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

[ItsFineImFine]

Young Mr. Lincoln (1939) - 7/10 - Henry Fonda was made to play this role but it's a fairly boring Abe Lincoln film until we get to a decent little courtroom trial in the second half.

What Happened Was... (1994) - 7/10 - Awkward but engaging one-location film where two co-workers meet at the woman's apartment for a date and they both reveal their psychosis in a not so subtle manner. It has a fairly strong finish which almost feels like a payoff but the rest can is up & down, still better than My Dinner With Andre.

Amateur (1994) - 7/10 - Isabelle Hupert in a Hal Hartley film....everyone delivers extremely dead-pan lines which people who hate mumblecore would have a problem with but it works in a somewhat self-parodying way. The story also features a man with amnesia so that angle is always fun.

Buffalo '66 (1998) - 5/10 - It has its moments in the second half and a good ending, one that feels uplifting almost but the rest of the film.....yeah I don't think watching someone be abusive for over an hour is good cinema even if you're trying show why they ended up abusive.

The Set-Up (1949) - 7.5/10 - Great 70 minute long boxing noir film where you don't have to put up with any training montages of getting ready. More about the internal conflict of an aging boxer and once you do see the actual fight, it feels really brutal and well-done.

The Whale (2022) - 7/10 - I enjoyed it despite the 4:3 aspect ratio bullshit, what a stupid trend. I can see why people think it's almost a parody at points and taking itself too seriously and why they'd have some issues with the messaging but at a simplistic level, there's some good drama here, the director only knows one way to tell stories and that's to take them to their extremes so why expect anything else.

Counsellor at Law (1933) - 7.5/10 - Amazing pre-code film really. Starts off completely chaotic with a bunch of characters zooming in and out of a law office but once it focuses on John Barrymore's character a bit more and raises the stakes and while it still feels like a play with actors coming & going, it uses them to tell an engaging story about a lawyer trying to avoid disbarment. There's also a great minor character here (the fast-talking secretary/phone operator) who might have as many lines as the lead in the film, the way she answers and talks on the phone is ridiculous and hilarious I wish I could find a clip.

Results (2015) - 6/10 - Wait Guy Pearce is Australian? Anyways it's a weird Bujalski film where he gives the characters bit too much 'personality' and they all have a weird chemistry with one another. Gets better in the final two-thirds but still has some head-scratching moments of a script which is too loose, he did a better job with Support The Girls a few years later.

Love Me Tonight (1932) - 5/10 - I didn't know it was partly a music when I started watching it and it was a dull one at that with an even duller love story.

The Naked Kiss (1964) - 6/10 - Weird melodrama trying to shoehorn in noir film techniques, Shock Corridor from the same director was better. The beginning and end were better done than the journey.

 

[shadow1]

Saw V (2008) - 6/10

Five people are trapped in a Jigsaw game, while an FBI agent investigates Jigsaw's past traps.

Scott Patterson stars as FBI Agent Strahm, who following the events of Saw IV launches an off-the-books investigation, believing an accomplice has helped Jigsaw commit his crimes. Elsewhere, five yuppies awaken to find their necks tethered to large blades...

Saw V was once again written by Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton, but this time was directed by David Hackl, replacing Darren Lynn Boseman. Hackl, who worked as a production designer in earlier series entires, was originally supposed to direct Saw IV, but backed out due to a personal issue. How does his directorial debut, and the fourth sequel in this franchise, fare?

Better than Saw IV, but with some of the same issues. Saw V goes back to basics in a sense, giving us a story about a group of people trapped in a Jigsaw game for the first time since Saw II. I thought this portion of the movie was entertaining, with one or two of the Jigsaw scenarios being fun. Additionally, I thought Saw V visually looked more cinematic than Saw IV, which was wading into direct-to-DVD territory.

The issues come in with the "A" plot, which plays out like a police procedural. Scott Patterson had a pretty big role in Saw IV, but I didn't even mention him in my review because so many of his scenes felt like filler. Here, we follow him as he retraces Jigsaw's (Tobin Bell) crimes, believing an accomplice was involved. I'm being vague as hell to avoid spoiling both Saw III and Saw IV, but in a nutshell, the film uses this plot line to retcon all of the past movies.

Just like I wasn't a fan of Saw IV's retelling of history, I wasn't a fan of it here, and it's the focus of the film. You could pretty much remove the "B" plot line of the trapped people and it wouldn't impact the story at all. The problem with that is I think most people would rather the film focus on the latter plot. The "A" plot line isn't all bad though; it does have a decent cat-and-mouse game going on. But it dragged at times and was devoid of tension due to a number of flashback sequences.

Additionally, Saw V's "twists" are so minor, they barely fall within the definition of the word. With that said, I thought the end of the movie was still effective. As far as the gore meter for the queasy audience members? Somewhere between Saw III and IV. The film opens with a gruesome sequence, but is very tame until the very end, where the violence is dialed up again.

Overall, Saw V is a decent but flawed entry. Fan consensus seems to be that this is the worst film of the original five movies, but I disagree. I think it's a return to form compared to Saw IV, but also not as good as parts II & III. I struggled with my rating, but ultimately settled on the tried and true "6", which I seem to assign every movie I've ever watched. Regardless of a lower fan consensus, Saw V was once again a big hit, raking in $113M worldwide against a $10M budget.

 

[Puck]

Some TIFF film reviews from The Verge

Our 12 favorite movies from TIFF 2023

From the uncomfortably comedic horror of Dream Scenario to the outlandish heist / revenge movie Smugglers, there was a lot to love in Toronto this year.

www.theverge.com

Some Fall suggestions from NPR

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/19/1196556666/movies-new-releases-we-cant-wait-to-watch-this-fall

 

[Osprey]

Retribution (2023) - 5/10

A bank executive (Liam Neeson) gets a call telling him that his car is the bomb and will explode if he doesn't follow orders. But wait; there's more. His kids are in the car with him, he has a strained relationship with them, he's having marital and business difficulties, the caller has an axe to grind and there's a blizzard. Ok, maybe there isn't a blizzard. Neeson spends most of the movie talking to the caller from behind the wheel. It's as if someone liked the memorable scene in Taken in which he's on the phone with the baddie and thought that it'd be neat if that were the whole movie. It's also sort of like Speed, but worse in every way. It's cliched, nonsensical and predictable. Everything in it has been done before in other movies. That said, it's so bad, so deadly serious while also being dumb, that it's kind of funny. There are a few decent moments of tension, even though it's easy to guess what is or isn't going to happen, but then it goes back to being unintentionally amusing. I probably shouldn't give it this high of a score, but I enjoyed laughing at it and that made it easier to sit through than Neeson's last few clunkers (Marlowe, The Marksman and Memory), which I think that I gave 4/10s. Like those, this is only for his most forgiving fans, but if you do enjoy seeing Liam Neeson in the driver's seat, this is literally the movie for you.

 

[OzzyFan]

Brazil (1985)
3.20 out of 4stars

“In the future, low-level bureaucrat Sam Lowry escapes the monotony of his day-to-day life through a recurring daydream of himself as a virtuous hero saving a beautiful damsel. Investigating a case that led to the wrongful arrest and eventual death of an innocent man instead of a wanted terrorist, he meets the woman from his daydream, and in trying to help her gets caught in a web of mistaken identities, mindless bureaucracy and lies.”
A great sci fi dystopian dark comedy satire that is as gleefully absurd as it sounds, and I mean that in the best way possible. The whole movie is filled with things to make you laugh and think. Visually creative and wild, with the film’s outrageous style of humor almost continuously keeping a smile on my face throughout while delivering its mostly bleak messages. The style of humor is blatantly over the top, dark, and even silly at times/“Monty Python-esque” (as you would guess with Gilliam). Also, its delivery at times is purposely a bit frantic and inexplicit, possibly confusing viewers not engaged and attuned to the style. Clear influences from Orwell and Kafka flood the film. Overall, given the above, I must warn that this film is not for everyone or at minimum not simple for all to fully absorb, easily a B and I might argue a C on the Kihei scale of accessibility. That said, the film has a lot going for it. It’s very clever, even if it bites off more than it can chew in the ideas department. Themes and topics include issues with technological advancements, government paranoia/spying/tracking, government control/manipulation-abilities, government owned/run corporations, hampering government procedures, suppression of human freedoms/rights, consumerism/superficiality, self-obsession, systemic dysfunctions, convolution, escapism, and interpersonal dissociation/detachment. While Gilliam states the film was more about the present of that time then the future, I’d heavily argue the thematic elements of the film are certainly more pronounced today. Most noted for its visuals, cinematography, and art design influencing many films made since its release.

The Browning Version (1951)
3.20 out of 4stars

“Mr. Crocker-Harris has been forced to retire from his position as the classics teacher at an English public school due to poor health. As he winds up his final term, he discovers not only that his wife has been unfaithful to him with his good friend and coworker, but that the school's students and faculty have long disdained him.”
A great drama that is a reflective tale on one man’s life, with an excellent Cannes winning Michael Redgrave lead turn. Based on the play, enough can’t be said on how Redgrave delivers his stern sympathetic performance with dignity and controlled affecting emotion. The film is a somber but hopeful tale about how life can beat someone down and make one lose their sense of self and passion. Our protagonist has become a failure personally, professionally, socially, and romantically/in-spousal-love because of his self-repressive, forfeiting, and acceptance reactions to the trials and tribulations of his life. The detrimental impact of negative and absent relationships is grand and compounding, but the strength of even a few sentences or gestures can be just as strong in a supportive revelatory/realizative manner. Overall the film is about being proactive and true to oneself in life without making concessions: living a life without excuses, shame, regrets, or need of apologies.

What Have You Done to Solange? (1972)
2.95 out of 4stars

“A married college professor who is having an affair with one of his students is reluctant to present an alibi when his lover witnesses the first in a series of murders connected to their school.”
A great giallo horror that is untheatrical and told rather procedurally. Ranked #11 in Pranzo’s gialli thread, I agree with him that it is a very conventional or “mainstream” form of the subgenre. One could almost argue, this is “a giallo for those that don’t like giallo”, with the exception of the excess nudity/a bit of the sexual material. All of this isn’t a bad thing though. By choosing this direction you get a more cerebral focus which works quite well here. The film is narratively and thematically “carefully thorough”, with enough twists and mystery to keep one guessing on the killer and motives throughout. Sexuality is the overarching theme here and set-up with many perspectives on the matter from the get go with: a college professor having an affair with one of his young students, a young college student having an affair, a sexually repressed wife with suspicions her husband is cheating on her, a killer that murders in a sexually suggestive way, college girls with varying views, and all this occurring at a catholic college with priests and a/the church with an active presence. Sexual ethics and morality are explored with many characters holding secrets. All of this is told from a refreshingly neutral standpoint, even the motive and end twist have a certain duality to them in the cause and effect and after-effect chain.

Night of the Demons (1988)
2.65 out of 4stars

“Ten teenagers party at an abandoned funeral parlor on Halloween night. When an evil force awakens and possesses one of the teens, demonic spirits keep them from leaving and turn their gathering into a living Hell.”
A good supernatural horror of the “trapped in a haunted house with evil incarnate” style. Spends the first half of the film setting-up with mildly entertaining cheesy teen pranksters, preparing for partying and doing mild partying. Second half delivers the mayhem that you’re looking for solidly. Hits you with a few jolts before becoming a demon chases and confrontations film, with people trying to stay alive/stay-human and escape. Good tension and scares with a little eeriness, some blood/gore that’s a bit graphic at times, and memorably great make-up effects. Also some funny lines here and there, if you are into the crude and darkly humorous variety which makes up most of it.

 

[Ceremony]

View attachment 745114

If I just saw this picture there is zero chance I would have said it was Liam Neeson.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Renfield. This really bummed me out. An ostensibly fun movie that left me with nothing but sadness and despair. I certainly didn't expect greatness, but I honestly expected to like it. A fun-ish concept, a tone that I tend to enjoy, a cast with several people I like but man, please pardon the obvious pun but this SUUUUUUUUCCCCCKED. It's so relentlessly try hard with its jokes and gore that I just felt bad for everyone in it. There's no half-assing here. Everyone is full-assing. And it's just so awkward and unfunny (though a handful of ska jokes actually made me chuckle). What a colossal waste of several people who otherwise have proven to be funny. I mean NIcolas Cage as Dracula? That's such a fastball down the middle of the plate, how do you f*** that up? How does Nicolas Cage of all people make Dracula so ... uninteresting. This finds a way. Woof.

 

[Osprey]

Renfield. This really bummed me out. An ostensibly fun movie that left me with nothing but sadness and despair. I certainly didn't expect greatness, but I honestly expected to like it. A fun-ish concept, a tone that I tend to enjoy, a cast with several people I like but man, please pardon the obvious pun but this SUUUUUUUUCCCCCKED. It's so relentlessly try hard with its jokes and gore that I just felt bad for everyone in it. There's no half-assing here. Everyone is full-assing. And it's just so awkward and unfunny (though a handful of ska jokes actually made me chuckle). What a colossal waste of several people who otherwise have proven to be funny. I mean NIcolas Cage as Dracula? That's such a fastball down the middle of the plate, how do you f*** that up? How does Nicolas Cage of all people make Dracula so ... uninteresting. This finds a way. Woof.

It felt to me like a good idea for a 7-minute SNL sketch, not a 90-minute movie. I got a little tired of being beaten over the head with the same joke. Yes, his boss is a blood-sucking narcissist, just like all of ours in real life. We get it. It should've been a lot of fun, like you said, but it wasn't for me, either.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Supermarket Woman/Sûpâ no onna (1996) - 7.5/10

Not as stylish as Tampoco from the same director but as good a story, about an energetic woman who decides to help out her owner-friend of a local failing supermarket competing against a bigger chain. There is some 90s corporate worship here but it's a fun movie. I'd say there are a bunch of predictable interactions but then it throws in a friggin truck chase scene....Japanese films got weird.

Forrest Gump (1994) - 6.5/10

Passes the time

The Quiet Man (1952) - 6/10

Gorgeous Irish technicolour scenery but a script filled with far too many stereotypes even for a classic and the whole John Ford battering around a woman and being forceful with her is really over-the-top meaning it hasn't held up the best. His romance with her really doesn't have any chemistry established with her either, just a really mediocre script with a cartoonish villain thrown in.

The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970) - 6.5/10

A solid beginning and end but the rest of the film really isn't much about the 'private life' of Sherlock Holmes, it just turns into another standard Holmes mystery and not a very good one at that. Not as stylish or moody either as the really well-made Jeremy Brett TV series from the 80s but the modern iteration of the BBC Sherlock series feels like it took inspiration from a lot of scenes from this version.

 

[Neutrinos]

Miracle (2004)

Just saw it for the first time a couple of days ago...

Damn near perfect movie if it weren't for the needless inclusion of the cliched unsupportive wife subplot. It just wasn't necessary, it took away from the film's momentum, and it all felt rather forced for the sake of creating drama

And the filmmakers get an additional 2 minutes for embellishment on at least one of the goals Russia scored on Craig, making it seem as though he had just been hit in the head prior to the goal, however, he was beaten clean on a breakaway in the actual game

Russell's performance is obviously what makes the well-known story feel so compelling, and I'm surprised it didn't land him an Oscar nomination for Best Actor

9/10

 

[Satans Hockey]

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.

I watched this one last night, holy hell are the camera cuts and editing just absolutely obnoxious in this movie. In the thread about the 1999 movies someone mentioned people getting sick from the shaky camera of Blair Witch but this movie has way more shaky edits and moves around so much. I didn't think this one as any good but I would have liked it more if it wasn't for how horrible the camera cuts were.

 

[Chili]

Red Beard-1965 (subtitles)

Young doctor Yasumoto (Yûzô Kayama) arrives in 1860's rural Japan to work in a clinic. It is run by the stern Dr Niide (Toshiro Mifune) aka 'Red Beard' for the tint in his whiskers, in conditions that are less then ideal. Yasumoto feels he was tricked by his father into coming here and mopes around, refusing to wear his uniform. Red Beard is patient with him, slowly getting him involved with the ailing patients. The film took a couple of years to make, a small village was constructed for the set. The human life and death stories are well told and moving. There is interesting philosophy within the dialogue. The last of 16 films that Akira Kurosawa and Toshiro Mifune made together. Those are Mifune's real whiskers that he had to maintain for the two years, probably one of the reasons it was their last film. Much different then the other Kurosawa films I've watched, it's a human drama (although he did throw in a fight scene). Well done.

Father Brown-1954

Father Brown (Alec Guinness) is full time clergyman, part time detective. He has been entrusted with delivering a priceless cross that once belonged to Saint Augustine to Rome. There is a rumour that the famous thief, Flambeau (Peter Finch) may be interested in adding another piece to his art collection. Flambeau is a master of disguise and no one knows what he looks like, so the Father must be on alert. The Flambeau character reminds me of David Niven's role in The Pink Panther, the suave jewel thief. Father Brown is a popular character, there was a prior film and a couple of British tv series, the current one has been running for 10+ years. One scene is set in the Paris Catacombs, which since the 1780's became the burial site for the remains of 6 million+ people and lies beneath the streets of the city today. Good cast & story in a comedy/drama.

Deadline U.S.A.-1952

A newspaper editor, Ed Hutcheson (Humphrey Bogart) learns that his paper will be sold. As the rumour hits the newsroom, 1,500 employees want to know if they need to worry. Ed has to break the news to them, they look to be out of a job in a couple of days with two weeks salary. The gang has a wake to drown their troubles and most go back to work the next day to prepare what could be their final editions. And there is a major breaking story...Fast paced to coincide with the hectic world of a newsroom in it's heyday with several dramatic twists. Interior scenes were filmed in the offices of The New York Daily News. Bogey in fine form, looking sharp in his bow tie. As the title reads in one of his biographies, 'Tough Without a Gun'. Very good cast, Well done.

Duck You Sucker-1971 (or Firecracker and the Chicken Thief?)

Giù la Testa, Fistful of Dyanamite, Once Upon a Time the Revolution...more of the titles for Sergio Leone's film. The meeting of Juan Miranda, a Mexican bandit (Rod Steiger) and Sean Mallory, an Irish political revolutionary (James Coburn) in Mexico 1913 during the revolution. The bandit sees an opportunity to make use of the revolutionary's talent with explosives, although Sean has little interest in the 'chicken thief's' plan. The story is partially told with flashbacks to Sean's days in Ireland, some happier times while others hint as to why he is now in Mexico. It's a dark film with Leone mixing in some real tragic events of WWII into the story. There is humour too though, including a kind of jousting match between Juan and Sean when they first meet.

Another memorable score from Ennio Morricone. Adding the Sean, Sean, Sean lyrics in the theme music for the revolutionary was Carla Leone's idea (Sergio's wife). The reputation of some of Leone's films were based on shortened versions, about 36 minutes was removed here for the release in the U.S. That's the version I would have seen the first few viewings. Enjoyed the 158 minute version as it methodically tells more of the story. The lead parts were written for Jason Robards and Eli Wallach (a similar role here to Tuco in The Good the Bad and the Ugly). James Coburn finally worked with Leone. He was offered the 'man with no name' role in Fistful of Dollars but was asking for too much money (Clint Eastwood was paid around $15k for the film). A real bang up job here by Sergio, he liked his explosions.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

^ I had the first three on my watchlist, actually started Red Beard an year or two ago but only got 45ish minutes in, think it's still on my PC or tablet. Will give them a go.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Bottoms(2023) - 6/10

Two lesbians start a female fight club in hopes of having sex with their highschool crushes. Hijinx ensue.

My girl really has a soft spot for late 90s early 2000s highschool dramedies so this was more up her alley than mine. It ultimately proved to be what I guess is a Gen Z parody of those movies more than it was an actual attempt to recreate 10 Things I Hate About You, Jawbreaker, or Clueless, so I don't know that it actually scratched that particular itch. Didn't have nearly the depth, and I wouldn't say those films are best known for their depth. But it did have Marshawn Lynch wisecracking about feminism, and that's not nothing.

All in all I would have to say it managed to be both redeemably bizarre and refreshing. They really pushed the tropey highschool static characters down your throat. Airhead jock, introvert with unrealized talents, sexually unfulfilled housewife, heart of gold cheerleader who makes questionable dating decisions, the sycophant jock BFF. The script and the directing you could tell were very unpolished, and when the credits rolled I realized why. The two female leads(pictured leftmost above) wrote it with one being the director, and as far as I know Bottoms was their first work on a feature film. Definitely it was clunky and the comedy tries too hard in places. If I could lodge a major complaint it would be that it was not well developed at all. But you know what I still found it watchable. The climax in particular was absolutely unhinged nonsense where (spoilers) they murder an entire rival football team in front of the whole school. Just a goofy stupid fun teenage movie for the sake of it. Don't expect a single thing more and you might enjoy it.

 

[Ceremony]

Captain Phillips (2013) Tom Hanks plays the captain of a cargo ship that gets overrun by four skinny guys on a dinghy. It takes an hour for him to get them off the ship, then another hour for the Navy to shoot them. It felt like I was on the boat with them, and that's not a compliment. And it's directed by the guy who did the Bourne films so the camerawork will make you seasick.

 

[NyQuil]

Captain Phillips (2013) Tom Hanks plays the captain of a cargo ship that gets overrun by four skinny guys on a dinghy. It takes an hour for him to get them off the ship, then another hour for the Navy to shoot them. It felt like I was on the boat with them, and that's not a compliment. And it's directed by the guy who did the Bourne films so the camerawork will make you seasick.

I AM THE CAPTAIN NOW!!!

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Choose Love (McDonald, 2023) - The gf wanted to watch this "interactive" Netflix romantic comedy, and I was curious of the process so I joined in willingly. The film itself ain't worth caca, it's neither romantic or funny, and though I've seen a single possible outcome, one should expect every other possible ones to be just as lame. As for the interaction, selecting between telling the truth or not, accepting the invitation or not, and other variables for over an hour, felt just like drinking expired milk in hope of vomiting cottage cheese. You know from the opening credits that look like an 80s TV show that this will not be intellectually acceptable. I've seen Tender Loving Care maybe 10 times. It wasn't a good film by any means, but its interactivity (psychoanalysing the viewer) was opening to a world of possibilities and the effects on the narrative were unpredictable, even though the film itself had nothing very surprising. You could feel there was work and a creative process in the making of the film. Choose Love is just the result of no-talent hacks doing the least possible efforts in order to please the saddest and loneliest intellectually challenged female viewers imaginable. 1.5/10

 

[Satans Hockey]

Saw V (2008) - 6/10

Five people are trapped in a Jigsaw game, while an FBI agent investigates Jigsaw's past traps.

Scott Patterson stars as FBI Agent Strahm, who following the events of Saw IV launches an off-the-books investigation, believing an accomplice has helped Jigsaw commit his crimes. Elsewhere, five yuppies awaken to find their necks tethered to large blades...

Saw V was once again written by Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton, but this time was directed by David Hackl, replacing Darren Lynn Boseman. Hackl, who worked as a production designer in earlier series entires, was originally supposed to direct Saw IV, but backed out due to a personal issue. How does his directorial debut, and the fourth sequel in this franchise, fare?

Better than Saw IV, but with some of the same issues. Saw V goes back to basics in a sense, giving us a story about a group of people trapped in a Jigsaw game for the first time since Saw II. I thought this portion of the movie was entertaining, with one or two of the Jigsaw scenarios being fun. Additionally, I thought Saw V visually looked more cinematic than Saw IV, which was wading into direct-to-DVD territory.

The issues come in with the "A" plot, which plays out like a police procedural. Scott Patterson had a pretty big role in Saw IV, but I didn't even mention him in my review because so many of his scenes felt like filler. Here, we follow him as he retraces Jigsaw's (Tobin Bell) crimes, believing an accomplice was involved. I'm being vague as hell to avoid spoiling both Saw III and Saw IV, but in a nutshell, the film uses this plot line to retcon all of the past movies.

Just like I wasn't a fan of Saw IV's retelling of history, I wasn't a fan of it here, and it's the focus of the film. You could pretty much remove the "B" plot line of the trapped people and it wouldn't impact the story at all. The problem with that is I think most people would rather the film focus on the latter plot. The "A" plot line isn't all bad though; it does have a decent cat-and-mouse game going on. But it dragged at times and was devoid of tension due to a number of flashback sequences.

Additionally, Saw V's "twists" are so minor, they barely fall within the definition of the word. With that said, I thought the end of the movie was still effective. As far as the gore meter for the queasy audience members? Somewhere between Saw III and IV. The film opens with a gruesome sequence, but is very tame until the very end, where the violence is dialed up again.

Overall, Saw V is a decent but flawed entry. Fan consensus seems to be that this is the worst film of the original five movies, but I disagree. I think it's a return to form compared to Saw IV, but also not as good as parts II & III. I struggled with my rating, but ultimately settled on the tried and true "6", which I seem to assign every movie I've ever watched. Regardless of a lower fan consensus, Saw V was once again a big hit, raking in $113M worldwide against a $10M budget.

Watched this one last night, I'm with you, this is definitely better than 4. Visuals are absolutely better and camera cuts, while it's still shaky at times is still nowhere near as annoying as 4. Some really clever puzzle traps in this one too.

Spoiler

The 2nd room with the tunnels was really where they should have figured it out that they were supposed to be working together. There was so much room in those even though there wasn't 1 for each of them.

The ending with Hoffman not even speaking to Strathm and just staring at him while he was crushed to death knowing he set Strathm up to take the fall as the second Jigsaw while the Saw theme music played was a pretty cool ending though.

 

[Chili]

^ I had the first three on my watchlist, actually started Red Beard an year or two ago but only got 45ish minutes in, think it's still on my PC or tablet. Will give them a go.

Red Beard is l o n g but was worthwhile. Would recommend Deadline U.S.A. to Bogart fans who haven't seen it. It's on YouTube.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962) - 7.5/10

Interesting one in terms of the atmosphere it creates but it's never as engaging as it could be and I think it ends up being a good movie which could've been a better one. The descent into madness from Sunset Blvd seems more natural but here I think it's a bit forced as Betty Davis' character is shown to be cruel, cold, and somewhat scheming throughout the movie but she turns into mushbrains in the end and it concludes with a mental breakdown. There was only really one scene with her and Crawford having a notable amount of direct dialogue against each other which is a bit of wasted potential.

The Sword of Doom (1966) - 7.5/10

Tatsuya Nakadai & Toshiro Mifune in the same film so you know it'll be good but they barely have any screentime together as Mifune has a smaller role while Nakadai plays the protagonist who's really the villain. I liked where this was going, it was decently paced for a Japanese film and had some good sword action thrown in but the way it ends is.....almost anti-climatic. A shame to have such a good buildup with such an abrupt ending like that.

Queen Christina (1933) - 6/10

Bit of a boring one, just standard biography-fare thrown in with some monarchy worship and a mediocre love story. I always thought Greta Garbo is overrarted, she's not been in many good film and this is supposed to be one of her better ones, Marlene Dietrich is better. Garbo can give a decent speech when she needs to as the Queen but the rest of her acting is flat and uninteresting.

The Miracle of Morgan's Creek (1944) - 6.5/10

Bit too slapstick for its own good at times without the smart lines and with a bit of a dated story and too much reliance on characters. Eddie Bracken's stuttering character is supposed to be funny but he really isn't and the rest of the female lead is fairly bland too.

Hail the Conquering Hero (1944) - 7/10

It tones down Eddie Bracken compared to the other Sturges movie I reviewed above and it's to good effect as he plays a good role here as the discharged soldier who's mistaken for a war hero by his town. This one also overdoes it with the reliance on crows, Sturges loved filling scenes with a lot of people but the story is better at least. Also Ella Raines.......what a dame as your grandfather would say.

 

[Nakatomi]

Father Brown-1954

Father Brown (Alec Guinness) is full time clergyman, part time detective. He has been entrusted with delivering a priceless cross that once belonged to Saint Augustine to Rome. There is a rumour that the famous thief, Flambeau (Peter Finch) may be interested in adding another piece to his art collection. Flambeau is a master of disguise and no one knows what he looks like, so the Father must be on alert. The Flambeau character reminds me of David Niven's role in The Pink Panther, the suave jewel thief. Father Brown is a popular character, there was a prior film and a couple of British tv series, the current one has been running for 10+ years. One scene is set in the Paris Catacombs, which since the 1780's became the burial site for the remains of 6 million+ people and lies beneath the streets of the city today. Good cast & story in a comedy/drama.

I never knew there was a Father Brown movie. I had only heard of the books that inspired this by GK Chesterton.

 

[shadow1]

Watched this one last night, I'm with you, this is definitely better than 4. Visuals are absolutely better and camera cuts, while it's still shaky at times is still nowhere near as annoying as 4. Some really clever puzzle traps in this one too.

Spoiler

The 2nd room with the tunnels was really where they should have figured it out that they were supposed to be working together. There was so much room in those even though there wasn't 1 for each of them.

The ending with Hoffman not even speaking to Strathm and just staring at him while he was crushed to death knowing he set Strathm up to take the fall as the second Jigsaw while the Saw theme music played was a pretty cool ending though.

Spoiler

Agree completely on the tunnel scene. It made it seem like somewhat of an "idiot plot" moment, so when the twist came that they all could've easily survived, it didn't really have a big impact on me.

I also liked that ending. Strahm's arm bone when the walls closed - OUCH!

 

[shadow1]

Saw VI (2009) - 6/10

A health insurance executive is given 60 minutes to escape from a Jigsaw test.

Peter Outerbridge stars as William, an unethical insurance executive known for rejecting major health claims for trivial reasons. William is abducted and finds himself in one of Jigsaw's (Tobin Bell) games, and is given 60 minutes to escape before bombs strapped to his ankles and wrists will detonate. He must complete four tests in which he has the power to decide which of his coworkers will live or die...

Saw VI was once again written by Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton, but this time was directed by Kevin Gruetert, who worked as an editor on the first five films. In other words, not only has Saw promoted smaller characters into bigger roles, but also keeps promoting various production members into the director's seat - a very nice touch. How does this fifth sequel in the franchise fare?

Pretty well, with some elements of what made the first film great, but also with some of the same issues that have plagued the sequels. For the first time since arguably Saw II, the Jigsaw game is the "A" plot in this series entry. The overwhelming majority of the run time focuses on William trying to escape, and there are some really cool traps in this one. Without spoiling it, my favorite of these involved a form of endurance, while another revolved (pun intended) around a piece of playground equipment. I found myself feeling William's anxiety as the traps forced him to make a series of to lose-lose decisions.

As per usual, Saw VI has a couple twists; one of which is pretty good, the other of which is pretty bad - more on that later. As for the gore meter, I'd put this film somewhere in the middle (3, 5, 6, 4, 2, 1). It does have a couple pretty graphic moments (the opening scene in particular is gratuitous), but for the most part relies on tension and suspense, which is a big plus in its favor.

What isn't a big plus is the police procedural storyline. Holy retcon, Batman. It's hard to invest at all in what's going on with police characters like Hoffman (Costas Mandylore) and Erickson (Mark Rolston) when each sequel throws the previous movie's story in the trash. This is the fourth film in a row where the series has gone back in time to shoehorn in new characters or elements into the Saw lore. And while I could forgive it in some instances, Saw VI is the worst offender, giving us the most convoluted mainline story to date. To add insult to injury, there is an idiot plot moment during this storyline that requires a massive suspension of disbelief. The only good news is this portion of the film doesn't get a ton of screen time.

Overall, Saw VI is a good sequel. As a matter of fact, it might be my favorite sequel due to how well the Jigsaw game was executed. I briefly considered rating this film a "7", but could not overlook the absolutely ridiculous police storyline. Despite how much I liked it though, Saw VI was the first film in the series to underperform at the box-office, earning $68M against an $11M budget.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

The Faculty. It's an ok cover song of much better music. It's not one you necessarily crave to hear or one you'd put on your own playlist, but if the band plays it in a concert or it pops on at your friend's party, you don't reject it. It functions fine, but only really makes you want the original more. The most fascinating thing about this is the deep and wild cast featuring several of-the-moment hot teens, a slew of reliably solid adult actors, Jon Stewart and a pair of ooooofff that aged poorly casting choices of a future convicted rapist and a greasy, creepy sex pest. (See if you can spot them!)

Grindhouse. Been meaning to revisit this mostly fun film experiment for a while and coming off one Robert Rodriguez horror movie, I finally thought "what the hell" and rolled on into this. This is the third or fourth time for me through this Rodriguez-Quentin Tarantino double feature. I'm a long-time attendee of movie marathon events and there are so many little details they get right about that sort of experience ... grainy film, crackles of sound, missing reels, burns and discoloring from aging. The food adverts. The bumpers. The fake trailers (Edgar Wright and Eli Roth are particularly spot-on with their contributions). Rodriguez's contribution (Planet Terror) is a dual love-letter to stiffly acted men-with-skills tough guy action and full-on Fulci-style nasty zombie gross outs.

This practically smells like stale popcorn and slightly molding theater carpet.

I say mostly fun because my problem has always been (and it seems will continue to be) the Tarantino contribution, Death Proof. As a QT fan I always want to give it another shot, but it still never works for me. It's actually a dual failure. The bigger sin to me is that while everything else about Grindhouse feels like people are making something for the mission, Death Proof feels above it. It always feels like Tarantino saying he's better than. It's an odd feeling since so much of his actual persona is about touting these sort of films, but I can never shake it. This feels akin to the term "elevated horror." I won't actually get in the mud and give you a gritty, grimy piece of trash. What I will do is better! He can't even really commit to the damaged film aesthetic of the other parts of this. He's too knowledgable to be missing this on accident, so it's a deliberate choice, which is why it always feels bizarrely snobby.

Kurt Russell is a good villain (menacing when needed and unexpectedly hilarious when things go south for him) and the big stunt sequence is undeniably well done. But that's MAYBE 20 minutes of a 90 minute movie and other 70 are shockingly ... dull. Too talky. It's Tarantino's signature circular, repetitive chattering and while it mostly works almost every other time he's done it, I find it to be interminable here. Even conceding that, "well you signed up for a QT film what do you expect?!?!??!" I think it's a failure on that front too. Uninteresting characters, dreadfully drawn out dialogue. It's his worst movie by a substantial margin.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Street Trash (Muro, 1987) - I wanted to watch some throwback cheapo pseudo-horror film, so I put on C.H.U.D. II, but it was even worst than I remembered and couldn't get through. So I went for this absolute cult classic of Z-movies. It's a very unique film, and not in a bad way. Roy Frumkes was a professor at the New York School of Visual Arts. One of his students, 20 years old Jim Munro, had put all his money on buying his very own steady cam (and what a brilliant move it was, more on that later), and handed in a short 15 minutes film titled Street Trash as his final project. Frumkes thought the film had controversial potential and proposed to write a longer version, aiming for schlock and shock, but still not completely deprived of some slim social commentary. The result is a polished version of a student film, with pretty much the same (lack of) story, with added nudity and Vietnam flashbacks. Still, the film looks great (sound-wise, acting-wise, it's not really the case), with great camerawork and visual ideas. Muro went on with his steadycam (late 80s and 90s, coming with your gear was a big plus when looking for gigs) and worked on some heavy hitters, including most of James Cameron's films. Street Trash remains his only film as a director (he directed a few TV episodes). Its colorful gore and its careless narrative mixing grit and humor makes it an absolutely unique and unforgettable gem of the period - that's not enough to say it's a good film, which makes it very hard to rate. I'd understand people would give this a big flat 0/10, but my rating system being what it is (4 = somewhat ok ; 5 = worth your time ; 6 = good ; 7 = very good), you might want to look away while I'm giving this a well deserved 5.5/10