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

[Osprey]

The Old Way (2023) - 5/10

A retired gunslinger (Nicolas Cage) and his 11-year-old daughter play cat and mouse with the vengeful son of a man that he killed 20 years ago. Not very original, this B western seems to derive its premise from a combination of Unforgiven and True Grit. Supposedly, it's Cage's first ever western, and it felt like it. He seemed out of place, especially playing a once cold-blooded killer turned father. I get the feeling that the role was written for a different kind of actor, but they couldn't pass when a star like Cage read the script and showed interest. He knows how to pick 'em. The script is filled with inexplicable decisions, mostly by his character, like taking his young daughter with him to track down a ruthless posse and burning down his cabin before leaving. I often just had to laugh and say, "what are you doing?" The dialogue is also often bad, especially Cage's, which I found a little hard to take seriously. Credit to him for accepting a rare sober role and taking it seriously (he even has a scene in which he cries), but my familiarity with all of his crazy roles, combined with the bad dialogue, just made much of what came out of his mouth unintentionally funny. He is contrasted, though, by Ryan Kiera Armstrong as his resourceful daughter and sidekick. She's a likable, well-acted character who's a highlight of the film. Other highlights are the cinematography (partly thanks to being filmed on location in Montana), the sets and the decent production. For a B western, it looks pretty good. Finally, though the script has a lot of problems, the story is simple (a good thing with westerns, I'd argue) and it's paced well. It's a very flawed film, but those things and the fact that many of the flaws were more amusing to me than anything made it watchable. It's on Hulu.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Sphere (1998) - 5.5/10
Watched this for the first time the other night. I would say the first ~hour is promising and then it kind of falls apart. Based on a book by Michael Crichton, with a star studded cast and a massive budget. A Sci-Fi that should have worked better than it did.

Hoffman just didn't seem like a good fit for the role as the main lead, struggled to convey the anxious paranoia that it needed and was a little too calm and collected for losing control of a situation 10,000m under the sea. Stone wasn't great either but her lines didn't give her a ton to work with. Basically they get sent to the bottom of the ocean as a team of scientists to investigate what the Navy believes is a alien spaceship. They encounter a entity that holds some power over them and affects the crew that encountered it, allowing the crew to physically manifest their cognitive thoughts. You could tell what they were going for but the horror component isn't really scary, the thriller component isn't really thrilling, and the sci-fi component just left you with more questions than answers. Suffers from bad editing and a poorly developed script. The effects were definitely a little dated but not too bad. Overall a really sloppy 2nd half takes away from what could have been a quality movie. There's still enough there to keep you engaged and entertained but the highlight for me was Jackson faking out the audience doing the exploding chest Alien scene while choking on a bit of water. Liev Schreiber was good as well, always seem to like him in a supporting role. There's definitely a couple laugh out loud so bad it's good moments, not a irredeemable film but doesn't live up to its potential.

Saw this movie a few times as a youngster and thought it was so awesome, the part with the water snake things was wild to me, and the whole "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" part. Watched it again a few years ago and I kind of chuckled at the thought of my childhood self thinking it was such a great film lol. Like you said, it starts well enough, but really falls apart quickly.

 

[Sentinel]

Asteroid City (2023). A new release from the master of unique cinematography, Wes Anderson. And it's his weirdest one yet. At least his previous weird works had a story (or, in case of The French Dispatch, several stories), which, sort of, had a point. This one doesn't come near a point. It's a movie within a TV show within a movie (wrap your head around that) that takes place (or, rather, attempts to take place) in 1955 in an Arizona desert, where high school (and younger) kids are gathered for a science convention. Some of them bring their parents. Everybody gets more than they bargained for. What's truly puzzling is Anderson's trademark superstar cameos: Margot Robbie, Willem Dafoe, Matt Dillon, Steve Carell appear for about ten second each, and Tom Hanks, Ed Norton, Liev Schreiber, Adrian Brody, and Tilda Swinton – for about thirty. FWIW I enjoyed Scarlett Johansson; she actually got a chance to do some acting. I truly did not understand what this movie was about or for. There is no drama or emotion here of any kind, even when the situation calls for something dramatic (little girls learn their mother just died, their newly widowed father meets / falls for a pinup actress, there are nuclear explosions and alien visitations, etc.). The finale is particularly infuriating: the entire cast in a rehearsal room starts shouting "You can't wake up without falling asleep!" for which I fail to see any relevance. Sure, I enjoy Anderson's quirkiness and eccentricity as much as the next guy, but I need a point. A sense of purpose. Which this movie utterly lacks. 4/10


Night Train to Lisbon (2013). A school teacher, played by Jeremy Irons (perfectly cast, fits this role like a glove), walking on the bridge in Switzerland, saves a woman from suicide. She runs away but leaves behind a book. The book, published in Portugal, is filled with beautiful poetic philosophy and also contains a train ticket to Lisbon. The teacher, apparently looking to spice up his dull Swiss life (the movie begins by him playing chess with himself: a jackhammer metaphor of loneliness), abandons his classroom full of waiting students (wtf?) and boards a train. He then finds himself in a whirlwind of events, both contemporary and going back thirty years to the reign of terror by the Portuguese dictator Salazar. The cast is full of European stars, the biggest names (besides Irons) being Christopher Lee in his final role and Mélanie Laurent (Inglorious Basterds). The majority of characters (except Irons) is played by two people: their young and old versions. Irons begins to piece together the author’s biography, and it unfolds progressively via flashbacks. A love triangle in the middle of the revolution is far more interesting than the modern-day segment (mainly, because the latter moves at a snail’s pace). While the historic events are interesting enough, the modern ones become progressively boring, and I found it really hard to care. Oh, and the life-changing book that the teacher sporadically recites should’ve been left entirely to our imagation: all the quotes we get sound like second-rate beatnik platitudes. The real winner here is the city of Lisbon: it’s every bit as gorgeous as I remember it. It’s alright for a Saturday night. 6/10


The Song of Lunch (2010). A 50 min. stage-to-film with two characters: Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson (AKA Professor Snape and Professor Trelawney), two former lovers who meet for lunch many years later. Every second of the story is narrated by Rickman’s character in first person, a failed wannabe poet, in the insufferable manner of college English prose (remember the 300 narration? this is worse). I sure as hell hope it’s satire because if it’s not – god help the writer (Christopher Reid)! Other than the narration, the whole thing is well staged and acted (doh!) but feels incredibly pointless. We all know it’s gonna go bad and it does, with each new drink. Lots of closeups; in fact – the film feels like one big closeup, of both Rickman’s face and voice. Definitely not for everyone. 3/10

 

[Sentinel]

I Like Movies (2022) - 7/10

Decent budget Canadian indie and when I say budget I really mean budget cos it's supposed to be set in the early-2000s but they couldn't bother to change much of the scenes to reflect that including multiple shots showing very obviously newish cars. Anyways it has an unlikable lead as the protagonist but everyone around him keeps the movie engaging, especially his female manager who's given a relatable portrayal as both a flawed character and the one to move the story forward. Anyways the film never gets too pretentious or up its own arse and isn't boring either which is all I can ask from a modern indie.

My Sassy Girl (2001) - 7/10

Korean dramedy rated highly due to probably its final half hour as the rest of the film is mediocre and somewhat outdated. I chuckled at a lot of the scenes but I can easily see why some may find the abusive girlfriend to be problematic now. Still, it's fairly easy-going Korean cinema for the most part.

Libeled Lady (1936) - 7/10

It's not a screwball but it's sort of a screwball. Spencer Tracy starts out as the protagoniost till William Powell takes over the film, the scenes with him and Myrna Loy are far more joyous than the more tedious scenes with Tracy and Jean Harlow. I guess having four top billing stars must have made this a hit but again, it's the Powell/Loy chemistry which is what leads the film more than the silly premise or the convoluted ending.

I would have enjoyed your reviews more if there was some kind of plot description.

 

[Sentinel]

Saw this movie a few times as a youngster and thought it was so awesome, the part with the water snake things was wild to me, and the whole "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" part. Watched it again a few years ago and I kind of chuckled at the thought of my childhood self thinking it was such a great film lol. Like you said, it starts well enough, but really falls apart quickly.

I agree with all of you. This film starts out in a very promising manner, culminates with Jackson's "We all die down here," then promptly falls apart.

Oh, and I just can't imagine any of these three: Hoffman, Stone, and especially Jackson as "scientists." Hoffman was convincing as a medical scientist in Outbreak but that was an exception.

 

[OzzyFan]

Asteroid City (2023). A new release from the master of unique cinematography, Wes Anderson. And it's his weirdest one yet. At least his previous weird works had a story (or, in case of The French Dispatch, several stories), which, sort of, had a point. This one doesn't come near a point. It's a movie within a TV show within a movie (wrap your head around that) that takes place (or, rather, attempts to take place) in 1955 in an Arizona desert, where high school (and younger) kids are gathered for a science convention. Some of them bring their parents. Everybody gets more than they bargained for. What's truly puzzling is Anderson's trademark superstar cameos: Margot Robbie, Willem Dafoe, Matt Dillon, Steve Carell appear for about ten second each, and Tom Hanks, Ed Norton, Liev Schreiber, Adrian Brody, and Tilda Swinton – for about thirty. FWIW I enjoyed Scarlett Johansson; she actually got a chance to do some acting. I truly did not understand what this movie was about or for. There is no drama or emotion here of any kind, even when the situation calls for something dramatic (little girls learn their mother just died, their newly widowed father meets / falls for a pinup actress, there are nuclear explosions and alien visitations, etc.). The finale is particularly infuriating: the entire cast in a rehearsal room starts shouting "You can't wake up without falling asleep!" for which I fail to see any relevance. Sure, I enjoy Anderson's quirkiness and eccentricity as much as the next guy, but I need a point. A sense of purpose. Which this movie utterly lacks. 4/10

I took the major points being a comparison of children to adults in the different specific circumstances within the film, and the obvious impact of the existence of extra-terrestrial life on people. I enjoyed it and it gave me food for thought with some funny and meta stuff, including the 3rd/4th wall breaking parts. That said, if you are not a fan of Wes Anderson you should stay away. I'm quite surprised it sounds like you've seen multiple of Wes Anderson's films but have issues with the limited to nil emotion, filmmaking oddities, and short cameos (which you are mostly highly exaggerative on, aside from Goldblum which you surprisingly didn't even mention)? Did you at least enjoy the visuals or any of the jokes?

I'm a little confused on your story issue though. The film is about a man and his son going to a junior stargazing event in the titular city, and everything surrounding and involving that ensues, specifically the main alien visitation event.

 

[Sentinel]

I know Goldblum was there but I sneezed and missed him.

Anderson's other movies have emotion and drama that I felt. This one has zero.

 

[OzzyFan]

I know Goldblum was there but I sneezed and missed him.

Anderson's other movies have emotion and drama that I felt. This one has zero.

I'm honestly going to just conclude that everything you are looking for went over your head, which for better or worse likely matches the view of the general public. Not that I fault you for it, since Wes's stuff is on a different wavelength, but what you are looking for is there if you look hard enough or from the right perspective.

Spoiler: Drama and Emotion

The dead wife/mother situation and coping, the car breaking down, the Johansson/Schwartzman relationship, the alien contact, the government reaction, the kids hijinks throughout, and Schwartzman's subtleties flooded with emotion (and this is coming from someone who has never been a Schwartzman fan)

 

[Sentinel]

I'm honestly going to just conclude that everything you are looking for went over your head, which for better or worse likely matches the view of the general public. Not that I fault you for it, since Wes's stuff is on a different wavelength, but what you are looking for is there if you look hard enough or from the right perspective.

Spoiler: Drama and Emotion

The dead wife/mother situation and coping, the car breaking down, the Johansson/Schwartzman relationship, the alien contact, the government reaction, the kids hijinks throughout, and Schwartzman's subtleties flooded with emotion (and this is coming from someone who has never been a Schwartzman fan)

I'm just going to conclude you see stuff that isn't there and assign emotions and drama where there are none. The dead wife / mother situation is probably the least emotional moment I ever saw in a situation that calls for extreme emotionality. The daughters might've as well watched their newly single dad pumping gas. A Tupperware container was a proper metaphor / symbol for this scene in general.

I'm also going to pretend you didn't just insult me. Because I can give 'em right back.

 

[kihei]

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023) Directed by James Mangold 6A

Maybe it was going in with low expectations, but I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this one. A geriatric Indiana Jones seemed unnecessary to me. Didn't think I needed that, but maybe I did. At least the script is an improvement on The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The Dial of Destiny is a sort of rehash of greatest hits--yet another adventure featuring Nazis, who this time are trying to go back in time and attempt a do-over of the Third Reich. Basically, it's just a premise to hang Indiana Jones-type scenes on. Director James Mangold's direction is neither as fluid nor as imaginative as Spielberg's, but it gets the job done. Plus, there's too much CGI in both the big set pieces at the beginning and end of the movie. But Phoebe Waller-Bridge is a great addition as the feisty, wise-cracking Helena, and Mads Mikkelsen is a big step up from the usual villains in this franchise. But most of the credit for the movie's relative success must go to Harrison Ford. Who but he and Mick Jagger can still get away with this sort of thing. Ford obviously has a great deal of affection for this character, seemingly a rarity for him among his roles. It infuses his performance with a genuine charm. And, most importantly, Indiana gets the pitch perfect ending that he deserves. On the whole, a fun night at the movies.

 

[OzzyFan]

I'm just going to conclude you see stuff that isn't there and assign emotions and drama where there are none. The dead wife / mother situation is probably the least emotional moment I ever saw in a situation that calls for extreme emotionality. The daughters might've as well watched their newly single dad pumping gas. A Tupperware container was a proper metaphor / symbol for this scene in general.

I'm also going to pretend you didn't just insult me. Because I can give 'em right back.

Insult? I've been trying to explain and answer your issues for you to better understand the film and style. Bridge the gap for you to more appreciate the film for what it was and brought. It appears you may be too narrow minded or headstrong, which I mean clinically on both with no emotional attachment to, or whatever to not attempt an eye-opening or deeper look at the film. You came here to bash the movie and no one was changing your mind otherwise, that's perfectly fine. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023) Directed by James Mangold 6A

Maybe it was going in with low expectations, but I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this one. A geriatric Indiana Jones seemed unnecessary to me. Didn't think I needed that, but maybe I did. At least the script is an improvement on The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The Dial of Destiny is a sort of rehash of greatest hits--yet another adventure featuring Nazis, who this time are trying to go back in time and attempt a do-over of the Third Reich. Basically, it's just a premise to hang Indiana Jones-type scenes on. Director James Mangold's direction is neither as fluid nor as imaginative as Spielberg's, but it gets the job done. Plus, there's too much CGI in both the big set pieces at the beginning and end of the movie. But Phoebe Waller-Bridge is a great addition as the feisty, wise-cracking Helena, and Mads Mikkelsen is a big step up from the usual villains in this franchise. But most of the credit for the movie's relative success must go to Harrison Ford. Who but he and Mick Jagger can still get away with this sort of thing. Ford obviously has a great deal of affection for this character, seemingly a rarity for him among his roles. It infuses his performance with a genuine charm. And, most importantly, Indiana gets the pitch perfect ending that he deserves. On the whole, a fun night at the movies.

These are my thoughts almost to a T. It's not as good as the originals (and never was going to be) but it's such a clear and overwhelming improvement on the last resurrection for all the points you make.

I think "a fun night at the movies" is the exact right takeaway. And that's ok! That's good!

I'm normally pretty good at understanding the opinions of folks I don't necessarily agree with but I am genuinely baffled at some of the criticisms of the movie. (I've had to recuse myself from the dedicated thread on the movie).

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

Evil Dead Rise. I'm torn on this one. It's certainly technically on point. Gets some of the visuals and bits right. Liked the change of setting. And I don't recall seeing Alyssa Sutherland in anything before but she is a STRIKING presence.

But I have to admit, I really miss the humor. I understand (and respect!) why you wouldn't go full Raimi if you're not Raimi. I liked the last reboot and how serious and grimy it went. If you're going to reboot, do something different. Now we get to this one and it's another serious take and it just wasn't that interesting to me.

Humor is an important component of the series' best movies. Stirpping that out strips out part of what makes the best ones so enjoyable and, frankly, distinct. I dug it once as a change of pace. I didn't this time and I don't have high hopes going forward. It makes it ... just another horror movie. Slap a different title on it and take like two bits of dialogue out and it's pretty indistinct.

 

[Ceremony]

Mission: Impossible III (2006)

Several things spring to mind.

Tom Cruise makes films so he can kiss women. Tom Cruise makes action movies so he can kiss women and then talk about women at inopportune moments when the action is happening. Philip Seymour Hoffman is a tremendous loss. This is the second JJ Abrams film I've seen where he takes a popular, career defining franchise and makes a new instalment which pretty much copies the entire plot from the original. This was originally supposed to be directed by David Fincher and that would have been much more entertaining.

 

[OzzyFan]

Therapeutically went back to my horror passion for this week:

Kuroneko/Black Cat (1968) (subtitles)
3.15 out of 4stars

“Set during Japan’s civil war, a woman and her daughter-in-law are raped and killed by samurai soldiers. Soon they reappear as vengeful ghosts who seduce and brutally murder the passing samurai.”
A great fantasy horror that uses a haunting revenge folktale to give commentary on war, love, and humanity. Told with dreamy elegant visuals, there is an overarching theme of the lawless brutal nature of war, to go with its twisted perspectives of wrongly glorified attributes/achievements and upside down code of ethics. Lust here also is seen as a dark hole to one’s own downfall with war. By bringing a familial element into the mix, it grounds war into the personal impacts it has on everyone involved by giving connective names and faces to the people involved with an element of grief. And all at once, war becomes a battle of conscience, between life and death, love and war, peace and discord. The film has this sense of somber battling for one’s soul/spirit next to one’s animalistic urges, altogether a sympathetic condemning look at humanity. And the horror itself, brings nice eerie supernatural touches and action scenes. Other themes seem to be women’s/lower-class oppression, the power of warlords, and socio-political issues.

Audition (1999) (subtitles)
3.10 out of 4stars

“A widower takes an offer to screen girls at an especially made acting audition unbeknownst to the auditioners, arranged for him by a producer friend to find him a new wife. The one he fancies though may not be everything that she appears to be.”
A great satire psychological drama horror that is only partly the shocking grisly body horror film it is famously touted as. Yes, there are a bit of those elements, mostly in the last quarter of the film that in and of itself is metaphorically on point with purposefully gray areas, but the film is unfairly sold very short by categorizing it like that and honestly misinterpreting it as a whole by doing so. First and foremost, the film is a slowly unfolding satire/deep-psychological drama about dating, spousal searches, motives, romanticizing, objectifying, objectivity, deception, obsession, loneliness, gender roles/societal expectations, externalities, and trauma/guilt. Delivers great mood and mental engagement. It can be oversimplified as an in-depth psychological analysis of shortcomings and separations and problems all around with dating, as well as the exploration of one man’s psyche as he steps back into the dating world. But the meaning can go beyond that as well in this layered film. The narrative choices made create a wonderfully flowing and evolving perspective and eventual breakneck realizations/implications. Understandably the film has been given comparisons to and having influence from David Lynch and David Cronenberg’s work.

Ringu (1998) (subtitles)
3.00 out of 4stars

“A reporter and her ex-husband investigate a cursed video tape that is rumored to kill the viewer seven days after watching it.”
A great supernatural horror with a heavily creepy atmosphere. When a good horror plot meets a solidly developed story that’s well directed, it creates such dread. Unknown/unseen murderers play with the imagination of the viewer and victim effectively. The metaphor/theme I’d suggest is about VHS/Visual-Media/Technology’s exposure negatively affecting people/adolescents, either by negative subject-related influence or addictive control/consumption. Compared to the American remake, it’s more complex and explanatory with a couple less shock visuals and lower production values, for those curious. I’m not sure if I’d call either version notably better, just a bit different.

 

[Fiji Water]

Top Gun: Maverick, Kosinski

Pete "Maverick" Mitchell and the Rebel Alliance destroy the Death Star. Great balls of fire!!!

 

[Jussi]

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023) Directed by James Mangold 6A

Maybe it was going in with low expectations, but I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this one. A geriatric Indiana Jones seemed unnecessary to me. Didn't think I needed that, but maybe I did. At least the script is an improvement on The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The Dial of Destiny is a sort of rehash of greatest hits--yet another adventure featuring Nazis, who this time are trying to go back in time and attempt a do-over of the Third Reich. Basically, it's just a premise to hang Indiana Jones-type scenes on. Director James Mangold's direction is neither as fluid nor as imaginative as Spielberg's, but it gets the job done. Plus, there's too much CGI in both the big set pieces at the beginning and end of the movie. But Phoebe Waller-Bridge is a great addition as the feisty, wise-cracking Helena, and Mads Mikkelsen is a big step up from the usual villains in this franchise. But most of the credit for the movie's relative success must go to Harrison Ford. Who but he and Mick Jagger can still get away with this sort of thing. Ford obviously has a great deal of affection for this character, seemingly a rarity for him among his roles. It infuses his performance with a genuine charm. And, most importantly, Indiana gets the pitch perfect ending that he deserves. On the whole, a fun night at the movies.

Yeah, this was definitely Ford's best acting performance in the franchise. Apparently the movie's been received much better by older movie goers than younger which means the nostalgia works. I seen some speculating on Youtube that this might have better legs because those older folk don't rush in on opening night to see movies, they can wait. As I mentioned in review, PWB's Helena character was an asshole perhaps a little too long and could've used a little more transitioning into not being one. But she played the character well.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

You Can't Take It With You (1938) - 7/10

Jimmy Stewart is trying to marry his secretary but his rich mogul parents disapprove. The scenes with Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur are good, the hijinks bits with a family circus and 20 characters in the scene are a bit too much and tiring in a film that could've been cut down to 90 minutes. THe usual Frank Capra moral wrap-up is however done quite well leading to a good final 20ish minutes. Film also features a fireworks shooting out of the basement scene which was certainly not special effects, old movies went hard. Plus a kitten used as a paperweight to balance it out.

I Married A Witch (1942) - 7/10

Veronica Lake.

 

[Chili]

Badlands-1973

Two young people meet and the sparks fly. The girl's dad is not keen on his daughter getting involved with a 'trash' man. This sets off a crime spree as the two young lovers hit the road. Terence Malick's first feature film and can see the emphasis on scenic vistas here as in his later films. When I think of Martin Sheen, always think of this film. Sissy Spacek is so good too. Beautifully shot, violent tale of love on the run.

Tunes of Glory-1960

A Scottish regiment gets a new commanding officer, Colonel Barrow (John Mills) replacing Major Jock Sinclair (Alec Guinness) who had been acting in command. Jock came up through the ranks and is very popular with the men. He is not happy with being replaced. The men are used to a fairly relaxed environment, something the new commandant aims to change and the seeds of conflict are sown. The bag pipes, kilts, whiskey and traditional dance make for an interesting atmosphere. A wee bit of a well done drama.

Mister 880-1950

The true story of a $1 counterfeiter in NYC. The secret service has been trying to track down file 880 but he has remained elusive for many years. Light drama with a romance mixed in, raised up a notch or so by three good leads, Burt Lancaster, Dorothy McGuire and Edmund Gwynn (as charming here as he was as Santa in Miracle on 34th street). Interesting story.

Network-1976

'She's the television generation. She learned life from Bugs Bunny.'

The evening news and the all important ratings are at the centre of the story. A news anchor (Peter Finch), about to be replaced for poor ratings, announces to his audience he will commit suicide on air in his final broadcast in two weeks. Promising to apologize, he's allowed to go back on air one last time. Instead though he goes into a tirade about life which results in...great ratings. Great cast, three of whom won oscars. Peter Finch was on a promotional tour when he had a heart attack. Won his oscar posthumously. His 'mad as hell' speeches in the film are incredibly passionate, he must have already been in failing health at the time. Faye Dunaway, as the success driven programming director won too. Walter Cronkite's daughter has a bit part. No score which is perfect. Brilliant, thought provoking script. Great film.

 

[Osprey]

The Pale Blue Eye (2022) - 7/10

In 1830, a private detective (Christian Bale) enlists the help of cadet and poet Edgar Allan Poe (Harry Melling) to investigate a death and mutilation on the grounds of West Point Academy. It's a period murder mystery with gothic atmosphere, beautiful scenery and strong performances. It's not based on any of Poe's writings or experiences, except for the fact that he did attend West Point. The premise is a bit familiar, with an outsider being brought in to a community to solve a crime, but it's one that I like, especially in a period piece. I was reminded a little of The Name of the Rose and Sleepy Hollow, especially with the latter's era and atmosphere. Mysteries like those and Sherlock Holmes stories are right up my alley. The fact that it's set in winter, in snow-covered New York, also appealed to me. I appreciated the performances, as well. Bale is very good, as always, but what stood out to me was Melling as the odd-natured, but likable Poe. Practically stealing a film from Bale is no easy feat. Melling has turned into a really fine actor since playing Dudley Dursley in the Harry Potter films so many years (and pounds) ago. The other actors are solid, as well, and I was quite pleased to see Robert Duvall in a couple of scenes. The theme of death plays a large role in the story, not just because of the topic of murder, but because many of the characters are mourning the loss of loved ones and Poe, of course, is infatuated with it. It adds to the somber mood of the story. The plot is a slow burn, perhaps too slow for some viewers, but I was engaged. The mystery, scenery and gothic atmosphere kept my interest even when the story slowed down and not much was happening. Though the mystery often felt familiar, the ending is quite unique and appealed to me. Perhaps it stretches plausibility a bit, but it's clever and different and I appreciate that. Overall, I was pleasantly surprised with how much I enjoyed this. It's on Netflix.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

White House Down - 8/10

Saw it on Netflix yesterday, thought it was a pretty good action flick with Tatum in it. I enjoy a lot of his movies. Really liked how the press and everyone was outside the White House watching it all go down, that was a really cool touch.

 

[Sentinel]

Mission: Impossible III (2006)

Several things spring to mind.

Tom Cruise makes films so he can kiss women. Tom Cruise makes action movies so he can kiss women and then talk about women at inopportune moments when the action is happening. Philip Seymour Hoffman is a tremendous loss. This is the second JJ Abrams film I've seen where he takes a popular, career defining franchise and makes a new instalment which pretty much copies the entire plot from the original. This was originally supposed to be directed by David Fincher and that would have been much more entertaining.

I thought this was a massive improvement over the incoherent mess that I and II were and set the stage for a terrific sequence of III, IV, and V... before falling (out) down to earth with VI.

 

[Neil Racki]

Marcel the Shell - 6/10 .. cute anime story but I have questions. Good to see Jenny Slate being busy

The Lighthouse - 6/10 wtf did I watch. Same director as Witches .. more art over story. I would not recommend it unless you really like cinematography

Scream - 7/10 the original, Wes Craven. Watched with my 11 year old. Was good, solid 90s teen horror flick weve all seen a few times.

 

[Bounces R Way]

Déjà Vu (2006) - 8/10

Now this is well crafted big budget Hollywood sci-fi. Set in New Orleans Denzel plays a ATF agent investigating a ferry bombing. It's a fairly standard conventional investigation for the first while but with some clues for the viewer that there may be another layer to the plot coming. The execution is really quite top notch, and Denzel as usual delivers a great performance. I think he might be my favorite actor, man just does not miss very often.

Well it turns out there's several more layers to the plot as Denzel's character is recruited by a super secret government project where they have 'accidentally' created a wormhole that allows them to look digitally back in time. But this practice is not perfect as they cannot move forward or backward through their window, it is just a trailing point in time four days previous. Time travel can often be overdone and predictable but this movie does it well enough where it felt original and managed to add to the story without simply being the entire plot. The film focuses on a woman caught up in the terrorist's plans when she sells him her truck, which really succeeds in developing an emotional connection deeper to the film and between the characters than there would have been otherwise.

The rest of the cast were quality, had a little of everything. Comic relief(Adam Goldberg), damsel in distress(Paula Patton), angry ex-partners, and the by the book Feds(Val Kilmer & Jack McCready). The villain in particular I thought Jim Caviezel did a real good job with. They let the lead actor lead and with Washington's command of the screen that probably turned out to be fairly easy. The cinematography was also well done, lots of shots of the city, lots of shots where the audience felt they were actually looking through the digital wormhole. Not really a ton of action shots but the rising action to the climax is polished and captivating. High marks for realism in what is obviously a unrealistic abstraction. Some suspension of disbelief certainly is required but not anything too offensive. The film began production right after Hurricane Katrina so there were some mentions of that as well as shots of ruined neighborhoods.

Overall I just enjoyed seeing a script, film concept, acting, and directing all come together in a clean cohesive well executed film. It's not going to make a ton of top 50 lists or anything but I wouldn't hesitate to characterize it as a hidden/forgotten gem worth a watch or re-watch.

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Déjà Vu (2006) - 8/10

Thanks I'll give this a go. I wasn't believing TheCryptoGuy's 8/10 review of White House Down and was looking for a good action type film.