Shouldn't an Agatha Christie spoof, especially one that builds its shtick around The Mousetrap, have more suspense and clever plotting? Enjoyed many of Saoirse Ronan's bits but I thought Sam Rockwell sleep walked through his role and had a now you hear it, now you don't accent. Why an American in that role anyway? 5A from me.
Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate it | {Insert Appropriate Seasonal Greeting Here}
- Thread starter ProstheticConscience
- Start date
My Policeman (2022) Directed by Michael Grandage 6B
My Policeman chronicles what it was like being a gay couple in 1950's England. Three people--Tom, a policeman (Harry Styles), museum curator Patrick and schoolteacher Marion--form a complicated but unequally sided love triangle. Tom loves Patrick and Patrick loves Tom. But Tom also loves Marion who only gradually finds out that Tom is lying to her about some very important things. The movie shifts between the mid '50s and the 90's as the relationships continue to fester over the years. The movie travels awkwardly between the melodramatic and the understated. Yes, being gay in post-war England must have been hellish beyond belief, but My Policeman often presents its melodrama divorced from much depth of character. While the story is interesting, the dialogue is uninspired with the result that all the actors have moments where they struggle to bring their characters emotions to life. By the time the story becomes genuinely touching, the audience has sat through a long slog to get its reward. Styles is just fine in lighter moments but lacks the chops to be convincing in more dramatic scenes of which there is no shortage. I liked the movie''s ending but it took a long time to get there and the journey was a troublesome one..
Last edited:
The Thing (John Carpenter, 1982)
As a film dealing with quarantining in the Antarctic with a bunch of your boys, one of which who may or may not be an imposter, The Thing would have been a good film to watch during the peak of the pandemic when Among Us was briefly popular. Considered one of John Carpenter’s best works and a classic of horror films, I think it is a genuinely thrilling and suspenseful film – except for one problem that as a horror film it isn’t really that scary. This is primarily due to the special effects used, which for a film of this budget in the 1980s, feels underwhelming and kind of goofy. More comical than terrifying (although this isn’t an argument in favour of CGI, I think practical effects can create excellent horror). As a suspense and mystery thriller, Carpenter does deliver the goods though developing an eerie atmosphere of distrust in isolation in Antarctica. Pretty good film, although I don’t know if I would consider it an all-time great.
As a film dealing with quarantining in the Antarctic with a bunch of your boys, one of which who may or may not be an imposter, The Thing would have been a good film to watch during the peak of the pandemic when Among Us was briefly popular. Considered one of John Carpenter’s best works and a classic of horror films, I think it is a genuinely thrilling and suspenseful film – except for one problem that as a horror film it isn’t really that scary. This is primarily due to the special effects used, which for a film of this budget in the 1980s, feels underwhelming and kind of goofy. More comical than terrifying (although this isn’t an argument in favour of CGI, I think practical effects can create excellent horror). As a suspense and mystery thriller, Carpenter does deliver the goods though developing an eerie atmosphere of distrust in isolation in Antarctica. Pretty good film, although I don’t know if I would consider it an all-time great.
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
That's very confusing to me. You're saying you didn't like the practical and creature effects? My mind can't process this.
I don't think that a horror film has to be all that scary. Frankenstein and Dracula, two pillars of the genre, typically aren't. They're horrors because they're atmospheric and moody and about things that are unnatural and potentially dangerous (not even necessarily dangerous, as the monster in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is rather harmless, but feared, anyways). The Thing is along the same lines. In fact, it's a remake of a 1950s movie that was an adaptation of a 1930s novella. It's more of a classical, suspense horror than a modern, scary horror and may be easier to appreciate if you think of it like that.
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
- Jan 29, 2004
- 34,436
- 19,483
I watched this movie as a kid sometime in the 90s on Skinamax at like 2am, and I’ve always loved it.
I can’t put my finger on it exactly… part of it is the nostalgia from it blowing me away and being so suspenseful to me at that age… the other is just the atmosphere and they use flamethrowers!
Flamethrowers!
Thanks for the context. I doubt I would get it, given my lack of knowledge of the subject. Fairest thing to do is probably give the movie a pass for right now. Really enjoyed your review, though.
shadow1
Registered User
- Nov 29, 2008
- 16,728
- 5,526
The Thing is my favorite movie of all time, and has lived rent free in my mind since I first saw it. I love the dread and paranoia in the film, and it still manages to creep me out all these years later. I'm a sucker for whodunits, which The Thing basically is.
I think the gore is great, especially for a 40 year old movie. Here's Rob Bottin (real life Vampire), responsible for the special effects:
I think the gore is great, especially for a 40 year old movie. Here's Rob Bottin (real life Vampire), responsible for the special effects:
Death in Venice, Visconti
Beautiful visuals but I found the whole pedo incessantly gazing at an underage boy storyline too creepy to be enjoyable. Don't have anything else to say about this movie beyond that. I think I need a shower....
Beautiful visuals but I found the whole pedo incessantly gazing at an underage boy storyline too creepy to be enjoyable. Don't have anything else to say about this movie beyond that. I think I need a shower....
Jussi
Registered User
Enola Holmes 2 on Netflix: 8+/10. I enjoyed the first though it had some parts in the middle that dragged a bit. This one felt a lot more a movie where it found it's groove. Millie and Henry have good chemistry, story has real historical characters and events which I did not know about before.
Last edited:
Yeah, that part is confusing to me a bit. The creature effects hold up really well, including in the body horror/gore department, and they have a creatively horrific shock and awe element to them. Not to mention, there is a wide range of creature effects in the film due to the unpredictable transformative quality of the "monster". The Thing is one of my favorite horror films of all-time, so I might be biased, but I don't believe I am here.
Good point Osprey. I'd argue that atmosphere and mood of horror films are "scary" in themselves. Take the tense paranoia in The Thing (1982), it's smothering in it's desolate isolated location with it's "invisible" monster. That's genius. And paranoia is anxiety and fear, isn't that the definition of scary? But I'd still argue The Thing works horrifically on a cerebral and visceral level, psychologically and primally. It thrills, it shocks, it lingers, and I don't understand how the monster scenes don't induce scares at some level in anyone, especially with how they're implemented (to each their own though). Everything with the film is top notch horror, the score, the style, the scenario, the monster, the direction, the themes, etc. I wish I could find my review of the film, search engine fails me again. The 1951 Thing From Another World is a great fun movie, the 2011 remake is ok.
ItsFineImFine
Registered User
- Aug 11, 2019
- 3,737
- 2,386
Agatha Christie books didn't have as much suspense as they had just good natural build-up. The Sherlock Holmes books were a bit more action gung-ho. Agatha Christie's Poirot and Marple mysteries certainly were dialogue heavy.
That's why that Kenneth Brannagh portrayal of Poirot is awful, running around yelling at witnesses and even shooting a friggin gun.
Anyways I watched Under The Tuscan Sun (20something) Diane Lane wasn't bad but a bit too sentimental to get going but also using that dreamy haze to cover up some shortcomings and patch together a book-adapted plot. 7/10 would overrate again.
shadow1
Registered User
- Nov 29, 2008
- 16,728
- 5,526
John Carpenter's Escape from L.A. (1996) - 6/10
In 2013, notorious criminal Snake Plissken must recover an electronic weapon in Los Angeles.
Kurt Russell stars as Snake, reprising his role from 1981's Escape From New York. Snake must once again reluctantly work with the United States Government after the President's daughter Utopia (A.J. Langer) has stolen a powerful weapon known as the Sword of Damocles, which can control every electronic device in the world. Utopia has fled to the autonomous zone of L.A., which has become an island following a massive earthquake in the year 2000. To make matters worse for Snake, Government agents (Michelle Forbes and Stacy Keach) have infected him with a virus called Plutoxin 7, which will kill him in 10 hours if his mission isn't successful...
Escape from LA was directed by John Carpenter, and was written by Carpenter, producer Debra Hill, and star Kurt Russell. After the success of Escape from New York (1981), the trio had been interested in making a sequel for several years, even having a screenplay commissioned in the mid-1980's. Unhappy with the script, the project lay dormant until the 1990's, when Kurt Russell - at this point an A-List star, in the midst of several big hits - pushed for the project to be made.
The result was a massive bomb. Despite having nearly 10 times the budget of its predecessor (an estimated $50M), Escape from L.A. earned the same $25M in theaters. Critically the response was mixed, and over time the film has been a largely forgotten work in Carpenter's filmography. 25 years later, how does the movie hold up?
Escape from L.A. serves as basically a remake of Escape from New York, following many of the same beats. Once again, Snake has to go into a war zone against his will, he has to deal with a critical time limit, he meets some new friends along the way to help him, etc. Despite being extremely derivative of its predecessor, I think Escape from L.A. changes up enough things to make itself interesting.
One big change is that Escape from L.A. doesn't take itself as seriously as Escape from New York, replacing a lot of its predecessor's horror elements with comedic ones. However, it still manages to have some very dark undertones. I find this movie to be somewhat prophetic in ways, addressing (predicting?) several issues that have popped up in reality in recent years (most notably cyber warfare).
Kurt Russell shines and has a ton of fun returning as an older version of Snake Plissken, who's just as badass as he was in the early 80's. The other characters are a mixed bag though; they aren't nuanced enough. In Escape from New York, the supporting characters walk the line between good and bad; Escape from L.A. has too many characters that are flat out "bad guys", with the President (Cliff Robertson) being the most obvious example of this. I would argue this movie crams in too many characters in general, and overall has a bit too many filler scenes that could be trimmed to make a tighter finished product.
The biggest fault of this movie is its special effects, which are cringeworthy. They add a certain cheese factor to the film because they look so unrealistic, and it doesn't help that there are moments featuring Snake doing ridiculous things like surfing on a tsunami! Even in 1996 these effects weren't good, so you can imagine what they look like 25+ years later.
The film also features several scenes using matte paintings. Though these paintings don't look real, they do look amazing, giving scenes a comic book-like feel. The scenes using matte paintings capture the grim dystopia feeling of Escape from New York, which many other scenes fail to capture. Even though L.A. is without power and candlelit (like New York was in the previous film), much of the film is lit too brightly. Whereas New York looked depressing and grimy, Los Angeles looks like a movie set.
Escape from L.A.'s score was done by Shirley Walker, with John Carpenter supporting on a few tracks. This is somewhat of a disappointment as a fan of Carpenter's synth heavy music, but the score is still okay. Fortunately, the track "Snake's Uniform" - which serves basically as the main theme of the movie - was written solely by Carpenter and is great.
Overall, Escape from L.A. is a popcorn action movie with more serious undertones. Though it doesn't live up its bleak cult classic predecessor, I think the film has been somewhat unfairly maligned historically. I find Escape from L.A. to be a fun movie with a good amount of a cheese, and a satisfying ending.
Cinema Paradiso / Nuovo Cinema Paradiso (Giuseppe Tornatore, 1988)
An occasional criticism leveled against international film lovers that I hate is “you only like that film because it’s foreign, if it was in English/made in Hollywood you wouldn’t love it nearly as much!”. I think that criticism is generally made in bad faith as some way to suggest pretension, but occasionally I think there are instances where it is fair. Cinema Paradiso is one of those cases. I have no idea why this film is beloved as much as it is. It is schmaltzy as hell and equally as predictable – essentially an Italian version of Forrest Gump but replace sentimentality over 1960s America with sentimentality for 1940/1950s cinema. The latter reason is of course part of its appeal; film lovers love films about the love of film. It certainly is playing to its audience. But if this film were in English it rightly would be torn apart by much of that same audience I feel. Cinema Paradiso is merely just an okay film, its hard not to enjoy the charm of it at times, but it certainly shouldn’t be considered a classic.
An occasional criticism leveled against international film lovers that I hate is “you only like that film because it’s foreign, if it was in English/made in Hollywood you wouldn’t love it nearly as much!”. I think that criticism is generally made in bad faith as some way to suggest pretension, but occasionally I think there are instances where it is fair. Cinema Paradiso is one of those cases. I have no idea why this film is beloved as much as it is. It is schmaltzy as hell and equally as predictable – essentially an Italian version of Forrest Gump but replace sentimentality over 1960s America with sentimentality for 1940/1950s cinema. The latter reason is of course part of its appeal; film lovers love films about the love of film. It certainly is playing to its audience. But if this film were in English it rightly would be torn apart by much of that same audience I feel. Cinema Paradiso is merely just an okay film, its hard not to enjoy the charm of it at times, but it certainly shouldn’t be considered a classic.
Incubajerks
Registered User
Claiming that it is the American version of Forrest Gump, which is a film released about 6 years later, says a lot about the quality of the criticism.
"Italian version of Forrest Gump" in that theyre both nauseatingly sentimental and they're similar types of movies that way - not as in they have similar plots or have influenced
Spider (2002)
3.00 out of 4stars
“A mentally disturbed schizophrenic man takes residence in a halfway house. His mind gradually slips back into the realm created by his illness, where he replays a key part of his childhood.”
A great psychological thriller that is an insightful look at debilitating mental illness (trauma-induced here) from a personal first hand perspective in this film from David Cronenberg. It plays out like a slow burn mystery as we get to see the protagonist’s troubles he lives with inside and outside of his mind, that is reality questioning with some obvious falsities existing. While it does plod along at times, it does so with purpose. Also can be seen as an obvious character study, or “psychological study”, as we interpret the meaning behind what Fiennes sees and feels about the people and events around him. It’s quite interesting, especially in the mental illness field, about dissociation and tainted perspectives of reality, people, and events in one’s own life. Objective views are the rarity, and I’d hope most people don’t falter too far from the line, but the mind works in such mysterious ways and extreme variations and beliefs from the truth are fascinating. That said, it could be nature, nurture, or a likely combination that leads to these conclusions also. Well acted lead from Ralph Fiennes too with his mannerisms, Fiennes, and Miranda Richardson in “a supporting role”, received many award circuit nominations for their turns here.
Rabid (1977)
2.50 out of 4stars
“After being injured in a motorcycle accident and undergoing a surgical operation, a woman develops an orifice under one of her armpits that hides a phallic/clitoral stinger she uses to feed on people's blood. Those she feeds upon become infected, spreading disease and chaos throughout the city of Quebec.”
A good early Cronenberg zombie body horror that is good and mostly harmless or generic zombie allure. Very similar to his previous film in Shivers, for lack of a better description. It feels like a less fun/more dark reenvisioning of Shivers. It is another “sex” zombie film, but a bit different in it’s delivery and operations, as is more polished. A bit more suspense focused, less thrilling, at times slow, disjointed, and more normative I’d say. A bit excessive and redundant in its delivery and clearly themed on sexuality/hypersexuality, STDs, and here alone, medical advancement/involvement on such things. This is a more widespread/apocalyptic style to it too than Shivers. Not as deep as his later movies, but still good and entertaining to see early Cronenberg before he hit a huge cerebral and visional prime and peak in the horror genre. This probably made people wonder if Cronenberg had a future at the time in the business given the material closeness to Shivers and overall product (and boy oh boy did he).
Moment of Contact (2022)
? out of 4stars
“An exploration of extraterrestrial encounters centered on a series of events in 1996 when citizens of Varginha, Brazil, reported seeing a UFO crash and one or more strange creatures.”
I watched this based off a suggestion from a friend, and it sounds fairly convincing that some UFO crashed in Varginha and some Alien or very well costumed being was sighted around the area. Unless the whole group is in on it, or this is a well-written “documentary”, it’s convincing. I personally was never one to see the big “consequential” deal with aliens existing, UFO’s being not of this world, and life outside of our planet being a reality. Historically significant? Sure. Impactful? I’d say no unless you believe in occurring reverse/adjacent technology or direct/indirect mid to upper echelon influence as a result from any past earthly alien contact. I personally don’t believe it, but I could be wrong. Of course, never go into any alien documentary expecting unquestionable proof, because all these involve some faith or buying into the testimony/evidence or we’d have alien information in historical museums across the world. If anyone has any strong theories or other evidence on the subject matter, I’m all ears out of plain curiosity after seeing this, but am not going to devote any firsthand time to it for reasons stated above.
3.00 out of 4stars
“A mentally disturbed schizophrenic man takes residence in a halfway house. His mind gradually slips back into the realm created by his illness, where he replays a key part of his childhood.”
A great psychological thriller that is an insightful look at debilitating mental illness (trauma-induced here) from a personal first hand perspective in this film from David Cronenberg. It plays out like a slow burn mystery as we get to see the protagonist’s troubles he lives with inside and outside of his mind, that is reality questioning with some obvious falsities existing. While it does plod along at times, it does so with purpose. Also can be seen as an obvious character study, or “psychological study”, as we interpret the meaning behind what Fiennes sees and feels about the people and events around him. It’s quite interesting, especially in the mental illness field, about dissociation and tainted perspectives of reality, people, and events in one’s own life. Objective views are the rarity, and I’d hope most people don’t falter too far from the line, but the mind works in such mysterious ways and extreme variations and beliefs from the truth are fascinating. That said, it could be nature, nurture, or a likely combination that leads to these conclusions also. Well acted lead from Ralph Fiennes too with his mannerisms, Fiennes, and Miranda Richardson in “a supporting role”, received many award circuit nominations for their turns here.
Rabid (1977)
2.50 out of 4stars
“After being injured in a motorcycle accident and undergoing a surgical operation, a woman develops an orifice under one of her armpits that hides a phallic/clitoral stinger she uses to feed on people's blood. Those she feeds upon become infected, spreading disease and chaos throughout the city of Quebec.”
A good early Cronenberg zombie body horror that is good and mostly harmless or generic zombie allure. Very similar to his previous film in Shivers, for lack of a better description. It feels like a less fun/more dark reenvisioning of Shivers. It is another “sex” zombie film, but a bit different in it’s delivery and operations, as is more polished. A bit more suspense focused, less thrilling, at times slow, disjointed, and more normative I’d say. A bit excessive and redundant in its delivery and clearly themed on sexuality/hypersexuality, STDs, and here alone, medical advancement/involvement on such things. This is a more widespread/apocalyptic style to it too than Shivers. Not as deep as his later movies, but still good and entertaining to see early Cronenberg before he hit a huge cerebral and visional prime and peak in the horror genre. This probably made people wonder if Cronenberg had a future at the time in the business given the material closeness to Shivers and overall product (and boy oh boy did he).
Moment of Contact (2022)
? out of 4stars
“An exploration of extraterrestrial encounters centered on a series of events in 1996 when citizens of Varginha, Brazil, reported seeing a UFO crash and one or more strange creatures.”
I watched this based off a suggestion from a friend, and it sounds fairly convincing that some UFO crashed in Varginha and some Alien or very well costumed being was sighted around the area. Unless the whole group is in on it, or this is a well-written “documentary”, it’s convincing. I personally was never one to see the big “consequential” deal with aliens existing, UFO’s being not of this world, and life outside of our planet being a reality. Historically significant? Sure. Impactful? I’d say no unless you believe in occurring reverse/adjacent technology or direct/indirect mid to upper echelon influence as a result from any past earthly alien contact. I personally don’t believe it, but I could be wrong. Of course, never go into any alien documentary expecting unquestionable proof, because all these involve some faith or buying into the testimony/evidence or we’d have alien information in historical museums across the world. If anyone has any strong theories or other evidence on the subject matter, I’m all ears out of plain curiosity after seeing this, but am not going to devote any firsthand time to it for reasons stated above.
Pranzo Oltranzista
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2017
- 3,981
- 2,900
The American version of Forrest Gump is Forrest Gump. Just sayin'.
I always thought this movie was abysmal.
But to your larger point, I used to sometimes wonder in my own reviews about the aptness of that criticism: would I like this movie so much if it were in English? Some movies that I wondered about: Wild Strawberries; Talk to Her; Rocco and His Brothers---Bergman, Almodovar and Visconti seem to be the main culprits.
.
I now actually incorporate that question into my scrutiny of my own thinking. I find it keeps me honest (or more so, anyway). It has become part of my critical thinking apparatus.
The Stranger (Orson Welles, 1946)
In a sleepy Connecticut town a local professor (Orson Welles) new to town is set to marry the daughter of a Supreme Court Justice, when an escaped Nazi war criminal leads war crime investigators to the small town and raising suspicions that the professor may be a Nazi leader. The Stranger is not Welles most famous work or his most impressive work, but it is a solid film in his resume despite Welles thinking it was the worst film he did. The film is shadowy like a lot of noirs but you can see Welles experimenting with a German Expressionism influence in his shots and he has a nice bag of tricks at his disposal to set a noirish atmosphere, including Edward G. Robinson's ugly mug. Welles and Robinson, as the war commission investigator, are both fantastic in their cat and mouse roles, with Welles eating up scenes in ways that only Welles can pull off such as his verbose dinner time rant against the psyche of German people. Released in the year after WWII, the film about Nazis in deep undercover in the US must have been terrifying to audiences (little did they know that the US government was recruiting many of those top Nazis in Operation Paperclip but that’s a different story).
In a sleepy Connecticut town a local professor (Orson Welles) new to town is set to marry the daughter of a Supreme Court Justice, when an escaped Nazi war criminal leads war crime investigators to the small town and raising suspicions that the professor may be a Nazi leader. The Stranger is not Welles most famous work or his most impressive work, but it is a solid film in his resume despite Welles thinking it was the worst film he did. The film is shadowy like a lot of noirs but you can see Welles experimenting with a German Expressionism influence in his shots and he has a nice bag of tricks at his disposal to set a noirish atmosphere, including Edward G. Robinson's ugly mug. Welles and Robinson, as the war commission investigator, are both fantastic in their cat and mouse roles, with Welles eating up scenes in ways that only Welles can pull off such as his verbose dinner time rant against the psyche of German people. Released in the year after WWII, the film about Nazis in deep undercover in the US must have been terrifying to audiences (little did they know that the US government was recruiting many of those top Nazis in Operation Paperclip but that’s a different story).
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
For the life of me, I don't even understand where the potential of liking something more because it's in a foreign language would come from. How could anyone give a shit? Novelty? If anything, there's probably some really nice inflections and intonations that make a voice which a non-native speaker of a film's language might miss. But thinking about it, that might just be a fair and natural reaction from someone whose first language is the world's dominant one.
For example, I'm utterly convinced that a non-French speaker misses a lot when they watch a film like La Haine.
Last edited:
Shareefruck
Registered User
I've heard the opposite (bad inflections/intonations going unnoticed, favoring foreign things undeservedly) argued a lot more commonly. Don't know how true it is (always hear people bring it up in subs vs. dubs debates, although I don't really buy it as a big factor in those instances), but for the sake of argument, if we assume the phenomenon is valid, I'd probably expect it to be an advantage more often than a disadvantage (just because it's rarer for things to be done well than done poorly).
Not that that has anything to do with what was actually being talked about, really.
Last edited:
Spring in Fialta
A malign star kept him
Of course the opposite is possible and hell, to take it even further, what might seems like a gorgeous intonation to a non-native speaker may seem terrible to a native one but my point is more that I would think an experienced/thorough movie viewer wouldn't get tricked by the fact that a movie doesn't speak the language he/she does. That's essentially one of the first things (if not the first one) a good/worthy viewer shakes off with experience.
Shareefruck
Registered User
Yeah, that's kind of why I disagree with the argument when it comes to subs vs. dubs. I feel like you can mostly get an accurate sense of whether something is well or poorly acted regardless of the language barrier, even though some things can be lost or mistaken.
In any case, I don't think that stuff is what Kihei was talking about anyways. You can't know something like perceiving intonation correctly for certain either way, even if you make a conscious effort to look for it, so he's probably referring to other things you can notice and realize you're being fooled by/letting something get away with, like corny writing.
Last edited:
