Movie Tab II

Tools    





★★½

Roman J. Israel, Esq. (2017) - Gilroy
You are here for the acting. Washington dumps his usual, charismatic leading man persona and plays a socially awkward lawyer with a touch of Asperger's syndrome. Fighting the good fight all those yearshe wore his lack of visible success like a badge of integrity. When the great (the erudite, public face of this two man law firm) man passes away; Roman J. goes from making 500 dollars a week to making 500 dollars an hour. Needless to say, the tin star of integrity doesn’t go well with a thousand dollar suit.

My son, My son, what have ye done? (2009) - Herzog
This is another one of Herzog’s mockumentaries played as a straight drama. The tale of a man slowly slipping into madnessanything bizarre in the film is taken directly from the court transcripts of the case. From the interviews, we can see him clearly latching onto random events and mystifying these experiences. The worst hit of fate was getting the lead in a grisly Greek tragedy, which of course, he incorporates into his delirium. There is a nice buried idea here about myths coming alive in real life.

Mission Impossible: Fallout (2018) - McQuarrie
The emotional connections the two unfortunate women have with the lead are the glue that holds this stunt film together; he only lives to go off stunting. A perfect example of the cardboard construction would be the nuclear exchange scene. Arguably, if the villains were thinking straight, two bullets to the back of the head would be the only way to go. Story over. They win! Instead they opt for the more difficult thing, shooting past them and liquidating the other gang with four simultaneous kill shots; then they create an elaborate diversion to tippy toe over and grab the three MacGuffins and vanish like thieves in the night. Shooting them in the head, while their backs were turned would have been the simplest solutionfor the second time! The film refers to the botched exchange later in the film and is less about needling the stuntman about his incompetence and more as a passive-aggressive aside reminding the audience as evil henchmen, they are contractually obligated to be completely brain dead.

Heart of Midnight (1993) - Chapman
A kind of a cheesy, horror film where an emotionally fragile young woman inherits an old vaudeville theater and begins renovating it and turning it into some jazzy nightclub, taking her first (do or die) steps in the big bad world. A troubled ghost roaming the hallways and making things go bump in the night may come from the venue’s last incarnation, when it was an underground sex-club.

Sorry, Wrong Number (1948) - Litvak
An invalid heiress uses her psychosomatic illness to control the people around her (she bounces around perfectly in the bed when she is preoccupied) but has to remember to get into character and grab her crutches when she climbs out of it. Her husband’s debts in this talky Film Noir have become so massive he opts for her life insurance as the answer to all his financial problems. When the walls begin to close in, it’s kind of evocative she could simply jump up and skedaddle at any time. This was blown-up from a 30 minute radio play.

Irina Palm (2005) - Garbarski
Her dying grandson gets a last chance on life when he is offered an experimental treatment in Australia free of charge. The only hitch is this working class family has to raise the money themselves for the airplane tickets and the hotels. A middle aged widow, with no employment history needs desperately to find a job in order to save her grandson’s life. The film oscillates between a “gripping” drama and a black comedy.

Hemel ( 2012) - Polak
This Father and daughter are super intimate. He has been a serial dater since high school and falls head over heels in love for the first time late in his life. The emotional stuff was their exclusive thing and when all this goes to some bimbo, this causes a serious rift in their relationship. It’s kind of funny that if he had had a son; there would be no drama here. A hungry lion cutting a large swath through club land wouldn’t be as interesting as a ravenous lioness on the stalk. She is essentially a carbon copy of her father.

★★★

One Week (1920) - Keaton & Cline
Buster gets a pre-fab, do it yourself home kit as a wedding gift from his uncle in this 25 minute short. A sore loser re-numbers some of the crates as a last act of revenge on him, resulting in a great, lop-sided contraption of a house. This was Keaton’s second film in the can, although first one to be released after having graduating from being Fatty Arbuckle’s side kick. Buster’s screen persona is fully formed from the beginning; the great stone face; the inventive visual gags; and his stunts-done with precise mathematical calculations and obvious physical danger.

The Damned don’t Cry (1950) - Sherman
A kind of re-telling of the Bugsy Siegal story (he started Las Vegas) refitted with the meaty part going to Joan Crawford. She claws her way up from tragic poverty. She holds tight to the arm of her current business partner, trashing his opponents, bucking her man up, pointing him towards the scams, then casting them aside after each step up the social ladder. Only to realize at the end, that there is a price to be paid for always taking the easy money.

Three Identical Strangers (2018) - Wardle
A nature vs nurture experiment with human guinea pigs with the CIA holding the purse strings in the shadowswho else would fund this nut-bag research? The two best characters have bit parts in the film; the two intellectually superior eggheads. In one scene, Brainiac puts his hands behind his head and leans back in his chair and blows hard about how totally clueless the parents were. He could never simply tell them how damaging certain behaviors were for their children or point them to the path to better parenting. He was merely paid to observe the folly. The other scientist who knew about the experiment from the water cooler talk in the office has a trophy table in her condo crowded with vanity photographs to remind herself daily of her importance: she simply spills the beans, the study won’t be released until after all the participants have croaked.

Leave no Trace (2018) - Granik
The film concentrates on a young woman’s coming of age; interacting with the strange outside world that she has no real contact with, but also no fear of. After being told that honey bee stings are rare, there is a nice shot of her grabbing a handful and letting them dance around on her hand. Her curiosity ranges everywhere. Her father is on an opposite tack. He is shutting down emotionally and beginning to push her away in subtle ways. He can no longer hitch hike on the highways. She has to function as a go-between and convince the truckers he is harmless enough for him to be even allowed inside the cab. We get a foreshadow of the title of the film, he has to be mobile in the PTSD forest and one day a minor slip will be the death of him.

BlacKkKlansman (2018) - Lee
The best thing in the film were the asides to the audience during the story drawing the direct comparisons to contemporary politics, although if you weren’t paying attention during the entire film, the director spells everything out for the audience in the epilogue. There is a nice moment when he goes undercover at the radical meeting, and you can see his mind boggling: in what parallel universe is this talk construed as violent extremism? And how in hell is he going to make a mountain out of this wee molehill to his superiors?

The Last Suit (2017) - Solarz
His daughters are about to sell off his home out from under him and ship this retired tailor and Tarsus (his pet name for his bum leg) off to the old folk’s home. Seeing the end is near, he decides to make a run for itflying solo from Argentina to his hometown in Europe to keep a sacred promise he made 70 years ago. Being frail and close to 90 years old, he is not going to complete this odyssey by himself and needs a whole host of accomplices willing to help him achieve his goal, especially when the trip begins to throw beanballs at him.

A touch of Spring (2017) - Xiaodan He
This is an open ended character study of a Chinese immigrant returning home after ten years for a visit. In this large, extended clan (a reunion takes up an entire room in a community center), she is known simply as Auntie Canada (not that she has anything nasty to say against Justin Trudeau land) Best scene is when she meets the black (she has abandoned the care of her daughter to her mother) sheep of the family at a café and she decides puts on a little mascara and a leather jacket. The camera then pans to not to the unlucky girl but herself sitting opposite her. The great success story and the tale of misfortune and unhappiness in the family are mirror images of one other. When she returns to home after the trip, she simply starts cleaning up the mess in her life.

Puzzle (2018) - Turtletaub
This is an introspective film about a housewife discovering passion in the form of jigsaw puzzles. This slowly enlarges and bursts the narrow perimeters of her life forcing all the people around her grow with her changes or be left behind. Her puzzle mentor believes everything happens completely at random with no rhyme or reason and his great love of puzzles comes from the moment when the last piece fits and everything comes becomes serene and ordered for a brief moment.

12 and Holding (2005) - Cuesta
A single blind spot in their parenting could be doing irreparable damage to three children as the parents (who know best) impose their own agenda’s onto them with the kids resisting these mistakes with varying degrees of success and failure. Strangely, these children seem to be much more perceptive at seeing the world around them than the adults, but that is not going to spare some of them from tragedy.

The Son of Joseph (2016) - Green
The film has a very specific tone. There is a great wooden, theatrical delivery of the lines. At times, the actors look into or address directly the camera. A mother has always told her son that he has no father, and he has never given this a second thought until now: now he sets out to find why his father abandoned him. There is a hidden humour that would be laugh out loud hilarious in any other film. One of his school mates offers him a dream job; one which most teen-aged boys would kill to have. The man he is searching for may be a card carrying, dyed-in-the-wool Satanist. Although the film uses Christian mythology, one could go with the profane interpretation of the film, that of a young man seeking not “the holy father”, but “a” father figure to help him maturate into adulthood.

★★★½

Longford (2006) - Hooper
This is a nice mediation on redemption. The waiting room of forgiveness is filled with jay-walkers where forgiveness is merely a rote gesture and sprinkle of water, but what if someone truly wicked entered that room and took a number for the next flight to heaven: would they be forgiven for their heinous crimes? Elder statesman Longford has visited prisoners all his life as part of his faith. There’s wonderful acting in this subtle mouse and cat game of Longford coaxing a prisoner towards spirituality, and a completely damaged human being latching onto whatever options she has and exploiting them. The first time we see the Medusa, she sits with her back to the main room so the lip readers the tabloids have sent in can’t decipher her conversation. She is going to be hounded to her grave. As Longford heads off on another one of his crusades; he is an easy target for the reactionary press playing to the mob, but the film reminds us that moral principles are always held up by a unbreakable backbone of steel.

Oasis (2002) - Chang-dong Lee
The star-crossed couple here are equally matched in their disabilities; she has Cerebral palsy and he is an ex-con with a distinctive lack of cognitionhe is a menace to himself and everyone around him simply because he is incapable of thinking things all the way through. There is a formidable obstacle in the film in the depiction of the abuse and exploitation of the disabled totally at the mercy of their caretakers. If you can power over that hurdle, you may find a film that has a few moments of magic realism, poetry and beauty.



Alien: Covenant



A colonizing space ship is forced to take a detour on the way to their destination after they intercepted a familiar signal.

Okay, let's get this right off the bat, this is one of, if not the dumbest movie I have ever seen. If you refer my review for Avatar you can see that I used a certain point to highlight the brilliance of James Cameron. I noted that the visual brilliance of the movie blows the plot line out of water and forces audience to just look at experience and not be bogged down by plot points.Nowhere in the review have I used the word dumb to refer to avatar. But this movie just might hold the record for most use of the word dumb to refer to a movie.

The movie starts with an accident on a space ship due to electric flair from space that destroy its power source. Some crew members die in the process including its captain. For some dumb reason the team consists of married couples.Then a very interesting interpersonal crew dynamic takes place. The second in command tries to assume role of captain at the same time he is consoling his team for its loss. From the looks of it we realize that the actual captain is young and gifted and talented where as the second in command who is assuming the position now is much more of a veteran and his experience is what has got him the position. So due to that reason I didn't mind when he said he wasn't the captain because corporation didn't want a man of religion to assume the role of captain but for some reason he was given vice captain position ? Don't they know in the event something like this happens the very man whom they didn't want to be captain will be captain ? But thats an acceptable level of stupidity even if its in a masterpiece . What happens next started ringing alarms that there is something seriously wrong with this movie. The crew comes across a signal which is basically a song called West Virginia. You might assume thats cool but this is studio meddling. They wanted the movie to feel familiar to audience so there has to be some famous song so that audience can feel at ease. Then this forces the new captain to make his move to assume command , so to prove whose the boss he decides to inspect the planet and see if its ideal for colonization. Usually I can understand that a newly minted captain needs to have that one situation where he has to make a controversial decision and prove his naysayers wrong. So his team starts trusting him. But even for that this is a pretty dumb decision to change the course of a thoroughly researched expedition to an entirely new planet. Nonetheless thank god, they just take a pod to the planet and not the whole space ship to inspect it first. Which is not beyond the realm of possibility for a movie as dumb as this. But the straw that broke the camel's back for me is the moment they exit the space ship onto the brand new planet with no helmets masks on. I understand that their technology is astronomically advanced that they can determine its atmosphere even before landing but even then, this is the dumbest move ever.

But after few hours of venturing into the planet two of their teammates are infected by an airborne parasite. One from each team that was split earlier. Sine one of them is closer to the pod than the the other they reach it first. At this point the infected one is spitting blood and with no quarantine the two "astronauts" carry him bleeding all over the pod into a medical room. Thats a new level of stupid this movie has reached by this point. None of them behave like astronauts. They behave like crew members in a supermarket. One of the crew member , after her face was blasted with blood realizes to quarantine the other two. By this point she has more blood on her face than the teammate of the infected one who brought him in. So the actions by these two dumb astronauts are baffling. The one in quarantine witnesses the birth of an alien creature which is a mix of a dormant airborne parasite and human species. When it comes out a lot of blood is on the floor and both the woman in the room who gets killed by the alien and the other woman who quarantines them and later decides to open the room and shoot the alien trip on the same pool of blood. Any rational human being sitting in the audience should be extremely pissed off at the movie by now. If you are not then I seriously doubt your tastes in movies. The second astronaut crawls and trips through the pod and shoots in every direction ultimately blasting the whole pod. Its such a frustrating and dumb decision by Ridley Scott.

After the remaining crew deals with the alien birthed by the other infected teammate on their way to the pod in the fields outside the location where the pod has landed they are rescued by android from prometheus who is this planet all by himself for a decade or more. Of course I wouldn't doubt their decision to follow this humanoid into his safe house as I can understand following this guy who just saved them. But by doing this they fell from frying pan into oven. It doesn't take them long to realize that their rescuer is not their friend but he has some pretty evil plans in store for them. So after some people getting killed and after the revelation that it was not engineers that invented the face huggers but the android who researched with the body of the scientist and developed a face hugger, the captain is attacked by it and births the xenomorph. The rest of the crew use another pod (thank god for not landing the whole space ship) to come rescue this team, they were able to rescue just 3 people the female lead, the guy saved from the attack by face hugger and the android that they brought on board . Even the decision of the rest of the crew to literally park the space ship in alien atmosphere to eject the pod into the planet to rescue was a dumb decision. This happened because of the family bonds between these dumb astronauts that forces them to think emotionally as opposed to logically. When they are able to kill off the xenomorph that attaches itself to the pod by using a crane in a very dumb fight set piece, they go back to the space ship. When in space ship, for some dumb reason they didn't quarantine the second guy whose face was burnt off by the space hugger , the guy births a second xenomorph and luckily with a very short action scene they blast it off into space.

In the end through an all to familiar , formulaic ,dumb, frustrating twist that has been set up in the most ham fisted conventional way possible ,we are revealed that the android on board was not the android from space ship but the android that has been on this planet forever aka the evil android. Its able to preserve the face huggers embryo in its throat and spits them out to save it in the storage unit.

So, Ridley Scott came to the 2015/16 oscars season with a movie called the martian. Its a feel good warm movie about human spirit and how different countries must come together for common good. Its backed by 20th century fox and its a fall movie. So they campaigned the hell out of that movie and got it some golden globe and sag nominations. When it came to the oscars Ridley Scott was not given a director nomination. This outraged some people but not me. I knew exactly why he did not get one. He is a director who is extremely dependent on the script. If it is bad he can't make it good. Most importantly he doesn't know how to choose a truly great script. He can't wait for great scripts to come along and wants to churn out movies year after year. He prides himself in making movies in different genres but the problem is his result is same as someone like Spielberg if he decides to do movies in different genres. Only difference is Spielberg is much more choosy and is confident and aware of his ability. Ridley Scott seemingly has none of that. He has no plan or any awareness about the quality of end product.Due to that you can't say Ridley Scott's niche is being able to make movies in different genres because great directors of his age range can make movies in different genres just as good if not better than him. So broadly it almost feels like he is nothing more than someone who can make even big budget movies on time and under budget. Studios love that.He was just lucky to have made movies from alien and blade runner scripts and they turned out that well. And oscars are not given for lucky directors. Someone like PTA or Tarantino or even Scorsese are with their scripts the whole way and make sure the movies work. Ridley Scott on the other hand, given his experience still makes movies like an amateur in terms of the end result. He doesn't know what works and what doesn't. All he can do is please studios so that they give him more scripts to make movies. His movies are more like a very good new comer movies than a work of master filmmaker. Thats problem because he has not spent enough time with the scripts and his own skillset to realize whats his niche. He is the perfect example of jack of all trades and master of none. This movie is a clear example of that. How dumb do you have to be to make a movie like this without seeing this giant plot holes that I can drive a truck through. Ridley Scott didn't just produce this garbage he directed it. This movie alone warrants him to not get a single Oscar nomination for the rest of his life. After all these decades of experience , this is the movie you want to make ?

Giant plot points in this movie are so ridiculous and dumb. Ridley Scott is either loosing his mind with age or he just want to make financially successful movie. He seems to have a problem in choosing between quality and quantity. There is no sense of quarantine , logic, common sense to characters,creativity in story telling, passion and directorial vision behind this movie.One more thing that pissed me off that I thought was beneath the level of a director like Ridley Scott is that early on in the movie among the crew there was female astronaut who is hotter than the rest of the women. Usually in a b-grade movie there will be a sex scene involving the hottest woman among the cast. Just to satisfy the audience. I didn't really think they were gonna do that in this movie but they do it. They take the hottest woman among the crew and give her a nude scene in the shower.That felt so cheap and below the level this movie should aspire to be. Only redeeming quality about this movie is the way it looks.He just shot the movie in exotic locations and made it look decent for the most part. There are visuals in this movie that take place during a storm or at night time that is pretty impressive to look at. Some of them are very unique to this movie. A civilization in ruins is captured pretty well. What the android from prometheus did to the engineers is pretty evil yet satisfying. But the negatives and stupidity of the movie overwhelmingly outweighs any positives it has.



Black Sea



After a shipping company lays off most of its submarine workers , they get a tip about a world war 2 treasure in a sunken sea vessel. Due to its geographical location the ship sunk in conflict waters and that prevented it from being discovered. So a highly valuable treasure is sitting at the bottom of black sea.

Jude Law is someone who is talented. He is good looking but not a movie star material. Movie star has to be relatable. That's the key thing for someone to be able to bring in the audience to movie theaters.The actor should not look and feel like he is superior. Most actors with blue eyes that are major movie stars feel normal using their acting skills. Paul Newman is the best example. Just his looks make him feel like a superior human. But in movies like sundance kid or sting he is playing this semi-loser or washed up character that suits him very well. DiCaprio does it by over emoting and acting desperate. Imagine this scenario, a person is sitting on a train and a brad Pitt looking person comes and sits near him. Most peoples' initial thought would be this guy has good genetics. It is with that initial assumption any conversation starts. Different people react differently to this first impression. Most people don't care but at the same time they don't put him on a pedestal just because he is good looking. Some people react hostile because they hate at how gifted he is. The only way for someone like that to please all these people is if he has desperation for approval. People can see through someone if he/she is seeking their approval. So the unique thing about blonde or blue eyed movie stars is that their behavior in movies or roles they take tells them this guys are trying to please audience or seeking their approval on a artistic level but their genetic says otherwise. Their genetics say they are extremely good looking than average humans. So this weird and interesting contradiction between what their genetics say and what they perform is the key element to movie stardom. That takes talent.
Most actors have one or the other. Very few have both. Character actors can perform but they lack genetics. Model-esque actors have that superior genetics but their performances are not desperate enough to convince audience that they are relatable. So they just end up feeling smug or try hard. Jude Law is just shy of achieving both. His skill couldn't overcome his genes.Nonetheless he became a character actor with lead roles in between in movies that are cable watches. So, this movie is a cable watch.

This seems inspired by Sorcerer. But there is only so much you can do without nitro glycerin. The characters in Sorcerer couldn't fight among each other because they are all on a common mission and the product they are transporting is more dangerous than them. But the characters in this movie doesn't mind fighting for petty reasons. Director tries to include a loose canon character amidst these men to stir up fight but its not believable. However, when you make a movie about treasure hunt and under water there is a checklist the movie should have. The key things involved and necessary are under water sequences, the uncertainty of going into water and mysterious/dangerous nature of treasure itself. The reason treasure hunt has to involve danger and mystery is because its one of those things everyone wants. But for some reason no one could get a hold of it. That means its unreachable or involves risk. All these inevitably makes a treasure hunt dangerous. Source for desperation for lead characters in sorcerer is poverty by evading law. Here its just poverty.

As the movie started given its profile, I mean a low profile studio with Jude law as the star , I thought this will be a very low budget movie with most of the shots in a set build in 2 or 3 rooms that looks like interior of a submarine. But even though its lower in budget the director somehow captures the scope needed for the movie. The movie takes place in 3 main locations. On land, which mostly takes place near the houses of these workers, in submarine and underwater close to sea bed. The director was able to capture the size of this submarine by showing different locations in the submarine.Even the underwater sequences felt like another planet. That was impressive . The locations of houses of the workers and rich people are well depicted. They even shot the outsides of a submarine. So all these made the movie not look grand. The underwater sequences felt rich and the other ship where they have to fetch the treasure from is eerie and creepy. At last but not the least the performances were good.

The key component of this movie is the conflict between these characters. The director wanted to convey that in situations when desperate men are forced to do desperate things to survive and especially in this case they are looking at a scenario that can turn their life from poverty to being super rich, the people involved are the main problem and not the outside circumstances. Its like a guy winning a lottery. He is not used to such large amounts of money. So he is the demon of his own creation. To some extent that works. These guys are expert divers and submarine crew. Believability of their journey to underwater is 100%. However as I eluded to earlier, the conflict is hard to buy into. Characters fully aware that their lives depend on this thing going as planned would not behave so recklessly. In the end that's what hurts the movie badly. I mean that's the main antagonist of this story. The conflict between these characters is petty as opposed to greed driven. Greed is not petty but ego is petty. Director has done a pretty poor job of dealing with that aspect. I mean he has done a horrible job.

However the saving grace for this movie that prevented it from going off rails is , the twist in the third act and the ending. Both are clever.The twist in the third act involves, realizing that their whole journey has been a set up by their old corporation to get the gold out and arrest these men. The political ramifications involved in getting the gold themselves forced them to con these workers to get it for them. The reveal felt completely believable. For a while there I felt the opportunity was too good to be true and it even felt unreal when there was actual gold there. But once the con was revealed it felt probable. Corporations tend to do that. It also answers the question as to why a rep for the corporation is among them. Even the end for our protagonist felt justified. Its one of the most famous plot points in a treasure hunt movie. When you get all the treasure you want there is no where to use it or take it with you aka there is not exit route. Its like going into a bank with a gun and going into the safe. You can get there with enough planning but there is no way to get out with all the money you were able to get to. Same with no country for old men. When you have such large sum of money there is no way someone is not gonna be after you. The movie sort of conveys that information. All the money Jude Law could ever want is before him. But he can't take it with him. There is a dialogue along the line of "I can't go back poor". It felt earned.

All in all its an absorbing cable watch.You get the motivation of characters. You get the sense that they are in fact inside a submarine and they are in danger. And underwater sequences feel believable.



August Tab


The Public Enemy (William A. Wellman, 1931)

Picture Snatcher (Lloyd Bacon, 1933)

Dames (Ray Enright & Busby Berkeley, 1934)

Death Wish (Eli Roth, 2018)

I Was Born, But . . . (Yasujiro Ozu, 1932)

Suzy (George Fitzmaurice, 1936)

Dark Victory (Edmund Goulding, 1939)

Rampage (Brad Peyton, 2018)



Shanghai Express (Josef von Sternbeg, 1932)

All the Real Girls (David Gordon Green, 2003)

Bad Ass (Craig Moss, 2012)

Blonde Crazy (Roy Del Ruth, 1931)

The Year of Living Dangerously (Peter Weir, 1982)

Tomb Raider (Roar Uthaug, 2018)

The Song of Bernadette (Henry King, 1943)

Shot Caller (Ric Roman Waugh, 2017)



Ninotchka (Ernst Lubitsch, 1939)

Day of the Outlaw (Andre DeToth, 1959)

Band of the Hand (Paul Michael Glaser, 1986)

Ricochet (Russell Mulcahy, 1991)

Mandingo (Richard Fleischer, 1975)

Father of the Year (Tyler Spindel, 2018)

Thoroughbreds (Cory Finley, 2017)

Crime School (Lewis Seiler, 1938)



I'm a Cyborg, But That's OK (Park Chan-wook, 2006)

Frisco Jenny (William A. Wellman, 1932)

Wild Boys of the Road (William A. Wellman, 1933)

Bushwick (Jonathan Milott & Cary Murnion, 2017)

Cabin in the Cotton (Michael Curtiz, 1932)

Hold Your Man (Sam Wood, 1933)

Billy Jack (Tom Laughlin, 1971)

Blockers (Kay Cannon, 2018)



Seconds (John Frankenheimer, 1966)

Heroes for Sale (William A. Wellman, 1933)

The Negotiator (F. Gary Gray, 1998)
[REWATCH]
Riffraff (J. Walter Ruben, 1936)

The Thin Man (W.S. Van Dyke, 1934)

Zatoichi and the Doomed Man (Kazuo Mori, 1965)

Certain Women (Kelly Reichardt, 2016)

Straight Outta Compton (F. Gary Gray, 2015)


Monthly Total: 40
Yearly Total: 359


Thoughts on Some of the Films:

Is the 30's considered the greatest decade for musicals? If not, it should be. Between the Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers team-ups and the incredible Busby Berkeley choreography in films like Footlight Parade, Gold Diggers of 1933, and 42nd Street, I've been smitten with 30's musicals, and I don't even consider myself a fan of the genre. Dames is another musical that will likely place somewhere on my 30's ballot. The script takes a lot of obvious jabs at the oncoming prudishness of the Hays Code. The humor's a bit too broad, but amusing nonetheless. Dick Powell and Ruby Keeler seem to be paired up in all these Berkeley musicals, but they're wonderful together and share better chemistry than real-life married couples. As usual, though, it's Joan Blondell that steals every scene (as well as my heart). As with Footlight Parade, the elaborate musical numbers are piled on top of one another in the last act. The most memorable number for me was "The Girl at the Ironing Board," in which Blondell folds and dances with underwear (but unfortunately not in her underwear).

Dark Victory is one of the finest melodramas I've seen. This level of blatant emotional manipulation would typically turn me off, but the script is so strong and Bette Davis so captivating that I willingly allowed myself to be put through the emotional wringer. It's obvious for the majority of the movie that you're careening toward an unescapably tragic ending, but I still worried that Hollywood would intervene with a miracle cure and a forced happily-ever-after. Luckily that wasn't the case, and I found myself fighting the lump in my throat as Bette Davis milks every tear-jerking second. It was also a pleasure to see Bogart flaunt his masculinity in front of Davis.

Tomb Raider put me in mind of the action-adventure blockbusters that Hollywood doesn't seem to make as often anymore, at least not by my idea of the genre. Alicia Vikander is a great fit for the character. It's obvious that she put herself through quite the rigid training regimen to prepare herself for the physicality of the role. She's a total bad-ass, running through the jungle and shooting people with arrows and looking sexy as hell while doing it. There are a few great set pieces. The sequence involving the dilapidated plane is edge-of-your-seat stuff. I wanted to like the movie more than I did, but the two-dimensional side-characters, the terrible dialogue, and the recycled plot hinder the movie from being more than passable popcorn fare. Definitely interested in future installments as long as Vikander is the star.

Maybe I'm giving Billy Wilder too much credit, since he's one of four names to receive a writing credit, but I definitely felt like his contributions (or at least what I perceived to be his contributions) to the script -- namely his trademark witty dialogue, most notable in the brilliant back-and-forth banter between Garbo and Melvyn Douglas -- is the biggest reason why Ninotchka is such a success. I doubt Soviets were pleased with the film upon its release, and the suddenness with which the Russian characters fall in love with capitalism invites easy criticism, but as someone who has washed his hands of politics, I'm personally glad that the politics of the film are simple-minded. Garbo and Douglas are both very charming in their roles. The three Russian emissaries made me laugh every time they were on screen. When the setting switches to Russia, the film loses a bit of steam, but not enough to prevent Ninotchka from being a delightful romantic-comedy with an incredible script.

Roger Ebert gave Mandingo zero stars and called it "racist trash." Judging by the reactions I've seen online, the majority of people seem to share his opinion. Not me. Mandingo is the best first-time viewing I've had this year. I think it's the most powerful, sobering, unflinching portrayal of slavery that I've seen on film. It illustrates the dehumanizing treatment of slaves in the rawest, most graphic detail. I think the reason for the disconnect and scorn from most audiences is because Mandingo is an unabashed exploitation film. Think Gone with the Wind if directed by Jack Hill. It's unapologetically trashy, sleazy, sordid, disturbing, violent, and it revels in the nastiness of its characters and their actions. This isn't your typical Oscar bait that is sanitized for the masses, presenting the horrors of the past in a safe way that doesn't make audiences too uncomfortable. This sh*t is ugly. The colors are washed out. The plantation is decaying and full of weeds. There are no "white saviors" to be found -- only vile, racist, white trash. Slavery delivered via exploitation instead of prestige might not sit well with a lot of people, but what better way to portray the exploitation of an entire race than through an exploitation film, where good taste and morals don't abide. There's incest, infanticide, rape. Slaves as soulless sexual puppets. Slaves as soulless pawns forced to fight to the death for the amusement of white owners. Slaves as footstools for rheumatism. Slaves as soup. Maybe I'm crazy, but I think this film is damn close to being a masterpiece. It's the most f**ked-up film I've seen about our most f**ked-up time period.

Given its reputation, I was pretty disappointed with The Thin Man. The celebrated chemistry between William Powell and Myrna Loy is indeed the highlight, but they don't share as much screen time as I expected. I wanted to see Loy sleuthing around with her husband instead of just making him drinks the whole movie. Powell was amusing but a bit too hammy. The banter was often clever without being particularly funny. The murder mystery wasn't compelling. Loved the dog and the dinner scene at the end. Good but underwhelming. I liked it enough that I'll likely seek out the sequels someday, but not in time for the 30's deadline.
__________________



Black Sea





Jude Law is someone who is talented. He is good looking but not a movie star material. Movie star has to be relatable. That's the key thing for someone to be able to bring in the audience to movie theaters.The actor should not look and feel like he is superior. Most actors with blue eyes that are major movie stars feel normal using their acting skills. Paul Newman is the best example. Just his looks make him feel like a superior human. But in movies like sundance kid or sting he is playing this semi-loser or washed up character that suits him very well. DiCaprio does it by over emoting and acting desperate. Imagine this scenario, a person is sitting on a train and a brad Pitt looking person comes and sits near him. Most peoples' initial thought would be this guy has good genetics. It is with that initial assumption any conversation starts. Different people react differently to this first impression. Most people don't care but at the same time they don't put him on a pedestal just because he is good looking. Some people react hostile because they hate at how gifted he is. The only way for someone like that to please all these people is if he has desperation for approval. People can see through someone if he/she is seeking their approval. So the unique thing about blonde or blue eyed movie stars is that their behavior in movies or roles they take tells them this guys are trying to please audience or seeking their approval on a artistic level but their genetic says otherwise. Their genetics say they are extremely good looking than average humans. So this weird and interesting contradiction between what their genetics say and what they perform is the key element to movie stardom. That takes talent.
Most actors have one or the other. Very few have both. Character actors can perform but they lack genetics. Model-esque actors have that superior genetics but their performances are not desperate enough to convince audience that they are relatable. So they just end up feeling smug or try hard. Jude Law is just shy of achieving both. His skill couldn't overcome his genes.Nonetheless he became a character actor with lead roles in between in movies that are cable watches. So, this movie is a cable watch.
I find your observations interesting but I also have to confess that they are very intricate and long winded, and would prefer them to be shorter. That's just my snotty editorial perspective talking. I agree that genetics/desperation play a big part in relatablity for a movie star. Brad Pitt in Se7en was the thing or me. His slight speech impediment mixed with his "due at court" attire made me think of stanky Armani cologne and a cattle-like physicality that only slightly distracted from the story at hand.

It's a tough balance.



The Mummy Returns



With the year of scorpion king about to begin disciples of the mummy are hell bent on raising him from the dead so he can beat the scorpion king and take all his power and in turn rule the earth. Its up-to our hero to send them both back to the underworld.

The first movie was very simple. A love story that ends tragically and once a lover is woken up from the dead, he tries to take over the world and bring his lover back to life in the process. Our protagonist kills him and send him back to the underworld. There is tragic lover story in it. The protagonist of the movie is also very interesting. Brandon Fraser for a while there felt like he was gonna give Tom Cruise/Brad Pitt a run for their money. Because he had that movie star charisma oozing out of the screen. I love movies where in they give strong enough background to a badass character explaining his origins. The problem with not having enough realistic background is that it all falls on the movie star image and a few generations after the movie is released the audience can't really explain why a character is badass because they have no relationship to the movie star. Unless he is someone that transcends generations like Marlon Brando. Even the movie itself feels light and weak when watching as we are forced to assume why he is so badass or to not bother altogether.

The lead is an army captain whose troops abandoned their posts to venture into Egypt during world war to search for treasure. That in of itself is a movie story. You can make a whole movie about how regiments of soldiers abandon their posts in search of gold and venture into Egypt. This is what I call world building. You don't have to explain the whole thing, you just need proper hints at events that enhance the strength of narrative. That makes us believe that this guy is skilled enough to be a captain and he know this place very well. Thats a badass character right there. But this movie kind of makes us forget about the badass. Because they made him a father. Even his hair style in first one is kind of longer and messy. But in this movie its much more groomed and orderly. That takes the treasure hunting badass feature out of his character. Then they introduce a kid. Who surprisingly is not that annoying. He is much more of a Macguffin. They improve the badass character of his wife. All this kinda emasculates the lead. Luckily his brother is much more helpful as he is the same guy from previous movie.

The movie is very episodic going from set piece to set piece. The main awakening is of Scorpion king. Since its his year, he has this huge army that awakens with him and a prologue covers their background. Cleverly they sort of gave a mini awakening to Mummy as well. There is an engaging set piece action scene in the movie. It takes place on streets of London. The fights are character oriented. Then there is a fight scene in their house. Then there is a set piece involving an air balloon. A set piece involving a dense forest. The final two front battle, battle with the army of Anubis in desert and a three-way battle between the mummy, our lead and scorpion king. The problem with the final fight scene is that the mummy has been revealed to be a coward if all the powers are taken away from him. Which defeats the purpose. Moreover his lover who has been resurrected into some woman who is a lookalike to his actual lover also is in it for the power and once he has no power and asks her for help abandons. So the directors decision to show that our lead and his love are superior to that of the mummy backfired on the overall quality of the movie.

The first one has a good mix of adventure and campiness. But in this movie the campiness took over the movie for the worse. Set pieces are very CGI heavy and feels dated. But its a fun popcorn movie.



I really need make a concerted effort to try and fit more of the bigger name 30s song n dance affairs in before the countdown closes. Also thanks for the reminder that thus far Ninotchka and Dark Victory have eluded me and it looks like I might have to try and find a copy of Suzy somewhere.

Shame you didn't like I Was Born But ... a little more but at least from the rating it was far from a total bust - and glad to see a somewhat positive rating for I'm A Cyborg which is offbeat but mostly enjoyable imo. Shame about The Thin Man too but I always say it would be a boring world if we all had exactly the same taste.

Don't think I've ever watched Mandingo, only know if it by reputation, will have to try and seek that one out at some point.



Welcome to the human race...
He Died With A Felafel In His Hand (Richard Lowenstein, 2001) -


An Australian film about an aspiring writer who drifts between sharehouses filled with eccentric individuals. Very much a one-note film that tries to add an artistically-minded patina to some rather broad observational humour that's chock-full of cultural cringe to boot, but at the same time I can't deny that it's...relatable.

A Short Film About Killing (Krzysztof Kieślowski, 1988) -


I really should seek out the entire Decalogue at some point, but in the meantime I'll settle for this film that really does earn one of my favoured descriptive catch-phrases of "lean and mean" in showcasing murder at its most soul-crushingly mundane.

The Killing Fields (Roland Joffé, 1984) -


A straightforward but reasonably well-told and effective (not to mention well-shot) dramatisation of one Cambodian citizen's attempts to survive the uprising of the Khmer Rouge in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.

Lupin III: The Castle of Cagliostro (Hayao Miyazaki, 1979) -


An early Miyazaki feature about the eponymous gentleman thief (though gentleman is stretching it) carrying out his next high-stakes heist and the shenanigans that ensue. Endearingly rough compared to Miyazaki's later work, especially in how it just focuses on telling a simple and episodic story that's fun above all else.

Talk to Her (Pedro Almodòvar, 2002) -


I've always found Almodòvar a dependably solid filmmaker and this drama centred around two coma patients and the people who care about them certainly hasn't given me any reason to doubt his abilities even when it veers into zanier territory.

The Breaker Upperers (Jackie van Beek and Madeleine Sami, 2018) -


A Kiwi comedy about two best friends who get hired to break up relationships, often by faking pregnancies or missing persons reports. Unfortunately, this promising setup never actually makes good on its potential and just results in a series of painfully broad vignettes.

Metropolis (FritzLang, 1927) -


I can't tell if my previous viewing was of an incomplete version or if I really didn't remember as much of this movie as I thought (or possibly both), but in any case this was a worthwhile revisit. I think it's held back from true greatness because its subtext hasn't aged all that well despite its best intentions, but there's no denying how well its epic sense of craftsmanship holds up almost a century later.

The Birth of a Nation (D.W. Griffith, 1915) -


Ehhh, I'm going to have to come down on the side that considers the overtly racist aspects of this film to be severe enough to undermine it as a whole, especially when I wasn't getting that much out of it in the first place. Even the ways in which it earns its well-worn "groundbreaking technique" platitudes weren't exactly making its wartime melodrama any more palatable anyway. Oh, well, at least I've seen it now, I guess.

Camera Buff (Krzysztof Kieślowski, 1976) -


Kieślowski's tale of a humble family man whose acquisition of a movie camera ends up shaking his life up for better and for worse proved much more fascinating than I could have ever expected. It touches upon and examines a variety of subjects, many of them political in nature, without ever losing focus on the various internal and external conflicts that involve the flawed but sympathetic protagonist - that it manages to treat his newfound hobby as a strange mix of admirable mission and cautionary tale is a testament to its craft and complexity.

The Fabulous World of Jules Verne (Karel Zeman, 1958) -


Less a direct adaptation of any Verne stories than a semi-original pastiche of the same, it's nonetheless astounding on a visual level to see the ways in which live-action humans and multiple types of animation intermingle to tell a larger-than-life (if fundamentally light) tale of two scientists being kidnapped by ruthless pirates.



The Snowman



An alcoholic detective pursues a serial killer in Oslo, Norway who kill during snowy nights.

I don't think this movie is as bad as its reviews says. The movie takes places in Norway. It stars Michael Fassbender in the role of a straight detective in pursuit of a serial killer. For audience convenience the filmmakers chose to americanize it and make all characters speak in english. The plot basically involves catching the murderer of pregnant women.

Serial killer genre is something thats done to death. Any movie that deals with it follows more or less a structure. You either hide the killer and the audience know about him along with the protagonists or you show them in parallel with the investigation. So you either hide the killer like in Seven or show him early on like in Silence of the Lambs. Very rarely does a serial killer movie transcends the genre its in like American Psycho which becomes much more of a character study of materialism. Many acclaimed TV shows also do the same thing. In the past decade or so they have much more focused on setting up the tone and atmosphere of the locations. So that the audience aren't relaxing when the narrative is not in certain locations. David Fincher is the master of this genre in modern cinema. So the lessons to take from him are these. There has to be a perverse element to the killer and killings. You can't make the serial killer a person with some understandable social code of logic. Then it becomes an action movie. We don't want that. We want creepy. And then another one is the movie can't just be a slow burn. There has to be a break in the case. You can't make audience wait till the end to give some kind of reveal. It is not going to work because no matter how shocking the reveal of the killer is it is not going to work for most of the audience. So the movie need to have action set pieces in between th keep audience engaged with a smooth thru line. A chase where they loose the guy or someone else who is connected to the killer. A movie that doesn't have these 2 things nailed down will loose with critics or audience or both.

This movie is one of those movies that could be a movie fans' wet dream. If you are a fan of some movie stars you would say something like "oh, I wanna see Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt in the same movie" or "A Quentin Tarantino movie starring christian bale". But the problem with these ideas is that they are good on paper but its only when the writer/director truly thinks its right, these ideas are going to work. This movie is one such thing. We see a budding movie star in Michael Fassbender and all his acclaimed movie roles to that point are either anti heroes or supporting characters for the most part, so his fans want him as a straight up lead and a character that they can follow. This movie has that and one of the tropes of thrillers/serial killer movies that is not done in Hollywood is the Nordic treatment. Most of these Scandinavian countries are extremely chilly and you can make a chilly thriller in that environment. You could throw someone in an ice lake in those countries and no one will find the body for months. Funny thing about facial features of the general public living there is that they have a certain amount of creepiness to how they look. They have a weird looking face. So its almost scary for audience to look at these people in normal circumstances let alone in horror situations. So we have a beloved acclaimed actor in a fairly suitable snowy environment for a serial killer movie.

The movie has a lot of problems. It goes for the complex route and couldn't put the pieces together. The director was not able to shoot enough material to fit all the puzzles of the movie. Its more that the director didn't know what the key scenes are. He shot unnecessary scenes and left out key scenes. In serial killer movies I always thought one of the ways you can make the killer even more threatening is if the movie can somehow cover a previous investigator thats' on the case and got killed by the killer. That makes our main protagonist the second guy taking a crack at the case. I always thought that would be an interesting take. I have seen it done in psychological thrillers and action movies but not in straight up serial killer movies. This movie tries that with Val Kilmer in a minor role. He brings surprising amount of charisma to the role. With the very limited screen time given to his role, you can still imagine him being a capable investigator doing his stuff. However thats undermined by how his character exits the case. One of the ideal ways to do is to make our lead loose his way in the investigation and somehow by going through the notes of the investigation left off by the previous investigator he is able to view it from a different angle and find his footing back again. So it takes two different investigators to figure out who the serial killer is. True Detective season 1 sort of played with that. Even though its not two different investigative teams, the show deals with a case that is decades old. This adds weight and depth and the natural complexity to a mystery. But there is a disconnect between the two investigations. I can see the effort put forth by filmmaker but it just didn't gel.

The movie has a female investigator who I think is behaving much more realistically than a traditional investigator with the past she has would behave. She behaves in shades and layers. But the unsatisfying and poorly made choices makes her whole character a little worthless. Her character in the end didn't feel worth considering. The crux of the problem with her character is that, she is basically in the movie to provide some information unintentionally to our lead. But that information should already be given to him if he is the one assigned to this case. So her whole character is pointless because in the end she doesn't get to avenge. So the movie introduced a character with no satisfying conclusion and even her conclusion doesn't give any inspiration to our lead. A movie like Live and Die in LA has a scene where our lead gets shot in the face and his partner sort of chases and kills our villain. Thats a very shocking thing for audience to see at the time but the partner is so involved with the case until that point that the moment our lead gets killed , his death gives certain forward momentum to his partner so that the moment he finally kills the antagonist you can feel this compound sigh of relief that he killed for himself and his partner, our lead. But this movie doesn't have that because the female investigator is following her own plan that it too far and away to connect to the investigation and our lead. They did try and include political undertones with olympics as a backdrop for the timeline but that isn't much of an impact to the story at all.

Finally the reveal. Most the times the reveal of the killer has to pack a punch. Its hard to do that. Seven is the only movie which hid its killer till the end to reveal him and worked. Since Kevin Spacey is so great of an actor he was able to sell it. You need a star for roles like that. You can't get some character actor for that. The reveal in this movie didn't work. One of the things movies like these and TV shows for the most part do is, they make the killer some character we know but will never doubt. This doesn't really work and even for a master filmmaker like David Fincher this type of revelation is the weakest part of girl with the dragon tattoo. So, the only way is to make the killer integral part to story and someone who benefits from the death of killers or one of the more vague suspects of the murders. It can't be some guy in the story who is not a suspect or who is in no way related to the investigation. I mean how convenient is it for the killer to be that close to our protagonist. What are the odds of that. The movie has the right atmosphere for.a story called snowman but the script and direction is so bland and incompetent that it sort of reduced the effect of the production design. This movie once again proves that no matter how great of an actor you are , filmmaking is a directors' medium and actors are slaves to the directors. Thats exactly the reason why someone like DiCaprio is taking 4 yr breaks. He knows that no matter what movies come out there will not be a Tarantino movie coming out until he says okay to a Tarantino movie. All this sort of plays into the choices by actors. This movie has been criticized for feeling bland , derivative and paint by numbers and I kinda feel that as well. This in a way sort of forced Fassbender to take a break from making movies and start racing cars. Because he is at the position in his career where he is not a character actor anymore. He is a lead and scripts wouldn't be offered to him unless all the top guys pass up. That means he is never gonna get a great role. So he is stuck in this place. Bombs are bad news for actors. Because it puts a stink on their careers.



Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri



A woman initiates a chain of events that effects the lives of few people in a small mid west town.

This is it. This is the perfect package that many film going , blockbuster loving crowd call a Oscar bait movie. It doesn't get better than this , well may be kings speech but this comes close. So what's up with all the hatred that these kind of movies invoke as opposed to something like mad max fury road or get out ? There are three layers of movies based on their reception. You have the out and out blockbusters like the dark knight or titanic or avatar. Those will be remembered for decades and centuries by audience. Then you have the "awards" movie aka prestige movies. The way these kind of movies get made is by studios taking considerable risk financially. There is lot of uncertainty going into these movies. If the risk pays off then the rewards are high. The problem is there are genuinely some movies like that. Their quality alone will force studios to spend millions in campaign to get awards attention and for the most part they do get the attention. But some movies will sneak into this prestige filmmaking category with ulterior motivations. They include a vanity crowd pleasing project by a movie star to increase his star power. So the movie kind of plays to audience but in the end it is not a great movie. Its just a well made decent movie that can trick layman into thinking that the movie is great. These are the worst kind of movies and most of the times they are produced by major studios in Hollywood. These are not some independent studios trying to make movies. The main reason these movies exist is because studios are not taking risk in the first place with movies like these. They know that the star power or the story of the movie will make them profit. So all they do is, wait for the layman crowd to praise the movie and then use that as fuel to propel the movie into getting some awards attention. And add to that the invisible foot soldiers of the studio that are mixed with unbiased interviewers to create this illusion that the movie is much better than it actually is. So, if you can factor in how those kind of movies get into Oscar race then trust me, you will not hate the so called Oscar bait movies so much. Same with Logan. It was a very good movie. But the praise it earned is not just during the course of one movie. Its a praise that has been built up for lot of years of movies with that character. So there is a little bit of cheating going on there. But as Ethan Hawke so wisely put it - "big business wants you to think that these movies are great because they want as much money and acclaim as they can get". This line is so very true. The same big business he refers to in that line is also the same one that wants a movie like argo to win best picture. I mean who cares about argo any longer ? Django Unchained is much much more memorable than argo.

As I write this review there is a movie which fits the bill of a fake prestige movie being propped up by major studio. That would be, A star is born. Toronto Film Festival just wrapping up in the news and this movie is being hyped up as not just a crowd pleaser but an "awards contender". Thats where my problem is. Because this movie is basically Bradley Cooper trying to do his best impression of a DiCaprio movie. But Bradley Cooper is not talented to get auteur legends to direct him , so he took a break to make this movie. I mean, come on its a very nice narrative isn't it ? actor took 3 years of his career in his prime to learn to sing and direct and made this movie that is not just a great movie but a masterpiece and will be remembered for ages. Thats a nice narrative to get to oscars. But the problem is most of the times the movie will not be great. It will just be a crowd pleasing okay movie but the big business wants you to think its better than it actually is. Share holders want that. They want a movie to make money and be considered an instant classic. But it's not. If you go through this ringer and still think you are more likely to be angry at a movie like three billboards then you are beyond help.

Three billboards has some very good elements in it. Mainly, its not a slow burn. Its forward momentum is achieved through conflict. The way some characters depart the story is very shocking yet kinda interesting to see a filmmaking being so dynamic in his directorial decisions. I don't want to talk about race element in the movie because its been covered enough. But the environment and setting of this story is very realistic in the way the story takes place. Towns like these can have stories like these. Culture of the town is very interesting. Most of these mid western towns and counties have their own justice system which is very racially biased. Unless a heinous crime is commited and it becomes national news they keep it with in the community. Thats inter weaved through the storyline. Cops are angry for reasons other than law enforcement. Their anger stems from other motivations and causes. Livelihood of these people is depicted subtly. The protagonists is on the edge of being a caricature. But she is not really acting. The recognition the lead actress aka Fraces Mcdormand got has much more to do with circumstances surrounding her character than her performance itself. But she will take it. So all in all , this movie is surprisingly fast paced and twisty for a so-called Oscar bait movie. But trust me, there are other far more vile movies to be pissed off than these movies. Your targets should be Argo , A star is born(2018) and J. Edgar. These movies have far more nefarious motivations than a very well made movie that luckily caught fire and that is thrust into spotlight during awards season like 3 billboards.



A system of cells interlinked
The Red Pill

(Jaye, 2017)





For the past couple of years, I have heard the term "red-pilled" thrown around with varying meanings and connotations. Mostly I have heard it used during a web show like Dave Rubin's podcast or something of that nature. The term has been sort of adopted by several movements over the past few years, but I think it may have originated with the MRA movement, which is the subject of this documentary by ex-feminist Cassie Jaye. Jaye originally begins her film in earnest after reading and hearing some fairly disturbing things in regards to the MRA movement, so I got the feeling that she began the project with the aim of exposing the movement as being populated by a bunch of women-hating misogynists.

During the course of making this film, Jaye becomes disillusioned not by feminism in general, but more-so by the radical feminists she encounters along the way, while simultaneously discovering data during her research that supports some of the claims made by the MRAs. Some of the men she encounters in the movement seem genuinely broken and her statistical research pokes some holes in several of the now almost-universally accepted feminist narratives. That said, a couple of the men she interviewed left me ill at ease, and the MRA movement certainly seems to attract a small subset of men that seem a little nuts. Regardless, this made for a thought provoking watch.


Upgrade

Whannell, 2018





I generally dislike anything Leigh Whannel is involved with. Ever since the original Saw, the guy has just rubbed me the wrong way, for some reason. Luckily, I didn't know he was involved with this flick, or I probably would have skipped it. Glad I didn't, as this was a pretty fun cyberpunk flick. It's not perfect, as it discards any real character development, instead just jumping from event to event while relishing its B-movie trappings. it also avoids any real exploration of its themes. Still, it was entertaining, and i have a soft spot for cyberpunk stuff.


Insidious : The Last Key

Robitel, 2018





Speaking of Whannell, he wrote this flick, and it was terrible. The only thing worse than the screenplay was his performance as Specs, one of the assistants to the main character. Avoid this film at all costs.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



“I was cured, all right!”
Timecop (1994) by Peter Hyams


As far as I love Van Damme, I can't have a good time with this one. The fast edit during the action scenes and the stupid plot is beyond my taste.


King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) by Guy Ritchie


One of the worst films I've seen this year! Guy Ritchie never was a good director, but at least he directed some 'watchable' movies in the beginning of his career but since Sherlock Holmes, this guy is trying to be the next Uwe Boll. It looks like a awful video clip. The acting was terrible, specially jude Law (he sucks). What about the butchering of the Arthurian Legend? Yeah...

Excalibur (1981) by John Boorman


It has its moments. The art direction is amazing, the photography too. But the rest is a great mass. Still a 'good' movie though.

Splendor in the Grass (1961) by Elia Kazan


Beautiful movie. It says so many things: it talks about disappointments that arrive in adult life. On treading the path created by our parents and not our own. On repressing the pleasures of life for a conservative society. About maturing. On the protection of parents, who in a possessive way, causes irreparable damage. And about moving on!

Her (2013) by Spike Jonze


Good acting by Joaquín Phoenix! The plot it's interesting, but it fails in so many levels!


The Nun (2018) by Corin **** Hardy


With success, there comes "THE NUN 2: THE LEGACY OF THE GARBAGE". Did you notice the name of the movie is misleading? When you read THE NUN, we think the movie would be about (or at least, with a big highlight) VALEK! But in the end, the film is about the other nun, much less interesting (Taissa Farmiga). Someone sue them for misleading propaganda!
Contradiction: But it was about a nun after all.

One of the worst experiences I've had in movies recently. It is incredible the director's lack of understanding. He abuses the same tricks all the time. And that priest? My God, what a worthless priest. He is of no use to anything in this film. He has no part in anything! His personal drama is so cliche that just reminding me makes me angry.

This movie is useless for the modest franchise The Conjuring that is NOT one of the best horror franchises, but coming from Hollywood, James Wan does well. F**k The Nun!

The good things: The setting and soundtrack, and even them was bad used.

The Passenger (1975) ‘Professione: reporter’ by Michelangelo Antonioni


Impressive! This ending was simply stunning. I can not wait for more Antonione.


Closer (2004) by Mike "once great" Nichols


Another incredibly bad movie! A show of incompetence on all sides. What saved this from being an atrocity was the presence of Julia Roberts, she does what she can to sustain this crap in the back, but she is not so good for carrying the film by herself, and she doesn't even have much time on screen to erase the disgusting acting of Natalie Portman and Jude Law. Two of the worst actors in activity.


Hour of the Wolf (1968) ‘Vargtimmen’ by Ingmar Bergman


"The Hour of the Wolf is the hour between night and dawn. It is the hour when most people die, when sleep is deepest, when nightmares are most real. It is the hour when the sleepless are haunted by their deepest fear, when ghosts and demons are most powerful. The Hour of the Wolf is also the hour when most children are born."

Crazy horror movie, a very good one! Bergman can move between any genre that remains a master!

Face to Face (1976) ‘Ansikte mot ansikte’ by Ingmar Bergman


Claustrophobic!
The best performance of Liv Ullmann! An incredibly allegorical film, very well directed, acted (Erland Josephson was great again), Bergman knows where to put a camera! Hail!


Stalker (1979) ‘Сталкер’ by Andrei Tarkovsky



★★★★
Words can't describe my love for this movie. During its two hours and forty minutes, there is no simple scene, dialogue or camera movement that I do not love! More to come in the Russian HoF

First Reformed (2017) Paul Schrader


Oh yeah. One of the best of the year so far. The ending is quite 'shocking'. The film is Bleak and very realistic. Schrader made a hell of a camera work in this one. Not the usual cut+close up bull****. By thge way, most of the american directors don't know how to use close-up, I know they aren't Bergman for Christ sakes, but come on!!! I'm happy Schrader showed them how to use it.

Aurora
(2010) by Cristi Puiu


A good movie, it could have been so much more! Not a walking simulator as many often call it, the movie has its purpose to be slow. It's time to check The Death of Mr. Lazarescu.




@Captain Spaulding

Terrific grand write-ups man once again. I'll take a ticket for the show.



Think I'll give one of these "Tab" posts a go, haven't posted movie observations in this thread in over a year-and-a-half since a Mortal Kombat viewing in April 2017.



Nostromo Movie Tab

Some 2018 viewings that I haven't posted ratings or thoughts about yet

Elizabeth (1998) -------------------------------
8.0 / 10
Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007) --------
+ 6.5 / 10
The Eagle Has Landed (1976) -------------
+ 7.5 / 10
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) ---
7.0 / 10
Grease 2 (1982) -------------------------------
+ 8.5 / 10

In England 1554, Henry VIII is dead, and the country is divided Catholic vs Protestant. Henry's daughter Mary inherits the throne, but is sickly and weak. The Catholic's greatest fear is the succession of Elizabeth, Mary's Protestant half-sister. The country is swept up in the burning of Protestant heretics, who have defied the authority of the one true Catholic Church and His Holiness The Pope. Initially I wanted to include this in my War Show Reviews thread, but I decided it's more political intrigue than war movie. I mean it basically is war but it's all shady behind the scenes backstabbing stuff among the powerful few. Elizabeth's played by Cate Blanchett, the storywriting's quite effectively captivating, and the cast is as well including appearances from Vincent Cassel and Joseph Fiennes as possible suitors for Queen Elizabeth, Daniel Craig plays a shifty Papal assassin, and Geoffrey Rush as relentless royal advisor to the Queen, Sir Francis Wolfingham. Rush is my personal favorite. The powerful surround and conspire against Elizabeth to try and displace her breakable hold on sovereignty over the land. Terrific film. The sequel, Elizabeth: The Golden Age, is considerably weaker, becoming more an action-adventure film with an appearance from Clive Owen as Sir Walter Raleigh. Has moments yet is more dispensable. The Eagle Has Landed is actually a pretty funny war movie starring Michael Caine, Robert Duvall, Donald Sutherland, and Donald Pleasance as Germans during the Second World War, where they attempt to assassinate Churchill, and manages to capture a fun and classic impression of wartime Europe with the fulcrum key to its style being a biting and rather sarcastic disposition. A definite go as an overlooked warfilm despite some premier key players. I haven't talked much about the new Star Wars films at all, as I found The Force Awakens to be very average. So I was close to giving all these new movies a pass, but I watched Rogue One: A Star Wars Story last week and it worked for me. Kind of. The daughter of the Imperial Scientist who devised The Death Star sets out to find her father and swipe the design blueprints. A cool premise. So you have a hot brunette girl surrounded by sci-fi Star Warsy rebel-guy types mostly standing around listening to her in a state of awe. That was one of my initial criticisms of the movie, with the scenes involving this brunette girl Felicity Jones. But then I thought about it, and I was like, actually that makes a lot of sense. Bunch of Star Wars people staring at this out of place hot brunette girl, and I realized this is genuine. This is what would happen. Also, there's a droid who isn't nearly as annoying as 3PO. They also don't cheat the viewer out of a look at Imperial methods and such. These are improvements. Vader makes it in, and that's cool, but James Earl Jones old-man voice was noticably feeble in-spite of whatever filters they put over it to mask it. That took me out of it. Still, I felt the movie addressed everything mostly in a fresh way as far as creative initiative.


It (2017) ----------------------------------------------------
+ 6.5 / 10
The Circus (1928) ---------------------------------------
7.0 / 10
Scanners (1981) -----------------------------------------
7.0 / 10
The Fall of the House of Usher (1960) -------------
7.0 / 10
The Fog (1980) ------------------------------------------
6.0 / 10
Night Creatures (1962) --------------------------------
7.0 / 10
Teen Wolf (1985) ----------------------------------------
7.0 / 10
Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982) --------
6.0 / 10
Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995) -
+ 7.5 / 10

If you're looking for a pretty well-made modern horror film, you can give It a go, just be aware it's aimed at a younger audience and I won't be watching that one again. When it comes to Hammer Horror, Night Creatures aka Captain Clegg certainly isn't one of the most praised, but it's a fun entry for me starring Peter Cushing who I've come to virtually always enjoy. Night Creatures is set in a coastal smuggling and bootlegging town haunted by Marsh Phantoms. There's also a brunette ward there who works in the town played by actress Yvonne Romain. Oh hei. This is a fierce little film mixing smuggling, pirates, horror, and ghosts that I'd watch again. The Fog, another movie about a coastal town, that I found to be basically okay, with the music and atmosphere being memorable yet not a whole lot else really despite appearances from Adrienne Barbeau, Janet Leigh, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Carpenter 80s pillar Tom Atkins.

Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	q elzabeth 98.jpg
Views:	137
Size:	272.3 KB
ID:	47901   Click image for larger version

Name:	mm95c.jpg
Views:	149
Size:	239.9 KB
ID:	47902  



Alien



A group of workers on a space mineral carrier/refinery on their way back to earth stumbles upon a distress signal. When they attend to that signal something comes with them into the ship which puts their lives and mission at incredible risk.

The latest alien movies like Prometheus and covenant have been criticized as being too dumb. But, if you follow this movie you can see where all that dumbness comes from. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. The movie has some positive elements and some negative elements. But since the positives are so high compared to negatives the movie is considered a classic as opposed to a dumb movie. In the opening sequence of the movie, the camera just follows the empty hallways of this ship. There is this eerie feeling that something is roaming this ship but in reality there is nothing dangerous in there yet. So, its all about the creepiness of it all. I must attribute that to Ridley Scott and screenwriters. The space ship is programmed to wake up the crew if it discovers something unusual or if its the end of the journey. The crew in the movie is well balanced for the most part. To show varying personalities of the people involved , the filmmakers decided to include some blue collar worker-esque crew members in there. I think its a commercial decision by studio. Space travel takes every crew member to have a certain level-headed personality. So, each and everyone in the crew is picked like that. They don't ever pick a loose canon or un-opinionated or personality-less individuals like the one's in these. But I think its a decision by studio to make the movie much more accessible.

There is a perverse element to this whole movie like John carpenter's the thing. The movie shows that the most curious one among them all is the first one to bite the dust . That gives a weird satisfaction to audience. Because in slasher movies most of the times there is one such character who is extra enthusiastic about wandering into the forest or dark alley's and audience want that person to be killed first and this movie delivers on that aspect. It is during their initial venture into this unknown planet and into this unknown structure on the planet that I realized there is way too much cruriosity among these crew members. Especially one that I alluded to earlier. The problem is, its an alien planet and they are just going on it with no hesitation. Even looking into the egg of the face hugger is kind of a stupid movie. He knew something was moving inside it , then why even look into it so directly. But the curiosity of it all from audience stand point sort of makes us excuse these dumb decisions by astronauts. Because audience love the fact that something exciting has happened. So they don't bother criticizing how it happened. Its the first jump scare scene of the movie. Up until this point it is so normal.

The movie has two tricks up its sleeves. The first one is revealed early on. Which is the whole impregnation nightmarish scene. The scene sort of plays out so well. If you can forget being pissed off at the science officer for his rather unusual and irritating behavior the steps taken by the team later are quite frankly realistic. They isolate the infected but they do it only physically. So they still left the chance of being infected through airborne parasites to luck. Nonetheless the behavior of this face hugger is quite biologically understandable. The dinner scene is iconic. From then on the movie becomes a slasher in space. Without all the gore. This is where the movie takes a nose dive in filmmaking department. Because what happens next is a series of kills by the creature and the filmmakers reveals their final trick and that happens to be the android trick. This trick , even though it explains the behavior of the character in the earlier parts of the movie raises some logical questions. So, lets forget about the mission of the space vessel. Lets focus on the rules followed by this android. It has to bring home any extra terrestrial organism found in space and the crew is expendable. But how exactly are they going to contain it ? What was their plan to contain this organism ? They don't seem to know what they are looking for as the rules are so vague on the organism part and what if they find something which carries a plagu. All this leads to believe that either their plan, which is willing to sacrifice the whole crew is half baked or the android Mal functioned. In which case their whole plan of sending an android unbeknowst to the crew is idiotic if it just kills them in sleep by accident ? I mean thats a possibility if the android could malfunction. So all these are serious plot holes. But the concept of horror in space and the execution sort of makes up for it. The science equipment is little too futuristic and there by loosing natural look. Some of them look like props. Even a layman can tell that it doesn't look like an actual instrument at any point in time in past or in future.

The best thing about the movie is the emergence of a hero aspect in it. Its one of the greatest movie tropes if executed well. During the course of the movie we notice that Ripley is tougher than most crew members mentally at least. But she is also unsure of the circumstances and is controlled by the pecking order in the crew. She is the third in command. So she has to wait for and follow orders. But as the going gets tougher, the tough gets going. This eventually makes her take control of the situation when individuals get agitated. The situation becomes even more complicated and dangerous when they realize that there is an android among them. What this element does is, it makes her show her vulnerable side and just suck it up and keep moving. Thats the best part. This kind of presented itself as a resistence after she assumes power and she learned to overcome it and suck it up and move on. The final 10 minutes or so reminded me of predator where its Arnold vs the predator and here its Ripley vs alien but as it would be in a horror movie. In predators its an action scene and here its a suspense scene.

Now a word about Ridley Scott. I covered my disdain for him in Covenant review. But people always bring up this movie to defend the genius of Ridley Scott. But the problem with that argument is, at this point in his career he was a ads director. He used to shoot TV commercials. The studio having liked his direction gave him this movie. But if you look at the movie there is not too much room for a director to imprint his stamp in a boiler room story. Its almost a closed space movie. He can't take credit for creature design because thats another department. The screenplay is given to him. What he basically did was , he made a movie that satisfied the financiers. Because this movie is no different than a slasher movie. But the genius of setting it in space and having this awesome creature design and face hugger design came from people involves in this movie that are not the director of the movie. So most directors in the Hollywood consider him lucky to be able to make this movie. They think its a fluke. I don't really disagree. Ridley Scott can be real hit or miss sometimes. Some of his movies can really be pieces of crap. So in case of movies like this and gladiator it really comes down to his ability of make a decent movie from a script. Its really a complicated argument to argue against Ridley Scott but it can be done. He is someone who picks the type of movie he wants to make by going through the scripts. He will see the budget attached to the movie and the actors he need for the movie to get the budget he want. So he starts shooting a movie by picking a script available to him and a vague passion to make it. He should have learnt some valuable lessons about filmmaking and directing in his 40s and if he done that he would have won an Oscar by now but his desire to stay employed and be a commercial director for hire by studio sort of made it hard for people to consider him an auteur. Its that vague passion thats so off putting to people. He thinks in terms of visuals and doesn't know what a good story feels like. He is a highly talented commercial director. The dumb plot holes in Prometheus and Covenant sort of proved that movies like alien or blade runner or gladiator are just flukes and even those movies are not created and produced by him on an artistic level. He gave input as director and the scripts for those movies stood on their own merit.

So, this movie is a very good movie but its just shy of being a highest rated movie because of the half baked plans by the corporation and movie essentially turning into a creature feature during the last part of second act. Some characters die way too easily and could be avoided but you can give it a pass since the creature is so much of a mystery until this point. But this movie does have seeds of problems that turn into giant trees in prometheus and covenant not just plot wise but the kind of human stupidity that alien franchise has now become famous for. I mean again good god how could Ridley Scott have missed such huge plot holes and stupid characters.



Death Proof



A stunt driver stalks and kills women in auto accidents and he gets off by doing that.

This basically is automobile version of Ted Bundy. Serial Killers get off by committing crimes and that's why they do it again and again. A character background and his progression through this movie played by Kurt Russell is so realistic that you can totally believe someone like that could do that. This movie more than anything makes it much more clear on what inspires Quentin Tarantino movies.He is someone extremely inspired by the behind scenes in Hollywood. What makes someone a star. Which films bombed at box office. What kind of movies were made. He lifts characters from other movies and uses them in his story-lines. If a character like Don Corleone or Moses is used in different stories then audience will not connect. But if a fleshed out character from another movie is inserted into a different story then even though it feels jarring at first ,slowly the story starts to make sense. So there is this weird complexity yet familiarity to the characters in his movies.For example in Kill Bill, the lead character is an action hero. You have seen characters like that in tons of movies. So its a fully fleshed out "phoenix raising from the ashes" character. But when she is an ex assassin and her targets are ex assassins we are in a totally different circumstances. So that reduces him the burden of having to introduce and establish the character himself. Its been done for him. With all that said,its not easy what he is doing. Detractors might call it copying but even if he mishmash stuff from other movies its not easy to make them all look cohesive.

The movie takes place over the course of two accidents. The first one is a success but the second one is a failure. Any crime involves two parties. The one committing it and the one who its being committed to. They share a secret. In case of serial killers its unwillingly. During the act one person sees the evil side of another person. Most times they don't see the light of the day to say what happened and if they do they will be a changed person. This particular serial killer has a very elaborate scheme he uses to satisfy his urges. He develops a fool proof mechanism. He first stalks his victims because he wants to know who he is killing. Then, he uses his stunt car that's supposed to withstand violent crashes and a nod to the title , death proof to collide with victim's car and kill them. But he can cheat death and law using his car. Majority of the movie is the background of these women he stalks. Most of them represent majority of women between 15-30 working in Hollywood. They are either models or stunt women or so on. Most of the characters in the movie have obscure jobs in Hollywood. So all this kind of gives an LA feel to the movie.

To be honest all this kind of feels like the wet dream of a psycho. But in the end the movie kinda gives audience what they want by letting the women of the second car survive brushes with Kurt Russell and then go on to chase him and take revenge on him. The movie ends on a more goofy tone than the rest of the movie. One weird thing I noticed in most of Tarantino movies is that there is always that one southern racist looking old cop investigating a crime. If not integral to the story he wants that character to be in the movie to say some lines. Even if the crimes doesn't take place in south. The movie displays a predator and prey relationship between men and women. Women are tough but they are feminine tough and Kurt Russell as loathsome as he is , is a bad-ass in the movie.Tarantino plays with words and meanings and sentences a lot in his movies. Some are intended to be punch dialogues and some are just dialogues he loved to write. One such line which is kinda genius is, during his car introduction where he kills a woman before committing his buffet crime. He comes to an intersection where he is taking left and he intends to kill the woman in the car eventually but she doesn't know that yet. So he asks her where she want to go and she say the opposite direction. And the dialogue he uses goes along the lines of "That's too bad, we have 50-50 chance of going left or right , if you said left then it would have been a while before you start getting scared but since you said right I am afraid you have to start getting scared right now". That line is so great and catchy and its quite brilliant. You can't teach that in film school. Its a weird , crazy movie and its also a character study of killer and victims. He made this movie as a piece of entertainment and passing no judgement.