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

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Just want to throw this out there to see if anybody has an opinion. Do the '20s seem to you like a weak decade for movies so far? I realize we are just closing in on the first four years, but so far the present decade seems distinctly inferior to the '00s and the '10s, both of which I rank among the strongest decades in film history. So far I have seen only one movie in the '20s--Memoria--which would crack either of my top ten lists from the previous two decades.

My gut reaction is yes. Feels weaker. Off the top of my head I can think of The Banshees of Inersherin and Pearl. With a little extra research maybe The Green Knight, The Northman ... Pig? I love all those movies, but I'm not sure they'd crack top 10s in the previous two decades. They might.

But I'm not sure of any beyond that.

 

[OzzyFan]

This movie scared me. Thanks for the review.

How it delivers things and builds things up works quite well, the film has a lot going for it but I think "phase 1" of the ending was such a comparative let down that it hurt it's rating and view for me a bit. 2 weeks till October though.

Just want to throw this out there to see if anybody has an opinion. Do the '20s seem to you like a weak decade for movies so far? I realize we are just closing in on the first four years, but so far the present decade seems distinctly inferior to the '00s and the '10s, both of which I rank among the strongest decades in film history. So far I have seen only one movie in the '20s--Memoria--which would crack either of my top ten lists from the previous two decades.

Do you think the COVID epidemic had anything to do with it 2 and a half years ago? Personally, I don't watch enough foreign films or even independent films release year by year to fairly comment on the subject. But as far as wide release films go, I think people would agree on that sentiment.

 

[shadow1]

How it delivers things and builds things up works quite well, the film has a lot going for it but I think "phase 1" of the ending was such a comparative let down that it hurt it's rating and view for me a bit. 2 weeks till October though.

I haven't seen it in a while, but didn't the movie end in some random location/room in broad daylight or something?

I remember a good middle section where they're going through the haunted house and props keep shifting around. Super basic horror movie trick, but executed effectively enough to give me goosebumps!

 

[ItsFineImFine]

M (1951) - 7/10

Obviously not as good as the re-make possibly due to using a director who isn't exactly known for suspense but it has a pretty solid final third. The issue is that while the original picks a set of characters early on and follows them and shows the story unfold through those characters, this film sort of jumps around all over the place making it hard to grab a thread till the second half. The killer of course is nowhere near as good as Peter Lorre but the final act does where it diverges from the original is worth watching.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) - 8/10

If this is a B-movie, it's one of the greatest ones of all-time. It never feels like it beyond the lesser known actors because it doesn't rely on special effects till quite late in the film. Doesn't go for an eerie atmosphere due to the use of narration which might put some people off but the way it comes together to reveal how a town has been taken over by aliens is fascinating. The aliens themselves are boring AF but in a short 80 minute runtime, it's succinct enough to show the tale unfold from the protagonist's angle. Also this would benefit from a Criterion release to improve some of the contrast and sharpness because there's some decent noir-esque cinematography here.

Scarface (1932) - 7/10

Doesn't bother with much background work here instead just choosing to show a fully formed unlikable gangaster and going guns-akimbo with him. I respect that but it also feels like it's beating you over the head a bit with 'look at how bad gangsters are, don't be like them' despite being a pre-code film. Really different from later gangster films in that it doesn't really show much in terms of double-crossing and it never bothers to humanize them in any way either or to glamorize them, but it just shows people getting mowed down with guns, over and over.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

This movie scared me. Thanks for the review.

A few years ago, it was recommended by @jasonleaffan as a truly scary horror film, and we were a few to bite and watch it (Osprey and kihei's comments follow mine - and I forgot about that, but I love my image of the scare stolen from Don't Look Now).

 

[OzzyFan]

I haven't seen it in a while, but didn't the movie end in some random location/room in broad daylight or something?

I remember a good middle section where they're going through the haunted house and props keep shifting around. Super basic horror movie trick, but executed effectively enough to give me goosebumps!

That's phase 2 you're describing, and that part was a room in the haunted house/hotel where the deaths happened....and more deaths happened at that point, lol. Phase 1 I was referring to was the "day 1 of the opening" of the haunted house when the murders happened, which didn't quite explain much (even if you can get a basic idea of the why) and the hooded "apparition" was a bit underwhelming and inactive, while the reactions of the workers and customers was the real payoff in that sequence. Lot of solid selling and buildup throughout the film for a little payoff/explanation that felt necessary based on the story and plot. Adequate overall ending, but not what it should have been given all around expectations-wise. Minor nitpick. And yes, I thought they set up everything throughout pretty well, especially for a low-budget found footage horror film. Pranzo labels it best, through "the use of classic scare tactics".

A few years ago, it was recommended by @jasonleaffan as a truly scary horror film, and we were a few to bite and watch it (Osprey and kihei's comments follow mine - and I forgot about that, but I love my image of the scare stolen from Don't Look Now).

Thanks. Cool, roughly where I stand albeit I'm a bit more generous in numerical rating, as usual it seems.

 

[kihei]

I Have Electric Dreams (2022) Directed by Valentina Maurel 7B

I don't get a chance to see many films from Costa Rica, so I took a look at this one which was released last year. Set in San Jose, stunningly beautiful Costa Rica's urban armpit, I Have Electric Dreams is an uncommonly compelling coming-of-age story. 16-year-old Eva (Daniela Marin Navarro) lives with her slightly uptight but boringly normal mom and little sister, but longs to move in with Martin (Reinaldo Amien Gutierrez) her estranged, somewhat Bohemian father with whom she shares a loving relationship. While her mother tries to provide not unreasonable limits on her behaviour, Martin lets her smoke, have a beer and hang out with his friends at his amateur poetry readings. Eva is desperately trying to find Martin an apartment big enough for both of them, though Martin is at best lukewarm about the idea. He has one character flaw, He can turn really violent in a flash. When she starts a relationship with one of his buddies, it seems like there are powder kegs all over the place soon to go off.

What sets this movie apart from other "coming-of--age" movies is its unflinching honesty, its wholly believable "slice of life" characters and the ferocious performance by Navarro who is at the cusp of adulthood but is temperamentally still a volatile kid. In short she is one complex 16-year-old. Angry in her skin but wanting to meet life head on, she thrashes about always on an edge but never quite over one. Her story has the ring of authenticity. I Have Electric Dreams is directed by Valentina Maurel who, I suspect, views this material, including Eva's sexual awakening, much differently than a male director might. Whatever the case, she finds the pitch perfect tone with which to tell edgy Eva's story. Low budget though the film is, I Have Electric Dreams is one of those relatively obscure films that can surprise you with their power and intelligence.

subtitles

 

[Nakatomi]

Stay As You Are (1978) - A middle-aged architect whose work takes him between Florence and Rome is unhappy in his marriage. One day in a garden he is visiting for work, he meets an otherworldly hottie and substantially younger woman portayed by Nastassja Kinski. Cheating ensues.

One interesting part of this movie was that the fact of a working professional having an affair is not treated as a shock. It almost feels inevitable and expected. In fact, at one point, the architect blows up at his wife and daughter and refers to himself as a "whoring husband." So that aspect of this, which I suspect would play to more dramatic tension in a more traditional film, does not go in that direction here.

There is one plot point/twist I don't want to reveal here, though it arrives somewhat early on in the film. It is a twist where one outcome is disturbing beyond belief. In fact, I'd reckon to say that this plot point is the main reason this movie might stand out from others of the time period that also existed in large part to show off gorgeous young women.

All in all, I think the real tragedy here is the fairly low quality transfer of this film. I watched it on Kanopy for free through my library, but reading on it after the fact, it seems the odds of a truly great version of this coming out is quite slim. A tragedy, though, since these ~45 year old shots of Italy and the gorgeous Nastassja would likely look even more incredible if properly restored.

There was also apparently some scandal when the movie came out since Kinski was only 17 and she spends more than a little time nude in this. She regrets the film, but it seems it also helped her get her big break (though I admit I had never heard of her before).

All in all, I am not sure how memorable it will seem as time passes, but engaging enough.

B-

 

[Chili]

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975)
3.70 out of 4stars

“In the Fall of 1963, a Korean War veteran and criminal pleads insanity in hopes of an easier sentence and is admitted to a mental institution, where he rallies up the scared patients against the tyrannical nurse.”
An excellent psychological drama satire that brilliantly shows the mistreatment of asylum patients during its time while exploring oppressive and corrupt government forces on society. Directly and indirectly the film works continually very well. In this 5 Oscar winning film, Nicholson gives a top notch layered performance and the rest of the cast is great as well in some tricky supporting roles. Seemingly existential in its messages, of how the subpar status quos of life that occur in all areas will continue repeating themselves until the people realize and firmly react to it. Trying is the key, irregardless of success. One should question things and think for themselves, not just openly accept everything. The film heavily pushes a freely-open, rebellious, anti-conformist/counterculture, and individualistic ideology as a way to better one’s own life and the lives of those around them. It’s about building up and supporting people instead of controlling and manipulating them. There seems to be an obvious central question seems to be about sanity or insanity, with all of its sliding scale parameters on what makes or decides one’s position on this table for “all” of its characters. Some hints of machismo as well here. Successful on both intellectual and emotional fronts in a rollercoaster fashion. Also, if one wanted to shut their brain off, the film works incredibly well also as a heartfelt underdog comedy drama. I remember this film being talked about a year ago and Chili’s interesting Kirk Douglas notes on his progression of getting the film eventually made and regretting never being able to act in the lead role.

Nice review. Kirk Douglas bought the book in about 1963 and had a screenplay written. He played the role of McMurphy on stage for nothing (he turned down $1.5 million and the lead role in The Fall of The Roman Empire to do the play). And for years he tried to get the financing to make the film. 10 years later, Michael was able to get it made but interesting that no one wanted to distribute the film at first. In Douglas' autobiography, The Ragman's Son, he called Nicholson's performance 'brilliant' but said he would have played the role as a con man instead of a lunatic. From his book: One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is one of the biggest disappointments of my life. I made more money from that film than any I acted in. And I would gladly give back every cent, if I could have played that role..

Great film, curious why it did take so long to be made and then released once it was made. I enjoyed another similar film that I mentioned a couple of weeks ago here Shock Corridor that came out around the time Douglas was trying to get Cuckoo made. Don't know how that film fared at the time but see that it was selected for preservation by the US Film Registry.

 

[Osprey]

The Mummy (1959) - 6/10

A British Hammer production starring Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, who spends most of the film covered head to toe in bandages. It's beautifully filmed in Technicolor and the highlights are the scenes set in Egypt, both in the "present day" 1890s and in ancient times (the only ones in which we see Lee's face). I could've used more of those and fewer of the talky scenes set in a Victorian parlor room. Whenever the film gets interesting, it returns to the parlor room for a lengthy discussion by the characters about what just happened in the more entertaining scene. It was pretty obvious which parts of the film received the budget and which were just filling time. It wasn't very suspenseful because of the mummy's habit of attacking in good lighting (perhaps to show off the Technicolor). The fact that I could see the outline of Lee's underwear through his bandages probably didn't help the scariness of his character, either. I did appreciate that I could tell that it was really him underneath and not a double, though. I enjoyed parts of the film, and the fact that it looked good and starred two horror icons somewhat made up for the rest.

---

Lady Frankenstein (1971) - 5/10

An English-language Italian horror about Victor Frankenstein's daughter, who returns to the castle to resume her father's work, not so much for the sake of science, but to create the perfect lover. Until now, I thought that the immortal classic Frankenhooker was the sexiest version of a Frankenstein story, but this might beat that. It's kind of funny how 70s it is. Tania Frankenstein is a licensed doctor, a skilled surgeon and a businesswoman (in the 1860s, no less), but her real talent is getting undressed and seducing men (including a hunky half-wit with the brain of a child, which seems rather exploitative, but what do you expect in an exploitation film?). For an actress that was unknown to me, Rosalba Neri does a surprisingly good job carrying the film as the strong, seductive lead character. Unlike most Frankenstein stories, it's really not a film about a monster, which is a good thing because the one in this looks ridiculous with its oversized forehead and skinny legs. It almost seems like it was an afterthought because audiences expect a monster in a Frankenstein story. There's solid gothic atmosphere throughout, though. I wouldn't call it a "good" trashy horror film, but I've seen worse.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Just want to throw this out there to see if anybody has an opinion. Do the '20s seem to you like a weak decade for movies so far? I realize we are just closing in on the first four years, but so far the present decade seems distinctly inferior to the '00s and the '10s, both of which I rank among the strongest decades in film history. So far I have seen only one movie in the '20s--Memoria--which would crack either of my top ten lists from the previous two decades.

Solid amount of B+ movies but not many truly great ones yet and a lot of the B+ ones like Everything Everywhere , Spider-Verse or Barbie or Aftersun are getting overrated imo.

2020 had the excuse of Covid in fairness pushing back or messing with a lot of films and their release or production and we're about to run into the same issues later this year/next year because of the writer's strike.

It's fine with me though newer films from Hollywood tend to be tiresome to watch so I can just catch up on the better classics.

 

[Ceremony]

The Godfather (1972): Looked nice. I was with it up until the last part when Michael came back and the pacing went to hell.

The Godfather Part II (1974): Boring and completely incomprehensible. De Niro does a decent impression of Marlon Brando. I'd like to think if I was the head of a Family I could find a more attractive and less annoying wife than Diane Keaton.

The Book of Eli (2010): Someone watched The Road, didn't read it, and thought "I'm going to make a film like that only more pretentious." The first half of this is Denzel Washington kicking f*** out of people and I still don't care.

The Godfather Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone (2020): In the words of the director, this fixes the problems with the film. I hadn't seen the Godfathers and, well, I'm not in a rush to see them again. The very last scene of this is different from the original, and since I knew that was coming and felt robbed I went on youtube and watched the original. There was more emotion and sympathy in that than the previous nine hours I'd spent with Pacino and friends.

The one thing I'm going to take from watching these is that Sofia Coppola is, by some distance, at least as far as I can remember (which isn't far tbf), the worst actor I have ever seen. An absolutely astonishingly out of her depth performance.

 

[Chili]

Playtime-1967 (some subtitles but much of the film is visual)

Jacques Tati's vision of what cities were becoming with a lot of originality. As brilliant visually as are some of the gags. The glass walls play a large role throughout, sometimes sealing out the world, sometimes sealing life inside. And sometimes giving optical illusions, like the lady opening a glass door with a reflection of the Eiffel Tower in the distance. Monsieur Hulot pops in from time to time, stumbling his way into another mishap. Took years to make including Tativille, the building complex setting. Tati used real people for the most parts like the American wives he hired from a nearby air base. Was really wondering how he would end a film that doesn't really have a plot but the director used to say 'I want the film to start when you leave the cinema'. Classic film.

The Menu-2022

A group of diners take a boat out to a secluded island to experience a meal at the Hawthorne. The chef (Ralph Fiennes) has prepared a special concept evening, his culinary masterpiece. The group is in for an evening they weren't prepared for. Was probably expecting the alimentary version of Sideways (the wine tasting film). There certainly is well prepared dishes with on screen explanations but the story takes a serious turn. Although not really a film I would normally watch, was still interesting.

Hot Saturday-1932

A popular young woman (Nancy Carroll) living in a small town has a number of suitors. When the town playboy (Cary Grant) becomes one of them, tongues wag while others are jealous. Oh those nasty rumours. A couple of years later, after the pre-code era, believe the censors would have had fun with some of the situations in this film. This was Cary Grant's first top billing and one of Randolph Scott's first significant roles. Some cool cars and plot twists. Good film thanks to a strong cast.

Faces-1968

'Nobody has the time to be vulnerable to each other'

A couple headed for divorce is the jist of the story. The husband has found someone else which leaves the wife to explore her new found freedom. And while the cat's away...This story has been told many times but this one feels original in the way it's shot. Very little cutting back and forth, only a few elongated scenes. Any many of the shots are closeups of the actors. Alot of hand held camera shots following the actors around. And faces, lots of them. Very interesting film, strong performances, almost felt like a home movie.

 

[I am not exposed]

Just want to throw this out there to see if anybody has an opinion. Do the '20s seem to you like a weak decade for movies so far? I realize we are just closing in on the first four years, but so far the present decade seems distinctly inferior to the '00s and the '10s, both of which I rank among the strongest decades in film history. So far I have seen only one movie in the '20s--Memoria--which would crack either of my top ten lists from the previous two decades.

Not just movies. I feel like the golden age of TV has ended as well.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Playtime-1967 (some subtitles but much of the film is visual)

Jacques Tati's vision of what cities were becoming with a lot of originality. As brilliant visually as are some of the gags. The glass walls play a large role throughout, sometimes sealing out the world, sometimes sealing life inside. And sometimes giving optical illusions, like the lady opening a glass door with a reflection of the Eiffel Tower in the distance. Monsieur Hulot pops in from time to time, stumbling his way into another mishap. Took years to make including Tativille, the building complex setting. Tati used real people for the most parts like the American wives he hired from a nearby air base. Was really wondering how he would end a film that doesn't really have a plot but the director used to say 'I want the film to start when you leave the cinema'. Classic film.

The Menu-2022

A group of diners take a boat out to a secluded island to experience a meal at the Hawthorne. The chef (Ralph Fiennes) has prepared a special concept evening, his culinary masterpiece. The group is in for an evening they weren't prepared for. Was probably expecting the alimentary version of Sideways (the wine tasting film). There certainly is well prepared dishes with on screen explanations but the story takes a serious turn. Although not really a film I would normally watch, was still interesting.

Hot Saturday-1932

A popular young woman (Nancy Carroll) living in a small town has a number of suitors. When the town playboy (Cary Grant) becomes one of them, tongues wag while others are jealous. Oh those nasty rumours. A couple of years later, after the pre-code era, believe the censors would have had fun with some of the situations in this film. This was Cary Grant's first top billing and one of Randolph Scott's first significant roles. Some cool cars and plot twists. Good film thanks to a strong cast.

Faces-1968

'Nobody has the time to be vulnerable to each other'

A couple headed for divorce is the jist of the story. The husband has found someone else which leaves the wife to explore her new found freedom. And while the cat's away...This story has been told many times but this one feels original in the way it's shot. Very little cutting back and forth, only a few elongated scenes. Any many of the shots are closeups of the actors. Alot of hand held camera shots following the actors around. And faces, lots of them. Very interesting film, strong performances, almost felt like a home movie.

Playtime and Faces are two great films (haven't seen the other two). I know it's absolutely dumb to rate movies, but sometimes I wish you did, often very curious on how you'd compare some of these choices.

 

[Chili]

Playtime and Faces are two great films (haven't seen the other two). I know it's absolutely dumb to rate movies, but sometimes I wish you did, often very curious on how you'd compare some of these choices.

Have debated on that a few times. I basically have only two ratings, thumbs up or down. Would seem a bit silly to keep repeating them. That and the aggregate score of a site like IMDB means a lot more than any rating I could add.

I try to only mention films here that I feel had at least some value for me. And try to add comparisons to other films I have seen. There is a shot in Playtime of the cubicles that looks so much like the office shot in the great film The Crowd-1928. And on another level, Modern Times in brilliantly finding humour in everyday life. Didn't mention them here because probably most here haven't seen those films.

Your point is well taken though. I guess the other stumbling block is that we all have favorite types of films. If I was asked to rate Horror films, beyond the classics, I'm not much of a fan so my ratings would be slanted and irrelevant. Anyway, I appreciate your mentioning this and giving me the chance to explain.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

The Godfather Part II (1974): Boring and completely incomprehensible. De Niro does a decent impression of Marlon Brando. I'd like to think if I was the head of a Family I could find a more attractive and less annoying wife than Diane Keaton.

Love it, I do like The Godfather movies although never found them to be 'greatest films of all-time' territory but I appreciate someone not liking a movie cos they just found it boring at the end of the day. Which is something I've personally found with a lot of 70s and late 60s Hollywood films.

 

[Unholy Diver]

A Haunting in Venice - 7.5/10

A Hercule Poirot whodunit, while attending a seance to discredit the medium, a murder mystery breaks out and the now retired world famous detective goes to work. Not the deepest thing you will ever watch but there are definitely worse ways to spend around 2 hrs.


Beyond the Time Barrier - 5.5/10

A test pilot taking a experimental rocket plane for a spin breaks the time barrier and leaves 1960 only to land in post apocalyptic 2024 to find the world wrecked and mankind sterile and/or mutated from "the plague" brought upon by space radiation caused by atmospheric damage from A-bomb tests. (Was this a "liberal woke agenda" piece from 60+ years ago?) I typically don't watch a lot of older B&W movies, but, I am a sucker for post apocalyptic stuff, so I gave it a whirl, it held my interest, and had a fairly reasonable take with an early look at a more modern issue and environmental issues

 

[Nakatomi]

Following (1998) - Christopher Nolan's first film. It is quite short at around a 70 minute runtime. I found it quite interesting. You can see a lot of themes he likes to explore in later works. Happy to report the dialogue is 100% understandable throughout

B+

 

[shadow1]

Saw IV (2007) - 5/10

A SWAT team commander has 90 minutes to complete a series of puzzles in order to save two detectives.

Lyriq Bent stars as Rigg, a Police Lieutenant distraught by how many of his comrades have fallen at the hands of Jigsaw. Obsessed by his inability to stop the serial killer, Rigg is given a chance at redemption when he finds himself thrust into one of Jigsaw's games. He is given 90 minutes to complete a series of challenges in order to save two Police Officers from certain death...

Saw IV was once again directed by Darren Lynn Boseman. However, with series creators James Wan and Leigh Whannell taking a step back into Executive Producer roles, new writers Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton were brought on board. The two were hired based on their screenplay "The Midnight Man" - later made into the 2009 film The Collector - and were tasked with kicking off a new trilogy within the Saw franchise. How does Saw IV fare?

Very meh. The first three Saw films each tried to do things a little differently, but Saw IV feels derivative of Saw III. Our protagonist is once again caught in a game in which they're not in immediate danger, but rather people they have a checkered past with are. This results in a lack of horror and tension, especially when some of the people caught in traps arguably have it coming. Also like Saw III, a great deal of the run time is dedicated to explaining more about Jigsaw's (Tobin Bell) past. Unlike Saw III though, these flashback scenes feel like retconning, and in my opinion don't help make the character more nuanced, but rather more generic.

I'm not sure if it's a pro or a con, but the Saw series keeps doing this thing where it'll make bit players from previous movies the stars of the sequel. The character of Rigg and another police character Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) are the two stars of this movie, after having extremely meager screen time in the previous films (Hoffman in particular is blink-and-you'll-miss-him in Saw III). Just thought I'd mention that, because it keeps happening in to varying degrees in every sequel.

One thing that is definitely a con is Saw IV's presentation, though. It has that distinct direct-to-DVD look, with scenes which are lit too brightly and epilepsy inducing editing similar to Halloween 6 (1995). For the queasy, Saw IV is much tamer than the fairly gory Saw III. The film opens with a gratuitous medical procedure - which is my opinion looks very fake - but otherwise is not particularly gruesome.

As for the twist(s)? Pretty underwhelming. There are (3) of them, and though one in particular is important when it comes to setting up the next movie, none of them carry the same impact as the earlier films. Being as vague as possible, it feels like Saw IV was made just to ensure the series could keep going.

Overall, Saw IV is mediocre. It's not horrible, but instead feels like a filler movie that was aiming for a "6", but fell short due to lots of small problems. The Saw sequels require you to watch every movie to know what's going on, and that's especially true with Saw IV. So while this is a movie you can't skip if you're going to watch the entire franchise, temper your expectations. With that said, like every other film in the franchise, Saw IV was a big hit, earning $139M at the box office against a $10M budget.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Saw IV (2007) - 5/10

Oh well, I thought I saw this one, but doesn't ring a bell. I guess I've only seen the first 3.

 

[shadow1]

Oh well, I thought I saw this one, but doesn't ring a bell. I guess I've only seen the first 3.

Based on the quality of this movie, not remembering it doesn't necessarily mean you haven't seen it...

 

[Osprey]

Based on the quality of this movie, not remembering it doesn't necessarily mean you haven't seen it...

I can attest to this. I saw the first 8 movies only 5 years ago, but I can count on one hand the number of specifics that I can remember from them combined. One is Shawnee Smith, though. I can't say that I minded the franchise repeatedly bringing her character back.

 

[kihei]

El Conde (2023) Directed by Pablo Larrain 7C

Chilean director Pablo Larrain on Nefflix, what a surprise. From the director of Post Mortem; No; The Club; and Neruda, his subject matter--a satire concerning Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet as a vampire--should surprise no one. However, if you are looking for a typical vampire movie, fair warning, look elsewhere—here the vampirism is definitely real but serves a primarily symbolic function. While the satire itself is sometimes scattershot, focusing more often on the General's avaricious family and the corporations and religious interests that supported him than on the slaughter of the innocent that occurred during his regime. El Conde is esoteric at times, but Larrain does fire off some direct hits. For one, he introduces a second villain late in the movie--our erstwhile female English narrator in fact--that is drolly funny and allows him to broaden his theme to what he seems to care most about anyway: the ongoing attraction of fascist ideology that, like vampires, never seems to die. A very real strength of the movie is the beautiful black and white cinematography by American cinematographer Edward Lachman. easily the best I have seen this year. There are occasions when our vampires, principally Pinochet and, later, a nun, literally take flight, and the result is visually dazzling, so much so that I replayed a couple of these scenes after the end of the movie. Though the movie will disappoint diehard vampire fans and though as a political satire El Conde could have used more bite, what the movie accomplishes and makes its audience think about is still pretty damn impressive.

subtitles with some English


Best of '23 so far

1) Riceboy Sleeps, Shim, Canada
2) Barbie, Gerwig, US
3) Oppenheimer, Nolan, US
4) Close Your Eyes, Erice, Spain
5) Talk to Me, Philippou brothers, Australia
6) Limbo, Sen, Australia
7) The Night of the 12th, Moll, France
8) El Conde, Larrain, Chile
9) De Humani Corporis Fabrica, Castaing-Taylor and Paravel, France

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

The Program. The rah-rah ending and the fact that James Caan's head coach is cast as only slightly shady and not fully shady are the only real false notes in a 30-year-old movie that really gets everything else right about the problems of college football ... only some of which are just now being addressed in the sport. This came out when I was in high school and it's funny what was embraced in this by kids at that time. It oddly reminds me of another movie loved by myself and my friends — Full Metal Jacket — where the darkly funny and the tough are remembered and repeated much more than the actual point of the movie.

The Fury. There's a lot of bad in this Brian De Palma scifi-horror flick that's hard to avoid. The acting in particular is atrocious from Kirk Douglas, Andrew Stevens and Amy Irving. (Though in fairness, I suspect pulling off a good psychic shock face is tough ... making Sissy Spacek's work in De Palma's Carrie all the more impressive). John Cassavetes is reliable snakey. BUT De Palma's deep bag of technical bells and whistles including an extravagantly dark and bloody final 20 minutes or so rescue this as a bit of nasty fun.

SIster Sister. A sweaty 1980s Southern Gothic from a before-he-was-famous Bill Condon. Predictable and also not the best work on display from several of the cast members (I wish Eric Stoltz would've been recast with Michael J. Fox here too!) But I really dug the swampy atmosphere and all the heated hormones.

I've also dipped back into several of the Friday the 13th movies (2, 3, 5), inspired by recent discourse around these parts. For as much as I've viewed them as lesser over the years, the solid ones (2, 3) really are a good bit of fun. In addition to the murderous mayhem in 2, I thought it was stocked will all cuties. Not hot. Just very cute, very naturally attractive women. Three is a 3D hoot. Five is bad BUT I genuinely found the Ethel character to be intentionally hilarious. Everything she says is fire. (I just did a dramatic reading of her various lines for a friend while we were at a bar ... the shit PLAYS). She's the only person having any fun. And I bet her stew was good.