Movies: Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Mid-Spring Edition. Happy Beltane!

[Cole Caulifield]

Gunpowder Milkshake (2021) - 3/10 (Really disliked it)

A hitwoman (Karen Gillan) teams up with an organization of hitwomen (Lena Headey, Angela Bassett, Carla Gugino, Michelle Yeoh) to take down an organization of hitmen and save an 8 & 3/4-year-old girl. It's like Kill Bill mixed with Kingsman and John Wick, but not as fun or fresh as any of them. There is a lot of highly stylized action, popular music during fight scenes and dramatic music during so many slow motion shots that you'll wonder if Zack Snyder directed it. It tries really hard to be cool and funny, such as by having the lead carry her guns around in a yellow tote with "I ❤ kittens" written on it and beat up guys with a panda-shaped suitcase. It doesn't try hard to hide its sexism, though, with all of the females being heroines and all of the males being villains and boneheaded thugs to be embarrassed by them if they don't turn on each other first. It gets particularly silly in the second half. Gillan has little charisma and struggles to carry the film, in my opinion, so it's good that she gets a strong supporting cast, but their talents are wasted and no one stands out, unless you want to count the strange sight of a 60-year-old Angela Bassett engaging in hand to hand combat with a hammer in each hand. There isn't much of a story and the dialogue is pretty bad, both of which can be excusable for this type of movie if it's fun, regardless, but it wasn't for me. I found it to be, despite its abundance of style, remarkably generic, but others might enjoy its mindless action. It's new on Netflix if you care to take the chance.

I put it on last night, fell asleep on it after 30 min, went to bed early, and decided to finish it this morning just to say I did and to see if it got any better by the end but it only got worse. I came here to write the same thing you did basically. This movie is 100% style, 0% substance, 0% originality, 0% fun. Like John Wick but with a female cast and without any of the things that made John Wick work. It's another one of these movies where the recipe is to take another movie that was done previously with a male protagonist, change the cast for all women, make all the bad guys men, and call it a day. I do not understand how these movies get made.

 

[Pink Mist]

Raging Bull (1980) directed by Martin Scorsese

Knocking off a heavyweight in classics that I haven’t watched before with Scorsese’s magnum opus about middleweight boxer Jake La Motta. A tragic story of a self-destructive man consumed entirely by the brutality of profession in which every facet of his life is a ten round fight fueled by ego and jealousy. Perfectly played by Robert De Niro in the lead role, who makes every conversation and argument a boxing match as La Motta corners in every word or phrase to reinterpret it into a slight against him and tries to verbally (and often physically) beat his opponent into submission. He’s a goddamn monster both in the ring and in his personal life. Perfectly directed by Scorsese in beautiful black and white film and he does a great job recreating the milieu of the Bronx in the 1940s and 50s. I was surprised by how small scale the film is though considering its reputation and how much it has been mythologized and by how raw and personal it felt. Well, there goes another off the list of classic Hollywood films I’ve never seen, don’t know why I put off watching it for so long.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (Chappelle, 1995) - The Carpenter film was such a simple story... One sequel after the other (actually starting with the original film's own TV version), people tried to be interesting and "explain" the whys and the hows of Michael Myers, without understanding that all this dumb stuff worked only because it was left unsaid. Now this 6th entry tries to tie up everything that happened before, and tries to make unintelligible stuff make sense. Tommy Doyle, the little boy Laurie was babysitting in the first film, is back and prepared for Michael's return. He moved next door to the Myers house, where Laurie's cousins lives unknowingly (yeah right, all eveybody in this town talks about is Michael Myers, but they wouldn't know they live in his old house) - and why do they live there? Because their uncle - Laurie's father - was the estate agent in charge of selling it (indeed he was in the original film), but never managed to do it, for obvious reason, so his brother made him a favor and moved his family in the murder house. Also, well, that unidentified man in black that followed MM around and ultimately destroyed the police station and killed everyone to free him (where MM was jailed with his mask on, never forget) is revealed to be Loomis' superior from the lunatic ward in the first film. Oh and Jamie was abducted by his cult at the end of part 5 (not in the movie, but believable), and this one starts with her giving birth to a baby marked by evil... That's already a lot, and that's nothing about what actually happens in the film.
Now there's two versions of this film. Different scripts, bickering on the set, a very poor test screening and a lot of changes that went against everybody's wishes and/or understanding of the film. Oh, and Donald Pleasance died before they shot additional material, nothing to help them. Speaking of the devil, Loomis appears a lot more sane than usual, but the theatrical cut ends up with him going back to Michael's body saying he has “a little business to attend to” and they disappear together (pretty much confirming he was only working with him from the beginning!) - the “producers' cut” and much better, the cult leader's powers are transferred to Loomis, making him responsible for MM and all future killer kids (yeah, that's a thing). That cut also includes stuff like a little incest between Michael and his niece, and the cult leader guy working at the ward explaining he was the one who taught Michael how to drive (they really wanted to explain everything with this one – still, Jamie who's been captive since she was 8 also escapes and knows how to drive... I guess it's just something you know). It's really a mess, and not a very good one (despite a few ok-efficient scenes), with missing parts and weird transitions, and some early 90s music video aesthetics here and there. It's still better than parts 4 and 5, and probably better than H20 and, of course, Resurrection... 3/10

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

In what turned out to be an unplanned, informal double feature of early 1990s movies where two men confront each other in the restroom and one aggressively urinates on the other's shoes ...

Wolf. More like WOOF! AMIRTE?!?!?! So it's not good. Despite an impressive pedigree (Mike Nichols, Elaine May, Ennio Morricone, Jack Nicholson, Michelle Pfeiffer, Christopher Plummer, etc.). It's weird but not in any good or interesting ways. I somewhat enjoyed the corporate shenanigans and I'm always game for a classic James Spader sleazebag. Nicholson himself gamely tries drag this into the realm of entertaining but he can't quite do it. The wolf stuff's just too corny.

Deep Cover. In the realm of early 1990s urban drug/crime movies this one isn't exactly lost to time (Criterion just canonized it after all) but it doesn't have nearly the rep of something like New Jack City and feels like it's had no real footprint or lasting impact. Rewatching it for the first time in a long time I was struck by what an interesting mishmash it is. It's a little gritty indie at times, but also a bit flashy Hollywood. I think it actually does a better job of making a larger point about the drug industrial complex than some if its contemporaries (namely New Jack City). Every performance in this pretty BIG, but mostly in good ways. Laurence Fishburne is stellar as our conflicted and compromised protagonist and Jeff Goldblum is perhaps unexpected as his slick foil. It feels odd typing it, but it actually works. Charles Martin Smith is an inspired against-type choice as a shifty law enforcement superior. Something about it I'm still wrestling with but I can't exactly pin down what it is ....

And I'm serious about the urinating. Both movies. What are the odds?

 

[ItsFineImFine]

Taste of Cherry (1997) - 8/10

It's a shame there aren't that many notable pre-9/11 films from Persia/Pakistan in Criterion-HD quality because it's a very lovely setting for cinema. It's got a hyper-realism possibly due to the amount of close-ups, the flow with what feels like no real hard cuts, and the lack of a soundtrack. It's a film that Hollywood can't make but it also means we never get a good satisfying ending with closure for philistines like myself. Will say that the first two thirds of the film are better than the last 20-25 minutes but we do get that nice scenery in the final third.

4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days (2007) - 7/10

Hyper-realism isn't always a good thing though, I knew I was in for bleakness with this director's other film I saw from 10 years later called Graduation. Romania under late-communism is never going to be a happy place but at least we get some lively moments from a few support characters rather than the constant frowns of Graduation. There are so many nuances of conversation that are captured so well but I think Never Rarely Sometimes Always from last year managed to tell a similar story about the struggles of women getting an abortion in a far more captivating manor despite its slower and less dramatic stakes.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

In what turned out to be an unplanned, informal double feature of early 1990s movies where two men confront each other in the restroom and one aggressively urinates on the other's shoes ...

Wolf. More like WOOF! AMIRTE?!?!?! So it's not good. Despite an impressive pedigree (Mike Nichols, Elaine May, Ennio Morricone, Jack Nicholson, Michelle Pfeiffer, Christopher Plummer, etc.). It's weird but not in any good or interesting ways. I somewhat enjoyed the corporate shenanigans and I'm always game for a classic James Spader sleazebag. Nicholson himself gamely tries drag this into the realm of entertaining but he can't quite do it. The wolf stuff's just too corny.

Deep Cover. In the realm of early 1990s urban drug/crime movies this one isn't exactly lost to time (Criterion just canonized it after all) but it doesn't have nearly the rep of something like New Jack City and feels like it's had no real footprint or lasting impact. Rewatching it for the first time in a long time I was struck by what an interesting mishmash it is. It's a little gritty indie at times, but also a bit flashy Hollywood. I think it actually does a better job of making a larger point about the drug industrial complex than some if its contemporaries (namely New Jack City). Every performance in this pretty BIG, but mostly in good ways. Laurence Fishburne is stellar as our conflicted and compromised protagonist and Jeff Goldblum is perhaps unexpected as his slick foil. It feels odd typing it, but it actually works. Charles Martin Smith is an inspired against-type choice as a shifty law enforcement superior. Something about it I'm still wrestling with but I can't exactly pin down what it is ....

And I'm serious about the urinating. Both movies. What are the odds?

*mulls* Oh yeah. They do.

 

[Osprey]

A Quiet Place Part II (2021) - 5/10 (Didn't like or dislike it)

While on the move, the Abbotts stumble upon a steel foundry which a former neighbor (Cillian Murphy) has made home and soon learn that there could be other survivors. The first 30 minutes were good and had me excited for the rest. I liked the prologue (which shows the initial alien invasion) and the re-establishment of the world, but then it started to get a little dumb and lose the theme of family and working together by having the characters go off on their own a lot. The kids, particularly, wander off without permission or supervision just so that the movie can ramp up the stakes, but it's not as nail biting for me when children are in danger because of their own foolishness. Also, one of the things that made the first film different was that it was a little more thoughtful than your average horror, but seemingly not much thought was put into the plot of this one, which I won't spoil because not a whole lot happens. The story isn't advanced forward as much as you might expect from a sequel. Some things are also just inexplicable or predictable. Finally, the ending felt too similar to the original and quite abrupt. I literally said "That's it?" when the credits rolled. It was obviously made with a third movie in mind because there's no resolution. When the original became a surprise hit, they must've quickly decided to make a couple of sequels and fast-tracked this one, which was actually filmed 2 years ago (or only 1 year after the original was released). It seems to me that they rushed it to further milk the original instead of caring about whether the new story really justified being told. It's not bad, though. I did like the setting, the cinematography, the quietness and Cillian Murphy's new character (though he was underdeveloped). It just felt more like Part 1.5, a little unnecessary and incomplete. FWIW, I wasn't one of the biggest fans of the first film, either, so take that into consideration. Anyways, the theater exclusivity is over and it's now streaming on Paramount+ (free trial available) in the US and Prime Video in Canada.

 

[Hockeyfrilla]

Gunpowder Milkshake - 4/10

 

[Pink Mist]

’71 (2014) directed by Yann Demange

Gary Hook (played by Jack O’Connell who seemed to be in everything in 2014 and then hasn’t been heard of again) is a fresh recruit straight out of basic training in the British Army. His first deployment is to Belfast, Northern Ireland. ‘What’s the big deal?’ he tells his brother, ‘Nothing to worry about, I haven’t even left Britain.’ Well, the year is 1971 and Belfast is in the height of political violence with the Troubles, in a prelude to the most violent year of it in 1972, and it might as well be a warzone between the British Army, their allies in the loyalist militias, and the many different factions of the IRA. Hook’s first task is to provide a cordon for the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Northern Ireland’s highly militarized local police force, to harass a housing estate in an IRA friendly neighbourhood. Perhaps predictably, the locals are none too pleased and a riot breaks out and Hook gets separated from his unit and spends a long night try to navigate the streets of Belfast to return to his barracks getting help from some sympathetic locals while trying to evade the Provisional IRA who are out to murder him. A very gripping thriller which effectively documents the cycle of violence, suspicion, and conspiracy from all sides of the Troubles through the perspective of someone caught in the web of the violence. Going into it knowing it was British produced I was expecting the film to be sympathetic to the British cause, but if anything, the British come off than the IRA in this film – though I wouldn’t call the film sympathetic to the IRA either. Some excellent chase scenes, though perhaps too reliant on shaky-cam, ’71 is a well executed, complex, and intense thriller and highly recommended.

 

[sr edler]

Silent Running (1972) by Douglas Trumbull – 1/10

So, I guess this is what you get if you throw together 2001: A Space Odyssey and WALL–E into one film, or something. Ironically enough I like both of those films (though the former a bit more than the latter), but this film was absolutely terrible, and I had to stop watching it about 30 minutes in. Just couldn't stand the blatant overacting, the caricature-ish characters, the annoying pace, et cetera.

Even the music was terrible, with Joan Baez' voice sounding as if someone was trying to strangle a Mexican rattlesnake with a space cord.

To spill some background beans, the director behind this film did the famous Stargate sequence special effects for 2001: A Space Odyssey. And he also later did special effects for other films, such as Blade Runner. But here, according to British film critic Mark Kermode, he wanted to make a film "about people", because he was disappointed in 2001 not being a film about people, with Kermode himself strongly agreeing on that premise. I'll say this though: Silent Running certainly isn't a film "about people". It's a film about a guy in a robe with crazy eyes and a giant Jesus complex.

I got interested in watching this film because previously mentioned Mark Kermode hailed it as one of the greatest films of all time. Well, people have different taste in things I guess, and I guess that's alright. And if someone loves this film, that's great. I'm not sure though how a supposedly serious film critic, and a member of BAFTA, can miss HAL 9000 in 2001 mirroring a rather wide range of human characteristics.

Apparently there's a Saturn scene later on in this film, originally planned for 2001, but yeah, I really didn't felt it worth waiting for, with the way the film was going. Perhaps it's good, and the reason I didn't give this film 0/10 is that it has some relatively nice decor.

 

[Osprey]

Silent Running (1972) by Douglas Trumbull – 1/10

So, I guess this is what you get if you throw together 2001: A Space Odyssey and WALL–E into one film, or something. Ironically enough I like both of those films (though the former a bit more than the latter), but this film was absolutely terrible, and I had to stop watching it about 30 minutes in. Just couldn't stand the blatant overacting, the caricature-ish characters, the annoying pace, et cetera.

Even the music was terrible, with Joan Baez' voice sounding as if someone was trying to strangle a Mexican rattlesnake with a space cord.

To spill some background beans, the director behind this film did the famous Stargate sequence special effects for 2001: A Space Odyssey. And he also later did special effects for other films, such as Blade Runner. But here, according to British film critic Mark Kermode, he wanted to make a film "about people", because he was disappointed in 2001 not being a film about people, with Kermode himself strongly agreeing on that premise. I'll say this though: Silent Running certainly isn't a film "about people". It's a film about a guy in a robe with crazy eyes and a giant Jesus complex.

I got interested in watching this film because previously mentioned Mark Kermode hailed it as one of the greatest films of all time. Well, people have different taste in things I guess, and I guess that's alright. And if someone loves this film, that's great. I'm not sure though how a supposedly serious film critic, and a member of BAFTA, can miss HAL 9000 in 2001 mirroring a rather wide range of human characteristics.

Apparently there's a Saturn scene later on in this film, originally planned for 2001, but yeah, I really didn't felt it worth waiting for, with the way the film was going. Perhaps it's good, and the reason I didn't give this film 0/10 is that it has some relatively nice decor.

I love this movie... or I should say that I love laughing at it. It's my favorite unintentionally funny movie. It's so serious and righteous in its messaging, yet the hero is a psycho whose awful behavior and ineptness as his job completely undermine it. I think that it's praised for its intentions and supposed intelligence, but it features a quite nonsensical premise (for starters, why would you transport fully grown trees and plants in massive greenhouses to another planet instead of just the seeds in something the size of a shoe box?) and one of the dumbest revelations in all of film history (yes, worst than the one in Signs).

Did you really stop watching after only 30 minutes? You missed all of the best parts. It's in the last hour that it gets "good." You should try finishing it and laughing at it instead of taking it seriously. It's a lot more enjoyable that way.

To its credit, it does have some really impressive special effects, as you noted. Trumbull really delivered in his area of expertise. I think that that and the connection to 2001: A Space Odyssey have propped up its legacy quite a bit.

 

[The Kingslayer]

Not a movie but just binged season 1 of True Detective. Still so damn brilliant. I actually appreciate it even more today then I did when it first aired.

 

[ManwithNoIdentity]

Escape Room 2

1.5/5

Much of the same from the first move but done not as well, not even worth doing a full review

Of course the movie ends with a cliffhanger setting up a 3rd movie

 

[Nemesis Prime]

Speed 2

7/10

 

[Osprey]

Fear Street Part Three: 1666 (2021) - 2/10 (Hated it)

It's 1666 in the colonies and teen girls are accused of witchcraft by the bloodthirsty, puritanical townspeople. If that sounds familiar, you've seen the entire first hour of this movie, though maybe not with dialogue or Irish accents this bad. After that, it jumps forward 300 years to "1994 Part 2" for a rehash of Part 1, so, if that wasn't your favorite part, you get nearly half of a movie more of it. Like the previous movies, this one isn't scary or funny and doesn't feel like the time period that it's depicting. Also, the payoff, the big twist that you have to wait through nearly 3 movies and over 5 hours for, is as disappointing and predictable as you can imagine. I could go on, but I criticized the last two movies enough that it feels like I'm beating a dead horse. Overall, the trilogy was definitely not for me.

 

[kihei]

’71 (2014) directed by Yann Demange

Gary Hook (played by Jack O’Connell who seemed to be in everything in 2014 and then hasn’t been heard of again) is a fresh recruit straight out of basic training in the British Army. His first deployment is to Belfast, Northern Ireland. ‘What’s the big deal?’ he tells his brother, ‘Nothing to worry about, I haven’t even left Britain.’ Well, the year is 1971 and Belfast is in the height of political violence with the Troubles, in a prelude to the most violent year of it in 1972, and it might as well be a warzone between the British Army, their allies in the loyalist militias, and the many different factions of the IRA. Hook’s first task is to provide a cordon for the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Northern Ireland’s highly militarized local police force, to harass a housing estate in an IRA friendly neighbourhood. Perhaps predictably, the locals are none too pleased and a riot breaks out and Hook gets separated from his unit and spends a long night try to navigate the streets of Belfast to return to his barracks getting help from some sympathetic locals while trying to evade the Provisional IRA who are out to murder him. A very gripping thriller which effectively documents the cycle of violence, suspicion, and conspiracy from all sides of the Troubles through the perspective of someone caught in the web of the violence. Going into it knowing it was British produced I was expecting the film to be sympathetic to the British cause, but if anything, the British come off than the IRA in this film – though I wouldn’t call the film sympathetic to the IRA either. Some excellent chase scenes, though perhaps too reliant on shaky-cam, ’71 is a well executed, complex, and intense thriller and highly recommended.

I remember reviewing this way back when and really liking it. Just a tense, economic, well-made movie. I think it made my Top Twenty in 2014.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (Miner, 1998) - I remember absolutely hating this film when it first came out. It's not as amateurish as the 3 previous chapters, but it is on the other hand so formulaic that it feels more like a made-for-TV pastiche than a sequel. Also, intertextuality is an amazing tool to bring depth and meaning to a work, to make a closed narrative reach out to other works for hints and ideas or tone ; Intertextuality is also the worst way to try to make something look cool or smart when it actually isn't. Kevin Williamson doesn't have his name in the writing credits of this film, but it stinks of his empty allusions the whole way through, and it's insufferable. It's really part 7, but they decided to cut all mentions of 4-5-6 and do as if they didn't exist - still, they were in the original screenplay and the new timeline was just some more unnecessary bullcrap. Bringing in Steve Miner was Jamie Lee Curtis' idea, and probably was a good one. I just wish I could go over 3/10.

 

[OzzyFan]

Pig (2021)
3.10 out of 4stars

"A truffle hunter who lives alone in the Oregonian wilderness must return to his past in Portland in search of his beloved foraging pig after she is kidnapped."
A very poetic mystery drama about grief and identity, that includes a masterfully controlled turn from Cage (some posters were previously talking about restrained Cage performances, and here's a great one). Now I won't ruin anything because this is one of those movies that quietly unfolds piece by piece as it adds to it's story and it's commentary evolves as the movie progresses. But like the movie's titular character, a Pig itself, everything is not what it seems to be on the surface. Again, if you truly want to see this, don't read anything about it because it won't be taken in the same knowing what is about to unfold.

On the Waterfront (1954)
3.50 out of 4stars

"An ex-prize fighter turned longshoreman struggles to stand up to his corrupt union bosses after unknowingly being an accessory to murder."
Most well-known as being arguably Brando's best performance, but it's so much more. It's a true to life tale during the movie's release time about local Mob control/influence, blue collar life, unions/unification power, a moral conflict with serious consequences on both sides, the church's influence and obligations, multi-definition innocence, and even the American dream (and more I am just not considering right now). And all of it is very well done.

The Ninth Configuration (1980)
2.70 out of 4stars

"A former marine arrives at a mental asylum housed in a remote castle to run it. There he attempts to rehabilitate the patients in unorthodox ways."
Having seen a few of Blatty's films now, it's clear that he likes bringing up discussion on God's existence. This one involving the chance of life randomly occurring on earth and guilt/penance/self-sacrifice /empathy/afterlife-signs as possible evidence of a divine deity and it's influence on humanity. This movie is labeled a psychological drama, but clearly has ample comedy in it, and scenes of true drama, tension, and revelation also. I actually had a slight tonal issue early on the film, especially given the fact that we are dealing with mental patients here, trying to decide what was mean to be taken seriously and what was likely comical on purpose, but it leveled itself out. Filled with a couple nice twists and turns, and I actually got a lot out of the movie too. It actually has a lot of commentary on psychology itself also.

Halloween 3: Season of the Witch (1982)
1.55 out of 4stars

"Kids all over America want Silver Shamrock masks for Halloween and a mysterious murder tracks Doctor Daniel Challis to the Silver Shamrock factory, stuff happens afterward."
Points for taking a risk and creating a Halloween without Myers in it and trying to create a discussion on child consumerism along with story, but it was all terrible execution. Everything was a bit too absurd and silly, even for a genre like this, and as previous posters stated, not really fun or over the top enough to be enjoyable. From the forced romantic relationship between 2 people 24years apart in age, that had sexual tension went from a 2 to a 10 in 1 sentence's notice, to the loony explanation of the events, to the impossible hidden villain's scheming and affairs, especially if he's a nationwide success, and to even the repeatable murder styles.

The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane (1976)
2.50 out of 4stars

"13-year-old Rynn Jacobs lives alone in a high-class Quebec small town, but unknown to the neighbors, she is leading a secret and dangerous life."
Nice little atmospheric thriller with a couple unexpected twists. In context, Foster's performance at 13years of age is impressive, but nothing award nomination worthy imo. I think Sheen nails his smaller role better. And there was one partial nudity scene with Foster that felt troubling at first, but upon research it was an adult aged body double luckily.

 

[Puck]

So "Titane" wins at Cannes 2021. Looking forward to seeing a few of these.

Titane may not have been the best film at Cannes, but it had guts, drive – and an anthro-automotive hybrid devil child

Cannes Palme d’Or goes to female director for only the second time

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Withnail and I

with very, very British people

Withnail and Marwood (though he's never actually credited or addressed as such in the movie) are two unemployed actors living in a dingy apartment in a not so great part of London in 1969. Withnail is a bulging-eyed near psychotic on a mission to find and consume every drop of alcohol on the planet, Marwood is quieter and more contemplative, but both are flamboyant, disheveled and needing a break from their grind of...well, they decide they need a break, anyway. They visit Withnail's wealthy, very rotund and very gay uncle Monty one night and over many drinks, Withnail obtains the key to Monty's country house. They drive to the cottage the next day, but find no food, electricity, heat or supplies, and the locals despise them on sight. Monty eventually joins them and fiercely pursues Marwood...who Withnail had told Monty was gay. Uh-oh. Marwood spends the rest of the vacay dodging Monty's desire to play hide the sausage and trying not to kill Withnail. British wit and awkwardness ensue.

This would be a great cult movie if it weren't so popular. Widely regarded as one of the best British comedies ever made, I'd seen bits and pieces over the years but it's become pretty hard to find. Richard E. Grant's Withnail is just this side of completely insane. There's a drug dealer who introduces us to the world's biggest joint: the Camberwell Carrot. And there's plenty of humour revolving around two city boys trying to understand how the countryside works including a hilarious scene where they're trying to stuff a partially-plucked chicken into a kettle for supper. Revels in its glorious weirdness. There's an anarchic, absurdist wit further out from Python that inspired shows like the Young Ones and Bottom. Infinitely quotable if you like weirding people out.

Hard to find but worth it.

Note: insanity may or may not be as pictured.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Fear Street: Part Three - 1666 (Janiak, 2021) - The 1666 part is only half the movie and really shows how limited Janiak is as a director. If pretty much anyone can rustle up a decent slasher pastiche, it's a lot harder to end up with a "historical" piece efficient in look, pace and tone. Not only that, but the girl only lives through the events you already know from the first two films and can't change them, so it's not only inefficient, it's very boring. Second part is the continuation from the first film, but it already feels like it lost its cool or drive (or it's just me that got tired of it). All in all, 300 years and 3 pretty bad movies only to enable a "forbidden" teen lesbian relationship, that's very lame - might have been relevant in early 80s or something, but today you're just like "meh?". Worst entry of the trilogy, with the most boring of in-credits "twist" (you see it coming from a mile away so is it really a twist?) suggesting there's going to be sequels. 2/10

Part One: 2.5/10
Part Two: 3/10
Part Three: 2/10

 

[silkyjohnson50]

Not a movie but just binged season 1 of True Detective. Still so damn brilliant. I actually appreciate it even more today then I did when it first aired.

I rewatch it at least once a year. I don’t even think the last episode is that good, but regardless it’s still gotta be the best TV I’ve ever seen.

 

[Hockeyfrilla]

Not a movie but just binged season 1 of True Detective. Still so damn brilliant. I actually appreciate it even more today then I did when it first aired.

Season 1 is legendary.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Underworld (Pavlou, 1985) - With its mutants living underground, this film is a direct ancestor to Nightbreed - and that's pretty much the only interesting thing about it. First movie written by Clive Barker, it shows a little of his world and imagination (one of the mutants has some dream power that's unexplainable in the film and didn't translate well at all to screen and the mutants are the good guys in the end, no surprise). First movie directed by George Pavlou, it shows his complete lack of skills that he will never recover from - at least Rawhead Rex was fun even if ridicule, this is just bad. If you're into no-budget cheap cyberpunk, or no-budget cheap new wave (the kind that would give birth to electroclash, think Liquid Sky but with tame aesthetics and without the over-the-top stuff), and you don't mind non-acting and a story that tries to attain higher moral grounds but ain't either effective or interesting, you've got your film. I hated it as a kid - under the Transmutations title - and seeing it now I understand why. It's not complete crap, but it's way too amateurish to be worth your time. Probably for Barker completists only - it's on Tubi. 1.5/10

 

[Jussi]

So "Titane" wins at Cannes 2021. Looking forward to seeing a few of these.

Titane may not have been the best film at Cannes, but it had guts, drive – and an anthro-automotive hybrid devil child

Cannes Palme d’Or goes to female director for only the second time

Shared "silver medal" for a Finnish film! Finns rush to the market place!