more about helping families take advantage of others. A wealthy relative promises Esmail the role of patriarch as part of making a large gift at a wedding. It’s all under the guise of following the wishes of the former patriarch (recently deceased), but at heart it’s just a scam, a way of buying attention.

But the even darker aspect is the way that it’s revealed that Esmail has failed in his literal role as patriarch. The more we learn about the way that Esmail has deliberately denied his children happiness, the more their schemes to get their hands on his money makes a kind of karmic sense. We learn that in order to keep Leila close to home, he told a man who loved her that Leila was diseased. We learn that he similarly scuttled Alireza’s romantic prospects. While it at first appears that Leila is scheming and ungrateful, we soon see how Esmail’s manipulations and emotional blackmail run far deeper than any of the maneuvers his children are capable of. Worse, when Esmail realizes the trouble his family is in, he chooses to double down from a place of pride.

Surrounding all of this is the cruel reality that international sanctions, while effective to some degree, ultimately fall hardest on those at the bottom of the social ladder. An early scene features a television playing in the background, from which Donald Trump brays “America first!”. The economy is so volatile that having (or not having) a certain amount of money one moment might mean nothing the next day. This adds a cruelty to multiple sequences. A character cannot triumphantly say “I’ve raised the money”, because the next day this merely represents 60% of what they need. This creates an environment of desperation and a need to make on-the-spot decisions. When Leila implores with her brothers that they may never again have this chance, you get the sense that she is not speaking hyperbolically. Further, it could be easy to say that this family is in financial straits because of their own blundering, but at a certain point you have to wonder just who can be successful in this environment. Only the already-wealthy and the conmen it seems.

Overall I thought this was quite good. You see how Leila must rely on convincing her family to try and act in their own best interest, needing them to leverage what they have and work together in order to pull themselves up from poverty. I particularly liked the way that they position Leila in the beginning of the film, only to reveal more and more of the family history and dynamics as the story unfolds.

I liked the performances across the board, and in particular Alidoosti’s performance as Leila and the way that Mohammadzadeh matches her intensity with Alireza’s gentle naivete. Poursamimi is very memorable as the selfish patriarch, using his position and money to bend his family to his will.




Guys, it took me like three weeks to finish this film. I'd watch like 15 minutes and then get super stressed out!

Anyway, onto the lighthearted flick that is Rocco and His Brothers.



Trouble with a capitial 'T'
Guys, it took me like three weeks to finish this film. I'd watch like 15 minutes and then get super stressed out!

Anyway, onto the lighthearted flick that is Rocco and His Brothers.
I'm glad you could finish Leila's Brothers. I thought highly of that film because it made me think in numerous directions, it's very engaging. Rocco and His Brothers...as a lighthearted flick



Inside Moves (Donner, 1980)

Being a fan of the vast majority of Richard Donner filmography (the superman pinball was a appreciated egg), this is one that slipped under the radar (just had a sudden urge to search out Maverick). I'm not overly familiar with John Savage (hold on...I just had a quick Do The Right Thing flashback), but his performance as a recovering suicide attempt(y?) was pretty good. I like the group of patrons at the pub where he spends time working and recovering. His friendship with David Morse's character and subsequent confrontation towards the end was something I wasn't expecting and was appreciated that the film was confident enough to go there. This Richard Donner guy makes quite a few movies I enjoy.



Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain
I try not to spoil major plot points in my reviews, but if i do I just put *Spoiler* at the top of my review, that's fair warning But mostly I avoid writing snyoposis or retelling what happened in the movie. I figure if people have watched it I don't need to tell them what they just seen and that way it helps me to avoid spoiling the film.

Nothing wrong with short reviews, I sometimes go really short, sometimes not, just depends on my mood. Glad to hear you're feeling better.
Since this thread is available to everyone, I lean toward writing for the newcomer who's here to scout for films to add to their watchlist. But with a baker's dozen of colleagues here, it makes for a good blend. Anyone new to a film can read more detail to see it's their type of thing. Those familiar with a flick can quickly see who agrees with their assessment.

I do tend to get long-winded and frequently have written even more ... which I then delete. Hopefully I'm giving away only enough to comment meaningfully on the filmmaker's intent. I hope I don't go too far, but if you're worried feel free to pay no attention to me.

It's my first time through one of these and am enjoying it. Is it customary to add additional commentary? I have a whole (and long-winded, no doubt) observation about two films about brothers that are separated by 60+ years but have remarkably similar intent.
__________________
Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain ... only straw. Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain? Scarecrow: I don't know. But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking, don't they? Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.



Trouble with a capitial 'T'
Since this thread is available to everyone, I lean toward writing for the newcomer who's here to scout for films to add to their watchlist. But with a baker's dozen of colleagues here, it makes for a good blend. Anyone new to a film can read more detail to see it's their type of thing. Those familiar with a flick can quickly see who agrees with their assessment.
For me sometimes a review literally writes itself and I can go long on those reviews. Other times I struggle to stitch three sentences together. Usually it's the films I love or hate that fire me up the most, but that ain't saying that if I write a very short review I was neutral about the movie. Reviews are weird that way and I think that's fun...I enjoy all the different styles and approaches we all take.

I do tend to get long-winded and frequently have written even more ... which I then delete. Hopefully I'm giving away only enough to comment meaningfully on the filmmaker's intent. I hope I don't go too far, but if you're worried feel free to pay no attention to me.
Been there! I've deleted so many paragraphs in past reviews, but it's all good.

It's my first time through one of these and am enjoying it. Is it customary to add additional commentary? I have a whole (and long-winded, no doubt) observation about two films about brothers that are separated by 60+ years but have remarkably similar intent.
Glad to hear you're enjoying the process, you've been a good member. "Is it customary to add additional commentary?" Sure, it's more than fine, in fact I would encourage it The idea of an HoF is that we as a group talk amongst ourselves. It can be about a movie from weeks earlier or a movie similar to one we watched or whatever. This is informal and just for fun!



Inside Moves



for the film's title.

SPOILERS

I like movies from this era, they just hit different. 1980, but it's a prototypical 70's film to me. Nothing spectacular but a very effective human study. You can see their pain even without knowing all of the causes, but they are survivors. I can remember the days of waiting outside dive bars before they opened, I can relate. A little unbelievable that dude made it to the NBA. Semi-Pro would've been enough, but that's ok. A little unbelievable that Roary would've survived that fall, but that's ok. I feel like John Savage was in every film like this even though I know it's not true. I liked Morse in The Crossing Guard and a few others, he was young here. The girls were great. Wow at seeing the guy with hook hands who I loved so much in The Best Years of Our Lives, I never thought I'd see him in anything else. The characters felt like real people. I cared about them and that made the film. A pleasure to watch.

+




Inside Moves (Richard Donner, 1980)

This is the hardest kind of movie to review. The one's where there isn't really anything wrong with it but nothing about it appeals to you. I'm not even really sure what the appeal is meant to be here, truthfully. Just a complete enigma. I don't even know what to write. I liked how washed out the movie looks, in that 70's kind of way but nothing else about it grabbed me visually. I liked the Christmas party scene because you can feel a sense of community there, but that element feels a bit neglected for most of the film. I think that might be all I got out of it tbh. Nothing about the story, the characters or the filmmaking stood out to me unfortunately. It just came and went and I'm left here scratching my head.



2022 Mofo Fantasy Football Champ
Goldeneye



This is a Bond film that certainly belongs in that upper echelon. It's good great action and great pace. For me I've always give a bad rap to Brosnan as Bond but I'm starting to wonder if I can blame it more on the writing and story of the other 3 films he was in. But I enjoyed him here and it is a very entertaining film. I don't necessarily think there are many other standouts when it comes to acting, as Judi Dench isn't in the film for very long and even Sean Bean as the villain isn't utilized as much as I would have liked to see. But I do think it's got some of the best action sequences of any Bond film, so there's major ups from me with that. Overall, a real enjoyable one.

-



Trouble with a capitial 'T'

Inside Moves (1980)
Dir. Richard Donner
*Spoilers*

Wow, what an opening scene. I've never seen a more impressive stunt jump than that one. Sure I've seen higher stunt jumps, even the jump from the dam in Golden Eye had to be way higher...But what impressed me with that jump was the camera work. Most directors will film the jump statically from a ground mounted camera and then cut to the body on the sidewalk. But not here, the director has his camera do a 120 degree rotation, as the man falls, which I've never seen done...then he cuts to a higher mounted camera that must have been on another building and shows us a perspective that's mind boggling....we can see the street with cars and people and in the same frame see the man falling through the sky. Then the director does what other director's don't usually show, we see the continuation of the fall all the way through some trees and onto the roof of a car on the street. So impressive!

In the age of green screen, CG and safety laws we'll never seen such a stunt performed in a modern movie. I was glad to see the stuntman Dennis Madalone received a critic. Also the stunt fall at the end of the movie down the cement steps of a sports stadium was also dangerous and impressive.

So now you probably think I'm an action movie type guy, nope, I don't really like action only movies unless they offer more. Inside Moves is no action movie. Like Cricket pointed out, it has the personal exploration feel of a 1970s movie. The 1970s was when the baby boomers grew up and the film industry that had once made teenage drive-in movies in the 50s for them and then wacky movies in the 1960s, gave away to more adult movies in the 70s that explored the human condition in a more realistic way. Of course by the time we got to the 1980s, block buster films were making money and so became more common place. Inside Moves fits nicely with that 70s human condition exploration.

I love movies with on location filming and unique locales. Inside Movies was filmed in L.A. which might not sound so exciting but it was filmed in a hilly area of Echo Park a location not seen too much in film. For me the hilly terrain and the run down buildings added to the feel of people who lived their lives on the outskirts of society. I liked the people too, we get to know them and get a feeling that they're real. ***Once again the lesson here is: never have a prostitute as a girlfriend...it only spells trouble!





Goldeneye






This is one of the few Bond movies I can say I enjoyed from start to finish. It has just the right mix of old school silliness, modern sensibilities, and high budget action. It's a great reintroduction of the character, and an easily digestible starting point, before introducing more serious plotlines, as they did in Tomorrow Never Dies.


Natalya is also quite possibly my favorite Bond girl. She's the perfect balance of smart, beautiful, and tough. Glad her character made it out alive.


The movies only weak points is Sean Bean never really landed as a villain for me. His motives are weak, and he doesn't really stand out. I far prefer Onatopp, with her killer thighs. I love watching her chew up scenery.


It's a small gripe, but I was hoping to see his new silver Aston Martin in an action scene. Although the tank scene was a lot of fun.





Inside Moves -
CONTAINS SPOILERS

This is a favorite "feel good" movie, which is a description where you see criticisms like sentimental and manipulative. There are movies like this I love, but what makes this one special is it's more interested in being authentic than wringing it out of you. While John Savage and David Morse were household names between then and now, Roary, Jerry and the rest come across like people you see every day. Also, I definitely feel for the friends and everyone who sits at the card table at Max's Bar, but I love that the movie shows them how they want to be seen, i.e. like everyone else, and not defined by their disabilities. I remember their banter and jokes before I think about their ailments, in other words. As for the feel-good moments, they have no reaching, obvious musical swells, etc. because they're earned. Take Roary and Louise realizing their love, for instance. There are similar movies that rush through or skip the hard parts to arrive at the good stuff, if you will, but this one takes its time during the rough patch of Louise coping with her fear of falling for a disabled man. There's also the party celebrating Jerry's return: it's the kind of scene lesser ones like it include just to bring the tears. However, since the movie does such a good job letting us know how much Jerry means to everyone up to this point, I smiled because I felt like it and not because I was forced to. Except Jerry doesn't return, does he? There is a brilliance to the yin and yang of him being a hero to the disabled, but being more disabled than they are, whether due to avoiding them or by letting his disability define him. Speaking of authenticity, he is authentically hard to like as a result, but it makes the reward for when he comes to his senses all the more satisfying.

Like the best "feel good" movies, this one is just as entertaining and funny on rewatches as well as full of valuable lessons. It's practically a how-to guide on being a good friend, recovering from a setback and realizing life is worth living. Best of all, it teaches you these lessons without you realizing it. What's more, they hold up despite happening in a world that barely exists anymore. Can you imagine getting to the top of an office building without an ID card these days? Also, who would have predicted that the Golden State Warriors would go from being such an underdog that the players hang out with their hecklers to a yearly title contender?



I forgot the opening line.


Inside Moves - 1980

Directed by Richard Donner

Written Valerie Curtin & Barry Levinson
Based on a novel by Todd Walton

Starring John Savage, David Morse, Diana Scarwid, Amy Wright, Bert Remsen, Tony Burton & Harold Russell

I hope anyone kind enough to read this entire review will pardon a digression at the very outset, but Inside Moves is the type of movie that I associate with a project I began some time ago. You see, a good friend of mine - a terrific writer, published author and film fanatic - wrote a series of articles that I found really interesting. He grabbed the Top 100 Box Office Earnings list from Box Office Mojo (lists from other sites differ considerably, so no one box office list should be considered official) for each year regarding one decade - the 1980s. He then wrote one piece regarding each year, trawling through the list with the advantage of hindsight and making observations. One interesting factor is the fact that quality seems to be evenly distributed - there are as many good films at the bottom of the list than there are at the top, and vice versa. There are often bizarre oddities that make good "this movie was actually made" trivia curios. There are some really good movies that were barely seen on release, and some that have continued in obscurity. I was so interested that I wanted to take it all further - and so with the intention of doing each year I had a closer look, starting with 1980. I found so many interesting and varied movies - and one of them was Inside Moves. Despite being directed by the red-hot Richard Donner, it was one of those films that barely had a release at all - so despite all of it's merits it's not a well-known movie, even today.

Box Office Mojo has since changed the lists from what they were - made them more accurate is my hopeful guess - so the likes of Inside Moves, Ressurection, Melvin and Howard and other hidden gems have disappeared completely. These are movies that audiences never even had a fair shot at judging for themselves, the whole system in place leaving decisions on how wide a release a film gets in the hands of just a few executives, who might not even be that good a judge of how great a film is. The popularization of home video became something of an equalizer - giving movies a life beyond cinema and television, and a more democratic one at that. Videos were around in 1980, but their widespread use and video shops in every suburb were still a few years away. I think Inside Moves would have picked up an audience through word of mouth if it had of been released on video a few years on down the road, but instead it came out in 1981 - and when you take into account that it's cinematic release had no publicity or any advertisements associated with it, then it's easy to see how it slipped through the cracks. There were a few good reviews and an Oscar nomination for Diana Scarwid, but this was one of the quietest releases I've ever seen for a film directed by an established big name movie-maker at the height of his career. Donner's sacking from Superman II the only real indication of why his film was not supported.

The movie has two converging themes - family, and being disabled. I should perhaps put family in inverted commas because I don't think there's a single character in Inside Moves who has a blood relative we hear about. The family of Inside Moves is that of an adoptive community - and as we commonly see in fiction our familial group of characters converge on a bar - this one in Oakland, California. Max's. In Todd Walton's novel our main character, Roary (played by John Savage, giving what is perhaps his best ever performance), is wounded in Vietnam and became disable via that route. In the movie we're treated to an opening that's tremendously powerful and shocking, with a determined Roary set to commit suicide jumping from the 10th story of a building, landing on a tree, then a car, then being transported to hospital in critical condition. The credits cover a montage in which Roary is rehabilitated, and by the time the film proper begins he's the character we'll get to know - limping, pivoting, swaying and unsteady with slurred speech. There's something charming about his manner though - the way he'll swing his fist, turn about suddenly or add some wry aside to a conversation. He's a good guy, and when he happens on Max's bar he meets a group of lovable people.

First and foremost there's Jerry Maxwell (David Morse) - big and brash, he's good at basketball despite having a serious leg injury and is outspoken, keen and very direct. Jerry loves Anne (Amy Wright), a hooker and drug addict that causes him nothing but trouble. Usually playing cards are Stinky (Bert Remsen), Wings (Harold Russell) and Blue Lewis (Bill Henderson). There's the owner Max (Jack O'Leary) and later the bar hires a waitress that Roary will develop feelings for - Louise (Diana Scarwid). Jerry and Roary end up becoming best friends, and although determined to put up money to financially aid the bar (which is in financial troubles), Roary also wants to help his friend get the operation he needs to embark on a basketball career - such is his talent. But when success comes Jerry's way, all of his old friends at the bar are disturbed by the way they're cut off from (and by) him. In the meantime Louis struggles with her feelings for Roary due to the fact that she's not sure she can handle being physically intimate with a disabled man. All of life's troubles, heartaches, successes, joys and tears are shared by those who frequent Max's. Many are disabled. Stinky is blind, Blue Lewis can't walk and Wings has no hands - and this is something that only serves to strengthen the bond between them. It's something Jerry feels seperated from once his leg has been mended, and something he almost fears is contagious.

When I first came across this movie I wasn't as well acquainted with some of it's stars - Bert Remsen I've come to love by delving into the cinematic world of Robert Altman, and I always feel like I'm visiting an old friend when his cheerful countenance is seen and raspy voice is heard. Harold Russell I eventually recognized from the 1946 classic The Best Years of Our Lives - but only after thinking to myself that he "reminded me of that guy" due to the fact he's a double amputee. It took me a while longer to get the fact that this was the exact same man - and indeed Russell hadn't even taken a role in any film during the 34 years that had elapsed since William Wyler's famous movie was made. As mentioned before, Diana Scarwid was nominated for an Academy Award (I know her, despite the fact she's had a disappointing career if you take into account the promise it had), and that makes me all the more curious as to why John Savage wasn't nominated - his is a mountain of a performance that lifts the entire movie up a category, and to see Sarwid nominated but not Savage is a puzzle indeed. His career up to this point had been exceptional, but would take something of a downward turn from that point on.

The team putting Inside Moves together is rock solid. Although we don't hear the score all that often, it makes such an impression when we do that it dominates this movie to such an extent that you feel all of the emotional thematic weight whenever you hear it. John Barry has written a melody that's both catchy and pleasing, and it's carried forth prominently via trumpets and brass - coalescing into a theme we'll hear repeated and get to know so that by the time the end credits greet us you'll be humming along yourself. It's a bittersweet kind of heartfelt tune that evokes bars and people who have had a lot of hard luck in their lives - the kind that would have fit at any stage during Fat City or Ironweed. Behind the camera is László Kovács (not Vilmos Zsigmond!) and he spends much of his time finding the right shade and lighting for searching examinations of faces - there's little time for wide angle shots or beautified landscapes. This is a very human drama, carried forward by it's own emotional weight and the headspace of it's characters. Camera and music make way for the characters created by Todd Walton and realised by the talented performers Richard Donner has gathered around him.

So what really makes a family? Humour - there's plenty of humour in the film, but genuinely funny and at times a little groan inducing. Helping each other out - which is what all the friends at Max's bar do constantly, with advice, encouragement, giving and company. Being there - which is what creates friction when Jerry disappears after his basketball career takes off. Beer - it seems, although I've seen beer do as much to create friction and angst as it does bring people together, but in the world of movies we can sometimes have a perfect world. Nursing each other to health when one has taken a bloody beating from an angry pimp. Turning a blind eye to terrible indiscretions and bad decisions when butting in would simply be interfereing. Standing firm and telling the truth when needed. Throughout the film, because of Roary's new adopted family, we see him grow both as a character and human being proving that his disability couldn't stand in his way when it came to a fulfilling, healthy life - one where dreams can come true. That all might sound sappy or sentimentally trite, but Inside Moves works hard and grinds out a little honesty and isn't afraid to shrink from topics like drug addiction, prostitution, violence and suicide - in a way it earns the right to push a little melodrama once it's established where it's at.

So, at the end of the day what do I really like about this movie? To me, it's always about John Savage and the character he creates with his one-of-a-kind performance. Honestly , I love Roary - but I'm very embarrassed to say that maybe some of that love comes from how charming his manner becomes via the various tics, slurs and sudden movements that are added to the way he goes about communicating. It just makes him unique, but obviously there has to be a good-hearted, loveable personality deep inside for the whole character to work like he does. Partly, I think, it's me cheering on the underdog as well. You'd never guess Roary could be at the place he is at the end of the film when the movie starts - a funny counterpoint to one of the last lines of the movie, delivered by Anne - about people always staying who they are. Of course we do - it's circumstances that change, and we change our circumstances via our actions, and with the help of our extended family whether they be blood relations or good friends. That's the great journey both Jerry and Roary take in Inside Moves, a good natured take on what it means to be crippled in just about every meaning of the term. If you're surrounded by a loving family though, your dreams are your limit.




I forgot the opening line.
Inside Moves

You'll have to judge how the ending suits you.

WARNING: spoilers below
I enjoyed the ending but not as much as I'd hoped to. I could have left it a few minutes earlier when we had a bit more ambiguity for us to parse through. But, ah, shucks, you can’t blame them for that.
Richard Donner talks at length about the ending in the film's commentary track on the Granada DVD. You see, the film was
WARNING: spoilers below
meant to end with Anne giving the last line about how "Jerry will always hang about the bar. I'm a whore. You're a sucker..." - that's how it ends in the screenplay, but Donner always ends his movies on a big positive note. It's Donner himself who added the scene where they're all at the game and Roary trips up Lucius (who knows, maybe he made him a cripple - the film's way of speaking, not mine!) and then the two characters go "JEEerrYY!!" "ROOOArrrYY!!" So if you thought the previous scene had a natural, conclusory feel to it, you were right on the money there.



Trouble with a capitial 'T'
Inside Moves - 1980

....He grabbed the Top 100 Box Office Earnings list from Box Office Mojo (lists from other sites differ considerably, so no one box office list should be considered official) for each year regarding one decade - the 1980s. He then wrote one piece regarding each year, trawling through the list with the advantage of hindsight and making observations. One interesting factor is the fact that quality seems to be evenly distributed - there are as many good films at the bottom of the list than there are at the top, and vice versa. There are often bizarre oddities that make good "this movie was actually made" trivia curios. There are some really good movies that were barely seen on release, and some that have continued in obscurity. I was so interested that I wanted to take it all further - and so with the intention of doing each year I had a closer look, starting with 1980. I found so many interesting and varied movies - and one of them was Inside Moves. Despite being directed by the red-hot Richard Donner, it was one of those films that barely had a release at all - so despite all of it's merits it's not a well-known movie, even today.

Box Office Mojo has since changed the lists from what they were - made them more accurate is my hopeful guess - so the likes of Inside Moves, Ressurection, Melvin and Howard and other hidden gems have disappeared completely. These are movies that audiences never even had a fair shot at judging for themselves, the whole system in place leaving decisions on how wide a release a film gets in the hands of just a few executives, who might not even be that good a judge of how great a film is. The popularization of home video became something of an equalizer - giving movies a life beyond cinema and television, and a more democratic one at that. Videos were around in 1980, but their widespread use and video shops in every suburb were still a few years away. I think Inside Moves would have picked up an audience through word of mouth if it had of been released on video a few years on down the road, but instead it came out in 1981 - and when you take into account that it's cinematic release had no publicity or any advertisements associated with it, then it's easy to see how it slipped through the cracks. There were a few good reviews and an Oscar nomination for Diana Scarwid, but this was one of the quietest releases I've ever seen for a film directed by an established big name movie-maker at the height of his career. Donner's sacking from Superman II the only real indication of why his film was not supported....
I was around and going to movies in 1981 but I don't remember hearing about Inside Moves. I also use to frequent the video stores alot in the 80s-90s to rent movies, but never that I remember, ran across this title. That was an interesting project your friend did and in a way it reminds of what I just did for the 1990s countdown. I did an advanced IMDB search for movies made from 1990-1999 and then applied some of the filters to narrow down that list to a more manageable size. Then I read the mini synopsis of each movie in those results and put together a to-watch list of about 250 1990s movies. Many of those were fairly obscure and I'd never heard of them before, found a few personal movie gems that way too. It pays too look and look deep!



Trouble with a capitial 'T'
The Movie for Week 7 is:


At Play in the Fields of the Lord (1991)
Director: Hector Babenco

Due date to watch/review: Feb 24th

@MovieGal @jiraffejustin @John W Constantine @PHOENIX74
@rauldc14 @edarsenal @Torgo @Takoma11 @ueno_station54 @stillmellow @cricket @TheManBehindTheCurtain

We still have 2 days left for the Week 6 movie...but as it's the weekend and this is a 3 hour movie I'm posting it now. I could only find one free link for the movie but it is streaming on a couple of services, I'll PM everyone that info.

*Keep an eye on the 1st post, that's were the review links and info are.