BobColesNasalCavity
Registered User
Total Recall the Arnold version
12/10
12/10
Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate it | {Insert Appropriate Seasonal Greeting Here}
- Thread starter ProstheticConscience
- Start date
shadow1
Registered User
- Nov 29, 2008
- 16,725
- 5,523
Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981) - 7/10
The body count continues. Five years after the events at Camp Crystal Lake, a group of Camp Counselors at nearby Packanack Lake begin getting picked off by an unknown killer.
Part 2 is a solid sequel, and many enjoy it more than the original. I really enjoy the opening 10 minutes in which original Friday "Final Girl" Alice is shockingly killed in her own home. I also think Amy Steel is great as the confident and spunky Ginny.
I have to say I love the opening credit sequences of the early Friday films. The black background with the big bold letters coming towards the screen is great. It's also worth noting that this is one of the only movies in the series with returning actors; Adrienne King, Betsy Palmer, and Walt Gorney reprise their roles from the 1980 film.
I do have some small issues though. Even in a series without a ton of variety, the plot feels a little too close to the original film (new camp counselors, rain storm, etc). And while I'm no gore hound (I hate it), this film cuts away from some of the kills so quickly that the editing feels jarring; the MPAA famously slashed most of the Friday movies to ribbons.
Though I prefer the first movie, Friday the 13th part 2 ekes out a 7 from me. It's pretty solid.
The body count continues. Five years after the events at Camp Crystal Lake, a group of Camp Counselors at nearby Packanack Lake begin getting picked off by an unknown killer.
Part 2 is a solid sequel, and many enjoy it more than the original. I really enjoy the opening 10 minutes in which original Friday "Final Girl" Alice is shockingly killed in her own home. I also think Amy Steel is great as the confident and spunky Ginny.
I have to say I love the opening credit sequences of the early Friday films. The black background with the big bold letters coming towards the screen is great. It's also worth noting that this is one of the only movies in the series with returning actors; Adrienne King, Betsy Palmer, and Walt Gorney reprise their roles from the 1980 film.
I do have some small issues though. Even in a series without a ton of variety, the plot feels a little too close to the original film (new camp counselors, rain storm, etc). And while I'm no gore hound (I hate it), this film cuts away from some of the kills so quickly that the editing feels jarring; the MPAA famously slashed most of the Friday movies to ribbons.
Though I prefer the first movie, Friday the 13th part 2 ekes out a 7 from me. It's pretty solid.
ItsFineImFine
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2019
- 3,722
- 2,383
The Loneliness of The Long Distance Runner (1963) - 7/10
That's some pretty good British cinema. Bit of a prison film which avoids the usual prison crap via flashbacks. The flashbacks themselves are good scenes I just don't generally like flashbacks and also didn't enjoy the somewhat montage-riddled bombastic and dejected ending. Lead was also allowed to show off a bit more charisma in Billy Liar tbh.
That's some pretty good British cinema. Bit of a prison film which avoids the usual prison crap via flashbacks. The flashbacks themselves are good scenes I just don't generally like flashbacks and also didn't enjoy the somewhat montage-riddled bombastic and dejected ending. Lead was also allowed to show off a bit more charisma in Billy Liar tbh.
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 49,053
- 29,888
Underrated Iron Maiden song.
The Batman - 6/10
Finally watched The Batman last night. While I appreciate that it’s well done it just didn’t work for me. Too long, too dark, too mopey. Pattinson’s Batman is the Kylo Ren of Batmans.
Another thing that kind of struck me- they more or less drop us in the middle of this story without any real introduction to the characters. It works, or at least doesn’t fail, because we know them all by now. But I wonder if you could even make this movie if the characters weren’t so well known.
Anyway yes, it’s a “good” film but probably not one I’ll watch multiple times.
Finally watched The Batman last night. While I appreciate that it’s well done it just didn’t work for me. Too long, too dark, too mopey. Pattinson’s Batman is the Kylo Ren of Batmans.
Another thing that kind of struck me- they more or less drop us in the middle of this story without any real introduction to the characters. It works, or at least doesn’t fail, because we know them all by now. But I wonder if you could even make this movie if the characters weren’t so well known.
Anyway yes, it’s a “good” film but probably not one I’ll watch multiple times.
The Narrow Margin (1952)
3.20 out of 4stars
“A woman with a police escort is planning to testify against the mob and must be protected against assassins on the train trip from Chicago to Los Angeles.”
A great noir thriller that is a non-stop, smartly written, continually suspenseful (as Chili previously stated), and contains some good dialogue. The twists here are often and very clever in this short 71minute “B movie”, keeping the audience on its toes constantly. Excellent use is made of the train cars shooting location and space where almost the entirety of the film takes place. The cat and mouse game between the police and assassins is a fun and sometimes scuffley joy. Altogether a great brainy train thriller that anyone seeing should go in knowing as little as possible to enjoy fully.
It Comes at Night (2017)
2.80 out of 4stars
“While a highly contagious disease ravages the planet, a couple, Paul and Sarah, and their teenage son Travis are secluded in their home deep in the woods in an undisclosed location. One night, they capture an intruder breaking into the house, test to see if he’s sick, then make a strategic decision to allow him and his family to move in with them.”
A great psychological thriller/psychological drama mystery about humans in critical times with a multiple perspective interpretation/neutral-delivery/”Rorschach-esque tale”. It’s listed in some places as a psychological horror, but I don’t feel it’s that steady or severe in its material to deserve the horror definition. I was even on the fence about the thriller label, but the scenario itself is worthy and there are enough moments I’d say to warrant that term. Somewhat slow moving, there are no huge payoffs imo, and there is no real closure or answers to be had on 90%(!!!) of the things involved in the story. Remember that fact going in and make peace with it, because the writer/director himself has said it will be very frustrating to some because of that approach and style, which feels like a cop out to some people. After you understand that, it’s quite good. The film is about who are the real monsters in the story, what is the real evil in the world, and what does it say about humans as a whole. Who are the real threats to our lives and well being? Unknown unquantified virus/predatorial threats outside in the world or the potential of the known people and family members one has and “allows” inside one’s life/house? Or on the more immediate scale, who are/is the biggest threat: acquaintances/strangers, ourselves, or our family? What’s more dangerous and more likely to cause harm, paranoia or blind-faith/trust/selfishness? Is being humane a sign of weakness and endangering or an opportunity for growth and power? Is familial love a gift or a burden? What’s a bigger threat to one’s life, an unknown unquantified virus/predatorial threat outside in the world or the potential of the known people one has and allows inside one’s life/house? Definitely thought provoking if you have an active mind and see it for what it is.
Coma (1978)
2.75 out of 4stars
“When a young female doctor notices an unnatural amount of comas occurring in her hospital she uncovers a horrible conspiracy.”
A great mystery thriller that is suspenseful and “scary” with a slightly improbable plot. Once you get past a hospital having a lot of unexplainable coma occurrences without public or internal notice, the film does thrill and interest and Bujold is a strong protagonist. Without ruining this, the possibilities of abuse from people in places of power such as the medical field, medical manufacturers, government, religions, food production/services, teachers, and even down to management is worrisome and sometimes overlooked. Human fallibility and ignorance of ethics/morals will be repeated endlessly throughout time. Whether to prevent incidental or premeditated violations, these things should be kept in check, monitored, and dually governed. When dealing with such influential and impactful items/people, there mustn’t be any compromising on people’s well-beings. Ending rant, but the movie is good and tense with a couple memorable images “and main plot slightly aside”, not really far fetched or far from possible truths occurring somewhere in the world now or in the past. More major abuses have occurred and likely still when talking about these things on a cross-departmental scale.
A Night at the Opera (1935)
3.10 out of 4stars
“A sly business manager and the wacky friends of two opera singers in Italy help them achieve success in America while humiliating their stuff and snobbish enemies.”
A great comedy and somewhat musical starring prime quality Marx brothers alongside their verbal wit, physical humor, and shenanigans alongside some operatic and instrumental music. I wouldn’t say the musical bits hurt the film and they are of purpose and quality, but they obviously take time away from the Marx brothers classic humor while also changing the mood a bit. There are some funny side notes on the filmmaking, but one interesting one is that a very similar plot of 1967’s Mel Brooks classic comedy “The Producers” was a rejected concept for this movie over 30years prior. Would have been interesting to see what the Marx brothers would have done with that, but they were successful nonetheless with this other storyline.
3.20 out of 4stars
“A woman with a police escort is planning to testify against the mob and must be protected against assassins on the train trip from Chicago to Los Angeles.”
A great noir thriller that is a non-stop, smartly written, continually suspenseful (as Chili previously stated), and contains some good dialogue. The twists here are often and very clever in this short 71minute “B movie”, keeping the audience on its toes constantly. Excellent use is made of the train cars shooting location and space where almost the entirety of the film takes place. The cat and mouse game between the police and assassins is a fun and sometimes scuffley joy. Altogether a great brainy train thriller that anyone seeing should go in knowing as little as possible to enjoy fully.
It Comes at Night (2017)
2.80 out of 4stars
“While a highly contagious disease ravages the planet, a couple, Paul and Sarah, and their teenage son Travis are secluded in their home deep in the woods in an undisclosed location. One night, they capture an intruder breaking into the house, test to see if he’s sick, then make a strategic decision to allow him and his family to move in with them.”
A great psychological thriller/psychological drama mystery about humans in critical times with a multiple perspective interpretation/neutral-delivery/”Rorschach-esque tale”. It’s listed in some places as a psychological horror, but I don’t feel it’s that steady or severe in its material to deserve the horror definition. I was even on the fence about the thriller label, but the scenario itself is worthy and there are enough moments I’d say to warrant that term. Somewhat slow moving, there are no huge payoffs imo, and there is no real closure or answers to be had on 90%(!!!) of the things involved in the story. Remember that fact going in and make peace with it, because the writer/director himself has said it will be very frustrating to some because of that approach and style, which feels like a cop out to some people. After you understand that, it’s quite good. The film is about who are the real monsters in the story, what is the real evil in the world, and what does it say about humans as a whole. Who are the real threats to our lives and well being? Unknown unquantified virus/predatorial threats outside in the world or the potential of the known people and family members one has and “allows” inside one’s life/house? Or on the more immediate scale, who are/is the biggest threat: acquaintances/strangers, ourselves, or our family? What’s more dangerous and more likely to cause harm, paranoia or blind-faith/trust/selfishness? Is being humane a sign of weakness and endangering or an opportunity for growth and power? Is familial love a gift or a burden? What’s a bigger threat to one’s life, an unknown unquantified virus/predatorial threat outside in the world or the potential of the known people one has and allows inside one’s life/house? Definitely thought provoking if you have an active mind and see it for what it is.
Coma (1978)
2.75 out of 4stars
“When a young female doctor notices an unnatural amount of comas occurring in her hospital she uncovers a horrible conspiracy.”
A great mystery thriller that is suspenseful and “scary” with a slightly improbable plot. Once you get past a hospital having a lot of unexplainable coma occurrences without public or internal notice, the film does thrill and interest and Bujold is a strong protagonist. Without ruining this, the possibilities of abuse from people in places of power such as the medical field, medical manufacturers, government, religions, food production/services, teachers, and even down to management is worrisome and sometimes overlooked. Human fallibility and ignorance of ethics/morals will be repeated endlessly throughout time. Whether to prevent incidental or premeditated violations, these things should be kept in check, monitored, and dually governed. When dealing with such influential and impactful items/people, there mustn’t be any compromising on people’s well-beings. Ending rant, but the movie is good and tense with a couple memorable images “and main plot slightly aside”, not really far fetched or far from possible truths occurring somewhere in the world now or in the past. More major abuses have occurred and likely still when talking about these things on a cross-departmental scale.
A Night at the Opera (1935)
3.10 out of 4stars
“A sly business manager and the wacky friends of two opera singers in Italy help them achieve success in America while humiliating their stuff and snobbish enemies.”
A great comedy and somewhat musical starring prime quality Marx brothers alongside their verbal wit, physical humor, and shenanigans alongside some operatic and instrumental music. I wouldn’t say the musical bits hurt the film and they are of purpose and quality, but they obviously take time away from the Marx brothers classic humor while also changing the mood a bit. There are some funny side notes on the filmmaking, but one interesting one is that a very similar plot of 1967’s Mel Brooks classic comedy “The Producers” was a rejected concept for this movie over 30years prior. Would have been interesting to see what the Marx brothers would have done with that, but they were successful nonetheless with this other storyline.
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,978
- 2,895
Ok, my turn... Again, nothing that deserves a real comment.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife (Reitman, 2021) - First half is kind of cute and somewhat efficient, but the forced nostalgia that follows is pretty weak. 3.5/10
Never Back Down 2: The Beatdown (White, 2011) - I wouldn't tell them to their faces, but these guys - while being some of the worst actors I've seen - can play [offensive slur] all day long. It's a natural talent to play stupid, so the atrocious writing comes as natural too. 2/10
The Paper Tigers (Quoc Bao Tran, 2020) - I have no idea how I ended watching this. A burden to get through the lot of "old men"'s jokes. 2.5/10
The Gray Man (Russo & Russo, 2022) - Already commented on this one, just dumb with some cool action. 3.5/10
The Man From Toronto (Hughes, 2022) - The actors make it funny at times, but it never goes beyond what's expected. 3.5/10
Cherry 2000 (De Jarnatt, 1987) - In contention for the perfect b-movie, this thing is pretty fun. It's cheap, it's misogynistic (as much as you want to read Griffith's tough girl character as a feminist effort, in the end, she's just way too happy to be good enough to replace the sex toy), but it has a few interesting intertextual elements, and it's not as dumb as it certainly looks. I've been wanting to see it again for some time and I'm certainly too generous, but I'll go with 4.5/10
Hell Comes to Frogtown (Jackson & Kizer, 1988) - That I had never seen, but TUBI proposed it to me after Cherry 2000. It got out the same year as They Live, but for some reason, Roddy Piper's face here is very weird (bloated with hormones is my guess). Anyway, he plays one of the last fertile guys and his junk is government protected, but he still needs to go rescue a bunch of (also rare) fertile women that were kidnapped by frogmen in order to inseminate them. It starts with a (kind of smart) allusion to Planet of the Apes, acknowledging its debt, but it really is just a mess. It's the kind of b-movies that you'd want to be so bad it's good, but it's not exactly there, it's mostly boring (and very very dumb). I think some might still read it as SoBIG, and I really don't know how to rate it otherwise, so I'll go with 1/10.
Night of the Comet (Eberhardt, 1984) - Thought I saw a few comments on here about this one recently, but a simple search couldn't find them. It's a pretty weak variation on the "last man on earth" storyline, maybe the weakest I've seen (or that I recall - even A Boy and His Dog was somewhat better). It also tries a little too hard to be relevant, but only ends up parodying Dawn of the Dead. It still has too many qualities to be considered SoBIG, just didn't really work for me. 3/10
Irresistible (Stewart, 2020) - I like Stewart and I ultimately agree with most of his takes, but this felt a little demagogue and patronizing. 2.5/10
Ghostbusters: Afterlife (Reitman, 2021) - First half is kind of cute and somewhat efficient, but the forced nostalgia that follows is pretty weak. 3.5/10
Never Back Down 2: The Beatdown (White, 2011) - I wouldn't tell them to their faces, but these guys - while being some of the worst actors I've seen - can play [offensive slur] all day long. It's a natural talent to play stupid, so the atrocious writing comes as natural too. 2/10
The Paper Tigers (Quoc Bao Tran, 2020) - I have no idea how I ended watching this. A burden to get through the lot of "old men"'s jokes. 2.5/10
The Gray Man (Russo & Russo, 2022) - Already commented on this one, just dumb with some cool action. 3.5/10
The Man From Toronto (Hughes, 2022) - The actors make it funny at times, but it never goes beyond what's expected. 3.5/10
Cherry 2000 (De Jarnatt, 1987) - In contention for the perfect b-movie, this thing is pretty fun. It's cheap, it's misogynistic (as much as you want to read Griffith's tough girl character as a feminist effort, in the end, she's just way too happy to be good enough to replace the sex toy), but it has a few interesting intertextual elements, and it's not as dumb as it certainly looks. I've been wanting to see it again for some time and I'm certainly too generous, but I'll go with 4.5/10
Hell Comes to Frogtown (Jackson & Kizer, 1988) - That I had never seen, but TUBI proposed it to me after Cherry 2000. It got out the same year as They Live, but for some reason, Roddy Piper's face here is very weird (bloated with hormones is my guess). Anyway, he plays one of the last fertile guys and his junk is government protected, but he still needs to go rescue a bunch of (also rare) fertile women that were kidnapped by frogmen in order to inseminate them. It starts with a (kind of smart) allusion to Planet of the Apes, acknowledging its debt, but it really is just a mess. It's the kind of b-movies that you'd want to be so bad it's good, but it's not exactly there, it's mostly boring (and very very dumb). I think some might still read it as SoBIG, and I really don't know how to rate it otherwise, so I'll go with 1/10.
Night of the Comet (Eberhardt, 1984) - Thought I saw a few comments on here about this one recently, but a simple search couldn't find them. It's a pretty weak variation on the "last man on earth" storyline, maybe the weakest I've seen (or that I recall - even A Boy and His Dog was somewhat better). It also tries a little too hard to be relevant, but only ends up parodying Dawn of the Dead. It still has too many qualities to be considered SoBIG, just didn't really work for me. 3/10
Irresistible (Stewart, 2020) - I like Stewart and I ultimately agree with most of his takes, but this felt a little demagogue and patronizing. 2.5/10
Last edited:
Ace
Registered User
- Oct 29, 2015
- 24,820
- 31,221
Ive never seen someone watch so many movies who clearly doesn’t like movies
Scenes From a Marriage (Television Version) / Scener ur ett äktenskap (Ingmar Bergman, 1973)
Marianne and Johan (Liv Ullmann and Erland Josephson) are a middle-aged couple who have been married for 10 years. Although seemingly happily married, the differences between them create a tension and eventually a rift which rocks their marriage into affairs and eventually divorce. Scenes From a Marriage is technically a five-hour long television miniseries, but its pace and story feels a lot more cinematic and with a clear auteur vision that I think it is better classified as a film. Though there is a slightly short 168-minute film version that was released later the next year. And what a bleak 5 hours this film/miniseries is. The lengthy runtime allows us to watch this relationship crumble at watch how the toxicity slowly enters each of their conversations and how glances and misconstrued words spark fights. Focused almost exclusively on just conversations between the two characters, Ullmann and Josephson put on an acting masterclass of a couple who clearly are tied to each other but are totally toxic for each other. Bleak although very powerful film. Unsurprisingly when the film was shown on Swedish television in the 1970s, the divorce rates and marriage counselling in the country shot up. Maybe a coincidence, but maybe a testament to the authenticity of the relationship shown in the film.
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,978
- 2,895
Well.... I've studied film, semiotics, art history and I've taught film studies at University. I've watched so many great films. Last 10 years, I went another way, I'm super busy and pretty much only watch films at night to fall asleep - my brain power is limited and I don't feel I have the resources to watch good films - so I mostly watch crap (reason why I have real respect for guys like kihei and Pink Mist). But I do enjoy most of it. My ratings include a lot of room at the top in order to differentiate between good films, great films, and masterpieces - I tought it was more important than to distinguish banal films (3) from ok films (4). I just don't use that part of the scale much right now. I'll get back to it..... someday.
So yeah... I like movies. I'm just really lazy.
ItsFineImFine
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2019
- 3,722
- 2,383
I'm not quite sure how @Pranzo Oltranzista managed to watch that many bad films like you have to be going out of your way to see that many bad ones I don't think you could do it even if you picked a random selection of 10 recent films.
The Souvenir Part II (2021) - 7/10
Too much rich art school privileged snobs in this for me to enjoy it properly. No wonder music and film quality has declined in Britain. The film itself has a lot of captivating scenes and relies too much on arrogant mishmashing but is well made. But like I said I just really dislike all the characters and this whole rich setting from having your own apartment to parents paying for film school to having expensive clothes to casually asking parents for another 10k pounds to finish your grad film etc. In fact forget the daughter I'm more interested in just watching a film with Tilda Swinton and her husband living their retired domestic life here.
The Souvenir Part II (2021) - 7/10
Too much rich art school privileged snobs in this for me to enjoy it properly. No wonder music and film quality has declined in Britain. The film itself has a lot of captivating scenes and relies too much on arrogant mishmashing but is well made. But like I said I just really dislike all the characters and this whole rich setting from having your own apartment to parents paying for film school to having expensive clothes to casually asking parents for another 10k pounds to finish your grad film etc. In fact forget the daughter I'm more interested in just watching a film with Tilda Swinton and her husband living their retired domestic life here.
Unholy Diver
Registered User
I picked this up a good while ago on DVD as my friends and I got into bad movies thru watching Mst3k, as well as being a wrestling/Roddy Piper fan. This thing was so cheaply made that the dvd menu actually misspelled Start Movie and instead you had to click on Strat Movie
This one was one of my favourites from that year too, and I especially liked the detached tone and acting. The approach highlights the narcissism symbolic of the youths today, but it also removes the judgment inherent in these types of movies. As a result, it becomes easier to be sympathetic towards these rather unlikeable characters.
At first, I was not entirely sure about the approach, because the sole purpose seems to be just a set up to the punchline of that questionnaire scene. It was very risky, but I was surprised at how powerful that scene turned out to be, so I give all the credit to the filmmakers for this inspired choice.
I had it at 8/10 at the time, but due to recent events, I have to bump it up to 8.5/10. I knew it was a rather accurate portrayal of the subject matter, but it turns out that it is even ahead of its time. Hence, I highly recommend it, as it will only grow in importance in the upcoming years.
Yeoh was pretty much retired at that point, but she wanted to give it a go one more time, so she agreed to do it. It is pretty much a one-off thing, but I am glad two of the best at what they do did indeed appear with one another in their relative prime. They definitely lived up to their reputation, and they created one of the best action movies of all-time.
Yeoh is a really interesting character in real life too. She is indeed one of the best, but she is also a social climber, and those influential people helped build her career. Today, she is an institution, but netizens also mocks her as a glorified madam, because she is known to introduce young starlets to rich tycoons. That is why I am not sure what I think of her, but perhaps this duality to her is what keeps her relevant.
Scenes From a Marriage (Television Version) / Scener ur ett äktenskap (Ingmar Bergman, 1973)
Marianne and Johan (Liv Ullmann and Erland Josephson) are a middle-aged couple who have been married for 10 years. Although seemingly happily married, the differences between them create a tension and eventually a rift which rocks their marriage into affairs and eventually divorce. Scenes From a Marriage is technically a five-hour long television miniseries, but its pace and story feels a lot more cinematic and with a clear auteur vision that I think it is better classified as a film. Though there is a slightly short 168-minute film version that was released later the next year. And what a bleak 5 hours this film/miniseries is. The lengthy runtime allows us to watch this relationship crumble at watch how the toxicity slowly enters each of their conversations and how glances and misconstrued words spark fights. Focused almost exclusively on just conversations between the two characters, Ullmann and Josephson put on an acting masterclass of a couple who clearly are tied to each other but are totally toxic for each other. Bleak although very powerful film. Unsurprisingly when the film was shown on Swedish television in the 1970s, the divorce rates and marriage counselling in the country shot up. Maybe a coincidence, but maybe a testament to the authenticity of the relationship shown in the film.
Bergman at his finest. It is fine that he has a bleak view of marriage, but he just has to bring everyone down with him. I always thought he really should have just stuck with period pieces, because that allows the illusion of detachment from reality.
The Gray Man (2022) - 4/10
Grown men fight over a locket. That's about what I understood of the plot. I see what people mean about it just being an excuse to string action sequences together. I wish that I could've at least enjoyed those, but most were too CGIed for my taste. Gosling is also an actor that I find to be so uncharismatic and boring. The 12-year-old girl acted circles around him, IMO. Evans was more charismatic, but his character was a caricature, and Ana de Armas seemed wasted. Somehow, despite the movie being full of action, I was bored most of the time.
Jurassic World Dominion (2022) - 3/10
Everyone who's ever been in the franchise returns for its funeral. You know that the writers have run out of ideas when the movie isn't even really about dinosaurs. It's about an evil corporation that genetically engineered giant locusts to control the world's food supply (insert evil laugh) and kidnaps the little girl from the last movie because she has super special DNA that they can exploit. Our heroes mobilize to rescue her and thwart the evil locust plot and just happen to have to evade dinosaurs along the way. The story is a mess and nothing makes sense. Things just happen for the sake of the plot. For example, at one point, locusts inexplicably escape a secure chamber, fly around outside while literally on fire (tough buggers) and ignite the whole valley just so that the third act can have a forest fire backdrop. Also, the film opens with all of the trouble that dinosaurs on the loose are causing and closes with that problem solved, but nothing that happens in the two hours and ten minutes in between explains the change. It's such a lazy script and a real "eat your popcorn and don't think" kind of movie.
The Lost City (2022) - 5/10
A romance novelist (Sandra Bullock) and her hunky cover model (Channing Tatum) are forced to team up in real life to find an ancient city. It's an adventure comedy that seems to rip off Romancing the Stone and wasn't as funny to me as it tried to be, especially during all of the deliberately awkward scenes with the two stars. Just imagine Bullock as clumsy and bossy and Tatum as a dumb lackey as they both traipse through the jungle and you have a good idea of most of the movie. What I found more amusing and entertaining were the supporting actors: Daniel Radcliffe as the villain and Brad Pitt with an extended cameo as a tracker. To me, they stole every scene from the two stars and elevated the movie a bit. It's generic and dumb like the above movies, but at least I understood the plot and wasn't bored.
Grown men fight over a locket. That's about what I understood of the plot. I see what people mean about it just being an excuse to string action sequences together. I wish that I could've at least enjoyed those, but most were too CGIed for my taste. Gosling is also an actor that I find to be so uncharismatic and boring. The 12-year-old girl acted circles around him, IMO. Evans was more charismatic, but his character was a caricature, and Ana de Armas seemed wasted. Somehow, despite the movie being full of action, I was bored most of the time.
Jurassic World Dominion (2022) - 3/10
Everyone who's ever been in the franchise returns for its funeral. You know that the writers have run out of ideas when the movie isn't even really about dinosaurs. It's about an evil corporation that genetically engineered giant locusts to control the world's food supply (insert evil laugh) and kidnaps the little girl from the last movie because she has super special DNA that they can exploit. Our heroes mobilize to rescue her and thwart the evil locust plot and just happen to have to evade dinosaurs along the way. The story is a mess and nothing makes sense. Things just happen for the sake of the plot. For example, at one point, locusts inexplicably escape a secure chamber, fly around outside while literally on fire (tough buggers) and ignite the whole valley just so that the third act can have a forest fire backdrop. Also, the film opens with all of the trouble that dinosaurs on the loose are causing and closes with that problem solved, but nothing that happens in the two hours and ten minutes in between explains the change. It's such a lazy script and a real "eat your popcorn and don't think" kind of movie.
The Lost City (2022) - 5/10
A romance novelist (Sandra Bullock) and her hunky cover model (Channing Tatum) are forced to team up in real life to find an ancient city. It's an adventure comedy that seems to rip off Romancing the Stone and wasn't as funny to me as it tried to be, especially during all of the deliberately awkward scenes with the two stars. Just imagine Bullock as clumsy and bossy and Tatum as a dumb lackey as they both traipse through the jungle and you have a good idea of most of the movie. What I found more amusing and entertaining were the supporting actors: Daniel Radcliffe as the villain and Brad Pitt with an extended cameo as a tracker. To me, they stole every scene from the two stars and elevated the movie a bit. It's generic and dumb like the above movies, but at least I understood the plot and wasn't bored.
Last edited:
I would consider all these popcorn movies, so it had me thinking, why not throw up a ranking list of all the 2022 popcorn/big-budget movies I've seen so far based on level of enjoyment:
The Batman (definitely belongs here based on budget)
Minions: The Rise of Gru (the child in me lives strong still)
Thor: Love and Thunder
Top Gun: Maverick
Doctor Strange: In the Multiverse of Madness
Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore
Moonfall
Jurassic World: Dominion
Uncharted
Surprisingly, there are a number of movies with budgets in the $60-$95million range that I did not want to include. Production money is still out there for movies post-covid. And at minimum that I know of, Black Adam, Black Panther 2, Shazam 2, and Avatar 2 are still to come this year. And for what it's worth, the vast majority of the films are sequels and 1 reboot (Batman).
Last edited:
Great review. Bergman at the top of his considerable game. One of the most powerful movies I have ever seen. Stuck with me for weeks when I first saw it.
Scenes From a Marriage (Television Version) / Scener ur ett äktenskap (Ingmar Bergman, 1973)
Marianne and Johan (Liv Ullmann and Erland Josephson) are a middle-aged couple who have been married for 10 years. Although seemingly happily married, the differences between them create a tension and eventually a rift which rocks their marriage into affairs and eventually divorce. Scenes From a Marriage is technically a five-hour long television miniseries, but its pace and story feels a lot more cinematic and with a clear auteur vision that I think it is better classified as a film. Though there is a slightly short 168-minute film version that was released later the next year. And what a bleak 5 hours this film/miniseries is. The lengthy runtime allows us to watch this relationship crumble at watch how the toxicity slowly enters each of their conversations and how glances and misconstrued words spark fights. Focused almost exclusively on just conversations between the two characters, Ullmann and Josephson put on an acting masterclass of a couple who clearly are tied to each other but are totally toxic for each other. Bleak although very powerful film. Unsurprisingly when the film was shown on Swedish television in the 1970s, the divorce rates and marriage counselling in the country shot up. Maybe a coincidence, but maybe a testament to the authenticity of the relationship shown in the film.
Absolutely agree with the first sentence. Then we part ways....Bergman at his finest. It is fine that he has a bleak view of marriage, but he just has to bring everyone down with him. I always thought he really should have just stuck with period pieces, because that allows the illusion of detachment from reality.
ItsFineImFine
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2019
- 3,722
- 2,383
Top Gun might be a bit of a cheesy rehash but I think it's way more fun than Batman or more cohesive than Thor tbh.
I don't have much hope from the rest of your list there for this year outside of maybe Avatar 2. Marvel dropping the ball this year and churning out decent but mediocre films during this phase has led to the blockbusters being a bit weak imo.
Yeah, I consider them popcorn movies, as well, which is why I grouped them and didn't care to review them too seriously. I considered holding off to include The Batman, but I've been dragging my feet on that for months because of the 3-hour runtime. I'm not looking forward to that. I did see Uncharted a month and a half ago and didn't feel compelled to review it. It was dumb and generic, but, similar to The Lost City, it didn't take itself seriously, so I won't be too hard on it. Jurassic World Dominion, on the other hand, does take itself too seriously, IMO.
Last edited:
Chili
Time passes when you're not looking
- Jun 10, 2004
- 8,778
- 4,900
The Ladykillers-1955
A sweet little old lady advertises for a lodger. A charming Alec Guinness responds and by the way, would it be all right if he has a few friends over to practise their music? They are really planning a daring heist. Great cast, Katie Johnson stays in character so well with the gang and local constables. Wonderful comedy.
A Raisin in the Sun-1961
The lives of three generations of an African American family living in an apartment in Chicago. The grandfather has passed away and everyone is eagerly awaiting the $10k insurance cheque due to arrive shortly. The family has different ideas of how the money should be used. Was a brilliantly written, successful play and the screenplay was also adapted by the same writer. Reminded me of the passion of A Streetcar Named Desire with different issues. Strong cast (almost all had appeared in the play as well) led by Sidney Poitier. Moving, memorable film.
The Quiller Memorandum-1966
Cold war espionage in Berlin, as one side tries to root out the other. Slow and deliberate as the story plays out with minimal action. Would have liked to see this film with Michael Caine in the lead role. George Segal made some good films (i.e. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, King Rat), he seems out of place here in a spy film. Bland role for Alec Guinness. Senta Berger and Max Von Sydow have the strongest performances. Scenic shots of Berlin, including the car chase. Like the title, fair film.
The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner-1962
Was glad ItsFineImFine reminded me of this film. A young man ends up in a reform school where he finds he has talent as a long distance runner. While running, he drifts back at times to how he ended up in trouble, remember running being cathartic for me. Highlights were the choral singing of 'Jerusalem' and appreciated the jazzy soundtrack. Enjoy well written & told stories that are off the beaten path like this one.
Last edited:
X (2022) Directed by Ti West 7A
An interesting mix of grindhouse, porn and slasher flick, X is the kind of movie that Quentin Tarentino probably teethed on in his early teens. A crew of six, three women, three men, rent a remote cabin in the Texas outback for the purpose of shooting a porn movie. Everything goes just fine for awhile, but then the old coot owners who live in the nearby house, begin to not take kindly to their visitors from the city. Yes, this ends badly; yes, there is much gore. But what I didn't expect was the smarts this film has. Except for a couple of good jump scares. X is not really scary. However, it makes up for that by being clever and throwing a lot of curve balls into its genre revisionism. For instance, it is interesting how the movie begins with the conventional approach to male gaze but finds a hilarious way to subvert it later in the movie. Likewise there is a romantic interlude like no other in horror movies. Quite often the movie's twists and turns lead to unexpected surprises, not to mention to some wonderful touches of humour. I don't want to oversell this flick, but if you enjoy the genre(s), X is well worth a look.
Prime Video
Last edited:
I think I am at that point in my life that Bergman just depresses me to no end, no matter how great he is. There is always a glimmer of hope in his work, but it is so faint, that I do not have the energy for it anymore.
shadow1
Registered User
- Nov 29, 2008
- 16,725
- 5,523
Sing 2 (2021) - 7/10
A rag tag group of animal thespians (koala, gorilla, pig, etc.) try to open a show in Vegas-equivalent Red Shore City, but to do so are forced to work with a maniacal producer.
I've never seen the original Sing and it wasn't my choice to watch this movie, but I'm glad I did. It's a solid movie with a A-List cast, and really outstanding animation. It was a fun popcorn flick to start my Friday night doubleheader with the next piece of trash I watched...
Friday the 13th Part 3 [3D] (1982) - 6/10
One day after the events at Packanack Lodge in Part 2, a group of young adults vacation at nearby lakefront property Higgins Haven are stalked by Jason.
This movie has issues, and most of them are technical. Part 3 was the first movie to be shot in anamorphic widescreen (2.39.1), and it just doesn't work with this type of film; everything feels crunched down. Because it was shot in 3D, director Steve Miner (returning from Part 2) used a series of special lenses for this entry. The result is a movie in which 90% of the scenes are extremely grainy, have dirt or film artifacts, have soft focus around the edges, and/or are completely out of focus (in the case of a couple longer scenes). It's distractingly bad.
The first 10 minutes of the movie is footage from the ending of the previous movie, and I swear they just pointed the camera at a screen that was playing Part 2. It looks extremely soft and there are lens/film artifacts that do not change position at all throughout the lengthy sequence.
As for the movie itself, it's an okay Friday entry. The Higgins Haven property is one of the more iconic in the series, and this is the first movie where Jason wears the iconic hockey mask (a Detroit Red Wings mask). The kills are pretty solid too, my favorite being the spear gun kill, which probably looked great in 3D.
The characters are a mixed bag. Shelly and Vera are both well acted and have some depth; meanwhile the biker gang and stoners (Chill and Chuck) are complete window dressing. The male lead Rick is completely useless and spends most of the moving whining. Main character Christine has a rocky first hour of the movie too, but is pretty solid in the film's climax. Personally I wish Vera was the final girl here.
Plot wise, you don't get a lot of from these movies, but Part 3 still manages to underwhelm. There's a subplot with a biker gang that is pointless, and another subplot in which the character Christine had a run in with Jason between Parts 1 & 2, but "can't remember" the details; it's just bizarre. I also have to point out while all this is going on, characters are throwing baseballs and yo-yos at the screen the entire time to maximize the 3D effects, which isn't helping matters.
Fortunately, after a rocky first hour, the movie really picks up in the final 30 minutes and gives fans exactly what they want. It barely scrapes by at a 6 for me as a result. Despite its flaws, I think it overall Part 3 does its job as a slasher movie.
One final thought to end this ramble: the opening credits do away with the classic black and white logo in favor of some cheesy 3D titles, which are accompanied by a theme that can only be described as "spooky disco". Hilariously, this theme appears once in the movie, during a confrontation between Shelly, Vera, and the biker gang at a liquor store. It does not work well at all.
Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984) - 7/10
Picking up moments after the events at Higgins Haven in Part 3, Jason re-emerges to stalk a group of young adults vacationing in rural Crystal Lake. Meanwhile, a family at the house next door - along with a new friend that has a personal connection to Jason - track down the serial killer.
Definitely one of the best in the series. Whereas Part 3 had a very slow first hour, The Final Chapter grabs the audience's attention early and never lets go. Jason is at his all-time most ruthless, making quick, brutal work of anyone he comes across. Tom Savini returns as make-up effects guru and the gore is ramped back up, rivaling the violence level of the original movie.
This movie also has a strong collection of characters; most notably the first appearance of Tommy Jarvis, played by Corey Feldman. Jimmy, Teddy, and Trish are also memorable.
There are a couple cheesy moments - the Crispin Glover dance scene and the "he's killing me!" death scene - but they add to the campiness of the movie. Mostly it's an extremely solid entry and would've been a perfect ending to the series had it actually been the "final" chapter. Spoiler alert: it was not.
A rag tag group of animal thespians (koala, gorilla, pig, etc.) try to open a show in Vegas-equivalent Red Shore City, but to do so are forced to work with a maniacal producer.
I've never seen the original Sing and it wasn't my choice to watch this movie, but I'm glad I did. It's a solid movie with a A-List cast, and really outstanding animation. It was a fun popcorn flick to start my Friday night doubleheader with the next piece of trash I watched...
Friday the 13th Part 3 [3D] (1982) - 6/10
One day after the events at Packanack Lodge in Part 2, a group of young adults vacation at nearby lakefront property Higgins Haven are stalked by Jason.
This movie has issues, and most of them are technical. Part 3 was the first movie to be shot in anamorphic widescreen (2.39.1), and it just doesn't work with this type of film; everything feels crunched down. Because it was shot in 3D, director Steve Miner (returning from Part 2) used a series of special lenses for this entry. The result is a movie in which 90% of the scenes are extremely grainy, have dirt or film artifacts, have soft focus around the edges, and/or are completely out of focus (in the case of a couple longer scenes). It's distractingly bad.
The first 10 minutes of the movie is footage from the ending of the previous movie, and I swear they just pointed the camera at a screen that was playing Part 2. It looks extremely soft and there are lens/film artifacts that do not change position at all throughout the lengthy sequence.
As for the movie itself, it's an okay Friday entry. The Higgins Haven property is one of the more iconic in the series, and this is the first movie where Jason wears the iconic hockey mask (a Detroit Red Wings mask). The kills are pretty solid too, my favorite being the spear gun kill, which probably looked great in 3D.
The characters are a mixed bag. Shelly and Vera are both well acted and have some depth; meanwhile the biker gang and stoners (Chill and Chuck) are complete window dressing. The male lead Rick is completely useless and spends most of the moving whining. Main character Christine has a rocky first hour of the movie too, but is pretty solid in the film's climax. Personally I wish Vera was the final girl here.
Plot wise, you don't get a lot of from these movies, but Part 3 still manages to underwhelm. There's a subplot with a biker gang that is pointless, and another subplot in which the character Christine had a run in with Jason between Parts 1 & 2, but "can't remember" the details; it's just bizarre. I also have to point out while all this is going on, characters are throwing baseballs and yo-yos at the screen the entire time to maximize the 3D effects, which isn't helping matters.
Fortunately, after a rocky first hour, the movie really picks up in the final 30 minutes and gives fans exactly what they want. It barely scrapes by at a 6 for me as a result. Despite its flaws, I think it overall Part 3 does its job as a slasher movie.
One final thought to end this ramble: the opening credits do away with the classic black and white logo in favor of some cheesy 3D titles, which are accompanied by a theme that can only be described as "spooky disco". Hilariously, this theme appears once in the movie, during a confrontation between Shelly, Vera, and the biker gang at a liquor store. It does not work well at all.
Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984) - 7/10
Picking up moments after the events at Higgins Haven in Part 3, Jason re-emerges to stalk a group of young adults vacationing in rural Crystal Lake. Meanwhile, a family at the house next door - along with a new friend that has a personal connection to Jason - track down the serial killer.
Definitely one of the best in the series. Whereas Part 3 had a very slow first hour, The Final Chapter grabs the audience's attention early and never lets go. Jason is at his all-time most ruthless, making quick, brutal work of anyone he comes across. Tom Savini returns as make-up effects guru and the gore is ramped back up, rivaling the violence level of the original movie.
This movie also has a strong collection of characters; most notably the first appearance of Tommy Jarvis, played by Corey Feldman. Jimmy, Teddy, and Trish are also memorable.
There are a couple cheesy moments - the Crispin Glover dance scene and the "he's killing me!" death scene - but they add to the campiness of the movie. Mostly it's an extremely solid entry and would've been a perfect ending to the series had it actually been the "final" chapter. Spoiler alert: it was not.
