Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate it | {Insert Appropriate Seasonal Greeting Here}

[PK Cronin]

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.

I think that's mostly true, though there are a few exceptions. The Truman Show and Man on the Moon being a couple of them. My opinion is that the way people view most comedies is entirely dependent upon when you saw them in your life and if you were the target demographic. If you didn't catch it at the appropriate time then you probably won't ever like it.

As for Ace Ventura, I think it's okay and view some of it fondly because of nostalgia. Butt cheek jokes wouldn't get me to laugh these days though, but the Finkle stuff still gets a chuckle. I never really liked the second one, even at the time. I don't ever have a desire to put it on like I do some other comedies from the time period (I loved Sandler movies and would still watch anything up until 8 Crazy Nights or Little Nicky without an issue at all).

The reason I like The Cable Guy as time goes on is probably because his performance is more subdued in comparison to the aforementioned movies or something like The Mask. The jokes are written better and don't necessarily rely on him being over the top in the same way. I guess, in a way, it's more grounded? Sounds ridiculous to type but that's the best I can describe it.

 

[OzzyFan]

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.

You'd have to ask Kihei who made the statement his opinion. In my opinion, I think it's mostly what you are alluding to, each writer/director has their own preferences and "go to's". I'd guess it's a neutral faculty in filmmaking, linear and non-linear can both be used opportunely or inopportunely. That said, it can definitely be seen as a limitation, for what that's worth.

I think that's mostly true, though there are a few exceptions. The Truman Show and Man on the Moon being a couple of them. My opinion is that the way people view most comedies is entirely dependent upon when you saw them in your life and if you were the target demographic. If you didn't catch it at the appropriate time then you probably won't ever like it.

As for Ace Ventura, I think it's okay and view some of it fondly because of nostalgia. Butt cheek jokes wouldn't get me to laugh these days though, but the Finkle stuff still gets a chuckle. I never really liked the second one, even at the time. I don't ever have a desire to put it on like I do some other comedies from the time period (I loved Sandler movies and would still watch anything up until 8 Crazy Nights or Little Nicky without an issue at all).

The reason I like The Cable Guy as time goes on is probably because his performance is more subdued in comparison to the aforementioned movies or something like The Mask. The jokes are written better and don't necessarily rely on him being over the top in the same way. I guess, in a way, it's more grounded? Sounds ridiculous to type but that's the best I can describe it.

I don't consider The Truman Show or Man on the Moon to be real comedies, more so dramas with comedy coming secondary. I think you are definitely right on part of your comedy ideology, timing and demographic/background(personality) play big parts, but I think some comedy is ageless/any-age, since I can find joy in comedy films around a century old. And yes, rewatchability and aging can change perspectives on comedy films too. And I think you are right on The Cable Guy commentary. Carrey is a side character in the film, and he is actually playing a more tightly wound "caricature" than usual there (pre-"adult" roles at least I'll say). Comedy enjoyment is so much about taste that it's hard to quantify person to person. Hell, I'd even say one's enjoyment of it is mood dependent going in at times. Comedy might be the most emotion based genre of films/television.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Watched Oppenheimer, and then had to watch or rewatch a few more.

Oppenheimer (Nolan, 2023) – Don't have much to say about this one, except that I liked it enough that I now have to rewatch Interstellar to see if it's still my favorite Nolan film. 7/10

Hiroshima (Sekigawa, 1953) – The images of the aftermath in Hiroshima are certainly troubling, they aim at being hyper realistic, but they nonetheless have a surreal aspect that could be linked to some of Roy Andersson's work. That's a big chunk of the film and it is impressive and interesting. Too bad that I feel that most of the film's value is lost in its intention. 5.5/10

I Live In Fear (Kurosawa, 1955) – Maybe with better acting this could have been more efficient. As it is, with the clown job by Mifune, it feels like a waste. Apart from a few moments in the last 20 minutes, there's really not much to take away from this sad tale. Kurosawa took a second jab at the atomic fear in Dreams, again a little over-the-top, but much more interesting to me. 4/10

Black Rain (Imamura, 1989) – I'll just comment on a banal scene where a few men are mocked because they need to stay fishing instead of working because of their degrading health. One of them notes that everybody forgets about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and are content with a few anti-war manifestations, somehow erasing the reality and concreteness of the events (that's a very postmodernist reading of reality, we're somewhere in Baudrillard territory). The rejection/erasure of reality is the very core of In the Realm of the Senses (Imamura's masterpiece), but here it's really just a timid and somewhat sad, or rueful, social commentary by the director. Made more than 40 years after the bombings, the film is about the long game and the fading memory of the events. The black rain's victims, not knowing when or how they'll be affected by the trauma might be underused here as a metaphor for the long-term effect on the Japanese society, the result certainly could have been more effective (the black rain victims, apart from those living directly at ground zero, were still not recognized as survivors of the bombings when the film was made). The film is still somewhat poignant, its oversentimentalist approach might turn a few off, but it has a few moments where meaning breaches through the sentimentality. The images of Hiroshima are not as haunting as in Sekigawa's film even though in many ways similar, just without their quasi-poetic quality. 6/10

200 000 Phantoms (Périot, 2007) – Experimental short, very simple but brilliant idea (won't say more). I just wish the work on sound was as well-thought as the montage (it's mostly just a Current 93 song). 7/10

The Atom Strikes! (1945) – Probably the most disgusting film I've ever seen. The proud description of the destruction is vomitory. Comments about the blasted off Red Cross hospital “which although damaged, never ceased function”, and about Hiroshima's zoning-less urban planning “with no apparent regard for the safety of the civilian population” (are you f...ng kidding me?), taking the American audience for the dumbest people imaginable, have the absolute opposite effect they originally aimed for, and really gets the hatred boiling. Unratable.

Hiroshima mon amour (Resnais, 1959) – The first 16 minutes of this film are pure cinematographic bliss, a perfect blend of Resnais and Duras' artistic genius. It's like Nuit et brouillard had a one night stand with Aurélia Steiner, and it would have been a top-5 films of all time had it not only been the introduction to a more uneven and “conventional” story. The whole film is still a masterpiece, Resnais' then obsession with the act of memory meets Duras' unforgiving impossibility to “tell”, and to “show”. You saw nothing in Hiroshima. Nothing. The writing is so close to Duras' work, and yet Resnais is everywhere in this film. It's a feat just as impressive as what he's done with the works of Robbe-Grillet and Laborit in my two favorite films of his. A short film (90 minutes) that overproduces meaning and interpretative paths. Truly a texte de jouissance in the purest sense, that would here deserve a short thesis. 9/10

H Story (Suwa, 2001) – There is few, but important, elements of reflexivity in Hiroshima mon amour, in the tension for example between real images of the events and some clips from Sekigawa's film (the simple inclusion of these images in Resnais' film was reflexive in itself, but they are also used to feed the reflection about the need/impossibility to recall a traumatic event). Suwa here pushes these elements to their breaking point. H Story is a(bout a) remake of Resnais' film (and maybe even more so of Duras' screenplay and ideas) in which the woman, an actress who came to Hiroshima to make a movie about peace in the original film, is in this one in Hiroshima to shoot a remake of Hiroshima mon amour. It's obviously an auto-reflexive work, and it vacuums in other art forms, also incapable of representing what's unrepresentable (the author who doesn't know if he should include the man he wants to write about in his actual text, the sculptures at the Museum as abstract representations of Hiroshima). Suwa uses the materiality of the film itself, the audibility (and most often through inaudibility) of the sound of the film itself, and the dissonance between one another, to illustrate the impossibility of the representation (which in the narrative culminates in Suwa's abandon of the project). The film seems less and less about the bombings or Hiroshima, and more and more about itself and cinema, but Resnais' film did somewhat the same and felt more and more about everything that was wrong in France during the war: the Nazi collaboration, the way the women were treated after liberation (the “tondues”). Though Suwa is clearly more interested in Duras' ideas and approach, he ends his film on a soundless flashbang (again, using the materiality of the film), a metaphoric act of memory, and a call to caution, echoing Resnais' ending of his own film with the chilling ironic wordplay “Never in France”. Also, I have to note that Béatrice Dalle is absolutely perfect in this, amazing in her first scenes of the remake, and then realizing that it is useless to try and do this film, and getting bored with it – too bad she is surrounded by non-actors, but still, Suwa does very good, and their broken communication works very well in the themes of the film too. Don't watch this film unless you've seen and loved Hiroshima mon amour, and unless you like slow paced films, and unless you like self-reflexive art... If you don't, you'll hate it, but otherwise, this is one heck of a film. 9.5/10

 

[Bounces R Way]

The Last Voyage of the Demetor(2023) - 4/10

The King of Darkness!!
but on a boat

TBH that feels like a bit of a low rating. There's nothing really 'wrong' with this movie. I wanted to like it, I really did. Dracula is one of my favorite works of fiction. I can't put it on a single thing that turned me off with the film. I do believe the components were all adequate. Acting, setting, script, concept, cinematography, costumes were all fine. It was just kind of boring. Uninspired. The film unfolded as exactly as you expect it to. Just didn't grab me the way I hoped it would, found myself on my phone through much of it. Gory and scary in places. Not irredeemable by any means but disappointing for sure.

 

[OzzyFan]

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (Ultimate Cut) (1991)
3.40 out of 4stars

“In the future year of 1995, a cyborg, identical to the one who failed to kill Sarah Connor, must now protect her ten year old son John from an even more advanced and powerful cyborg, in order to protect humanity’s future salvation in a post-apocalyptic war against artificial intelligence.”
An excellent sci-fi action that earns its spot among the best sci-fi action and action films of all time, still 32years after its original release. The action and visuals are superb. The chases, crashes, explosions, gun battles, steel mill sequence, lab battle, confrontations, and robots intensely deliver. The all around effects, special/physical/make-up, were groundbreaking for their time and never feel cheesy, the T-1000 villain especially with its mimicry and malleability properties that showcase everything from liquidy metallic-ness to body horror-esque combat wounds. The choice of weaponry and vehicle usage is top notch. And this film may have the coolest cocking and reloading of guns I’ve seen. Everything here oozes this “coolness” too: the attire, the concepts, all of the above, etc. And of course, the film is not just a brainless thrill ride either. Messages include the ability to determine one’s own fate, anti-war, anti-weapons of mass destruction, the dangers of technology/anti-artificial intelligence, pro-human life/pro-peace, and pro-sacrificial parenting, all told with more than solid character development. As the 2nd highest grossing director of all time and an innovation pusher, I wonder if James Cameron’s place in history is undervalued or if those matters honestly don’t carry much weight.

Stand by Me (1986)
3.15 out of 4stars

“A writer recalls a time in his childhood when he was twelve in 1959, a time when he and his 3 friends went on a journey into the woods to find the body of a dead missing boy their own age.”
A great coming of age drama about a journey that showcases the value of friendship during a special time in boys’ lives where they aren’t children anymore but have yet to begin developing into adults as adolescents. Their adventure is a developmental swan song. Physically and metaphorically going into uncharted territory with hope as they face known and unknown obstacles while facing personal demons, all with the support and hijinks of their friends. Themes of the film include friendship, acceptance, peacemaking, courage, emotional comprehension, and the loss of innocence. Sort of the antithesis of “you’ll always have family”, as family here is seen as part of the problem and friendship the answer to life’s struggles. In fact, the vast majority of parents(and a couple adults) here are portrayed to be standoffish to downright abusive, which I’m curious to how close or exaggerated this was for the time period of the 1950’s. The film is also heavily nostalgic and relatable, well relatable if you grew up in the pre-cell-phone/internet obsession days. Reminding us of a time in our lives when deep unforgettable friendships and bonding existed and their importance. The up all night talking “sleepover” scene really took me back. Around that age the ability to create such deep bonds and knowledge of one another is so much easier than older adolescence, and vastly more so than adult life with its limitations. And a nice message that beneath each stereotypically-labeled child here is a real person.

Let Sleeping Corpses Lie (1974)
3.10 out of 4stars

“A man and woman are harassed by a local police investigator in the English countryside and are implicated in murders committed by zombies who have been brought to life by a farming tool designed to kill insects via ultrasonic radiation.”
A great zombie horror that delivers a pro-nature and anti-establishment message alongside its living dead goodies. The living dead goodies deliver without being excessive. These surprisingly intelligent zombies bring the body horror, gore, blood, invulnerability, well-chosen moaning/breathing noises, and overpowering cannibalistic tension in a satisfying way. That said, this is a smart narrative heavy film. The first half of the film is almost completely devoid of zombie action, which for those that enjoy mentally engaging horrors with something to say will enjoy. But there still are other visual delights and storytelling to be told. There are ample amounts of screenshots and time devoted to showing the beauty of nature and the destructive, pollutive, and selfish characteristics of man, which are also self-harming. Of which, when combined with the arrogance, ignorance, and tunnel vision approaches of people within on the subject matter, makes a strong statement. The anti-establishment message is clearly sent through both an oppressive and stereotyping police officer, and a truth sputtering and first hand researching so called “hippie”. Well chosen settings and other occasional aesthetics top it off. And evident here too is another well concluded horror film.

Terrified (2017) (subtitles)
2.65 out of 4stars

“When strange events occur in a neighborhood in Buenos Aires, a doctor specializing in the paranormal, her colleague, another paranormal investigator, and a police officer decide to investigate further.”
A good supernatural horror that uses a clever hair thin narrative to deliver effectively creepy material. With a bit too many jump scares ranging from great to average to expectedly uninspired, the film starts strong and follows through with great pacing and an “anything can happen” dreadful style with some “carefully curious” investigation thrown in. I can’t quite say there is anything here individually that a horror fan hasn’t seen before, but the visuals and direction make it fresh and worthy of mention. Of note, don’t expect any real answers or story going in. There is an explanation for how the events are happening but nothing on the why side, and character development is near non-existent. But that’s not always the reason why someone chooses to see a film like this, at least on occasion.

 

[PK Cronin]

I don't consider The Truman Show or Man on the Moon to be real comedies, more so dramas with comedy coming secondary.

You're right about this, I was thinking Jim Carrey movies and not just his comedies like you mentioned. Funny enough, I caught the second half of The Truman Show last night. It's still good.

I think you are definitely right on part of your comedy ideology, timing and demographic/background(personality) play big parts, but I think some comedy is ageless/any-age, since I can find joy in comedy films around a century old. And yes, rewatchability and aging can change perspectives on comedy films too. And I think you are right on The Cable Guy commentary. Carrey is a side character in the film, and he is actually playing a more tightly wound "caricature" than usual there (pre-"adult" roles at least I'll say). Comedy enjoyment is so much about taste that it's hard to quantify person to person. Hell, I'd even say one's enjoyment of it is mood dependent going in at times. Comedy might be the most emotion based genre of films/television.

I also think it's the easiest genre of movie to benefit from the hype machine. Nobody wants to be the person who doesn't think the funniest comedy of the year is funny. As I've gotten older I've shied away from them more and more because I just don't find most of the mainstream things that funny (there are exceptions but they're few and far between).

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Dracula is one of my favorite works of fiction. [...] found myself on my phone through much of it.

 

[NyQuil]

I always felt Jim Carrey's attempts at drama or dramedy to be overrated, with the sole exception of the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which I chalk up to just an excellent production all-around.

The Majestic? Man on the Moon? Truman Show?

I felt that a lot of these films were successful in spite of Jim Carrey.

He cannot help himself from hamming it up Jim Carrey style, and even when playing manic characters like Andy Kaufman, that Jim Carrey way is still bludgeoning its way through the performance.

Even at his most subtle, I find Carrey to be wooden at best, and exaggerated at worst.

As for Ace Ventura, I think it's okay and view some of it fondly because of nostalgia. Butt cheek jokes wouldn't get me to laugh these days though, but the Finkle stuff still gets a chuckle. I never really liked the second one, even at the time. I don't ever have a desire to put it on like I do some other comedies from the time period (I loved Sandler movies and would still watch anything up until 8 Crazy Nights or Little Nicky without an issue at all).

The reason I like The Cable Guy as time goes on is probably because his performance is more subdued in comparison to the aforementioned movies or something like The Mask. The jokes are written better and don't necessarily rely on him being over the top in the same way. I guess, in a way, it's more grounded? Sounds ridiculous to type but that's the best I can describe it.

I have the same feeling about Mike Myers films, which were endlessly quotable at the time and hilariously funny, but not something I have any inclination to watch again.

Wayne's World and the Austin Powers films ruled the summer, just like Ace Ventura and the Mask. Somehow, the comedy doesn't age quite as well.

Meanwhile, a movie like Wedding Crashers or Happy Gilmore, as inane as they are, is something I'll watch repeatedly.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Tiptoes - 2004 (1/10 also 9.5/10)
Have you ever seen a film and when it was over you thought to yourself, “what in the world did I just watch?” …. That is Tiptoes.

Matthew McConaughey stars as Steven, an average-sized man who is keeping a jumbo-sized secret that his family is small-sized… Shortly after finding out that she is pregnant, Steven’s girlfriend Carol (Kate Beckinsale) is visited by Steven’s twin-brother, Rolfe, who she quickly learns is a little person.

Rolfe is played by famed actor Gary Oldman, who you may note does NOT have dwarfism and is NOT a little person. He spends almost the entirety of the film “walking” around on his knees and only being in frame from the waist up.

With the help of Steven and Rolfe’s family Carol almost immediately comes to terms with the possibility that her baby may and born a little person. After multiple arguments, some implying abortion, Carol and Steven agree to have the baby, despite the possibility of him/her being born with dwarfism.

Unsurprisingly, baby Vincent is born with dwarfism, much to Steven’s chagrin, who immediately punches a hole in the door.

Now I don’t want to give too much away, but Carol and Steven (pretty much Steven) decide that the best option is for Steven to abandon his wife and newborn child. Carol finds a new arrangement to best raise her son and I will leave it at that.

Also, Peter Dinklage is around for some reason as Maurice… Rolfe’s best friend who is also a very vocal French Marxist who drinks morphine cocktails, starts fights, shouts about the bourgeoise and how marriage destroys relationships. His vagabond hippie girlfriend Lucy is played by Patricia Arquette.

First and foremost, this was one of the dumbest movies I’ve ever seen. The pacing is insane, the dialogue is absolutely ridiculous. No sane people would ever have discussions like those seen in this film.

That being said, I very thoroughly enjoyed my experience. I am a big fan of The Room as well and this movie ranks right up there in terms of absolutely hilarious absurdity. Hence the simultaneous 1/10 and 9.5/10. I might not have laughed this hard during a film ever.

Supposedly there is an unreleased directors cut of this film which includes an additional hour of content. According to Peter Dinklage, the directors was “gorgeous” and the movie was ruined by the version which was released. Writer/Director Matt Wright so passionately expressed this at a film festival release of his directors cut that he had to be dragged off the stage.


All in all, highly recommend everyone to watch this.

 

[Chili]

Missing-1982

Based on a true story during the military coup in Chile in 1973 (it's right around the 50th anniversary this month). An American journalist, Charles Horman (John Shea), his wife Beth (Sissy Spacek) and friends get caught in the middle. People are being rounded up or just shot in the street for no clear reason other then an imposed curfew. Beth is unable to make it home before curfew one night and spends the night hiding in the street. She arrives home to find the house ransacked and her husband missing. When the news reaches Ed Horman (Jack Lemmon), Charles father back in the US he flies right down. Beth and Ed follow the trail of details of Charles disappearance. Sissy Spacek and Jack Lemmon (best actor award at Cannes for the film) are both top notch. The recreation of the coup felt real. Powerful story, very well done political thriller.

If I Were King-1938

'Where are the snows of yesteryear?'-François Villon 15th century poet (and rogue)

In 1463 Paris is surrounded and being starved out by the Duke Of Burgandy & his men. The King, Louis XI (Basil Rathbone) with his storehouses of food is in no hurry to address the matter. So those inside the walls with little food are left to forage the city including the King's stockpiles. One of their leaders is François Villon (Ronald Colman). Villon is an interesting historical figure, I noticed there are several films on his life. Reading up on him there are facts within the story but the film is fiction. Enjoyed it for the performance of the leads. Ronald Colman with his great delivery of lines was well suited to recite some of Villon's poetry. Basil Rathbone is a favorite of mine, was interesting to see him in a much lighter role here as the King with a sense of humour and a funny 'he he' laugh. And the luminous Frances Dee as a lady in waiting. Good film for folks who enjoyed The Adventures of Robin Hood-1938 and The Prisoner of Zenda-1937. There is a colorized version available on Youtube.

Hoffman-1970

A boss, Mr Hoffman (Peter Sellers) has convinced a pretty young co-worker Miss Smith (Sinéad Cusack) to come and live with him for a week. The details of why she is there in his apartment are sketchy because it becomes clear she doesn't want to be there. It's creepy when Mr Hoffman is making Miss Smith feel uncomfortable with sexual innuendo and his admissions of fantasizing about her. Interesting to see Peter Sellers in a dramatic role. Apparently he tried to buy the rights to the film and burn it because his character portrayal was too close to his own personality. Thought it was a good film thanks to strong performances from him and Sinéad Cusack. Looking at the descriptions of the film from dark comedy to romance, would just call it a drama.

King Rat-1965

WWII prisoner of war story set in Changi Prison. Singapore. The key word of the film is presented in a short prologue: Survival. There are a number of senior officers in camp but the prisoners are basically run by Corporal King (George Segal). He is the camp expert at coming up with profitable schemes. His chief nemesis is Lt Grey (Tom Courtenay) the Provost Marshal or military police chief. King befriends Lt Marlowe (James Fox) and their friendship is a central part of the story...as well as rats. Based on James Clavell's novel, he was also the writer of Shogun and co writer of the screenplay for The Great Escape. He wrote and directed To Sir With Love. He had first hand knowledge in writing his novel as he was a POW for years in Changi prison. A number of British stars in the film including Richard Dawson (pre Hogan's Heroes). It's a well done film, heads up though on the 'varied' menu.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Hoffman-1970

A boss, Mr Hoffman (Peter Sellers) has convinced a pretty young co-worker Miss Smith (Sinéad Cusack) to come and live with him for a week. The details of why she is there in his apartment are sketchy because it becomes clear she doesn't want to be there. It's creepy when Mr Hoffman is making Miss Smith feel uncomfortable with sexual innuendo and his admissions of fantasizing about her. Interesting to see Peter Sellers in a dramatic role. Apparently he tried to buy the rights to the film and burn it because his character portrayal was too close to his own personality. Thought it was a good film thanks to strong performances from him and Sinéad Cusack. Looking at the descriptions of the film from dark comedy to romance, would just call it a drama.

I love Sellers, and that's my non-Kubrick favorite film of his. Not known enough.

 

[Howe Elbows 9]

The African Queen (1951, John Huston)
8/10

Following their great collaborations on The Maltese Falcon and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Huston and Bogart are joined here by Katharine Hepburn, who plays a British missionary. I think the movie is enthralling, and wasn't surprised to learn that Bogart won an Academy Award for his performance here.

Tár (2022, Todd Field)
7.5/10

I was reminded of watching Aftersun (also 2022) a while back: neither movie seems interested in telling a conventional narrative. Instead, these movies show us the characters and let us draw our own conclusions - with the notable difference that Lydia Tár dominates almost every scene for a runtime of about 2 ½ hours. Saying that Cate Blanchett delivers a powerhouse performance seems like an understatement. Also, having recently rewatched Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, it was fun to see Julian Glover here as well.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Cure (1997) - 7.5/10

I think this is one of the best films I've ever seen in terms of atmosphere and how it looks. The Japanese murder/psychological thriller doesn't overdo the eerie vibe, it's generally subtle and the story doesn't get too abstract either but it has a constant air of mystery. Harder to get attached or thrilled by a film like that but like I said, it's really well crafted.

The Sea Hawk (1940) - 7.5/10

As good as Robin Hood or some of the other Errol Flynn/Michael Curtiz collabs I've seen but for some reason, not as highly rated. Maybe it's because the fight sequences are not as often or as grand and it does seem to rehash a lot of the plot points of Robin Hood minus the colour but they really threw a lot of budget and work into this. It ends with a bit of pro-England anti-dictator propaganda but that's understandable considering the WWII release.

Something Wild (1986) - 5/10

80's trash trying to pull off the 'live life to its fullest' crap. Ray Liotta was great at pulling off the unhinged evil guy though.

 

[Ceremony]

This is Spinal Tap (1984) After watching this I did some research to see how accurate it was. What a time it must have been to be making music. Or doing whatever the boys are doing here. God knows what sort of film you could make now with the world's global pop stars and their obsessive fans.

The Terminator (1984) This film was my first introduction to many things. On screen nudity. Love. Time travelling killer cyborgs. 80s dance music. This genuinely gets better over time and it's a travesty that so many terrible films with the Terminator name exist.

In The Heat of the Night (1967) A dead body turns up in a small town in Mississippi in the middle of the night. Fortunately a combination between Sherlock Holmes and Mystic Meg is sitting in the train station. The only problem is it's 1966 and it's a small town in Mississippi and he happens to be black. As compelling and insightful as the racial tensions are, the actual crime and the solving of it feels a bit convenient, as if it has to happen purely because it has to. Fortunately several great performances keep your attention.

Napoleon Dynamite (2004) Why is something so weird so funny? Why is something so uniquely personal and localised so funny? I don't know, but it is. Actually I do, it's surreal, it's weird, and it's still somehow relatable even if you're not a suspiciously adult-looking man going through an awkward high school phase.

Tyrannosaur (2011) An extremely angry, drunk Scottish man befriends Sophie from Peep Show when he ends up at her charity shop after killing his dog and getting jumped. He doesn't take kindly to her praying for him, but it turns out they both have a dark home life and there's a lot to unravel. It's bleak, it's brutal, but there are two very good performances and you don't really leave this feeling as down as you might think. The only complaint I have is the soundtrack, which is often too loud and feels a bit dated. Very mid-00s indie. It's a bit much.

Children of Men (2006) This film where the UK government rounds up refugees into camps in exaggerated, dystopian fashion while the world of civilisation crumbles around them is set in 2027. Hmm. All the men have gone infertile and there aren't any people being born and the world goes to shit. But it turns out a group of outsiders have a pregnant girl, and they get in touch with a civil servant to try and get her out of the country. I watched this for the first time in ages a few months ago, and was underwhelmed. I liked it more this round. I think I was paying more attention. I think my biggest complaint is it's almost too cinematic. It's a dystopian mess with terrorist bombings and armoured public transport, but a lot of the shots in the city look a bit too detailed and a bit too staged. I don't think I know enough about films to properly assess it. But I don't think the style fits the subject matter.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

The Adults (2023) - 7/10

Mixed indie film which has some really beautiful stuff between three siblings (Michael Cera, Sophia Lillis who's adorable, and some other girl) as Cera's pretentious character returns home for the first time in 3 years. Unfortunately it's filled with needless awkward drama from Michael Cera's character being portrayed as an asshole and a bunch of poker scenes with him I could not give a shit about. Wanted to watch more of the siblings awkwardly trying to hang out.

As an aside, one of the sisters lives in the house inherited from their mother and the other sister rents a room in a house while working as a waitress......IN THE SAME CITY!? Why not just live with your friggin sister in the same house. I know some people are financially dumb but that made no sense.

Johnny Guitar (1954) - 7/10

Joan Crawford scary AF but a bit more vulnerable later on in this film which becomes a decent western in the second half. A mixed Nicholas Ray melodrama for the rest of the runtime, his characters are really frustrating in how uncompromising they are.

Auntie Mame (1958) - 7/10

Every scene is extravagent and the first half hour is really something special here as it keeps moving non-stop (trying to match the frenetic pace of the novel). Rosalind Russell was one of the better comedic actresses so it's a shame she wasn't in much good stuff but she's a real star here and worth watching for her performance.

As compelling and insightful as the racial tensions are, the actual crime and the solving of it feels a bit convenient, as if it has to happen purely because it has to. Fortunately several great performances keep your attention.

That's fine I think the actual mystery is the least important thing in that film tbh and I have a really vague recollection of how it happened compared to the other stuff.

 

[shadow1]

Saw II (2005) - 6/10

Eight people are kidnapped by serial killer Jigsaw and must work together to escape a booby trapped house.

Donnie Wahlberg stars as Detective Eric Matthews, who is engaged in a game of cat and mouse with John Kramer, aka Jigsaw (Tobin Bell). After discovering a clue at one of Jigsaw's crime scenes, Matthews and a SWAT team locate and apprehend the serial killer in a warehouse. However, Jigsaw reveals a video feed showing eight people trapped in one of his games, all of whom will be killed by nerve gas if they don't escape within two hours. Realizing his troubled son Daniel (Erik Knudsen) is amongst the group, Matthews must frantically work to locate them...

Saw II was directed by Darren Lynn Bousman, and written by Bousman and Leigh Whannell. After the smash success of the original Saw, Saw II was quickly green lit. However, with original creators James Wan and Leigh Whannell working on the film Dead Silence (2007), Music Director video Darren Lynn Bousman was contacted. In classic Hellraiser series fashion, Boseman's screenplay "The Desperate" was reworked into Saw II, with Whannell polishing up the screenplay. How does it fare compared to the classic original?

No where near as good, but still a decent sequel. Saw II has a concept I enjoy, with the principle cast of the "A" plot trapped in what is essentially a haunted house, and must do what they can to avoid grisly demise. The "B" plot featuring the police team is also enjoyable to watch, and Tobin Bell gives a great performance as Jigsaw after having very little screen time in the original. Note to the squeamish: Saw II is gorier that the original, but I'd still call it fairly tame overall. It has a few memorable traps, but nothing that will make you lose your lunch.

Where Saw II goes wrong is the characters, who are mostly poorly written. It's very hard to get invested in anyone when they're so unlikable, and it doesn't help that a least a couple of them are killed by the idiot plot. There's one moment early on where a twist is revealed about the member of the group, but it carries absolutely no weight because said character hadn't had a single line up until the moment of the reveal. I would also like to criticize the grainy mid-2000's green filter look this movie has, along with some very choppy editing, but those are nitpicks.

Overall, Saw II is a fairly solid sequel. It executes the Saw concept quite well, and though it is more flawed than the original, it has a very good twist at the end which makes it worth watching. Saw II was a massive hit, earning $147M against only a $4M budget, and began a long string of Saw sequels that would come out in several successive years.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Saw II (2005) - 6/10

Eight people are kidnapped by serial killer Jigsaw and must work together to escape a booby trapped house.

Donnie Wahlberg stars as Detective Eric Matthews, who is engaged in a game of cat and mouse with John Kramer, aka Jigsaw (Tobin Bell). After discovering a clue at one of Jigsaw's crime scenes, Matthews and a SWAT team locate and apprehend the serial killer in a warehouse. However, Jigsaw reveals a video feed showing eight people trapped in one of his games, all of whom will be killed by nerve gas if they don't escape within two hours. Realizing his troubled son Daniel (Erik Knudsen) is amongst the group, Matthews must frantically work to locate them...

Saw II was directed by Darren Lynn Bousman, and written by Bousman and Leigh Whannell. After the smash success of the original Saw, Saw II was quickly green lit. However, with original creators James Wan and Leigh Whannell working on the film Dead Silence (2007), Music Director video Darren Lynn Bousman was contacted. In classic Hellraiser series fashion, Boseman's screenplay "The Desperate" was reworked into Saw II, with Whannell polishing up the screenplay. How does it fare compared to the classic original?

No where near as good, but still a decent sequel. Saw II has a concept I enjoy, with the principle cast of the "A" plot trapped in what is essentially a haunted house, and must do what they can to avoid grisly demise. The "B" plot featuring the police team is also enjoyable to watch, and Tobin Bell gives a great performance as Jigsaw after having very little screen time in the original. Note to the squeamish: Saw II is gorier that the original, but I'd still call it fairly tame overall. It has a few memorable traps, but nothing that will make you lose your lunch.

Where Saw II goes wrong is the characters, who are mostly poorly written. It's very hard to get invested in anyone when they're so unlikable, and it doesn't help that a least a couple of them are killed by the idiot plot. There's one moment early on where a twist is revealed about the member of the group, but it carries absolutely no weight because said character hadn't had a single line up until the moment of the reveal. I would also like to criticize the grainy mid-2000's green filter look this movie has, along with some very choppy editing, but those are nitpicks.

Overall, Saw II is a fairly solid sequel. It executes the Saw concept quite well, and though it is more flawed than the original, it has a very good twist at the end which makes it worth watching. Saw II was a massive hit, earning $147M against only a $4M budget, and began a long string of Saw sequels that would come out in several successive years.

I haven't watched any of the Saw films more than once, and now have missed a few, but I remember liking this one when it got out. It has some (simple) autoreflexivity that forces you to consider the "recording" of the film in your reception of it. Not a fan of the franchise though.

 

[shadow1]

I haven't watched any of the Saw films more than once, and now have missed a few, but I remember liking this one when it got out. It has some (simple) autoreflexivity that forces you to consider the "recording" of the film in your reception of it. Not a fan of the franchise though.

Same here, I'm going in somewhat blind. I watched Saw 2 and Saw 3 in theaters back in the day, but haven't seen them since, and have never watched Saw 4 and beyond.

I think this franchise will be tough to get through based on the reputation of the sequels, but it's an omission on my horror resume I must address...

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Same here, I'm going in somewhat blind. I watched Saw 2 and Saw 3 in theaters back in the day, but haven't seen them since, and have never watched Saw 4 and beyond.

I think this franchise will be tough to get through based on the reputation of the sequels, but it's an omission on my horror resume I must address...

Pretty sure I've seen 3 and 4, but nothing beyond that. I'll be very curious of your comments.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Goodbye Dragon Inn (2003) - 2/10

A review aptly summed this up as a film complaining about the death of cinema while being the type of film responsible for the death of cinema. A tiring 90 minute watch with nothing to offer but some pretty cinematography. Wannabe Tarkovsky did capture some nice scenes with water that make great cineshots otherwise I'd give this a 1/10.

Le Notti Bianche (1957) - 7/10

A decent classic tragic-romance somewhat in the vein of Roman Holiday, Letter From An Unknown Woman, The Earrings of Madame, etc but the ingredient it's missing is a captivating lead actress. Visconti has his lead actress play a flighty and nervous style and a lot of the other scenes are skittish to as a result but at its core, it's a nice story with some clever set design use and the same cozy black & white cinematography in those other films.

Radio Days (1987) - 6/10

Woody Allen's tribute to the radio which for us millenials is a bit hard to connect to. The other issue is that it's a series of anthalogies almost which are loosely connected and not very good together. The pro is that no scene lingers too long or gets boring but nothing ever really gets going. Btw a child Seth Green looks exactly like an older Seth Green but just smaller.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Goodbye Dragon Inn (2003) - 2/10

A review aptly summed this up as a film complaining about the death of cinema while being the type of film responsible for the death of cinema. A tiring 90 minute watch with nothing to offer but some pretty cinematography. Wannabe Tarkovsky did capture some nice scenes with water that make great cineshots otherwise I'd give this a 1/10.

Not specially a fan of this particular film, but "Wannabe Tarkovsky" made some of the most amazing films of the late 90s and early 2000s. I often come very close to underlying some ding ding stuff in your film comments, just couldn't resist this time.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Planet of the Apes. (original recipe). A true they-don't-make-em-like-this-anymore in the sense that it's pretty slow and chatty. I personally love that. But it's definitely more sci-fi- of ideas than of action, unlike the more modern adaptations. The script is obvious, but that doesn't make it any less smart and enjoyable. Soooo Chuck Heston. As with his other notable sci-fi of the era (Soylent Green, The Omega Man), I think he's actually giving a bad performance. But it's very him and it is undeniably entertaining. (I feel the same way about Tom Hardy in The Dark Knight Rises where I think he's kinda nonsense but he's also the best thing in the movie). Everyone knows the ending, but it is a good bit of comeuppance for Heston. Credit to him. Not many megastars are willing to let themselves be the fool.

Massacre at Central High. Weird one alert! A 1970s high school "slasher" before that was a thing. The "before that was a thing" is what really made it interesting to me. It's more serious than you might expect, though there are more than a few real LOL kills. The writer clearly has a message he wants to drill which makes it a little more high-minded than the typical high school killer story, but there is fun to be had.

 

[kihei]

Not specially a fan of this particular film, but "Wannabe Tarkovsky" made some of the most amazing films of the late 90s and early 2000s. I often come very close to underlying some ding ding stuff in your film comments, just couldn't resist this time.

Not to mention the fact that Andrei Tarkovsky and Tsai Ming-liang have absolutely nothing in common. It makes as much sense as claiming that Radiohead is wannabe Debussy.

 

[kihei]

De Humani Corporis Fabrica (2022) Directed by Varena Paravel and Lucien Castaing-Taylor 8C (documentary)

For those of you familiar with Leviathan (the fishing trawler one, not the Russian drama), you will have a good idea of what is coming. Documentarians Paravel and Castaing-Taylor have an approach that might be characterized as up-close, surreal and abstract, though in the case of Leviathan I will never quite look at seafood the same way again. One might describe De Humani Corporis Fabrica (refers to the first major work of anatomy written about seven hundred years ago) is their dissection (believe me, the right noun if there ever was one) of surgical procedures and their aftermath. This documentary is not for the squeamish. I found lots of it, to use a technical term, yucky. Their choice of subject matter--an in-your-face Caesarian section, post-birth placenta, cataract removal, catheter procedures, prostate removal, spine straightening, brain surgery, et al--ensure that at some point there is a 99% chance that you will avert your eyes. In many of these sequences, we also hear doctors talking saying alarming things: "Did you drop it on the floor?"; "That's the largest prostate I have ever seen."; and so on. The documentarians use the microscopic cameras that the surgeons use to go deep into the human body. Our insides are not a pretty sight; they are even a less pretty sight than you might have imagined. In fact, I never felt more like meat than while watching this movie. Because that's what the movie is basically saying--on the most basic level we are reduced to being meat with problems. The movie includes a few palette cleansers of people suffering from extreme dementia just to shake things up a bit. And yet I recommend this documentary highly. Why? Because you will come away with a totally different impression of your body and perhaps better appreciate the limits of your own mortality and good health.

subtitles

Best of '23 so far

Riceboy Sleeps, Shim, Canada
Barbie, Gerwig, US
Talk to Me, Philippou brothers, Australia
Oppenheimer, Nolan, US
The Night of the 12th, Moll, France
De Humani Corporis Fabrica, Castaing-Taylor and Paravel

 

[Ceremony]

Off the top of my head Saw 3 is stupid, Saw 4 is stupid and then they start getting bad.

prostrate removal

Aren't people usually lying down when they're having surgery?