Rodgerwilco
Entertainment boards w/ some Hockey mixed in.
- Feb 6, 2014
- 8,011
- 7,494
Thanks for adding that part. Excellent insight as always, Osprey.
Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate it | {Insert Appropriate Seasonal Greeting Here}
- Thread starter ProstheticConscience
- Start date
ManwithNoIdentity
Registered User
The Black Phone
10/10
Easily the best horror movie I’ve seen this year, which isn’t saying a lot but I still enjoyed the heck out of it
Ethan Hawks is a great actor and that wasn’t any different in this movie, The Grabber was creepy if not a bit one dimensional. I’d have liked more origin story on him.
What wowed me about this movie was the kid/teen actors, more specifically Gwen and Finney. One of the most frustrating aspects in horror for me is not knowing what to do with the younger characters but this movie used them perfectly, and their relationship reminded me how close I’ve gotten with my sibling.
10/10
Easily the best horror movie I’ve seen this year, which isn’t saying a lot but I still enjoyed the heck out of it
Ethan Hawks is a great actor and that wasn’t any different in this movie, The Grabber was creepy if not a bit one dimensional. I’d have liked more origin story on him.
What wowed me about this movie was the kid/teen actors, more specifically Gwen and Finney. One of the most frustrating aspects in horror for me is not knowing what to do with the younger characters but this movie used them perfectly, and their relationship reminded me how close I’ve gotten with my sibling.
ItsFineImFine
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2019
- 3,744
- 2,389
Cha Cha Real Smooth (2022) - 7/10
Both its strength and weakness is how unashamedly it wears its emotions on its sleeves. Good characters and just really positive as a whole rather than being cynical.
Saturday Night and Sunday Morning (1960) - 7/10
A bit more character focused than most British films of the time with this being an Albert Finney showcase vehicle. I will say though that I'm a big advocate of incorporating the words nowt, owt, and someat into the English language as they serve a very useful slang purpose but you'd get a weird look using them in North America. Does have that nice vitality and full of life that makes British kitchen sink films worth watching.
The Big Country (1958) - 7/10
I mean the country is f***ing huge and this instead mostly just uses close shots but while other films did cinematography better, this does a fairly good job of creating a compelling conflict and a character to root for. Huge bonus for being long but not feeling its full length or being boring.
Everything Is Illuminated (2005) - 6/10
Bit dull and too reliant on some flashbacks played over emotional music and trying to make moments seem bigger than they are. Decent opening though and you get some nice shots of Ukraine.
The Birdcage (1996) - 6/10
It was alright, amusing but never quite funny. Maybe it's cos the old tropes on gay characters are a bit stale now and the rest of the humour can't decide if it wants to be more slapstick or just make jokes on gay/conservative tropes. Robin Williams is also NOT the most over the top character in this film.
Both its strength and weakness is how unashamedly it wears its emotions on its sleeves. Good characters and just really positive as a whole rather than being cynical.
Saturday Night and Sunday Morning (1960) - 7/10
A bit more character focused than most British films of the time with this being an Albert Finney showcase vehicle. I will say though that I'm a big advocate of incorporating the words nowt, owt, and someat into the English language as they serve a very useful slang purpose but you'd get a weird look using them in North America. Does have that nice vitality and full of life that makes British kitchen sink films worth watching.
The Big Country (1958) - 7/10
I mean the country is f***ing huge and this instead mostly just uses close shots but while other films did cinematography better, this does a fairly good job of creating a compelling conflict and a character to root for. Huge bonus for being long but not feeling its full length or being boring.
Everything Is Illuminated (2005) - 6/10
Bit dull and too reliant on some flashbacks played over emotional music and trying to make moments seem bigger than they are. Decent opening though and you get some nice shots of Ukraine.
The Birdcage (1996) - 6/10
It was alright, amusing but never quite funny. Maybe it's cos the old tropes on gay characters are a bit stale now and the rest of the humour can't decide if it wants to be more slapstick or just make jokes on gay/conservative tropes. Robin Williams is also NOT the most over the top character in this film.
Hockeyfrilla
Swe prospect fanatic
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 49,081
- 30,018
So I've heard that Elvis in this rules, and Tom Hanks does not and kind of detracts from the overall experience. How does that fit with your experience?
Martinez
Go Blue
- Oct 10, 2015
- 6,662
- 2,151
Juve
Registered User
Tasty Biscuits
with fancy sauce
An all aviation slot...
Top Gun: Maverick (2022). C-
Can a sequel be considered a success if its lasting impact is giving you a greater appreciation for the original? Those were my thoughts coming out of TGM, a movie I was ready to enjoy the hell out of going in. The two main sequences in the sky (training and mission) are undoubtedly a spectacle, and worth the price of admission for the theater experience. But I found myself not caring at all about what was happening on the ground, and when your movie is 2h10m, you've gotta be bringing a bit more to the table.
I actually only saw the original for the first time about a week beforehand, so I'd like to think my take is removed from any type of nostalgia. For me, what really carried the first TG was the chemistry Maverick had in his 3 relationships. Mav + Goose, Mav + Charlie, Mav + Ice each had their own unique dynamic, and as the film progressed you weren't positive how each one would play out. That all served to give the action a bit more oomph (it's no surprise that the scene in TGM with Ice carried the most heft [for more than one reason, of course] -- that was a great moment).
In TGM, you've got Mav + Rooster, and that's it, and until the end, they spend more time talking to other people about each other than they do face-to-face. (Mav + Penny is a complete nothing burger).
I know the main draw for both films is the excellent action, but in TG the proceedings on the ground really served to elevate everything in the sky. Internal conflict is always more interesting that external conflict. That is to say, the latter is really be enhanced when it's driven by the former. The big set piece at the end of TGM amounts to America vs an unnamed, faceless foreign enemy. There are no stakes to heighten the action we're seeing -- we already know how everything is going to turn out externally (and internally, for that matter), so it amounts to all fluff with no meat.
Having said that, I'll still shell out the price of a ticket to see Tom Cruise be a maniac. Rumblings of an F1 project next? He was in the Mercedes paddock at Silverstone this past weekend. Sign me up.
Porco Rosso (1992). A-
I didn't know anything about this going in other than it was Miyazaki. I certainly didn't expect what I got, which was a film (even down to the ending) that echoed the feel of the "epics" from the 40s/50s supplemented by a hefty helping of Miyazaki magic.
The animation is beautiful, and in the aviation sequences, sometimes jaw-droppingly so. Fun personalities, well-placed humor, a simple character-driven story -- it all adds up to a film that is both classic in its homages, and in its own right. I know the following term is often thrown around, with everyone having their own personal definitions of what it implies: for me, this is Miyazaki's "popcorn movie," and I mean that in the best sense possible.
Top Gun: Maverick (2022). C-
Can a sequel be considered a success if its lasting impact is giving you a greater appreciation for the original? Those were my thoughts coming out of TGM, a movie I was ready to enjoy the hell out of going in. The two main sequences in the sky (training and mission) are undoubtedly a spectacle, and worth the price of admission for the theater experience. But I found myself not caring at all about what was happening on the ground, and when your movie is 2h10m, you've gotta be bringing a bit more to the table.
I actually only saw the original for the first time about a week beforehand, so I'd like to think my take is removed from any type of nostalgia. For me, what really carried the first TG was the chemistry Maverick had in his 3 relationships. Mav + Goose, Mav + Charlie, Mav + Ice each had their own unique dynamic, and as the film progressed you weren't positive how each one would play out. That all served to give the action a bit more oomph (it's no surprise that the scene in TGM with Ice carried the most heft [for more than one reason, of course] -- that was a great moment).
In TGM, you've got Mav + Rooster, and that's it, and until the end, they spend more time talking to other people about each other than they do face-to-face. (Mav + Penny is a complete nothing burger).
I know the main draw for both films is the excellent action, but in TG the proceedings on the ground really served to elevate everything in the sky. Internal conflict is always more interesting that external conflict. That is to say, the latter is really be enhanced when it's driven by the former. The big set piece at the end of TGM amounts to America vs an unnamed, faceless foreign enemy. There are no stakes to heighten the action we're seeing -- we already know how everything is going to turn out externally (and internally, for that matter), so it amounts to all fluff with no meat.
Having said that, I'll still shell out the price of a ticket to see Tom Cruise be a maniac. Rumblings of an F1 project next? He was in the Mercedes paddock at Silverstone this past weekend. Sign me up.
Porco Rosso (1992). A-
I didn't know anything about this going in other than it was Miyazaki. I certainly didn't expect what I got, which was a film (even down to the ending) that echoed the feel of the "epics" from the 40s/50s supplemented by a hefty helping of Miyazaki magic.
The animation is beautiful, and in the aviation sequences, sometimes jaw-droppingly so. Fun personalities, well-placed humor, a simple character-driven story -- it all adds up to a film that is both classic in its homages, and in its own right. I know the following term is often thrown around, with everyone having their own personal definitions of what it implies: for me, this is Miyazaki's "popcorn movie," and I mean that in the best sense possible.
San Quentin (1937) - 6/10
A petty criminal (Humphrey Bogart) is sent to San Quentin just as his sister (Ann Sheridan) starts a relationship with the new prison warden (Pat O'Brien). The warden takes an interest in reforming his love interest's brother without looking like he's giving him special treatment or him finding out about them. It's a nicely paced 70-minute Depression-era prison drama with Bogie as a hard-bitten but sympathetic criminal (who's supposed to be 25 years old, even though he was in late 30s at the time, which was kind of funny). There are better prison films, but it's pretty good for a "B" movie and it's always neat to see Bogie before he became a star. I enjoyed it.
Night of the Comet (1984) - 6/10
After a comet wipes out nearly all life on Earth, two valley girls (Catherine Mary Stewart, Kelli Maroney) go to the mall, fight over the last boy alive and run from zombies... you know, the usual end of the world routine. Basically, it's an 80s teen version of I Am Legend with small doses of horror, sci-fi and comedy. It's light, fun, campy and very 80s. For example, with everyone that they've ever known dead, but with an empty mall to themselves, the two girls gleefully try on clothes while the soundtrack plays Cindi Lauper's "Girls Just Want to Have Fun," naturally. I liked how the two actresses looked nothing alike, but had the same big 80s hair, as if the filmmakers were saying "see? they really are sisters." A young Robert Beltran, in literally the only thing outside of Star Trek: Voyager (Chakotay) that I've seen him, is also in it. There isn't much plot or character development, but its 80s-ness was nostalgic and the end of the world could never be bad with Catherine Mary Stewart.
Last edited:
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
- Jan 29, 2004
- 34,438
- 19,485
San Quentin (1937) - 6/10
A petty criminal (Humphrey Bogart) is sent to San Quentin just as his sister (Ann Sheridan) starts a relationship with the new prison warden (Pat O'Brien). The warden takes an interest in reforming his love interest's brother without looking like he's giving him special treatment or him finding out about them. It's a nicely paced 70-minute Depression-era prison drama with Bogie as a hard-bitten but sympathetic criminal (who's supposed to be 25 years old, even though he was in late 30s at the time, which was kind of funny). There are better prison films, but it's pretty good for a "B" movie and it's always neat to see Bogie before he became a star. I enjoyed it.
Night of the Comet (1984) - 6/10
After a comet wipes out nearly all life on Earth, two valley girls (Catherine Mary Stuart, Kelli Maroney) go to the mall, fight over the last boy alive and run from zombies... you know, the usual end of the world routine. Basically, it's an 80s teen version of I Am Legend with small doses of horror, sci-fi and comedy. It's light, fun, campy and very 80s. For example, with everyone that they've ever known dead, but with an empty mall to themselves, the two girls gleefully try on clothes while the soundtrack plays Cindi Lauper's "Girls Just Want to Have Fun," naturally. I liked how the two actresses looked nothing alike, but had the same big 80s hair, as if the filmmakers were saying "see? they really are sisters." A young Robert Beltran, in literally the only thing outside of Star Trek: Voyager (Chakotay) that I've seen him, is also in it. There isn't much plot or character development, but its 80s-ness was nostalgic and the end of the world could never be bad with Catherine Mary Stuart.
CMS was from The Last Starfighter?
Yeah, that's probably her best-known role. I had a bit of a thing for her in the 80s and early 90s because of that, Weekend at Bernie's and another movie or two. It's too bad that she didn't get larger roles in more popular movies. While watching this one, I observed that she was actually a pretty good actress.
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
- Jan 29, 2004
- 34,438
- 19,485
She was in Weekend at Bernie’s? Damn… been a long ass time since I saw it, but never made the connection. Or maybe I did back then, who knows.
Just took a peek at the LSF cast and I’d never recognize Lance Guest now.
I think last thing I saw him in was Jaws Revenge?
Judith Barsi was also in that movie right? That’s how Guest got to know her when he was a pall bearer at her funeral if I recall.
Messed up shit.
KallioWeHardlyKnewYe
Hey! We won!
- May 30, 2003
- 15,771
- 3,808
Oh we're doing Catherine Mary Stewart corner! My top tier 80s crush. Mostly because of Night of the Comet.
She was one of the stars of a movie filmed at my high school when I was growing up, Mischief, alongside Kelly Preston.
The Apple is quite an experience. For more than just her.
She was one of the stars of a movie filmed at my high school when I was growing up, Mischief, alongside Kelly Preston.
The Apple is quite an experience. For more than just her.
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (Miloš Forman, 1975)
Randle Patrick McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) is a petty criminal faking insanity in a mental hospital to have an easier go at prison. While there he becomes the leader of the other patients in a rebellion against the authoritarian Nurse Ratched. A big winner at the Oscars and considered a counter-cultural classic, there is a lot to enjoy with One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. For one, Jack Nicholson puts on a show as the rebellious and eccentric leader of his posse of patients. Only he could put on this live-wire performance, any other actor and it would be easy to fall into overacting. Alongside Nicholson, you also have fine early career performances by Brad Dourif, Christopher Lloyd, and Danny DeVito who are equally enjoyable. I hadn’t seen this film since I was a teenager and I forgot how good the cast was. Where I find the film lacks is actually in the composition of the shots. It’s fairly run of the mill and nothing special and the film is really carried by the characters and story. But that’s a slight complaint for an otherwise great film.
Randle Patrick McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) is a petty criminal faking insanity in a mental hospital to have an easier go at prison. While there he becomes the leader of the other patients in a rebellion against the authoritarian Nurse Ratched. A big winner at the Oscars and considered a counter-cultural classic, there is a lot to enjoy with One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. For one, Jack Nicholson puts on a show as the rebellious and eccentric leader of his posse of patients. Only he could put on this live-wire performance, any other actor and it would be easy to fall into overacting. Alongside Nicholson, you also have fine early career performances by Brad Dourif, Christopher Lloyd, and Danny DeVito who are equally enjoyable. I hadn’t seen this film since I was a teenager and I forgot how good the cast was. Where I find the film lacks is actually in the composition of the shots. It’s fairly run of the mill and nothing special and the film is really carried by the characters and story. But that’s a slight complaint for an otherwise great film.
Chili
Time passes when you're not looking
- Jun 10, 2004
- 8,787
- 4,922
In the early 1960's Kirk Douglas bought the book and it was turned into a play in which he starred. He later tried to make it into a film but because of the subject, could not get the financing. He sent a copy of the book to Miloš Forman but never heard back from him. Several years later, it was his son Michael who was able to arrange the financing and ironically without his father having mentioned it to him, hired Forman to direct. Turned out that he had never received the copy of the book that Kirk had sent to him. Great news, Kirk thought that he would be playing McMurphy but they had decided that he was now too old to play the part. This is from Kirk's autobiography (The Ragman's Son):
"One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is one of the biggest disappointments of my life. I made more money from that film then any I acted in. And I would gladly give back every cent, if I could have played that role."
Even after the film was made, Michael had a hard time getting it distributed. The studio that finally released it made a bundle. Great film.
This is a wild coincidence. I saw that play with Douglas on its opening night on Broadway, my very first play ever. Douglas was great, at least as good as Nicholson.
Sunset Blvd. (1950)
3.40 out of 4stars
“An aging silent film queen refuses to accept that her stardom has ended. She hires a young screenwriter to help set up her movie comeback. The screenwriter’s ambivalence about their relationship and her inwillingness to let go leads to a situation of violence, madness, and death.”
An excellent noir dark comedy drama that is a well rounded satire on Hollywood and a few of its inhabitants behind the cameras (arguably celebrities across many different vocations also). The show stealer is Gloria Swanson, who’s real life career parallels her character here a bit, who shows how nasty Hollywood can be by putting actors on a pedestal and spoiling them to high heaven and then one day throwing them in the garbage as if they never existed. The sympathy created for her character, who is still monetarily very rich, is admirable. It really is psychologically damaging putting people through such polar extremes, especially when they have little to no support system around them. William Holden’s character is another leg of the Hollywood collective, portraying a mildly successful and now broke screenwriter that tries using Swanson for his own gain. While they both use each other, Holden’s mind and heart are clearly elsewhere. Small and large scale, Holden represents all the “users” in Hollywood that make money off of/receive-perks-from celebrities without truly caring for them, such as: sugar babies, fame/money chasers, fake friends, agents, publicists, paparazzi, any purpose “butlers”, and other various workers employees of temporary or full time. And an even smaller character in Nancy Olson, the pure bright eyed dreamers that work on the fringes of the industry and have no idea what dark dog eat dog world they may be getting themselves into. The film is full of dry dark wit that hits in the sharpest of ways. Not to mention a couple iconic scenes/quotes you’ve likely seen elsewhere that apparently got their start here. One could also argue this as a metaphor for aging itself, how one’s use to society and arguably family dissipates quickly and haunts someone with a longing for youth and importance once again.
Scream of Fear (Taste of Fear) (1961)
3.10 out of 4stars
“A wheelchair-bound young woman returns to her father’s estate after ten years, and although she’s told he’s away, she keeps seeing his dead body on the estate.”
A great psychological horror thriller full of suspicion, twists, and turns with a stunning third act. Well acted and brought to life with a slow burn beginning that sets the stage with a “reality versus delusion” paranoia, aided more so by our main protagonist’s neurotic background. Strange events and sightings occur, especially in the dark, as mystery builds and investigations occur. I can’t say much more without ruining the unfolding or twists though. I’ll say that it plays to the audience magnificently and amplifies everything up in the third act with astounding success.
The Fly (1958)
2.75 out of 4stars
“The investigation into an odd murder leads to a wife’s recounting of a scientific accident that turned her husband partially into a fly.”
A great sci-fi horror film that interestingly borders the line of fright and funny in seemingly unintentional ways. On paper, this is a really horrific “sad and romantic” tale about science, family life, and the struggle for normalcy. On the screen, it’s a bit imperfect, but mostly good. The shocks and absurdities, some aged/cheesey by today’s standards, here make the audience either anxious or giggly. For me, I’d say it was 80/20 in favor of the horror elements here. There were just some things, even if serious in tone, that are ludicrous to see acted out (for example, the amount of difficulty and stress involved for 3 people trying to catch a house fly in a closed off living room). That said, almost all of the movie works on various levels and keeps the audience intrigued. Not that it needs to be mentioned, but Cronenberg’s The Fly is ultimately a fully realized and gloriously expanded version of this film in many ways. Still, the original has some success across multi-genres and has some creepy atmosphere while bringing an uneasy madness.
Official Competition (2021) (subtitles)
3.05 out of 4stars
“A wealthy businessman hires a famous filmmaker to help make a smash hit film along with 2 famed actors, all with conflicting egos and personalities.”
A great dark comedy satire on quirky directors, famous attractive charismatic mediocrely talented actors, renowned intellectual cultured character actors, movies, the filmmaking process itself, and more. Oftenly quite hilarious and on point, while also including some lower hanging fruit jokes in there too. Quirky directors have odd, sometimes over the top, methods of getting to and making points aside from flat out telling people what they want. “Pretty boys’’ can make tons of money while being mediocre at their craft for being themselves, looking a certain way, and being liked. While some of the most talented and accomplished people in the acting department are much less wealthy and well known. Who is more successful though, the one who gives audiences what they want while making endless piles of money or the one that masters his craft but appeals mostly to critics and intellectuals/movie-buffs while earning a moderately prosperous income? And should movies be treated and seen as pulpy entertainment or expressionist art? And do the masses really just want simpler surface appealing films with unchallenging or lesser known subject matter versus true art/cultured works or cerebrally challenging material? All that is just the tip of the iceberg. Lesser quips are made about the super rich for example, having so much money they don’t know what to do with, yet want to be remembered and looked upon optimistically “and” they have the power to do almost anything they want. The actors are great, but Penelope Cruz is the clear standout. It’s all a lot of fun while also making you think a bit.
3.40 out of 4stars
“An aging silent film queen refuses to accept that her stardom has ended. She hires a young screenwriter to help set up her movie comeback. The screenwriter’s ambivalence about their relationship and her inwillingness to let go leads to a situation of violence, madness, and death.”
An excellent noir dark comedy drama that is a well rounded satire on Hollywood and a few of its inhabitants behind the cameras (arguably celebrities across many different vocations also). The show stealer is Gloria Swanson, who’s real life career parallels her character here a bit, who shows how nasty Hollywood can be by putting actors on a pedestal and spoiling them to high heaven and then one day throwing them in the garbage as if they never existed. The sympathy created for her character, who is still monetarily very rich, is admirable. It really is psychologically damaging putting people through such polar extremes, especially when they have little to no support system around them. William Holden’s character is another leg of the Hollywood collective, portraying a mildly successful and now broke screenwriter that tries using Swanson for his own gain. While they both use each other, Holden’s mind and heart are clearly elsewhere. Small and large scale, Holden represents all the “users” in Hollywood that make money off of/receive-perks-from celebrities without truly caring for them, such as: sugar babies, fame/money chasers, fake friends, agents, publicists, paparazzi, any purpose “butlers”, and other various workers employees of temporary or full time. And an even smaller character in Nancy Olson, the pure bright eyed dreamers that work on the fringes of the industry and have no idea what dark dog eat dog world they may be getting themselves into. The film is full of dry dark wit that hits in the sharpest of ways. Not to mention a couple iconic scenes/quotes you’ve likely seen elsewhere that apparently got their start here. One could also argue this as a metaphor for aging itself, how one’s use to society and arguably family dissipates quickly and haunts someone with a longing for youth and importance once again.
Scream of Fear (Taste of Fear) (1961)
3.10 out of 4stars
“A wheelchair-bound young woman returns to her father’s estate after ten years, and although she’s told he’s away, she keeps seeing his dead body on the estate.”
A great psychological horror thriller full of suspicion, twists, and turns with a stunning third act. Well acted and brought to life with a slow burn beginning that sets the stage with a “reality versus delusion” paranoia, aided more so by our main protagonist’s neurotic background. Strange events and sightings occur, especially in the dark, as mystery builds and investigations occur. I can’t say much more without ruining the unfolding or twists though. I’ll say that it plays to the audience magnificently and amplifies everything up in the third act with astounding success.
The Fly (1958)
2.75 out of 4stars
“The investigation into an odd murder leads to a wife’s recounting of a scientific accident that turned her husband partially into a fly.”
A great sci-fi horror film that interestingly borders the line of fright and funny in seemingly unintentional ways. On paper, this is a really horrific “sad and romantic” tale about science, family life, and the struggle for normalcy. On the screen, it’s a bit imperfect, but mostly good. The shocks and absurdities, some aged/cheesey by today’s standards, here make the audience either anxious or giggly. For me, I’d say it was 80/20 in favor of the horror elements here. There were just some things, even if serious in tone, that are ludicrous to see acted out (for example, the amount of difficulty and stress involved for 3 people trying to catch a house fly in a closed off living room). That said, almost all of the movie works on various levels and keeps the audience intrigued. Not that it needs to be mentioned, but Cronenberg’s The Fly is ultimately a fully realized and gloriously expanded version of this film in many ways. Still, the original has some success across multi-genres and has some creepy atmosphere while bringing an uneasy madness.
Official Competition (2021) (subtitles)
3.05 out of 4stars
“A wealthy businessman hires a famous filmmaker to help make a smash hit film along with 2 famed actors, all with conflicting egos and personalities.”
A great dark comedy satire on quirky directors, famous attractive charismatic mediocrely talented actors, renowned intellectual cultured character actors, movies, the filmmaking process itself, and more. Oftenly quite hilarious and on point, while also including some lower hanging fruit jokes in there too. Quirky directors have odd, sometimes over the top, methods of getting to and making points aside from flat out telling people what they want. “Pretty boys’’ can make tons of money while being mediocre at their craft for being themselves, looking a certain way, and being liked. While some of the most talented and accomplished people in the acting department are much less wealthy and well known. Who is more successful though, the one who gives audiences what they want while making endless piles of money or the one that masters his craft but appeals mostly to critics and intellectuals/movie-buffs while earning a moderately prosperous income? And should movies be treated and seen as pulpy entertainment or expressionist art? And do the masses really just want simpler surface appealing films with unchallenging or lesser known subject matter versus true art/cultured works or cerebrally challenging material? All that is just the tip of the iceberg. Lesser quips are made about the super rich for example, having so much money they don’t know what to do with, yet want to be remembered and looked upon optimistically “and” they have the power to do almost anything they want. The actors are great, but Penelope Cruz is the clear standout. It’s all a lot of fun while also making you think a bit.
guinness
Not Ingrid for now
Test Pilot (1938).
"Special effects by Billy!" - Crow T. Robot.
This movie needs Rifftrax treatment in the worst way.
I watched it twice, and still struggled at times to come to terms with the characters Prometheus level of stupid. I had moments of previous MST3k and Rifftrax riffs in my head - The Skydivers, San Francisco International, The Starfighters, The Journey: Absolution, Outlaw.
Tossing in quips from those movies would work, even splicing them over top of the dialog, but I'm not that proficient yet with DaVinci Resolve to do it myself.
There was a review on IMDB, were someone was like 'after 40 minutes, just shut it off'. Agreed.
It started off decently enough, with Clark Gable's test pilot character, flaming out and plowing into Myrna Loy's wheat field, with witty dialog between them immediately afterwards...but then it sort of turned into a love triangle, as she broke up the bromance between Gable and Spencer Tracy, and then it got weird, seeing Tracy play a sulking 3rd wheel the rest of the movie.
The main leads (Gable and Loy) didn't seem to understand money at all, as oh our 3rd wheel Trace will take of it, it's fine (and he would), and for someone that saw said pilot crash into her field, she wasn't thinking his line of work was dangerous, until after she married him. And then, suddenly no idea that yup, test flying planes in the 1930s could be a rough business.
Such a weird movie, I could not pin it down. The bromance/love triangle (or make it a rectangle, include the planes too)...super weird, especially some of the dialog.
And while I know old movies, backlot shooting, rear projection filling into for actual locations, oh my, this movie had it in spades, and not done well. It actually felt gratuitous.
The special effects might have been passible in 1938, but I was surprised how bad some of the plane races + rear projection looked, was really expecting to see strings attached.
And because movies back then couldn't end on a 'bad' ending, Gable couldn't die, he settles down with the wife, and husband and wife live happily ever after (but only after Tracey essentially sacrificed himself during a training mishap, showing Gable's character the meaning of life or some nonsense).
3/10
"Special effects by Billy!" - Crow T. Robot.
This movie needs Rifftrax treatment in the worst way.
I watched it twice, and still struggled at times to come to terms with the characters Prometheus level of stupid. I had moments of previous MST3k and Rifftrax riffs in my head - The Skydivers, San Francisco International, The Starfighters, The Journey: Absolution, Outlaw.
Tossing in quips from those movies would work, even splicing them over top of the dialog, but I'm not that proficient yet with DaVinci Resolve to do it myself.
There was a review on IMDB, were someone was like 'after 40 minutes, just shut it off'. Agreed.
It started off decently enough, with Clark Gable's test pilot character, flaming out and plowing into Myrna Loy's wheat field, with witty dialog between them immediately afterwards...but then it sort of turned into a love triangle, as she broke up the bromance between Gable and Spencer Tracy, and then it got weird, seeing Tracy play a sulking 3rd wheel the rest of the movie.
The main leads (Gable and Loy) didn't seem to understand money at all, as oh our 3rd wheel Trace will take of it, it's fine (and he would), and for someone that saw said pilot crash into her field, she wasn't thinking his line of work was dangerous, until after she married him. And then, suddenly no idea that yup, test flying planes in the 1930s could be a rough business.
Such a weird movie, I could not pin it down. The bromance/love triangle (or make it a rectangle, include the planes too)...super weird, especially some of the dialog.
And while I know old movies, backlot shooting, rear projection filling into for actual locations, oh my, this movie had it in spades, and not done well. It actually felt gratuitous.
The special effects might have been passible in 1938, but I was surprised how bad some of the plane races + rear projection looked, was really expecting to see strings attached.
And because movies back then couldn't end on a 'bad' ending, Gable couldn't die, he settles down with the wife, and husband and wife live happily ever after (but only after Tracey essentially sacrificed himself during a training mishap, showing Gable's character the meaning of life or some nonsense).
3/10
shadow1
Registered User
- Nov 29, 2008
- 16,729
- 5,526
The Man With the Screaming Brain (2005) - 6/10
Super cheesy, super low budget made-for-TV movie that's fun enough to eke out a 6 from me. Bruce Campbell stars and directs and does a decent job in both areas.
Halloween II (2009) - 6/10
Rob Zombie's H2 is mostly hated by fans and critics (4.4 on IMDB), but I know a small group of series fans really enjoy it, so I tried to go in with an open mind.
I thought it was okay! Whereas Zombie tried and failed to remake a classic with his 2007 effort, here I thought he succeeded with his goal of making a trashy, grind house style movie. It's dark and mean spirited, and even the highly controversial "white horse" subplot worked for me. Zombie tried to do his own thing here and he gets credit for the effort.
There are still a lot of issues though, like the fact he clearly struggles to write dialogue and likable characters (aside from Brad Dourif's Sheriff Brackett. He's excellent in the role, but unfortunately at no point is he in any danger.) But, the trashy characters were fewer and slightly more tolerable this time around.
Not sure what was up with the sound. The whole movie was so quiet, except when Michael smashes something through a window, stabbing someone, etc. In those moments, the sound volume is mixed up to roughly a 19 on a scale of 1-10, while the rest of the movie felt like it was at a 3.
Final note is I have no idea where the budget went on this movie. I was surprised to learn it had the same $15M budget as the 2007 remake. Not that $15M is a lot, but I would've guessed they could've made it at a tenth of that; half the movie takes place outdoors, in random grassland fields.
Super cheesy, super low budget made-for-TV movie that's fun enough to eke out a 6 from me. Bruce Campbell stars and directs and does a decent job in both areas.
Halloween II (2009) - 6/10
Rob Zombie's H2 is mostly hated by fans and critics (4.4 on IMDB), but I know a small group of series fans really enjoy it, so I tried to go in with an open mind.
I thought it was okay! Whereas Zombie tried and failed to remake a classic with his 2007 effort, here I thought he succeeded with his goal of making a trashy, grind house style movie. It's dark and mean spirited, and even the highly controversial "white horse" subplot worked for me. Zombie tried to do his own thing here and he gets credit for the effort.
There are still a lot of issues though, like the fact he clearly struggles to write dialogue and likable characters (aside from Brad Dourif's Sheriff Brackett. He's excellent in the role, but unfortunately at no point is he in any danger.) But, the trashy characters were fewer and slightly more tolerable this time around.
Not sure what was up with the sound. The whole movie was so quiet, except when Michael smashes something through a window, stabbing someone, etc. In those moments, the sound volume is mixed up to roughly a 19 on a scale of 1-10, while the rest of the movie felt like it was at a 3.
Final note is I have no idea where the budget went on this movie. I was surprised to learn it had the same $15M budget as the 2007 remake. Not that $15M is a lot, but I would've guessed they could've made it at a tenth of that; half the movie takes place outdoors, in random grassland fields.
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 49,081
- 30,018
A couple recent ones.
Bladerunner 2049 - this just kept slipping by me despite loving the original. Beautifully shot film with great effects. Some strong performances as well. Gosling was very good in his role. The main female replicant I thought was pretty bad though, and Leto was... obnoxious. Plot was fine?
I have a slight issue with Villeneuve I think. It feels technically well done, well shot, and even good performances, but they don't always stick with me. I liked the movie but I didn't love it. 7/10
Police Story - I never saw this before but damn if it wasn't a blast. The first set piece was tremendous destroying the ramshackle village. Chan is charming and funny, the action is amazing, and it was surprisingly funny. The plot was pretty standard, but this was a very enjoyable film. 8/10
Bladerunner 2049 - this just kept slipping by me despite loving the original. Beautifully shot film with great effects. Some strong performances as well. Gosling was very good in his role. The main female replicant I thought was pretty bad though, and Leto was... obnoxious. Plot was fine?
I have a slight issue with Villeneuve I think. It feels technically well done, well shot, and even good performances, but they don't always stick with me. I liked the movie but I didn't love it. 7/10
Police Story - I never saw this before but damn if it wasn't a blast. The first set piece was tremendous destroying the ramshackle village. Chan is charming and funny, the action is amazing, and it was surprisingly funny. The plot was pretty standard, but this was a very enjoyable film. 8/10
Hockeyfrilla
Swe prospect fanatic
I thought Colonel Tom Parker (Tom Hanks) was pretty annoying in the film and the film focus a lot on the relationship between him and Elvis. Austin Butler was great as Elvis! Lots of older people in the cinema on my showing.
The Sea Beast (2022) - 7/10
A young girl stows away on a sea monster hunting ship and has adventures with its first mate as they learn about the creature that they're hunting. It's an animated movie with privateers, ships and sea monsters and features a little character bonding and a message about truth, conflict and the power of stories. I liked that it's set in a familiar historical period (the Age of Sail) without magic, superpowers or talking animals. The only elements of fantasy are the creatures. The characters even speak in vaguely British accents, which is a minor historical detail that I appreciated. Speaking of the characters, they aren't overly cartoonish or entirely good or bad... well, except for the kid, who's right about everything, of course. That could've gotten on my nerves, but I actually kind of liked her. Her personality made up for it. Similarly, a cute baby creature shows up at one point (of course), but even that was kind of amusing. The movie has clichés like those, but they weren't obnoxious like they could've been. The plot is quite predictable, but that's pretty much to be expected from family movies. I appreciated that the humor isn't overdone and doesn't come from gags that only kids would laugh at. The movie is similar to How to Train Your Dragon, so, if you liked that, you may like this. The animation is superb, especially when it comes to the detail of the ships and ports. At nearly 2 hours, it's quite a bit longer than most animated movies, but I never felt that it dragged. It's just a fun adventure movie with ships and sea monsters and I enjoyed it. It's on Netflix.
Last edited:
ItsFineImFine
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2019
- 3,744
- 2,389
Christ Stopped At Eboli (1979) - 7/10
Finally finished this 3.5 hour film I started months ago. It's peaceful enough to not be a slog but not ever really interesting enough to grab full attention. Some nice colourful shots of the countryside and some nice interactions between the doctor and the peasants with a fourth act that's maybe a bit too chaotic and doesn't fit as well. The director's other film I saw, Hands Over The City is a better watch.
C'mon C'mon (2021) - 7/10
This probably would've been better if the film was more along the lines of the interviews and less along the lines of interactions with the bratty kid I couldn't stand and also 10 minutes shorter at the end. I like sentimental movies but I just can't stand annoying children so maybe that's on me but at least Juaquin Phoenix is solid in his role.
Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her (2000) - 7/10
An anthalogy film with different parts which sadly almost all end before their full resolution. It prevents it from getting boring but you don't really get the needed closure. Some big names in this like Cameron Diaz, Holly Hunter, and Glenn Close and some pretty intimate portrayals of the personal lives of a set of women but it's always going to be superficial at the end of the day when it's an anthology film.
Finally finished this 3.5 hour film I started months ago. It's peaceful enough to not be a slog but not ever really interesting enough to grab full attention. Some nice colourful shots of the countryside and some nice interactions between the doctor and the peasants with a fourth act that's maybe a bit too chaotic and doesn't fit as well. The director's other film I saw, Hands Over The City is a better watch.
C'mon C'mon (2021) - 7/10
This probably would've been better if the film was more along the lines of the interviews and less along the lines of interactions with the bratty kid I couldn't stand and also 10 minutes shorter at the end. I like sentimental movies but I just can't stand annoying children so maybe that's on me but at least Juaquin Phoenix is solid in his role.
Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her (2000) - 7/10
An anthalogy film with different parts which sadly almost all end before their full resolution. It prevents it from getting boring but you don't really get the needed closure. Some big names in this like Cameron Diaz, Holly Hunter, and Glenn Close and some pretty intimate portrayals of the personal lives of a set of women but it's always going to be superficial at the end of the day when it's an anthology film.
The Twelve Chairs (1970) - 5/10
In 1920s Soviet Union, a con artist (Frank Langella, with a full head of hair, believe it or not) and a former aristocrat (Ron Moody) seek a chair from a set of twelve in which an old lady hid expensive jewels. It's a Mel Brooks film that I'd never heard of and his second, made after The Producers and before Blazing Saddles. Based on a classic of Russian literature, it may have the best story of any Brooks film, but probably also the fewest laughs, though it tries for them. The only part that I actually found funny was when a former servant (played by Brooks) sees his master again after many years and says, "master, master, is that you really you?" before the master slaps him hard across the face and the servant says, "it IS you!" The rest of the humor didn't really land for me. At least it was clean compared to some of Brooks' later humor. It was watchable enough and not boring, but rather unremarkable.
Caged Heat (1974) - 5/10
Female inmates band together to stand up to the abusive policies of a cruel warden. Before he won Best Director for The Silence of the Lambs and directed the acclaimed and timely Philadelphia, writer/director Jonathan Demme was responsible for this revealing look inside the U.S. prison system. It exposes the naked truth about the humiliating treatment of female inmates aged 18-25, who are often denied luxuries like food and clothing and forced to take many cold showers. There isn't much plot or character development, but I didn't find it boring. In fact, I couldn't look away and found it just as eye opening as I did as a teenager. It isn't quite up to Demme's later high standards, but it's worth watching if you care about exploitation of women in our justice system.
In 1920s Soviet Union, a con artist (Frank Langella, with a full head of hair, believe it or not) and a former aristocrat (Ron Moody) seek a chair from a set of twelve in which an old lady hid expensive jewels. It's a Mel Brooks film that I'd never heard of and his second, made after The Producers and before Blazing Saddles. Based on a classic of Russian literature, it may have the best story of any Brooks film, but probably also the fewest laughs, though it tries for them. The only part that I actually found funny was when a former servant (played by Brooks) sees his master again after many years and says, "master, master, is that you really you?" before the master slaps him hard across the face and the servant says, "it IS you!" The rest of the humor didn't really land for me. At least it was clean compared to some of Brooks' later humor. It was watchable enough and not boring, but rather unremarkable.
Caged Heat (1974) - 5/10
Female inmates band together to stand up to the abusive policies of a cruel warden. Before he won Best Director for The Silence of the Lambs and directed the acclaimed and timely Philadelphia, writer/director Jonathan Demme was responsible for this revealing look inside the U.S. prison system. It exposes the naked truth about the humiliating treatment of female inmates aged 18-25, who are often denied luxuries like food and clothing and forced to take many cold showers. There isn't much plot or character development, but I didn't find it boring. In fact, I couldn't look away and found it just as eye opening as I did as a teenager. It isn't quite up to Demme's later high standards, but it's worth watching if you care about exploitation of women in our justice system.
Last edited:
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 49,081
- 30,018
Police Story 2
Well I loved the first, so I had to give the sequel a shot. I don't get why they went this angle with it. There's less action, less slapstick, it's longer, and the plot is overly serious. Just really missed the mark here. The action that's there is still fantastic (playground fight scene comes to mind as terrific), but honestly neither of the big set pieces matches up to the first, despite what I assume is a bigger budget. The first you didn't have a chance to get bored because something was always happening. The second? There's a lot of lulls.
Missed opportunity. 4/10
Well I loved the first, so I had to give the sequel a shot. I don't get why they went this angle with it. There's less action, less slapstick, it's longer, and the plot is overly serious. Just really missed the mark here. The action that's there is still fantastic (playground fight scene comes to mind as terrific), but honestly neither of the big set pieces matches up to the first, despite what I assume is a bigger budget. The first you didn't have a chance to get bored because something was always happening. The second? There's a lot of lulls.
Missed opportunity. 4/10
