KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,772
- 3,808
Watched this recently too and had a really good time with it. I'm surprised it doesn't have a bigger reputation given its pedigree.
Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate it | {Insert Appropriate Seasonal Greeting Here}
- Thread starter ProstheticConscience
- Start date
Did you write a review for this? I thought I recalled hearing about the film somewhere but don't know if it was recently that someone reviewed this or some time in the past year or so.
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
@shadow1 did:
Intruder
The film got instant cult status because of the Fangoria/Gorezone hype and its MPAA reception (mainly because of the head cut in half).
It's a pretty fun slasher, but from Raimi's group of friends at the time, I prefered Lunatics: A Love Story, which on the contrary faded into oblivion.
Nakatomi
Registered User
- Dec 26, 2022
- 157
- 200
Bottoms 7.5/10 - Recently released somewhat surrealist black comedy starring Rachel Sennott and Ayo Edibiri as two young women entering their senior year of high school who start a fight club at school to try to hook up with cheerleaders.
An interesting cast including Marshawn Lynch as the faculty sponsor for the club and Cindy Crawford's daughter Kaia Gerber as one of the cheerleaders that Sennott's character PJ wants to hook up with.
All in all, it is only around an hour and a half long and zips right by. I laughed and it did a decent job poking fun at the high school movie genre. Not quite a future classic like Heathers, but worth checking out.
I am not really sold on Rachel Sennott, though. She seems to be a sort of a comedy "It" girl in the making for the younger generation. I have liked but not loved her in what I have seen so far, but will be curious to see where her career goes.
An interesting cast including Marshawn Lynch as the faculty sponsor for the club and Cindy Crawford's daughter Kaia Gerber as one of the cheerleaders that Sennott's character PJ wants to hook up with.
All in all, it is only around an hour and a half long and zips right by. I laughed and it did a decent job poking fun at the high school movie genre. Not quite a future classic like Heathers, but worth checking out.
I am not really sold on Rachel Sennott, though. She seems to be a sort of a comedy "It" girl in the making for the younger generation. I have liked but not loved her in what I have seen so far, but will be curious to see where her career goes.
Last edited:
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,772
- 3,808
I watched it back in June but didn't review it here. So just a coincidence.
ItsFineImFine
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2019
- 3,745
- 2,389
Singin' in the Rain (1952) - 7/10
Was hoping this would be a musical which people who really don't like musicals could enjoy. Gold Diggers of 1933 for example had a long stretch of no musicals in the middle bookended by musicals but sadly was not the case here. Anyways the non-musical parts are quite fun and everything is so bright and colourful here, one of the sharpest looking Hollywood films of the 50s. But the musical numbers make everything feel superflous along with the light-hearted nature of the film which is a bit of a shame because it could've been a potentially good emotional screwball. Donald O'Connor would've made a great Joker.
The Towering Inferno (1974) - 7/10
Well-made disaster film which is rated slightly unfairly. Quite brutal and heavy to watch at times and it holds up well, especially the final hour. Steve McQueen and Paul Newman are really good in their roles, both actors give 100%. I think what prevents it from being great is that everything is pretty standard as far as disaster films go....it sets up a bunch of personal character conflicts then brings them all together and then the ticking clock goes boom. The dialogue which made the film interesting in the first 30-60 minutes is replaced by characters shouting or receiving commands.
Mean Streets (1973) - 6.5/10
Decent early Scorsese film. The rougher almost French new-wave direction is a bit more fun and the storytelling style is a lot more looser than his overly polished later work but gangster films are a bit meh for me. Robert DeNiro plays a really antagonistic character here while Keitel is given a bit more range and is more interesting to watch.
Was hoping this would be a musical which people who really don't like musicals could enjoy. Gold Diggers of 1933 for example had a long stretch of no musicals in the middle bookended by musicals but sadly was not the case here. Anyways the non-musical parts are quite fun and everything is so bright and colourful here, one of the sharpest looking Hollywood films of the 50s. But the musical numbers make everything feel superflous along with the light-hearted nature of the film which is a bit of a shame because it could've been a potentially good emotional screwball. Donald O'Connor would've made a great Joker.
The Towering Inferno (1974) - 7/10
Well-made disaster film which is rated slightly unfairly. Quite brutal and heavy to watch at times and it holds up well, especially the final hour. Steve McQueen and Paul Newman are really good in their roles, both actors give 100%. I think what prevents it from being great is that everything is pretty standard as far as disaster films go....it sets up a bunch of personal character conflicts then brings them all together and then the ticking clock goes boom. The dialogue which made the film interesting in the first 30-60 minutes is replaced by characters shouting or receiving commands.
Mean Streets (1973) - 6.5/10
Decent early Scorsese film. The rougher almost French new-wave direction is a bit more fun and the storytelling style is a lot more looser than his overly polished later work but gangster films are a bit meh for me. Robert DeNiro plays a really antagonistic character here while Keitel is given a bit more range and is more interesting to watch.
It may seem like I am promoting film festivals, I'm not. I'm actually just looking for the new films out there and the film fests are a good place to look. Next up Venice reviews. A few here have piqued my interest. Looking forward to your reviews if you catch some of these first.
deadline.com
www.theguardian.com
Venice Film Festival 2023: All Of Deadline’s Movie Reviews
A compilation of all of Deadline's movie reviews from the 2023 Venice Film Festival.
deadline.com
Venice film festival 2023: our critic’s picks of 10 to watch
Yorgos Lanthimos goes more surreal than ever, Adam Driver pulls on Ferrari’s racing gloves and Polish auteurs get political in this year’s lineup
www.theguardian.com
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
Lunatics: A Love Story (Becker, 1991) - I saw this one at the Fantasia Film Festival (probably in '91, maybe in '92) and liked it quite a bit back then. It's freakishly amateurish (sound is particularly terrible), and borders on the "so bad it's good" territory, but it's fresh and fun enough to still warrant some attention (that is, if you can make it past the hip hop video invasion of the narrative). I am probably overrating it out of nostalgia, but if you want to check it out, it's on YouTube. 4.5/10
Lunatics: A Love Story (whole movie)
*edit: can't habe been at Fantasia, the festival wasn't created yet... must have been at a smaller earlier festival...
Lunatics: A Love Story (whole movie)
*edit: can't habe been at Fantasia, the festival wasn't created yet... must have been at a smaller earlier festival...
Last edited:
Ceremony
How I choose to feel is how I am
- Jun 8, 2012
- 114,311
- 17,410
Ready Player One (2018) The year is 2045. All of America lives in slums comprised of containers perched on top of one another. They spend every waking moment inside an extremely realistic version of the Metaverse, where they can be and do anything and they all compete for Coins to be able to do things. The guy who created this sets up a Willy Wonka style egg hunt to find an heir to the empire, and one nerd does this with the fate of the world coming down to him. For some reason this is presented as a Spielberg family-friendly action romp, rather than the detached dystopian horror it clearly is. I watched this a few years ago and it was one of the few films I've posted about in here. I called it Charlie and the Chocolate Factory for arseholes with no attention span. If anything it's worse than I remember. Have you ever seen Pixels? It's like that only more obnoxious, and this film doesn't have Adam Sandler in it. What an achievement.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) You know that thing Will Ferrell does where he yells and it's really funny? Of course you don't, because that's all he does and it's about the most irritating thing in the world. I wanted to watch something I knew I'd hate. Even though several scenes were wasted on me because I'm already familiar with them as memes, it was contemptible.
Spectre (2015) Doesn't watching James Bond films nowadays just make you fellas want to drink a nice, cool, refreshing Heineken? Drink Heineken and you too can make the most attractive woman in the world, Lea Seydoux, fall in love with you after three days. Drink Heineken and you too can throw Dave Bautista off a train. Drink Heineken. HEINEKEN. LOOK HE'S DRINKING A HEINEKEN. IT'S A BEER. BUY IT. CONSUME. I'd seen this once and was really underwhelmed by it. Now though, I enjoyed it quite a lot. Lots of classic Bond on offer - Blofeld, locations, a giant and largely mute henchman to fling him about a bit. It's let down by the main bad guy being Ant & Dec and largely being a rehash of Skyfall's "you're obsolete Bond", but the rest of it's alright. I think the biggest problem is it doesn't do enough to be its own film. I don't know that any Bond (actor) is as betrothed to his previous stories as Daniel Craig, and the result is you just have the feeling that the previous film was better, and nothing's really going to get resolved now and you'll have to wait. The song was terrible too.
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) You know that thing Will Ferrell does where he yells and it's really funny? Of course you don't, because that's all he does and it's about the most irritating thing in the world. I wanted to watch something I knew I'd hate. Even though several scenes were wasted on me because I'm already familiar with them as memes, it was contemptible.
Spectre (2015) Doesn't watching James Bond films nowadays just make you fellas want to drink a nice, cool, refreshing Heineken? Drink Heineken and you too can make the most attractive woman in the world, Lea Seydoux, fall in love with you after three days. Drink Heineken and you too can throw Dave Bautista off a train. Drink Heineken. HEINEKEN. LOOK HE'S DRINKING A HEINEKEN. IT'S A BEER. BUY IT. CONSUME. I'd seen this once and was really underwhelmed by it. Now though, I enjoyed it quite a lot. Lots of classic Bond on offer - Blofeld, locations, a giant and largely mute henchman to fling him about a bit. It's let down by the main bad guy being Ant & Dec and largely being a rehash of Skyfall's "you're obsolete Bond", but the rest of it's alright. I think the biggest problem is it doesn't do enough to be its own film. I don't know that any Bond (actor) is as betrothed to his previous stories as Daniel Craig, and the result is you just have the feeling that the previous film was better, and nothing's really going to get resolved now and you'll have to wait. The song was terrible too.
Chili
Time passes when you're not looking
- Jun 10, 2004
- 8,793
- 4,931
The Barretts of Wimpole Street-1934
Drama of the romance of poets Elizabeth Barrett (Norma Shearer) and Robert Browning (Frederic March). And the tyranical, domineering father standing between them (Charles Laughton). Laughton excells in this type of role as in Mutiny on the Bounty and Les Miserables. He lost ~50 pounds to play the part. No score, which helps keep the story from becoming a melodrama. Wasn't too far removed from the pre-code era, there is a significant hint of incest in the plot. Strong performances, especially from Shearer and Laughton, even Flush (the dog) is very good. One irritating cousin though doing a great Elmer Fudd impersonation which was weally gwating. Well done film.
Marlowe-2022
It's 1930's LA and private eye Philip Marlowe (Liam Neeson) is back on a case, he has been hired to find a man. Seems like there is no one to find as the guy is soon confirmed dead by the police. Or is he? There are some interestering characters and plot points but overall the story drags along. Maybe this should have been filmed in black and white to give it the 1930's noirish feel, although that would not have changed the slow pace. There was an apparent tint used to make some images look older (noticed this in the remake of Nightmare Alley too). Wonder what Raymond Chandler would have thought? This might have been called 'The Big Sleep Inducer'.
Ikiru (Living)-1952 (subtitles)
Starts with bureaucracy Kurosawa style. A group seeking to convert a wasteland into a playground is passed from department to department, a virtual Kafkaesque maze (The Castle). The request finally lands on the desk of the Public Liason Officer where it has an equally remote chance of ever being realized. The officer in charge hasn't being feeling well and soon knows the grim fate that awaits him. Brilliant performance from Takashi Shimura as Mr Watanabe aka The Mummy (a nickname from co-workers). He reminds me of Morgan Freeman in the almost instant credibility he brings to a role. There is a strong message in the film of finding a purpose and meaning to life, at whatever stage someone is in. Great film that certainly gets me to reflect on life.
ItsFineImFine
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2019
- 3,745
- 2,389
The Unbelievable Truth (1989) - 8/10
Hal Hartley is an underrated film-maker. This is his third film I've seen and they've all been pretty good indie dramedies delivering dead pan dialogue in a unique style with really good pacing and an actual plot to add to the slice-of-life stuff. His characters have big ideals and say the sort of things which sound pretentious when other film-makers do it but it fits in well here. The ending is also really neatly and quickly done bringing in multiple characters to one scene then splitting them off for their own ending and finishing the film up.......probably could be used as a case study to teach film students or something.
The Big Trail (1930) - 7/10
Honestly impressively made for an early talkie.....and filmed in 70mm so it's really unique to watch as well. It's not in technicolour though or it would've looked gorgeous. A young John Wayne is the star but it suffers from the issues of early films like a plodding pace for certain scenes, poor sound design and no music making many scenes fall flat and seem awkward, and rough acting.
Contempt (1963) - 6/10
Really starting to think Godard was a one-hit wonder with Breathless for me because everything he's made since hasn't had that same freshness and has been a trek to watch. This doesn't have quick cuts with city cinematography. It still has some gorgeous wide lens scenes but he focuses on moments which are made from poor dialogue and characters showing emotion yet being emotionally detached from the audience at the same time. I don't think he was a director who ever fully understood how to have audiences connect with characters. That's maybe why Breathless worked well, its frantic pace and loose but structured storyline worked much better.
Hal Hartley is an underrated film-maker. This is his third film I've seen and they've all been pretty good indie dramedies delivering dead pan dialogue in a unique style with really good pacing and an actual plot to add to the slice-of-life stuff. His characters have big ideals and say the sort of things which sound pretentious when other film-makers do it but it fits in well here. The ending is also really neatly and quickly done bringing in multiple characters to one scene then splitting them off for their own ending and finishing the film up.......probably could be used as a case study to teach film students or something.
The Big Trail (1930) - 7/10
Honestly impressively made for an early talkie.....and filmed in 70mm so it's really unique to watch as well. It's not in technicolour though or it would've looked gorgeous. A young John Wayne is the star but it suffers from the issues of early films like a plodding pace for certain scenes, poor sound design and no music making many scenes fall flat and seem awkward, and rough acting.
Contempt (1963) - 6/10
Really starting to think Godard was a one-hit wonder with Breathless for me because everything he's made since hasn't had that same freshness and has been a trek to watch. This doesn't have quick cuts with city cinematography. It still has some gorgeous wide lens scenes but he focuses on moments which are made from poor dialogue and characters showing emotion yet being emotionally detached from the audience at the same time. I don't think he was a director who ever fully understood how to have audiences connect with characters. That's maybe why Breathless worked well, its frantic pace and loose but structured storyline worked much better.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,772
- 3,808
How to Blow Up a Pipeline. A down-and-dirty process-centered political thriller in the tradition of Costa-Gavras or Melville's Army of Shadows. Heavier on action than on political discourse that those. But I thought the structure and film making were high level though there's a third act happening that I'm not totally sold on. Mileage may vary for folks on the characters but for the most part the young cast puts in committed, serious work.
BS High. Documentary about an Ohio high school football team from a school that ... didn't actually exist. The details alone about how individuals could pull this off and how the state allowed it to continue for years are fascinating, but the real draw is the man behind the scheme. Roy Johnson Jr. is one of the most open and unvarnished psychopaths I've ever seen interviewed. That he would sit down and open up as much as he does and how he does tells you everything you need to know about the dude's narcissism.
BS High. Documentary about an Ohio high school football team from a school that ... didn't actually exist. The details alone about how individuals could pull this off and how the state allowed it to continue for years are fascinating, but the real draw is the man behind the scheme. Roy Johnson Jr. is one of the most open and unvarnished psychopaths I've ever seen interviewed. That he would sit down and open up as much as he does and how he does tells you everything you need to know about the dude's narcissism.
Following (1998) - 7/10
Christopher Nolan's debut film, about a man who innocently follows strangers on the street until he tails a particular one and gets in over his head, is unmistakably Nolan and is one of the best "student film" that I've seen. It was made for only £6,000, features amateur actors and was shot on 16mm B&W film (no doubt to save costs, but maybe also to resemble post-classic noirs of the 60s), yet is engaging and features several of Nolan's eventual trademarks: non-linear structure, clever writing and a bombshell ending. It has everything that would define his breakout film Memento a couple of years later, just done on 1/1000th of the budget. I can see see why a studio was impressed enough to give him $5M for his next project. I wasn't even aware of that he made an earlier film until a few people mentioned it in the Christopher Nolan poll thread a month ago, so thanks to them for that. If you like Memento, I recommend checking out its precursor.
Haunting of the Queen Mary (2023) - 3/10
Speaking of non-linear structures, this "horror" movie is an example of how not to do them. It jumps back and forth between two distinct timelines, one following a family aboard the luxury liner Queen Mary in 1938 and the other following a family touring the ship in the present day. The former builds up to a grizzly multiple murder and the latter exists to show visitors to the ship being haunted by those events 85 years later. There's little coherence between the two, though, and they don't even come together well in the end. It felt like it was trying to copy what Titanic did with its interwoven timelines, while also emulating The Shining, but with a haunted/possessed hotel on the water and without the writer/director having close to the skill of Cameron, King and Kubrick. There is some stylish camerawork and the interiors of the ship (especially in the 1938 timeline) are impressive, so it isn't without some redeeming value, but I considered giving up on it several times in the last hour because I just wanted it to end.
Christopher Nolan's debut film, about a man who innocently follows strangers on the street until he tails a particular one and gets in over his head, is unmistakably Nolan and is one of the best "student film" that I've seen. It was made for only £6,000, features amateur actors and was shot on 16mm B&W film (no doubt to save costs, but maybe also to resemble post-classic noirs of the 60s), yet is engaging and features several of Nolan's eventual trademarks: non-linear structure, clever writing and a bombshell ending. It has everything that would define his breakout film Memento a couple of years later, just done on 1/1000th of the budget. I can see see why a studio was impressed enough to give him $5M for his next project. I wasn't even aware of that he made an earlier film until a few people mentioned it in the Christopher Nolan poll thread a month ago, so thanks to them for that. If you like Memento, I recommend checking out its precursor.
Haunting of the Queen Mary (2023) - 3/10
Speaking of non-linear structures, this "horror" movie is an example of how not to do them. It jumps back and forth between two distinct timelines, one following a family aboard the luxury liner Queen Mary in 1938 and the other following a family touring the ship in the present day. The former builds up to a grizzly multiple murder and the latter exists to show visitors to the ship being haunted by those events 85 years later. There's little coherence between the two, though, and they don't even come together well in the end. It felt like it was trying to copy what Titanic did with its interwoven timelines, while also emulating The Shining, but with a haunted/possessed hotel on the water and without the writer/director having close to the skill of Cameron, King and Kubrick. There is some stylish camerawork and the interiors of the ship (especially in the 1938 timeline) are impressive, so it isn't without some redeeming value, but I considered giving up on it several times in the last hour because I just wanted it to end.
Last edited:
shadow1
Registered User
- Nov 29, 2008
- 16,738
- 5,550
Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday (1993) - 2/10
Jason X (2001) - 5/10
Freddy vs Jason (2003) - 4/10
Friday the 13th (2009) - 5/10
Jason Goes to Hell is diarrhea. A bit blunt perhaps, but it's a terrible movie made worse by the fact that it thinks it's smart and witty. Director Adam Marcus has a massive ego, and has repeatedly pointed the finger at fans for "not getting" what he was going for. Sorry douchebag, but I've seen Taco Bell receipts with more interesting plots than this film. I was surprised to find out Harry Manfredini, returning after skipping Part VIII, is responsible for this film's horrible score. Just a film that fails on so many levels, but avoid's a "1" rating because objectively worse films exist, unfortunately.
Jason X is a bad movie, but a bad movie I like. It has a horrible concept and looks incredibly cheap. But it's also drenched in cheese, with fun kills and intentionally bad dialogue you can't help but laugh at. I might be losing my marbles, but I'm bumping this movie up slightly to a 5. Though it is clearly has its sights set low (VERY low...), it manages to be entertaining popcorn fun. During this rewatch, Jason X was the only film after Part VII that I actually enjoyed watching.
Freddy vs. Jason is forgettable in the literal sense. Every time I watch it it feels like the first time all over again because I've forgotten so much of it due to how unmemorable it is. The film has the most involved plot of the entire franchise, but too many story threads go nowhere and end up making the movie feel needlessly bloated. And what's up with that weird slow motion/stop motion thing they use throughout the movie? I just can't get into this one. Its lack of laughs and scares is a far more deadly combination than Freddy and Jason could ever hope to be.
What was I smoking with my previous review of Friday the 13th '09? Sorry, I had to cram a weed reference in there somewhere, but I did like this movie a lot less this go around. I more or less agree with my previous review, but I neglected to mention how much of a chore the first half of the movie is to sit through. Too little happens in the early going, and the film isn't fun enough to make up for it (Dollar Tree Tom Cruise and his cronies need way more campiness). The movie also has lighting issues, making it difficult to see what's going on at times, which definitely hurts it. This is only the third time I've seen Friday '09, and I'm bumping it down to a 5 for now. I still enjoy it more than Freddy vs. Jason, at least.
Thanks for reading! Another summer at Camp Crystal Lake is in the bag...or should I say tater sack.
Kihei mentioning Nolan probably couldn't compose a linear story to save his life now made me think of how Scorcese doesn't want to or can't make a non-documentary movie under 3 hours anymore. Killers of the Flower Moon's runtime is supposedly 3hours 26minutes, and the only other non-documentary film over the last 11 years he's made under 2hours 59minutes (Wolf of Wall Street) was Silence at 2hours 41minutes. Kind of curious why. I've purposely kept The Irishman off my list because it's 3hours 29minutes runtime, I'm not a big mobster movie person, and the feeling that 80-90% of the film is material I've seen already elsewhere.
It seems like the more successful and older a director gets, the less he feels he should edit down his films and the less the studios dare to require him to. I imagine that directors feel frustration early in their careers by not having the budget or permission to make longer films and being forced to take hatchets to their babies. Once they get to the level of Scorsese, Cameron, Nolan or Scott, though, they can stand their ground and no studio's going to tell them what to do because they'll just refuse to ever make another film for them. It's good in the sense that they're able to finally make the films that they want, without studio interference, but can also be not so good if there's nothing or no one pressuring them to keep the runtime under control. As good as their movies tend to be, they often feel like they could've been cut down at least a little and it's harder to justify watching or re-watching a 3-hour movie. I mean, in the time that it takes to watch Oppenheimer, you could watch Jason Goes to Hell AND Jason X.
Last edited:
Your reasoning is probably 100% correct and response to it exactly how I feel as well. It's kind of sad, but time value is very important in life, thus choosing to or even rewatching a 3 to 3 and a half hour movie is a big decision. I know your last sentence was done jokingly, but this past week for example with me: watching Requiem for a Dream and Days of Heaven together is still 17minutes shorter than The Irishman alone, and I'd pretty much guarantee my enjoyment and what I get out of that time is far and away more with the decision I made vs that possible alternative. That said, "beauty" is always in the eye of the beholder.
This one isn't bad... Will they have Battle of Borodino in Napoleon, I wonder. And if they will, is it going to be half as good as Bondarchuk's?
Last edited:
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,772
- 3,808
They Cloned Tyrone. A fun, lively mashup of Blaxploitation and sci-fi. A fitting, though unintended transition for me off catching up with a lot of Black Mirror recently. Funny, particulalry Jamie Foxx. Nice to see him back to having a good time. Reminded me a lot of John Carpenter, which is high praise from me.
Overlord. Another mashup. This one WWII movie plus monster flick. I love the concept, but the execution almost makes me wonder if the original idea was to keep the monster part secret. The marketing — from the poster to the trailers — completely blows that. So now you're left with a movie that takes a long time to get to the meat of the movie. Either it's a marketing error that undermined what could have been a fun surprise or it's a poorly balanced story. Wish the last 30 minutes were most of the preceeding 100 minutes.
Commando. A colossally dumb movie. Idiot characters making constant bad decisions (including Arnold who approaches the task at hand with the reckless zeal of Sir Lancelot storming the castle in Monty Python and the Holy Grail). I love every single second of it with all my heart.
Overlord. Another mashup. This one WWII movie plus monster flick. I love the concept, but the execution almost makes me wonder if the original idea was to keep the monster part secret. The marketing — from the poster to the trailers — completely blows that. So now you're left with a movie that takes a long time to get to the meat of the movie. Either it's a marketing error that undermined what could have been a fun surprise or it's a poorly balanced story. Wish the last 30 minutes were most of the preceeding 100 minutes.
Commando. A colossally dumb movie. Idiot characters making constant bad decisions (including Arnold who approaches the task at hand with the reckless zeal of Sir Lancelot storming the castle in Monty Python and the Holy Grail). I love every single second of it with all my heart.
Some films airing at TIFF
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24897705/theboyandtheheron_04.jpg)
PK Cronin
Bailey Fan Club Prez
- Feb 11, 2013
- 34,534
- 23,964
Liar Liar.
It is bad, borderline unwatchable for me. The acting is terrible, the story is terrible, it doesn't make sense, and it's all an excuse for Jim Carrey to make faces and weird noises. I don't dislike Carrey, especially during that time period (The Cable Guy is a classic for me) but man is it bland. People around my age really like it and it's referenced quite a bit among my friend group but I just could not get into it. I do think it's because I saw it 20+ years after it was released but I didn't expect it to be that bad.
It is bad, borderline unwatchable for me. The acting is terrible, the story is terrible, it doesn't make sense, and it's all an excuse for Jim Carrey to make faces and weird noises. I don't dislike Carrey, especially during that time period (The Cable Guy is a classic for me) but man is it bland. People around my age really like it and it's referenced quite a bit among my friend group but I just could not get into it. I do think it's because I saw it 20+ years after it was released but I didn't expect it to be that bad.
Serious comment/note, isn't every Jim Carrey comedy an excuse for him to improvise/adlib, rewrite, slapstick, and be as zany as possible? As for a number of comedic actors, the majority of the "different" comedic characters you get in each film is largely the same at heart or same shtick at heart. What do you think of Ace Ventura 1, 2, or both? Your comments hint as possibly liking it (liking the Carrey of that time period), but I am curious.
Ceremony
How I choose to feel is how I am
- Jun 8, 2012
- 114,311
- 17,410
ItsFineImFine
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2019
- 3,745
- 2,389
Mysterious Skin (2004) - 7.5/10
I feel like this could've been a better film if it had played up the mysterious alien angle more and the friendship between some of the characters. The truth was simpler and more disturbing in a way. The director has an eye for how to make each scene seem captivating but also a bad tendency to go for exploitative moments to elevate his film.
Brute Force (1947) - 7/10
How many prison films is this Lancaster motherf***er in. Anyways this one is a bit uneven and maybe suffering from too many characters but gets good at the end with a strong finale. The humane angle of the prison shown from the doctor and the older warden is a nice touch, the rest is mostly standard prison-fare. Think of it as a bit like Shawshank if it didn't have a happy ending.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem (2023) - 7/10
Honestly, I think I might have liked this more than the bloated Across The Spider-Verse. The animation style is different but similar though I might be the only one that prefers the feel of the 90s animation style for these sort of cartoons, at least for scenes with less motion. This one shows the Ninja Turtles acting as actual teenagers for once and has a fun opening but gets bogged down once the characters start having to go on chase-quests all over the city until the finale. Seth Rogen seems to have created a bunch of additional side characters to shoehorn some of his friends in to a role for the film lol.
Le otto montagne/The Eight Mountains (2023) - 6/10
Stop. Filming. In. 4:3. When You. Don't. Need. To. Anyways, this is beautiful in parts, boring in most. You can tell this was adapted from a book and one where the director seems to have failed to pick up the humour and life from the book except for in certain dramatic moments. There's an uneasy tension like one of the characters will blow up at any point (and eventually does) which is something I hate in modern films, doesn't really let you enjoy moments.
Wait is that an actual criticism of Nolan? That makes no sense lol. By that standard we should be criticizing a film like Rashomon or saying a director like Ozu is bad cos he repeatedly uses the same type of shots and doesn't know how to do anything else. Also putting together a good non-linear story seems harder than just putting together a standard linear one.
I feel like this could've been a better film if it had played up the mysterious alien angle more and the friendship between some of the characters. The truth was simpler and more disturbing in a way. The director has an eye for how to make each scene seem captivating but also a bad tendency to go for exploitative moments to elevate his film.
Brute Force (1947) - 7/10
How many prison films is this Lancaster motherf***er in. Anyways this one is a bit uneven and maybe suffering from too many characters but gets good at the end with a strong finale. The humane angle of the prison shown from the doctor and the older warden is a nice touch, the rest is mostly standard prison-fare. Think of it as a bit like Shawshank if it didn't have a happy ending.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem (2023) - 7/10
Honestly, I think I might have liked this more than the bloated Across The Spider-Verse. The animation style is different but similar though I might be the only one that prefers the feel of the 90s animation style for these sort of cartoons, at least for scenes with less motion. This one shows the Ninja Turtles acting as actual teenagers for once and has a fun opening but gets bogged down once the characters start having to go on chase-quests all over the city until the finale. Seth Rogen seems to have created a bunch of additional side characters to shoehorn some of his friends in to a role for the film lol.
Le otto montagne/The Eight Mountains (2023) - 6/10
Stop. Filming. In. 4:3. When You. Don't. Need. To. Anyways, this is beautiful in parts, boring in most. You can tell this was adapted from a book and one where the director seems to have failed to pick up the humour and life from the book except for in certain dramatic moments. There's an uneasy tension like one of the characters will blow up at any point (and eventually does) which is something I hate in modern films, doesn't really let you enjoy moments.
Wait is that an actual criticism of Nolan? That makes no sense lol. By that standard we should be criticizing a film like Rashomon or saying a director like Ozu is bad cos he repeatedly uses the same type of shots and doesn't know how to do anything else. Also putting together a good non-linear story seems harder than just putting together a standard linear one.
