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

[Tasty Biscuits]

Big backlog to work through. Let's start with some flicks from the local art house's Japanese Film Festival.

It's A Summer Film! (2020). C-
Turns out this high-school rom-com would be best enjoyed by....high-schoolers. Guess I shoulda saw that coming. On paper it seems right up my alley. Film school students making rival movies, one rom-com, one samurai, and a sci-fi element tossed in to mix it up the proceedings and keep things interesting. You've got your requisite kooky supporting characters, tribute-a-plenty to classic samurai films....it should all add up to a fun experience, but watching it all unfold was quite underwhelming. There's just no zip. It almost ends up, dare I say, quite a bit boring.

Fortune Favors Lady Nikuko (2021). B-
A charming, sometimes beautiful animated picture, this is ostensibly a teen coming-of-age film, which in the end (spoilers, I guess?) turns out to be a tale of growing into maturity for both daughter and mother alike -- this is deftly executed, allowing the film to sit quite well afterwards, despite whatever hiccups occurred along the way. Worth checking out whenever it becomes more readily available, if you enjoy the style/genre.

Cure (1997). B
There's a fine line films like these walk. That is, those that are more ambiguous, have ample amounts of visual storytelling, and don't necessarily have the most tidy progressions from plot point to plot point. Sometimes, a director is just throwing ideas against the wall with no real direction, hoping viewers will fill in meaning and intent where there was initially none. This is not one of those times. Apparently Bong Joon-Ho credits this film as having one of the biggest impacts on his career, and it's easy to see what drew him to it. An investigation of odd murders, a heavy dose psychological introspection, some brutal violence, and maybe a bit of "unseen forces" as well are all at play here.

While I would've preferred the film to end a couple frames earlier (as it stands, I think it's too tidy for the proceedings that came before it), I absolutely wouldn't mind the chance to watch it again to parse out a few more details, which for a film of its ilk, is exactly what you want. Worth noting, the theater had a Japanese whiskey tasting event before the film. I'm not sure it helped my overall ability of critical evaluation, but it certainly didn't hurt my enjoyment.

 

[OzzyFan]

Top Gun: Maverick (2022) Directed by Joseph Kosinski 3A

Top Gun: Maverick is being talked up as a great popcorn movie. That means one of two things. Either people have forgotten what great popcorn movies are or the term has become so debased that it is now virtually meaningless. Aging gunslinger of a jet pilot is forced against his will to mentor a collection of talented but inexperienced recruits who must fly a mindboggling dangerous and nearly impossible mission. Is it possible to have a more cliché plot than that? Every scene in this movie is both entirely predictable and/or recalls similar scenes in better movies. The approach to a love interest is right out of the 1970s in terms of utter dreadfulness and lack of importance.

The movie has a very few things to be said for it. The aerial cinematography is impressive, though a lot of this stuff will merely bring back fond memories of the original Top Gun and Star Wars. In three minutes, Val Kilmer gives the movie what little heart it has. And who is the primary focus during these three minutes? Tom Cruise, of course. What is this 59-year-old manchild doing pretending he is still a quicker draw than his adoring 20-year-old hot shots? Every Tom Cruise movie is now a vanity project. That's the only kind of movies his ego allows him to make, and I wish he would stop. There is absolutely nothing fresh or original, let alone vibrant or alive, about Top Gun: Maverick. It’s not so much a movie as a marketing scheme. Do you want Miles Teller to have his own franchise? Sounds like hell to me.

You know, I've thought about this and the world still needs the Top Gun Maverick's, the Fast and Furious's, the huge kid-focused Disney/Pixar films, and obviously solo Marvel movies of the world (non-Marvel side note, wow Venom's sequel made a ton of money). They keep movie theaters open and create/continue the existence of lots of pre and post production movie related jobs. They are a necessity imo, and guilty pleasures for many. Not to mention, they helped allow huge projects like Villeneuve's Dune to come into existence.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Top Gun: Maverick (2022) Directed by Joseph Kosinski 3A

Top Gun: Maverick is being talked up as a great popcorn movie. That means one of two things. Either people have forgotten what great popcorn movies are or the term has become so debased that it is now virtually meaningless. Aging gunslinger of a jet pilot is forced against his will to mentor a collection of talented but inexperienced recruits who must fly a mindboggling dangerous and nearly impossible mission. Is it possible to have a more cliché plot than that? Every scene in this movie is both entirely predictable and/or recalls similar scenes in better movies. The approach to a love interest is right out of the 1970s in terms of utter dreadfulness and lack of importance.

The movie has a very few things to be said for it. The aerial cinematography is impressive, though a lot of this stuff will merely bring back fond memories of the original Top Gun and Star Wars. In three minutes, Val Kilmer gives the movie what little heart it has. And who is the primary focus during these three minutes? Tom Cruise, of course. What is this 59-year-old manchild doing pretending he is still a quicker draw than his adoring 20-year-old hot shots? Every Tom Cruise movie is now a vanity project. That's the only kind of movies his ego allows him to make, and I wish he would stop. There is absolutely nothing fresh or original, let alone vibrant or alive, about Top Gun: Maverick. It’s not so much a movie as a marketing scheme. Do you want Miles Teller to have his own franchise? Sounds like hell to me.

The greatest Tom Cruise related piece of media of ALL-TIME.

 

[Eye of Ra]

Batman Returns 1992

I would give it 7/10. one of my fav movies as a kid. deided to watch it now as an adult, movie is good.

Christopher Walken was the best thing about the movie.

 

[NyQuil]

Christopher Walken was the best thing about the movie.

The throwing Catwoman out of the office sequence and the way he said "Chip" always made me laugh.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Rubber (2010) - Directed by Quentin Dupieux (2/10 or maybe 10/10, I can't really tell).

The film about sentient tire with psychokinetic powers named Robert who stumbles into consciousness as part of a live-action movie taking place in an undisclosed desert location. We follow Robert as he muddles through his new world with sinister intentions. Every so often the film cuts back to the live audience watching not far away. The point of the movie? No reason. Quite a simple premise for a film. Plenty of movies have major plot points that ultimately happen for no reason. This one takes that theatrical idea of "no reason" and makes it the entire film. Take it as a masterpiece, take it as a shit-post of a movie, take it as whatever you want. Nothing matters. Nothing is real. There's no reason for any of this.

Been bugging my wife to watch this one for a while and told her one day I'll be having a bad day and she'll say I can put on whatever I want, well yesterday was that day and I immediately pulled this one up. She actually ended up enjoying it once she stopped taking it so seriously, lol.

 

[Devilsfan992]

Hustle with Adam Sandler. Very entertaining and a feel good story. A lot of NBA greats, current and future. Sandler continues his momentum from Uncut Gems 8.5/10.

 

[The Macho King]

The Bicycle Thieves-1948

A simple story of a man in Rome who has his bicycle stolen and tries to find it. Shot around the city with non actors including the leads. Like The Kid or Life is Beautiful the little boy plays a key role and is very good as he follows his father around trying to find the bike. Beautiful film.

Sidenote: A 19 year old Sergio Leone got a job as an unpaid assistant on the film. He was given a task of finding some young men to play in the scene where students are sheltering from the rain along with the leads. Leone also appears in the scene. He was wearing a new yellow sweater under his red costume robe which the rain ruined when the red dye ran. He had to argue with the director but enventually was reimbursed.

I wept at the end of this movie. Just straight f***ing wept. Blubbered.

On my Mount Rushmore.

A little sidenote - Master of None (a now defunct Netflix series with Aziz Ansari as the lead) has an episode which is an homage to this (with a cell phone in place of a bicycle). It was... fine. I appreciated the nod but it obviously lacked the pathos of the original.

I love Mother. It is definitely in my top 3 of Bong's filmography, after Memories of Murder and Parasite. For me, the ending hammers home Bong's critique of modern day South Korean parents, who will do everything to protect their children, even if they know they are wrong. That is why she did the procedure on herself, which allows her to forget it all, including her guilt. Bong, however, does not exactly condemn her. Rather, he believes it is a societal trait. That is why the camera moves so much in that last dance scene where she joins everyone, in order to create a blurry feverish dream-like state. Confucian values passed down from generations to generations has "intoxicated" the whole culture, and everyone will do the same thing, in her shoes. There is no longer any right or wrong, but only duty to one's kin. It can be admirable, but some people do take it to the extreme. That is why the Mother character can be both sympathetic, but also a monster.

On the other hand, I find Okja is by far his weakest work. Bong definitely has a vision, but this one just did not resonate with me at all. As a result, I was pretty bored by it, and honestly did not care at all. I did find out during his Parasite media blitz that the actress who played the housekeeper in Parasite, Lee Jung-eun, actually did the voice of Okja. I was both surprised and impressed when I learned that.

Not that Bong is subtle, but I would say that Okja may be his *least* subtle work. I still really liked it and didn't eat meat for like a week after (which if you knew me that would stand out as a bigger deal than it seems in passing). Snowcrash is his bottom film for me - although I still put it as like a 7.5/10 movie. Dude is probably my favorite living director.

 

[nameless1]

I wept at the end of this movie. Just straight f***ing wept. Blubbered.

On my Mount Rushmore.

A little sidenote - Master of None (a now defunct Netflix series with Aziz Ansari as the lead) has an episode which is an homage to this (with a cell phone in place of a bicycle). It was... fine. I appreciated the nod but it obviously lacked the pathos of the original.


Not that Bong is subtle, but I would say that Okja may be his *least* subtle work. I still really liked it and didn't eat meat for like a week after (which if you knew me that would stand out as a bigger deal than it seems in passing). Snowcrash is his bottom film for me - although I still put it as like a 7.5/10 movie. Dude is probably my favorite living director.

Yeah, Bicycle Thieves is definitely in my personal top 10. That is pure movie magic, and anyone who is not touched by it does not have a soul.

I think it is just a personal preference. Bong always loses me when he goes outside of the conventional story. The Host is critically acclaimed, but it did nothing for me either. Both of them are 6/10 for me.

Just to clarify, do you mean Snowpiercer? I watched it recently, and 7 to 7.5 is my personal range. Personally, I just like that big reveal near the end, because I thought it is brilliant. I did not see it coming, but it definitely reflects Bong's personal gloom outtake of the world.

 

[The Macho King]

Yeah, Bicycle Thieves is definitely in my personal top 10. That is pure movie magic, and anyone who is not touched by it does not have a soul.

I think it is just a personal preference. Bong always loses me when he goes outside of the conventional story. The Host is critically acclaimed, but it did nothing for me either. Both of them are 6/10 for me.

Just to clarify, do you mean Snowpiercer? I watched it recently, and 7 to 7.5 is my personal range. Personally, I just like that big reveal near the end, because I thought it is brilliant. I definitely did not see it coming, but it definitely reflects Bong's personal gloom outtake of the world.

Yeah Snowcrash is a cyberpunk book now that I'm thinking about it.

But yeah - movie is really good but something needs to come in last.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

View attachment 557134

Rubber (2010) - Directed by Quentin Dupieux (2/10 or maybe 10/10, I can't really tell).

The film about sentient tire with psychokinetic powers named Robert who stumbles into consciousness as part of a live-action movie taking place in an undisclosed desert location. We follow Robert as he muddles through his new world with sinister intentions. Every so often the film cuts back to the live audience watching not far away. The point of the movie? No reason. Quite a simple premise for a film. Plenty of movies have major plot points that ultimately happen for no reason. This one takes that theatrical idea of "no reason" and makes it the entire film. Take it as a masterpiece, take it as a shit-post of a movie, take it as whatever you want. Nothing matters. Nothing is real. There's no reason for any of this.

Been bugging my wife to watch this one for a while and told her one day I'll be having a bad day and she'll say I can put on whatever I want, well yesterday was that day and I immediately pulled this one up. She actually ended up enjoying it once she stopped taking it so seriously, lol.

His follow up Deerskin has a similar ... weirdness. I loved it.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

The Dead Don't Die

with Bill Murray, Adam Driver, Chloe Sevigny, and other, surprisingly famous people

Jim Jarmusch brings us more thoughtful weirdness, this time doing his version of a zombie movie. Centerville, USA is a nice place to live. Quiet, 3-person cop shop who know everyone by name, diner, motel, comic book store/gas station/everything shop, samurai sword-packing funeral director, racist farmer, and a hermit living in the woods. Those old, cliched characters...anyway. People are having trouble with their various devices however; when the tvs work, they all tell of how polar fracking is upsetting the Earth's rotation and angle. Oh yeah...it also creates zombies. As that totally would. The police chief (Murray) and his deputy (Driver) are doing their best to figure out what's going on, some residents start to barricade themselves in...but the eccentric funeral home director (Tilda Swinton, the Scottish High Elf Samurai) casually breaks out her sword and starts a-choppin'. Weird characters have weird interactions, all the animals and birds wisely run away, and Tom Waits lurks in the woods offering social commentary through his huge beard. Huh.

A zombie movie that kind of isn't. Jim Jarmusch does his Jim Jarmusch thing; quiet Americana with a dash of David Lynch. Murray and Driver have a quiet chemistry; it's the meekest I've ever seen Adam Driver. Usually he's Kylo Renning all over the place, but here he's just digging the theme song and grooving in his convertible smart car. Didn't care for the fourth wall breaks, though. Tilda Swinton's at her weirdest, Steve Buscemi sports a Keep America White Again hat but still has coffee with Danny Glover, and Selena Gomez has her head cut off. All that happen around callbacks to Jarmusch's other films...maybe he's trying to create his own cinematic universe. Everyone else is.

On Netflix, and now finally out of my queue.

Such a lost merchandising opportunity.

 

[OzzyFan]

Solaris (1972) (subtitles)
3.85 out of 4stars

“Tarkovsky’s film about a psychologist being sent to a space station orbiting a planet called Solaris to investigate the death of a doctor and the mental problems of cosmonauts on the station. He soon discovers that the water on the planet is a type of brain which brings out repressed memories and obsessions.”
An excellent art psychological sci fi drama about the levels of human consciousness, existence/life, love, and memories. It’s ultimately a deep psychological examination on humanity with an emphasis on powerful past memories and experiences that preoccupy our brains and influence or command our lives. On that topic, the movie asks the grand question: are these emotional aspects of our mind a blessing or a curse? And a thorough examination on the subject is comprised. I won’t spell it out for you, but it’s a rewarding journey with logical yet problematic answers. There is even a short discussion on the meaning of life that is simply genius. And none of this gets into the on the surface parable of what can happen if you are alone in space or isolated elsewhere with your own thoughts, or an alien contact tale of an entity that is either psychologically attacking, psychologically compassionate, or even neutrally autonomic.

Eyes Without a Face (1960) (subtitles)
3.30 out of 4stars

“A surgeon causes a car accident which leaves his daughter disfigured and goes to extreme criminal lengths to give her a new face.”
A great horror drama that is a deep tale about grief, vanity, sanity, identity, and morality. It works on many levels. On the surface, it’s a creepy and disturbing cold film about the guilt and/or love of a father’s mistake in disfiguring his young adult daughter’s face and keeping her as prisoner and/or protecting her from the outside world. The daughter’s mask is chilling to go with a couple of gore-ish/body-horror-esque events and a few uncomfortably twisted “mundane interaction” sequences. It’s also heavily metaphorical (which I won’t paint by number for you) and profound. Even the surgeries themselves are metaphorical in the sense that everyone’s true colors come out when they are against the wall and/or have everything they want already. The situation at hand is sympathetic on paper, but ultimately a selfish one given the daughter and her ignorant fiance’s apparent feelings. The father is controlling, mad, and arrogant with an isolationist fear, because his wife died in the same accident, that he has now subjected his daughter to. In fact, he may even be acting out of ego a bit too since he is a highly renowned and respected surgeon by the public. And the assistant acts blindly in the most extreme measures, due to the superficial facial surgery that the father (surgeon) did to save her looks. Their internal/external stark differences are horrifying, in both a public/private and calm/wicked realm. Then there is the question of the morality of face transplants themselves, criminal aspects aside. Where is the line drawn with science and ethics. I could go on about other views and ideas too. Lastly, it has an excellent strong ending.

Memories of Murder (2003) (subtitles)
3.25 out of 4stars

“Based on true events, police detectives investigate a seeming immaculate serial murderer and rapist in the South Korean province of Gyeonggi.”
A great crime drama dark comedy that fascinates with its excellent balance of honest mocking levity and seriously tragic suspenseful anguish. Extremely effective and well done. Bong at the top of his game, like here, is endlessly impressive on his ability to juggle moods while creating such depth and meaning to all of his scenes in a smooth seamless manner. He’s a masterful artist. Not to mention, add another powerful ending to his accomplishments here. There’s also great commentary on the police, the investigation/procedure, the area, the society, the small and large ideologies, desperation, and the case itself.

The Unknown (1927) (silent)
3.10 out of 4stars

“From Tod Browning, Criminal Alonzo the Armless, a carnival knife thrower, hides in the circus from the law and seeks to possess the daughter of the ringmaster at any cost.”
A great twist filled horror drama romance that is joyously bizarre and creepy, yet ultimately a dark satire on love. Also boasts another excellently expressive and eerie turn from Lon Chaney Sr. The film is about what love can do and cause out of adoration and/or fear: obsession, deception, jealousy, sacrifice, impulsivity, stalking, and multi-faceted release.

Don’t Look Now (1973)
2.70 out of 4stars

“After the accidental death of their daughter, a married couple travels to Venice for the husband’s commissioned job of restoring a church. In Venice, they encounter 2 sisters, one a clairvoyant that informs them their daughter is trying to contact them and warn them of danger.”
A good “psychological” mystery suspense drama tale about grief of an unexpected death, with an artsy/visual feel to it. I see this described as a horror and/or thriller film in some places, I’d argue against that because aside from a few small things this film isn’t truly either. It’s more of a slow burn aesthetic mystery with psychological and supernatural qualities. If you go in looking for thrills or horror, you will be disappointed. It has a good mood and execution, but it feels choppy at times due to some editing and story choices, and feels underexplored on the depth side, again imo is hurt by storypath choices. That said, it’s not mediocrely intelligent. It tries to create meaning and emotion and easter eggs with some of its visual/directorial/minor-theme choices, but for me they didn’t hit hard nor as meaningful as the true story at heart (and of mind). What also helps this movie is it's memorable shock ending.

Dual (2022)
2.50 out of 4stars

“From the writer/director of The Art of Self Defense, upon receiving a terminal diagnosis, Sarah opts for a cloning procedure to ease the loss on her boyfriend and mother. When she makes a miraculous recovery, her clone forces her to a court-mandated duel to the death when she tries to decommission her. Now Sarah has 1 year to train for the fight of her life.”
A good sci-fi comedy that moderately executes its fun premise, has a quality double performance from Gillan, and includes a weak ending. Sporadically funny and sporadically effective when it’s serious/tries to be meaningful. That said, it definitely has a couple bright moments on the comedic side. Ultimately feels like a half baked let down given how much I’ve enjoyed Stearns other 2 works though, and follows a very similar story arc and formula to The Art of Self Defense.

 

[guinness]

Too Hot to Handle (1938)

Two rival newsreel photographers join forces to find an aviatrix's missing brother, who has disappeared in the Amazon rainforest.

The plot was nonsensical and improbable. Loy played an Amelia Earhart type, flying medical serum into China. Both Gable and Pidgeon played news photographers, trying to get a scoop, photographing Loy's plane landing...because a very slow news day? I don't know, I wasn't terribly impressed with how her character was introduced.

Except however, when attempting to get 'the shot', Gable's camera car causes Loy's plane to crash on landing, but she's cool with it...because the plot has to move forward. Something something, she's looking for her lost brother in the Amazon. And the serum she was delivering was also fake, setup by Pidgeon's character, to get a fake news story, a la tabloid journalism.

After that, and up until the end in the Amazon, there was a B plot about Loy and Gable getting together, but it all blows up, when people discover that the crash was caused by him, and that Loy's character knew the serum was fake too.

Loy's character disappeared for a long stretch of time, and they all wind up in the Amazon, with black actors playing natives, but at one point, Gable and another actor hid under some native costumes, with their white arms sticking out, but neither Pidgeon nor Loy's characters noticed.

Lots of fast talking, characters talking over each other, but the overall movie was a mess IMO.

Myrna looked lovely, but I don't get this...she and Gable had appeared together in other movies, got along on set, but even though they played the romantic leads, they didn't wow me with chemistry here. I don't always need a Loy-Powell level of naturalness, but ehhhhhh.

If my review sounds rambling, that's because the movie was rambling. It felt like a B movie to me. 4/10.

 

[kihei]

Solaris (1972) (subtitles)
3.85 out of 4stars

“Tarkovsky’s film about a psychologist being sent to a space station orbiting a planet called Solaris to investigate the death of a doctor and the mental problems of cosmonauts on the station. He soon discovers that the water on the planet is a type of brain which brings out repressed memories and obsessions.”
An excellent art psychological sci fi drama about the levels of human consciousness, existence/life, love, and memories. It’s ultimately a deep psychological examination on humanity with an emphasis on powerful past memories and experiences that preoccupy our brains and influence or command our lives. On that topic, the movie asks the grand question: are these emotional aspects of our mind a blessing or a curse? And a thorough examination on the subject is comprised. I won’t spell it out for you, but it’s a rewarding journey with logical yet problematic answers. There is even a short discussion on the meaning of life that is simply genius. And none of this gets into the on the surface parable of what can happen if you are alone in space or isolated elsewhere with your own thoughts, or an alien contact tale of an entity that is either psychologically attacking, psychologically compassionate, or even neutrally autonomic.

Eyes Without a Face (1960) (subtitles)
3.30 out of 4stars

“A surgeon causes a car accident which leaves his daughter disfigured and goes to extreme criminal lengths to give her a new face.”
A great horror drama that is a deep tale about grief, vanity, sanity, identity, and morality. It works on many levels. On the surface, it’s a creepy and disturbing cold film about the guilt and/or love of a father’s mistake in disfiguring his young adult daughter’s face and keeping her as prisoner and/or protecting her from the outside world. The daughter’s mask is chilling to go with a couple of gore-ish/body-horror-esque events and a few uncomfortably twisted “mundane interaction” sequences. It’s also heavily metaphorical (which I won’t paint by number for you) and profound. Even the surgeries themselves are metaphorical in the sense that everyone’s true colors come out when they are against the wall and/or have everything they want already. The situation at hand is sympathetic on paper, but ultimately a selfish one given the daughter and her ignorant fiance’s apparent feelings. The father is controlling, mad, and arrogant with an isolationist fear, because his wife died in the same accident, that he has now subjected his daughter to. In fact, he may even be acting out of ego a bit too since he is a highly renowned and respected surgeon by the public. And the assistant acts blindly in the most extreme measures, due to the superficial facial surgery that the father (surgeon) did to save her looks. Their internal/external stark differences are horrifying, in both a public/private and calm/wicked realm. Then there is the question of the morality of face transplants themselves, criminal aspects aside. Where is the line drawn with science and ethics. I could go on about other views and ideas too. Lastly, it has an excellent strong ending.

Memories of Murder (2003) (subtitles)
3.25 out of 4stars

“Based on true events, police detectives investigate a seeming immaculate serial murderer and rapist in the South Korean province of Gyeonggi.”
A great crime drama dark comedy that fascinates with its excellent balance of honest mocking levity and seriously tragic suspenseful anguish. Extremely effective and well done. Bong at the top of his game, like here, is endlessly impressive on his ability to juggle moods while creating such depth and meaning to all of his scenes in a smooth seamless manner. He’s a masterful artist. Not to mention, add another powerful ending to his accomplishments here. There’s also great commentary on the police, the investigation/procedure, the area, the society, the small and large ideologies, desperation, and the case itself.

The Unknown (1927) (silent)
3.10 out of 4stars

“From Tod Browning, Criminal Alonzo the Armless, a carnival knife thrower, hides in the circus from the law and seeks to possess the daughter of the ringmaster at any cost.”
A great twist filled horror drama romance that is joyously bizarre and creepy, yet ultimately a dark satire on love. Also boasts another excellently expressive and eerie turn from Lon Chaney Sr. The film is about what love can do and cause out of adoration and/or fear: obsession, deception, jealousy, sacrifice, impulsivity, stalking, and multi-faceted release.

Don’t Look Now (1973)
2.70 out of 4stars

“After the accidental death of their daughter, a married couple travels to Venice for the husband’s commissioned job of restoring a church. In Venice, they encounter 2 sisters, one a clairvoyant that informs them their daughter is trying to contact them and warn them of danger.”
A good “psychological” mystery suspense drama tale about grief of an unexpected death, with an artsy/visual feel to it. I see this described as a horror and/or thriller film in some places, I’d argue against that because aside from a few small things this film isn’t truly either. It’s more of a slow burn aesthetic mystery with psychological and supernatural qualities. If you go in looking for thrills or horror, you will be disappointed. It has a good mood and execution, but it feels choppy at times due to some editing and story choices, and feels underexplored on the depth side, again imo is hurt by storypath choices. That said, it’s not mediocrely intelligent. It tries to create meaning and emotion and easter eggs with some of its visual/directorial/minor-theme choices, but for me they didn’t hit hard nor as meaningful as the true story at heart (and of mind). What also helps this movie is it's memorable shock ending.

Dual (2022)
2.50 out of 4stars

“From the writer/director of The Art of Self Defense, upon receiving a terminal diagnosis, Sarah opts for a cloning procedure to ease the loss on her boyfriend and mother. When she makes a miraculous recovery, her clone forces her to a court-mandated duel to the death when she tries to decommission her. Now Sarah has 1 year to train for the fight of her life.”
A good sci-fi comedy that moderately executes its fun premise, has a quality double performance from Gillan, and includes a weak ending. Sporadically funny and sporadically effective when it’s serious/tries to be meaningful. That said, it definitely has a couple bright moments on the comedic side. Ultimately feels like a half baked let down given how much I’ve enjoyed Stearns other 2 works though, and follows a very similar story arc and formula to The Art of Self Defense.

Some great stuff here. But why don't I come over with a bottle of Bushmills and a six- pack of Guinness and we'll talk about Don't Look Now?

 

[OzzyFan]

Some great stuff here. But why don't I come over with a bottle of Bushmills and a six- pack of Guinness and we'll talk about Don't Look Now?

Thank you, I appreciate it. Do you have an old Don't Look Now review to post or anything else to explain to me what I missed? I know I'm fallible and sometimes things don't hit me the way they should also, so I'm curious here. I know this is one of those critically acclaimed/audience thinks lesser of it movies, so maybe it's more of a B or C level on the Kihei scale for understanding/enjoyment? Maybe the couple's reaction to their child's death felt unauthentic or they felt too unaffected on the surface most of the time for me? I don't know, I'm just throwing stuff out there now.

 

[Eye of Ra]

The Exorcist III

8/10. Very underated movie. Brad Dourif as The Gemini Killer is oscar worthy.

 

[Osprey]

Thank you, I appreciate it. Do you have an old Don't Look Now review to post or anything else to explain to me what I missed? I know I'm fallible and sometimes things don't hit me the way they should also, so I'm curious here. I know this is one of those critically acclaimed/audience thinks lesser of it movies, so maybe it's more of a B or C level on the Kihei scale for understanding/enjoyment? Maybe the couple's reaction to their child's death felt unauthentic or they felt too unaffected on the surface most of the time for me? I don't know, I'm just throwing stuff out there now.

If it makes you feel better, my review last year was similar to yours and I, too, felt the wrath of kihei (I could be exaggerating). OK, I found it and you'll find kihei's defense of the film and probably what you're looking for a few posts after:

Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Spring 2021 Edition

 

[Jussi]

Downton Abbey - A New Era. 8+/10. This one felt like a movie as opposed to the previous one, which just felt like tv special. Looked and felt like proper movie. It's been over 2 and a half years since my mother died but I still get teary eyed when someone's mother passes away in a movie or tv show and it happened at the end when Violet Grantham passes away. Maggie Smith truly was a star in the show and the two movies. Anyway, I had a really good time with this one, I binged the series on Netflix late last year and watched the first movie earlier this year. It feels really nice seeing all these characters again and I wouldn't mind a 3rd one.

 

[Pink Mist]

Thank you, I appreciate it. Do you have an old Don't Look Now review to post or anything else to explain to me what I missed? I know I'm fallible and sometimes things don't hit me the way they should also, so I'm curious here. I know this is one of those critically acclaimed/audience thinks lesser of it movies, so maybe it's more of a B or C level on the Kihei scale for understanding/enjoyment? Maybe the couple's reaction to their child's death felt unauthentic or they felt too unaffected on the surface most of the time for me? I don't know, I'm just throwing stuff out there now.

If it makes you feel better, my review last year was similar to yours and I, too, felt the wrath of kihei (I could be exaggerating). OK, I found it and you'll find kihei's defense of the film and probably what you're looking for a few posts after:

Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Spring 2021 Edition

I also share the same views as you guys and posted a review like this last year, and kihei posted a little review in response describing what he loves about it. But I can't find either my review or his now, they may have been lost in the transition to the new server for the forum

 

[Osprey]

I also share the same views as you guys and posted a review like this last year, and kihei posted a little review in response describing what he loves about it. But I can't find either my review or his now, they may have been lost in the transition to the new server for the forum

I found your review the way that I found mine: by searching your posts for the year ("1973"), a helpful trick for finding movie reviews, especially when the title consists of common words like this.

Movies: - Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Mid-Spring Edition. Happy Beltane!

 

[Shareefruck]

I have a hard time taking the multi-verse concept in this movie literally. I viewed it as more of a woman of a certain age coming to terms with every possible version of her life and accepting the one she chose. And I think this happens with both characters - Joy is looking at the various versions of her life and having issues coming to terms with what she perceives - probably somewhat correctly - a lack of acceptance from her mother. Maybe it's more correct to say that the Evelyn's that died were the ones that were unable to accept the choices they made to end up where they were, or maybe they were the ones that were unable to accept Joy as *she* was. I think it's somewhat interesting that for the most part, most of the Evelyn's alive at the end of the movie (hot dog Evelyn, movie star Evelyn, Ratatoulle Evelyn) were ones that did not marry her husband, and therefore there was no Joy (maybe a bit on the nose there).

At the end of the day, they form a relationship where the generational and cultural differences (Chinese immigrant versus first generation American of Chinese descent) reach a place of mutual understanding and appreciation. But there are many versions of Evelyn that *cannot* reach that place. Admittedly my read on this is half-formed, so I could be way off base, but that's how I interpreted it.

Bit late/re-circling the same topic, but I was thinking about this some more and in hindsight, I think you're totally right-- and I like the movie more for it (despite the rules still confusing me). The plot actually works really well interpreting it as

Spoiler

Evelyn going a bit nuts from the stress and the multiverse stuff just being her imagination/coming to terms with everything.

The universe where she: doesn't go in the broom closet, doesn't punch Jamie Lee Curtis, gets told about the divorce in the car, has an outburst/breakdown at the party, Waymond gets her a sympathetic extension, and she has the heart to heart with Joy sure seems like it might be the only grounded/canonical reality. The movie ends following that thread, and leaves you with voices in Evelyn's head, which could be read that way (when I first saw that scene I was puzzled by it-- like "Uhh... okay, so she still has access to all the universes..... so what?")

Not sure if that was completely obvious, but I didn't really consider it.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Some great stuff here. But why don't I come over with a bottle of Bushmills and a six- pack of Guinness and we'll talk about Don't Look Now?

If this is the cost of questioning Don't Look Now I too have many many concerns and issues with it.

16-year Bushmills please. Will help think.

 

[Pink Mist]

I found your review the way that I found mine: by searching your posts for the year ("1973"), a helpful trick for finding movie reviews, especially when the title consists of common words like this.

Movies: - Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Mid-Spring Edition. Happy Beltane!

Ah thanks, you're right its hard one to find due to the common title.

Here was kihei's response i was referring to:

There is no question that yours is an understandable reaction--hype and expectations have often derailed some of my reactions to old movies that I see for the first time. I don't know if there is any practical way around it. However, I saw Don't Look Now when it opened in Toronto and had no expectations whatsoever; I didn't even know what the story was about. The only thing I knew was that the movie was based on a story by Daphne Du Maurier, an author I would never associate with a scary story in a million years. If someone had asked me, I would have said I was probably going to be seeing a romance which, of course, it is....but, um, not just. So the film totally blew me away. Initially, the key was two things: the marvellous performances by Christie and Sutherland who together created a couple who were both believable and sympathetic. who mattered to me; and, secondly, the editing of the film which built up in me an almost subliminal sense of dread, "unsettling" squared, as it were. I've seen the film several times since then, and it works on me every time to the point that I am a bit surprised that a film that I am now so familiar with can still weave this spell over me.

I would never describe the film as "shocking" or "disturbing," though, which I would argue are inappropriate words for such a subtle film (and, in my case, such a complex emotional experience). My choice of descriptors would be more difficult to pin down--"ominous," "disquieting," "apprehensive" and "foreboding" come to mind--and would derive not just from the performances and the editing, but would be more of a description of the atmosphere that Roeg creates using all the tools of cinema to do so (Perhaps not so oddly, I, who am not a superstitious man, never bought a red ball for either of my kids). I've mentioned before that I don't consider Don't Look Now a horror film which is perhaps just my way of saying that it transcends that genre. I do find the film haunting, though, in the sense that we get to know someone who has a classic tragic flaw--he cannot see that he contains an intuitive awareness that he ignores to the extent that it becomes the cause of his own peril and eventual destruction. I guess it is the inevitability of his fate that seems most haunting to me in retrospect, the unfairness of it. To me horror is magnified many times over when, as is true in life, it is visited upon good people. I think that is the case in Don't Look Now, and it amplified my sense of empathy dramatically. I've tried to explain this movie to myself many times--it remains elusive, and I'm at the age of thinking that it always will.

 

[OzzyFan]

Ah thanks, you're right its hard one to find due to the common title.

Here was kihei's response i was referring to:

Thanks Osprey and Pink Mist. I vaguely remembered the reviews but not the response from Kihei, which I guess I didn't have context on anyway to consider. So it appears I am in agreement with Osprey and Pink Mist here on the movie, but I now understand Kihei's point of view. We all agree that the filmmaking aspect of it is top notch, it appears Kihei was hit more by it all, especially in a blending and harmonizing way. I believe Kihei taking the above into account along with the subtle and literal expressions and overarching themes of the movie was impactful for him. On paper and reading his explanation, I get it. I'd probably argue this one is a C or D on the Kihei scale for sure to appreciate the movie more for what it is. Even if I rewatched the movie though, I just feel the breezy/subtleness of everything throws me off from diving in to appreciate it as a masterwork and, for me, the editing was a distraction most of the time and the oddity of some of the choices just throws reality out the door for me, maybe I just can't get over the fact of the accidental death at the beginning not weighing on either's conscience more heavily (at least expressed as so) or as even disgust at one or the other for blame in the cause....

Spoiler

I guess, personally or otherwise, but still 7/10 or so is pretty damn good in my book.

As stated issues wise including the above, some previously mentioned:

-Your daughter just drowned, but you want to, as a couple take leave out of country away from your only remaining child/the son? Really? Boarding school or not, which I'd be hesitant on letting him go to afterward anyway after what was just taken from me and what he could be possibly going through psychologically.
-Your daughter just drowned and you take a job in Venice? Really? Huh, is there anything around here to remind me of my daughter's death or my more heavily grieving wife of that incident we are trying to get past? Everywhere there is!
-The sex scene. If the 2 really are having subtle grief and connecting issues on dealing with it and mention of the girl being around them still in spirit, how does one, let alone 2 be into and have passionate sex? If anything they shouldn't be that connected at this point in their lives. They shouldn't be in these spirits. A slightly rougher or angrier or even indifferent sex would make sense to me, but not deeply making love.
-The Fate thing, as Kihei stated. How can one so glaringly be ignorant to signs, literal and metaphysical, here? Playing devil's advocate, wouldn't he think he's going crazy first and question his sanity or want to be nearer to his wife and kid after all these "not so subtle coincidences" and daring actions? After so many sinister things, including a near death experience, and still dealing with grief in his own way, who would have the balls to go outdoors still there, let alone at dark, chasing down an apparition or obviously worse through unknown corridors? This is somebody that's been playing everything by the book and all of sudden "let's go" and believes this one supernatural thing to be true and not hallucinatory and runs it down blindly? That's a little hard to swallow for me.
-Hell, I don't even know if I would have let my wife travel back to England alone after the fainting spell she had and "sudden extreme changes in demeanor".

I don't mean this as complaining, I just feel like explaining my issues with it a bit more in-depth after reading Kihei's complemental interpretation, which he is correct on. Just 2 different point of views.