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

[x Tame Impala]

The Menu

9/10. Fun and very entertaining “go f*** yourselves” to fine-diners. As someone who was in Chicago’s fine-dining industry for nearly a decade I loved this movie. Dark humor at its best.

Imagine Ralph Fiennes’ character from Grand Budapest Hotel but much more murderous

I haven’t enjoyed myself at a movie this much in a very long time.

 

[Puck]

CBC's Peter Knegt takes a look at this year's favorite films.

https://www.cbc.ca/arts/with-the-oscars-race-heating-up-fast-awards-season-is-about-to-be-everything-everywhere-all-at-once-1.6660947

 

[93gilmour93]

Terrifier 2 - 10/10

For horror fans this movie is fantastic. Art the Clown is like Mr Bean in a dark humour kind of way. Lots of Blood, gore and props give it an old school horror feel and the best part with this movie is that they don’t use any CGI which too many directors use as a crutch to make movies now. It’s funny, it’s weird and will become a cult classic. Can’t wait for part 3

 

[shadow1]

CZ12/Chinese Zodiac (2012) - 4/10

A treasure hunter searches for 12 bronze heads of the animals of the Chinese zodiac.

Jackie Chan stars as Asian Hawk, reprising the role he last played in 1991's Armour of God II: Operation Condor. Jackie is hired by Lawrence Morgan (Oliver Platt) of the MP Corporation to recover the 12 relics, as they intend to put them up for auction. Along with his team and a few friends he meets along the way, Asian Hawk works to recover the artifacts. However, MP Corp has secret intentions for the artifacts...

CZ12 was written and directed by Jackie Chan, with frequent collaborator Stanley Tong also involved in the writing. Chinese Zodiac serves as the third film in the Armour of God series, coming out a whopping 21 years after the previous entry. In addition to being a legacy sequel, CZ12 also serves as Jackie's "last" all out action movie. This was to be the final film in which Jackie does all his own stunts, using the tagline "Never Before Action Never Again". As a swan song for Jackie's action movie career, how does Chinese Zodiac fare?

As you can tell by my score, not well. Jackie Chan movies are not known for their plots, but CZ12 still manages to disappoint. The concept of the movie is extremely simple, but the film somehow manages to be confusing due to an over saturation of characters. Asian Hawk's crew is always with him, but they're bland, trait-less characters who do nothing but fill space on the screen. It's pretty much impossible to remember who any of these people are, which is problematic during the bigger action scenes when there's a lot happening on screen.

Further confusing matters is how poorly the film handles the hunt for the relics; it's hard to tell which Zodiacs the characters do and do-not-have at any point in time. Without this information, it's difficult to understand the specific motivations of the characters in any given scene, other than the umbrella concept that they're looking for the animal heads. Part of the issue is that they collect several of the Zodiacs at once...which begs they question as to why they decided to put so much emphasis on the existence of 12 of them?

Instead of making what should be a simple plot more clear, exposition is wasted on minutiae and subplots that only seem to last one scene. Two characters have a feud; one character leaves unanswered voicemails; one character's off-screen wife is pregnant but they're quarreling; one character deceives another character and is found out. These plot threads and others are all pointless, lead no where, and are quickly resolved. The movie also has a big build up for a cameo from Joan Lin (Jackie Chan's real life wife), which falls flat because she gets about 3 seconds of screen time.

Fortunately, Jackie Chan's poor direction is somewhat saved by his strong on-screen performance. Despite being 58 years old at the time of this movie, Jackie's action and fight scenes are both solid. They're not quite as good as some of his earlier work, and there's more cuts in some of the fight sequences, but his action performance overall is still well above average. It's somewhat unbelievable the things he does in this movie at his age; the man had barely slowed down. From a character stand point, this film's Asian Hawk unfortunately bares little resemblance to the character that appeared in previous movies. The charisma and swagger are missing; all the we get is the chewing gum trick, which did nothing except remind me "oh yeah, this is supposed to be an Armour of God movie!".

Overall, CZ12/Chinese Zodiac is a letdown. Touted as Jackie Chan's farewell movie, the film's good action sequences are offset by a needlessly convoluted plot and an overabundance of side characters. For what is supposed to be a popcorn movie, excessive minutiae makes CZ12 a chore to sit through at times. Interestingly, Jackie Chan earned two Guinness World Records for this movie: "Most Stunts Performed by a Living Actor" and "Most Credits in One Movie"; the latter of which he earned by serving a whopping 15 roles during the making of this film. There's also a career highlights post-credit scene showing many of Jackie's best stunts and sequences over the years, which feels like a bookend to his career. Regardless of what I think of it, CZ12 was a hit in China and made $171M worldwide. As Chinese Zodiac currently has a 6.0 on IMDB, take this review with a grain of salt.

 

[kihei]

The Stranger (2022) Directed by Thomas Wright 7B

If I called The Stranger a police procedural, I would be technically accurate but it would still be misleading. Or to put it another way The Stranger is a police procedural as imagined by a Cubist. The movie initially progresses in shards and fragments, jumping from one circumstance to another, often unexpectedly, throwing out clues that take awhile to coalesce into a discernible pattern. In this case it is really worth the wait as the tension and gloom deepen with each new piece of information. The atmosphere, like the cinematography, is corrosive and bleak as though the characters are already living in a circle of Hell. Basically, the film is about a friendship that develops between two strangers (Joel Edgerton and Sean Harris, both brilliant), neither of whom are what they seem to be. On another level, the movie is a fascinating manhunt for a monster. But that is not all that The Stranger has on its mind. The unspoken subject here is the nature of evil and what it does over time not only to the perpetrator but to those tasked with bringing bad men to justice. Consider the movie a cat and mouse game between two lost souls who each pays a terrible price for the worlds that they inhabit. Between NItram last year and The Stranger this year, Australia seems to have cornered the market on fresh approaches to dark stories based on true crimes.

Netflix

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Glass Onion. Have a lot of thoughts, but reserving more detailed chatter for down the line since this brief theater run is over and it won't resurface again for another month or so. I know I could use the spoiler box, but I'm feeling kinda lazy. I'm a sucker for the Sherlock/Poirot type mysteries so I love Knives Out and am tempted to say I liked this one even more. Rian Johnson has digested just as many movies and stories as other writer-directors and is masterful at taking those characters and tropes he loves and reconstituting it into something that isn't really different per se, but certainly feels fresh. He's a clever writer and filmmaker and though I'm a fan of his earlier work, he's really found a calling in these Agatha Christie-style mysteries. It's clear why actors and actresses line up to work with him. He gives them all fun shit to do. And it's fun shit to watch. There are some spectacular LOL line deliveries in this.

 

[Tasty Biscuits]

Yeah, I was not expecting the amount of straight-up comedic bits Glass Onion ended up having.

Even in the credits...

Spoiler

"hourly 'dong'" voiced by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. What a ridiculous easter egg.

 

[OzzyFan]

Terrifier 2 - 10/10

For horror fans this movie is fantastic. Art the Clown is like Mr Bean in a dark humour kind of way. Lots of Blood, gore and props give it an old school horror feel and the best part with this movie is that they don’t use any CGI which too many directors use as a crutch to make movies now. It’s funny, it’s weird and will become a cult classic. Can’t wait for part 3

I've seen mixed reviews on this and don't know how to take it. I am a horror guy, but not really a torture porn gore guy. Is there appeal beyond the gore? Any artistic expression or quality or creativity or anything worthy in the film? Right off the bat I just felt this would be a cult film that abuses the law of diminishing returns by throwing a ton of violent things together that I've seen bit by bit in dozens of films already. Or at minimum go for the gross out/over the top angle. I like tasteful/original body horror stuff, but this just looks like a glorified gleeful Martyrs, and probably tamer than Martyrs on that point. This is all presumption by me. Anyone else seen it? Silly? Offputting/Gross? Redundant? Comical? Clever?

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I've seen mixed reviews on this and don't know how to take it. I am a horror guy, but not really a torture porn gore guy. Is there appeal beyond the gore? Any artistic expression or quality or creativity or anything worthy in the film? Right off the bat I just felt this would be a cult film that abuses the law of diminishing returns by throwing a ton of violent things together that I've seen bit by bit in dozens of films already. Or at minimum go for the gross out/over the top angle. I like tasteful/original body horror stuff, but this just looks like a glorified gleeful Martyrs, and probably tamer than Martyrs on that point. This is all presumption by me. Anyone else seen it? Silly? Offputting/Gross? Redundant? Comical? Clever?

Haven't seen either ones yet. I also have somewhat of a bad feeling about it, like they've tried to do too much, but I really never thought it could be a dumb fail like Martyrs. Please no.

 

[Osprey]

Willow (1988) - 8/10

I loved this movie when I was young, but hadn't seen it in nearly two decades. It was so much fun and filled with more action, adventure and humor than I remembered. I don't think that I realized before how similarly it starts off to The Lord of the Rings, except instead of the little person leaving his cozy village to take a ring and throw it into a volcano, he takes a baby. No, he doesn't throw a baby into a volcano. This is a kid's movie, but a kids movie from the 80s, so that still means countless people being stabbed and having their throats slit, fire-breathing dragons eating people alive, trolls attacking children and having their skin ripped off and an old lady being set on fire. Just par for the course for children's entertainment in the 80s. It's your classic good vs evil fantasy story, and a good one, though it has some flaws. It's very strong in the first half and loses strength and charm as it goes further along, and a couple of the characters are a bit one dimensional and their behaviors unexplainable. In spite of those issues, it's still just a lot of fun. The score by James Horner is rousing and catchy. The special effects are very good for 1988, but what I really appreciated were the practical effects and the detailed sets. I just love 80s sets, especially in fantasy movies, and how carefully and lovingly they were made by hundreds of people. Perhaps the best thing about the movie, though, is just the storytelling magic that George Lucas is known for. He and Ron Howard (who directed it) don't get enough credit for this movie, IMO, and it's a mystery to me why it wasn't better received by critics. Lucas even named one of the villains after film critic Pauline Kael and a two-headed dragon after Siskel & Ebert. I guess that some people don't appreciate flattery.

 

[shadow1]

Crime Story (1993) - 7/10

A troubled detective investigates the kidnapping of tycoon.

Jackie Chan stars as Eddie, a member of Hong Kong's Organized Crime and Triad Bureau, who's struggling to cope with a traumatic shootout he was involved in. Eddie is assigned to protect ruthless land developer Wong Yat-Fei (Kar-Ying Law), who believes disgruntled workers from his job site will kidnap him. Wong Yat-Fei is indeed kidnapped, but unbeknownst to Eddie, one of the culprits is working the case with him - respected detective Hung Ti-Bong (Kent Cheng).

Crime Story was directed by Kirk Wong, who's most well known for gritty Category III films like Organized Crime and Triad Bureau (1994) and Rock N' Roll Cop (1994). Crime Story is no exception, telling a depressing story about police corruption and the effects of PTSD. The screenplay went through five re-writes from five different writers, which does show somewhat in the final product (more on that later).

The film is based on the real-life 1990 kidnapping of businessman Teddy Wang, who was declared legally dead in 1999. Wang was kidnapped twice (also in 1983), and according to sources I've read, the film borrows elements of both kidnappings. These include: the kidnappers routing ransom money through multiple banks, the kidnappers hiding their victim at sea, and even (somewhat tastelessly) filming the kidnapping scene on the real spot where the actual event occurred.

The filming of Crime Story was reportedly troubled, and according to Kirk Wong, he and Jackie Chan haven't spoken since the film's release. The feud seems to be over edits Jackie made to the movie without Wong's consent. Additionally, Nina Wang - Teddy Wang's widow, and Asia's richest woman at the time - put pressure on filmmakers to reshoot the film's bleak ending to make it more positive.

Jet Li was originally slated to star as guilt-ridden cop Eddie, but he dropped out after his manager was killed by Triads and didn't want to work on a film about crime. Jackie Chan stepped in and gives the best dramatic performance of his career, winning Best Actor at the 1993 Hong Kong Film Awards. Jackie has to heavily rely on his acting in this one, as the film features zero comedy and the action takes a back seat to the story. There are a few good action set pieces, but the character of Eddie only has about 50% of the normal "Jackie Chan powers" audiences are used to seeing; he suffers both physical and psychological damage in this film.

Plot wise, Crime Story is not a mystery. The audience is informed from the first scene that Wong is a kidnapper, and the film then focuses on his attempts to sabotage the police investigation from within as Eddie frantically tries to crack the case. This way of telling the story works well, but some logic flaws - likely as a result of numerous writers - pop up once or twice. The most egregious of which is when Eddie figures out Wong is dirty, he doesn't notify his team soon enough, which allows Wong to continue working on - and sabotaging - the case longer than necessary. I might be making it sound worse than it is because it's only a small slice of the movie, but it's worth noting.

Overall, despite trouble behind the scenes, Crime Story is a solid police drama. It's recommended for moviegoers in the mood for something dark, or those interested in seeing Jackie Chan break type with a great dramatic performance. As a rare Category III/Rated R Jackie Chan film, this one isn't for all audiences. Following the huge success of Rumble in the Bronx (1995) in the USA, Miramax wanted to release this movie theatrically to American audiences in the late 1990's; Jackie advised against it, and recommended Police Story III: Supercop (1992) instead. However, Crime Story did get a VHS release, which my parents erroneously allowed be to buy from K-Mart when I was way too young. I could tell something was wrong when Jackie's character spends more time visiting a therapist than he does doing something "normal", like back flipping off a helicopter.

 

[Chili]

Sorcerer-1977

To put out an oil fields fire in South America, nitroglycerin is required. Four desperate men of various nationalities are hired to transport the nitro, risking their lives across dangerous jungle roads for a promised large payday. Based on the same book (Le Salaire de la Peur) as The Wages of Fear not a remake though. The lead role was written for Steve McQueen who loved the script but his requests/attempts on behalf of his wife (Ali McGraw) to have her involved in the film led to Roy Scheider getting the role. The film was not received well at the time and was shelved for many years. More recently though it has found an audience. Very little dialogue, the camera tells most of the story. There is an incredible bridge scene, where the large trucks cross a very shaky construction. The director, William Friedkin (The French Connection, The Exorcist) has called this film his best. As a fan of The Wages of Fear I appreciated that this film was a different look at the story, darker but very well done.

Footnote: was curious about the title, it was taken from a Miles Davis album.

 

[kihei]

The Fabelmans (2002) Directed by Stephen Spielberg 4A

At twenty minutes I was thinking The Truman Show; at thirty minutes, I was thinking Pleasantville and at forty minutes, I nailed it--the first episode of WandaVision. Why did these movies come to mind? They did so not because of their quality but because I thought the characters and the situations in The Fabelmans, not to mention how they were shot, was like some '60s TV sitcom parody utterly unreal and broadly played at that. In my head, I could hear a laugh track as the scenes rolled by. It was a very rocky start for me. The movie got better after that, though I don't know whether I just got used to it or that Spielberg began landing on more interesting moments. The movie is certainly vignette driven. Some of them work (the dance in the headlights; young Sammy, our Stephen stand-in, looking at his footage and figuring out that his mother is having an affair: some of his early film making memories); some of them don't (the Judd Hirsch crazy uncle bit; the bully bits; too familiar and too cliched dinner conversations; a whole lot of the family melodrama for that matter). I think Spielberg needed to decide which movie he wanted to make--the movie about his family's dynamics (which few will want to see) or his own portrait-of-the-artist-as-a-young-man movie which, it strikes me, he may no longer have the chops to make interesting.

Two other movies came to mind as invidious comparisons that are nonetheless good examples of what an artist can do with autobiographical material: Ingmar Bergman's Fanny and Alexander and Federico Fellini's Armacord, both remembrances of childhood and both embarrassingly more thoughtful and original than The Fabelmans. I will note some pluses: Michelle Williams, who saves a lot of problematic scenes all on her own, is wonderful. And I loved the ending, maybe the first time I can say that about a Spielberg film since Munich. The vignette with director John Ford is specific and funny and has a ring of truth about it. The Fabelmans needed a lot more of that kind of detail and a lot less of the journeyman melodrama.

 

[OzzyFan]

Se7en (1995)
3.55 out of 4stars

“Two detectives, a rookie and a veteran, hunt a serial killer who uses the seven deadly sins as his motives.”
An excellent neo-noir psychological crime thriller that is a dark engrossing journey about humanity’s cynical apathetic nature. Bleakly stylish and moody with endless thought provocation. On the surface, it is a superb crime thriller with a mastermind serial killer up against a detective pair at 2 opposite ends of life’s age, psychological, and emotional spectrum. Well acted, with Freeman carrying the film as a stoic world-worn veteran and Spacey creating a very memorable psychotic villain in such a short screen time role. Pitt as the fresh bright eyed face of integrity and steadfastness is solid too. Spacey seems to be multiple steps ahead of the police and his murders are disturbingly brutal while being intellectually meticulous and methodical. Spacey is darkness incarnate, “doing God’s work”(or the Devil) in a remorseless prophetical almost untouchable sort of way, giving a grander supernatural angle to the tale. Pitt and Freeman’s characters contrast well as a necessary yin and yang with 2 different approaches to the table. The 2 major themes, somewhat intertwined, are the world view of humanity and a philosophical/christian interpretation. The detached world view of humanity is quite interesting, of humans mostly being of a cynical apathetic nature, or a selfish careless style. And this selfish carelessness can be for any motive: self-soothing, ease, survival/need, personal belief(s), or wealth or any other form of excesses. As you can see, there is a moral gray area to this concept given the purpose behind one’s actions, not all are inherently or absolutely bad/evil. Leading directly into one possible Christian view, are crimes a sin or is the intention behind it the determining factor? Is there a sliding scale? Are these rules given out by Christianity black and white? The biggest mindscrew on this topic is Spacey. If he was sent from God, all his crimes and murders are not sin but God’s hand in action. Leading to the even deeper discussion, torture and murder and sin is wrong and should never be used, but is ok when God is the one behind it or using it as punishment for abusers/sinners living inside his world currently or post-mortem. As stated within the film, people don’t always listen to instructions or warnings, sometimes they need to see visible threats or tangible consequences to become obedient. Also, as Freeman states in the film, good and righteous deeds and foundations are difficult and earned, built on “selfless” self-sacrifices that cost one’s time, money, effort, and other works. Essentially the road less traveled in the world we see within the film. Freeman and Spacey themselves divide on their view of this, Freeman with a sort of New Testament forgivable sympathy approach to life versus Spacey’s Old Testament fire and brimstone vengeful justice. I could go on and on, touching on topics brought up about the moral gray areas and limitations of the legal system and due process for example. And last but not least, the movie concludes with an iconic and fittingly excellent shock ending.

The General (1926) (silent)
3.35 out of 4stars

“This film finds hapless Southern railroad engineer Johnny Gray facing off against Union soldiers during the American Civil War. When Johnny's fiancée, Annabelle Lee, is accidentally taken away while on a train stolen by Northern forces, Gray pursues the soldiers.”
An excellent comedy action adventure thriller showing Buster Keaton as infinitely imaginative and accomplished in all facets of the making of this movie. And all of the film’s genre labels listed above are widely experienced and greatly executed. Needless to say, Keaton’s slapstick is hilarious and creative. Keaton’s physical prowess, specifically with the stunts, is also very impressive. The timing of everything for some of these scenes to work, and dangers of it all, is astonishing. Bits of romance are also thrown in. And to think this man co-directed and co-wrote the film too, talk of a jack of all trades and master of many. Fun fact, a train wreck scene in the film was the most expensive in silent film history, and inflated to today’s money value, would cost $707,000 for that single shot.

Murders in the Zoo (1933)
2.65 out of 4stars

“A monomaniacal zoologist is pathologically jealous of his beautiful but unfaithful wife Evelyn and will not stop short of murder to keep her.”
A good crime horror that’s a tonally awkward and shockingly sinister pre-code film. I say tonally awkward because of the fact that we have a lot of effective breakup humor amongst the dark parts, albeit not too scattershot, from the solid Charlie Ruggles. The humor is giggle inducing here and there, but doesn’t fit at all into the storyline and kills the steadily ominous mood, and if he didn’t exist I’d probably rank this film a notable bit higher. Atwell plays a great millionaire closet psychopath. The film starts with a surprisingly dark graphic scene where Atwell sews his wife’s rumored lover’s mouth shut (action not seen from our angle, aftermath shown though), ties his arms behind his back, and leaves him for dead in the jungle. Some hints of sexual sadism and a couple more surprising violent animal scenes are also thrown in with stark realism and a pleasing finale.

 

[Osprey]

OzzyFan, I notice that you never hand out fewer than 2.5 out of 4 stars. It's probably because you watch only highly rated movies. If you ever want, Pranzo and I could provide you with recommendations for 1-star movies so that you can give that end of your scale some much needed love.

 

[kihei]

Glass Onion (2022) Directed by Rian Johnson 7A

This movie felt like a summer breeze in late November. Director Rian Johnson has the lightest of touches when it comes to what the British call "cozy" mysteries, mysteries that hark back to Agatha Christie, Dorothy Sayers and other Golden Age mystery writers. Glass Onion involves Miles Bron (Edward Norton), an Elon Musk-type "innovator," who has invited a half dozen old friends to his private island for a mystery weekend that will include his own murder. Well, our favourite Deep South detective Benoit Blanc (Daniel Craig) figures out what's going on in about a microsecond, spoiling somebody's fun in the process, but that just leads to a way more intricate mystery in which one reveal tops the next and then the next and then the next. I'll just say the ending is delightfully raucous and leave it at that. The single set is fun, the wardrobe design perfect, and the plot machinations are as seamless as an accomplished magician's most deceptive sleight of hand. In Knives Out, I liked Daniel Craig's fun take on the Benoit Blanc character, but I thought the script was a problem, way too hit and miss. I have no such reservations here. Glass Onion is am enjoyable detective yarn that suffers neither from the ponderous weight nor the mirthless execution that scuppers too many modern day Agatha Christie movies.


Best Movies of 2022

1) Decision to Leave, Park, South Korea
2} Aftersun, Wells UK
3) No Bears, J. Panahi, Iran
4) Hit the Road, P. Panahi, Iran
5) Everything Everywhere All at Once, Kwan/Scheinert, US
6) Moonage Daydream, Morgen, UK
7) Glass Onion, Johnson, US
8) The Box, Vigas, Venezuela
9) You Won't Be Alone, Stolevski, Macedonia
`0) Vortex, Noe, France

 

[Osprey]

Troll (2022) - 5/10

Engineers tunneling through a mountain awaken an offline troll with a massive Godzilla complex. This Norwegian Netflix movie is your typical CGI monster rampage flick. In fact, you'll think that you're watching a Hollywood one with all of the cliches that it uses. There's the civilian scientist who's summoned by the government to be its sole scientific advisor, even though it's not even her field. There's her kooky, estranged father whose theories may not be so crazy, after all. There are international news reports of the creature and shots of the control room where they're tracking him. There's a showdown with the army in a big city. There are helicopters that provoke the creature and armored tanks that open fire on him while he's just minding his own business (makes you wonder who the real trolls are). You get the idea. There's nothing in this that you haven't seen before... except that this Godzilla/Kong wannabe has a beard and hates Christians. Who does he think he is, Santa Claus? Besides being cliched, the story is weak, predictable and not very engaging and has a pretty underwhelming ending. The movie is competently made, though, with some cool shots and decent CGI, and not quite as stupid as many of the Hollywood movies that it's similar to. It's not too melodramatic, the humor isn't over the top and cringey and the characters aren't annoying. On the other hand, it's not very dramatic or funny and the characters aren't exactly likable, either. It's a very average, unremarkable movie that I neither liked nor disliked, but it's still the second-best Norwegian troll movie that I've seen (after Trollhunter). Norwegians must like trolls... that and cross country skiing. Sadly, there's no skiing in this. The characters could've escaped the troll on skis in a shameless display of their dominance of the sport, but, instead, hop into an American truck. <sigh> It must be the most Hollywood movie to come out of Scandinavia. If you have an itch for a Godzilla/Kong-like movie, you might check it out, but don't expect anything original or memorable. It's on Netflix with subtitles and with an English dub if you're after the Japanese Godzilla experience.

 

[OzzyFan]

OzzyFan, I notice that you never hand out fewer than 2.5 out of 4 stars. It's probably because you watch only highly rated movies. If you ever want, Pranzo and I could provide you with recommendations for 1-star movies so that you can give that end of your scale some much needed love.

Haha. I do watch "lower quality" movies, especially guilty pleasure stuff, I just rarely review them. I rarely review them in part because I am not into bashing films or purposely minimalizing anyone's works or writing a minimal review about a mediocre film. I don't want anyone taking that comment wrong though since I enjoy reading everyone's reviews "even" about mediocre films and especially intricate reviews on them. There are definitely some films in the 2.50 range give or take that I enjoy as much as the 3.00 stuff or so for the record, it just doesn't mean I think too highly of the overall product on paper. Effective or enjoyable in some senses doesn't necessarily mean excellence. Those movies I will generally review though. But definitely, I am a bit pickier than I used to be and more selective for sure.

 

[shadow1]

Bleeding Steel (2017) - 4/10

Rare technology that can produce regenerative abilities in humans is searched for by the police and a dark organization.

Jackie Chan stars as Lin Dong, the leader of a special forces unit whose young daughter Nancy is dying from Lukemia. Lin Dong's team is assigned to protect Dr. James (Kim Gyndell), the creator of the rare technology. However, things go awry, and Lin Dong goes underground for many years. After meeting a hacker named Leeson (Show Lo), Lin Dong finds out the dark organization is after his now-estranged amnesiac daughter Nancy (Na-Na OuYang), whose blood carries key information about the technology.

Bleeding Steel was written and directed by Leo Zhang in his second directorial effort. As a change of type for star Jackie Chan, Bleeding Steel is a science fiction action comedy, with cyberpunk elements. Going in this direction seemed to hurt the movie commercially, as it made only $48.8M against its $65M budget. From a critical perspective, I think the box office returns are appropriate - the film is a mess.

The plot is very bizarre, and it took me a long time to explain my interpretation of it above. Even when you can figure out what's happening, Bleeding Steel is still riddled with plot holes and poor character decisions. In the first scene of the movie, Jackie races to the hospital because his daughter is about to die AND it's her birthday AND he promised he'd be there. As the hospital is texting him her condition (because that makes sense), he speeds to the hospital, breaking multiple traffic laws along the way. Once Jackie gets there, he gets a call from his police team saying he's needed, so he just leaves! What the heck...? Your daughter is about to die, Jackie!

Another example of poor writing is when later in the film, Jackie changes his identity and spends 13 years watching his orphaned daughter grow up from afar. By afar, I mean he takes a job at her Orphanage as a caretaker, and then as her neighborhood mailman, and then working the cafeteria at her high school. As most of this movie takes place in Australia, shouldn't his daughter have been concerned that the only other Chinese person around seems to be stalking her for over a decade?

Along with plot issues, the film also has really poor editing. Jackie Chan, at the time age 63, still has some great moves. Unfortunately, it's hard to tell in some of the scenes because of the usage of shaky cam and editing so choppy it rivals the "Taken" sequels. Despite the issues though, Bleeding Steel is still watchable. I know that's feint praise, but it's the best I can do for this one. It's a popcorn movie through and through, and veers into "so bad it's good" territory during the science fiction heavy third act.

Overall, Bleeding Steel is a below average action movie. You can tell the filmmakers were only shooting for 6, but managed to fall short due to poor editing, logic flaws, and a needlessly complicated plot.

 

[Puck]

Well this is big. Sight & Sound magazine’s once-a-decade Greatest Films of All Time poll is out and there are some surprises. For instance, the new no 1 spot is taken by Jeanne Dielman, 23, quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (Chantal Akerman, 1975) The 2012 winner, Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo, is currently in second spot. Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane (had held the No. 1 spot for 50 years) placed third and Yasujiro Ozu’s Tokyo Story got fourth place. Wong Kar Wai’s In the Mood for Love is in fifth place (up from 24th), Claire Denis’s Beau travail is in seventh place at number seven ( from 78th) and David Lynch’s Mulholland Dr. is at number 8 (from 28th).

The NY Times has a great article on this today but it is paywalled and with too much JavaScript and Cold Fusion special FX hijinks to be copied and pasted here. Look for it if you can find it.

Here are some other links

‘Jeanne Dielman’ Tops Sight & Sound’s 2022 Poll of the Best Films of All Time

Sight and Sound has released the 2022 version of its Greatest Films of All Time poll. Where do "Vertigo" and "Citizen Kane" land?

www.indiewire.com

Sight and Sound's Greatest Films of All Time 2022

Every decade the Sight and Sound team asks critics to name the greatest films of all time. Here are the results of the 2022 poll – the largest ever, with 1,639 critics, programmers, curators, archivists and academics each submitting their top ten ballot - and now updated with the complete list...

letterboxd.com

The top 100 films… and what they say about our changing society

Offbeat British directors defying realist expectations fare well in poll, but Hitchcock dominates

www.theguardian.com

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

I am not into bashing films or purposely minimalizing anyone's works

My most sincere excuses to the filmmakers

Fantasy Island (Wadlow, 2020) - At first it feels kind of fun as an irreverent take on the TV series, and you don't mind too much that it makes no sense (at all), but it's quickly obvious that it's just very dumb - and that's boring. 2/10

Dahmer (Jacobson, 2002) - The Netflix show was barely ok, but it had a signature and had its moments, even though I have no interest for the subject matter (so why watching the movie? huh, leave me alone). This film tells the same story, with similar back and forth structure, but it's really just a bad movie, badly made, by a bad director, with bad actors (Renner is going through the motion and is pretty bad at it, Artel Great is just unbearable, and Davison doesn't survive the comparison with the Netflix show's father). 2/10

Dog (Carolin & Tatum, 2022) - Story-wise, it's highly predictable from beginning to end, efficiency-wise, you'd expect it to be an easy tearjerker and pretty touching (it's a story about a dog struggling with PTSD - as a stand-in for veterans), but it fails to hit target. Not the worst way to approach the subject, but bland. 3.5/10

The Hungover Games (Stolberg, 2014) - I watch these films to fall asleep. This did the job terribly well. It's even less funny than the films it spoofs. 1.5/10

InAPPpropriate Comedy (Offer, 2013) - I don't remember which of these films brought me to the other, but it's even worst than the previous one (and even less funny). It's a sketch movie, close descendant of Movie 43, and a distant cousin of the Kentucky Fried movies, but it's a shameful waste of time. 1.5/10

I also watched a few things that were decent - though nothing really good.

Everything Everywhere All At Once (Kwan & Scheinert, 2022) - Couldn't follow on the generalized praise for this one. It's a quasi-complex narrative (not really), telling a very simple and conventional story (appreciate what you've got), that goes too far trying to be original. The first part kind of reminded me of Sense8 (just for the getting abilities from "other" people elements) but was far from as engaging to me. 4.5/10

I Love My Dad (Morosini, 2022) - Very cute and accessible little film. Managed to be funny, touching and to generate a pretty effective malaise. It's presented as a true story, and it's kind of fun to imagine that it is. 5.5/10

Lux Aetherna (Noé, 2019) - I saw Béatrice Dalle and Charlotte Gainsbourg together on SHUDDER, so I clicked, without knowing that it was a Gaspar Noé movie (it's quickly obvious, even though it avoids the excesses of most of his films). It's a pretty interesting pseudo-intimate portrait of the actresses, and they're both very good, as always (Dalle is one of my favorite actresses ever - here's she's lifelike for most of the movie, so much so that it feels like a genuine discussion she's having with Gainsbourg, and just great, but in the last few minute there's a few weaker moments from her). There's a strong comment on the place of women in filmmaking, and an unflattering portrait of the cliché producers/directors that employ them. If you're curious to know if you have epilepsy, it's a really good test (and it put me on the trail of a Dalle film I haven't seen yet that seems to be pretty interesting). 6/10

 

[kihei]

View attachment 616250

Troll (2022) - 5/10

Engineers tunneling through a mountain awaken a real, live, offline troll with a massive Godzilla complex. This Norwegian Netflix movie is your typical CGI monster rampage flick. In fact, you'll think that you're watching a Hollywood monster movie with all of the cliches that it borrows. There's the civilian scientist who's summoned by the government to be its sole scientific advisor, even though it's not even her field. There's her kooky, estranged father whose theories may not be so crazy, after all. There are control room shots where they track the creature. There's a showdown with the army in the city. There are helicopters that provoke the creature and armored tanks that open fire on him while he's just minding his own business (makes you wonder who the real trolls are). You get the idea. There's nothing in this that you haven't seen before... except that this Godzilla/Kong wannabe has a beard and hates Christians. He must think that he's Santa Claus. Besides being cliched, the story is weak, predictable and not very engaging and has a pretty underwhelming ending. The movie is competently made, though, with some cool shots and decent CGI, and not quite as stupid as many of the Hollywood movies that it's similar to. It's not too melodramatic, the humor isn't over the top and cringey and the characters aren't annoying. On the other hand, it's not very dramatic or funny and the characters aren't exactly likable, either. It's a very average, unremarkable movie that I neither liked nor disliked, but it's still the second-best Norwegian troll movie that I've seen (after Trollhunter). Norwegians must like trolls... that and cross country skiing. Sadly, there's no skiing in this. The characters could've escaped the troll on skis in a shameless display of their dominance of the sport, but, instead, hop into an American truck. It really must be the most Hollywood movie to come out of Scandinavia. If you have an itch for a Godzilla/Kong-like movie, you might check it out, but don't expect anything original or memorable. It's on Netflix in its original language with subtitles and with an English dub if you're after the Japanese Godzilla experience.

Maybe you should have entitled this review For Whom the Bell Trolls?

 

[Osprey]

Maybe you should have entitled this review For Whom the Bell Trolls?

That works. I don't know if you watched it or noticed in the screenshot, but the helicopters are carrying large bells.

 

[kihei]

Bones and All (2022) Directed by Luca Guadagnino 3B

Hard to imagine how talented people thought this script was a good idea. Imagine the Twilight series, only with cannibals instead of vampires. Vampires can be sexy; vampires can be romantic. Cannibals can't. There just isn't anything remotely swoony about people who feast on human flesh. To make matters even more head shaking, Bones and All doesn't even need the cannibalism affectation to tell the story. Maren (Taylor Russell) and Lee (Timothee Chalamet) are homeless, disaffected youth on the road hoping to find someplace that may be better than the last place but probably won't be. The woeful couple are already a discernible type, so why saddle them with having to be cannibals to boot? So we end up with this seriously bi-polar movie: on the one hand Bones and All is a brooding sort of romance; on the other hand, it is a gory and tasteless horror movie with us meeting a host of creepy but pointless people along its highly meandering way. The parts, of course, don't fit. As a result, just about everything in the movie seems misguided in a major way. This mess has a couple of positives, though. Taylor Russell is a real find. The cinematography is excellent. And the score by Trent Raznor is more interesting than the movie itself which for some reason is set in the Reagan '80s. Then there is Timothee Chalamet. Why does this dude keep getting parts? He hasn't been good in anything since Guadagnino's Call Me By Your Name in 2017. To me his wispy skills are wearing very thin by now. Why anybody thought he could adequately impersonate a cannibal is a mystery to me.

 

[Osprey]

Bones and All (2022) Directed by Luca Guadagnino 3B

Hard to imagine how talented people thought this script was a good idea. Imagine the Twilight series, only with cannibals instead of vampires. Vampires can be sexy; vampires can be romantic. Cannibals can't. There just isn't anything remotely swoony about people who feast on human flesh. To make matters even more head shaking, Bones and All doesn't even need the cannibalism affectation to tell the story. Maren (Taylor Russell) and Lee (Timothee Chalamet) are homeless, disaffected youth on the road hoping to find someplace that may be better than the last place but probably won't be. The woeful couple are already a discernible type, so why saddle them with having to be cannibals to boot? So we end up with this seriously bi-polar movie: on the one hand Bones and All is a brooding sort of romance; on the other hand, it is a gory and tasteless horror movie with us meeting a host of creepy but pointless people along its highly meandering way. The parts, of course, don't fit. As a result, just about everything in the movie seems misguided in a major way. This mess has a couple of positives, though. Taylor Russell is a real find. The cinematography is excellent. And the score by Trent Raznor is more interesting than the movie itself which for some reason is set in the Reagan '80s. Then there is Timothee Chalamet. Why does this dude keep getting parts? He hasn't been good in anything since Guadagnino's Call Me By Your Name in 2017. To me his wispy skills are wearing very thin by now. Why anybody thought he could adequately impersonate a cannibal is a mystery to me.

You wrote that The Menu was undercooked, but this sounds even more so. No wonder you found it tasteless.