My 2024 Watchlist Obsession!

I was about to add Bellissima to my watchlist, but then it suddenly dawned on me that I watched it about three months ago.


Even now that I've significantly reduced the amount of movies I watch, I still appear to completely forget about half of them almost immediately.


I think there is a limit on how many movies you can fit in your head at one time. And I'm well over capacity.


I did appear to have given Bellissima a good rating though.

I think sometimes we forget to hit "record" in our brains. Either that or, to remember movies, you have to consciously recall them a half dozen times or so in the couple of days after you see them. Then they become more of a long term memory.

There's a couple of films that were on my watchlist that I've seen incidentally in recent days. I don't include those on this thread officially, but I like to note what they were. Session 9 and Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret. were the films. I'm at 438 - and I'm kind of stunned how long I've been around that mark.

__________________

I'd say I do pretty well with recalling movies I've seen, but I do wish I had the energy to review them more often as that would be a better way to recall how I responded to them as opposed to just looking up my ratings.

__________________
IMDb
Letterboxd

From the contemplative mind of Hirokazu Kore-eda (or, depending on who you're asking, Kore-eda Hirokazu) comes this extraordinary film - one which certainly touched me, because I'm the kind of person who finds memories my most cherished possessions. In it, we get to see a kind of afterlife waystation - almost documentary-style - where people, who have recently died, get to choose what they consider their most favoured memory from the life they've lived and have it re-enacted and filmed. They watch these memories, and spend eternity with them - the remainder of their life apart from the re-enacted memory forgotten. There's so much of it that makes a point of being unusual that it's easy to see what we're meant to gain insight from - giving us interesting ideas about what movies really are, and immediately sending us sorting through our own memories. Who can resist putting themselves in the shoes of these recently departed people? If you had one memory to pick, like these people, what would it be? Keep in mind - it's going to sum up your entire existence, as it's the only thing you'll know after you move on to the next phase of being.

There are no bright lights, spotless, glowing marble or winged angels - the afterlife in After Life looks positively Soviet, with spartan offices and decrepit rooms serving as the workspace for all involved. When the dead are interviewed, Kore-eda once against becomes a documentary-maker - filming them as if they were real, and telling their stories to us. Somewhat true in some cases, for the filmmaker interviewed many people in preparation and used some of these everyday ordinary people in the film. Camera angles and such shift right over into documentary filmmaking style. The memories we hear are varied, with each person seemingly searching for something very specific to them - happy childhood, love, adventure, calm or even memories that are shaded in darkness. There's a memory that sees a person as complete as they'll ever be - or as happy, as content etc. In the meantime, the people charged with working out the logistics of filming the re-enactments go about their business as if they're still alive, while in fact they've also passed on. I found it so interesting that in spite of the existence of taped portions of these people's lives, the focus was on these memories being adapted for film instead.

When we think of our lives by accessing our memories, aren't they like films? We don't remember our life in it's entirety, but instead remember the important moments and how they related to everything else. It's as if we've sorted out scenes that tell the story like a movie tells it's story. While the difference is that fictional films are make-believe, it's what they represent that matters. It doesn't matter that what we're watching isn't real - what matters is what it's meant to mean. All of this was swirling around in my mind as I watched After Life, along with the film's own story and narrative - and looking at it I have to say that Kore-eda is some kind of masterful genius for thinking up all of this and making a film so far from anything else I've ever seen or heard of. The meaning of a person's most cherished memory seems to be getting very close to how life can be summed up in total. I watched each person grapple with that in their own way, and how it related to those helping them along. It was profound, and I felt like applauding Hirokazu Kore-eda for having the courage to make this, and make it his own way. It was quite remarkable.

Glad to catch this one - Criterion #1089, it brought international recognition to Kore-eda's work after premiering at the 1998 Toronto International Film Festival.




Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch After Life.

At a certain stage of my movie-watching life I developed something of a man-crush on Ethan Hawke, and for quite a while saw him as something of an industry outsider. He's nothing of the sort, getting pretty good roles since Alive in 1993 and being a bona-fide star since his breakthrough in Before Sunrise (1995) - cementing his status as a heavyweight from Training Day (2001) onward. Still, whenever he scored a great part in a good movie I'd think "Good for you Ethan. People will have to start taking notice of you now." Something about him made me think he needed the support. That he was always close to fading away. It's only in the last 5 years or so that I accepted that he's a household name, been nominated for 4 Oscars, and is still going strong. Although I'm still a big fan, my man-crush faded because he didn't need me anymore. When I look at the kind of roles he's always played, I find that some of the cause for me feeling the need to put my arm around his shoulder and buck him up is that he's always played outsiders. Men who are just hanging in there. Put-upon, dismissed, quiet and introspective, yet thoughtful, intelligent, and worthy of paying attention to. Once again he returned to this in First Reformed, as middle-aged Pastor Ernst Toller.

Ernst Toller has a psychological disease caused by modern society - which is basically soulless, greedy, self-obsessed and hateful, with many knowingly being that way and wearing those negativities as badges of pride. He's let himself be part of that by accepting his role as pastor of the First Reformed Church in Snowbridge, New York as being nothing more than working as the caretaker of a piece of property. Few people come to hear his sermons, which sound passionless and rote. He guides people on tours, but never connects with them as human beings. His son died in the Iraq war - a senseless war, and that destroyed his marriage. He's physically ill as well, and starts writing in a journal as an attempt to find something within himself - a light in the darkness. The light goes on however, when he meets Michael Mensana (Philip Ettinger) - an environmental activist who is suffering his own despair, and his wife, Mary (Amanda Seyfried). It's only then that Ernst starts to fight back, and when he meets furious resistance he once again finds his passion - channeling it into something absolutely shocking. Will God ever forgive us for what we're doing to the planet and ourselves?

First Reformed is a real slow burn of a film that takes time to get us worked up - Ernst Toller's dour narration (basically a voiceover of what he's writing in his journals) is simply a bummer. He appears to be dying, preaches to a church that's nearly empty and lives in a world populated by a-holes. I don't know about other people, but I find that a little depressing. And the film keeps topping that off with more bad news - his son died, his wife is gone, the husband of one of his parishioners is depressed and suicidal. But at a certain stage this film begins to add the elements of urgency and illumination to the equation, which sets everything alight. Now the film starts to transform itself into something which strikes a completely different tone - one that we can certainly all get behind, but one that also carries with it elements of danger that create unbearable tension. One of the best things about film is that the viewer is completely powerless - we have to watch this situation resolve itself, and can do nothing about it. Whatever we're hoping to see when the film ends, we're only sure that it probably isn't going to be pretty. It will, however, be cathartic, surprising, meaningful and wrap the film up in a way that makes it a compelling statement about the world and us. Good for you Ethan - you found another fine role and did a great job with it.

Glad to catch this one - Oscar-nominated for Best Original Screenplay, and chosen by both the National Board of Review and American Film Institute as one of the top ten films of 2018 .




Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch First Reformed.

Really liked First Reformed. Hawke's body of work of late is downright impressive. I thought he was great in Maudie.

It was an idea the Nazis never followed through with - make a propaganda film inside the Warsaw Ghetto showing wealthy Jews living it up, while the less fortunate suffered and died around them. Of course, no Jews were living it up inside the ghetto - the Germans had to bring in actors, champagne, good food and nice clothes, all the while ordering those forced to take part into smiling and laughing - the person who laughed the least was made an example of, and soon all of the participants were laughing more than they'd ever laughed in their lives. All the while living skeletons, corpses, the diseased and other signs of forced overcrowding and deprivation were all around. The film, in the editing stages, was found in a storeroom that housed much of the Third Reich's shunted away reels of state-sponsored recordings. It ended up being an invaluable tool for many, as it showed first-hand what conditions were like, and what was happening at this stage in the process of what the Nazis were doing to these people. It's impossible to hide the fact that conditions were horrendous, and that these people were being thinned out already. Faeces piled in the streets, corpses on the sidewalks, kids dressed in rags with looks of madness on their faces - it's a vision of hell, and yet, rather incredibly, things were yet to get much worse for the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto.

Yael Hersonski's documentary combines footage and interviews of ghetto survivors watching the film with recitals from the diaries of Adam Czerniaków (the head of the Warsaw Ghetto Jewish Council, who committed suicide when the deportations to the extermination camps started), passages from the testimony of Willy Wist at a Nazi trial, one of the camera operators on this operation - and of course the film itself, which is still shocking despite everything I've already seen through the years. For some reason, seeing this brutality, starvation and horror on what had once been ordinary city streets is beyond comprehension - and I can't understand how any German could see this and not immediately conclude that it was pure, and particularly severe, unadulterated madness. Those who were making the film got caught, I think, in a bit of a ironic loop. They wanted to show how good the conditions were in the ghetto, and set up the interior of restaurants serving huge helpings of the most delicious treats, dance halls with well dressed ghetto residents having the time of their life and theaters with everyone having a ball. But they also wanted to show "another side" to all of this - a kind of "typical Jewish greed creating misery" side which went on to show that actually, some people in the ghetto were being neglected to death. Hang on, neglected to death? Why weren't....and there you have it.

When you see the film, you can just imagine the realization dawning on the Germans who were trying to edit it together. It actually paints a damning picture not only of the fake "greedy Jewish" people hoarding the wealth, but the Germans themselves - who had obviously created conditions that were too cruel and unusual to justify in a propaganda film to their own citizens. Although the Germans may have been a little shocked by this film, they wouldn't even know that the so called "wealthy, greedy Jews" were an invention of the SS - and that all of the Jews in the ghetto were living in severely overcrowded, unhealthy, unsanitary conditions with virtually no healthcare, disease rampant, corpses on the street and harsh treatment from their overseers. The "wealthy" ones were giving up the diamond rings they'd kept a hold of for, at worst, a loaf of bread, or a piece of horse meat - at best ordinary food. The SS were so wrapped up in what they were doing that they nearly put out a film which actually showed the walking skeletons, dead children, filth and desperation - thinking they could blame the Jews themselves. They just caught themselves, realising that it wouldn't be logical, and that they'd stir more misgivings than create useful anti-Jewish propaganda. In the meantime, the film lay in that vault as one of the extremely rare records of life in the Warsaw ghetto. Much of the accuracy in modern films owes itself to it's existence. A disquieting documentary - for obvious reasons.

Glad to catch this one - won Best Documentary at the Satellite Awards, Emmy Awards, Sundance, Shanghai and Women Film Critics Circle.




Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch A Film Unfinished.

Loneliness finds much expression onscreen - there seems myriad ways to create something which communicates that most hollow, sad itch. Murmur features protagonist Donna (Shan MacDonald), who finds herself doing community service at a veterinarian's surgery after a D.U.I. conviction. The job mostly entails mopping up various messes, but Donna sometimes finds herself walking a dog, holding a cat or helping shave a pooch about to go under the knife. She's estranged from her daughter, and seems desperate to contact her to update her on her attempt at sobriety - but her daughter has obviously reached the end of her tether, and isn't reachable. One day, almost predictably, Donna insists on taking one of the sick dogs home with her - she says she's made a connection, and will stay on top of it's health issues. This she does - Donna isn't drinking, is keeping her house and herself clean and in order, and is going to all of her jobs, physiotherapy (for a heart murmur) and driver's ed classes. Why not get a cat then, if a connection arises? Or a second dog? Or a third, and perhaps a hamster and guinea pig. As Donna struggles to make a connection in the human world, she soon finds herself queen of a burgeoning, chaotic, overflowing and somewhat worrying world of her own.

I have a good friend who's a Donna. There's always room for another sick animal, with it's special needs, vet bills, messes, work and needed love and attention. That's why a vet clinic isn't the best place for someone like Donna to be working at. You go to cat havens or dog pounds, do volunteer work, and then connect with kittens, cats, pups and dogs that are slated to be euthanized - feeling the strong urge to save them all. It's nearly impossible to feel dispassionate about it. For some lonely people, their pet becomes a major part of their emotional make-up and fulfills roles that are usually reserved for relatives and friends in other people's lives. Pets are good at that job too - they don't judge, they're always there and they're easy to live with. Nobody particularly wants to spend time with Donna - but her dog Charlie does, and she finds many animals at the vet clinic who are keen to share some warmth with her. There's no human being in Murmur who is particularly warm with Donna, and this precipitates her slide into giving in to the warmth of inviting new pets into her home. The urge to do that is even stronger than Donna's urge for the bottle. She's blind to the consequences of this, despite being warned in no uncertain terms - some needs are so strong they blind.

I thought murmur was a very good film at tapping into matters of the heart, loneliness, sadness and the need we all have to share love. It never wasted a shot, and kept it's core purpose at the absolute forefront throughout it's entirety - with Shan MacDonald balancing the subtle need to not to overplay her hand but still communicate the aching need she has inside of her. It's the kind of film that really grabbed me just through it's sense of quiet atmosphere and steady familiarity with what we're looking at. This was Heather Young's feature debut, and was an auspicious one considering the awards it has won - I very much hope she continues to develop as a filmmaker, and most of all gets the opportunity to make use of her obvious talent. I feel like this is a very humanistic filmmaker with a certain delicacy but also a forthright directness. There's nothing really easy about what this movie is all about, but all the same it was very easy to watch and satisfying in a visual and psychological sense. It was sad, for sure - but it's a sadness that awakens our need to comfort others, reach out to those who might need us, and forgive those who have done us wrong but still need our love. Any film that does that, is a good one in my book.

Glad to catch this one - won the Narrative Feature Grand Jury Prize at the Slamdance Film Festival, and the John Dunning Best First Feature Award at the 8th Canadian Screen Awards in 2020 .




Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Murmur.

Put both of these in my watchlist. They both seem very good indeed.

__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.

Okay, so here's an interesting and unusual chapter in the annuls of horror that James Whale made sometime between Frankenstein and The Invisible Man - one that dabbles in comedy, making for an odd bird of a relic. It features Boris Karloff, fresh from his success as Frankenstein's Monster in Whale's 1931 smash hit - although it should be mentioned that Karloff had already featured in innumerable films up to that point. Here he's the mute "Morgan" - a monstrous brute who sets off on a rampage when he gets drunk. Also of interest are Melvyn Douglas, Gloria Stuart and Charles Laughton - all playing characters who (along with a couple of others) happen upon the wretched house of this film's title during a stormy night. With the deluge prompting landslides, even the uninviting house bodes well for them. The ghostly-looking but cowardly Horace Femm (Ernest Thesiger) is the man of the manor, and the crotchety Rebecca Femm (Eva Moore) his sister. Morgan is the butler. Horace and Rebecca are terrible hosts, but they never thought they'd be having to put up with the five young interlopers who end up knocking at their door.

I knew very little about this film when I ventured forth, so the frivolity and jokes caught me a little by surprise - this isn't a horror film about monsters or ghosts, but simply an extremely dysfunctional family as unprepared for the situation they're in as the guests are. Added to the two Femms we meet early, and Morgan, are the 102-year-old Sir Roderick Femm (played by a female actor - Elspeth Dudgeon) and the barking mad Saul Femm (Brember Wills), who proves the biggest threat to everyone when Morgan unlocks the door to his room and lets him out. Saul is a fire-obsessed maniac, who appears to be in a relationship with Morgan. This night of crazy antics actually makes for an interesting and entertaining film - it seems to have been made with a 'devil-may-care' attitude, and as such isn't as dry, sedate or typical as other films from this era are. One thing you'll notice right away is that it's pre-Code, with sexual allusions coming thick and fast, along with Gloria Stuart in stages of undress that would be considered scandalous in decades to come. The film itself has had an interesting history - and was at one stage thought 'lost' until it's rediscovery in the vaults of Universal in 1968.

Over the years we've become accustomed to the whole set-up - an old house, dark and foreboding, that normal everyday people are forced to approach because they're in some kind of trouble. This film was one of the inspirations for The Rocky Horror (Picture) Show, and I find that really interesting. I'd always assumed that was based on Frankenstein and other famous horror and science fiction films I already knew about - being completely unaware that there was a film out there that much more directly resembles Rocky Horror. I thought it was heaps of fun, and there are all kinds of moments where I thought to myself "were they alluding to homosexuality there?" James Whale himself was gay, and it would make sense that he might feel compelled to insert statements that weren't overtly obvious, but easily spotted all the same. Rebecca at one stage caresses Gloria Stuart's character, Margaret. Charles Laughton's Sir William Porterhouse is in a platonic relationship with Gladys DuCane (Lilian Bond) - seemingly for appearances sake. Anyway - it's fascinating, and the film was very worth visiting. The weirdness, the fun, the sheer campiness and chaos. The delivery of the simple line "Have a potato." There's a lot to like here, and I feel more complete having seen The Old Dark House.

Glad to catch this one - placed at number 71 on a Time Out poll of the best horror films. Priestley's novel was originally a social commentary on contemporary British class structures.




Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Old Dark House.

I really dug that one. I liked the vibes of the characters in the house being of various levels of weird and unpredictable, as opposed to them being straight up bad. One of my Discord friends asked me to stream it awhile back and, though I doubted that anyone would care for it, reactions to it were much better than I expected.

I love The Old Dark House.

Another from me for The Old Dark House. And Murmur does sound very interesting so please forgive me for this.

Okay - so here we have some madness. One of those documentaries that looks like it's going to be looking at one thing, and then suddenly falls down a rabbit hole, through the looking glass - very, very deep down. At first I wasn't all that enthused to be watching a documentary that was purporting to be about "The world of professional competitive endurance tickling" - it just looked silly, and like a subject that would get old very, very quickly. Well, it does look at tickling as a fetish - it's part of what all of this is about - but this isn't about professional tickling, or tickling as a sport. David Farrier, a reporter in New Zealand thought it would be cool, or amusing, to write a story about online videos showing this 'competitive tickling' - and contacted the company running this, Jane O'Brien Media, requesting an interview. The company responds with a strangely combative email making an issue about Farrier's sexuality - a weirdly insulting one that you wouldn't expect from a media company organising a competitive sport. Farrier then partnered with television producer Dylan Reeve to take a closer look at all of this, and an inexplicable can of worms along with an army of lawyers suddenly sprung open - with Farrier, all the while, receiving weekly letters from 'Jane O'Brien Media' insulting him, and threatening him.

Now, Tickled isn't all that great as a documentary - it has more of an Hour and a Half News Investigation feel to it, which is absolutely what it is. That said, I'm so glad this is a documentary - because it seems that quite a few people got to see it, and for justice to be sweet this needed high exposure. Let me also say, I have absolutely nothing against tickling if that's your thing. I felt particularly uncomfortable watching the tickling that we're exposed to in this, but aside from one deep dive into one guy's tickle video studio - which earns him enough money to have had him quit his job and take it up full time - we aren't inundated with man on man tickling (which is mostly what this consists of.) If tickling is your thing, go for it. But why the hostile paranoia from Jane O'Brien Media? What are they hiding? Who is behind all of this? Is competitive tickling even a real thing? I can't tell you anything, because the fun of this doc is the finding out, and the twisted road that these investigative reporters go down. Will it have you going "whaaat?" Yes - with every new revelation, yes.

What this all boils down to is not letting bullies get away with threatening and deliberately trying to hurt people. Praise to all the journalists who continue on in spite of the threats they receive. I'd be as scared as all hell - especially if I were a New Zealander chasing a story in the United States when there are huge threats of lawsuits and fury spewing forth and encroaching on you. I'd never be able to just approach people on the street, or continue to ring doorbells and call people who are unlikely to treat you kindly. It helps having a sense that you are in the right, and that the law is on your side - but the stress of all this would seriously get to me. So kudos to David Farrier and Dylan Reeve for not only sticking to their guns, but deciding to take this up a level and start making a movie about their investigation. Some people will try to shut you up by burying you in legal issues, hoping that you don't have the money or will to fight them. Some people will try to shut you down by the sheer force of their unpleasantness. Some people - a very small proportion of us - are vermin. The fact that this is connected to tickling is one of those strange factors I can't really explain - just, watch this documentary, and see the layers peeled back.

Glad to catch this one - On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 94% of 120 critics' reviews of the film are positive, with an average rating of 7.6/10.




Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch Tickled.

Slapstick throwbacks to 1930s screwball comedies and golden age silent films don't always do it for me, but I do love a great ensemble cast - and The Impostors has one of the best. Apparently Stanley Tucci called on all of his film star friends to appear in this, and as such we have Alfred Molina, Lili Taylor, Tony Shalhoub, Steve Buscemi, Allison Janney, Richard Jenkins, Billy Connolly and Woody Allen play major roles in the film. The two main protagonists are the Laurel and Hardy-like Maurice (Oliver Platt) and Arthur (Stanley Tucci) - two out of work, down on their luck actors who try to hustle a baker and end up with theater tickets instead of anything edible. They end up going to a version of Hamlet starring Sir Jeremy Burtom (Molina) as the Danish prince - an actor who proceeds to get drunk and ruin the production, after which Maurice berates him, causing a fight. Arthur and Maurice flee, ending up in a shipping container overnight, and waking up to find they are accidental stowaways on board an ocean liner. They pretend to be stewards, and get involved with various plots and dramas during the voyage.

Not everything works with The Impostors, but it's a film of many moments, and I have to admit that some of those moments worked for me. Billy Connolly is hilarious as the rambunctiously gay tennis player Mr. Sparks (with the firm grip) and Steve Buscemi had me laughing as the suicidal, despondent shipboard crooner "Happy" Franks. On paper, those two roles seem a little trite and reliant on very basic humour - but Connolly and Buscemi make them work by harnessing their respective talent, and playing to their strengths. Everybody seems to be having a lot of fun, giving the film a great deal of energy. Maurice and Arthur are two lovable pals, and while they don't always hit the comedic highs they're hoping to I think Platt and Tucci add enough charm for them to rub off the right way. Like I said before, I'm not the biggest fan of slapstick, but I do enjoy loving tributes and can appreciate what the guys are going for here. Shalhoub is the only performer I can really accuse of going too far, and he would have been better off not overacting the way he does in this. Most of the other supporting actors, like Campbell Scott (the son of George C. Scott) and Dana Ivey do really well also.

So, this is a really tough film to judge - because even though the laugh factor wasn't really high for me, I still enjoyed watching it. Seeing all of these greats do their stuff - almost like they've been called on by Tucci to take part in his school play - was entertaining at least. Also, most of the funny stuff was at least amusing if it wasn't laugh-out-loud funny, or as funny as it was meant to be. It felt like a great attempt, with heaps of charm and positive energy. I think a lot of the talent made the film a lot funnier than it was on paper, and I'd say that if you feel encouraged to see it just because of who is in it, then it might be the film for you. But if I tell you that Platt and Tucci, while charming, aren't as funny or gifted in comedy as they really need to be to carry the film along (especially in it's opening act) and that sounds like a deal-breaker for you, then it's not the kind of film you want to be watching. I got the most out of it when the two leads were interacting with the other performers - by themselves their act falls a little flat. The movie though, has a heart as big as a whale, and is as charming and sweet as a loving ode to the comedies of old ought to be.

Glad to catch this one - screened in the Un Certain Regard section at the 1998 Cannes Film Festival.




Thank you very much to whomever inspired me to watch The Impostors.

I haven't seen this movie in 25 years because it felt like a film that I wouldn't enjoy as much on a re-watch.
I may need to correct that.
I thought this film really stood out. I had never seen Tucci or Platt and I have loved both of them since (I really thought Platt should have had a much bigger career after his roles in this and Diggstown and I actually enjoyed him a good bit in Lake Placid).
Well, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Another 31 films watched and reviewed during March which takes the overall tally up to 88 films on this thread already! I've had the stamina so far, so hopefully I can go on and keep it up. There are have been quite a lot of incidentals recently which I'll detail below - catching up on 2023 has meant that a lot of the films I earmarked on my watchlist have now been scrubbed off. In the meantime, I got a fair few really great movies seen in March.


As said, there were many others that I thought were terrific, and that I'll no doubt watch again some day. The proportion of good films to bad here is definitely weighted heavily in the 'good' direction. There have also been many incidental hits, like I said - knocked off my watchlist were :


Which basically means my watchlist total is down to an all record low so far : 430!

In three months I've managed to cut it back by 20.

Not a big fan of Fat City

I could have seen a different version of me getting weighed down by the somewhat depressing narrative and the amount of time we spend with some of the characters when they're completely inebriated, but overall it really touched me and I was greatly impressed by the performances in this.