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

[shadow1]

I agree with everything - especially your reading of part VI as parody and that it now feels ahead of its time - but I can't agree with your appreciation of them. To me, the parody angle takes a lot away from part VI (that and Jarvis, who is as you said, a terrible protagonist), and I preferred part VII, even though you are again absolutely right about all of its flaws (and I'm curious, who was your favorite Jason? CJ Graham? I like Hodder a lot). As for the parody angle, it only comes back in part 10, and we know the results...

Edit: oh, and no mention of Alice Cooper's music?! ;-)


Depends what Halloween films you look at. Part 1 and 2 are good to great slashers, but after that, the original series is very poor. I like Zombie's remakes, but I really dislike the new reboot. There's very few Halloween movies that I'd take over F13 part 4-3-2-1, and even 7. As a whole, I think the F13 franchise is more consistent.

CJ Graham is my favorite, but my honorable mention is Ted White. His Jason is brutal and is the version I'd probably least like to run in to on a dark night (assuming all things were equal...I'd obviously take my chances against a Jason I have a slim chance of killing compared to immortal Zombie Jason).

Yeah I should have mentioned Alice Cooper! As usual I sat through the end credits to listen to that song.

 

[Osprey]

CJ Graham is my favorite, but my honorable mention is Ted White. His Jason is brutal and is the version I'd probably least like to run in to on a dark night...

I initially read this as Ted Knight. Now that would've been scary.

"Jason Voorhees stalks amateur golfers at Bushwood Country Club in... Friday the 13th: The Final Hole."

 

[Pink Mist]

The Father (Florian Zeller, 2020)

Anthony (Anthony Hopkins), an elderly man lives with his daughter (Olivia Colman) who provides assistance to him as he is suffering from progressively worsening dementia. One of the Best Picture Nominees from that year and the film that got Hopkins his 2nd career Best Actor Award, I am admittedly pretty late to the party watching this one. But it was more than worth the wait. The film well deserves the aforementioned honours in its devastating depiction of what living like dementia is like. Featuring an at times circular timeline, blending characters, time, and space, the film truly puts you in the perspective of its protagonist and the blending of what’s real in their mind. Hopkins gets a nice meaty role with a lot of monologues and he knocks it out of the park in one of his best performances of his decorated career. A haunting film, basically a horror story of living with or caring for someone with dementia, the relationship between the two characters and the ending basically emotionally destroyed me.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Tenet (Nolan, 2020) – I like Christopher Nolan quite a bit (I don't think his superhero films will be matched in the current handling of the genre and I think Interstellar is one of the best recent sci-fi films), but I also think he often has that repelling tendency to build his films on narrative gimmicks without fleshing them much. Tenet falls into that trap and was ultimately of very little interest to me. 3.5/10

(It just wasn't the serious film I was hoping for! Actually preferred the next one)

X (West, 2022) – Born in 1980, Ti West should be considered as one of the best horror directors of the 70s. I haven't seen his films since and have no idea if they too aim for that touch, but I thought his The House Of the Devil was a great pastiche of the period and a pretty efficient horror movie on itself. Here, instead of being only carried by its tone and aesthetics (which are great – the montage with the split screens is superb), X also includes moments of concrete allusions to other movies which – added to the mise en abyme of the film and movie-making inside the film – makes it a more obvious intertext, bordering on a cooler tendency that I don't particularly appreciate. The main problem to me is that without satisfying significant return, an allusion gets too close to parody – the accumulation of this type of intertextual crossings being more suitable to a comedy (Hot Shots! part Deux) than to a horror movie. And indeed, despite a very nice work on atmosphere and aesthetics, the film just doesn't work as a scary movie. The only allusion that kind of worked for me was to the controversial porno-trasho The Farmer's Daughters (a masterpiece of trash) which paid off through the (intertextually incestuous) relation between the crazy old lady and her younger double. The film has a lot of positive things going on, and on themes alone it was basically made for me, I just didn't bought in completely. 4.5/10

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Licorice Pizza - 2/10

Just a terrible movie. Some decent acting gets it one point and because it's Paul Thomas Anderson it looks good enough to garner one more point. Terrible plot that manages to be both extremely boring and annoyingly constructed. Things, that aren't very interesting, just happen with no explanation or consequence, and then it moves on to the next boring vignette and repeats the process. I really can't believe how bad it was. I'd guess that PTA's going for the vibe of that part of California in the 1970s, but I just couldn't care because that's all that the movie had to offer and he, and others, have done pretty much the same thing before and so much better.

This f***er is one of the ones to popularize this and it's in films all over now. Watch a classic film none of this bullshit with that problem you mentioned but modern filmmakers think they're Gods or something and to let editing handle it.

 

[The Macho King]

Tenet (Nolan, 2020) – I like Christopher Nolan quite a bit (I don't think his superhero films will be matched in the current handling of the genre and I think Interstellar is one of the best recent sci-fi films), but I also think he often has that repelling tendency to build his films on narrative gimmicks without fleshing them much. Tenet falls into that trap and was ultimately of very little interest to me. 3.5/10

(It just wasn't the serious film I was hoping for! Actually preferred the next one)

X (West, 2022) – Born in 1980, Ti West should be considered as one of the best horror directors of the 70s. I haven't seen his films since and have no idea if they too aim for that touch, but I thought his The House Of the Devil was a great pastiche of the period and a pretty efficient horror movie on itself. Here, instead of being only carried by its tone and aesthetics (which are great – the montage with the split screens is superb), X also includes moments of concrete allusions to other movies which – added to the mise en abyme of the film and movie-making inside the film – makes it a more obvious intertext, bordering on a cooler tendency that I don't particularly appreciate. The main problem to me is that without satisfying significant return, an allusion gets too close to parody – the accumulation of this type of intertextual crossings being more suitable to a comedy (Hot Shots! part Deux) than to a horror movie. And indeed, despite a very nice work on atmosphere and aesthetics, the film just doesn't work as a scary movie. The only allusion that kind of worked for me was to the controversial porno-trasho The Farmer's Daughters (a masterpiece of trash) which paid off through the (intertextually incestuous) relation between the crazy old lady and her younger double. The film has a lot of positive things going on, and on themes alone it was basically made for me, I just didn't bought in completely. 4.5/10

What did you think about Cabin in the Woods?

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Ne croyez surtout pas que je hurle (Don't Think I'll Scream, Beauvais, 2019) – This film is a personal diary and neither a documentary nor a work of fiction. It's a montage of shots from numerous other movies, with the voice over of the director who talks about a post-breakup moment from his life, when he isolated himself in the countryside, far away from his friends and former life – and when he watched movies, continuously watched movies. The project itself is very interesting, and it works on quite a few levels. The shots selection is very impressive, he manages to make images from other tales match his own, often in poetic ways that are very pleasant. Associated to another story, these images become somewhat very hard to identify and kind of lose their original identity (I often had to pause the film to try and remember what an image was without losing track of the narration). Absent of the film, the narrator's existence (the anecdotes, people and places he describes) is replaced by the movies he is watching in his new secluded life – where at some point, he is no more watching other people's movies, but searching for his own story through their images. The text itself is very uneven, I really loved his retelling of his father's death and his relationship to him (had to pause there too because some of it hit home hard with me), but most of it paints the artist as unbearable (a freakin' poseur, excuse my French). It's something he reflects a little upon, thinking his project might get close to intellectual masturbation, and he isn't wrong to do so. The other thing that worked against the film for me is that it's a process that's really close to stuff belonging to other and better directors. I appreciate that he goes in a complete opposite direction than Marguerite Duras, whose images were devoid of any representational link to the narration in order to give the avant-scène to her texts, casting a spell on the spectator, but Beauvais just doesn't have Duras's gift for words nor her perfect hypnotic voice and diction. When he reflects on the meaning of images, their place in his reality or on culture in more encompassing ways, he never gets close to the pertinence or poetic insights of Godard, and his political ruminations (there's a weird enumeration of the terrorist and tragic incidents of the time that goes through the film) can't compare to the wisdom and thought-provoking propositions of Chris Marker. The echoes coming in from all these other films – that are not part of those quoted in this one – takes away from what is otherwise a pretty interesting effort. And well, can't help but appreciate the choice of movies he quotes, including a few gialli. 5/10

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

What did you think about Cabin in the Woods?

Hmmm. I think I'll watch it again because I feel I might like it better in a second viewing... I've seen it once, didn't care for it much. But this is a parody, as I remember, it was clear in intent and I don't think it aimed for being very clever nor suggested that it was.

 

[shadow1]

Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989) - 4/10

One year after the events of the previous film, Jason Voorhees stalks a group of graduating high school students on the SS Lazarus, a ship bound for New York City.

If Part VI was the first Friday that "feels like a real movie", Part VIII feels like a made-for-TV movie. The acting is the worst in a series that wasn't exactly getting Meryl Streep-level performances before, and the special effects are practically non-existent. Many of the kills are off screen, or we see Jason swinging something at the camera, and then see a bloody body. Compared to his awesome look in Part VII, Jason looks like crap. His face without a mask on looks like raw hamburger meat.

Part VIII's lightning is really bizarre. That's a weird complaint maybe, but if you've seen the movie, you know what I'm talking about. I'm vaguely aware that other countries have different lighting techniques than Hollywood, and I know a lot of the movie was filmed in British Columbia, so that could be the explanation. Or it could just be that the film overall is pretty bad, and the lighting is no exception. Either way, it looks "off".

As for the plot, most people hate how much of this movie doesn't actually take place in Manhattan; the characters don't make it there until the final 30 minutes. Personally, I don't mind because I think a ship is an interesting setting for a horror movie.

Unfortunately, the execution of that setting is poor. It's a big ship, with not a ton of people aboard. Done right, Jason should've continued picking off most of the students until the remaining few noticed people are missing and eventually realized they're surrounded by water on a big ship with a killer onboard. Instead, Part VIII drowns us in boring subplots that go nowhere, and once evidence of Jason's crimes are discovered, there are still 10+ people left. There's no claustrophobia or tension.

Also worth noting there's a Crazy Ralph rip-off character who keeps saying the ship is "doomed". Advice to writer-director Rob Hedden: you don't need a red herring when it's not a mystery who the killer is.

Once the film moves to New York, the movie picks up a little bit. It does have two kills that I think are decent; Julius getting his head punched off, and Charles - the asshole principle who is probably the only character with any common sense - getting drown in a barrel. Great utilization of New York by the way; Jason visits all of the major land marks: Times Square, the subway, a random diner, the alleys, and the sewers. Seeing as he can apparently teleport in this movie, he should've caught a Rangers game.

This movie also has some comedy, but I'm pretty sure it's mostly unintentional.

• The first moment is when one of character, after losing his glasses, shoots a fellow student in the chest with a shotgun thinking it's Jason.
• Later, as a group of the characters prepare to escape the ship, useless teacher Colleen mentions how she left several students in the ship's restaurant. Sean, the son of the slain ship's captain who is leading the escape in the only lifeboat, replies "there is no more restaurant!" Is he implying Jason killed them? He has no way of knowing that. If he implying the restaurant has already been engulfed by the spreading fire? The fire didn't start there and we literally just saw the characters in the restaurant less than two minutes of screen time ago. Either way, airhead Colleen just goes along with it and they don't go back for those students. Enjoy your fiery, watery, or Jason-y deaths, ya poor bastards.
• Finally, once in New York City, Rennie - the bland main character, by the way - drives a car directly into wall (in a horribly directed scene featuring slow motion). Rennie and the other characters flee the burning vehicle; Colleen does not, and is killed as the car completely explodes. It is hysterical.

The ending of the movie is the final nail in the coffin: Jason is submerged in toxic sewer waste and reverts back to being a child. Who writes this crap?

Jason Takes Manhattan was the final Friday film produced by Paramount, and the studio went out with a whimper. It's a shame because the first 7 films are all pretty decent, and Part VIII gives us a really crappy ending to the "Friday the 13th" story line.

Financially, most of the films in the series had a budget of $2M-$3M, and took in roughly $20M at the box office ($30M+ for some of the earlier films). Friday VIII had the highest budget of any of the movies (estimated $5M-$5.5M), but only made around $15M. As a result, Paramount decided to stop making Friday movies, and loaned the Jason character - but not the Friday the 13th name - to New Line Cinema, who produced the next few movies in the series.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989) - 4/10

One year after the events of the previous film, Jason Voorhees stalks a group of graduating high school students on the SS Lazarus, a ship bound for New York City.

If Part VI was the first Friday that "feels like a real movie", Part VIII feels like a made-for-TV movie. The acting is the worst in a series that wasn't exactly getting Meryl Streep-level performances before, and the special effects are practically non-existent. Many of the kills are off screen, or we see Jason swinging something at the camera, and then see a bloody body. Compared to his awesome look in Part VII, Jason looks like crap. His face without a mask on looks like raw hamburger meat.

Part VIII's lightning is really bizarre. That's a weird complaint maybe, but if you've seen the movie, you know what I'm talking about. I'm vaguely aware that other countries have different lighting techniques than Hollywood, and I know a lot of the movie was filmed in British Columbia, so that could be the explanation. Or it could just be that the film overall is pretty bad, and the lighting is no exception. Either way, it looks "off".

As for the plot, most people hate how much of this movie doesn't actually take place in Manhattan; the characters don't make it there until the final 30 minutes. Personally, I don't mind because I think a ship is an interesting setting for a horror movie.

Unfortunately, the execution of that setting is poor. It's a big ship, with not a ton of people aboard. Done right, Jason should've continued picking off most of the students until the remaining few noticed people are missing and eventually realized they're surrounded by water on a big ship with a killer onboard. Instead, Part VIII drowns us in boring subplots that go nowhere, and once evidence of Jason's crimes are discovered, there are still 10+ people left. There's no claustrophobia or tension.

Also worth noting there's a Crazy Ralph rip-off character who keeps saying the ship is "doomed". Advice to writer-director Rob Hedden: you don't need a red herring when it's not a mystery who the killer is.

Once the film moves to New York, the movie picks up a little bit. It does have two kills that I think are decent; Julius getting his head punched off, and Charles - the asshole principle who is probably the only character with any common sense - getting drown in a barrel. Great utilization of New York by the way; Jason visits all of the major land marks: Times Square, the subway, a random diner, the alleys, and the sewers. Seeing as he can apparently teleport in this movie, he should've caught a Rangers game.

This movie also has some comedy, but I'm pretty sure it's mostly unintentional.

• The first moment is when one of character, after losing his glasses, shoots a fellow student in the chest with a shotgun thinking it's Jason.
• Later, as a group of the characters prepare to escape the ship, useless teacher Colleen mentions how she left several students in the ship's restaurant. Sean, the son of the slain ship's captain who is leading the escape in the only lifeboat, replies "there is no more restaurant!" Is he implying Jason killed them? He has no way of knowing that. If he implying the restaurant has already been engulfed by the spreading fire? The fire didn't start there and we literally just saw the characters in the restaurant less than two minutes of screen time ago. Either way, airhead Colleen just goes along with it and they don't go back for those students. Enjoy your fiery, watery, or Jason-y deaths, ya poor bastards.
• Finally, once in New York City, Rennie - the bland main character, by the way - drives a car directly into wall (in a horribly directed scene featuring slow motion). Rennie and the other characters flee the burning vehicle; Colleen does not, and is killed as the car completely explodes. It is hysterical.

The ending of the movie is the final nail in the coffin: Jason is submerged in toxic sewer waste and reverts back to being a child. Who writes this crap?

Jason Takes Manhattan was the final Friday film produced by Paramount, and the studio went out with a whimper. It's a shame because the first 7 films are all pretty decent, and Part VIII gives us a really crappy ending to the "Friday the 13th" story line.

Financially, most of the films in the series had a budget of $2M-$3M, and took in roughly $20M at the box office ($30M+ for some of the earlier films). Friday VIII had the highest budget of any of the movies (estimated $5M-$5.5M), but only made around $15M. As a result, Paramount decided to stop making Friday movies, and loaned the Jason character - but not the Friday the 13th name - to New Line Cinema, who produced the next few movies in the series.

Yeah, what a mess... Can't wait to read your comments on the next (last) 4! Especially part 9......

Also, posted yesterday:

! A Return to Crystal Lake?

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Flesh + Blood. Paul Verhoeven's first English language film. I knew what I was getting into (I thought) but I still managed to be a little taken aback by how nasty and violent this Medieval action drama is. Not a criticism! I was generally entertained by the grossness. This is definitely a mud and blood and pus movie. Verhoeven mostly doesn't sugarcoat the nastiness — there's a pretty abhorrent rape scene. As he would later in his career, he gives more agency to women in his movies than most contemporaries. He ain't perfect, but he tries. Rutger Hauer stars and is pure presence. Verhoven's long running beefs with religion are clearly on display as well.

M. Butterfly. The first real off-speed pitch from viscera king David Cronenberg. It's not THAT far afield from his work with clear themes of obsession and deception, bodies and flesh, transformation, etc. But this is a buttoned up, almost austere affair. Prim and proper diplomat Jeremy Irons falls in love with someone who is not who they seem to be (in more ways than one). The first notable time Cronenberg would show that he can step away from horror/scifi and still be effective. That said, I'm glad he didn't decide to make this direction his path. It's an honorable work, but I like my guy pushing outward, not inward.

 

[Pink Mist]

Autumn Sonata / Höstsonaten (Ingmar Bergman, 1978)

After not seeing each other for nearly a decade, Eva (Liv Ullmann) invites her mother Charlotte (Ingrid Bergman, in her final film role and unrelated to the other I. Bergman directing her) to stay with her, her husband, and her disabled sister. Charlotte is an internationally renowned pianist who is cold, difficult to live with, and was frequently absent from her daughters’ childhoods. Over the course of a weekend the Eva and her mother clash as old wounds resurface and Eva admits that she hates her mother. Simply shot like a theatre play, this film is all about the dueling performances between Ullmann and Bergman who are equally fantastic. I’m sure a lot of people who were raised by parents who should not have been parents can relate a lot to this film and how that kind of childhood effects the present. Not my favourite Bergman, but it is a solid one. That said after watching Scenes From a Marriage and Autumn Sonata in the past couple of weeks, I probably need a little break from Bergman and the chilliness of his films.

This film also has the distinction of being the only collaboration of Ingmar and Ingrid Bergman, two names that I frequently mix up with each other.

 

[kihei]

I got bored in this one. I didn't buy the characters and the n

Autumn Sonata / Höstsonaten (Ingmar Bergman, 1978)

After not seeing each other for nearly a decade, Eva (Liv Ullmann) invites her mother Charlotte (Ingrid Bergman, in her final film role and unrelated to the other I. Bergman directing her) to stay with her, her husband, and her disabled sister. Charlotte is an internationally renowned pianist who is cold, difficult to live with, and was frequently absent from her daughters’ childhoods. Over the course of a weekend the Eva and her mother clash as old wounds resurface and Eva admits that she hates her mother. Simply shot like a theatre play, this film is all about the dueling performances between Ullmann and Bergman who are equally fantastic. I’m sure a lot of people who were raised by parents who should not have been parents can relate a lot to this film and how that kind of childhood effects the present. Not my favourite Bergman, but it is a solid one. That said after watching Scenes From a Marriage and Autumn Sonata in the past couple of weeks, I probably need a little break from Bergman and the chilliness of his films.

This film also has the distinction of being the only collaboration of Ingmar and Ingrid Bergman, two names that I frequently mix up with each other.

I got bored in this one. I never bought into the characters or their relations with one another and I thought their various neuroses seemed hyped like Bergman thought he just had to make another Bergman movie. Always great to see Ingrid Bergman in anything but she deserved far better.

 

[Pink Mist]

I got bored in this one. I didn't buy the characters and the n

I got bored in this one. I never bought into the characters or their relations with one another and I thought their various neuroses seemed hyped like Bergman thought he just had to make another Bergman movie. Always great to see Ingrid Bergman in anything but she deserved far better.

Yeah I do agree with that actually. Most of the themes and story in the film are well trodden at this point by Bergman

 

[Babe Ruth]

Licorice Pizza - 2/10

Just a terrible movie. Some decent acting gets it one point and because it's Paul Thomas Anderson it looks good enough to garner one more point. Terrible plot that manages to be both extremely boring and annoyingly constructed. Things, that aren't very interesting, just happen with no explanation or consequence, and then it moves on to the next boring vignette and repeats the process. I really can't believe how bad it was. I'd guess that PTA's going for the vibe of that part of California in the 1970s, but..

Yeah I thought the events in the plot were pointlessly random, but strangely specific (like delivering the waterbed to Jon Peters' house). So I looked up the movie, and read that a lot of the events were based on the real life of a child actor, who is friends with Anderson. It makes sense then, how slice-of-life the movie felt to me. I agree, the acting was good (especially the female lead 'Alana'). And I worked out in Encino for a couple years about 15 years ago, so I was curious to see their recreation of '70s Valley (seemed authentic).
All things considered, I thought it was an average, entertaining movie.

 

[Osprey]

Autumn Sonata is both an Ingmar Bergman film and an Ingrid Bergman film?

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I got bored in this one. I never bought into the characters or their relations with one another and I thought their various neuroses seemed hyped like Bergman thought he just had to make another Bergman movie. Always great to see Ingrid Bergman in anything but she deserved far better.

That's one of the films I was referring to:

There's quite a few many films by Bergman that I've never seen and that I have no intention of seeing, for some reasons.

Glad to know I'm not missing much!

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Play (Ostlund, 2011) – Risky film – and given the generalized susceptibility of the times, maybe a risky film to comment on. The film sparked debate when it came out, and for good reason: its presentation of a criminalized group of Black teens terrorizing decent citizens (mostly White, and one Asian kid) who mind their own business readily appears itself as a product of systemic racism, and is hard to read as a social critic of said racism. The fact that it's presented as based on true events, or factual, only reinforces the impression. I still can't help but think it's an important and mostly brilliant film. Ostlund makes sure there is no apparent ambivalence: the Black bullies are mean and are having fun scaring people and when one of them drops out of their scheme, they turn violent against him (that's the only time they make use of violence); on the other hand, their victims are innocent, reasonable, and weirdly comply to their abuse. The spectator is left with a single possible emotive response: frustration. Either you don't get passed the apparent racist discourse and get frustrated at the film itself, or you buy into it and get frustrated at everything and everybody in it (bullies, of course, but the victims too – that guy on the bus with the headphones!! You'll just wish he elbows that kid in the face). That frustration is incarnated twice in the film, when adults confront the kids, with violence, rage, and making them pay for their actions, by also stealing from them (justification: probably not theirs anyway, ah!) – still, these sudden bursts against the bullies are of zero satisfaction to the spectator. And I think that's where the film is brilliant, because I read the whole thing as a perfect example of film irony. The film's own construction – with long static takes, sometimes from afar, sometimes so close they only capture part of the action – puts the spectator as witness of the events. Just one of many White witnesses who, just like him, are frozen and just don't interfere with what is clearly bothering them too. Even when asked for help, people just don't know what to do, and ultimately don't do anything, just like me watching them, powerless. When actions are taken against the bullies, there is no satisfaction because you know it's not what should be done – and if you don't at first, you certainly do at the end when the father interferes, knowing it didn't change anything to our “good kids” fate before. The film mocks us, shows us a mirror of our racial prejudices (even if you're not racist yourself, just like nobody blatantly is in the film, you'll recognize our societies' ease to “understand” what's going on – couldn't help but appreciate the Black kid mocking the worn out “underprivileged” justification for his behavior, and the woke lady at the end instantly going for it too), and shows us – through positioning the spectator – exactly what we'll do about it: nothing. There's also interesting stuff to say about the film's mocking of our relation to consumerism, and about the “play” of the title and its multiple forms through the film, but I'll shut up and give voice [here] to a point of view opposite to mine, to compensate for my straight White male reading of the film. 7.5/10

 

[JackSlater]

Yeah I thought the events in the plot were pointlessly random, but strangely specific (like delivering the waterbed to Jon Peters' house). So I looked up the movie, and read that a lot of the events were based on the real life of a child actor, who is friends with Anderson. It makes sense then, how slice-of-life the movie felt to me. I agree, the acting was good (especially the female lead 'Alana'). And I worked out in Encino for a couple years about 15 years ago, so I was curious to see their recreation of '70s Valley (seemed authentic).
All things considered, I thought it was an average, entertaining movie.

Yeah I looked it up too and it made some how the stories were selected sense upon realizing that most of it was based on stories his buddy told him, but that didn't make it better for me. The problem for me was that the threshold for an interesting story is different for a movie and for a story that your buddy tells you. Plus it did feel like there was a list of anecdotes he wanted to roll through, cohesion be damned.

I don't doubt that the recreation was good. Anderson is a tremendous director, it's just disappointing when he wastes his talent on a subject that is well below him.

 

[shadow1]

Yeah, what a mess... Can't wait to read your comments on the next (last) 4! Especially part 9......

Also, posted yesterday:

! A Return to Crystal Lake?

Hopefully they come out with something in the near future, it's been way too long.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

I had a big trouble with the language (why would they speak to each other in English with a few lines in Comanche? Why would they even know English if the French are the ones on their grounds?)

In Prey I thought it was clear the English we hear is just for us, and that the characters are actually speaking to each other in Comanche. They established this right up top, with the first line in the V.O. being in Comanche, and then the same line is repeated in English. It's also reinforced later on when the trapper translator is speaking to the lead, and the only thing we (and Naru) understand from him is when he says he speaks many languages, even Comanche, and that is in "English."

I also don't have a problem with the bleed/kills line. As far as they're concerned, they might be facing some sort of warrior spirit/god -- who would know if something like that would actually be killable? It's the type of callback that works since they don't have to add any type of justification or action for it to happen. It just is.

Anyway, I think it's a shame this didn't end up seeing a theatrical release -- it really is a visually splendid film. A little bigger budget might've tightened up some of the CGI too, which can be a little distracting. You can also put the dog from "Prey" alongside the cat from "A Girls Walks Home Alone at Night" in the pantheon of supporting animal performances of the 21st century. I'll probably watch the Comanche dub at some point, and might even forgo the subtitles with it if that's an option. Might be a fun experience, plus I don't think I'd miss too much from not understanding the dialogue, which is not a criticism -- quite the opposite in fact. I guess this turned out to be my review . B-

Also, I think I recently watched Uncharted recently. Or at the very least, it was on a screen in front of me. That's also my review.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

In Prey I thought it was clear the English we hear is just for us, and that the characters are actually speaking to each other in Comanche. They established this right up top, with the first line in the V.O. being in Comanche, and then the same line is repeated in English. It's also reinforced later on when the trapper translator is speaking to the lead, and the only thing we (and Naru) understand from him is when he says he speaks many languages, even Comanche, and that is in "English."

I also don't have a problem with the bleed/kills line. As far as they're concerned, they might be facing some sort of warrior spirit/god -- who would know if something like that would actually be killable? It's the type of callback that works since they don't have to add any type of justification or action for it to happen. It just is.

Anyway, I think it's a shame this didn't end up seeing a theatrical release -- it really is a visually splendid film. A little bigger budget might've tightened up some of the CGI too, which can be a little distracting. You can also put the dog from "Prey" alongside the cat from "A Girls Walks Home Alone at Night" in the pantheon of supporting animal performances of the 21st century. I'll probably watch the Comanche dub at some point, and might even forgo the subtitles with it if that's an option. Might be a fun experience, plus I don't think I'd miss too much from not understanding the dialogue, which is not a criticism -- quite the opposite in fact. I guess this turned out to be my review . B-

Also, I think I recently watched Uncharted recently. Or at the very least, it was on a screen in front of me. That's also my review.

Actually, I think that the first lines are exactly what threw me off: "I remember when father told me I was ready for kühtaamia. My big hunt." If we are to understand that he speaks to her in Comanche, why include a Comanche word in an English sentence, and why bother translating it afterwards? Other than that, you're right, I just thought the use of languages was off (the French parts being the worst) and wished they stuck to the original plan.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

Actually, I think that the first lines are exactly what threw me off: "I remember when father told me I was ready for kühtaamia. My big hunt." If we are to understand that he speaks to her in Comanche, why include a Comanche word in an English sentence, and why bother translating it afterwards?

I mean yeah, they're trying to have their cake and eat it too: "Hey then let's have all the story dialogue be in English, but then still have some Comanche in there as an almost 'throwing-a-bone' type thing, a little sprinkling of authentic flavor, yeah?" The original plan certainly would've been most ideal, but sadly probably not feasible in the American blockbuster world. I wonder how hard they pushed. So, they tried a compromise, which usually never brings out the best of either option. I don't think the compromise they landed on was poor or distracting, but obviously others' mileage may vary, and that's fine.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I mean yeah, they're trying to have their cake and eat it too: "Hey then let's have all the story dialogue be in English, but then still have some Comanche in there as an almost 'throwing-a-bone' type thing, a little sprinkling of authentic flavor, yeah?" The original plan certainly would've been most ideal, but sadly probably not feasible in the American blockbuster world. I wonder how hard they pushed. So, they tried a compromise, which usually never brings out the best of either option. I don't think the compromise they landed on was poor or distracting, but obviously others' mileage may vary, and that's fine.

I listened to an interview with the director and he was asked about the movie streaming vs. showing theatrically. Obviously he wished it was in theaters, but he did note that there is no way a Comanche dub would've been made if it were a traditional theatrical release. Since it was tabbed for streaming they were able to do that dubbed version. Thought that was an interesting perspective.

I though the movie was pretty great. Grading on a curve, of course. Efficient, no frills action movie that knows exactly what it is and what it ain't. Simple and effective. It was so effortless that it immediately made me want them to drop the Predator in other historic and geographic settings. It's an idea that seems kinda bonkers when you think about it, but seeing it executed, it's a bit of a "duh, of course."

We've seen so many legacy franchises get so wrapped up in ... name it ... fan service, continuity, lore, corporate bullshit, etc. ... it's refreshing to see one manage to NOT overthink it and just do it.

 

[The Macho King]

Actually, I think that the first lines are exactly what threw me off: "I remember when father told me I was ready for kühtaamia. My big hunt." If we are to understand that he speaks to her in Comanche, why include a Comanche word in an English sentence, and why bother translating it afterwards? Other than that, you're right, I just thought the use of languages was off (the French parts being the worst) and wished they stuck to the original plan.

I think it would be fine if they didn't translate the kuhtaamia as something else - then I could think "eh doesn't have a good English translation" and that's that. Context was enough to know what it was, but eh.

Very minor nit but I do agree.