Movie Tab II

Tools    





Welcome to the human race...
The Fabulous Baron Munchausen (Karel Zeman, 1962) -


After having been so impressed by the visual novelty of Zeman's The Fabulous World of Jules Verne, I sought out his own adaptation of the adventures of the eponymous folk figure and found it more or less the same - it may expand its visual scope to include coloured tinting in a way that evokes silent adventures but it also sacrifices cohesive narrative for the sake of disjointed vignettes that really mess with the pacing.

Paris Belongs To Us (Jacques Rivette, 1961) -


The fact that this reads like my kind of movie on paper (French New Wave, moribund existentialism, self-deprecating leftism) only makes the end result even more disappointing (though in fairness I did watch this really late at night so I might not have been as into it as I would if I wasn't tired). Maybe I'll give it another chance sometime.

Biutiful (Alejandro González Iñárritu, 2010) -


This is about what I've come to expect from Iñárritu and his particular brand of dramatics, which I'd liked well enough with Amores perros but liked less and less with each subsequent feature of his (up until Birdman saw him change things up, and even then...). As for Biutiful, it's buoyed a bit by focusing much more clearly on a single protagonist (who is played rather well by Javier Bardem) even though I remain skeptical that this story is strong enough to last a full two-and-a-half hours without eventually becoming an abject wallow in prolonged misery.

Hearts Beat Loud (Brett Haley, 2018) -


I want to call this the 2018 version of Sing Street with its simple but effective tale about a hipster dad's attempts to make music with a daughter who's more focused on heading off to college. Perfectly enjoyable for what it is and it has enough charm to elevate it over other films of its ilk.

Predators (Nimród Antal, 2010) -


Haven't seen this one since it hit theatres and I think it's held up about as well as could be expected, which is fortunately not bad. The concept's solid (group of random killers thrown together to fight Predators) and the casting's generally decent, plus the actual action and effects work around that familiar Troublemaker Studios sheen. Of course, the end result is still too slight for it to be genuinely great, but there's enough fun to be had here anyway.

Redacted (Brian DePalma, 2007) -


It figures that a filmmaker as interested in playing with cinematic form as DePalma would try his hand at the mockumentary sooner or later and seeing him do so through a loose War on Terror-era remake of Casualties of War certainly makes for an interesting and engaging (if not particularly great) piece of late-period work. At the very least, I figure I need to reassess Casualties of War as a result.

Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem (Colin Strause and Greg Strause, 2007) -


It'd be nice if there was something to be gained from a second viewing of this crossover sequel involving two iconic movie monsters coming together in a small American town, but there really, really isn't. Everything is bland at best and downright contemptuous of the audience at worst, resulting in one of my least favourite movies ever.

The Predator (Shane Black, 2018) -


All things considered, this serves as a pretty good reminder why I don't get too excited about new releases. While it's certainly got quite a few moments that harken back to the sort of over-the-top fun that the franchise (or at least the first film) has come to represent, far too often it's let down by technical flaws and tonal problems.

Taste of Cherry (Abbas Kiastorami, 1997) -


This brief and minimal tale of a suicidal man trying to find someone to bury his corpse for him after he commits the deed is at once starkly down-to-earth yet strangely humanistic in its treatment of its unusual premise, all captured through Kiastorami's slow and unassuming but notably-constructed filmmaking. I definitely need to see more of his work.

The Trial of Joan of Arc (Robert Bresson, 1962) -


Out of the Bresson films I've seen so far, this may be my least favourite (but that only speaks to how strong his average is). It makes sense that he'd apply his distinctly minimalist (and fittingly fatalist) approach to recounting the final days of one of history's most famous martyrs and it works more often than not, though it does feel like it's wearing out its welcome even in its notably brief running time.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



_____ is the most important thing in my life…
Seen in September Pt.1





-
Violent fun. The dialogue from Tarantino was awesome, as is to be expected. The first bit act or so of the film feels so much different from the rest and I’m not sure why.

I'm due to re-watch this and more than likely adjust my 5. After listening to a pod wax poetic about this, the lore surrounding this movie makes it even more enticing. Sizemore gets Gandolfini his big break, Tony Scott slapping Arquette, Hans Zimmer score, Gary Oldman using his Dracula props, the quotes, Saul Rubinek at the height of his powers, and realizing that Christopher Walken's two appearances in Tarantino penned movies involve those two classic scenes.






Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
Ratcatcher (1999) -




Just when I thought my English was good enough to watch films without subtitles, them bloody Scotts had to prove me wrong. Holy cew, at times I wasn't even sure if they spoke English. After thirty minutes I gave up and put on the subtitles. Oh well, I see Lynne Ramsay likes her porn misery. Knock it off with them negative waves, woman!

Nuits blanches sur la jetée [White Nights on the Pier] (2014) -




Had high hopes for this one, but it turned out to be my least favourite adaptation of Dostoevsky's short story. Eugene Green would've made it better!

Le chat dans le sac [The Cat in the Bag] (1964) -




Mindless Godard worship plus some uninteresting political stuff -- that's Quebec for ya!

Siglo ng pagluluwal [Century of Birthing] (2011) -




Wow, Lav Diaz really made a short film this time (only 6 hours long!). This would've been much better if members of this cult sung the Divine Mantra of Ashtar Sheran and Lord Gorloj instead!

Ať žije republika [Long Live the Republic] (1965) -




Exquisite "coming-of-age during war" flick! Almost as good as Ivan's Childhood!

Свето место [A Holy Place] (1990) -




Yugoslavian adaptation of Gogol's story. Not as amazing as the 1967 version, but has some pleasant atmosphere, and also some WTF moments like femdom ball busting and what not. :O

Makimono (1974) -




Not bad, but the last epileptic part is everything I hate about avant-garde cinema.

The Player (1992) -




Altman is a great director and I love how cynical this film is. A lot of cinematic references.

Hoop Dreams (1994) -




Totally not my thing. If you're interested in basketball, or sociological problems of the US, you will probably get more out of it.

団鬼六監修 SM大全集 [Best of SM] (1984) -







Sounds good, but just like the title suggests, this is simply an omnibus of a couple of other pinku eigas' sex scenes tied together by an intro and outro that are the only new footage here. To make it worse, I've already seen some of the films whose footage was used. It's really gr8 to see Naomi Tani in Blu-ray quality, though.

Upgrade (2018) -




A top-notch modern sci-fi! Sounds trite, but goes against the flow, and delivers!

Talpuk alatt fütyül a szél [The Wind Blows Under Your Feet] (1976) -




Hungarian ostern = gulash western! Only for real men!

The Fall (2006) -




Looks really good at times, but the story is a mess, and the Hollywoodness is painful! Still, that was a pleasant watch.

極私的エロス 恋歌 [Extreme Private Eros: Love Song 1974] (1974) -




Expected something completely different! Hara once again asks about moral limits of documentary filmmaking. THAT BIRTH SCENE!!!

Mandy (2018) -





the movie

WHOEVER RATES THIS LOW IS A REPTILIAN AGENT!

Alléluia (2014) -




Really solid! Nicely plays with viewer's expectations and stays quite restrained = classy. Noice.

Két félidő a pokolban [Two Half-Times in Hell] (1961) -




Much more psychologically rich and even at times poetic than its American remake with Stallone and Pele.

King Lear (1987) -




Power and Virtue! Starts off with some extremely beautiful poetic scenes, but then goes really WEIRD. Is there anything else I'd like to say about it? Nothing. No thing.

La fin du jour [The End of the Day] (1939) -




So much better than Pepe le Moko! A touching mix of proto-Children of Paradise and Make Way for Tomorrow with splendid cinematography equaling the best of the time! Gives me this wonderful literary feel.

The Little Foxes (1941) -




Cinematography is gr8, Bette is good, but the plot is tediously meh.

乱行 [The Orgy] (1967) -




Given the title and director (Wakamatsu!) this is incredibly restrained. It's not even a pink film, but rather a Japanese New Wave gangster flick. A great one nevertheless!

अशद का एक दिन [One Day Before the Rainy Season] (1971) -




Best Mani Kaul I've seen so far. Visually spectacular!
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
Hello puny human. Greetings from the reptilian master race
ATTENTION! THIS IS GORLOJ SPEKING TO YOU. HUMANS, YO IS IN GREAT DANGER. THE REVEALANCE OF PAHAK AS A REPTILIAN LORD MADE THE LIZARDS VERY ENGRY. THEY ARE ABOUT TO AVENG HIM IN MOST CRUEL WAYS. PLEAS DON'T SEND IMPORTANT INFORMATION THRU MOFO, IT IS CONTROLLED. SEND MESSAGE BY PURE LOVE. LOVE WILL NEVER BE CORRUPTED SO YO WILL BE SAFE.

WANTED!

DEAD OR ALIVE!

PAHAK - MOST WANTED CRIMINAL IN ZIDANIA, LEGENDARY LAND, HOMELAND OF LORD GORLOJ.

BEWARE COMRADES, FOR HE IS MOST DEVIOUS, INFERNAL CHARLATAN THAT EVER ENTERED OUR LAND.
HE HAS RECENTLY STOLEN THE CROWN OF ZIDANIA - SACRED ARTIFACT OF THE AGES. HE MAY BE DISGUISED AS A CHARMING MOFO. GOSSIP NEWS SAY HE TELEPORTED SHORTLY AFTER THE ACT, BUT EXPERTS TOLD US IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE DUE TO TELEPORTATION PROHIBITION ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

I SWEAR ON MY NOSE I WILL ALWAYS HELP YOU.

GORLOJ



The Lost World: Jurassic Park



4 years after incidents of first movie, a crew of 4 is sent to site b of Jurassic Park to obtain photo record of dinosaurs in the wild. The plan is to use this data to rally support from various organisations to let dinosaurs live in the habitat without human interruption. But his board members have other ulterior corporate motives.

As entertaining as it is , this movie is no Jurassic Park. That's partly because it has lost the novelty of going to the Island for the first time and seeing Dinosaurs. First movie has lot of details it can chew on. Establishing the park and its rules. No sequel can capture that. Even Spielberg couldn't prevent parts of the movie from sounding dumb. But the interesting and unique thing about Spielberg that makes him stand out from other directors is that he knows he is making a popcorn blockbuster and he wants to make it good.

The reason to go back to the islands is a little silly. But its acceptable. The usual parent children relationship that has become a staple in Spielberg is present in this movie as well. The team dynamic between the science guy, the reporter , Jeff Goldblum and Julianne moore is very well crafted. Most of the time, Spielberg movies have these running gags between characters that are relatable to audience. In this movie it is the dialogue about how to treat electronic products. That's a clever element. Because the circumstances in this movie are so heightened that it is hard for audience to feel like the movie is taking place in real world. So this running gag helps audience relate to the characters in this movie. He casts actors that fit the part so well that very rarely do you need exposition to connect with audience. There are few characters like that. The science guy among goldblum's crew, the womanizing reporter played by Vince Vaughn, the head of the hunting crew(Pete Postlethwaite) , his arrogant deputy in charge and the evil corporate guy. One exposition dump kind of felt unnecessary for Postlethwaite's character.

The scope of these Jurassic Park movies is very contained. The whole movie takes place in a jungle. They were able to amplify the scope of the first one by showing the vastness of the Island. It felt big. In this movie, even though they do the same, the scope for the jungle part of it felt smaller than the first. The movie seems to have been divided into set pieces. The truck being pushed off cliff, the T-Rex attack on their base camp, the Velociraptor attack and the San Diego attack. The first movie felt way more fluid in its transition from place to place but in this movie, it doesn't feel so. It felt rather deliberate. One of the things that pissed me off in this movie is the dumbness of characters which is very unusual for a Spielberg movie. Most of the time characters in Spielberg movie have common sense. But in this movie the characters felt unusually dumb. The whole concept of animal rights is cute, but trying to save the creatures that could directly cause you mortal danger in a matter of minutes/hours/instantly is kinda stupid. That can really get under audiences' nerves.

In well crafted epic action adventures like this, movies are a series of gripping action set pieces. A whole movie can never be memorable. Its the sequences in the movie that are memorable and the more of those there are the more of a chance that the movie will be a masterpiece. Great directors can create that. Other directors most of the time will create a sequence that might be impressive visually but doesn't work. So,the directorial choice to have the whole San Diego sequence take place at night is brilliant. That helps distinguishing the lush,dense and dangerous island jungle from the city. Two things that stuck me that are brilliant in terms of film making are the death of deputy of Postlethwaite in the hands of pack of Compsognathus and the exploration of the concept of alpha predator in the movie. The movie deals with the term Alpha Predator much more extensively than the first one. We see glimpses of it in the first but in this movie it is much more dense. When in jungle if you come across a lion or a tiger most of the times it behaves like its the king of the jungle. The moment a lion is in a city or even in circus it knows its place. The bottom line is most wild animals don't behave like they are at the top of the food chain all the time. But a Dinosaur when resurrected is gonna behave like it is at the top of the food chain. The dialogue by the arrogant deputy of Postlethwaite alludes to that when he says " Its like it's not even scared..it gives me the creeps". That summarizes the kind of ideas this movie contains. It explains why T-Rex just walks into the streets because it knows that it has been the alpha predator last time it was on Earth. The death of Deputy by a pack of Compsognathus shows how dangerous packs of animals can be. Individually they can't do anything. It shows just how dangerous the jungles are and the massive costs of a small mishap. His mundane trip to go to toilet leads to his death. That's all it takes in a jungle as dangerous as the one in the movie.

This movie got a bad rap for following up the Jurassic Park. It ages well because Spielberg made the movie look authentic. It doesn't have any of those 90s cheese. That's mainly because of Spielberg.



Murder Party



This is first of 3 Jeremy Saulnier's movie I will review leading upto release of Hold the dark on 28th September,2018 on Netflix . According to me he is one of the most exciting up and coming directors though he is 40 yrs old. In directors' age that's young. The premise of the movie is very simple. A deadbeat law enforcement officer receives an anonymous invitation to a Halloween Party called Murder Party. The whole movie takes place on the night of the Halloween.

There is no other way to say it but it is a student film. It feels like a student film right down to the casting, the camera used to shoot and production budget. It feels like a guy who made a movie about the topics that inspired him the most. That might involve other filmmakers or the festive occasions that are near and dear to him. Subverting expectations is the key things that stick out in this movie. There are many elements that rightfully feel heavily influenced by other directors. But the one thing he brought to the movie that is his own is the subverting expectations part. They might feel like twists but it is all there. All the clues are right in front of you. That one thing you know for a fact is dangerous will cause danger when you are distracted by something else and least expect. One thing that is very new in this movie is the scope of Halloween festive feel in the movie. Most of the movies that deal with Halloween set them in a country town. You see the sheriff's office , the small close knit communities etc. But this movie shows Halloween in a major city. You see the lead character live in a modest house on a huge street. You see him take a subway on Halloween night and when getting out of the subway you see him passing by a lot of people in Halloween costume. You see him take a turn that is deserted. The scene captures the dreaded empty isolated streets of Cities. Weird thing about major cities is how a densely populated street is next to an empty street. You see the lead character blindly go into dark alley after dark alley and go right upto the abandoned warehouse looking for the address of the party. This gives us some kind of insight into how dumb the lead character is.

The movie doesn't subvert expectations in terms of what you go into the movie for. Its not changing that. The movie is about a group of crazy people who wants to kill a random person and send a message to the society. All the people are hippy loser types. Their ring leader however has some secret plans and he brings his Russian friend. When **** hits the fan the difference between a bad movie and a good movie is that in case of good movie the crazy circumstances make sense. The crazy circumstances don't seem to have some out of the blue. There is rhyme and rhythm to them. This movie has a sequence where a characters' face is burnt because he has lot of inflammable substance on him a while ago and tries to light a cigar. But he has a wolf Halloween mast on his face when this happens. So the fire makes it stick to his face and so he looks like a were wolf. And it makes sense. Certain twists and sequences felt try hard. But this was a decent and an okay directorial debut.

Now lets get to the biggest and most obvious influence that is hanging over this movie for its entire run time. The Quentin Tarantino influence. The movie is extremely violent. It has twists. It has a character tied down to a chair like Reservoir dogs. It has drugs and people under substance influence. The thing about Tarantino is that no matter how much controversies he gets himself into he is quintessential an american director. Countless up and coming filmmakers and lot of filmmakers in Hollywood have grown up watching his movies. No amount of controversies or associations with vile individuals will take that away from him. Awards recognition and praise is something that relies on reputation. To a certain extents that's justified. You don't earn reputation for being great if you are inconsistent. So you gotta have some outstanding movies under your belt that make you earn the respect of a wide variety of filmmakers. They should look at your movies and say "I can't do what he does". If an capable filmmaker says that looking at your movie , you earn their respect. This all seems trivial but any and every recognition during awards season all goes back to this simple concept. That's precisely the reason why DiCaprio works with him. Because the whole director's guild will anticipate a Tarantino movie. The hold him at high regard. So if the movie turn our great. He will have no trouble rallying support and Oscar nominations. In case of other directors even if the movie turns out great they still have the trouble of having bad professional reputation like Ridley Scott who is known as a director for hire and not an auteur and the biggest trouble is many directors are not respected that much. Someone like Scott Cooper is not respected that much. Many people look at him as an okay director. Giving him director nomination is something they would never do until he explodes their expectation. So its very hard for movies without name directors to get to the top unless their movies blow everyone away. Until then they will be in the trenches and will not be welcomed into the circles. Meritocracy in Hollywood is quite cutthroat. Chris Nolan is at the top of his game right now and everyone is his friend. But if his next 2 films flop miserably, he will have no friends. Its very cutthroat. So when you have directors like Jeremy Saulnier that are influenced by him in their bones voting for him during awards season he will get Oscar nominations and wins.



Jurassic Park



An amusement park in the making gets a visit from a group of experts to endorse it for public visit. But alas the main attraction of the park are Dinosaurs and things do go wrong.

To be quite honest this movie is not really that original if taken as a creature feature. T-Rex and Velociraptors are treated as antagonists. This is made from a novel by Michael Crichton. So, all this means is that this movie looks good on paper before camera starts rolling. But to take the magic from paper and put it on screen, we need a great director. The thing about Spielberg is that he is your traditional studio director. That should make him enemies in his competitors and fellow directors like it did for Ridley Scott. But the thing about Spielberg is the risks he takes with his name brand. Albeit they are calculated risks.There is certain inherent difficulty in staying consistent and surprising audience with each movie. You can't stay in the business for 30 or more years and still be able to make movies like Ready Player One unless you are some kind of genius. More than that he is consistent. He is making movies like Bridge of Spies in between. So the quality of the movie has to be mostly attributed to Spielberg. Without him it would just have been an okay movie with interesting ideas.It so evident in the way he carries out scenes and sequences. As I said in my Predator review, in movies like these that are set in an exotic location or a mysterious land, the most important thing is to not change the tone of the movie. The atmosphere of the movie is of the utmost importance to have maximum effect on the audience. This movie basically needs outsiders to come into the park to inspect and evaluate. So the challenge here is to make them feel like fully fleshed out characters without breaking the atmospheric tone of the movie. You can't do that unless you show them in their natural habitat. Main characters here are Sam Neil and Laura Dern. The movie specifically chooses to show them in their digging site and their trailer. So all we know of them is their profession and how they were invited to the island. So the choices in those scene beautifully maintains the illusion that we are still in some jungle like place. The meeting between employee who except bribes and his contact to competitor company also takes place in some Latin american restaurant close to the island. All these make audience feel like they are in Island even though the specific scenes takes place outside. There is no shots of cityscapes and buildings in the entire movie except the main building in Jurassic park which happens to be shaped like a dome and doesn't look like a corporate building.

The tone of the movie is so specific. It is not super serious and it is not slapstick. Comedy comes from the personality traits of characters. So you can't really blame to script or movie for trying out comedy. Its the characters that are comedic. These are commercial and entertaining elements. It deals with the 2 main adult themes similar to the second movie. The place of man in the species hierarchy and is it worth bringing these ancients creatures that has been extinct due to natural selection back to life. For some reason Spielberg can't do brood. However dramatic his movies are , they slant towards melodramatic than brood. One through-line of the movie is how clever Dinosaurs are and how seemingly safe situations can turn into incredibly dangerous scenarios. The death of the corrupt fat computer engineer is intriguing and scary at the same time. The way the dinosaur deals with this guy is kinda interesting. Of course I can't really say what the dilophosaurus might have thought and I am sure the scriptwriter and director must have contacted dilophosaurus experts to make it feel as authentic as possible. The reason for this scene being so intriguing is the fact that the engineer is so fat and large. If it were a goat the dinosaur would have killed it instantly. But since this guy is so large and almost the height of the dilophosaurus, it was testing and seeing what this large living being will do and once it figured out that the engineer is running away from it, it kills him. The whole scene is master class in directing. The building to tension mixed with character based comedy is kinda great.

The movie ends in a profound way. Nature can't be controlled. It gives the same feel as a hurricane destroying massive structures. Vast oceans that can swallow all the land. It is honestly a blockbuster masterpiece. Because it deals with high concepts in a masterful way and filmmakers avoided making it feel like a cheap cash grab.



Hardcore Henry



A 1st person POV take on making a motion picture. In it a humanoid robot brought back to life is tasked with taking revenge on a superhuman antagonist and his army of soldiers.

The movie is a revenge tale with few twists. It is hyper realistic except for the choice of making it a 1st person POV. This choice kinda made it a little inconsequential. The visual effects are almost seamless. The guy who played his partner in crime at different stages in the movie is very interesting. His origins are mysterious and once his identity is revealed its kinda sad. I was surprised at how sexual certain elements in the movie are. In the end if audience don't feel motion sickness then this movie is a adrenaline ride. I appreciate that the story of the movie is thin. Any complex narrative will not work in this format. This movie is going after video game crowd and they don't wanna see Casablanca. They want a hyper violent action movie. Even the character development is exactly whats needed. You need characters that are two dimensional and are there to serve the adrenaline ride and not some complex 3 dimensional Oscar performances.

So, now to the main topic I wanna discuss about the movie. Before watching this movie I saw the trailer and knew that it was a 1st person movie. I knew it was a wild action ride. But what surprised me was that this movie took place in Russia. Even the lead character whom we don't see at all has tattoo's on his arms. So if you were to represent the movie and its production budget, the script, the director and the reception of this movie in a nutshell then this movie is equal to the reason why Leonardo DiCaprio and Conor Mcgregor have huge fan bases abroad. The reason I used the term "equal to" and not any other variation of it to refer to this relationship is because this movie is the Leonardo DiCaprio fan base. A fan-base that shows up-to each and everyone of his movies. A fan base that allows him to bring a 100 million $ budget to any movie he is in. In a metaphorical way the movie is the fan base of DiCaprio. For starters its a Russian story but the film felt the need to Americanize it. All the characters have this odd hybrid feel of Russian characters trying hard and pretending to be America friendly. This taps into the concept of American dream and how that idea is mythologized among several north countries and to certain extent Latin American countries. This might feel like a conspiracy theory but it is true. There is this idealized version of America among lot of European and northern countries. Most of it among young people who don't know any better. They get most of their input through pop culture and movies. The production design of this movie is very cheap. It looks cheap and feels cheap. When foreign audience gets movies like this all the time made by their local film industries and then they get movies like the dark knight or the wolf of wall street from Hollywood, they tend to look up to Hollywood movies. There is certain hyper realism in Hollywood that's missing in almost all other native film industries. A 60 million $ movie being produced out of any foreign market is unheard of. You won't see even a British movie with UK currency > US dollars in value making a 60 million $ movie for its audience with its sensibilities. The problem here is two fold. Firstly you won't that much money and secondly you won't find audience that accepts those kinds of movies coming out of these smaller markets. Even the reception to this movie kind of says something about that. This movie was a bomb. Not a lot of people went and saw it. Here is the thing about movies like these. If the same movie is set in US and its released abroad then foreign audience might watch it. But a movie set in Russia will not be watched by other markets. US audience will respond more to movies that feel american and not fake american. The whole movie feels like it is made by a Russian guy who is much more interested in Hollywood movies his whole life more than his local film industry and is interested in making his version of how a Hollywood movie should be. Its well known fact that foreign audience big action scenes and visual effects and loud explosions. They love escapism. They love good looking people on screen. They are not in the business of supporting character actors like Bryan Cranston. They need movie stars with thick hair and attractive facial features and some features that are very rare to find among general public. For some reason when I was watching this movie it felt like this movie is the fan base of DiCaprio its the cinematic manifestation of a fan base that is obsessed with toxic masculinity , wanting to get as much as they want of anything and stuff. Most of it has to do with sex , money and machismo. Wolf of wall-street more so than inception is highly attractive and appealing to 20 yr olds. It has everything a human being is capable of doing given the right circumstances. This is the first review where I felt all the diatribe in this paragraph is relevant and not tagged on.

The movie does feel jarring at times on laptop. So, I can only imagine how nauseating it must be to watch it in a theater. Audience may vomit.



Welcome to the human race...
Mandy (Panos Cosmatos, 2018) -


A fundamentally simplistic revenge story is well and truly amplified by every aspect of its filmmaking that draws on a variety of styles and inspirations in saturating every frame of its immense two-hour running time in an aesthetically overwhelming atmosphere - all so it can lend its pulpier developments a much-desired sense of character. I think I have a new favourite film of 2018.

Déjà Vu (Tony Scott, 2006) -


One very familiar concept - hero must use time-travel to prevent a disaster - is given an underwhelming execution here as Scott's notably manic late-period direction does little to help the sluggish pacing and uninteresting developments of the story.

Set It Off (F. Gary Gray, 1996) -


The premise of four African-American women resorting to bank robbing as a means of escaping their increasingly dire circumstances is a novel variation on a familiar premise and is executed reasonably well by Gray's unassuming journeyman direction.

Grand Hotel (Edmund Goulding, 1932) -


I didn't think too highly of this when I first saw it a few years ago, but a second viewing has made me a little more appreciative of it. I don't think it's ever going to be a favourite and it's still fairly basic as far as melodrama goes, but it's still a reasonably pleasant watch and there have been far worse Best Picture winners.

You Were Never Really Here (Lynne Ramsay, 2017) -


The first 2018 release I've re-watched (in theatres, no less) and it's still good enough to earn it.

Red Sorghum (Zhang Yimou, 1987) -


Zhang's directorial debut certainly shows off the kind of characteristics and interests that he would refine across his career (especially a remarkable command of colour and staging), but as its own thing it's a little too rough for its own good.

A Touch of Sin (Jia Zhangke, 2013) -


I always appreciate an anthology film where all the segments are good and this film definitely delivers that. It's paced extremely patiently when it's deploying brief but effectively brutal displays of violence and managing to ground that in some effective drama (especially when the segments start to build on one another not just narratively but thematically).

Teen Titans Go! To The Movies (Peter Rida Michail and Aaron Horvath, 2018) -


A somewhat noble attempt to outdo The Lego Batman Movie's DC-themed meta-commentary on superhero media ends up being overwhelmed by multiple layers of family-friendly obnoxiousness that overshadows the moments where it actually manages to sneak in some surprisingly good gags.

Scanners (David Cronenberg, 1981) -


Watching this for the first time in many years definitely shows that if anyone can take the B-movie concept of high-powered telepaths being able to make heads explode and imbue it with not just iconic moments of horror but also a significant amount of substance, it's Cronenberg.

Man of Iron (Andrzej Wajda, 1981) -


Really wish I'd been able to watch Man of Marble first, but this tale of a worker trying to maintain a union in the face of serious strife as recounted Citizen Kane-style to the reporter who has to depict his actions in a way that will discredit him holds up well enough in its own regard.



September, 2018 movies watched-

Union Pacific (1939)
Very entertaining Cecil B. DeMille Cannes' winner.

Heroes for Sale (1933)
Pretty heavy stuff for it's day.

The Old Dark House (1932)
Decent humorous horror with great atmosphere.

Swing Time (1936)
Just so likable.

Sisters of the Gion (1936)
+ The life and times of geisha sisters.

Isle of Dogs (2018)
Pretty excellent except I think it could have been a little more lively at times.

Goodbye Mr. Chips (1939)
- Very nice film from the top 100 British list.

Hereditary (2018)
- Decent but nothing special.

L'Atalante (1934)
I liked it ok but it's magic eluded me.

Little Caesar (1931)
+ Edward G. Robinson!

A Day at the Races (1937)
- Consistent entertainment from The Marx Brothers.

The Life of Emile Zola (1937)
Best picture winner that has merit but I thought it was bland.

Dodge City (1939)
- A western directed by Michael Curtiz and starring Errol Flynn and Olivia de Havilland. How could it not be good?

American Animals (2018)
+ I thought it did really well for what it had to work with.

Show Boat (1936)
I've had better luck with musicals from the 30's than any other decade.

The Hurricane (1937)
John Ford could have used some more star power from his leads.

The Story of the Last Chrysanthemum (1939)
Slow but very moving.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939)
+ It could have been a favorite had it been more consistently dark.

Love Affair (1939)
- Easily prefer An Affair to Remember but it's the same great story and ending.

The Dressmaker (1931)
Different and enjoyable enough to be worth a watch.

The Public Enemy (1931)
+ James Cagney!

Hell's Angels (1930)
A bit dated but still has aerial excitement and solid drama.

Tag (2018)
Nothing here but a good time.

Gold Diggers of 1933 (1933)
Another great 30's musical.

The Young in Heart (1938)
It has to be one of the best feel good movies of the decade.

Shanghai Express (1932)
- Hard to go wrong with Marlene Dietrich and Josef Von Sternberg.

Osaka Elegy (1936)
+ Pretty damn good for probably my least favorite Kenji Mizoguchi movie.

Vampyr (1932)
- The only movie of the 3 from director Carl Dreyer that I've seen and don't care much for.

The Most Dangerous Game (1932)
+ Cool watch.

Upgrade (2018)
A total blast from start to finish.

Total September viewings-30
Total 2018 viewings-260





In the Aisles (2018) by Thomas Stuber




The Piano (1993) by Jane Campion
+



Natural History (2014) by James Benning
+



Loulou (1980) by Maurice Pialat
+



Double Play: James Benning and Richard Linklater (2013) by Gabe Klinger




Once Upon a Time There Was a Singing Blackbird (1970) by Otar Iosseliani




First Reformed (2018) by Paul Schrader




Kaili Blues (2015) by Gan Bi
+



The Thin Blue Line (1988) by Errol Morris



Welcome to the human race...
Crazy Rich Asians (Jon M. Chu, 2018) -


A fundamentally basic rom-com premise (woman must meet and impress her boyfriend's wealthy and eccentric family) is given a decent work-out thanks to a solid cast managing to mine it for consistent laughs. I still question how much the movie is luxuriating in its comical displays of opulence and decadence as opposed to merely satirising them, though.

Take This Waltz (Sarah Polley, 2011) -


A fairly standard exercise in quasi-independent romantic dramedy about a woman whose encounter with a new neighbour are enough to make her question whether her marriage is stable or just stagnant. As with the previous film, nothing unfamiliar going on here but it's handled well enough by cast and crew alike that it manages to be a decent film.

The Adventures of Robin Hood (William Keighley and Michael Curtiz, 1938) -


The most classic of all the classic Hollywood swashbucklers certainly does a lot to live up to that reputation a full eight decades later with its vibrant Technicolor, rambunctious ensemble, and triumphant sonic landscape.

La bête humaine (Jean Renoir, 1938) -


Having seen a few of his films now, I'm starting to think that Renoir is going to be one of those directors I respect but don't necessarily appreciate all that much on a personal level. As it is, this is a rather archetypal noir but with twists and variations to keep it on the right side of decent.

Akira (Katsuhiro Otômo, 1988) -


It's an all-time favourite, what else do you want me to say?

The Blue Angel (Josef von Sternberg, 1930) -


Though I had a fairly good idea of what to expect after watching Fassbinder's Lola (which plays like a loose remake of this film), it still brings enough in its own right to make for a solid early talkie and its tale of Weimar-era sexual politics holds up rather well.

The Mummy (Karl Freund, 1932) -


I know I'm a little biased on having seen the action-packed 1999 remake at a formative age, but even putting that aside my main impression is that it plays too much like an Egyptian-themed rehash of Dracula and Frankenstein with little in the way of interesting variation.

Mandy (Panos Cosmatos, 2018) -


Yeah, I re-watched it again already. The sheer what-the-hell factor of an initial viewing has obviously faded a little, but there are ways in which it does earn a second viewing as attempting to parse its feverish filmmaking starts to become a little easier.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (Renny Harlin, 1988) -


Review found here. It's not overly bad, but I wouldn't call it good.

The Professionals (Richard Brooks, 1966) -


A decent enough men-on-a-mission movie, that's really all I have to say about it.



September Tab


Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (Luc Besson, 2017)

Men in White (Ryszard Boleslawski, 1934)

The Most Dangerous Game (Irving Pichel & Ernest B. Schoedsack, 1932)

Rain (Lewis Milestone, 1932)

City Lights (Charlie Chaplin, 1931)
[REWATCH]
Tully (Jason Reitman, 2018)

The Purge: Election Year (James DeMonaco, 2016)



Mata Hari (George Fitzmaurice, 1931)

The Goldwyn Follies (George Marshall, 1938)

I, Tonya (Craig Gillespie, 2017)

Stand-In (Tay Garnett, 1937)

Battle of the Sexes (Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Faris, 2017)

Mad Love (Karl Freund, 1935)

All Quiet on the Western Front (Lewis Milestone, 1930)

Trouble in Paradise (Ernst Lubitsch, 1932)



The Hunchback of Notre Dame (William Dieterle, 1939)

Lean on Pete (Andrew Haigh, 2017)

I Feel Pretty (Abby Kohn & Marc Silverstein, 2018)

Security (Alain Desrochers, 2017)

Black Panther (Ryan Coogler, 2018)

Sleepless (Baran bo Odar, 2017)

It Comes at Night (Trey Edward Shults, 2017)



Crossroads (Tamra Davis, 2002)

Small Town Girl (William A. Wellman, 1936)

Gold Diggers of 1937 (Lloyd Bacon, 1936)

Overboard (Rob Greenberg, 2018)

Personal Property (W.S. Van Dyke, 1937)

I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang (Mervyn LeRoy, 1932)

Each Dawn I Die (William Keighley, 1939)

Bombshell (Victor Fleming, 1933)



Jezebel (William Wyler, 1938)

Cyborg (Albert Pyun, 1989)

Pete's Dragon (David Lowery, 2016)

White Boy Rick (Yann Demange, 2018)

Black Legion (Archie Mayo, 1937)

Sadie McKee (Clarence Brown, 1934)

All the Money in the World (Ridley Scott, 2017)


Monthly Total: 37
Yearly Total: 396


Thoughts on Some of the Films:

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets features some fantastic CGI, and there are entertaining moments scattered throughout its sprawling plot, such as Rihanna's turn as a shapeshifting dancer, but overall the movie feels like an expensive, unwieldy mess. It's impossible to take Dane DeHaan seriously as a leading man. We're supposed to accept with a straight face that he's this charming, handsome, roguish leader, when instead he looks like he should be bagging groceries or plotting a school shooting. His running mate in the film, Cara Delevingne, doesn't seem to have much acting talent, either, but she's gorgeous, so who cares? It feels like a hundred years ago now since Besson made La Femme Nikita and The Professional.

Rain is a solid pre-code film with Joan Crawford as a prostitute engaged in a potentially soul-destroying battle of morality against Walter Huston's self-righteous missionary. The rain-soaked tropical atmosphere makes for a great backdrop, but the ending lacked conviction. Charlize Theron is excellent in Tully, but the ridiculous, cliched twist really soured me on the film. Considering that I hated The Purge and disliked The Purge: Anarchy, I'm surprised by how much I enjoyed The Purge: Election Year. Maybe because it's the first one that seems to embrace the underlying silliness of its premise, thus upping the fun factor as a result? Or perhaps my taste is just eroding . . .

I thought the first half of I, Tonya was fantastic. I loved its playfulness, the soundtrack was incredible (I've had "Devil Woman" stuck in my head for two weeks now), the acerbic humor suited my funny bone quite well, the white-trash element made me feel right at home. I even thought the breaking of the 4th wall was handled well, and typically I hate that technique. Margot Robbie is fast becoming my favorite actress. Not only is she one of the most strikingly beautiful women in the world, but she's also immensely talented. Her transformation into Tonya Harding is 100% convincing. Allison Janney's turn as the chain-smoking, foul-mouthed, tough-love-dishing mother was a hoot. The script deftly balanced humor and pathos. Sadly, the film seemed to lose a lot of its energy once "the incident" occurred, becoming far more conventional and less captivating. I've seen a lot of people complain about the film being too sympathetic toward Harding, but I disagree. I think she's still plenty unlikeable in the film, but as with most people with her background and upbringing, she's also a victim of her environment. Most bio-pics are stuffy and safe, so I like that I, Tonya feels anything but. Very good movie that falls just short of being great.

Battle of the Sexes is another sports-based true-story that I knew very little about. The script is way too heavy-handed anytime FEMINISM is the topic of conversation, but I thought Emma Stone and Steve Carell were both fantastic in their roles. Mad Love features a fun premise, some striking imagery, and a spooky performance from the bug-eyed Peter Lorre. I just wish the film had been longer since it ends up feeling too slight. I don't understand the love for Trouble in Paradise. Off-putting characters and no laughs, despite being a beloved comedy.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame is incredible. I'd previously only seen the Disney version, which is far different, of course, so I was still relatively unfamiliar with the story. The sets are jaw-dropping. Laughton's performance and physicality are magnificent and the make-up/prosthetics are convincing. Maureen O'Hara looks lovelier than I've ever seen her. The film is heart-stopping, heart-breaking, gorgeously constructed, beautifully rendered and atmospheric as f**k. I hope it places high on the 30's Countdown.

I'm a bit baffled by the overwhelmingly positive reactions to Black Panther. I think it's one of the weakest, least engaging entries in the MCU. Black Panther just isn't an interesting superhero, in my opinion. I was rooting for Michael B. Jordan's villain, to be honest. Critics and audiences seem to hate the Jamie Foxx action-thriller Sleepless, but I found it quite thrilling. Yes, it's derivative and events often defy logic, but the balls-to-the-walls pace made for an entertaining injection of adrenaline. Now I need to seek out the French original. The dread and atmosphere in It Comes at Night is suffocating. The film is extremely well made, even if it reminded me too much of other similar films, such as The Road.

Yes, I watched Crossroads, the 2002 movie meant to cash in on the overwhelming popularity of popstar Britney Spears. I'm still traumatized from the years when she was shaving her head and flashing her chubby vagina to paparazzi while hanging out with Super Slut Paris Hilton, so I'd forgotten just how damn fit and fine Spears was in her heyday, a fact quickly reminded in the very first scene when Spears is shown dancing in her undies. The script and dialogue are both horrendous. Of course there's plenty of fluff and pop-song sing-a-longs, but the movie veers into some extremely dark subject matter, like rape and child abandonment and miscarriages . . . yet the tone of the movie remains weirdly upbeat, making for one of the most jarring tonal imbalances I've seen in a film. An oddly fascinating train wreck. Hit me baby one more time.
__________________



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
lI'm Bach!

Took a lot of screencaps, too, because I know you people like them eye-candy screenshots!

レイプ25時 暴姦 [Rape! 13th Hour] (1977) -




Quite an unpleasant rape pink film. Yasuharu Hasebe really knows no boundaries and pushes them hard as two rapists - master and apprentice, assail women and take advantage of them in a very brutal way. They eventually get their comeuppance in an even more grating grand finale whose epilogue actually says something completely different, which might be interpreted as apolegetic of rape. A totally self-contradictory mess of a film, but also a great sleazefest. Not for the weak!

Thérèse Raquin [The Adultress] (1953) -




Trying to watch more Carne. This film lacks the visual exuberance usually associated with the director and sports its modesty, plainness, not to say archaicity. The character of a Mitchum-esque sailor really makes the otherwise regular, but all the same solid movie by highlighting it to a 'great cinema' rank.

Les portes de la nuit [Gates of the Night] (1946) -













A tremendous cinematic achievement! Among Carne's best! I'm really tempted to give it a full five star rating. It perfectly reinforces the Port of Shadows' miserabilism, understandably minus the prophesy of war, through poetic realism built on nocturnal rendezvous, love-torn characters, and inescapable workings of a tramp-like personification of fate. Every movement of an actor seems to be consciously planned. Mise en scene of an empty city at night is marvellous. Autumn Leaves more nostalgic than ever. The poetry of a single pat of fate's hand that leads to two shy lovers' hands meeting at the beginning of the film already tells you you're watching master class cinema.

壁あつき部屋 [The Thick-Walled Room] (1953) -




Kobayashi does a very good job directing here, and the nightmare scenes are really well-made. Still, the film didn't win my heart. I'll try to watch more lesser Kobayashi films.

Baby Driver (2017) -




I'm not too big on Wright, and this film didn't change it! I hate the Americanesque artificiality of its visuals and the fake coolness! Looks like a tad bit more ambitious version of Fast and Furious, and although it successfully embraces its not-too-serious outlook on some themes, often approaching them with a sense of cinephilic respect, I can only try and wonder how an Edgar Wright film I love would look like.

Adieu (2003) -




A peculiar film, and director's debut at that. You can see some obvious influences here, from Bresson to avant-garde cinema, and the shots of a white truck driving aimlessly are really great for some reason. I wasn't big on the biblical themes juxtaposed to the crisis of faith substory. This felt quite weird.

Het dak van de Walvis [On Top of the Whale] (1982) -




Ruiz is gr8 and I feel bad for not giving this four stars. It's a great mish mash of his usual themes and style. Theatre of Absurd embellished with linguistic shenanigans and silent cinema like tinting of oranges and reds.

Mula Sa Kung Ano Ang Noon [From What Is Before] (2014) -




Too short & fast-paced! This plays almost like a regular film rather than slow cinema Lav Diaz usually makes. The story is uniformly packed in less than six hours running time. One wants more contemplation!!!

Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters (1985) -




Beautiful dreams versus harsh reality! Schrader really gets Mishima! Emotionally. I mean, his attempts at interpreting his character, along with biopic misrepresentations, are quite shallow, but what an audiovisual feast! Philip Glass' score is astoundingly good, too. Especially when it mimicks Koyaanisqatsi! The first act is an easy 10/10. Film's quality decreases a bit as it goes on, but never too much!

渚のシンドバッド [Like Grains of Sand] (1995) -




Beautiful cinema portraying teen loves in multi-orientation triangles. Not relatable to me in the least, but still very empathy-inducing, touching, beautiful. The raw emotions. Americans - learn! The best gay kiss on a beach at night in history of cinema! Take that, Moonlight!

Thieves' Highway (1949) -




A gritty film gris from master Jules Dassin. Apart from the unlikely ending, it's a very strong film. I bet feminists get butthurt from the depiction of women in this film, though. Haha.

Daïnah la métisse (1932) -




Quite a weird offering, this one, with some creepy imaginery, like the ball with all participants wearing spooky masks. Quite interesting how the main female protagonist stops being one in the middle of the film and a black man becomes the lead! Quite progressive!

Silvestre (1981) -




Monteiro's debut and already a very impressive work of art. Static, theatrical, using a vast spectrum of vivid colours, and nuanced, if classically thespian performances.

Blaise Pascal (1972) -








Apparently, the films of Oliveira and Monteiro's Silvestre were inspired by Rossellini's late period films. Those are films made for TV on very low budgets. This is one of them, and you can clearly see the influence! I get a feeling Rohmer's Perceval le Gallois is a similar film stylistically, but I haven't seen that one. All that being said, I was surprised by how often camera was moving in this film, as opposed to almost entirely static films of Oliveira. I didn't like how prolix and dialogue-driven it was. Way too much speaking! The mise en scene was nothing short of great, though, and the ending is the peak of filmmaking.



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
淑女は何を忘れたか [What Did the Lady Forget?] (1937) -









Ozu does screwball comedy! This is by no means one of his best, but it made me smile a lot, and it's such a charming film! I loved the BDSM innuendo at the end!

縄と乳房 [Rope and Breasts] (1983) -

















The cinematography and use of color is great (especially in the tremendous opening scene!). Too bad I can't post some of the screenshots I took (dem tiddies are forbidden here).

½ Mensch [½ Man] (1986) -




Ishii's cyberpunk, rusted, coarse style of filmmaking is ideal for Einstürzende Neubauten's music, so the final outcome is great!

Juliette ou la clef des songes [Juliette, or Key of Dreams] (1951) -




Carne - continued. A dream as opposed to reality, and memories as the only link to the outside world. In the land of lost memories, the one who remembers is paradoxically the most unhappy one. The realization that you just woke up from a pleasant dream and can never expect this dream to come true makes you return to the land of dreams. But the land of dreams means your demise.

Алёнка [Alenka] (1961) -




A charming little film from Boris Barnet. Not a masterpiece, but so enjoyable to watch!

Vénus aveugle [Blind Venus] (1941) -




Why, Abel, why?! This starts wonderfully as if Gance hadn't forgotten anything he did in silent cinema, and decided to just go ahead and do his old thing, which was no doubt great. Sadly, what follows is a rather regular French film of the time. What's even worse the plot is incredibly melodramatic in the worst way possible. What's even worse is that the attempts at humor and reconciliation at the end are so cheaty, disgusting and stupid...! Well, the film looks beautiful, and some visuals are breathtaking, but that's about it.



Damn you, @Mr Minio. Did you really have to go post crazy the very instant I posted my own tab? Stop trying to bury me in your weird rape fantasies!

Some amazing screencaps, though.



“I was cured, all right!”
花芯の刺青 熟れた壷 [Tattooed Flower Vase] (1976) -

I'll watch this film for this screenshot alone!
Rope and Breasts also caught my attention!



Sorry if I'm rude but I'm right
I'll watch this film for this screenshot alone!
I'm not really sure if this is a good one to start your pink film adventure with. The same director's Flower and Snake might be more representative of the genre as a whole, and is also a much more seminal work. School of the Holy Beast plus Wakamatsu is my usual go-to when I recommend pink films to people who never saw any. Now, I can't remember if you ever watched any, but the thing is if you want to start, start from the very best. Admittedly, Tattooed Flower Vase is a top notch film, but I don't know how I'd have rated it at the beginning of my journey with pinku eiga, if I hadn't already seen more than 150 titles.



Seen in September Pt.2/2



I guess this is when Steven Spielberg became the ‘dad movie’ director. Tom Hank’s performance as a character who can’t speak english is brilliant, if you weren’t familiar with him you may believe he was an actual foreign actor. I loved all the characters. The film was super happy, nice, sweet funny etc. but wow is it DRENCHED in Hollywood sappiness!



Disney sure does borrow a lot from its films. The end of the film is almost exactly like the ‘twitter pated’ scene from Bambi, the Beatle birds are pretty much the crows from Dumbo, and Hanukah Matata is strikingly similar to Bear Necessities. The problem with all of these old Disney films is that they don’t have any plot, everyone just meanders around until something happens. This makes it pretty hard to engage emotionally with it. The comedy and characters were very good though



The effects are absolutely brilliant for their time, and still very impressive today. Everyone in this film is such a dumb-ass: Everytime they get played with by the Invisible Man they’re always like “WhAt? WhAt’S gOiInG oN?!?!”, when in reality everyone would drop-kick him in about 2 seconds.


?
I absolutely love the snowman design. You may say it looks terrible, but I love it. The fact that it look more like plastic than snow, the fact that he moves in the film about as much as an actual snowman. His screechy voice. His goofy smile and angry eyebrows. It's beautiful.

I fail to see why this has a 4 on IMDB. It may be awful but I find it absolutely impossible to hate. I cant give much of a review, I just have to list all the things I found amazing.

-That completely out of place opening.
-The town is called "Snowmonton".
-Scott MacDonald looks and acts like a porno actor.
-There's a weird bicycle-pump noise whenever they do a flashback.
-The fact that the CGI blood cells scene looked pretty good for this type of film.
-The kid's oats look like mini-marshmallows mixed in dog s*it.
-'Snowballs'
-Stephen King bullies.
-Final Destination looking-ass death.
-I only 'axed' you for a smoke.
-The sound effect for Jack emerging is the Bull-squid sound effect from Half Life.
-Utterly inappropriate music during the strangling scene.
-During the strangling scene the camera zooms in on Jacks face like he's in a cartoon/porno and he's going 'hubba hubba'. You can't make this up people.
-The one cop who keeps on making creepy jokes about the corpses.
-"This watery footprint has the same DNA print as a fingerprint"
-Too many stock sound effects.
"Turn on the lights" "But I'll get scared in the dark"
-Well it ain't f*cking Frosty!
-She dries her hair BEFORE taking a bath!
-'Christmas came early this year'
-Just awful stock music throughout the whole film.
-The policeman shoots the water!
-LOOK MA! I'M A PICASSO! HAHA!
-'Fastest blow-dryer in the west'
-HE PUT ANTI-FREEZE IN THE OATS BECAUSE HE 'DIDN'T WANT HIM TO GET COLD!
-They bury him in the ground instead of quarantining him.

I'm so glad this film exists.


+
Bananas, absolutely bananas. I wouldn’t say it’s as good as the first Crank, but it’s a bit more insane. Also Dennis from It’s Always Sunny returns YAAAAAY!


-
Very entertaining little film. It’s very light-hearted at the start but gets surprisingly intense towards the end. The sets are very good as well.



Eh, it was fine, nothing special. My friends described it as ‘Irish John Wick’, which I guess is a little true. The action scenes are pretty good and the lighting in some scenes is brilliant. My friends kept on cracking jokes through the whole thing so it’s hard to give a fair judgement.


-
[RE-WATCH]
All I can really say is that t’s very inspirational, has a spectacular score and an absolutely fantastic last 10 minutes.


+
Man, it was great.

Going into it I was a bit worried the many different plots would make it very confusing to follow. That didn't happen though, I was able to follow it the entire way. If you like your guns and gore, this is the film for you. Lots of shots of the characters toying with guns and or using them.

What I love about these types of British films is the hilarious performances: They're always getting angry, saying c*nt and other bizarre things like 'U Wot?' and 'You Sausage Nigels!' (That one was actually from Crank 2, but it still counts).

But damn, this film was entertaining as hell! Probably from it's brilliant script and performances (Piss off, you nonce!). It's a bit like a Shakespeare comedy in a way: Everything goes wrong in a hilarious manner due to minor human screw-ups. The last 30 minutes or so are way more suspenseful than it has any right to be. I was clutching my blanket and thinking *OH S*IT* about every 5 minutes.

It also ends on an absolutely stellar cliffhanger.