Last Movie You Watched and Rate It | Movie-mber Edition

[kihei]

Images (1972) Directed by Robert Altman 3A

I didn't buy this movie for a minute. "Crazy woman" was a popular trope in the '60s and '70s (let's face it, it's been a very popular trope, period). There have been some good ones (Belle du Jour; Red Desert; A Woman under the Influence; Repulsion) and a ton of bad ones (Mommie Dearest; Fatal Attraction; Face to Face, Betty Blue, et al). Images is firmly, aggressively in the latter category. I am going to steal RT's pithy one-line description of the film here: "A schizophrenic (Susannah York) confuses her husband (Rene Auberjonois) with her lovers and her self." That indeed is the movie in a nutshell. It's the "her self" bit that's kind of funny; oh, I take that back--all of this flick is stupid. But before any dumb ideas got up to speed, I was already out of the movie. In fact, the first time words came out of Susannah York's mouth, I was immediately beginning to give up on Images. The problem: a lousy script which makes it impossible for some talented actors to make believable characters. Everyone in the movie seems like a "movie person," a character created to further an author's design, and nothing more. These empty vessels include three obnoxious male characters (I mean, jesus, this woman's taste in men is atrocious): a brute, a sadist (Marcel Bozzuffi, the best thing in the movie) and a terminally condescending nincompoop of a husband. York's Cathryn is not a whit more believable than they are, so at least the movie has a kind of negative consistency. While browsing around RT, I looked up director Robert Altman's filmography and was surprised to see how many poorly-rated movies he had directed that I had never heard of...hack work, basically. Despite fine cinematography by Vilmos Szigmund and a creative score by Stomu Yamashta, Images fits right in with his lamest bottom feeders.

MUBI

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I'm not planning on going back and revisiting all the Marvel movies, but a podcast I've been listening to spurred me to go back and rewatch a few, which has been interesting given how that entire series has developed. I'll say up front that while the worst of the movies are certainly dull and generic (only a few in my estimation), none are really bad exactly. There's a baseline competency that's genuinely impressive. It is an effective machine.

The Avengers. I've always been lukewarm on this relative to the masses. I think it's even depreciated over time. I understand its significance as "the first" big team up and convergence of things that came before, but the actual movie is a bit of a mess for me. It feels like a checklist, not a story. (Get Character A to Character B then to Character C. Banter banter banter. Now bring in Character D. Grumpy banter, etc.) A couple of nice moments, but they really do awkwardly slam these characters together. The interactions just feel the slightest bit off to me, which honestly is a testament to the later films where everyone is more dialed in. Contrast is, if you'll forgive the pun, stark. The true unforgivable sin though is the almost unbearably long and messy action sequences. The whole Marvel machine would get much better at this over time, but this movie has some of the worst action set pieces of them all. Big Positives though: Tom Hiddleston and Mark Ruffalo are great.

Thor: The Dark World. I think this is easily the worst Marvel movie. But jumping back to my opening point, I don't know if it's bad as much as it's entirely forgettable. They clearly didn't know what they fully had with Hemsworth yet. A good cast mostly wasted in a generic movie.

Captain America: The First Avenger. While The Avengers depreciates over time, I think this one gets even better and is still among the best Marvel films. Tone and execution are consistent and perfect for the material. It's knowingly and appropriately old fashioned. A real movie-serial-esque sense of adventure. While Marvel's greatest strength might be casting, I'm not sure any of the movies hits the ground running on that front quite as well as this one (maybe Guardians of the Galaxy). Everyone is fully formed from the start. Another stacked cast too, but unlike the Thor sequel, everyone is well used here from Tommy Lee Jones to Toby Jones to Dominic Cooper. The biggest attribute here is genuine caring and emotional stakes. The Steve-Peggy relationship is wonderfully handled (and would obviously pay off years later ...) but this alone packs a punch.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier. I still enjoyed this, but it also didn't fully hold up as well as I remembered. The Russo's spent a lot of pre-release press talking this up as Three Days of the Condor or The Paralax View and, in fairness, the seed of those ideas are there in a very generic sense. But the tension created in those classic conspiracy thrillers is what sustains them on future rewatches not the mysteries themselves. This is all story surprises, but no real tension, so it just turns into a plot/people mover at some point. Any potential shocks in a first viewing have no lasting impact. That said -- they nail casting once again both in returning and new additions (I think Redford in particular is fun and inspired and I'm still sorta shocked he's there). The actual action sequences in this one are pretty good, particularly some of the ground-bound car chases and stunts. The elevator fight remains a high point in the series.

 

[Osprey]

I've been knocking off some of the horror films that I didn't get to before Halloween...

City of the Living Dead (1980) - 3/10
So, this is what Italian horrormeister Lucio Fulci is all about: good atmosphere and gore, but bad or incomprehensible everything else. The only thing that I understood is that a priest hanging himself opens a gateway to Hell and causes people who look at him to bleed from their eyes and regurgitate their entire digestive tracts (and I thought that acid reflux was bad). That produces one memorable scene in a film that's, otherwise, pretty forgettable.

The Beyond (1981) - 3/10
This second entry in Fulci's "Gates of Hell" trilogy has something to do with a guy getting acid splashed on his face in 1927 Louisiana and the same thing happening to anyone in the present who discovers the secret. I ended up watching this one in Italian without subtitles. Somehow, I don't think that knowing what the characters were saying would've helped any.

The House by the Cemetery (1981) - 3/10
In this conclusion to the trilogy, there's a house and you'll never guess what's next door or what happens next. I watched this one in English, but, with lines like "No, not the children!" and "Mommy, it's coming to get me!", maybe it would've helped this time if I'd watched it without understanding the dialogue. One amusing thing is that American names don't seem to be Fulci's strength, since he re-uses some of the same ones in each movie, like Emily and Bob... and, in fact, I spent nearly the whole movie wondering who this "Bob" was that everyone was mentioning before realizing that it was the name that Fulci gave to the 7-year-old boy .

Day of the Dead (1985) - 3/10
Speaking of horrormeisters, this third entry in George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead series gives us two things that neither of the first two had: lots of standing around arguing and a domesticated zombie. If you always wanted to see a zombie learn to use the telephone, this is the movie to scratch that itch. The gore effects in this are pretty impressive. Twice, a person is ripped in two, once where the lower half is an actor and the upper is fake and the other with the reverse setup (which I thought was clever), and both are rather convincing. Unfortunately, those effects were the only decent things in the movie to me. Everything else just seemed low budget and campy in a bad way.

The Return of the Living Dead (1985) - 7/10
Hey, finally, a movie that I enjoyed! I had a feeling that I would when it opened with the disclaimer "The events portrayed in this film are all true. The names are real names of real people and real organizations." This parody of Romero's series even names Night of the Living Dead when a character says to another that the events in the movie really happened, and, later, after realizing that the zombies aren't dying like they're supposed to, the other character exclaims "you mean the movie lied?" To me, this was a much more enjoyable movie than the latest entry in the series that it was parodying. Maybe it's partly because I find zombies rather absurd to begin with, but zombie comedies are more enjoyable to me than the more serious zombie horrors. In fact, I could've done with even more humor, especially in the second half, when it tapers off. I also could've used more Linnea Quigley in the second half, but that's another matter. It was fun to finally watch a movie whose videocassette cover was very familiar to me from hours spent loitering in video rental stores 30 years ago. I wish now that I had rented it instead of repeatedly disregarding it.

Return of the Living Dead Part II (1988) - 6/10
The plot is mostly a re-hash of the original, so it doesn't score for originality, but the comedy is on point, such as when all of the zombies stop their rampage to stare at a jazzercise video on the TV or when an infected person is diagnosed, the distraught girlfriend asks "is it cancer?" and the doctor drolly replies "if we're lucky." Also, character actor James Karen is once again one of my favorite things in the film, this time playing a different but similar character (an idea perhaps taken from Fulci, who uses the same lead actress in different roles in each part of his trilogy). Anyways, it's a step down from the first movie, but I still found it amusing and not nearly as bad as the 0% RT critic score led me to believe.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I don't have much tolerance for Fulci. Every few years I try another and they just never work for me. The effects are admirably gnarly, but his movies always wind up feeling like endurance tests to me. Horror certainly isn't often about comfort or enjoyment, but I always hit a point in a Fulci movie where I'm just like, "What am I doing here?"

Now Return of the Living Dead however — it's party time. This along with Fright Night are probably the horror movies that were in constant cable circulation for me in my youth. It has it's own merits without those nostalgic benefits, but it really is a bit of a happy place for me.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

Images (1972) Directed by Robert Altman 3A

I didn't buy this movie for a minute. "Crazy woman" was a popular trope in the '60s and '70s (let's face it, it's been a very popular trope, period). There have been some good ones (Belle du Jour; Red Desert; A Woman under the Influence; Repulsion) and a ton of bad ones (Mommie Dearest; Fatal Attraction; Face to Face, Betty Blue, et al). Images is firmly, aggressively in the latter category. I am going to steal RT's pithy one-line description of the film here: "A schizophrenic (Susannah York) confuses her husband (Rene Auberjonois) with her lovers and her self." That indeed is the movie in a nutshell. It's the "her self" bit that's kind of funny; oh, I take that back--all of this flick is stupid. But before any dumb ideas got up to speed, I was already out of the movie. In fact, the first time words came out of Susannah York's mouth, I was immediately beginning to give up on Images. The problem: a lousy script which makes it impossible for some talented actors to make believable characters. Everyone in the movie seems like a "movie person," a character created to further an author's design, and nothing more. These empty vessels include three obnoxious male characters (I mean, jesus, this woman's taste in men is atrocious): a brute, a sadist (Marcel Bozzuffi, the best thing in the movie) and a terminally condescending nincompoop of a husband. York's Cathryn is not a whit more believable than they are, so at least the movie has a kind of negative consistency. While browsing around RT, I looked up director Robert Altman's filmography and was surprised to see how many poorly-rated movies he had directed that I had never heard of...hack work, basically. Despite fine cinematography by Vilmos Szigmund and a creative score by Stomu Yamashta, Images fits right in with his lamest bottom feeders.

MUBI

Ahah, this is missing the whole thing. It's a brilliant film about authorship, the artistic mind and the duality of reality/fiction, mixed in elements of reflexivity and self-reflexivity. By far Altman's best film IMO, one of my favorite "American" films (even if, like most of Altman's films, it's not really American), and one of my favorite "horror" films.

As for the "lousy script" making it impossible for actors to shine, I think York's best actress prize at Cannes says otherwise.

I've been knocking off some of the horror films that I didn't get to before Halloween...

City of the Living Dead (1980) - 3/10
So, this is what Italian horrormeister Lucio Fulci is all about. The only thing that I understood is that a priest hanging himself opens a gateway to hell and that looking at him dangling leads to bleeding from your eyes and regurgitating your internal organs. That produces one memorable scene in a film that was otherwise pretty incomprehensible.

The Beyond (1981) - 3/10
This second entry in Fulci's "Gates of Hell" trilogy has something to do with a guy getting acid splashed on his face in 1927 Louisiana and the same happening to anyone in the present who discovers the secret. I ended up watching this one in Italian without subtitles. Somehow, I don't think that knowing what the characters were saying would've helped any.

The House by the Cemetery (1981) - 3/10
So, there's a house and you'll never guess what's next door and what happens next. I watched this one in English, but, with lines like "No, not the children!" and "Mommy, it's coming to get me!", maybe it would've helped this time if I'd watched it without understanding the dialogue. One amusing thing is that American names don't seem to be Fulci's strength, since he re-uses some of the same ones in each movie, like Emily and Bob... and, in fact, I spent nearly the whole movie wondering who "Bob" was before realizing that it was name that he gave to the the 7-year-old boy .

Day of the Dead (1985) - 3/10
Speaking of horrormeisters, this third entry in George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead series gives us two things that neither of the first two had: lots of standing around arguing and a domesticated zombie. If you always wanted to see a zombie learn to use the telephone, this is the movie to satisfy that itch. The gore effects in this are pretty impressive. Twice, a person is ripped in two, once where the lower half is an actor and the upper is fake and the other with the reverse setup (which I thought was a bit clever), and both are rather convincing. Unfortunately, those effects were the only decent things in the movie to me. Everything else just seemed low budget and campy in a bad way.

The Return of the Living Dead (1985) - 6/10
Hey, finally, a movie that I enjoyed! I had a feeling that I would when it opened with the disclaimer "The events portrayed in this film are all true. The names are real names of real people and real organizations." This parody of Romero's series even names The Night of the Living Dead when a character says to another that the events in the movie were true, and, later, after realizing that that the zombies aren't dying like they're supposed to, the other character exclaims "you mean the movie lied?" To me, this was a much more enjoyable movie than the latest entry in the series that it was parodying. Maybe it's partly because I find zombies rather absurd to begin with, but zombie comedies are more enjoyable to me than the more serious zombie horrors. In fact, I could've done with even more humor, especially in the second half, when it tapers off. I also could've used more Linnea Quigley in the second half, but that's another matter. It was also fun to finally watch a movie whose videocassette cover was very familiar to me from hours spent loitering in video rental stores 30 years ago. If I'd known that it was so decent, I would've actually rented it.

Return of the Living Dead Part II (1988) - 5/10
It's not as good as the original, but it has its moments, like when all of the zombies stop their rampage to stare at a jazzercise video on the TV or when an infected person is diagnosed, the distraught girlfriend asks "is it cancer"? and the doctor drolly replies "if we're lucky." Also, James Karen is once again one of the most enjoyable things in the film, this time playing a different character (an idea perhaps taken from Fulci, who uses the same lead actress in different roles in each part of his above trilogy). Anyways, I found it to be a clear step down from the first movie, but not nearly as bad as the 0% RT critic score led me to believe.

The two first Return films are great! I love Yuzna, but he completely ruined the fun with his third entry. Your reviews of the Fulci films are hilarious

 

[Osprey]

Now Return of the Living Dead however — it's party time. This along with Fright Night are probably the horror movies that were in constant cable circulation for me in my youth. It has it's own merits without those nostalgic benefits, but it really is a bit of a happy place for me.

The two first Return films are great! I love Yuzna, but he completely ruined the fun with his third entry. Your reviews of the Fulci films are hilarious

Upon reflection and re-reading my reviews, I decided that how much I enjoyed the 'Return' films wasn't really reflected in my scores, so I bumped them both up a point .

I'm planning to give the third one a try, but I won't expect much. Also, I'm not sure if I've seen Fright Night or not, so I'll check that out; thanks. Unfortunately, I didn't pay much attention to the horror comedies in the 80s because I was in a phase where I looked down on the tamer horror-themed movies and didn't want to spend my money renting them. I'm not sure that I even saw Poltergeist until I was an adult because it was rated PG.

 

[kihei]

Ahah, this is missing the whole thing. It's a brilliant film about authorship, the artistic mind and the duality of reality/fiction, mixed in elements of reflexivity and self-reflexivity. By far Altman's best film IMO, one of my favorite "American" films (even if, like most of Altman's films, it's not really American), and one of my favorite "horror" films.

As for the "lousy script" making it impossible for actors to shine, I think York's best actress prize at Cannes says otherwise.

I find there are many movies that academics swoon over for reasons that seem esoteric to me. If I get a sudden urge for the "authorship, the artistic mind and the duality of reality/fiction, mixed in elements of reflexivity and self-reflexivity," I'll watch a Marx Brothers movie.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

His House (2020) Directed by Remi Weekes 7A

A refugee couple escape from war-torn Sudan where their lives are in serious danger. During the boat ride across the ocean, a tragedy occurs. Once, they get to London, though, they catch a break and are granted refugee status and given a home in which to live in an estate condo. Unfortunately for them, the house is haunted. If you think Jordan Peele comes up with audaciously original horror movies, well, folks, meet Remi Weekes. Actually, it is quite surprising, not to mention the great strength of the movie, that the refugee story and the horror story fit together so well. However, it is the way they fit together that is so memorable. Like Peele's horror movies, the more one thinks about His House, the more multi-dimensional it becomes. But that's for later. While His House is an insightful look at the refugee experience, it is also a very good haunted house movie. Sometimes the house isn’t the problem; sometimes it’s the ghosts that we carry with us from place to place.

Netflix


Best of 2020 so far

1) First Cow, Reichardt, US
2) Dick Johnson Is Dead, Johnson, US
3) Never Rarely Sometimes Always, Hittman, US
4) Corpus Christi, Komasa, Poland
5) Swallow, Mirabella-Davis, US
6) His House, Weekes, UK
7) The Wild Goose Lake, Diao, China
8) Da 5 Bloods, Lee, US
9) Shaun the Sheep: Farmageddon, Phelan and Becher, UK
10) Relic, James, Australia

Watched that one. Highly enjoyed it with a good premise. That sunset scene was immaculate. The only hiccups: the scares drop off dramatically after the first 30 minutes and that resolution felt rushed and easy after such a nuanced build-up. I'm watching that Spanish flick you reviewed within the next couple of days.

 

[Pink Mist]

I'm not planning on going back and revisiting all the Marvel movies, but a podcast I've been listening to spurred me to go back and rewatch a few, which has been interesting given how that entire series has developed. I'll say up front that while the worst of the movies are certainly dull and generic (only a few in my estimation), none are really bad exactly. There's a baseline competency that's genuinely impressive. It is an effective machine.

The Avengers. I've always been lukewarm on this relative to the masses. I think it's even depreciated over time. I understand its significance as "the first" big team up and convergence of things that came before, but the actual movie is a bit of a mess for me. It feels like a checklist, not a story. (Get Character A to Character B then to Character C. Banter banter banter. Now bring in Character D. Grumpy banter, etc.) A couple of nice moments, but they really do awkwardly slam these characters together. The interactions just feel the slightest bit off to me, which honestly is a testament to the later films where everyone is more dialed in. Contrast is, if you'll forgive the pun, stark. The true unforgivable sin though is the almost unbearably long and messy action sequences. The whole Marvel machine would get much better at this over time, but this movie has some of the worst action set pieces of them all. Big Positives though: Tom Hiddleston and Mark Ruffalo are great.

Thor: The Dark World. I think this is easily the worst Marvel movie. But jumping back to my opening point, I don't know if it's bad as much as it's entirely forgettable. They clearly didn't know what they fully had with Hemsworth yet. A good cast mostly wasted in a generic movie.

Captain America: The First Avenger. While The Avengers depreciates over time, I think this one gets even better and is still among the best Marvel films. Tone and execution are consistent and perfect for the material. It's knowingly and appropriately old fashioned. A real movie-serial-esque sense of adventure. While Marvel's greatest strength might be casting, I'm not sure any of the movies hits the ground running on that front quite as well as this one (maybe Guardians of the Galaxy). Everyone is fully formed from the start. Another stacked cast too, but unlike the Thor sequel, everyone is well used here from Tommy Lee Jones to Toby Jones to Dominic Cooper. The biggest attribute here is genuine caring and emotional stakes. The Steve-Peggy relationship is wonderfully handled (and would obviously pay off years later ...) but this alone packs a punch.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier. I still enjoyed this, but it also didn't fully hold up as well as I remembered. The Russo's spent a lot of pre-release press talking this up as Three Days of the Condor or The Paralax View and, in fairness, the seed of those ideas are there in a very generic sense. But the tension created in those classic conspiracy thrillers is what sustains them on future rewatches not the mysteries themselves. This is all story surprises, but no real tension, so it just turns into a plot/people mover at some point. Any potential shocks in a first viewing have no lasting impact. That said -- they nail casting once again both in returning and new additions (I think Redford in particular is fun and inspired and I'm still sorta shocked he's there). The actual action sequences in this one are pretty good, particularly some of the ground-bound car chases and stunts. The elevator fight remains a high point in the series.

I've been watching the Marvel movies too lately, although for me its been my first time watching them. I absolutely agree with what you've said about The Avengers and Captain America: The First Avenger. I knew The Avengers was hyped when it came out in 2012 but watching it this year it was just super messy structurally and its age in terms of CGI was really beginning to show. However, like you said the first Captain America movie was really underrated. It definitely fits the house style of the Marvel movies but more of an old fashioned blockbuster adventure movie. Really well done. The second Captain America movie is on the docket for me tomorrow.

 

[Pink Mist]

Touch of Evil (1958) directed by Orson Wells

At a border town along the Mexican/US border, a car bomb explodes on the American side of the border and brings together Mexican law enforcement agent Vargas (Charlton Heston) and American police captain Quinlan (Orson Wells). Vargas quickly learns that Quinlan, despite his stellar reputation, is a shady cop who plants evidence to frame suspects. Vargas’ claim sets off a series of events on both sides of the border which puts him and his wife (Janet Leigh) in danger. The film was panned at its release in 1958 but was reedited in 1998 by Walter Murch to follow the edits wanted to make before he was shut out of the production by Universal. One of these edits, is the opening scene which is a 3 minute long tracking shot which weaves different sounds from store fronts as a car drives along the street, is a technical feat of filmmaking and sound design. Likewise, there’s another great scene of sound design at the film’s climax involving a hidden microphone that was well executed. Impressive also were Wells and Heston’s performances, Wells playing the incredibly seedy cop and Heston the upright and staunch counterpart. The film oozes seediness and grim and is an excellent example of noir at its best.

 

[Tkachuk4MVP]

Touch of Evil (1958) directed by Orson Wells

At a border town along the Mexican/US border, a car bomb explodes on the American side of the border and brings together Mexican law enforcement agent Vargas (Charlton Heston) and American police captain Quinlan (Orson Wells). Vargas quickly learns that Quinlan, despite his stellar reputation, is a shady cop who plants evidence to frame suspects. Vargas’ claim sets off a series of events on both sides of the border which puts him and his wife (Janet Leigh) in danger. The film was panned at its release in 1958 but was reedited in 1998 by Walter Murch to follow the edits wanted to make before he was shut out of the production by Universal. One of these edits, is the opening scene which is a 3 minute long tracking shot which weaves different sounds from store fronts as a car drives along the street, is a technical feat of filmmaking and sound design. Likewise, there’s another great scene of sound design at the film’s climax involving a hidden microphone that was well executed. Impressive also were Wells and Heston’s performances, Wells playing the incredibly seedy cop and Heston the upright and staunch counterpart. The film oozes seediness and grim and is an excellent example of noir at its best.

Good lord, is that a fat suit or was Welles really that heavy by that point?

 

[ProstheticConscience]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think somewhere back there I gave this a "2" so I am in complete agreement. Amateur hour, and dumb amateurs at that.

That guy's face is like three feet tall on my tv. Against a background of searing oversaturated colours. I think I got a bit of a tan.

It was so bad that in the end with the big "reveal" of the outside world and the hatch opens up and it's the conservatory in QE Park, and I was just like awwwwwww. I mean, don't get me wrong, tons of stupid shit gets filmed here so it takes quite a bit for me to really be that disappointed in bad movies...but yeah. This is right down there with Ballistic: Eks versus Sever. It's that bad.

 

[Osprey]

Good lord, is that a fat suit or was Welles really that heavy by that point?

All of the layers probably aren't helping, but this is him in Compulsion the following year, so he was up there in size at the time:

I made a similar observation a few months ago when I watched The Third Man and was a bit surprised at how slender he still was in 1949 compared to just 9 years later.

 

[kihei]

Dog Star Man (1964) Directed by Stan Brakhage 7D

Stan Brakhage is one of the most respected experimental film makers in movie history. For five decades he made hundreds of experimental works of which Dog Star Man, a feature length film, is among the more famous. It is a tough movie to explain. Brakhage once described his films as containing "incomprehensible objects shimmering with an endless variety of constant movement." There are some recurring themes in Dog Star Man--a dog, explosions on the sun, a guy trying to climb up a steep, snow-packed hill (a Sisyphean effort), and a baby. Most of the movie, though, consists of those incomprehensible objects going by real fast. Watching this movie is a little like looking out the window at the scenery while riding in a Japanese jet train. I mean, whoosh.... Like Canada's Norman McLaren (Neighbours; Be Gone Dull Care; A Chairy Tale) who got there first with a lot of these techniques, Brakhage stains, scratches, paints, mutilates, and otherwise alters the film stock itself, creating a host of different abstract effects. Okay, so what is it like to sit through this movie? I had a mixture of responses. Dog Star Man, like McLaren's Be Gone Dull Care, forced me to quickly adjust my expectations about what I was seeing, but it became an increasingly pleasant experience. The mind plays tricks, Was that a face I saw there? A breast? Some strange monster lurking in that shadow, gone in less than an instant? My mind wandered a lot--at one point I wondered how long Auston Matthews would go before he turned Dog Star Man off (over/under: 30 seconds?)--but I also found it curious how the mind tries to turn anything it watches into a narrative. When I stopped doing that, I just let the film wash over me, like I might a Chagall painting in an art gallery. At which point,, overall, I had a reasonably good time, kind of fascinating really. I'm not likely to flip Dog Star Man on every day, but I would certainly watch the film again. Like stepping into the proverbial river, it will never be the same movie twice.

YouTube

 

[Osprey]

The two first Return films are great! I love Yuzna, but he completely ruined the fun with his third entry. Your reviews of the Fulci films are hilarious

You weren't kidding. That third film is awful and nothing like the first two. Yuzna turned it into just another horror movie, and not even a good one, but the bad, straight-to-video kind that the 1990s produced so many of. I may've enjoyed the Fulci movies more, and I didn't even understand them .

 

[McOilers97]

This Is Spinal Tap - Rob Reiner 1984
It's a pretty damn funny movie, in a dry and understated kind of way too, which I really appreciated. I wouldn't say that I loved it, but it was an amusing and worthwhile 80 minutes with not much to criticize.

Brick - Rian Johnson 2005
Rian Johnson's debut film is pretty fun. It's a clever set-up in that we have basically a classic noir plot set against the back-drop of a high school. The plotting is pretty damn muddy and hard to follow, which is typical of the genre, but the dialogue is so sharp and fun, and the finished product feels so confident, that I kind of stopped caring about trying to follow the particulars, and just enjoy the ride. Joseph Gordon-Levitt at 23/24 years old does a nice job here as well. Overall, would recommend.

Dial M for Murder - Alfred Hitchcock 1954
I have yet to be unhappy with any Hitchcock film I've seen. It's not Rear Window or Vertigo, but this is a damn good movie with a fun premise and clever conclusion. All performances were strong, (and even if they weren't, who wouldn't want a bit more Grace Kelly in their life, right? ) and Hitchcock delivered another entertaining 2 hours.

Blockers - Kay Cannon 2018
I was feeling in the mood for something light and funny, so I gave Blockers a go, and have to say that I had a great time watching. I laughed my ass off numerous times throughout this movie at the trio of Leslie Mann, Ike Barinholtz and John Cena (great comedic chops shown by Cena here), they all did great work. I was also surprised that the parent-child dynamic in this movie felt pretty carefully considered rather than being tacked on, as there were a few timely doses of something a bit more emotionally stimulating than what most sex-comedy movies would usually attempt. I'd recommend this as a worthwhile hour and a half of your time if you're looking for something that is funny, but not flat-out stupid.

12 Angry Men - Sidney Lumet 1957
A classic. I had been wanting to see this for quite some time and it's probably the best movie I've seen in the last 2 months, among my favorites that I've seen this year too. Henry Fonda gives a great performance as such a likeable character that takes the gravity of the jury's decision as seriously as it deserves to be. The other 11 jurors also give performances that feel completely in tune with what was asked of them. The film really diving into what "reasonable doubt" means and the dangers of our different prejudices are timeless lessons that feel so carefully considered in the film's script - they are subtle enough to feel genuine and not preachy. At just an hour and a half run-time, it is also a very tightly written movie without unnecessary excess, while still being cinematically interesting and distinct. Films like this are a perfect reminder that a compelling story can be told in a confined space and without the use of flashy set pieces.

 

[kihei]

All of the layers probably aren't helping, but this is him in Compulsion the following year, so he was up there in size at the time:

I made a similar observation a few months ago when I watched The Third Man and was a bit surprised at how slender he still was in 1949 compared to just 9 years later.

Add another five years later....

 

[Osprey]

12 Angry Men - Sidney Lumet 1957
A classic. I had been wanting to see this for quite some time and it's probably the best movie I've seen in the last 2 months, among my favorites that I've seen this year too. Henry Fonda gives a great performance as such a likeable character that takes the gravity of the jury's decision as seriously as it deserves to be. The other 11 jurors also give performances that feel completely in tune with what was asked of them. The film really diving into what "reasonable doubt" means and the dangers of our different prejudices are timeless lessons that feel so carefully considered in the film's script - they are subtle enough to feel genuine and not preachy. At just an hour and a half run-time, it is also a very tightly written movie without unnecessary excess, while still being cinematically interesting and distinct. Films like this are a perfect reminder that a compelling story can be told in a confined space and without the use of flashy set pieces.

If you can find it, the 1997 adaptation by Showtime is very good, as well. It has a very impressive cast of Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Ossie Davis, Hume Cronyn, Tony Danza, James Gandolfini, Courtney B. Vance and Edward James Olmos. It's one of my favorite remakes, even though it's a TV movie. The original is the classic and a little better, but I really geek out over the cast of the remake and love how perfectly cast each actor is. I recommend it if you like the original.

 

[McOilers97]

Delete

 

[McOilers97]

If you can find it, the 1997 adaptation by Showtime is very good, as well. It has a star-studded cast of Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Ossie Davis, Hume Cronyn, Tony Danza, James Gandolfini, Courtney B. Vance and Edward James Olmos. It's one of my favorite remakes. The original is the classic and slightly better, but I really geek out over the cast of the remake and love how perfectly cast each actor is. I recommend it if you like the original.

Wow, that is quite a cast. I'll add this to my (very long) list of things to watch and I'm sure I'll find it eventually.

 

[Chili]

Mountains of the Moon-1990

Interesting fact based story of the attempt to find the source of the Nile River in the 1850's and the perils along the journey. Beautifully filmed adventure.

 

[kihei]

If you can find it, the 1997 adaptation by Showtime is very good, as well. It has a very impressive cast of Jack Lemmon, George C. Scott, Ossie Davis, Hume Cronyn, Tony Danza, James Gandolfini, Courtney B. Vance and Edward James Olmos. It's one of my favorite remakes, even though it's a TV movie. The original is the classic and a little better, but I really geek out over the cast of the remake and love how perfectly cast each actor is. I recommend it if you like the original.

Also there is a very good Russian version of Twelve Angry Men called 12 (2007), directed by Nikita Milhalkov with an ensemble of excellent Russian actors.

 

[kihei]

The French Connection (1971) Directed by William Friedkin 9A

I'd forgotten how much fun this movie is. Popeye Doyle (Gene Hackman), a very intense, pugnacious cop, and his sidekick (Roy Scheider) are on the trail of Frog One (Fernando Rey), a very smart and elegant heroin smuggler from Marseilles. William Friedkin directs with a ferociousness that perfectly complements his central character. Gene Hackman, complete with pork-pie hat, dives into his role with malicious glee, his single-minded New York cop just seething with violent intentions that he barely controls. Spain's great Fernando Rey plays the villain with wit, charm and intelligence--he would make a great dinner companion sharing a bottle of vintage Bordeaux. That the bad guy better represents civilization and the good guy seems to come from the Stone Age is one of the delights of the movie. Of which there are no shortage. The French Connection contains a long chase scene, Popeye in a car racing after a bad guy on a subway train, that probably hasn't been bettered yet. There is another chase scene, Popeye and Frog One on foot though New York's streets and subways, that is a treat, as well. With a script that bristles with energy, there is something interesting going on virtually every minute of the movie. If I ever did a Hollywood top ten, The French Connection would certainly be on it.

 

[Chili]

Robert Mitchum turned down the Popeye Doyle role as well as Dirty Harry and Patton around the same time. Some signature roles for Gene Hackman Clint Eastwood and George C. Scott.

 

[KallioWeHardlyKnewYe]

I'm a total wonk for The Criterion Channel and while its deep reserve of classics is great, one of the real treats are the little surprises you can discover in its archives. I'd never heard of The Money Movers. Low-budget 70s Australian crime thriller. Directed by Bruce Beresford who'd go on to more acclaim with Breaker Morant and Driving Miss Daisy. A really enjoyable tight, gritty heist thriller. All familiar elements, plot points and characters, executed in a grimy way. The actors (save a smooth faced Bryan Brown) all look like tenderized beef. The film looks like it smells like stale cigarettes. Everyone is grumpy and generally unpleasant. I enjoyed the hell out of it.